Alberta Hansard — 28 April 1987, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 2)

19870428

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 859 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 28, 1987 2:30 p.m. Date: 87/04/28 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRAYERS MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, we give thanks for the bounty of our province: our land, our resources, and our people. We pledge ourselves to act as good stewards on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm tabling today the annual report for '85-86 of the Department of Social Services and Com munity Health, as it was known at the time. MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table an announcement this morning on behalf of the MLA for Sherwood Park, the Min ister of Agriculture, and myself with respect to health concerns in Strathcona county. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the following reports: the Public Service Management Pension Board, the Public Service Pension Board, the Special Forces Pension Board, the Local Authorities Pension Board, the Universities Academic Pension Board, and the annual statement of the Al berta Municipal Financing Corporation. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce through you to the members of this Assembly, 22 students from grade 10 in the Sturgeon composite high school. The Sturgeon River valley has some of the best and most expen sive farmland in Alberta. I'd ask the students to rise along with their teachers, Mr. Pilger and Mr. Mitchell, and get the tradi tional welcome of the Legislature. DR. CASSIN: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege today to introduce to you and through you, a fine group of 88 students from the F.E.

Osborne junior high school in Calgary North West -- Var sity Acres, to be more specific -- with five teachers: Mrs. Jones, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Leong, Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Heerema. I'd like you to give them the traditional applause. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the Assembly members of local 55 of the Alberta Union of Pub lic Employees from the Foothills hospital in Calgary, who are up in Edmonton for the 75th annual AFL convention. I'd like to introduce Mr.

Tom Minhinnett, the former chairman; Bryan Baxter, the new trades chairman; Bert Arnold, secretary; Ruth MacLennan. housekeeping; Everett Visser; Greg Stech; and Dave McLean. Would they please stand. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleas ure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly, on behalf of my colleague the Member for Stony Plain, who is absent on other government business today, 26 students from the Stony Plain elementary school. I understand these are exceptional students from a very fine constituency in Alberta. They're here along with their teachers, Mr.

Eric Cameron and Mrs. Debra Butler, and parents Mrs. Lutz and Mrs. Turner. I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Private Line Telephone Service MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Technology, Research and Telecommunica tions, et cetera, et cetera. It's approximately one year ago that the Premier announced a $496 million commitment to provide every rural Albertan with private line telephone service within five years.

The Premier guaranteed that this program would be implemented, and he talked about 340 construction jobs and 200 permanent operating jobs in rural Alberta. My question: will the minister advise as to the status of this commitment one year into the program? MR. YOUNG: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The program for 1986-87 was carried out on

schedule as far as the provisioning of new lines was concerned. Orders have been placed for. I believe, all of the switches which are required for exchanges, to modernize the exchanges, and the actual turning up of some of the systems awaits approval of the Public Utilities Board. The application has been before the Public Utilities Board for several months. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, A very interesting answer, I would suggest to the minister it isn't on schedule, because Alberta Government Telephones has recently reduced spending on the rural individual line service, the ILS program.

My question to this minister is simply: why is the government weaseling on the implementation of this program in view of that commitment one year ago? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker. I don't wish to challenge the hon. member, but it is a fact that last year's program was carried out as scheduled. This year's program is reduced from the original intended amount. The program is a five-year program, and the intent is to see that it is accomplished. MR. MARTIN: So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is admitting, then, that it has been reduced.

Will the minister confirm that cutbacks in funding for the individual line service program have resulted in cancellation of remote digital switches scheduled for the Clairmont, Silver Valley, and Woking areas in the Dunvegan riding, cancellation of switches scheduled for installation in Hobbema in the Ponoka-Rimbey riding, cancellation of switches scheduled for Evansburg in the Whitecourt riding, and cancella tion of five additional exchanges?

860 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that. In fact, I will simply reaffirm what is my information, and that is that up wards of $90 million worth of new switches, which I believe to be the amount required, were ordered from Northern Telecom and from Microtel several months ago. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question, then, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to help the minister out with his department.

I'd like to file three copies of an internal memo in AGT, and one of the things they state in there is that the cuts to private line conver sion should not be made public because a study is under way regarding "the ramifications of this reduced budget." My ques tion: is the minister not aware of these cutbacks, and if he is not aware, will he find out and report back to this Assembly? I'd like to file these three copies, if I may. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I am aware of the government commitment which I have just reiterated, I'm aware of the or ders that were placed, and I'm also aware of the reduced amount of spending from that which was anticipated for this current year. That's a far different situation, Mr. Speaker, than saying that the program will not be accomplished within its time frame. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, who is turning out to be quite a wit. It's not hard to be on

schedule when you do nothing. Could the minister confirm that those lucky few that are going to take

part in the Premier's pro gram of a private telephone line, those lucky few that sneak through the incompetence of his department, will be asked to pay $400 each for this gift from the Premier? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, if I had as many opportunities to accomplish something as the hon. Member for Westlock- Sturgeon has had to arrive in this Assembly, I'm sure we would have had the program accomplished long ago. MR. TAYLOR: Convoluted. MR. YOUNG: It may be convoluted, hon. member, but you had many opportunities before arriving here. Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the question about the portion that would be required of individual telephone subscribers, that was a part of the public announcement made last April. That's not news; that's been a part of the program. That is the sub scriber's contribution, and that's always been known to be over and above the approximately $400 million of the general cost of the program, of which general revenues are contributing over 50 percent. MR. SPEAKER: Second main question, Leader of the Opposition. Zeidler Forest Industries Ltd. Labour Dispute MR. MARTIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct the second question to the Premier. I believe it was on April 8 that the Pre- mier announced that he had ordered the Minister of Labour to contact Zeidler forest products to determine whether that com pany is prepared to negotiate a settlement in the over-a-year-old labour dispute. Will the Premier advise whether he's heard back from the Labour minister, and if so, will he advise if this initia tive was successful? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't my direction to the Minister of Labour.

As a matter of fact, on the occasion when I dealt with this matter, I had met with the Zeidler union and with Mr. Munro from British Columbia to determine what their posi tion was with regards to the outstanding strike. Having had a meeting with them, I felt it was then appropriate that the govern ment would meet with the management group, just to determine their position and see if there was any middle ground. If there isn't middle ground, then obviously some disputes never are settled.

On some occasions, as a third person talking to two protagonists, you can determine that there is middle ground and help them towards that middle ground. Frankly, I wasn't that encouraged in talking to the union group, and the Minister of Labour was then asked to meet just to see if there was any middle ground he could determine with the Zeidler group. He has been working on that meeting. Since the last time I was talking to him, the House broke for the Easter break. He was working on the meeting, and I'm not sure if he's had it since then -- probably not -- but he may wish to add to this reply. MR.

MARTIN: Well, supplementary question. I'll come back to the Minister of Labour. The Premier seems to indicate that he does not regard this dispute as serious enough to warrant his own personal involvement. My question is simply: why is the Premier not prepared personally to involve himself as he did in the higher profile Gainers strike? Is it because $15,000 came from Zeidler during the election? MR. GETTY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, you get to understand where those comments come from, and therefore you treat them with the disdain that they actually deserve. Mr.

Speaker, as a matter of fact, I did meet with the union. I felt that meeting showed me, as I just told the House, that there seemed to be very little middle ground. It's probably why this strike has gone on for so long. Not every strike is solvable, I guess. That's certainly been true in the past, and it may well be true in this case. Nevertheless, we are trying. It may be that the the Minister of Labour will want to help the Leader of the Op position in terms of when his meeting may go on or what the current plans are. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I should clarify. Mr.

Campbell of Zeidler has been out of the province. I've indicated to him indirectly, through his secretary, that as soon as he returns to the province, it's my intention to meet with him, and that I regard the meeting as essential and as a matter of some urgency. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out, this dispute has been going on for over a year. I say to the Premier: will the Premier now, even at this late date, be personally prepared to intervene on both sides and try to bring this dispute to some sort of resolution? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, as I've already said, I have become involved in order to see if there is any middle ground. There is no value in trying to get involved in something when it doesn't appear that there is any way to pull it together. I've offered; I've met with the union. Our Minister of Labour will be meet ing with Zeidler, as he just described, and then reporting back to me. If it appears that I can do anything possible to help solve this dispute, I will try. There's no question that it appears they are far apart and that there has been some remarkably poor lead

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 861 ership given to this union from their leaders. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, that's just typical. It's always one side's fault, not the government's friends, who gave $15,000. It's nothing to do with scab labour. That's not the problem. My question is to the Minister of Labour. One of the reasons for this dispute has to do with use of replacement workers. When are we going to hear and have brought to the Legislature the much-talked-about labour laws, and are we going to deal with replacement workers? If we did, that dispute would be over. DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, without getting into debate on a Bill which is not yet in front of the Legislature, I would indicate that the sole reason may not be that attributed by the hon. leader. The situation is that this is a dispute now one year old, a total of about 90-odd employees originally. Some of them have re turned to work in the plant, some of them have found work else where, and some have been dismissed during the strike by the employer, a matter that has been to the Labour Relations Board. All of the normal processes are occurring under the current stat utes of the province.

The leader will have to wait until I present the Bill in the Assembly for the proposed changes, and he will have ample opportunity then to debate those changes. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Could the minis ter or the Premier -- to either one who can answer, Mr. Speaker -- tell us whether or not in talking to management you have sug gested that they will be expected to rehire or retain all the work ers that are now out on strike, that they cannot get away with going on indefinitely, because they will have to rehire their original employees? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is raising something that was raised in this House in relation to previous disputes in other industries. The current situation is that an employee re mains an employee during a strike or lockout. The Labour Leg islation Review Committee suggested that be clarified because there are apparently some misunderstandings and misconcep tions, both on the part of unions and on the part of management. But the current legislation is pretty clear on that matter.

I should point out that the involvement of the department has been considerable over the past year, both in mediation involve ment by the deputy minister with both parties and, of course, the disputes inquiry board. Those matters are all now history. None of them were successful, and as the Premier has indicated, both parties are still far apart, and it would appear that they are going to continue that way. Governments cannot settle matters of contract between two parties where the two parties are unable to reach agreement. That is not a government capability nor a government responsibility. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member for Westlock- Sturgeon asked me if I might comment on the views with regard to that matter. As he will recall, in the Gainers dispute that mat ter was certainly one which we stressed as a government belief. The legislation did provide that members of the union who were on strike would be rehired when that strike was settled. And I might say, Mr. Speaker, we were certainly able to help in that regard, where there was middle ground. The government's ef forts did a lot more to solving that strike than running around on a picket line, as the Leader of the Opposition did, causing trouble.

Constitutional Talks MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I can't blame the Premier for rat tling the cage now and again. If I may address this question to the Premier, yesterday the Premier made a number of interesting comments on the Constitution in the upcoming talks.

We learned first that he feels the Edmonton declaration to be dead and buried, since aboriginal rights were discussed in March ahead of Quebec; second, that he is willing to entertain a reduc tion of some provincial powers to achieve Senate reform; and thirdly, we learned by his brief, one-word answers in the House yesterday that he's reluctant to put his thoughts on these impor tant issues on record. Is it the Premier's position that the Ed monton declaration is dead as a result of the federal action of holding a conference on aboriginal constitutional matters in March? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, as I said yesterday, not that it is dead, but that it should be pointed out that when other members who availed themselves of agreeing to the Edmonton declaration wanted to deal with something other than the Quebec matter in the Constitution, they felt that they were not restrained by the Edmonton declaration. Also, the federal government obviously felt the same way. It's my belief that since August there have been a lot of things happen and that we would be well as a na tion to deal very seriously with the Quebec issue but also other matters that are so important to strengthening this nation. MR.

TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier was aware that the aboriginal conference was constitutionally required; there was no way around that. But he mentioned there some where . . . Could he care to be specific and name what first min isters are in agreement with him that the Edmonton declaration is dead or at least is not to be followed, and therefore they're free to discuss other constitutional matters? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, then with respect to the Premier's comments on his willingness to entertain a reduction. Let's go on to that.

You've commented that you were willing to enter tain a reduction of some provincial powers to get Senate reform. Which provincial powers will you be willing to consider? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that matter was actually raised by the Hon. Joe Clark in a speech in Camrose, that he thought this was an issue that Alberta should be worried about in the event that we wanted to get Senate reform. It is not something that we're worried about. As a matter of fact, we believe that with Senate reform we will have a redistribution of the powers of Parliament.

However, my comment was: if there were some Premiers who worried that by having a strong Senate repre senting the regions of this nation -- some Premiers worried that somehow they might lose their stature or their control in some way in representing regions -- that was not something that wor ried me. But in terms of the distribution of powers it's clear from the report this House endorsed that that matter would not be necessary at all, that provinces lose powers but rather that you redistribute the powers within the Parliament. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, last supplemental to the Premier, While it's commendable to push for Senate reform -- and we're all behind you in that regard. If now you feel that the Edmonton

862 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 declaration did not bind you and the Premier hopes to enlarge the agenda to include Senate reform as well as Quebec, would he consider enlarging the agenda to also cover areas such as the fisheries and property rights in order to make your negotiating room a little better than it would have been otherwise? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, those matters were raised by other first ministers, and it would be up to them if they wish to raise them. For my part, for this government's part, we intend to push a reform of the Senate, specifically the Triple E option, at every opportunity we get.

Senate Reform MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also to the Premier and with regards to Senate reform, and more specifi cally, the Triple E Senate. Could the Premier indicate at this time whether that item is formally on the agenda for the upcom ing meeting of April 30? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to recall if there is an actual, formal agenda here, because this is really an informal meeting of first ministers on the Quebec issue. I do not believe that there is an agenda yet that I have seen come in my cor respondence.

Nevertheless, we will be reviewing the whole matter again this afternoon. But it is clear from my discussions with the chairman that I will be raising the matter of the Triple E Senate at the meeting. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary question to the Premier. The Premier has recently had conversations with the other Pre miers of Canada. Could the Premier indicate whether there was support for more formal conversation with regards to Senate reform, specifically the Triple E Senate, at your April 30 meeting? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I always believe, when talking with other first ministers, that it's just as a matter of courtesy that they represent their governments and that they should express the views of themselves or their governments and not have them expressed by me. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

As an option, rather than formal discussion of Senate reform at this meeting, would the Premier consider the option of making a request for a sequence of meetings following this one that would be specifically directed towards discussions on Senate reform, rather than trying to do it all on the April 30 meeting, but on a planned sequence of events that may culminate in two years of discussions to finalize this matter in a more formal way? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thought behind that suggestion. It is an option that some people have been discuss ing and putting forward.

The trouble with it is whether it's just an agreement to talk, then whether you get enough goodwill be hind that agreement to talk that it will lead to any meaningful reforms, and that's the judgment that would be necessary in any discussion of that option. I would hope that perhaps we could get something in a more concrete nature. You never know, of course, with these matters; maybe there are second and third steps. Because we're talking about a serious reform of some thing that currently seriously flaws the Canadian system of Par liament.

So while that option has been raised by some, it does n't appear to me at this stage to be one that is a satisfactory op tion at this time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. In terms of the April 30 meeting and any informal agreements that may be arrived at, would it be the intention of the Premier to bring any agreement -- or intended position of the government of Alberta -- back to this Legislature and that posi tion being presented through the Legislature by resolution for formal discussion? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, it's my belief -- and I'm pretty sure, but I'll check it further -- that we would have to bring any amendment -- and it would be my desire to in any event -- to the Canadian Constitution for debate in this Legislature. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, since the Premier is going to an historic First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution in two days, on Thursday, and since he does not know whether there is an agenda or what might be on that agenda if there is one, could he please give us some idea of how well his Triple E Senate negotiating strategy has been prepared in anticipation of this meeting two days from today? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, as I expressed to the hon. member, this is another informal meeting of first ministers.

It happens to be dealing with an issue of Quebec and the Constitution, in which we are asking that it be broadened so that we can discuss Senate reform. I have found at these informal meetings that agendas are not nearly as important as the goodwill and the in tentions of the participants. Therefore. Mr. Speaker, my discus sions with other Premiers and the Prime Minister lead me to be lieve that we will discuss the Quebec proposals and that there will be opportunity as well to discuss Senate reform. And as I said earlier, other Premiers may wish to raise such matters as fisheries and property rights. MR.

SPEAKER: Calgary Fish Creek, followed by Vegreville. Legal Profession MR. PAYNE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My question and sup- plementaries today will be to the Attorney General. I wonder if the Attorney General could comment to the House on the status of the progress of the review by his departmental officials of Victims of Law Dilemma representations to the effect that the Attorney General and the Law Society have not adequately dealt with their concerns and their financial losses associated with inappropriate or even illegal use of client trust funds by some Alberta lawyers. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the Law Society of Alberta is, of course, a body corporate which is comprised under legislation of this Assembly and is a self-governing profession. It's my understanding that the people involved in defalcations which have taken place relative to relationships with lawyers in other capacities than in the direct legal capacity have not been satis factorily resolved to some people in the province, but that really is a matter which must be left to the Law Society of Alberta to deal with those issues.

The Attorney General's department, of course, has taken action relative to charges where appropriate, and of course, convictions have resulted. Unfortunately, that does not result in restitution for the victims of those criminal

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 863 offences. I regret that very much, but that is a fact of law. But I do not consider it my prerogative really to advise the Law Soci ety as to who they should meet with or what action they should undertake relative to dealing with these people who have com plaints against their profession. MR. PAYNE: Mr.

Speaker, I recognize that under the relevant statutes the Attorney General's scope is perhaps somewhat limited, but given the public perception that the Law Society is not sufficiently open or that it is not adequately policing itself, would not the Attorney General agree there could be some merit in the Law Society meeting with Victims of Law Dilemma and conveying, at least on this member's behalf, that suggestion? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, once again this is getting into an area where I don't want it to be made to appear that as Attor ney General I am forcing upon a freestanding profession my views, but I do think it important to note that in recent years the legislation has been amended to provide for public repre sentation on the benchers of the Law Society, that in recent years as well the Law Society has undertaken more activities to inform the public of the role that they play in terms of dealing with the public and individual members of the Law Society.

I think some progress has been made, but, of course, as citizens of Alberta I would always urge upon a self-governing profession that they take great care in communicating with the public and individuals who've dealt with any of their individual members to be free and open in their communication. And I hope that the Law Society will undertake that, but I cannot order that to take place. MR. PAYNE: If I may be permitted a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I'm encouraged by and agree with the Attorney Gen eral's comment that "some progress has been made." I would agree that that's a very wholesome and healthy trend, and could I ask if the Attorney General would be prepared in the future to continue to take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves to ensure that that trend continues in Alberta? MR. HORSMAN: I have, Mr. Speaker, in the last year or less than a year that I've been Attorney General, had occasion to meet with the benchers of the Law Society.

That is a practice carried out by my predecessors, and I will continue to do that and to bring to the Law Society the concerns that have been ex pressed to me by members of the Assembly or members of the public who have been in touch with my office either by letter or by telephone. That I have undertaken to do and will continue to do. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Strathcona. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Will the Attorney General consider an amendment to the Legal Profession Act that would enlarge the number of lay benchers and ensure at the same time that they are broadly representative of society?

MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, that of course is a matter that has been under consideration, generally speaking, relative to the whole question of professions and occupations. And the experi ments which have been introduced by way of legislative changes, including that to the Legal Profession Act, have been very useful. I will take the hon. member's supplementary ques tion as a representation which I will discuss with the benchers at the next meeting I hold with them.

There is merit in terms of increasing the number of lay repre sentatives and, of course, to make sure that they're represented, and I think that would be wise to keep into consideration both in terms of the membership by way of sex, the representation by way of other occupations, and regional representation, which I think would also be significant in terms of providing a broadly based public participation in the profession. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, Calgary Buffalo. MR. CHUMIR: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I raised in the House recently a motion to set up a major public review of the legal system, and I wonder whether the Attorney General would advise the House as to his position of setting in motion such a review, including the need for changes in the Legal Profession Act to address concerns arising out of the Petrasuk case and other similar matters? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity yet of reading the debate that took place on that particular mo tion. I'm aware, of course, that it was and still remains on the Order Paper and that it might in fact come forward again for further debate.

If it does, I will certainly have read the previous debate and perhaps be in a position to be in attendance for any further debate on that particular motion. But I appreciate the representation that has been made by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo. MR. SPEAKER: Vegreville, followed by the Member for Calgary Buffalo. Agricultural Assistance MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mondays, of late, have come to be very sad days indeed for Alberta grain producers: last Monday with the announcement of the 20 percent decline in the initial prices paid to farmers and then yesterday with the an nouncement of the end to an 18-month moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosure actions.

Recognizing that Alberta has the highest percentage of FCC loans in arrears in Canada, some 21 percent, and recognizing that a number of our producers in Alberta are facing foreclosure actions through the provincial lending agency, the ADC, did the Minister of Agriculture consult with his federal counterpart on this action and make him aware of the additional hardship this places on our rural communities? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, we have had contact with offi cials within the Farm Credit Corporation within the province of Alberta, and they have led me to believe that when the moratorium was first placed, there was a possibility of some 100 foreclosures that could take place within the province of Al berta. During the period of the moratorium I understand that some 50 have been resolved; there are still 50 outstanding.

But they've also left me with the assurance that the last thing they would wish to do is to foreclose on the farming population, and they're going to do everything within their power to make sure that those farmers that are facing financial difficulties -- they're going to go that extra step to make sure that they do maintain their present farms. MR. FOX: Wishing and hoping is the kind of conservative eco

864 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 nomic strategy that got so many producers into trouble. Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the minister refused the suggestion made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the provincial govern ment make additional commitments of aid to our grain produc ers in light of the reduction in initial prices and refused to recon sider the elimination of the 23-cent-a-gallon increase in farm fuel to farmers. In light of yesterday's announcement, the lift ing of the moratorium on FCC foreclosures, will the minister reconsider those suggestions? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, as is traditional, the hon. mem ber is mistaken. It's not the economic policies of this govern ment that have caused the difficulties that our farmers are facing. It's the economic policies of the former federal Liberal/ NDP coalition that caused interest rates to exceed 20 percent. And because of those exorbitant interest rates the farming popu lation . . . MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister would like to sit down until there is a chance for the rest of us to hear what's going on. Minister of Agriculture. MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, it's obvious again, by their laughter today, the seriousness with which they take this diffi cult situation the agricultural sector is facing, and I find it despicable that they can laugh in the face of the difficulties that the agricultural sector is facing. I'm more than happy to outline again, as I did yesterday, the specific responses that we have outlined, the forthcoming support that we have given to the agri cultural sector and are going to continue to give.

Unlike the other parties we take this seriously, and we're going to do our level best to support the agricultural sector during this difficult period of time. MR. FOX: This minister and this government ought to spend a little less time looking in the mirror and feeling good about the past and more time looking out the window and feeling con cerned about the future. Last November. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. minister refused the suggestion of my colleague from Athabasca-Lac La Biche to implement a temporary moratorium on ADC foreclosures, at least until the report on the review of the role and mandate of that corporation was complete. We're waiting; we're waiting; we're waiting. Will the minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Vegreville. the Chair is also waiting. This is supplementary question time; you're now into the third sentence on this supplementary. Could we have the question, please. MR.

FOX: Will the minister, for the farmers of Alberta, com mit himself to a date as to when that report will be tabled in the Legislature? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I would only ask one thing, recognizing that the word courtesy is beyond the realm of under standing of the New Democratic Party: that they not judge us by their own very low standards when they do put these ques tions. Because it is obvious by the way that they do put them that they are judging us by their own gutter-wallowing, and we're quite frankly not about to get down to that low level. But we're more than happy. Mr.

Speaker, to give the com mitment that once we have the report in our hands, we're more than happy to make it available to all interested members. We don't dictate; the hon. member might like to dictate to various agricultural groups. We don't dictate. We asked them to do a job. Once that job is completed. I'm sure they will share with us the report. MR. FOX: I can hardly speak after that scathing attack. Mr. Minister.

Considering the 600 quarters that the ADC now holds and the some 300-plus quarters the FCC will have in their posses sion and the fact that it will be difficult to sell, will the minister give the farmers of Alberta and the rural communities which they support his firm assurance that this land will not be sold to any other than bona fide farmers of the province of Alberta? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, we're going to do our level best, as I have indicated on a consistent basis and as this government has indicated on a consistent basis, to support our agricultural sector.

I must say that I've always found -- and I recognize the hon. member doesn't wish to look to history at all to see how we can improve the future -- it so worth while to look at history so we can forecast and do a better job when we do look to the win dow of tomorrow. One only has to look at our past actions, and I'm more than happy to go through them. When drought af fected this province, this government was very forthcoming in their support. Whenever a disaster or a catastrophe has ever affected the agricultural sector, we've always been forthcoming.

If the hon. member would be willing to check the record, he would find that we've just indicated to him something that is very factual, and we're going to continue with that strong and legitimate support for the agricultural sector. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Stettler. followed by the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. A supplemental question to the minister. I wonder if the minister could outline for us some of the negative effects that the farm credit moratorium has had and the fact that moratoriums could very well create two classes of farmers. MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, that is part of the dilemma that we are facing, because we recognize that in the event that a moratorium is placed, the credit needs of those farmers could be drastically affected, to the extent that the traditional lending in stitutions might withdraw their financing to the farming popula tion. I'm sure that even the opposition members would agree that there isn't a consensus amongst the rural population as to whether we should place a moratorium or not.

We want to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that the credit needs of both our institutions and the financial institutions are as responsive as possible to the financial needs of agricul ture, and we're going to continue to do that. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I know that while the minister philosophizes with his back bench, there's a number of farmers being flushed down the drain. I wish he'd wake up on that, and he could stop it. Could the minister tell the House, Mr.

Speaker, what discus sions he's had with the federal Minister of Agriculture about what the FCC will be doing with the 232 square kilometres they've already foreclosed on? To the uninitiated that's 57,329 acres, or to the Premier, that's 573 golf courses. What is the

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 865 federal government going to do with that acreage? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm more than happy to make inquiries for the hon. member with our federal counterparts. As he is aware, and I've pointed out on a number of occasions, we're in a provincial Chamber here and not a federal Chamber. I don't know what they're going to do, but if the hon. member wishes me to make representations for him, I'm happy to. But it's noteworthy to come back to what I indicated earlier. It's because of that gentleman's party that interest rates escalated beyond 20 percent.

What has happened is that because of that not only the agricultural sector but the business sector is still hurting from the disastrous economic policies of the combined parties of the New Democrats and Liberals. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agricul ture. My concern is certainly the farmers that are going to af fected, but the timing of this announcement is very critical at this time in that the farmer should be in the field, but he can't go in the field if he's in a foreclosure procedure, which will occur with some 50 to 60 farmers under the present process.

Could the minister indicate from his discussions with federal officials or the federal minister what type of commitment will be made to allowing those farmers to proceed with cultivation and care of the land while foreclosure procedures or other discussions are occurring with those farmers in very difficult situations? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I can only underscore what I in dicated earlier. In our communication with the Farm Credit Corporation, they've left us with the assurance that they are go ing to do everything within their power to enable the farming population to continue.

Again, I can only stress that it's of no advantage to them to foreclose, and they've indicated that to us in a very forceful way. They want to do everything, and they're going to take that extra step to help the farming population, to allow them to continue with their farming operations. MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Calgary Buffalo and, if there is time, Calgary Forest Lawn. User Fees In the Public School System MR. CHUMIR: Okay. Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Educa tion.

User fees and other charges in schools are becoming an increasingly common feature in many systems across the province, particularly in the Calgary public school system. These fees threaten the principle of equal access to an education, particularly for children of lower income families, I was won dering whether the minister would advise as to what the govern ment's policy is with respect to the charging of such fees by in dividual school boards. MRS, BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the government's policy is clearly outlined in statute, and that is that no school board may charge what is a tuition fee but certainly may levy a fee for non- instructional items for the users within the system. MR. CHUMIR: What is the minister's position with respect to the Calgary school board's proposal to charge a fee of $250 per annum for busing and transportation for 2,000 bilingual students in the city of Calgary, which threatens equal access for lower income students? If the minister is not aware, perhaps could we have an undertaking to review that? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to note that there is no school board in this province of which I am aware that doesn't have a provision within their student fee pol icy to recognize the inability of some students to pay a fee. I would be pleased to look at the specific issue raised by the hon. member. If it is a matter of creating a tuition fee as opposed to a fee for noninstructional purposes. I would be prepared to review it. MR. CHUMIR: The Calgary board has also implemented a $25 per student resource fee for all junior high schools, which fee is presently structured to become part of the school budget.

What is the minister's position with respect to this form of school financing, which will likely leave schools in lower socioeconomic areas with lower budgets than in higher areas as a result of an inability to collect the same percentage of fees? And if the minister is unaware. would she undertake to review that matter as well? MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Question Period has ex pired. Do we have the unanimous consent to continue and com plete this set of questions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Hon. Minister of Education. MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the questioner continues to ask the government's position, I've outlined that position clearly as it is stated within legislation in the School Act, With respect to a user fee being imposed, I think it's interesting to note that there is a constant bringing up within this Legislature of an apparent or at least a measured inability of locally elected school trustees to make decisions within their own jurisdiction, I will certainly review whatever the hon. member wants me to review with respect to the Calgary school board, but I would underline that the Calgary school board -- and the people of Calgary elect a school board to share a partnership role with this province in delivering a system of education.

They are facing a difficult economic fiscal period, as we all are. They are attempt ing to meet the requirements of their own students and maintain the quality of education, and I applaud them for their efforts. MR. CHUMIR: Thank you. Will the minister undertake to this House to ensure that this form of fee. whether it goes beyond tuition fees or not beyond tuition fees, is not affecting and erod ing the concept of equal access to our public schools and turning these public schools into quasi private schools where wealthier students have greater access than do the children of lower in come families? MRS.

BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker. I will review if there is a move from a fee for noninstructional items to become a tuition fee, but I do not accept the allegation which the member is mak ing that there are differences between those who can pay and those who cannot. As I have clearly indicated, there is not one school board in this province of which I am aware that doesn't have some ability to allow for the student who is unable to pay a fee for noninstructional items. MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Some school boards have documents that require parents to sign a promise that they

866 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 will pay for books before books will be given to the children. Can the minister assure this Assembly that no children are de nied access to books and materials if parents cannot and will not sign this document? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, many school boards in this province assess fees for the use of textbooks. It is alternate to the requiring of parents to purchase those textbooks outright.

In fact, it is a saving mechanism for parents, and given that the province's provincial subsidy on textbooks remains the same this year over last, I will certainly look into the matter if the hon. member wishes to raise a specific with me. But certainly our support for textbooks and for subsidies for textbooks means that students have access to those textbooks at a far lesser amount than they would have to pay if they had to purchase them. MR. SPEAKER: Additional supplementaries? The time for question period has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous con sent of the Assembly to move the following motion under Standing Order 40. We have given you the notice ahead of time. The motion is that the Legislative Assembly supports an amendment to the Constitution which would ensure that there are a series of meetings of first ministers to deal with reform of the Senate. It is further resolved that the Legislative Assembly urges that Alberta's Premier discuss Senate reform with other first ministers and that he immediately seek a con stitutional amendment which would conclude Senate reform negotiation within two years. MR.

SPEAKER: Notice was given primarily to the House lead ers of the political parties. The Chair will have the motion dis tributed to the House and recognize that the member speak to the urgency aspect under Standing Order 40. MR. TAYLOR: Given, Mr. Speaker, that the first ministers' meeting on the Constitution is later this week and the Premier will likely not be in the House again prior to that conference, it is important that we consider this motion today.

Not only is the issue of Senate reform vital and urgent, as noted by the Premier himself recently at his party's policy conference, but it is impor tant that we provide him with the ammunition in the form of the backing of the entire Legislature so that he can go down to Ot tawa with that clearly on the record.

It is important that we take the bull by the horns, if you'll pardon the expression, and urge the Premier to seek a constitu tional amendment which would put into place a process for Sen ate reform negotiations similar to that put in place in the Consti tution in 1983 with respect to aboriginal rights. This is clearly an urgent matter. Mr. Speaker. The Premier and his party agreed that this was an urgent matter earlier in April, and if they now deny this motion, I would question their commitment to Senate reform. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 of this year . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the Chair has difficulty recog nizing the minister at this stage. The waiver of notice, Standing Order 40, by the

interpretation of the Chair only allows speaking to the urgency issue as being a matter for the member proposing to try to make the case there, and then the Chair must immedi ately ask whether unanimous consent is given to the House or not. All those in favour of giving unanimous consent for this is sue to be discussed, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: It fails. Orders of the Day has been called. Member for Edmonton Belmont. MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to request the unanimous consent of the Assembly to bring forward Mo tion 241 for debate at this time. If may speak to that particular request, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that today is the date that labour and the federal government have designated as In jured Workers' Day and that our Standing Orders are silent on the urgency of motions that are already on the Order Paper, thus my request for unanimous consent on this matter. MR. SPEAKER: A request has been made for an unusual pro cedure, for the House to bring forward a motion for discussion which is already on the Order Paper.

With respect, while Stand ing Orders of this House are silent on the matter, as pointed out quite correctly by the Member for Edmonton Belmont, in actual fact within the tradition of parliamentary process, unanimous consent could be given by the House to vary its own procedures. Therefore, this is a request for unanimous consent. Those in favour, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: The motion fails. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the questions and motions for returns on the Order Paper stand. [Motion carried] MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes to the House for a variance in procedure whereby we proceeded to the Member for Edmonton Belmont's concern before we dealt with the matters of questions and returns. Nevertheless, the procedure and deci sion stand. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 210. Moved by Dr. West:

Be it resolved that the government of Alberta consider estab

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 867 lishing a new mandate for Alberta senior citizens' lodges to provide nursing care where required, tinder the direction of the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, in order that these facilities be better utilized. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House. I have been waiting some three weeks to bring this motion for ward, and I thank them for their consideration a few moments ago so that the motion can come forth in order. Mr. Speaker, there are ever-growing problems developing in Alberta in relation to our senior care program surrounding the lodges.

I will preface my remarks by saying that these problems are greater in rural Alberta, especially in some of the areas where free-standing lodges have been built in locations with no other level of health care facilities. In my constituency there are ever-glaring examples of all the inequities of this system that prompted me to enter Motion 210. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] May I take the time now to congratulate those that worked on the report of the Health Facilities Review Committee, the discussion paper on senior citizens' lodges, of 1985 that ad dresses these concerns head-on.

At the same time, let me say that if reports and recommendations are not clearly and specifi cally acted on at once, then much is lost in the transition of time. Let us say that Motion 210 is intended to nudge along and speed up a direction well discussed already.

The mandate given to lodges by the legislation through The Homes for the Aged Act of 1959 was outlined in the foundation charter, stating this: that the purpose of lodges was to provide low rental ac commodation for elderly persons who are not suffering from any chronic disease or disability that incapacitates them to the extent of required specialized care. The property of the foundation shall be used only to provide such accommodations and recreational facilities, and other services necessary or desirable for the physical and mental well-being of elderly persons.

In reality, that mandate was to provide a dormitory with room and board for healthy, mobile seniors who come and go into society without dependence on anyone and yet no hassle for the upkeep of self-contained units or their own house. Under that mandate many of the early lodges were built with small rooms, little more than cubbyholes, with large spaces for com mon areas with recreational facilities. Although thought a posi tive direction at that time, it turns out that many of those with their small rooms and large, spacious recreation areas are out of vogue in light of today's longevity of our seniors.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the ever-changing reality of our statistics. There are 194,000 seniors now with life expectancies of 80-plus for females and 72-plus for males. By the year 2006 there will be in excess of 300,000 seniors with life expectancies for females of 85-plus and males of 75 to 78. There are many of the seniors in our lodges that have no inten tion today of being as mobile as their counterparts of ages 65 to 70 years back in 1959 when the mandate was founded.

There are 7,500 lodge beds with a 13 to 15 percent vacancy in this province, or roughly 1,000 beds empty in the wintertime, and in the summertime we can see as high as 1,200 of them open. The question of why or what is wrong always is asked. There are many reasons that when coupled together may give you that answer. Firstly, the life expectancies and health issues that go with those expectancies make the practicability of the 1959 mandate redundant. Many seniors are reluctant to stay in those lodges today with their age and with some of their prob lems without added care.

Secondly, home care with such programs as Meals on Wheels, et cetera, maintains individuals in self-contained units, apartments, manors, or their own homes much longer. The third reason we're redressing the emptiness of these beds: it therefore goes without saying that if you have home care, then the next assessment is likely bypassing the lodges and tiers them into nursing homes, auxiliary hospitals, or even active treatment beds.

The fourth reason could be related to the physical facilities, the dormitory style that has an environment that is very tough on seniors who are 85 to 90 years old and wish to stay in their rooms more than oft to entertain family and friends rather than the open hassle and loss of privacy of the large com mon areas. As well, many of these seniors have more personal belongings that they wish to keep in their rooms, and some of the older lodges cannot accommodate that at all.

The newer lodge designs are addressing this factor a bit now and are ex tremely beautiful in relationship to the physical facility, albeit a little sterile, as stated by many elderly seniors. So what do we see now in many of the lodges that I said ex ist in rural Alberta? We see empty beds. Yes, up to 50 percent in quite a few of the ones that I've seen, but coupled with that we also see many individuals the average age of 80 to 85, and in some lodges I've even seen average ages of 88, believe it or not.

These seniors need varying degrees of help with medication, diets, bathing, dressing changes, Aids to Daily Living, recrea tional aids, and help with such basic needs as even putting on some of their clothes. They are quite able to live independently in the lodge, but some of them have eyesight problems, memory problems, and some problems with mobility. Many, many of them years ago would have been in nursing homes or auxiliary care beds instead of the lodge.

They stay because they can either not find beds available in nursing homes or auxiliaries close to them and close to where their loved ones live, or per haps they are waiting for Motion 210 to get them nursing care right where they are and still keep a degree of that home en- vironment, that independence, instead of having to be institu tionalized for the next few years of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to look at perhaps a direc tional scenario that might exist.

A new mandate would take lodges -- some lodges, not all -- to become the first tier in a mul tilevel health care system including lodges, nursing homes, auxiliary care, and eventually to active treatment. The lodges requiring this type of direction now could implement personnel such as registered nurses or registered nursing attendants into the staff. Matrons hired in the future, so that there's no threat to matrons at the present time, could be considered to be registered nurses.

In doing this we would take a great deal of pressure off nursing homes that have people who shouldn't be in such high- cost beds, and at the same time the auxiliary and acute care bed problems in certain rural areas would be allowed to rationalize in order that individuals are not occupying health care beds in the wrong category at too high a cost. And I'm going to emphasize at this point, as I discuss this and debate it, Mr. Speaker, that I am not emphasizing or bring ing forth that we convert lodges to nursing homes, that we take them out of the category they're in.

They will still be funded as a lodge, with only the direction of that new added personnel, under Hospitals and Medical Care. I emphasize that, and I will

868 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 at the end again so that those departments that fear we're just going to convert these to nursing homes will be alleviated in their fears. Let's put this in terms of dollars versus the utilization of the beds to the taxpayers of Alberta. A lodge pencils out at a cost to the government, to the taxpayer, of $6.11 a day. A nursing home bed costs us $40 to $45 per day. An auxiliary bed costs the taxpayers between $100 and $115 a day. An acute care bed is a whopping $392 per day. These are averages.

In many areas of rural Alberta we have a lack of auxiliary and nursing home beds, but we do have throughout the province a thousand lodge beds sitting empty. At the same time, there are a great number of auxiliary patients in active treatment beds at $392 a day, and we have nursing home patients in auxiliary beds at a $100 a day cost to the government.

Allowing nursing care in lodges would lighten up the load on the other part of the health care system, especially in rural Alberta, and many nurs ing home beds could be properly used, as well as permitting availability for auxiliary patients to come back to nursing home beds when required. The costs would rationalize, and even with the added cost of nursing care in lodges it would not be as high as in nursing homes, especially as this tier system would use a degree of home care already available to lodges. No more lodge beds would be built outside of the multilevel health care concept in the future.

Many auxiliary beds are needed in rural communities as well as some direct nursing home beds, and as the system progressed, these needs could be addressed. For an example, just on an of fside, the cost to build a nursing home bed is roughly $65,000 to $75,000. An auxiliary bed is a whopping $100,000, and in some areas higher; that's to build one bed. I saw a 25-bed hospital progress report assessment, and it was $2.5 million, right on the nose, to build 25 beds.

So if you look at those dollars and, even at a conservative estimate, that 500 of those 1,000 beds empty out there could be used, it is a lot of money that could be better saved and used not only to renovate the existing lodges but also to build much-needed auxiliary beds in many areas, as stated.

When I referred a little earlier to the building of lodges in the future only in a multilevel care system, I look at Airdrie, at the Bethany centre, and note that they have built not only some nursing but some independent lodge beds around a clinic facility, a multilevel-type facility, at a $34,000 average, com pared to those beds I said, at $65,000 to $75,000 through the departments.

Lodges working under a multi-tier system under the new di rection of nursing care from the Hospitals and Medical Care de partment could address another inequity within the lodges as they sit in our health care system, namely this: Mr. Speaker, there are a tremendous number of boards that are creating a great deal of overlap out there. Home care, under its board, now operates within the lodge system and provides daily visits where necessary to change dressings, give insulin, take blood pres sures, check on medication, baths, et cetera.

Believe it or not, a recent report said that home care is addressing 65 percent of their time to giving baths in lodges, while the people working at the lodge are doing the medication and assisting with that them- selves already. But these home care people cannot provide 24- hour supervision, and many times they're not even asked to give assessment on an ongoing basis that may be achieved through long-term care committees of groups within a tier system.

Could we not envisage home care, lodges, nursing homes, and auxiliary hospitals under the same department's direction, under one individual committee assessing and delivering our senior care programs? "Why," you would say, "put it under one or two departments rather than the three or four we have now?" Well, due to the fact that any time you have more than one de partment that you have to change back and forth for com munications, you get increased bureaucracy, inconsistencies, lack of communication, and plain mistakes.

At the present time, in some areas there are four boards trying to get it all together: home care, lodges, auxiliary and nursing homes, and hospitals. Another area is that the nursing homes, auxiliary, and hospi tals are grouped together, cutting down one department. However, if you could get reduction of these boards by even one in some areas, you would be doing something. The number one advantage would be to prevent empire building and alleviate the need to have all beds full 100 percent of the time to meet your budgets.

Such concerns that we have with day care or respite care could be better addressed under this system, as the boards would not be so concerned with 100 percent occupancy for budget requirements. Mr. Speaker, so often in lodges the board and matrons have a priority to keep the beds as full as possible, which is related di- rectly to funding. Ofttimes they have no health care background and struggle with making decisions economically, therefore tak ing nursing home and auxiliary patients, knowing full well the inequities of that mandate we discussed earlier.

Helping these boards with transition to nursing care and lodges would address their problems in this area. With amalgamation you would also address another area, in having a long-term assessment committee. I am happy to see what is going on in the way of a two-year pilot project in southern Alberta. Through the co-operation and involvement of local boards, the interdepartmental committee on long-term care is testing a model for co-ordinated assessment and placement services for long-term care.

The two pilot areas are the Foothills Health Unit in Calgary, the area covered by the Calgary Auxiliary hospital and nursing home district No. 7, now called Carewest. The period of testing is two years, 1986 to 1988. A single point of entry, one point of contact within the area for long-term care services, is the objective. It is felt that this greater co-ordination will reduce confusion for older people and their families and eliminate duplication that now exists and ensure that all options have been explored in providing older people with appropriate help. Mr.

Speaker, I can see a future where this would even help in such areas as my constituency with our lodges. These commit tees would also alleviate the problem with empire building and prevent the improper capital building of lodge beds when in ac tual fact it was auxiliary beds that were needed in certain areas. We have seen in the past where blatantly, without communica tion, lodge beds were built right in strong view that the hospital and nursing home areas and that sort of thing needed auxiliary beds, but the money was put into lodge beds and just stayed empty. It was an unbelievable empire-type situation.

Improved communications between all departments would have prevented some of the building of some of these lodges and added beds and cut down the poor utilization, just as I'd stated. With lodges under a new mandate with nursing care, we would have better co-ordination of the services without the com petition that is being seen at the present time. We could address such things as dietitians, laundry service duplications, physiotherapists, recreational directors, and so forth.

With the multilevel tier system suggested, under one or two boards and under one department's direction, we would see better utiliza tion of our dollars and a commonsense approach to multilevel

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 869 care of our seniors, including those in lodges at the present time that are falling through the cracks. Mr. Speaker, having said that part of the debate, the consen sus at the present time would probably say that certain lodge foundations can go ahead and utilize nursing care -- I've heard this stated -- if they so wish.

And I think if you ask any depart ment involved here, that with the previous discussions and re view panels' reports, they would say, "Certainly, this is a posi tive direction." The foundations find a solution; unfortunately, some of the boards out there and lodges at the present time can not get there from here. They would like to do some renova tions and to perhaps implement nursing care but are having trouble in two or three areas. One is that some of the lodges are very old, built under a concept with narrow hallways, small rooms, perhaps improper bathing equipment and aids to daily living.

They would be willing to do renovations and changes within their lodges but run up against departments who say that they must address the 1985 nursing home standards and codes in capital construction. The costs are alarming, and the funds are not available for this type of conversion. They don't want to be nursing homes; they just want to do some moderate renovations but look for funding in that direction. Many of the boards feel that if they were allowed to imple ment minor changes without having to address the absolute of the codes, they could function very well.

After all, lodges are not nursing homes and could be addressed under the same premise as one's private home, that it is adequate for people who should be in nursing homes but under home care are able to stay in their own homes. Therefore, we don't request that a pri vate home meet the standards of nursing home construction, and I don't see why lodges have to either, under the same concept.

Secondly, many of the lodge boards are left high and dry in relationship to hiring nursing care people, registered nurses, or registered nursing attendants, and are not getting any clear-cut direction either through funding or their level of responsibility for taking such a direction. We would certainly like to see more flexibility, Mr. Speaker, and clear-cut directions given to those lodges that are in trouble today. Going back to the point about funding. We certainly see ar eas where it would almost be cheaper to bulldoze down existing lodges than to do the renovations under the codes the way they are today.

There certainly must be a compromise on this posi tion. Mr. Speaker, I guess two words are "flexibility" and "common sense." This is what a lot of people running some of our systems such as the lodges are looking for today. I have enjoyed very much doing the research and looking into the sen ior health care system. I can see that there is progress being made by the government and individual departments, and I con gratulate each and every one of them for working on those projects.

In closing I would like to say that all departments and all Albertans involved in working on these various boards and com mittees do so without confrontation. There's a great deal of paranoia out there in every department and every board that this sort of progress or any insinuation that we do what I just said in Motion 210 is going to hurt them in some way or affect their empires or affect their department. There is really no need for any one area to feel intimidated by change that is considered positive and worth while.

With the ever-increasing gray zone that is coming by the year 2000, those individuals already work ing within this system in various departments would certainly be utilized in a rationalized system that addresses the needs of to day versus 1959. They don't have to fear that they'll be closed down. There'll be openings for them within the system, and they don't have to put up those walls to protect themselves against the change.

I must emphasize that by no way does Motion 210, again, insinuate that we have to convert lodges to nursing homes and therefore change the cost and designation of the physical plant from Municipal Affairs and housing. The occupant would still pay the lodge level of dollars, and the physical lodge would alter its mandate only to allow nursing care, directed for some of the cost sharing and supervision from the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care. Home care would actually be freed up.

If you're looking at rationalizing dollars, home care would actually be freed up to cover a broader area where it was meant to be -- out in the pub lic domain -- and would address future needs at lesser costs that would occur at greater institutionalization of our seniors. So home care would have more availabilities, service areas outside of the single dwellings -- manors, et cetera -- to go to the homes.

I mean that they would have a greater access outside of the lodges that would free up those nurses to go to the individual homes, and therefore the dollars that we're pumping into home care at our time would go further. Our existing lodges in rural Alberta would definitely be better utilized and would be a bene fit to all under this system. To all other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, who have brought up and discussed various aspects of senior care in this House recently, I congratulate you and encourage you to continue a positive attitude towards solutions such as discussed in Motion 210 today.

And I sincerely ask that you consider passing this motion today. MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, It is certainly a privilege to rise and speak to the motion made by my colleague for Vermilion- Viking. Motion 210. My colleague did a very thorough job in addressing the issues of lodges and emphasizing the problems and the new mandate that this law should take. As a past mem ber of the Health Facilities Review Committee I've had the op portunity to travel throughout the province and visit many of the lodges.

During these visits I became very aware of the various inequities within the lodges that my colleague just mentioned. Some of the rural areas have lodges with long waiting lists, and others are half full with no waiting lists, as my colleague mentioned. My curiosity and interest in this area led me to expand my visits as an MLA throughout Calgary and the rural area sur- rounding Calgary. It was very interesting to listen to all the municipality board members and their views on their own lodges. Each has its own uniqueness and idiosyncrasies.

Some are adjacent to self-contained units, some are free standing, and some are near active treatment hospitals. I spent many hours talking to staff, residents, and visitors in these lodges, and even managed a meal or two, which I didn't really need. Each lodge had a special sense of pride, and they all had one thing in com mon: their client -- the senior citizen. Many of the seniors have been in the lodges since they opened. Many seniors, and per haps 10 percent of the residents in the lodges, have been as sessed for nursing homes.

The foundation made up of local participating municipalities is responsible for the operation and financing and any operating deficits for lodges within its jurisdiction. These lodges today, 20 years later, have not changed this mandate. They provide room and board, laundry service, and light housekeeping to the seniors. All have a central dining room and central lounge, with

870 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 some recreational areas. Most of these lodges are around 45 to 65 beds. There are 6,767 lodge beds in Alberta, and the average cost per day is $19.81. The average deficit is $6.11 per day. Since 1970 the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation has in vested over $150 million in lodges. The average vacancy rate is 11.9 to 14 percent in rural areas and roughly 8 percent in Calgary and Edmonton. The time has come where the mandate for these lodges must be examined.

Most recently the Health Facilities Review Committee recommended changes in the lodges and their mandate, and the most significant change would be to provide a form of nursing care, as my colleague already mentioned. It appears that the average age of a citizen in the lodge is 88 years. Residents require supervision and assistance with their medication. They require routine blood pressure checks, nutri tion and hygiene advice, and just general assistance, general evaluation of their specific needs.

It has been stated by the Health Facilities Review Committee that the current home care program provides excellent care and services to the lodges. However, it is not an ongoing service. The time that the nurses spend in these lodges could be spent in the outlying areas, spe cifically in the rural areas. It appeared from my observation as well that there is a defi nite need for some full-time nursing care; however, only light care, as has already been mentioned -- an RNA, perhaps, super vising medication, nutrition, and hygiene.

A program activities person, already available in some lodges, has proven to be very successful. Lodges that provide ongoing activities do appear to be the popular lodges. This certainly would not take away from the mandate of nursing homes. Nursing home residents are already now requir ing heavier care, and long waiting lists are occurring there. The lodges appear to require additional medical service. The ones that need additional medical services have no nursing home in the area, and each area would probably have to be evaluated on its needs. [Mr.

Musgreave in the Chair] Day programs and respite care could also be an avenue lodges could conceivably adopt. The housing planning secretariat, in conjunction with Alberta Mortgage and Housing and the Senior Citizens' Homes Association, is conducting a thorough review of lodge program policy. The review will fo cus on a number of major programs and policy issues facing the lodges. A shift in the role of lodges could have considerable impact on other institutions, shelter, and home delivery services. Long-term care services are a part of one system because they serve one client, and that is the senior.

There is a need for co-ordination in long-term care planning, and the lodges are part of this system. In the past lodges and nursing homes were planned, approved, and built independently of any formal inter departmental consultation. With the number of senior people expected to increase, especially now, at a time of restraint in provincial spending, it is necessary to ensure effective use of our current and future resources. The goal is to provide services that ensure equity and balance in a fee structure. It is my belief that the new long-term care committee that I chair will stream line this process.

The committee should address the needs of the seniors in the community and keep up with the demands and, more important, address the overlap within the departmen tal policies, as my colleague has already mentioned. I'm looking forward to this motion being passed, thus giving direction to the committee to improve the quality of living for our seniors in lodges. I commend my colleague for this motion and support it wholeheartedly. Thank you. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Bow Valley. MR. MUSGROVE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I would like to make a few comments on Motion 210: having nursing care in our senior citizens' lodges. I'd like to congratu late the Member for Vermilion-Viking for again bringing this to our attention. It has been discussed in this House before, but with our always changing scene for senior citizens, we certainly have to keep on top of this type of a program. First I would like to bring to your attention a bit of history that I've experienced as it relates to lodges. Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Newell Foundation board from 1966 to 1979. I was the chairman from 1970 to 1979.

To start with, there was a 50-bed lodge in Brooks, called Newbrook Lodge, which was built in 1962. In 1966 there was an occupancy rate of about 35 residents in the summertime and about 45 to 48 people in the winter. This shows a bit of the mobility of the people that were using the lodge at that time. Some folks moved into the lodge in the winter and then moved back home in the summer. Some of them actually went back home and farmed over the summer and spent their winters in the lodge.

Within a few years the lodge was filled to capacity, and there was a waiting list of about 15 people requesting a bed in the lodge. At that point we applied and were granted a 10-bed addi tion to the lodge, which was filled right away. We then, after having taken a proper survey, applied and were granted a 44-bed lodge in Bassano. The same year the Newell Foundation board, in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Legion, asked for some self-contained units in Brooks. The self-contained units were such popular accommodation for senior citizens that there was a continual request for additions.

There are now 110 self- contained units in Brooks, eight in Bassano, as well as units in a number of other surrounding villages and towns. The 44-bed lodge in Bassano was built in 1976 and has never been filled to more than half its occupancy. The self-contained units were so popular that it also reduced the demand in the Brooks lodge to about 60 percent occupancy. The age of the residents in the lodge has now risen dramatically, so that now the population of the lodges are people who no longer want to or are able to look after their daily needs.

We have matrons hand ing out pills and medication to residents in the lodges who can no longer be depended on to take their medication on their own. Some forget to take their medication; others forget that they have taken it and take it over again. It has to be kept in the se curity of the matron. We do get home care, and they come in semiweekly to bathe people who are no longer able to look after their own bathing needs, and any other services offered under the home care program are offered in the lodge. Particularly, home care is useful where there are diabetics that are taking insulin.

The home care nurse can fill several needles, seal them, and leave them with the matron, who then hands them out on

schedule to be administered by the persons themselves in the lodge, or else the matron has to administer the insulin herself. The matrons are concerned about the legality of this. Are they taking a position of a nurse, and are they quali fied to do that? Both the lodge in Brooks and the one Bassano

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 871 are in very close proximity to the hospital. Now here's where we run into jurisdictional problems. Lodges are under the jurisdiction of Alberta Housing, hospitals are under the jurisdiction of Hospitals and Medical Care, health units are under community health, home care is under Family and Community Support Services, and these people have the most flexibility. However, in the case of the Brooks lodge in particular, all those services are less than a block away.

It would seem to me a small hardship for any one of these services -- namely the hospital, health unit, or home care program -- to supply a nurse for whatever time each day it would take to ad minister medication and check those patients who have identi fied a need. We had some problems originally in getting the matrons of the lodges to accept home care; there was a jurisdic tional problem there. Those problems seem to be in the past, however, and now home care is readily accepted in the lodges. In Bassano, as I have said, the 44-bed lodge has never had more than 50 percent occupancy.

Bassano hospital was in very serious need of some extended care beds for the last several years. Last summer, in conjunction with the Bassano hospital board and with some discussion with the Newell Foundation board we attempted to take one wing of the lodge in Bassano and make it into extended care beds. It was an ideal situation because the lodge itself is built in four wings with 11 beds in each wing. It would have been relatively simple to close off one wing and make it into an extended care accommodation. However, we ran into some problems.

The lodge is under the jurisdiction of Alberta Home Mortgage, and the nursing care wing would be under the jurisdiction of Hospitals and Medical Care. Both have a different set of building standards, staffing standards, and administration standards. This made it look like an impossible situation. Arrangements now are under way to solve the extended care beds in Bassano hospital, so we are no longer looking at that. There are now two patients from Bas sano in the Brooks nursing home who are quite mobile and only need medication or therapy daily.

If there was nursing care in Bassano lodge, these people could stay in the lodge with only the minimum need of a nurse to look after them. There are two financial aspects to be looked at also. One is that if these people are in the lodge, it would be less expensive accommodation in the nursing home and could probably free up a bed in the nursing home for someone who is in an active-care bed that could be in the nursing home. This again would be sav ing some money. The other aspect is that our lodges are now running at 50 percent occupancy but have to be staffed as if they were operating at full occupancy.

The income from the oc cupancy that could probably be increased by having a nurse at the lodge, at whatever portion of the day necessary, would prob ably allow the occupancy rate to rise, and that of course would pay for the nurse being in the lodge. Mr. Speaker, we're in a different area now than we were in 1962 or 1977, and we should be able to move according to the times. I recommend that we support and pass this resolution. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Ed monton Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased to see this resolution and hear the hon. member's comments about it.

I think he has quite accurately described a situation that is a very familiar one to me, and one on which I've spoken in this House on a number of occasions. I see many of his comments and suggestions here as being compatible and complementary with some of the ideas that I have put forward as well. Mr. Speaker, most of us are very familiar with the seniors' lodges that have been developed through the province that allow seniors affordable housing with some other supports, giving an opportunity for semi-independent living.

Lodges also ensure a buddy system, and that becomes increasingly important with the aging process. I wish we could get more of them operational through seniors' organizations, which have been quite effective in many municipalities in the province to check on people every day. But lodges automatically offer the buddy system, and they provide other very essential activities -- opportunities for socializing, for recreation -- to destroy or to at least alleviate the fear and anxiety that many seniors suffer as their health may not seem what it should be and their energy deteriorates.

And they certainly go a long way to alleviating loneliness. The lodges I've been familiar with have been excellent institutions for the most part, providing special events usually well-related to the community in which they exist, with matrons that are experi enced and thoughtful people, warm people, who care very deeply about their residents. I've been associated in a number of instances, Mr. Speaker, with assisting lodges to get better transportation services through public transit relocation of bus stops and so on.

It seems a very simple requirement to most of us, but to a senior who has to walk a block in inclement weather it may preclude all of their social contacts and contacts with family, oppor tunities for community involvement, and opportunities for in volvement with their church. No question, Mr. Speaker, that we have to think about their need for health care as well in lodges, I'm talking not just about illness care; I'm talking about health care, the need for proper nutrition and exercise that should be available in all of these kinds of institutions for seniors at different levels of their requirements. Mr.

Speaker, I think as well that what the hon. member is suggesting is a methodology by which residents in lodges could access minimal treatment, medication, and referral to other sources as necessary, foot care and other types of minimal treat ment that would reassure them. I'm aware through a number of family contacts with several private organizations that offer sen iors accommodation where nursing services are in fact available.

Nursing aides or assistants provide care for a fee as a rule: medications to the forgetful, assistance with bathing, with dress ing and making sure their teeth and hair are done, things that to us seem everyday but which are very important in their self- esteem. These private seniors' residences appear to have bridged the gap in quite a positive way and are able to accom modate seniors with minimum health problems or handicaps that wouldn't likely be able to stay in a lodge under present cir cumstances.

Now, I recognize that the private accommodation is only available to those who can afford it, and I see this motion as being an effort to level that disparity and make this type of service available to those whose financial circumstances may not be quite as healthy. Mr. Speaker, I would hope too, if this review does occur, that in fact other uses for lodges would be considered at the same time.

I've long been a proponent of adult day care, and I recog nize that there are seniors' lodges that have excellent facilities at their disposal that could possibly, with minimum changes, ac commodate day care in their neighbourhood, in their town or city or in the quadrant of the city. [some applause] I'm glad to see there's support for that notion. I think it's one that is over due in our considerations.

872 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 Also, the same line of thinking is the relationship to day hospitals. This is not a new type of program for the hand icapped and those needing treatment in our communities. Un fortunately, we have not been able to move as swiftly in this province into the provision of day hospitals as some of us would have liked to see, but it seems to me at the same time this is be ing considered we might just give some extra consideration to where that component fits into the whole system.

As has al ready been mentioned, respite services could also be incorpo rated into this kind of change in our lodge mandate. There's no question that lodges are not fully utilized, particularly in rural Alberta, and that there are grave inequities from lodge to lodge in the age and the comfort level that the lodge is able to afford. I would like to ask, however, of the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker -- I wasn't sure if it was his intent that there should also be consideration given to removing the jurisdiction from the foundations of the operation of the lodges, and perhaps he will comment on that if he makes any closing remarks. I didn't read it that way, but just for our clarification, I'd like to know pre cisely what the intent is. I was relieved to hear his remarks about boards and departments and the lack of communication that result in costs and the difficulties encountered by applicants.

It's reassuring to hear the member seek a more rational system and a sensible approach to building regulations and renovations. But perhaps he would just comment on whether that in his mind would necessitate a change in the total mandate as to under what jurisdiction lodges will continue to be operated. The member has stressed, and I agree, that we're not talking about hospitals here; we're not talking about nursing homes.

Care must be exercised not to turn our lodges into this type of institution but to keep our minds on protecting the independent living accommodation, hopefully extended by the provision of a preventive health service, first of all, to allow seniors the safety of advice and minimum treatment and, where possible, proce dures that could be done safely within the lodge without the in convenience, the hardship, the trauma of hospitalization unless it's absolutely necessary. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest, too, that this type of move, positive as it seems to be, needs to be negotiated with municipalities, with the foundations, and with the residents in lodges to determine whether or not this is the type of activity and change they would like to see. I think we've got to be care ful to bring in all of the actors when we're contemplating a change of this kind. Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken at length on a number of occasions about my perception of the need for integrated health care for seniors and disabled -- the one-stop intake type of service -- and I see what's being proposed here as one more piece in the spec trum of services to the elderly of our province. We certainly must stay in the forefront, be as innovative as we possibly can. I would hope that it does meet approval.

In reviewing the motion as put forward, I had some concerns that it was going to be lodged in hospitals and health care as op posed to community health, and I'm not sure I understand the rationale for that. Perhaps the hon. member would speak at fur ther length about why he has . . . I do understand that he wants to see fewer gaps between departments and that that would be a move in the right direction, but I'm not certain why he chose hospitals and health care as opposed to community health, and perhaps he could speak to that.

I would of course like to see several of our departments that deal with the same constituency amalgamated and blended into one. But I do hope it meets the approval of the House, because I see it as a provocative step, a step that will move towards com prehensive options and single-entry intake in placement and will provide a better and more comprehensive service to seniors, and I will support it, Mr. Speaker. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Ed monton Centre. REV. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to add my voice to those commending the member for bringing forward this motion and the intent behind it being very honourable, but such an intent and such an area of serious con cern as our care for our elderly is one that I think needs a bit more critical thought than has been given so far. and I would like to add a few more critical reflections upon the motion and its intention. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] For one, it seems that the member himself is admitting that the recommendation was made a couple of years ago and very little has been acted upon it. I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, but it seems to me that if it is of such value and such importance, de spite this revolt on the back bench it should be on the front benches; it should be something that is government policy al ready, being implemented long before this, and so in that sense is far overdue. If the member wants to in fact carry up on a number of recommendations that have been made which have great merit, he might also look at the recommendation the Health Facilities Review Committee has made that is of great merit.

He should look also at some of the recommendations the Hyde report made, one of which is that the Health Facilities Re view Committee should be scrapped altogether. I don't know if members have missed recommendation 23 that in fact states that at present the Health Facilities Review Committee is way over burdened and should not have a government MLA on it or chair ing it.

I don't know if the Member for Cypress-Redcliff is aware of this, or the minister to whom the committee reports, but it seems to me that a lot of recommendations have been made which could vasty improve our care for our elderly which, as I say. Mr. Speaker, is of such great concern to us. There continues to be this slowness, this idleness, this very dinosaurian approach to improvements in the system that this government has. Nonetheless, in terms of lodges. Mr.

Speaker, again it seems everyone is talking about the fact that we have this system and we have a number of lodges around the province which are so underutilized. Well, who planned them in the first place? Who planned the hospitals and the nursing homes, the auxiliary care hospitals and the lodges? And with what foresight did they plan these? How is it that we now sit in 1987 and have various num bers of government departments doing all this great work with all this great money and so poor in co-ordination?

So now we have a number of acute care hospitals that are underutilized in rural Alberta and we have a number of lodges that are underutil- ized and have high vacancy rates. Mr. Speaker, again I think it points to the mismanagement of the whole health care system of the government of the last 14 to 16 years that we have come to such a date as today and find our selves in such a quandary. Now again. I commend the member for bringing this forward, and others have spoken to it to say we need to help to improve this system. And looking at the lodges is one that needs some instant improvement, as it's going to de

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 873 velop a continuum of care rather than the haphazard develop ment which has been the hallmark of our care for health and for our elderly. There has been a preference for institutionalizing too much anyway. We know that seniors in our province are the most institutionalized of any in the civilized world. There is a preference for the acute; we tend to want to spend a lot of money and a lot of time and energy in debate around fancy hos pitals and high-tech treatment.

But this, as the member said, very low cost, very affordable, very cost-efficient housing has been neglected to our peril. So the alternatives that have been outlined in the Health Fa cilities Review Committee's recommendations of a couple of years ago are ways to help to look at this vacancy problem, and again I think they're commendable. We need to look at better respite care. Day care has been mentioned, and even some shared home accommodation.

So when we look at the alterna tive in the motion of increasing the nursing component — indeed, I might even question some of the medical components of care -- it is an important consideration and is long overdue. The quality of care that it will provide is, I think, unques tionable. Moreover, I think it would help to enable seniors to stay in their locales with their families and friends in the neigh bourhood instead of being shifted off for the nursing care that's available in auxiliary or acute care hospitals. So it has many advantages.

I'm wondering, though, whether the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care or the Minister of Community and Occupa tional Health -- whoever -- or other cynics might complain, "Well no, there's just going to be another add-on; this is just going to cost the system more money" and, "You know, we have to balance the budget, we have to reduce health care costs, and this is just going to be another add-on like I've heard home care is just another add-on. It's going to cost us money; we're not going to save on the institutional side. It's going to increase utilization.

You know, you give them more nurses and they're going to find out more things that are wrong with them. They're going to refer them to more doctors, and the doctors are just go ing to generate more of the turnstile medicine that we have." That in fact, instead of providing nursing care as is appropriate, it could well be argued that it's just going to generate an expan sion of the costly health services that we have too much of al ready. So many say, including the minister, that we have to cut back at every turn.

Well, I feel with the member and others who have spoken that in fact this kind of measurement looked at more critically has some very cost-effective and quality-of-care measures to it and needs to be pursued with vigour. Administratively, of course, it is a mine field. As members have cited already, you consider three, four, or five different boards all in the same town, all having competing interests in developing their own little empires.

How you're ever going to get them to work to gether and co-ordinate in terms of delivery of service and co ordination of care and reduce the level of bureaucracy that's there when they've been set up and mandated, I don't know. It just seems to be something that we might have some vision of goodwill around. It needs a lot more pushing than has gone on heretofore. Then we get into the whole level of nursing care. I don't know about hon. members, but I tell you that there is no easy definition or generic quantity of what it is when you talk about nursing care or providing nursing services.

You might go down to the AARN convention at the end of this week and see the va riety and diversity of nurses and nursing care, nursing back grounds and nursing orientations. There are nurses that have a certain background in institutional settings. Are those the kind of nurses we want in the lodge setting? Those who are going to know what it is to preserve institutional life?

Or do we want nurses that are going to have a bias toward home care, nurses that have been trained in the community, that know the commu nity resources, that might in fact enable someone to bring in other resources they hadn't thought of before to the lodge and help them manage their care in a more preventive fashion?

Are these nurses going to be specialized, as the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar has said, in terms of diet and nutrition, or are they going to be nurses that have specialized in medication and drugs -- we see how overdrugged and overmedicated our elderly often are -- or are they going to be nurses that have some experience and expertise in rehabilitation? Are they going to be RNs? The member said it would be nice to have an RN. Or is he really saying they are going to be RNAs? Or are there going to be nursing assistants with not a lot of background or formal training at all?

What about the Victorian Order of Nurses? What's the role for them? Are they going to be able to have some sense in this new piece of the pie? We talked about the single-entry model, but I still would like to talk about the discharge model. It looks as though this system is looking at admitting people to a lower level of care in reduc ing them down from acute care to auxiliary nursing, and nursing home back down into lodges. That's laudable, but who is going to make those assessments and diagnoses?

Who's going to say from someone in a nursing home, "No, we're not going to com pete with you, but we do think you could probably be well man aged in a lodge"? So we tell the nursing home operators and people that no, we're going to discharge them and move them down a level, because there's now nursing care available in the lodge. Who's going to make those kinds of diagnoses and as sessments and manage the reduction in terms of their place ment? Is there going to be this bias toward home care and to ward lower levels of care among the nurses we're talking about?

So this sense of one department or one bureaucracy which is going to develop, direct, and deliver the services, to have that sense of vision, which many of us have spoken of, that is one that needs to work together toward a more holistic or more co ordinated continuum of care -- if the member is really serious about not creating confrontation in the system, it's one that I submit is going to have to be done with consultation with those in the system.

Now, I didn't hear him refer that he had the support of home care nurses in this or that he had the support of the AARN or any other group of nurses he had talked to. It seemed to me that if we're going to avoid confrontation, we're going to avoid just dropping it on top of them and saying.

"By the way, we've de veloped this new system in the Legislature, and this is the way you're going to have to deliver nursing care." Or is it one that's come from the grass roots, that has been discussed with all the various sides of the nursing profession and those who deliver nursing services, as well as those at the board and administrative levels, as well as those in government, and have it work its way up through the system so they have some sense of ownership and involvement in the progress of the new direction?

I would submit that if it's just going to be something we've developed here and imposed on them, then that's when the con frontation is going to occur. In fact, I'd submit that in terms of the way Hospitals and Medical Care has generally been admini stered in this province, people do feel a sense that it's been im posed, that decisions are made far away from their real life ex

874 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 periences in the hospital or in their health care settings. I had some points about doctors and the medical component. You know, we talk about nursing care that's available. What about specialized geriatric care? Geriatric care whether it's of a nursing quality or medical quality is at a premium.

As hon. members have said, prevention is the key, but how many doc tors, how many nurses can go into a lodge and help improve the health status of those in the lodges anyway, so that they could prevent or detect early some problems and avoid further institutionalization, avoid further medical problems? It's nice again to talk about the fact that we want to implement this, but you know, all you good Conservatives know the laws of supply and demand. The demand might be here, but where is the sup ply?

Do we really have the supply of good geriatric nursing, good geriatric doctors who can help improve the system as it's so needed? As I say, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am with the members in terms of the direction of this motion and the recommendation of the Health Facilities Review Committee as it's been laid out in its three recommendations. I think that with enough vision and with enough political will this can come to pass and should come to pass yesterday.

But it seems to me that if we are going to continue as this government wants to -- it seems to want to continue only in terms of balancing the health care budget or getting the votes of prospective voters and not primarily to look at the quality of care and continuum of care that's needed for all Albertans, particularly elderly Albertans -- then this motion may well fall flat in the political will of the day and in the political reality of the next few years; that is, until a new government is formed in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Red Deer South. MR.

OLDRING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise at this time to speak in support of Motion 210. I always welcome the opportunity of being able to address in this Assem bly the needs and concerns of senior citizens. I want to thank and to compliment the Member for Vermilion-Viking for bring ing forward the motion and sharing with us some very real and legitimate concerns facing senior citizens today.

The Member for Vermilion-Viking and all the speakers' comments on this motion today indicate that they obviously share the compassion and sensitivity for seniors that this government has demon strated over the years. Mr. Speaker, almost 13 years ago now I was first appointed to the board of directors of the then Twilight Lodge Foundation. The Twilight Lodge Foundation or the Twilight Lodge was a senior citizens' complex and was one of the earlier lodges built by this province and administered by the municipality. As I say, I had the pleasure of being appointed to the board approximately 13 years ago. Mr.

Speaker, my first walk through that lodge was a most humbling experience for me. It revealed a facility that I could take no pride in. to be very blunt. In fact, I was shocked by what I witnessed that day. It was a typical institution of the times: cold linoleum floors, barren walls; they were that anemic green colour halfway up. and they were topped off with that nice pale yellow. They were crowded facilities. There were up to three and four men or women to a room. There were com mon washrooms and showers just down the halls -- no privacy, but just a short walk down the hall.

There were cold, callous, institutionalized regulations: "No, you can't have a teakettle in your room; we couldn't allow that. No, you can't have a toaster in your room; it might be dangerous. We couldn't allow that." Senseless regulations, Mr. Speaker. Imagine what this did for the morale of the seniors that were living there. Prior to moving into the lodges, these seniors often had to sell or auction off all of their belongings. A lifetime worth of collections, wedding presents 50, 60, and 70 years old, personal furnishings filled with years of memories. "No, you can't bring your own bed into the facility.

No, you can't bring that special chair with you. No, you can't even rearrange the furnishings that are there": a cold, callous, calculated institution was what welcomed seniors at that time, Mr. Speaker. But interestingly enough seniors of that day didn't protest. They didn't run to government demanding more. They did what they always do. They took it all in stride and made the best of it. They made the best of it, and couldn't we learn from that attitude today, espe cially my generation, the "me" generation, the takers? Too quickly we turn to government for everything.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if only we could learn to make the best of what we have and do a little more for ourselves? We can learn a lot from our seniors today if only we would learn to listen and to pay at tention to the very good and sound advice they so willingly give and share. I know I have sure appreciated the help and assis tance and advice extended to me over the years by seniors in my constituency. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that we have come a long way in this province since my first walk through that institution. We now have senior citizens' lodges.

Through the leadership of this government, through the efforts of local municipalities, and through the efforts of many caring Albertans we now have lodges that we can be proud of. I personally, as a director, wit nessed the total renovation of the lodge I referred to earlier. It now has private rooms with private baths, current colour schemes, fireplace, games rooms, crafts rooms, workshops, and we put some compassion and some humaneness into the regula tions. The adjustment from a home full of memories to a small room in a lodge is traumatic enough without excluding provi sions for some personal effects.

We now have those provisions. We now have provisions for personal furnishings in the room, and yes, they can even make that cup of tea before they go to bed, Mr. Speaker, in their own room. I witnessed not only the refurbishing of that particular lodge, but I also had the privilege of sitting on a building committee for the Pines senior citizens' lodge in the constituency of Red Deer North.

I also witnessed the construction of some of the finest self-contained units anywhere, through the efforts of the Red Deer Kiwanis Club with the co-operation of Alberta Hous ing and this government: Albertans helping Albertans; Al bertans helping themselves. Mr. Speaker, we have progressed a long way, but there is more to be done in this ever-changing situation. And the situ ation is changing, and we need to be aware of that. We need to plan for it.

We need to have policies that allow for change and include the flexibility to provide not only for today's situation but for the drastic changes into the '90s and beyond. Demographics make it very clear that we need to be looking ahead. The number of Canadians 65 and over is multiplying twice as fast as the general population. Statistics Canada reports that between 1981 and 2031, it will increase from 2.3 million to 6 million people, or from 10 percent of the total population to 21 percent: alarming statistics. We need to be aware of them, and we need to be planning for them.

We need to be proactive today and not reactive tomorrow.

April 28, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 875 Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this Assembly on prior occa sions that the best place for senior citizens is in their home. We are too quick to institutionalize senior citizens, and we need to challenge that. Seniors belong, if at all humanly possible, in their own homes, and anything that we as a government can do to facilitate or accommodate that should be our utmost, should be our foremost, and should be our number one priority with senior citizens. Mr.

Speaker, the 1984 annual report of the provincial senior citizens advisory committee states what I feel should be a guid ing principle in developing policy for seniors, and I quote: The majority of seniors want to be as independent as possible, while also having the security of knowing that help is available as needed. Of these two, independence is especially important to a senior. In that light, Mr.

Speaker, I want to compliment my predeces sors in this Legislature for the insight they had in establishing the co-ordinated home care program in 1978, a program estab lished to provide Albertans, primarily seniors but all Albertans, with health and support services in their own dwelling. Our government's commitment and support for this program has in creased 12 times from $2.5 million in the original 1978-79 man date to $29.9 million in our 1986-87 budget.

I think it's ap propriate, and I want to compliment the Minister of Community and Occupational Health for his continued commitment to this very important program. I recognize that not all seniors can re main in their own home, but again I want to emphasize that there are both humanitarian and economic reasons for making every effort in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I've commented on the progress we have made as a government in support of our seniors, and I've touched upon this government's commitment to the well-being of senior citizens.

This government can be proud of its track record, and I sincerely believe we take a backseat to no province in Canada as it relates to services for seniors. But there is more to be done. Motion 210 urges the government to consider changing the mandate of Alberta senior citizens' lodges to provide nursing care to residents in need of that additional assistance. Mr. Speaker, this would be a very positive step. Many lodge resi dents have no choice but to move to a nursing home setting when all they really need is assistance, just a little more assis tance with such things as bathing or taking medication.

I know that lodge staff in many parts of this province do assist their residents with these needs, and in doing so, they are working above and beyond the call of duty. But more importantly they are putting themselves in a vulnerable position in terms of liability. I don't think it's fair for us to call upon them to be put in that position. Revising the mandate of Alberta senior citizens' lodges would acknowledge the need to provide nursing services for some residents and, by putting it above board, would ensure that those residents get those services without risk to the lodge staff.

As the Member for Vermilion-Viking and other members have suggested today, one way to accomplish this would be to expand the mandate of our lodge program. Now, I know that an expansion to the lodge mandate would cost money, and we are in a tight fiscal situation today, but as the Member for Vermilion-Viking has already pointed out, it might be a lot more cost-effective to go this way than to continue admitting people into higher forms of care than they require. Cost aside, Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to talk about one of my pet projects.

I think that in the long term we should be putting more effort into the co-ordination and establishment of multilevel facilities. My Motion 214 last year addressed this matter, so I won't go into it in depth at this time, other than to say that it makes absolute sense to develop senior citizens' fa cilities on a co-ordinated and an integrated basis so that we can meet the needs of all our seniors in one central location. A mul tilevel care facility would provide self-contained units, lodging facilities, nursing home and auxiliary care in one central site and in a cohesive fashion.

The merits and advantages of multilevel facilities are immeasurable in both humanitarian and economic terms. In a certain sense, that is what Motion 210 is getting at. It's saying: let's look at the mandate of the lodge program to see if we can't keep some residents in lodges with their friends and with their spouses rather than having to move them to a nursing home or an auxiliary hospital. Mr. Speaker, another thing I want to comment on -- and I was pleased to see the Member for Vermilion-Viking touched on it as did the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar -- is the con cept of a single point of entry.

The single point of entry system, as I understand it, is an integrated assessment procedure for care services where one assessment is undertaken to determine whether a client requires services from a community-based home care program or requires placement in a senior citizens' lodge or a nursing home or an auxiliary hospital. Many, many individuals do not know where to begin in searching for suitable placement for themselves or for loved ones. They just don't know where to turn to.

A single point of entry system would go a long way toward ensuring that seniors receive the care they need and in the most appropriate setting. The person doing the assessment might decide that a lodge would be a suitable place ment if certain additional services could be made available as suggested in Motion 210. Mr. Speaker, governments can only do so much, and I think there also has to be a change in public attitude. I feel that change has already begun, but there are a lot of stereotypes out there working against seniors. For instance, many people be lieve that most seniors are sick and in nursing homes.

The fact is that in Canada only 6 percent are. Many people believe that old people are feebleminded. Yet recent U.S. and British stud ies show that the opposite is true. Verbal comprehension, nu merical skills, and inductive reasoning often improve with age. Many believe that physical decline is an inevitable part of old age. The fact is that although muscular strength diminishes with age, most people can continue doing what they have always done into late old age. In doing some of my research, Mr.

Speaker, I was particu larly struck by the comments of Pat Murphy, a 72-year-old re tired newspaperman, and again I quote: There seems to be a general feeling abroad that after you reach the age of retirement, you go into a state of mental retardation, that you suddenly become interested in silly singsongs but not in Bach, Chopin or Haydn. If you're stupid at 70, you were probably stupid at 30. The old population is the same as the young population, and the sooner people realize it the better. Still, Mr.

Speaker, many seniors do have special needs, and after contributing to society for so long, they deserve to have them met. Discussions such as this one today encourage the exchange of ideas and policy options, and I once again compli ment the member for bringing it forward. I look forward to the continued discussions on this motion, and I would hope that my colleagues in this House will support it if we have the opportu nity of voting on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

876 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1987 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak briefly to this motion today. I want to commend the Member for Vermilion- Viking for bringing this very important matter before the As sembly. It's certainly timely in terms of some of the discussion which is taking place in my constituency today.

We have a situ ation there in the town of Pincher Creek where we do not have a nursing home, and the Crest View Lodge, which is the senior citizens' lodge there, currently is full, with 48 occupants, which is different from the situation which other members have de scribed in terms of underutilization of senior citizens' lodges. In terms of the 48 residents of that lodge, 19 of them could benefit from a higher level of care than they are now receiving, which would mean having nursing home care within that senior citizens' lodge.

There recently was a public forum in Pincher Creek to dis cuss services for senior citizens, including nursing home and extended care facilities. There is an extended care facility at tached to the Pincher Creek hospital which has 20 beds there and which is currently full. We see that the extended care is being backed up into the active-treatment hospital system there. I've invited the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care to visit the community to discuss the needs there. and he's assured me that he will be visiting there in the very near future.

The lodge board there has under consideration a policy discussion which is very similar to that which has been initiated by the Member for Vermilion-Viking, in that they are considering the options in terms of providing some level of nursing home care to those residents in the lodge to meet this need in the community. I should also comment on a situation which was in the Crowsnest pass community in my riding. Back in 1973 we opened there a combined senior citizen/nursing home facility, which was a pilot project for the province. There were at that time 30 nursing home beds and 36 senior citizen beds.

So there has been some experience in the riding with regard to providing two levels of services within a single facility. This facility was also attached to the local hospital. There were some difficulties in terms of how you provide those services, and if this motion is passed, perhaps consideration to the experience there might be given in terms of a committee or the department looking into this situation. I'd like to conclude by commending the member for bringing this motion forward and would urge all hon. members to support it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Highwood. MR. ALGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to state that I'm happy to address this motion today both because of my involvement with seniors' issues through acting as chair man of the Provincial Senior Citizens' Advisory Council and as the member of the Legislature managing the Senior Citizens Secretariat and because it is possible for me to say with some pride that the Alberta government has shown long-standing sup port and understanding of the needs of seniors in this province. Over 10 years ago this government resolved to pay special attention to the senior population in Alberta.

At that time the 1975 Speech from the Throne announced some of the very im portant programs for seniors that have continued to the present day. There is a wide-ranging number of programs and resources available to senior citizens, and as is the crux of the matter today, their aim is to promote the ability of seniors to live as independently as possible while still receiving the support needed to allow them to do s

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19870428
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S2 19870428 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18cfeda0d5460d0346396c029f31e0885d12dc4f

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