Alberta Hansard — 21 March 2000, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 4)

20000321

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 535 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/03/21 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which You have given us. As Members of this Legisla- tive Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here signed by 206 people from the Blackfalds, Bowden, Bashaw, Red Deer, Olds, Rocky Mountain House, Lacombe, Mirror, Delburne, Innisfail, and Torrington areas, and they are petitioning the government of Alberta “to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also have a petition to present to the Assembly this afternoon. It is signed by over 200 residents.

They’re from Red Deer, Vegreville, Mundare, Innisfree, Willingdon, Two Hills, Didsbury, Carstairs, Eckville, Innisfail, and Peers. These citizens of Alberta “petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition signed by 302 Albertans from Slave Lake, Grande Prairie, Widewater, Canyon Creek, Woking, and Fairview that states: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system]. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition supporting public health care in Alberta, urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” This is on behalf of 252 Alberta residents from Lac La Biche, St. Paul, Ashmont, Myrnam, Fort Saskatchewan, Redwater, Bruderheim, and the town of Gibbons. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, sir. I have the pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of 238 people, all from Edson and area.

They “urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am presenting a petition signed by 200 people from Rocky Mountain House who are urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to present a petition signed by 200 Albertans primarily from Edmonton-Glengarry constituency. This was a petition they drew up for themselves where they state: We believe, after careful assessment of all the information available on this matter, that this legislation will have far reaching, destructive consequences for all of us and all of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to present a petition signed by 170 residents of Red Deer, Innisfail, Jasper, Stettler, Rimbey, Bluffton, Calmar, and Bowden urging the govern- ment “to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system]. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition into the Assembly today. It’s been signed by 248 residents coming from Red Deer, Lacombe, Sylvan Lake, Bowden, Didsbury, Carstairs, Peers, Mundare, Vegreville, and Innisfail.

These Albertans are joining with other Albertans and petitioning the Assembly “to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermin- ing public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on behalf of 307 Albertans from Lethbridge, Coaldale, Water Valley, Cochrane, Black Diamond, Claresholm, Stavely, and Taber to submit a petition. They “petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition with 175 signatures on it. Residents from Rimbey, Red Deer, Innisfail, Huxley, Luzan, Gibbons, Hinton, Edson, Cold Lake, St. Paul, and Lac La Biche are all urging the government “to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [sys- tem].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I would like to table this petition signed by 396 Albertans from Hinton, Edmonton, Donnelly, Falher, Girouxville, McLennan, Blackfalds, Westlock, Lethbridge, Canmore, and Leduc. The petitioners request this Assembly “to pass a Bill banning private for- profit hospitals in Alberta so th at the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

536 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented on March 16 against private health care be now read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would ask that the petition I presented regarding the undermining of public health care be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition with respect to support of public health care that I intro- duced yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, I request that the petition which I presented to the Assembly yesterday urging the government to stop destroying our public health care system now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d request that the petition standing on the Order Paper under my name now be read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to ask that the petition I tabled the other day be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of the province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of Written Question 9. I am also giving notice that tomorrow I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 11, 12, and 23. Thank you. 1:40 head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased today to table the Treasury ministry business plan, 2000-2003.

It shows that the goals are very clear, maintaining Alberta’s h ealthy position at a level that’s sustainable and continuing to ensure that the people of this province enjoy the strongest fiscal advantage of any province in the country and also maintains very clearly that we’ll continue our award- winning tradition of being open and accountable by making sure Albertans have all the accounting fully available to them of our financial goals and performance. Mr. Speaker, I’m also pleased to table today five copies of a recent Fraser Institute study. This compares all provinces and federal budgets from ’95 to ’99.

It shows very clearly that Alberta received top marks, leading all provinces and the federal government in overall fiscal performance. It points very clearly to Alberta’s prudent approach to budgeting and that it’s working. It says that Alberta scored top marks: 77.9, top rank on the classification of tax rates and revenue. When it comes to debt management, under debt and deficit marks – as I’ve said, we scored overall top marks in everything, and in this particular category we scored a perfect 100. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I have two tablings. The first one: in recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I’m pleased to table five copies of a letter addressed to Ms Charlene Hay, who is co-ordinator of the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations, congratulating NAARR for its commitment to addressing issues of discrimination. Secondly, I’m also pleased to table an information bulletin from Alberta Community Development encouraging all Albertans to speak out against discrimination.

As I’m sure all members are aware, today, March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it’s the 11th anniversary of that day in Canada. Thank you.

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 537 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Learning. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today I will be tabling five copies of a document entitled Supporting Safe, Secure & Caring Schools in Alberta. This will provide administrators and educators with a comprehensive framework to deal with and prevent violence in schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table five copies of a letter I sent to A-Channel today, pointing out some concerns with respect to the nature of the recent poll on Bill 11.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of the March 14 editorial of the High River Times . The editorial lead is Bill 11 Is Far from the Devil in Disguise. The editor advises, “Before High Riverites buy into the hysteria mounting around this legislation, we suggest they read it themselves” and see what it really means. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, all of my cautions with respect to tablings and reports today will apply the same opportunity for others to editorialize. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. This informa- tion speaks for itself, so it really doesn’t require editorial comment. I’m going to table with the Assembly five copies of a meeting with representatives of the Auditor General’s office on March 23, 1995. It was a presentation between the Auditor General and representa- tives of the Alberta Treasury Branch regarding West Edmonton Mall financing, and curiously this particular presentation was not discussed in the Auditor General’s special audit report on West Edmonton Mall. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a tabling this afternoon as well. It’s from Mr. Keith Purdy, who is the president of CUPE local 8 and a concerned citizen, who indicates that he is requesting that the government “stop Bill 11 now and protect universal medicare. Listen to the public and perform your public duty to speak for the people.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In honour of this day to eliminate racism I’d like to table two different documents, which I have found helpful and I hope others do.

The first is an article, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh. The second is an

article from the multicultural community project called Working With People With Differences. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the appropriate number of copies of a newspaper from the Edmonton Police Service. It’s called Community Connections , and it outlines a number of things that can really happen in a great way when there’s real consultation with community. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I’m tabling a letter to Genesis Land Development that outlines concerns around the Spray Lakes proposed development in Kananaskis Country. This letter is written by Laureen Wright of Calgary, but in addition to that it is signed by 17 other concerned citizens in Calgary who would also like to express their concern about the proposed development in Kananaskis Country and share that concern with the government. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first one is a letter from Mr.

Keith Purdy, president of CUPE local 8, and he is expressing his concern about health care and the direction it is going in this province. The second letter is a letter I r eceived through freedom of information, and it is entitled Rotting Government Approved Pine Shakes. I was delighted to receive this last year. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, if a tabling has been made once, it need not be repeated. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have two tablings, if you will.

The first is from Peter Nettleton of Calgary, and he is a fellow graduate engineer of long standing, 47 years in the oil and gas business. He starts off a letter to the Premier: “As my M.L.A.,” so this is directed primarily at the Premier. He is most adamant in his letter that he is categorically against any further development in the Spray Lakes resort in Kananaskis Pathways Corporation and the Mount Sparrowhawk heli/cat skiing operation. He strongly objects to both developments there. The other one is also directed to the Premier. It is from Nancy Hansen of the city of Calgary.

She also strongly objects to the Spray Lakes development as it concerns our “endangered species,” “wildlife movement,” “the impact on the ecology” in the region, and particularly “Canmore’s drinking water.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got two tablings here. The first one is a letter from Dr. William Olsen, professor emeritus of nuclear physics at the University of Alberta. He’s expressing his opposition to Bill 11 and calls on the Premier to call a plebiscite on the bill before proceeding with it. The second letter, Mr.

Speaker, is from Fairview, signed by 10 residents of Fairview also opposed to Bill 11. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a program from the celebration of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha by the Legislative Assembly yesterday. The constituency of Edmonton-Glengarry is the home of two very active mosques, and

538 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 we would like to thank them for their participation in yesterday’s celebration and congratulate them on the feast of Eid al-Adha. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’m tabling today two letters, one dated March 15, 2000, and one dated March 20, 2000, received from the Ethics Commissioner indicating that he will not be investigating the matter referred to him by the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 29 enthusiastic grade 7 students from the H.A. Kostash school from Smoky Lake. Accompanying them are t eachers Mr. Denis Harris and Mrs. Phyllis Sadoway and parent helper Mrs. Delores Jarema. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. MR. LANGEVIN: Merci, M. le President. C’est un honneur et un plaisir pour moi cet apres-midi de vous presenter 15 etudiants de la province de Quebec, de la ville de Pohenegamook.

Ils sont ici en echange a l’ecole F.G. Miller de Elk Point. Ils sont accompagnes aujourd’hui par un professeur et sa dame, M. et Mme Guy Genest. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 30 students and seven adults. Of these 30 students, 15 are from the F.G. Miller junior and senior high school in Elk Point. They are accompanied today by two teachers, Mrs. Lily Pentek and Mrs. Cheri Lindquist, also by bus driver Mr. Laverne Wilson, and by two parent supervi- sors, Mrs. Doris Wilson and Mrs. Zapesocki.

The other 15 students are visitors from Quebec from the community of Pohenegamook. They are accompanied today by one t eacher and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Guy Genest. The students are exchange students with the F.G. Miller high school in Elk Point. They are seated in the public gallery. I’d like to ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome from all the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my honour today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 31 members of a tour that has been organized by the professional businessmen’s club called the Probus Club of Edmonton. Their tour leader is Mr. Holmes. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services. MS EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly four students that are with us today from Wye school.

Their names are Sharnell O’Donnell, Brett Keith, Amanda Malowski, and a grade 2 student Daniel O’Donnell. All students are stars at Wye sc hool and are accompanied today by the father of two of the students, a man who distributes the famous Hygaard Fine Foods across the world, Mr. Rick O’Donnell. If they would please rise, then we could show our appreciation for their attendance. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party of Canada is the only political party that has an Aboriginal People’s Commis- sion within its party framework.

Last Thursday at the national convention in Ottawa a new executive for the Aboriginal People’s Commission was elected. Aboriginal convention delegates elected four prominent aboriginal Albertans, and it gives me great pleasure to introduce them to you and through you and to members of the Assembly today. The new national co-president is Mrs. Irene Morin. The new national vice-president of finance is Mr. Garry Parenteau. The national vice-president of women is Ms Martha Campiou. The new national vice-president for communications is Robert Coulter.

Also joining the new executive is Phillip Campiou, a photographer from Cree First Nations, and Brad Enge, president of the Alberta Aborigi- nal People’s Commission for the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Enge is also the director of the indigenous law program at the University of Alberta. I would ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine and a good friend to many of my colleagues.

She is a senior member of the Edmonton women’s Liberal policy association, an active member in the constituency of Edmonton-Mill Woods, an active member in the federal constitu- ency of Edmonton Southeast, and just recently back from a fun-filled weekend at the federal convention. I would ask that Heather Rempel please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m please to introduce 37 very special visitors from Edmonton-Highlands, all of them seated in the public gallery.

They are members of Club 55 and are accompanied by their president, Roy Matvie; by their group leader, Edward Sharun; and helper Joseph Wasylynchuk. This seniors’ club was established in 1979 and is involved in community building projects and seniors’ recreationa l activities. Th ey have donated thousands of hours of their time and their dollars in support of many charitable organizations. They’ve all participated in the Alberta Seniors Games since 1980 and have won many medals.

I’ll request that they all rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. deputy Leader of the Official Opposition. Regional Health Authorities DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1997 the Premier promised Albertans that the boards for regional health authorities would be elected, but they were reappointed instead, one of this Premier’s broken promises. More proof is reported in a number of recent polls, which show that Albertans just don’t trust this Premier anymore on health care. My question today is to the Premier.

Given that the Premier broke his promise to elect regional health boards, why should Albertans believe you on Bill 11? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t a broken promise. It was a

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 539 postponement based on requests from various regional health authorities who were simply in the midst of restructuring. The election of two-thirds of the board will take pl ace in conjunction with the next municipal elections. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: was this postponement in the election of regional health authorities so that the appointed boards could follow through with the initiation of contracts for private hospitals? MR. KLEIN: No.

It was done so that they could complete their work mapping out pathways to health in the various authorities in the various regions, Mr. Speaker. Most of them have completed their work and are now prepared to face the challenge of elections in conjunction with the next municipal elections. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier admit that the appointment of the RHA boards was necessary to implement this hidden agenda of privatization of the public health system? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, I’m very disappointed with the tone and the language of the particular question.

I will take the hon. member back to The Rainbow Report. One of the very specific recommendations in The Rainbow Report was that there be the regionalization of health authorities. Mr. Speaker, there were something like 200 various health boards and health authorities in this province. Very few of them were elected. As a matter of fact, about 99 percent of them were appointed boards. We have said that there will be elected boards. Two-thirds of the members will be elected for each of the 17 authorities in conjunction with the next municipal elections.

Most of the authorities, if not all, have completed their pathways to health, and now it’s time to get on with the elections. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Private Health Services MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans learned that they couldn’t trust this Premier on his promises on the expansion of the Alberta special waste treatment plant, and they know they can’t trust him on his promises about Bill 11 either. The Premier promised that he would never bring in hazar dous waste without consulting with Albertans, but he di d.

My questions are all to the Premier. How can Albertans trust the Premier on Bill 11, when he broke his promise and did not consult Albertans before importing foreign hazardous waste? 2:00 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, relative to the importation of waste from other jurisdictions, there were in fact hearings before the Natural Resources Conservation Board, and I made sure that those hearings took place. MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, on this issue I quote the Premier on September 3, 1994, when he said: if there was something to hide, we’d do it. Will he answer this question?

Will the Premier admit that he has no more intention of keeping foreign private hospitals out of Alberta than he did about keeping foreign h azardous waste out of Alberta? Another broken promise. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, when this bill is passed, the Alberta Health Care Protection Act, when it becomes law, I will obey the law. I have a sworn oath and a duty to obey the law. I would hope that they will too. MS CARLSON: Mr.

Speaker, when the Premier broke his word on the waste treatment plant, why should Albertans believe that he is ever going to keep his word on Bill 11 or that they should believe anything he says on this bill? MR. KLEIN: I never broke my word on that particular issue, Mr. Speaker. There were hearings before the Natural Resources Conservation Board. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans learned that they couldn’t trust the Premier on Swan Hills, and they know that they can’t trust him on Bill 11 eith er.

On Swan Hills the Premier prepared a secret communication plan in January 1993 to keep the $100 million loan guarantee to Bovar under wraps until after the election. On Bill 11 the Premie r’s secret communications plan consists of these blank pages that he is withholding from Albertans. My questions are to the Premier. Why should Albertans trust this Premier on Bill 11 when they couldn’t trust him on Swan Hills? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t have any letter from any Albertans relative to any decisions vis-a-vis Swan Hills in 1993 saying that they didn’t trust me on this issue.

Relative to the importation of waste from jurisdictions other than Alberta, there were hearings before the Natural Resources Conservation Board, a board, by the way, that was set up under my ministry when I was minister of the environment. Now, if you want talk about honesty in the distribution of a publication, this publication, this bill has been sent to every house- hold in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. That is open and honest, and as I’ve said before in this House, a bill that purports to become law is the most important document that one can consider in this Legislative Assembly. That’s being open and honest.

MS LEIBOVICI: Why doesn’t the Premier just admit that Bill 11 is a front being used to hide privat e hospitals, just like this secret communications plan was to hide the truth behind the Swan Hills loan guarantee? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is hardly a secret plan. I mean, this is hardly a secret plan. It’s only gone out to 3 million people in the province. There is nothing secret about this. This is open. It’s honest. It’s straightforward. The only thing secretive and sinister is the malicious and vicious campaign of misinformation being conducted by the Liberals.

MS LEIBOVICI: Will the Premier stop hiding behind Bill 11 and table the true action plan, the one that was developed by his Public Affairs Bureau that sets up private hospitals in this province that you will not release the details on? Y ou have the authority to release those details, you and the minister of health do. Why don’t you just do it, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is the plan. There is nothing more; there is nothing less. This is the plan. Read it. Understand it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More evidence of Alber-

540 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 tans’ overwhelming opposition to Bill 11 came out last night when a poll was released showing that Albertans opposed the bill by a margin of 3 to 1. Meanwhile, despite massive public opposition to the bill and despite the fact that two constitutional lawyers have shown that Bill 11 violates the Canada Health Act, the federal Liberals sit idly by allowing th is government to push arrogantly forward. My questions are to the Premier.

If the oppos ition of churches, seniors, nurses, doctors, labour groups, and now a new poll which shows overwhelming popular opposition to Bill 11 won’t make this Premier blink, then Albertans are asking today: what will it take for the Premier to blink? MR. KLEIN: Certainly I’m not go ing to blink on a poll that was faulty in its questions, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness has tabled a letter sent to Chris Duncan, the news director of A-Channel, whereby he complains, quite rightfully so, about the questions that were posed.

A specific example: Question #4 in your news release with respect to Albertans having an option to pay extra for faster service implies that such an option would be available under Bill 11. This is absolutely [false and] inaccurate. Bill 11 [specifically] prohibits anyone from paying to get faster service and prohibits anyone from receiving payment to provide faster service. The Bill contains harsh penalties for anyone contravening this provision of the legislation. Again, that shows how faulty the question was. I mean, I would be concerned if it were implied that that was in the bill. It’s not in the bill.

Quite the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. DR. PANNU: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Premier blames the Albertan for asking the question. Rather than withdrawing Bill 11 now, why is the Premier waiting for the federal Liberals to get a spine transplant before they respond to his request when two constitutional lawyers have already convincingly argued that Bill 11 violates the Canada Health Act? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, when you get more than one lawyer on a case, there are going to be some differences of opinion.

The person whose opinion really matters is the federal Minister of Health, who is responsible for the administration of the Canada Health Act. As it pertains to the Canada Health Act, the federal minister is responsible for the administration of that act, and we have asked him. I’ll be speaking to the Prime Minister in Calgary later this week to ask the same question, to see if we can get clarification relative to the bill, which has been sent to the minister, as to whether or not it contravenes the Canada Health Act. That’s all we want to know: yes or no.

If the answer is yes, then what do we need to do to fix it? That’s all. DR. PANNU: Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier using the federal Liberals, then, as an excuse when citizens here in Alberta are demanding that this bill be withdrawn now? MR. KLEIN: No, that isn’t quite true, Mr. Speaker. When you pose a question to Albertans that implies that you can get faster service by paying extra, yes, that creates concerns. That is wrong, because the bill prohibits that, quite specifically prohibits that. The bill prohibits and proposes to levy very harsh penalties for people who charge extra. Mr.

Speaker, the truth is in the bill that purports to become law. The law is the truth. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. 2:10 Diabetes Treatment MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been asked by constituents to investigate the need for broader coverage of diabetic supplies.

Since these supplies are important in the management of the disease and in avoiding the costly complications associated with diabetes and since our government is placing an emphasis on wellness and the prevention of illness, it seems appropriate to consider expanding coverage to 100 percent of diabetes medication and supplies to diabetes patients. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: is Alberta Health and Wellness considering extending Alberta’s coverage as part of the provincial strategy regarding diabetes? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

That’s too short an answer for the tradition of the Assembly, so I would like to elaborate just a little bit. We are working with the Alberta Medical Association and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research to develop an expanded program and make sure the proper clinical practice guidelines and other protections are in place. Yes, we are expanding the program. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for that good news. To the same minister: how does the level of coverage Alberta provides compare to that of other provinces? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I think our overall coverage for kidney dialysis is very important.

Of course, one of our emphases is on trying to prevent diabetic conditions from being developed in individuals across the province through health promotion activities related to diabetes. In direct answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I think we can indicate on behalf of the Alberta health system that they rank in the top third of the provinces in this nation.

We want to be number one, but certainly in the number of people that we serve and the costs that are associated with being diabetic in terms of monitoring devices and so forth, our coverage goes far beyond what is deemed to be medically required under the Canada Health Act. As I said, the coverage compares favourably with the rest of Canada. MR. JOHNSON: My final question to the same minister: what is the response of Alberta Health and Wellness to the October 1999 position papers of the Canadian Diabetes Association, Alberta and Northwest Territories division? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, quite frankly, I do not have committed to memory the provisions of that particular study. However, related to this, through the funding provided under provincewide services in Alberta Health and Wellness’s budget, there is additional money for the expansion of kidney dialysis sites across the province. As I’ve said before, we have more emphasis on the prevention of diabetes. We have committed some additional $2.4 million in that area in the budget, so we are certainly making this a priority within our overall program. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood, followed by the hon.

Member for Calgary-East. Private Health Services (continued) MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have the plan. It’s now clear that Bill 11 is all about kicking the doors open to private hospitals in this province. Yesterday the Premier confirmed as much

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 541 for Albertans when he tabled a letter from Dr. Dennis Modry. It seems that the only people supporting Bill 11 are the Premier’s special interest backers, those who want to build their own private thoracic park in Alberta. My questions are to the Premier. Why should Albertans trust the Premier on Bill 11 when the real blueprint for private hospitals is right here in Dr. Modry’s 1996 report? Why should they trust you, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I consider that question and the com- ments contained in the

preamble to be an absolute insult to one of the most renowned heart transplant surgeons in the world, and this member should apologize. MS OLSEN: I’ll table this document for the Premier. Will the Premier admit that Bill 11 is all about private hospitals when Dr. Modry’s report on Building Partnerships in Health Care Restructuring leaves the door open for the deinsurance of services in this province? Why should they trust you, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: This bill in no way, shape, or form speaks to the deinsuring of services. It does speak to the issue, however, of private hospitals. As a matter of fact,

section 1,

part 1: “No person shall operate a private hospital in Alberta.” That will become the law. MS OLSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I never thought I’d see it. When will the Premier stop being a puppet for special interests like Dr. Modry and listen to the AMA, the nurses, teachers, seniors, and the majority of Albertans who want this bill pulled? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that the majority of Albertans, having read the bill and understanding the bill, want it pulled. The bill protects public health care as we know it today. In response to this question I have two Toronto Star articles and one Globe and Mail

article that I would like to table and read a couple of sentences from, because they allude to the so-called opposition that the Liberals say is out there against B ill 11. In the first, a public service union employee is quoted. She says, “We are opposed to [the] Bill . . . because it will pl ace health care at the mercy of profit-hungry operators.” And the hon. member alluded to that. The second says: For better or worse, the health system itself is being fundamentally altered.

For most of this century, the trend . . . has been toward more public ownership of the means of health, more public control. [This new law] will permit something quite different to flourish. Finally – and this in agreement with what the hon. member said – the third is headlined Health Bill May Flout Free Trade Pact, referring to NAFTA and the Canada/U.S. free trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, they are not talking about Bill 11, quite surprisingly. Oh, no. These articles are from 1988 and 1989, and they are talking about Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act, which was passed in Ontario over 10 years ago.

According to the Globe and Mail the act gave Ontario the power to regulate, license, and finance private clinics and pay for surgery that was otherwise performed in public hospitals. Guess who brought in that legislation, Mr. Speaker? Was it some evil Progressive Conservative Party? No. It was a Liberal govern- ment, and the health minister who championed this bill was none other than Elinor Caplan, who just happens to be a minister today in the Chretien cabinet along with Allan Rock. So, Mr.

Speaker, all the fears being raised by the Liberals in Alberta and Ottawa today were raised against the Liberals in Ontario 10 years ago. In Ontario the fears have not been borne out. There has been no trouble with NAFTA. So why today are the Liberals in Alberta and in Ottawa attacking Alberta for something the Liberals in Ontario did over 10 years ago? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Child Poverty MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A recent report by the Inter City Forum on Social Policy stated that there are over 90,000 children living in poverty in urban areas throughout Alberta. In addition, the report stated that in Calgary 1 in 4 children lives in poverty while in Edmonton the number is closer to 1 in 3 children. My question is to the hon. Minister of Children’s Services. What is the minister doing to improve the lives of children living in poverty throughout this province? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise today in answer to the hon. member’s question.

We have received the intercity forum report, and we are studying it very carefully, but beyond that the government in the last three y ears, four years at the most, has implemented the family tax credit, endeavoured to reduce taxes for families, worked with the national agenda on the national child benefit, and provided free health care benefits through the Alberta child health benefit for low-income families. In terms of expanding the early intervention programs, we’ve moved from $2 million two years ago to $21.5 million in this budget. Mr.

Speaker, we are concerned if any child is hungry at night or if any child lives in poverty, and we are looking very carefully at how we measure poverty and how we improve the lives of families and children, particularly in Alberta. 2:20 MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: since this report contained a number of recommendations related to support for low-income families, how will this minister and this government respond to these recommendations, and when will we see some action? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, last October Mrs.

Klein chaired the Children’s Forum, which also addressed the issues of poverty, and it was Mrs. Klein herself who insisted that poverty come on the agenda as one of the five themes, recognizing that poverty does exist in Alberta. From that, we saw on February 9 the release of the forum report, which similarly talks about several recommendations. These recommendations, Mr. Speaker, are being taken by all of the partners in the Alberta children’s initiative.

Every minister is reviewing those recommendations and will no doubt review them in the context as well of the intercity forum report and determine and release later this spring some of the action st atements that will be implicit this year and also follow through on our Premier’s recommendation and commitment that within the three years following the release of the forum report, we would respond in action or in kind to each one of those recommendations. So, Mr. Speaker, simply put, we have in fact got an agenda addressing the poverty issue.

We’ve got a plan for it, and that plan will be released later this spring. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Since that same report contained a number of strategies for addressing the

542 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 factors common to poverty, what is the minister doing to promote and address these strategies? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, the first comment I would make is that we are ensuring that those Albertans who need support are in fact getting it. I think it’s important to advise the member that we’re also trying to ensure that other Albertans, then, are given the tools they need to work their way out of poverty. Now, Mr. Speaker, I’ve said in question period previously that I do have some difficulty with various groups at times in defining poverty.

Nevertheless, referring to this report, they do allude to some of the underlying reasons for poverty, and let me address those. One of the characteristics addressed was disability. All of the members here in the House know that assured income for the severely handicapped benefits were increased last fall. We’ve announced just recently a minister’s Employability Council. That council will be providing advice to this government as to how we can work more of the disabled into the workplace. Another characteristic was lack of education. Again, we’re taking action, Mr. Speaker.

Training is being provided to welfare clients to enhance their employability. Youth Connections has now spread right across the province. It started here in Edmonton and in Calgary and has now gone throughout the province to help youth make connections to the workplace. Another characteristic was income support. All of us know and recognize the great strides that the government of Alberta has made with low provincial tax rates, and also the Alberta family employ- ment tax credit has just done wonders for many of these families in providing for their children. The minimum wage was increased.

The maintenance enforcement program works to make sure that both parents are providing for the children, and then, of course, we have the shelter allowance. So the changes that we are making, Mr. Speaker, are based on one simple philosophy: you don’t help families get out of poverty by keeping them on welfare. Private Health Services (continued) MR. SAPERS: When it comes to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, this Premier has quite a track record of talking about the truth yet still managing to avoid it.

Now, the Premier thin ks he can trick Albertans with a propaganda campaign on health care just like he thinks he fooled Albertans about his role in orchestrating the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Handwritten notes on a February 15, 1994, memo from the Premier to a certain Jim and a certain Ken provide ample evidence of his personal involvemen t. My questions are to the Premier. How can Albertans believe the Premier about Bill 11 when he didn’t come clean about the February 15, 1994, memo, which reveals that he was orchestrating the West Edmonton Mall refinanc- ing right out of his own office? MR.

KLEIN: Everything that was asked for by the Auditor General was provided to the Auditor Gene ral in his investigation of this affair, Mr. Speaker. To say that we were trying to hide something or that something was done secretively is absolutely false. It is wrong. It’s a mistruth. I know I can’t say that it’s a lie, but it’s close to it if it’s not. If it’s about a matter of trust, well, I recall an election in 1993, and the people elected this government because they trusted us. I remember an election in 1997. And you know what, Mr. Speaker?

There are now 64 of us in this Legislature, and there are only a few of them. That speaks to the issue of trust. When people elect us to govern them, they’re saying to th is party, they’re saying to this government that they trust us. MR. SAPERS: Hang on to those past glories, Mr. Premier. Hang on. Isn’t the real reason that Bill 11 puts the government above the law that the Premier knows that his private hospital scheme, or what he likes to call approved surgical facilities, is destined to end up in court just like the West Edmonton Mall refinancing deal that pumped public money into a private venture?

Isn’t that what Bill 11 is all about? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation, as I pointed out before and I’ll point out again, says that “no person shall operate a private hospital in Alberta.” So any reference to private hospitals and the promotion of private hospitals is irrelevant, because the bill proposes to do absolutely the opposite. I just find that those questions are irrelevant, and I’m going to answer them in that fashion in the future. MR. SAPERS: How much longer, Mr.

Speaker, is the Premier going to continue to deny the truth, shave words, twist language about his private hospital scheme? Are Albertans going to have to drag the truth out of him just like they had to do with West Edmonton Mall? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again the truth is in the bill.

Part 1,

section 1: “No person shall operate a private hospital in Alberta.” Nothing could be clearer than that. The truth again is in the bill, the bill that purports to become law. The law is supreme. If they don’t believe in the law, then stand up and say so. When it comes to information, nothing can be clearer – nothing can be clearer – than the bill that has been sent to every household in Alberta. The only misinformation that is being spread is being spread by the Liberals and their cohorts, Mr. Speaker. It’s vicious, it’s malicious, and it’s wrong.

It’s wrong for them to do it, and they know it. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: With your permission, hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, we’ll proceed. MRS. SOETAERT: Okay. THE SPEAKER: I’ll check with you again later too. The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my understand- ing that a year or two ago a group wishing to establish a private, for- profit hospital asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to accredit their pr oposed hospital.

Can the Minister of Health and Wellness clarify: what is the role, legislated or otherwise, of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in respect of their powers to accredit or reject pr oposals for private, for-profit hospitals in Alberta? 2:30 MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is one of looking at the proposed services to be offered by a clinic or a surgical clinic or a full-scale hospital and determin- ing whether certain criteria are met w ith respect to, first of all, the qualification of staff that will be providing those services, with respect to the suitability of the facility to some extent – at least the assurance must be there that the equipment and the resources are available to provide these services – and of course they look at the

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 543 whole area of patient safety and the viability of the particular services that are to be offered in that particular facility. Mr. Speaker, yes, there was a request that went to the College of Physicians and Surgeons from a group known as the Health Resource Group, or HRG. The College of Physicians and Surgeons did consider that particular request. MR. DUCHARME: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: since the College of Physicians and Surgeons has the authority to have said no to the possibility of private, for-profit hospitals, why did the college not make that determination? MR.

JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, correspondence from the college would indicate, first of all, that initially they were positive towards the application of HRG but purely from the point of view, as I said, of the qualifications of their staff, their capability to offer the services they were proposing to offer. I would like to say that the College of Physicians and Surgeons in this respect were fulfilling their mandate. Their initial determination was that HRG was able to fulfill the requirements of th e college with respect to quality controls, et cetera, and qualifications of staff. However, Mr.

Speaker, the college did not proceed with the accreditation of HRG because they were concerned a bout its place within the public health care system, and they again in their correspondence indicate that this is a responsibility of government to determine. However, as all members of the Assembly know and most acknowledge, we did not anticipate this particular type of proposal in legislation that was passed many years ago. There is a legislative gap or a legislative vacuum in current health care legislation, and we need to fill that gap.

We need to have the proper legislation in place so that we can say yes or no through our health care system and through our regional health authorities to proposals of this particular type that come forward. That is, I think, one of the really very, very important reasons for Bill 11 being before the Assembly and its necessity of being passed. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

This Premier is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a propaganda campaign designed to sell the unsellable in this provin ce: private hospitals or approved surgical facilities, if you prefer. Over 60 percent of Albertans polled firmly rejected private hospitals in this province. Phase 1 of the propaganda plan was an absolute failure. It shows that Albertans just don’t trust this Premier anymore. My questions are to the Premier. How much more taxpayer money is this Premier going to inject to try to stop Albertans from rejecting Bill 11: $3 million, $4 million? How much more money? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, this is the major campaign, sending out the bill. Nothing could be more open or more honest, more straight- forward than that. We’re waiting for the comments of Albertans, and we seek the wisdom and the guidance and the intelligence of Albertans relative to the drafting of this bill. One thing that is highlighted in the bill is that “no person shall operate a private hospital.” “No person shall operate a private hospital.” Mr.

Speaker, just to make sure that there’s absolute clarification on this matter, there are already – and the Liberals know it, because a number of these clinics were established under the watch of the then health minister, who is now leader of the Liberal Party. There are 47 private surgical clinics now operating in the province of Alberta. What this bill does is put some fences around them and provide some rules and regulations. MS BLAKEMAN: Well, my next question is also to the Premier. Given that phase 1 and the truth squads have failed, what’s the next step in the propaganda campaign? The ads didn’t work.

The TV commercials didn’t work. What’s next? Please share it with us. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no propaganda campaign. The truth is in the bill. The only propaganda campaign being conducted is being conducted by the Liberal Party. It’s a campaign of vicious misinformation, malicious and vicious misinformation, and they should be ashamed of themselves. MS BLAKEMAN: Okay, Mr. Premier. What other special interest groups does this government have lined up to join in his propaganda campaign for Bill 11? Insurance companies? Private clinic operators? Private home care companies? Who else is lined up, Mr.

Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, hopefully who is lined up are the 3 million good-thinking Albertans, the people we’ve asked to provide us with their guidance and their intelligence and their wisdom to make sure that the bill is right. The truth is in the bill. The truth will be in the law. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many rural people come to urban centres for surgery in private clinics. Given that fact, my question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Could the minister explain where these patients go when they have adverse effects to anesthetics? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in clinics across the province the staff, whether it be a dentist or a physician, of course has basic training in first aid and in resuscitation. All the clinics, doctors offices across the province have a protocol or a procedure whereby if there is a difficulty with a surgical procedure of some type, they would be immediately transferred to the nearest emergency facility.

That is standard procedure, and such professionals in these clinics, I think, take their responsibility in that regard very seriously and would act accordingly. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. Some rural Albertans have told me that the 12-hour rule for private surgical clinics discriminates against rural patients who must spend money to stay in a motel if they are required to stay away from home. Could the minister tell me if this is true? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way think the existence of surgical clinics disc riminates against rural Albertans.

It is a fact of life in this province that there is only the economy of scale to have certain highly specialized procedures, whether we’re talking about certain types of dental surgery or certain types of cosmetic surgery or if we are talking about major operations – it’s only practical to have them centred in cities. I as a rural MLA would like to see urban people come out to centres we can establish in Fairview and Ponoka and other parts of the province, but that is not the current reality.

So with respect to specialized hospital and medical services generally, there are going to be times, particularly when people

544 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 travel long distances in this province, when, yes, they do incur an extra cost of having to stay in the urban centres overnight or maybe for several nights. 2:40 MR. MARZ: Again to the same minister: could the minister explain if Bill 11 would change what some people see as a problem for rural Albertans? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would not want to predict where specialized surgical clinics would locate, but I think it has the potential of benefiting rural and urban Albertans by providing for more effective and efficient delivery of specialized surgical facilities and therefore taking the load o ff our full-service hospitals and utilizing the expertise or the advantage of highly specialized, repetitive, efficient provision of surgical services. So in a general sense I think it would benefit all Albertans, rural and urban. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Redwater. MR.

WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Private, for-profit health has been proven conclusively to be a bad idea for almost everyone except health care managers and their investors. Nonetheless, this government has made a clear public policy decision, choosing private profit over public interest. To the minister of health: will the minister explain why the overwhelming evidence condemning private health care was rejected out of hand? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the assertion of the member. He does not refer to who has rejected our proposal out of hand.

We certainly are offering an alternative through this legisla- tion under very controlled circumstances. The hon. member says that types of private health care have failed. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out earlier this afternoon that in Ontario a Liberal government established an independent hospitals act under which, as I understand it, there are four independ- ent surgical centres or hospitals in operation in Ontario. They seem to be providing good service. In fact, the Shouldice clinic is internationally recognized for their expertise in their particular area of surgery. So, Mr.

Speaker, the premise on which the member’s question is based is, in my view, faulty as usual, and I do not think he has a point. MR. WHITE: Perhaps I could rephrase the question for the minister. Would the minister table any reports other than the ones from 1988 that were cited today or any evidence from any source that private, for-profit health care is of net benefit to the citizens of Alberta? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, let’s move across the country then.

It has been pointed out in this Assembly before – but in view of the question it bears repeating – that in the province of Manitoba the government of that province continues to contract with four different surgical services. The one in downtown Winnipeg offers quite a comprehensive list of surgical procedures, and the people involved are quoted as saying that this particular surgical centre, the one in Winnipeg, provides good service, that it takes a load off their busy hospitals. They at the moment at least have certainly no plans of changing its role or disbanding it.

It’s evidently serving the people of Manitoba rather well, and I could work my way across the country. Maybe that’s the next question. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, that is not the next question. The question is the same as the first question. Will you as minister of health in the province of Alberta table reports, studies, findings, whether it be from Manitoba or from Ontario or from any province, anywhere in the world, that say conclusively that privately owned hospitals aren’t profitable? Would you table something, sir? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do wish to commend the hon. member for getting one of his comments correct, and that is that, yes, we do have private enterprise. We do have private operators operating within our publicly funded, publicly administered health care system across Canada, so that is certainly correct. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have tabled with this Assembly studies from reputable sources which indicate the potential advantages of certain types of private surgical services being provided in the health care system.

Certainly we acknowl- edge, for instance, that on other issues, such as compliance with NAFTA, where I understand the Canadian Union of Public Employ- ees has hired lawyers to interpret NAFTA, they come up in a negative fashion, so the debate is going on.

But I think there is demonstrable evidence across Canada that Canadians and the governments of the various provinces, even the federal government, seem to have found acceptable and viable and worth having, many, many examples of private surgical facilities in the country right now. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there will be three members’ statements today, and we’ll begin them a few seconds from now. Francophone Secretariat MR.

DUCHARME: M. le President, l’an dernier a ce meme temps je me levais devant cette Assemblee pour annoncer l’etablissement par notre province du Secretariat Francophone. C’etait le debut de l’Annee Canadienne de la Francophonie, et pour demontrer son appui a la communaute Francophone, notre gouvernement avait decide de donner a la communaute Franco-Albertaine un porte- parole a l’interieur du gouvernement par la creation du Secretariat Francophone. A cause de ce developpement majeur l’annee 1999 s’inscrira comme une annee importante dans les annales de l’histoire des Francophones de l’Alberta.

Au cours de l’annee les representants de la communaute m’ont souvent repete combien ce geste a ete apprecie et continue d’etre apprecie par la communaute. Aussi, je dois faire remarquer que notre gouvernement a recu des eloges et des felicitations de plusieurs ministres du gouvernement federal et de presque tous les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux pour ce geste important. Depuis quelques annees nous mar quons partout au Canada la Semaine des Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. C’est une initiative pan-Canadienne qui vise a mettre l’accent sur la contribution des Francophones a notre beau pays, le Canada.

Aujourd’hui, a l’invitation du President de cette Assemblee, nous avons accueilli la communaute Francophone et etions heureux de celebrer avec eux, a la rotonde, les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie et le premier anniversaire de l’etablissement du Secretariat Francophone.

Je voudrais terminer en remerciant les deux ministres qui ont ete responsable du Secretariat Francophone au cours de la premiere annee de son existence, le Ministre de Justice, qui a etabli le secretariat, et le Ministre du Developpement Communautaire, presentement responsable pour ce secretariat, de leur appui et de leur support dans mon travail comme president du secretariat.

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 545 [Translation] A year ago at this time I was happy to stand before this Assembly to speak on the occasion of the establishment of the Francophone Secretariat. It was the beginning of the Canadian Year of the Francophonie, a year dedicated to the celebration of our French-Canadian heritage, and our government had agreed to give our Franco-Albertan community a voice within government through the creation of a Francophone Secretariat. Due to this major development 1999 will be remembered as an important year in the history of our Francophone community.

During the course of the year Francophone leaders have often expressed their appreciation for this important government action. Also, it is of importance to note that numerous congratulatory letters were received from many federal ministers as well as from almost all the provincial and territorial governments. In the last few years, at this time in March celebrations are held to mark the contribution of French-Canadians to our great country, Canada.

To mark the week’s celebration and on the Speaker of the House’s invitation, we hosted today in the rotunda the leaders of the Francophone community and celebrated with them the first anniver- sary of the establishment of the Francophone Secretariat. To conclude, I would like to thank the two ministers responsible for the Francophone Secretariat in its first year of existence, the hon. Minister of Justice, who was responsible for the establishment of the secretariat, and the present minister responsible for the secretariat, the hon.

Minister of Community Development, for their support in my work as chair of the Francophone Secretariat. [as submitted] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 2:50 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Today, March 21, is the UN day to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.

In the community a number of events have taken place: a team of teenagers from Canmore traveled across the country with their message on racism and met up with other national and international teams, a kickoff at city hall in Edmonton with guest speaker Stephen Lewis, the annual Harmony breakfast sponsored by the Canadian Multicul- turalism Educational Foundation that I and my colleague the MLA for Edmonton-Ellerslie attended on Sunday, and a wonderful citizenship court presided over by Judge Bhatia, which featured Mehreen Rashid from Holy Trinity school reading her award- winning essay on discrimination and tolerance.

But this morning for me was the most inspiring event. I attended a special racism event at McDougall school sponsored by the Edmonton Viets Association, the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations, and the Department of Canadian Heritage. It was the most inspiring because it set the best example for us to follow. Racism is not genetic. It is learned behaviour. The kids from McDougall supported by students from neighbouring St. Catherines did some wonderful skits on racism and, more than that, on how to break that learned behaviour and turn it into tolerance. Students also presented essays and posters.

All of these events are worthy and needed to bring people together and to acknowledge the continuation of racism in Alberta and how to eliminate it. We don’t have an Alberta advantage on this issue. The government has seen fit to offer to screen legislation for gender- neutral language. But what can we as legislators, as leaders be doing to eliminate all forms of discrimination in Alberta and not just on this day but on all days? We could learn a lot from the kids, from Mehreen, and from the kids at McDougall and St. Catherines. That in my opinion would be an Alberta advantage. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Montrose. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination MR. PHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This day serves to remind us that racism continues to exist in the year 2000. It remains as real as life itself. Today it is up to each one of us to do our best to ensure that it is eliminated. Fo r most of us racism is something we only read about or see on the television news. For many others it is something they experience daily in their own lives.

I know we remember the racial ideology that led to the massive destruction during the Second World War. More recently we can also remember the apartheid of the government of South Africa. This was a way of life supported by that government. Not long ago in our own country many citizens’ rights that we take for granted today were denied to many Canadian pioneers because they belonged to a certain race. When a person ca nnot achieve his full potential simply because of the colour of his skin, we as a society suffer a tremendous loss as well.

As chair of the Alberta Advisory Committee on the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund I am encouraged to see that the number of racism complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission has declined steadily over the past few years. This proves that our proactive approach to combat this problem is working. We need to emphasize the importance of educating our society in order to reduce the need for disciplinary action by the Human Rights Commission.

I am confident that with all your support we can achieve a prosperous Alberta that is free of discrimination not only during our time but for all generations to come as well. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The Government House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order Offensive Language MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rose during question period today during a

preamble to a question by the Member for Edmonton-Glenora. I rose under Standing Order 23(h), (i), and (

j) and under Beauchesne 485 and 487 as well as the provisions of the memorandum which you sent to Members of the Legislative Assembly on February 11. In a general sense the

preambles to questions are becoming more and more offensive to our parliamen- tary tradition, and the

preamble to this particular question was particularly offensive to our parliamentary tradition. One of the general rules, which I didn’t quote, from Beauchesne’s indicates – I think it’s 409 – that questions should not provoke debate, and when you lace a

preamble to a question with such coloured language, with the clear intent to impugn the integrity of a member, that cannot but provoke debate. So in a general sense those

preambles, Mr. Speaker, and this

preamble in particular should be ruled out of order, and the member should be asked to apologize. I would take it a little bit further, and I don’t have the benefit of the Blues, so I would look to your guidance in this. I believe the word dishonest was used, and in your memorandum on page D of the

schedule it particularly indicates that the words dishonest and dishonesty are unparliamentary. In addition, the member referred to hiding information with respect to West Edmonton Mall and an Auditor General’s report. The Auditor General is an officer of this Legislature and did look into the West Edmonton Mall matter and made a report, and in that

546 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 report he clearly indicated that the Premier had not done anything wrong. So the member should be asked to withdraw his remarks from that perspective. The member also, however, I believe, made allegations against another member and imputed false and unavowed motives to another member under 23(

h) and (

i) and did so by asking a question – I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the Blues – of the nature of: is it your intention to hide or be dishonest to members of the public with respect to Bill 11, as you were with West Edmonton Mall? Now, first of all, clearly that question is out of order because it provokes debate, because it requires a response, and I think a lengthy response should have been given indicating that the member is absolutely wrong about the question of dishonesty entirely.

So it provokes debate from that perspective, but it also makes an allega- tion of dishonesty, which is not correct and is totally improper to levy against an hon. member in this House, and it also imputes false or unavowed motives, suggesting that the Premier was trying to hide something or be dishonest to Albertans when nothing could be more honest than to send out the exact wording of a bill that’s going to be discussed in the House and ask Albertans for their response to it. Nothing dishonest about that. But, Mr. Speaker, we’ve come to expect that kind of slagging in debate in this House.

It’s inappropriate, but we’ve come to expect it. We really should be listening to your advice in this House to deal with the issues above and beyond the personalities and take that emotional rhetoric out of it. I think it’s time to call a halt to this. I think it’s time to ask the member to rise and apologize.

I think it’s time to bring us back to parliamentary tradition, talking about issues in this House in an appropriate and respectful manner and not bringing in false and unavowed allegations, not slanging people’s personal characters, not denigrating hon. members of this House, not trying to denigrate the Premier, who’s doing an honest and wonder- ful job for this province. If they have a problem with issues that we’re discussing, that’s what this Legislature is about. But it’s inappropriate for that hon. member and for any of those hon. members opposite to raise in

preambles to questions or at any other time such inappropriate descriptions of the personalities of members or the intentions or integrity of members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I must confess I got a little lost in terms of following my friend’s submission in terms of understanding precisely what he is focusing on. I took his general observation that he’s unhappy with the overall demeanor of question period and the questions asked, but this is a matter that you have addressed on past occasions.

Specifically, let me try and deal with the things that I think have been raised that would appropriately warrant a response. Firstly, I didn’t hear my colleague use the word dishonest. Now, I don’t have Hansard in front of me. I’ve had the benefit of reading some notes that my colleague used in asking the question. The word dishonest is not there. Hopefully with the benefit of Hansard we can resolve that.

I’m further advised by my colleague that his recollec- tion is that he did not use the word dishonest. 3:00 Now, the Government House Leader spoke of the Auditor General’s report, and this takes us in a field we’ve already plowed, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s well known and it’s certainly in the Hansard record of this Assembly that the Auditor General found, and I paraphrase, no evidence of any inappropriate government involvement, but that is circumscribed by all of the limitations of the study. He didn’t talk to Elmer Leahy, I understand. He didn’t take sworn evidence from Elmer Leahy.

There’s a list of areas that were not reviewed by the Auditor General, so this Government House Leader . . . THE SPEAKER: Get to your point. MR. DICKSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I tried to preface my comments by saying that the Government House Leader in my view wandered a circuitous route, and I’m trying to address the points that I took from it. So I don’t know where you’re going to go with it. Let me sum up by saying that I didn’t hear the word dishonest being used.

The Auditor General’s report did not sanitize everything that happened, as the Government House Leader wished it might have and the Premier wished it might have. It is bound and circum- scribed by the limitations in the terms of reference and the limita- tions in the scope of the investigation, and that record speaks for itself. The one other item I would say is this. I note there was reference to a document that wasn’t tabled, and I have from my colleague the memorandum he referred to. That quite properly should have been tabled, and I think in the excitement of the question-and-answer exchange it was not.

I have the requisite number of copies of the document that was referred to, so I’d table that now, Mr. Speaker. Those are the comments I’d make. We could spend a long time talking generally about what happens in question period and about answers that are provocative and provoke debate, but I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum to do that. Thank you, sir. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’m not going to go through a whole series of readings from Beauchesne with respect to this matter but simply draw to hon. members’ attention those sections of Beauchesne.

There are many, many sections, but there certainly are some sections dealing with unparliamentary language. There’s certainly 485 in Beauchesne, and 486(1) indicates that “much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking.” Beauchesne 487 has got a really interesting series of clauses.

(1) Threatening language is unparliamentary.

(2) Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation. Putting a hypothetical case is not the way to evade what would be in itself disorderly. Now, what we’ve got here today is a situation – and I will quote from the Blues, because we do have the Blues. This is the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. When it comes to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, this Premier has quite a track record of talking about the truth yet still managing to avoid it.

Now, the Premier thinks that he can trick Albertans with a propa- ganda campaign on health care just like he thinks he fooled Albertans about his role in orch estrating the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Handwritten notes on a February 15, 1994, memo from the Premier to a certain Jim and a certain Ken provide ample evidence of his personal involvement. My questions are to the Premier. How can Albertans believe the Premier about Bill 11 when he didn’t come clean about the February 15, 1994, memo, which reveals that he was orchestrating the West Edmonton Mall refinanc- ing right out of his . . . office?

Perhaps I could go back to 487(2) again. “Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation.” Now, I’ve got a series of scribbled notes from my table officers, who are very good and listen very attentively, just as attentively as

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 547 me. Their comments with respect to this question in particular ranged from: the question potentially is out of order and not really seeking factual information but really tied to how can we trust, the

preamble and the question really weren’t proper, a chance to make a statement about something not really linked, and on and on it goes with respect to other questions in terms of

preambles not linked to actual questions. We’ve had quite a series of these kinds of discussions lately with respect to these points of order, and I do not like the demeanour, and I do not like the tone. It seems to me that there’s one way to solve all of this, and I’m going to sugge st this to all members of the House, and it’s something that the House itself might want to consider. The basic rules that we have in this Assembly call for brevity, brevity in terms of question and brevity in terms of answer.

As each day comes and each day goes, there is a rather long list of members who haven’t had an opportunity to raise a question or to seek the information that’s so important. The purpose of question period is to seek, basically, urgent information with respect to pressing public matters.

Because we cannot define what the term brevity means in terms of a question and because we ca nnot define what brevity means in terms of an answer and because we tend to come and go on a daily basis, perhaps it might be better, hand in hand with what we want to do, if we carefully look to see what the rule is in the Canadian House of Commons. The Canadian House of Commons has struggled with this matter for years and years and years and has come to this conclusion. They’ve now adopted time limits for the question and time limits for the answer.

The time limit is 35 seconds for the question and 35 seconds for the answer. Now, that is a wonderful conclusion to a lot of problems. It seems that many of the points of order that are raised have to deal with the types of questions, and many of the points of order raised on another side have to deal with the types of answers. Well, the longer we have to participate, I guess, and with the dialogue that we have, the greater the chances and the greater the opportunities are for us to find the hole and just simply dig deeper into the hole. So perhaps brevity might best be dealt with in terms of a time factor.

It works very simply: 35 seconds to ask the question and 35 seconds to give the response, and your mike is immediately turned off. It seems to have done a great deal of service in terms of eliminating a lot of points of order on a daily basis. But, secondly, it has one other great objective and service that it provides. It allows for a greater number of questions, and it allows for a greater number of members to participate in doing the job that they were elected to do, to seek information.

I’ve got notes flying around here, and I sent a whole series of notes advising certain members that they might want to read Hansard, page 480, when I ruled on a point of order, allegations against a member and using names of outside people, dealt with that. Other notes here with respect to violations and probably Beauchesne 409(8), exactly the same question as another member had already asked, and again constant numbers of notes about not tying pream- bles with the ultimate question. I think the comments are made.

All hon. members can stand up and ask the question that they feel they are entitled to ask, and I will do everything possible to make sure that they have the benefit of all doubt with respect to it, because I believe very, very strongly that private members must have an opportunity to ask questions that they have. But it seems to me that if the bottom line of the question is, and I quote, we do not trust that person, why doesn’t the question just come out and say, you know, “How can we trust you” or something else? There’s a lot of unrelated

preamble which has nothing to do with the question and violates the fundamental rules of the House and doesn’t appear to be in the best interests of any hon. member unless the major theme of the day is a certain thing, and it’s not my right to know what that theme is, nor am I desiring to know what that theme is. I just really believe fundamentally that decorum is very, very, very important. Decorum is important. There’s a way of seeking the information one wants, and there’s a way of making a political point. This question period is not supposed to be histrionics and not supposed to be theatrics.

It’s actually supposed to be serving the people of Alberta in ascertaining an answer for a pressing public matter. If it’s Stampede Wrestling, well, so be it. It’s entertainment for some, but the citizens of Alberta know what’s going on. They know. They call my office. They give all kinds of comments. Not one of our best days. The point is made. 3:10 head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I’d like to call the committee to order.

Bill 205 Emblems of Alberta (Alberta Dress Tartan) Amendment Act, 2000 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary- Glenmore. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to make a few comments about this very good bill, Bill 205, Emblems of Alberta (Alberta Dress Tartan) Amendment Act, 2000, at this Committee of the Whole stage.

I would remind members that this bill will provide yet another way in which Albertans may express their pride in the province of Alberta and that the Alberta dress tartan was an idea that came forward from two Calgarians, Gail Danysk and Ashley Stowkowy, who designed the Alberta dress tartan in conjunction with Fiona Hall, who is a tartan designer in England with Locharron of Scotland. There was one point that was raised with me by a colleague that I would like to address.

They sent me a note during a debate that said that in reading the bill, they noticed that the weave of the Alberta dress tartan, in particular the first block of the weave, is dominated by white and that clearly discriminates against green. It was their concern that this discrimination was clearly at a most basic level. I must say that I would like to congratulate this hon. member, to start with, because they clearly read the bill carefully, and in fact they’re very correct. The first block has 96 threads, and all but 12 of those threads are white. The other 12 are green.

I would point out to the hon. member that that type of differential does however explain why this first block is known as the white block rather than the green block. I would also point out to this hon. member that there is a second block of weave as part of the Alberta dress tartan and that it contains 136 threads, 16 of which are green. So this hon. member should take some comfort in the fact that there is green reflected not only in the first block but also in the second block. The other point I would like to make.

I would refer all members to the explanatory notes that form part of Bill 205, which refer to the weave of the existing Alberta tartan, and in particular I would point out that it, too, has two blocks. In this particular case the first block of the Alberta tartan consists of 48 threads, all of which are green,

548 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 none of which are white, and accordingly there is clear discrimina- tion in favour of the green thread. All in all, I think that if one takes into account the fact that there is green thread both in the first and second block of the Alberta dress tartan and a clear discrimination in the first block of the Alberta tartan in favour of green, there is a certain balance here. It’s also important to remember what these colours represent in the Alberta dress tartan.

The addition of the field of white coloured stripes represents something that is not reflected currently in the Alberta tartan, and that of course is Alberta’s clean, bright, snowy days, which are something that is known throughout the province, including, I believe, down in the Medicine Hat/Cypress area. The dress tartan remains true to the original colour scheme that we have in our Alberta tartan, with the green of our forests being represented, the gold of our wheat fields, the blue of our clear skies and sparkling lakes, the pink of our wild rose, and the black of our coal and petroleum.

Once again, Madam Chairman, I would recommend to all members that they support this particular bill and the weave as currently outlined. I would particularly ask for the support of the hon. member who sent me that note, b ecause I believe that I have clearly indicated that greens are well represented in the Alberta dress tartan. Thank you very much. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today to enter into the debate on Bill 205, the Emblems of Alberta (Alberta Dress Tartan) Amendment Act, 2000.

I think it’s important for the Assembly to understand the origins of tartans. Every isle differs from each other in their fancy making plads, as to the stripes and Breadth and Colours. This Humour is as different thro the . . . land of the Highlands in-so-far that they who have seen those places, are able, at the first view of a man’s plad, to guess the place of his residence. So said Martin Martin, writing in 1703, making the first documented reference to tartan as a means of identification.

Since that time, the spirit of the idea has grown to the extent that we have come to believe that the pattern of woven coloured stripe has become an important part of our cultural identity. Now, it is generally accepted that clan tartans were established and named towards the end of the 18th century. Prior to that time, while clan, district, and tartan were often closely associated, the idea of a single uniform clan tartan had not yet emerged. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the tartan patterns were created at that time.

William Wilson, the foremost weaving manufacturer, took a great interest in reproducing perfectly genuine patterns and engaged in extensive correspondence with his Highland agent to gather information and actual samples of the cloth woven in the clan districts. The natural development and the art of tartan manufacturing in the Highlands had been completely curtailed for over 50 years. The battle of Culloden in 1746 was s till within living memory, and the disarming acts which followed included the ban of Highland dress, which was repealed in 1782.

Tartan manufacture survived only in the hands of the military and their Lowlands suppliers. 3:20 Madam Chairman, I think it’s important to understand where tartans come from and why we’re bringing this forward. References to tartans occur in various historical documents, paintings, illustra- tions. A charter granted to Hector MacLean of Duart in 1587 for the lands in Islay details cloth of white, black, and green colours, the colours of the Hunting MacLean of Duart tartan, and an eyewitness account of the battle. Many references support the role of tartans within the country and with different sectors.

New tartans accredited by the Scottish Tartans Society must have the approval of the chief. Dress tartans are designed by altering one of the background colours of the formal sett to white. Originally, tartans had two main colours. Madam Chairman, today we have before us Bill 205, Albertans’ own tartan, and we are looking at seven colours of thread. Bill 205 joins nine other official emblems in this province, and I am proud to be part of the debate. Madam Chairman, some 27 short years ago I was married in a full Scottish wedding; yes, bagpipes, kilts, the full works.

My family’s history also shows that we have our own tartan. I congratulate the Member for Calgary-Glenmore and encourage all members of the Assembly to support Bill 205. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to say a couple of words in support of Bill 205 with respect to Alberta emblems and the symbols that we hold dear in the name of and in the symbol of our province.

Of course, I can’t imagine that anyone would speak against this bill, but I’d like to note a couple of things that perhaps people do not know about the weave of the tartan, and we can think about it when we do look at this symbol in the future. It’s understood that when we think of the tartan now, most of us think of a very colourful pattern of the cloth of the Scottish High- lands. It’s evident in the tartan that we currently use to symbolize the province of Alberta and certainly in the tartan that is being proposed through this bill to symbolize the tartan of Alberta for the future.

Originally, the word tart an described the way a thread was woven to make the cloth. Each thread passed over two threads, then under two threads, and so on. Hence we have the name tartan. It’s also interesting to know that the oldest known piece of tartan is one that was found buried in the gr ound near Falkirk. It was found in a pot filled with over 1,900 silver Roman coins and was thought to be about 1,700 years old. It’s quite different from many of the colourful tartans that we all know today.

Again, that’s why I would like to commend the tartan that is proposed here in Bill 205, because it is lighter and it is brighter in colour and it certainly speaks to what we see as our role and what we want to have as our symbol for this new century. As I say, the oldest piece of tartan was f ound in a pot with the Roman coins. It’s quite different from many of the tartans that we know today, and it’s believed that it was made from the undyed wool, dark brown and light browny green, of the Soay sheep, which once inhabited Scotland and which still can be found on the island of St. Kilda.

Just a little bit of history of how the Scottish people found the original tartan and hence have carried that symbol forward. So in recognition of what we are signifying and symbolizing today and in the year 2000 in the provin ce of Alberta, I think it’s very fitting that we endorse and unanimously support Bill 205, as we look, I would say, to a brighter, a lighter, a more colourful symbol for our province so that it can be displayed, it can be worn, and it can show forth the colours of our province.

With those remarks, Madam Chairman, I would like to call the question in support of th is bill and ask every one in this Assembly now present to vote in support of Bill 205. [The clauses of Bill 205 agreed to]

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 549 [Title and

preamble agreed to] THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Carried. The chair would have you note that most of the speakers on this particular bill happen to be of Scottish heritage. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am not of Scottish ancestry, but I have a keen affinity for the game of golf, which is of Scottish origin, and on behalf of my constituent Jim McLean I want to just officially say that I support the official tartan bill that we just discussed.

However, on other matters I would now move that this committee rise and report progress. [Motion carried] [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Committee of the Whole has had under consideration a certain bill. The committee reports Bill 205. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Does the Assembly concur in this report? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed? So ordered.

The chair is going to call a one-minute recess. [The Assembly adjourned from 3:29 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.] head: Motions Other than Government Motions Citizens’ Commission on the Future of Education 504. Mrs. MacBeth moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to create an Alberta citizens’ commission on the future of education which would set goals and direction for educa- tion, acknowledging its fundamental importance to the prosperity and well-being of all Albertans and defining a clear vision for its future. [Debate adjourned March 14: Dr. Massey speaking] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

When I left off talking about Motion 504 last time, I had spent a few minutes talking about the need for the commission and how this commission differed from previous commissions in the way it was going to be operating in terms of having citizens in control of the agenda. I’d also spent a little time looking at some of the changes that have occurred in the province and in education since the last commission, the Worth commission, deliberated in the late ’60s and the early ’70s.

I thought I would take the few remaining minutes that I have to look at some of the other changes that I think a commission would want to look at and evaluate. There have been some tremendous changes, particularly in the role of technology. We’ve seen, since that last commission was reported, the advent of computers, and none of us, I think, at that time ever dreamed they would take over our schools, our classrooms, and in fact our lives.

So I think a commission would want to spend some time looking at those developments, again assessing where we may be going in the future and setting out maybe a vision for technology and the role that technology might play in learning in the future. The role of schools has changed dramatically. Community use is now taken for granted. I remember running for sc hool trustee in 1974, running at that time on a platform of more community use of our schools, and being labeled by the opposition to that motion as the booze and bingo candidate.

Some of the people running at that time thought that opening up schools for community use would invite all kinds of vices and that community life would certainly be hurt if those school gymnasiums were opened any time after 4 o’clock for community use. We’ve changed a great deal on how we view our community buildings, our school buildings. The role of school boards has changed, and many of us think that that role has changed for the worse. There is a court case now that’s going to adjudicate that. School boards, in terms of their ability to respond to local issues, I think have been weakened.

Is that really what we want in the province? What kind of value do we place on local control? The Department of Learning has changed. It’s being collapsed into two departments: basic education and advanced education. Is that a good thing? Is that what Albertans want? Are they being well served by this new configuration? There are changes in terms of our funding. Many of us in this province who come from humble beginnings have been blessed with being able to access the best education in the world.

We were able to do that even though our parents had rather limited or no means that would have helped us had that public education not been there and not been tax supported so that there was no charge to the family. That’s gradually changed over the last 10 years. Instructional fees and parents out funding-raising for a lot of the things that happen in our schools have gradually taken over. If you walk into the gymnasiums of our local high schools, you’ll see the signs of local contractors and electrical firms adorning gymnasium walls.

The whole role of paying, parents’ role, and who should support public education – should it be supported totally from the public purse? Are these other incursions the wave of the future? I think those are some of the questions, some of the issues that the Alberta citizens’ commission would examine. If you look at school programs, there have been dramatic changes in the kinds of school programs that are being offered in the province.

I look at the number of alternative programs that now accommodate a much wider range of student interests and capabili- ties and parent interest than were available previously: the heritage language programs in this city where Ukrainian, Cree, and a variety of languages have been made available to students. I look at the international baccalaureate program, a program for talented high school students where they can have their talents tested and their intellectual capabilities challenged. I look at the incorporation under the umbrella of the local school board of the first Christian school, the Logos school.

I look at the involvement of business as huge changes in the public school system. I think it’s timely that a commission sit down and look at those changes and say: is this the way we want to go in public education? Are these the kinds of changes that strengthen the system and further the kind of vision that many have for a truly public school system?

550 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 If you look at postsecondary education, there’s a tremendous worry about the balance at postsecondary institutions between the sciences and the technical fields and the humanities and the social sciences. Is that balance the correct one? Are we supporting social sciences and humanities in a way that will benefit the community? What about the role that the universities play in social criticism? What’s happened to that role? We’ve seen huge changes in tuition and tuition policy.

I’m one of those fortunate few who on entering university had my tuition paid, and I was the recipient of a bursary of a small amount but a very important amount of money at the time to help me further my education. We’ve moved a long way from that kind of public support of students to an almost unending debate in our institutions about tuition. It’s one of the things that I think a commission could look at and help make some judgments about, could talk to Alber- tans to find out how they feel about access to our postsec ondary institutions and how that access should be either furthered or curtailed.

The role of research has again changed, a great deal of focus recently on what’s been called gizmo research, research that pays off in the marketplace at some fairly near time frame. Again, questions have been raised about what that does in terms of research, more basic research, research where ideas are explored without any thought of the implications of that for commercialization. We’ve seen a growing role for private schools in the province. Does that meet with the general approval of the citizens?

The Alberta citizens’ commission could examine that and maybe plot out for us a future and some guidelines in terms of the development of private schools and their role in the education system of the province. There have been some vast changes in teacher education.

When the Worth report was tabled in the province, most of the elementary teachers in the province had one or two years of teacher education in the early ’70s, and the Lougheed government in a rather brave move said that we were going to increase the amount of education that teachers had until we got to the point where they all had at least one university degree. 3:40 I remember the kind of public debate at the time, the gloom and doom warnings that if they moved to that kind of a system, where teachers had to have at least one university degree to teach, first of all the system wouldn’t be able to afford all of those teachers with degrees.

It would bankrupt the government. There were cries about not having enough teachers, that there would be a teacher shortage if they tried to move to everyone having at least a university degree. Lo and behold here we are 30 years later and the system is in place. All teachers in the province have at least one university degree, many of them two, and some three or more university degrees, something that would have been unheard of 30 years ago. It took some visionaries to make it happen. We also have seen some changing patterns in terms of the teacher education that’s offered.

We have the University of Lethbridge where you have to have a minimum of 5 years before you’re credentialed to go into the classroom, the University of Alberta where you can still take a four-year pattern, and then the differences at the University of Calgary. So across the province the degree- granting institutions have changed their requirements and, again, at a rate and with content that we wouldn’t have expected a number of years ago. I think this is an area that the citizens’ commission would be most interested in looking at.

The previous commission and the Cameron commission before that had some solid statements about teacher education at that time. So with those comments, Madam Speaker, I would urge passage of the Alberta citizens’ commission . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: I’m sorry, hon. member. The time for this particular item has now expired, and I must put the question to you. [Motion Other than Government Motion 504 lost] Advisory Council on Women’s Health 505. Mrs. Fritz moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish an advisory council on women’s health to support education and research promoting women’s health and to address issues relating to the prevention and treatment of diseases including osteoporosis, eating disorders, heart disease, and breast cancer as well as diseases to which women are becoming increasingly susceptible such as lung cancer and autoimmune diseases. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has been a long time coming.

As you know, it was before the Legislature previously as a bill, and I’m just pleased that it’s back here as a motion and that it is before the Assembly today. I’d like to note that this important proposal would not have been brought before the House without the support, guidance, and influence of many people. I’m thankful to all that it was created, revised, and completed with the ideas and assistance of Alberta Health, Community Development, our caucus research, my office, regional health authorities, women’s groups, organizations, and associations, and the public at large.

The wise counsel of my colleagues and friends, many of whom are here today, added to the insight that resulted in this proposal, which I believe will ultimately lead to Alberta women living their lives more fully because they’ll have a deeper understanding of the health of their bodies. Madam Speaker, Motion 505 will assist in creating new models for women’s wellness. It will offer support in the areas of education and research that will help women to gain, regain, and maintain their health.

The motion will also assist our government and its affiliates as well as health care practitioners with necessary constant learning processes. An advisory council would provide a forum for promoting awareness of women’s health issues, and it would enable health organizations to submit information and recommendations to the government. It would also gather research and synthesize the information and ensure that it is ultimately made available to those that would benefit from it. Women, health care professionals, and government officials must work together to make women’s health a top priority.

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness has demonstrated in Budget 2000 a commit- ment to health initiatives and programs, and I thank you, hon. minister, for this being in Budget 2000 this year. It’s very welcome. You’ve added $4.7 million for the implementation of a cervical cancer screening program, and that would include the Pap smear, which is the most effective screening test known to modern medi- cine. Also, $2.3 million has been added for the breast cancer screening program, which will assist in diagnosing breast cancer in its earliest stages. Hopefully, Mr.

Minister, these funds will be used for a provincewide program to target those in the 50- to 69-year-old age group through a holistic woman-centred approach. Knowing your commitment to women’s health issues, I’m sure that that’s what will be happening in that area. These welcome funds will add to vital preventative screening

March 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 551 programs that I believe will u ltimately save lives. The outcome would also lead to good, solid, up-to-date information that an advisory council could use to assist women in improving their health. Madam Speaker, it is no small task to address the vast issues of women’s health and wellness, which is why this motion advocates an advisory council.

The council is anticipated to have 10 appointed board members, with a Member of the Legislative Assembly to act as chairman, and at least one member would be appointed from the following: the Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Alberta health care association, the Alberta Medical Association, a university as defined in the Universities Act, the Albert a Cancer Board, and the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses. The four remaining members hopefully would be from the public at large.

I realize that there are those here who will ask why half the council is comprised of members with an explicit medical focus. I happen to believe that the importance of their expertise and guidance should not be underesti- mated and, in fact, should be highly valued. The medical advice and dynamics that this group will offer to the committee is essential to the discussion which will ultimately point us in the direction that we need to go.

Women need to be able to make informed, responsible decisions regarding their health and lifestyl es, and to do this they must have access to accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive, and user-friendly information. The council would assist in the management of women’s health services and lead to a coherent long-term health strategy. It would also assist in the promotion of awareness and understanding of women’s health issues, the risks they face and the treatments that are available. Madam Speaker, over the past decade we have seen some of these diseases increase at an alarming rate.

I’m thinking of HIV and the AIDS virus, which is on the increase for women. As well, the statistics re lating to eating di sorders such as anorexia, bulimia, and other addictive disorders speak for them- selves. When you consider the purposes of the advisory council, you will notice that concepts such as advise, foster, report, encourage public discussion, review, analyze, consult, and make recommendations will all offer a wide range of processes to access and distribute information.

I know that for some here today it will be a leap of faith to accept that these concepts are necessary for the health and wellness of women. Well, Madam Speaker, in order to explore the discomforts, diseases, and dysfunctions of female organs and systems and to give medical suggestions and advice on how to heal them, it is a must to buy into the very purposes of this motion. I have had the question asked, “How do women’s health needs differ from those of others?” which is, of course, addressing the fundamental question of why we need a women’s health advisory council.

In acknowledging this question and providing answers, it is necessary to provide you with a list of a few – and I stress “a few,” although it will seem long to you – physical, psychological, and emotional illnesses that predominantly affect women. Autoimmune disease, which, simply stated, occurs when an organ attacks itself, affects women far more frequently than it does men. These diseases include systemic lupus erythematosus; 90 percent of those affected are women. Myasthenia gravis: 85 percent affected are women. Autoimmune thyroid disease: 80 percent are women. Rheumatoid arthritis: 75 percent are women.

And 70 percent of those afflicted with multiple sclerosis are women. 3:50 Menses is a basic cycle for females, and during this cycle as many as 60 percent of those affected suffer from abdominal discomfort which is known as dysmenorrhea. As well, at least 60 percent of females suffer from premenstrual syndrome. PMS is most likely to occur in the 30-year-old age group and, sadly, often occurs at the same time as dysmenorrhea. Comp lications that relate to the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus are far too vast to mention here today, and each organ is intimately connected to the next.

Endometriosis is a disease experienced by women in which the tissue normally growing inside the uterus actually grows in other parts of the body and causes a great deal of pain. Uterine fibroid tumors, ovarian cysts, and cancer are all devastating and can lead to chronic pelvic pain, infertility, and even death. Madam Speaker, the list continues and includes disorders such as urinary tract infections, incontinence, fibrocystic breast disease, childbirth complications, and symptoms related to menopause.

I’d like to take a moment to highlight other significant health issues and point out the potential impact that each one may have on Alberta women and on Albertans as a whole. Osteoporosis, or porous bone, is a disease that is characterized by low bone mass and structural deterioration of bone tissue, leading to bone fragility and an increased susceptibility to fractures of the hip, the spine, and the wrist. This is a disease that can be prevented and treated. Chances of developing osteoporosis are greater if you are a woman.

They have less bone tissue and lose bone more rapidly than men because of the changes involved in menopause. One in four Canadian women over the age of 50 has osteo. It is often called the silent disease because bone loss occurs without any symptoms. They may not know they have this disease until their bones become so weak that a sudden strain, bump, or fall causes a hip fracture or a vertebra to collapse.

Females may be surprised to discover that there is a 20 percent mortality rate within the first si x months following a hip fracture, and about 50 percent of those who suffer one will need help walking the rest of their lives. In fact, the lifetime risk of death due to hip fracture is comparable to the risk of death from breast cancer. The rate of hip fractures related to osteoporosis is two to three times higher in women than men.

A woman’s risk of hip fracture is equal to her combined risk of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer, and, Madam Speaker, 75 percent of women aged 45 to 75 have never even talked to a doctor about osteo. Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death in women over the age of 50 in Canada. Heart disease is also the second leading medical condition that limits the activities and independence of females. Although it is often characterized as a man’s disease, Madam Speaker, shockingly, more women than men die from cardiovascular disease.

Yet virtually all randomized controlled trials, risk, and treatment have focused on men, and the majority of cardiovascular procedures are conducted on men. Heart disease in women often goes undetected and untreated until the disease has become severe. Regrettably, 44 percent of those who have heart attacks die within one year as compared to 27 percent of men. Madam Speaker, there’s an obvious male bias in medical research and treatment related to heart disease in Canada.

Once we recognize the need for a more balanced approach, we can work toward addressing the health issues that have previously been ignored or underappreciated, especially those that affect women. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in women, after heart disease and stroke, and approximately 11 percent will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. Each day in our own province at least four women are diagnosed with or die from this disease; that’s each day. The risk of breast cancer increases with age, with approximately 75 percent of breast cancer diagnosed found in those over the age of 50.

Today lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in females. There are no screening tests for lung cancer, and it can be very difficult to diagnose. Nearly 90 percent of patients diagnosed

552 Alberta Hansard March 21, 2000 with lung cancer do not receive care until it is too late to be cured. Increased education and communication about these diseases, their risk factors, and their treatment will save women’s lives. I said that I would name only a few, which is why I will stop here. The point is, Madam Speaker, these conditions predominantly affect women, which is why this advisory council is so necessary. Women make three-quarters of the health care decisions in households, and more than 61 percent of physician visits are made by females.

Fifty- nine percent of prescription drugs are purchased by them, and 75 percent of nursing home residents over the age of 75 are women. Their health has been ignored for far too long, and they are uniquely affected and, I believe, should be uniquely addressed. Madam Speaker, implementing Motion 505 will allow us to keep our finger on the pulse of women’s health care in a much broader and more diverse way than ever before.

The intent of the council will be to assist in providing information and research data on how nutrients, hormonal supplements, herbs, exercise, drugs, prescribed medications, surgery, acupuncture, emotional support, and many, many other ways of delivering health care will optimally create healthier conditions for women. Madam Speaker, the benefits to be derived from implementing Motion 505 could be achieved for approximately 1 percent of what our province spends in one day on health care. That is so minimal. Think about it. It’s 1 percent of what we spend in one day on health care.

To conclude, I’m urging the Assembly to recognize the unique nature of women’s bodies, thei r symptoms, and the issues that surround their overall health. An advisory council on women’s health will allow us to promote and address these issues in a proactive, accountable, and cost-effective manner. Madam Speaker, I ask that the members of the Assembly make a commitment to the health and wellness of all women in the province by voting to support Motion 505. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker.

I’d like to commend the Member for Calgary-Cross for her tenacity in following through on this idea, in that it was presented as Bill 213 in the 1999 spring session but died on the Order Paper. So the same idea but coming back as a motion. Secondly, I have to admit that I am really torn about this motion. I think a large part of that is my frustration with a sort of piecemeal approach that’s being taken. Many of the members here were in this same Chamber, including the Member for Calgary-Cross I think, when the Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues was disbanded.

The budget was taken away, and that was the end of it. That was a very useful organization and from my point of view had a more holistic approach to women’s health because it dealt with all aspects of women’s lives: the economic factors, the legal factors, the social health factors. So I’m very frustrated when I look at what’s being proposed in this motion and see that it’s a very tiny piece of what women’s lives are all about. We cannot continue to take a chunk, a pi ece of a person’s life and say, “Well, if we deal with this, then all things will be cared for,” because we know that that is not the truth.

You cannot deal with women’s health without looking at issues of poverty, of stress – the list is very long. I’ll try and come back and address some of that, but the economic and legal factors that affect women’s lives in this day and age obviously affect their health. 4:00 I listened carefully to the Member for Calgary-Cross and what she was proposing, and it sounds very similar to what was in Bill 213. So it is based on the advisory council on women’s health act but, again, is only taking a little

section of it out. I think one of the things that is most important to me about a council – if I have to accept a council that is restricted to women’s health, I will do so, begrudgingly. I will do so, because I think anything that the women in Alberta can get out of this government is a great thing, because it’s been pretty tough in the past. One of the most important things is the representation of the people who are appointed to the council. Where the Advisory Council on Women’s Issues was really su ccessful was in bringing together a great diversity of representation.

They were women from all different geographic areas in the province. They covered different kinds of work. Some were in the workforce. Some were at home or students, with different kinds of family backgrounds, different kinds of educational attainments. It was a real diversity of representation, and I had the privilege of working with that council for five years, so I know of what I speak. I think I go down in history now as the only executive director for that organization in its 10 years, and I was there for almost five. MRS. SOETAERT: And a good job you did. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

That diversity of representation also gave that council a real close connection to the women in the community. For example, at one point we were approached about mobile breast screening units. The idea was presented to the council members, who then fanned out back into their communities, held coffee parties, talked to people in supermarket lineups, whatever they did to connect with the women in their communities, and together brought all that information back. They really picked up some good stuff from approaching women in a very realistic way and just listening to what their genuine response was to the proposal.

I think we have a better mobile breast screening program now as a result of that. The council also had a very strong research component. Frankly, a lot of the budget money was put into that research, and it was very good value for the money. As I mentioned before, we did research under three areas: legal, economic, and social health. The drawback for that advisory council – and perhaps this is a warning for possible barriers to overcome with the suggestion of this council – was the appointment of people. I think it has to be done in a way where people ar

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20000321
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20000321 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0cd4febb683b0e43e9534ec45bdc136b115493c4

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