November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1937 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, November 20, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/11/20 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Dear God, author of all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, we ask Thy guidance in order that truth and justice may prevail in all of our judgments. Amen. Hon. members, would you please remain standing as we ask Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us in the singing of our national anthem. HON. MEMBERS: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. THE SPEAKER: Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of our Assembly His Excellency Dr. Yuri Scherbak, ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, who actually first visited our Assembly earlier this past May.

The ambassador is here today to mark the official inaugura- tion of the Advisory Council on Alberta-Ukraine Relations. The council’s first meeting will be this afternoon, and the ambassador will join the MLA from Redwater and myself at this very special event. Our Premier and the Minister of International and Intergov- ernmental Relations will join us later this evening.

This council will be made up of 12 members representing Alberta’s Ukrainian community, and its mandate is to explore ways to strengthen ties between Alberta and Ukraine, particularly in light of Ukraine’s proclamation of independence a few short years ago. As the ambassador knows, Alberta has a very long and proud relationship with Ukraine, and people have been coming to Alberta from Ukraine for over 100 years now, such that we have nearly 300,000 people of Ukrainian descent living in Alberta who contrib- ute to our province in every way possible. His Excellency Ambassador Scherbak is accompanied by Mr.

Dave Sereda, who is the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress for the Alberta provincial council. [remarks in Ukrainian] We welcome you very sincerely on the occasion of this important and historic day. We are anticipating much success with this initiative. [as submitted] They have risen, Mr. Speaker, and I would now ask this Assembly to sincerely extend the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clare- view. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table petitions containing 22 names from Airdrie-Rocky View constitu- ency, 17 names from Bonnyville-Cold Lake constituency, 283 names from Calgary-Nose Creek and Calgary-Shaw constituencies, 12 names from Lesser Slave Lake constituency, and 673 names from the constituencies of Cypress-Medicine Hat and Medicine Hat. The petitioners are urging the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Alberta human rights act to allow “health professionals to opt out of those . . . procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred.” THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Highwood. The first petition regarding building a Catholic kindergarten to grade 5 school in the Black Diamond-Turner Valley area is signed by 127 constitu- ents. The second petition, with 63 names, is supporting amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have a petition signed by 445 Albertans from Camrose, Wetaskiwin, Millet, Ponoka, Hobbema, Bashaw, Vegreville, Mundare, Ryley, and other nearby towns urging the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to present a petition signed by 60 Albertans from Edmonton, St. Albert, Sher- wood Park petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the petition I presented on May 25, 2000, urging the government of Alberta to use its legislative powers to help resolve the labour dispute at the Calgary Herald be now read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the assembly to urge the government to use its legislative powers to help resolve the labour disputes at the Calgary Herald. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark on a Standing Order 40 application.

1938 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that at the appropriate time this afternoon I will make application under Standing Order 40 to deal with the following motion: “Be it resolved that this Assembly address the crisis in access to emergency care in Calgary hospitals.” Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two reports that I would like to table today.

The first is the MLA Workers’ Compensation Board Se rvice Review Input Committee report, and the second one is the report of the Review Committee of the Workers’ Compensation Board Appeal Systems. MR. CAO: I’d like to table the letter from my constituents regarding the drowning of the children in the city canal. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. First is the report released today by the Official Opposition, Lost Promise and Potential: Alberta’s Statistics on Youth Suicides Programs and Challenges. Accompanying that report, Mr.

Speaker, I am also pleased to table the ministerial briefing and agenda for that ministers’ briefing which occurred on November 8 with ministers Evans, Hancock, and Mar. At that time the status of programs and the incidence of suicide in young Albertans was shared with those ministers. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three docu- ments to table this afternoon. The first one is an MRI bill of $499. This bill was paid by Rose Senio. She is a constituent of Edmonton- Gold Bar. It was for a medically necessary procedure.

The next two documents that I have to table, Mr. Speaker, I’ve received through FOIP. The first one is a letter to the hon. Minister of Justice. It is regarding the rotting roofs in Heritage Mansion East near Heritage Mall in southwest Edmonton. The next document is also concerning the rotting roofs in Alberta, and it is to the Cobblestone Court Condominium Association in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, and it is signed by the Hon. Murray Smith. Thank you. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: Okay, hon. members. The other day I made it very, very clear. We’re not going to be using individual names in this Assembly.

We’re going to be using titles; two violations today. Now, no more. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table some information on how the increased electrical rates are affecting condominiums and condominium boards resulting in significant increases in condominium fees. Some good information. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With permission I’d file five copies of a document entitled The Education Dividend: Why Education Spending Is a Good Investment for BC, prepared by Robert Allen for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It indicates the social value of having completed a university degree. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the requisite number of copies to file with the Assembly, and it’s an invitation to attend the ASET convention this spring. It’s titled Alberta Unplugged.

It’s ostensibly to explain the deregulation of the utility industries, and I suspect a good number here would do well to attend. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one tabling, and it’s a press release relative to Bill 20. I’ll just read the title of the press release: Alberta Government to Pass Law This Week to Drastically Reduce Families’ Rights in Fatality Claims Including Drunk Driving and Murder of Children. The group spokesman is Rick J. Mallett of James H. Brown & Associates. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS.

MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table a letter written on behalf of ATCO Electric which is an amendment to its regulated rate option tariff. Hearings begin today, actually, before the Energy and Utilities Board. The reason for the amendment is because the ATCO original price forecast was at $70.82 per megawatt hour. Because of the forward market price in the 103- to 110-megawatt range, the company has had to file an application to raise that rate. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon.

One tabling consists of the appropriate number of questionnaires that have been responded to by Alberta victims of brain injury dealing w ith the issues of concern to them such as housing, transportation, and so on. Secondly, I’m tabling five copies of a letter addressed to the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness and to the Associate Minister of Health and Wellness which have been hand delivered to their offices last week. Again it’s asking for some follow-up action in terms of those that are victims of brain injuries in Alberta.

THE SPEAKER: Today, as well, hon. members, I’m tabling five copies of a package of information regarding the School at the Legislature program, which was launched today in co-operation with corporate partners Shaw Communications Inc., Capital City Savings and Credit Union, and Quality Colour Press Inc. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. MR. KLEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to my colleagues in the Legislature a very accomplished young woman who is with us today in the members’ gallery.

Ms Adelle Peterson is an 18-year-old University of Calgary

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1939 student and this year’s recipient of the 4-H Premier’s award, the highest honour given through the 4-H program. She received this honour thanks to her outstanding efforts and achievements during her eight-year membership in 4-H. She has proven abilities in leadership and effective communications as well as a strong record of accomplishment in school and in other activities. During her year as the 4-H Premier’s award recipient, Adelle will travel the province serving as a 4-H ambassador and promoting the 4-H program.

It’s important to note that Alberta now has the largest 4-H membership in Canada. Accompanying her today is her father, Brian; her mother, Colleen; and her brother Bryce. I now invite Adelle and her family to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SHARIFF: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Nadezjda Petrova, deputy head of the Economics and Planning Committee in Russia’s Primorsky region.

She has come to Alberta as part of the Yeltsin democracy fellowship, a program which brings Russian leaders to Canada to study the country’s legislative, judicial, and economic systems. Her focus is to learn about regional development strate- gies, and she is looking at Alberta as a solid example of a province that has successfully achieved economic diversification and stable growth. She is also interested in Alberta’s natural resources sector and exploring possible private-sector linkages. My colleague the hon.

Member for Calgary-East and I had the privilege of meeting with Ms Petrova last Friday at McDougall Centre in Calgary. There is certainly much we can learn from each other and many areas of common interest to discuss. I would ask that our honoured guest please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly students from Lago Lindo elementary school in Edmonton-Glengarry.

They are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Doug Sprake, and their principal, Mr. John Eshenko, along with Mrs. Marilyn Ghering and Mrs. Pat Wandler. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask with your permission that they now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly Mr. Sam Friedman, or Judge Sam as we affectionately know him.

Judge Sam was the chair of the appeal systems commit- tee, whose report I tabled just a few minutes ago. With him today is Fred Clarke, a member of that committee who represents the business community here in the province. I would ask the two of them to rise and receive the warm greetings of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise to introduce two leaders within our province who are seated in the public gallery.

Louise Rogers is the president of the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, and Jane Walker is a nursing management consultant well known throughout the province. I would ask both to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s certainly my pleasure today to introduce you to two classes from J.J. Nearing in St. Albert. They are here with their excellent teachers, Mrs. Sonia Reid and Mrs. Christine Sowinski, and parent helpers Mr. Rick Kulak, Mrs. Bernice Grenier, Mr.

Tony Gull, and Mrs. Madeleine Bertschi. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a special day, and I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 20 very hardworking, very diligent, very excellent students from John A. McDougall elementary school, one of the schools in my riding. They’ve had a big day today because they’re here participating in the School at the Legislature program, which Mr. Speaker has inaugurated today.

I would like to also introduce the teachers that are accompanying them: Mrs. Leticia Carter, Mrs. Heather Parliament, student teacher Mr. Tom Stewart, and vice-principal, Mrs. Nancy Weber. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly three staff members from Alberta’s maintenance enforcement program.

Although members of the Assembly may not have met these three people, I can assure you that the many requests that come through my office with respect to maintenance enforcement are ably handled by these individuals. With us today are the program director, Manuel da Costa; senior manager of collections, Kevin Quail; and the manager of the program’s special investigations unit, Shauna Curtin. As minister responsible for the program I’m proud of the work that’s done by these individuals and by all members of the staff of the maintenance enforcement program.

Last year the program collected more than $127 million on behalf of Alberta families and children. These individuals are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d like to ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Calgary Medical Services MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Revelation of a tragedy has once again forced Calgarians and all Albertans to ask questions and face the inadequacies in our health care system.

Over the weekend Albertans first learned of the tragic death of an individual in an emergency department some months ago. Despite much- needed public dollars being put in health care, despite the hard work of physicians and health care professionals in the system, the core problems are left unsolved by this government. My question is to

1940 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 the Premier. Can the Premier provide an explanation to all Alber- tans and in particular to the citizens of Calgary as to why the health care system failed an individual and their family in this case? MR. KLEIN: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, Calgary health officials unveiled plans today to deal with emergency room han- dling. I understand that the Calgary regional health authority’s critical incident committee has unveiled a six-point plan to deal with backlogs in the emergency department. Relative to the details, Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR.

MAR: Mr. Speaker, I must say, first of all, that this is a very unfortunate and regrettable incident that took place, but I’m pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged a great deal of the effort in terms of the work being done by the staff of our hospital systems in this province and also the significant amount of money that has gone into the system. I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that this individual was seen in the emergency room of the Rockyview hospital and that he was assessed by the staff there. As a result of his death the regional health authority conducted a critical incident review.

That review precipi- tated in some 31 recommendations for improvement in the system on how emergencies are treated in Calgary. Physicians and staff were involved in making the recommendations. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, and a number of them are going to continue to be implemented over the months to come, but I am confident that the regional health authority has dealt with the situation properly. I would perhaps in closing comment that there are some 250,000 people that go through the emergency system in Calgary at least as at last year. That is a tremendous volume to deal with.

If I could say one thing, it would be that if we could say that 95, 97, 99 percent of the people got the right treatment at the right time, we’d have to say that was a good system, but it is not perfect, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier tell this Legislature why Calgary still does not have enough beds to meet the needs of a predictably growing population in the Calgary area? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that statement to be true.

As I understand it, with the closure of the Holy Cross and the Bow Valley centre, the old General hospital, we were able to open up, indeed, hundreds of new state-of-the-art beds. Relative to the bed situation in Calgary, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a question, of course, of opening up beds; it is also a question of having the appropriate equipment and the appropriate staff. We know that across Canada, indeed in other parts of North America, there is a critical need for staff of all sorts, health care professionals.

We have responded by increasing the number of people that are trained in our post- secondary system. We increased it by 850 this year so that there are now 5,650 people in our postsecondary system training in health care professions. The Minister of Infrastructure may wish to outline some of the important infrastruc ture investments that have been made and announced this year. Also, with respect to equipment, of course members would be well familiar with investments in the area of renal dialysis equipment and MRIs and so on. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, few provinces, in fact no provinces, have the fiscal resources of this one, so why will this Premier not commit to long-term, sustainable health care funding instead of the one-shot injections which even the Auditor General of this province has criticized his government for? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we are doing perhaps more than any other province in terms of our commitment to long-term sustainabili- ty. The one-time cash infusion was for capital. The opposition has complained about not e nough MRIs. We have now equipped our hospitals with seven MRIs. Six more are on the way.

We’ve done significant upgrades. We were able to allot to the city of Calgary some $190 million for a new children’s hospital. This is on top of countless millions of dollars that were allocated to various regional health authorities for capital upgrades. On top of that, the sustainability of the system is something that we’re going to have to work with on a national basis with the Prime Minister, with the national Minister of Health, with all the ministers of health across the country.

I can tell you that the way health care spending is going – and I think Lorne Gunter alluded to it in an editorial in the Edmonton Journal yesterday – these costs are rising each and every year as they relate to operating. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition was the minister of health, she was faced with the very same problem, and that was the problem of sustainability. How do you address operating costs?

We’re able to address through one-time spending the capital problems facing the health care system, but the big challenge in the future – and I would seek the help of the Liberal opposition – is the sustainability of operating costs. Really we’re heading to something like 40 percent of the total operating budget in operating costs, and this is not peculiar to Alberta. This is happen- ing across the country, and indeed it’s happening around the world. THE SPEAKER: Second main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Electric Utilities Deregulation MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s move to another area of mismanagement, and that’s electricity deregulation. The evidence keeps mounting against the Premier’s electricity deregula- tion scheme, which has resulted in inadequate supply and skyrocket- ing prices for consumers right across this province. The Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties passed a near unanimous resolution calling on reconsideration of the deregulation scheme. The Premier’s own market surveillance administrator said that uncertainty has caused “reluctance on the part of suppliers to invest in new supply” in Alberta.

Now a former minister of utilities and telephones, the hon. Dr. Warrack, says that investors have been reluctant to invest in new supply b ecause of uncertainty and financial risk. To quote Dr. Warrack: uncertainty and risk kills investment. My questions are to the Premier. Why is the Premier ignoring the mounting evidence that proves conclusively that the government’s deregulation scheme is responsible for inadequate supply and skyrocketing electricity prices for our farmers, our consumers, our industries, and our businesses? 2:00 MR. KLEIN: No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, the prices are going up.

Admittedly there was some uncertainty, but with the pooling and the opportunity now to source alternative forms of energy, we are very confident that through a deregulated environment those prices will come down. Mr. Speaker, because of our prudent fiscal policies we were able to provide two rebates, well, actually three rebates: one for business,

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1941 farm communities, and so on, which should go some distance over this interim period to bring down rates. Certainly as of January 1 each householder in this province will see a $20 per month reduction in his or her power bill, and of course in about one week’s time Albertans over the age of 16, tax filers, will be receiving the first installment of a $300 rebate of $150. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to have Albertans understand the impact of the one rebate, and that is the $20 reduc- tion.

Right now in Winnipeg the average householder using 750 kilowatt hours pays $49.26. In Vancouver it’s $50. In Montreal it’s $50.79. In Medicine Hat it’s $53.45. In Manitoba for those who use Manitoba Hydro, it’s $60.08. In Edmonton it’s $61.34. If the consumer uses TransAlta Utilities, it’s $67.38. These are all October prices. Regina is $68.32. In Calgary it’s $68.50, Toronto $69.71, Kalispell, Montana – these are in Canadian dollars – $69.61, SaskPower rural $70.43, St.

John’s, Newfoundland, $72.12, ATCO $73.19 – that’s mostly the northern customers – Salt Lake City, Utah, $76.70, Halifax $78.98, Portland, Oregon, $79.93, Denver, Colorado, $84.01. Mr. Speaker, the point I’m trying to make . . . THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that the average price at the pool was $14 per megawatt hour back in 1996, can the Premier explain the jump to now over a hundred dollars according to the ATCO reapplication on the regulated rate option? MR. KLEIN: A lot of it has to do with supply and demand, but, Mr.

Speaker, I’m more concerned as to how the ordinary householder is going to be affected. Now, I’m going to come back to Edmonton, Alberta. As of January 1 that $61.34 will come down to $41.34. Mr. Speaker, those TransAlta utility customers will come down from $67.38 to $47.38. In Calgary it will come down from $68.50 to $48.50, and those consumers using ATCO will come down from $73.19 to $53.19. Alberta consumers, the ordinary person, the household consumer, will be paying among the lowest rates in the country. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, just as Mr.

Justice Friedman spoke about a “culture of denial” in his WCB report, why is this Premier washing his hands of the rising electricity costs that consumers are having to bear in this province because of his government’s mess that he created in deregulation? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is not a culture of denial. These are facts. You know, the Alberta taxpayer pays the Liberal Party to have researchers as they do for the Conservative Party. If you don’t believe these facts, get your researchers and check them out. Check them out. I’m just saying that in Edmonton as of January 1, power rates will go . . . AN HON.

MEMBER: Denial. MR. KLEIN: This is not denial, Mr. Speaker. This is fact: January 1 from $61.34 to $41.34, TransAlta Utilities customers from $67.38 to $47.38, Calgary from $68.50 to $48.50. That is fact. In addition, we now go to the other major issue, and that is natural gas, and I would like to offer some comparisons there as well. In Edmonton it’s $5.80 a gigajoule. In Calgary it’s $6.16. In Saskatch- ewan it’s $6.25. In B.C. it’s $7.57. So much for the ND advantage. In Manitoba it’s $6.37. In Ontario it’s $7.84, and in good old Quebec it’s only $11.08 a gigajoule. THE SPEAKER: Third main question.

The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, while the Premier can try and paper it over, Alberta consumers are extremely concerned about increases in their monthly electricity bills. Back on March 23, 1998, the then minister of energy promised residential consumers that they would see stable electricity rates for a long period of time into the future.

This week the tariffs established by ATCO and EPCOR for consumers under the regulated rate option, which is the option the Premier has talked about – if Albertans don’t like deregulation, they can stay with his regulation – will be presented to the government regulator, the Energy and Utilities Board, for approval. As a well- known columnist has said: impatient consumers can translate into unhappy voters. My questions are to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that under the regulated rate option residential consumers in Alberta will be exposed to market prices for electricity, meaning higher electricity bills?

MR. KLEIN: If they wish to stay in a regulated environment, of course they won’t for at least five y ears. If they wish to go into a deregulated environment, they’ll have the opportunity of shopping around. It’s not going to happen overnight, but in the interim – and I say this to the leader of the Liberal opposition – because of prudent fiscal management we’ve been able to offset rising prices. [interjec- tions] Well, the next election. I’m sort of looking forward to the next election. Oh, I am looking forward with great delight to the next election, Mr. Speaker.

And you know why they’re trying to make as much hay now by raising fears, unfounded fears through innu- endo? They’re trying to raise these fears now because they know darned well as of January 1, when the ordinary householder receives his or her electricity bill and sees that bill drop from $61.34 on average to $41.34, from $67.38 to $47.38, from $68.50 to $48.50, from $73.19 to $53.19, well, of course they’re going to vote for us. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, getting back to the question, will the Premier acknowledge that since ATCO is revising its projections for the regulated rate option with new prices that are up from $70 to $103 per megawatt hour, this is going to be passed on in higher prices to the consumer? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that’s very much a possibility. It probably will happen. But in the interim we are able to offset on average per household the rising cost of electricity by something like $840 a year. The leader of the Liberal opposition only talks about the increase in electricity prices.

She doesn’t talk whatsoever about the very generous and energetic program of this government to offset those rising costs, and I think that that’s inherently unfair. 2:10 MRS. MacBETH: Well, let’s talk about the offset, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier confirm that the increase in the wholesale price under ATCO’s application could mean an increase in the average monthly residential bill from $59 currently to over $100; in other words, a $41 difference under the regulated rate option? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t think that will happen.

Right now, ATCO is $73.19, will be $53.19 on average for the average household. Relative to anticipated increases over and above that, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR. CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Speaker, this process is before the

1942 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 board now, and it would be unfair to comment on it until later on this week once a decision is made. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the director of surgical services for the Calgary regional health authority reported that 719 people are waiting for up to a year for hip and knee replacement in Calgary. In other words, there are almost twice as many people waiting for hip and knee replacements in Calgary today as were waiting two years ago. My questions are to the Premier.

Can the Premier please explain why waiting times for hip and knee replacements in Calgary have climbed by more than 80 percent given government claims that hundreds of millions of dollars are being provided to reduce waiting times for these procedures? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that detail in front of me, but I will ask the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness to respond. MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the numbers cited by the hon. member are correct, and the fact of the matter is that there is a greater demand for hip and knee replacement surgery that is a function of our aging and growing population. So although we have made great improvements in surgical procedures and the numbers of procedures being done, they are not keeping pace with the demand for it. The CRHA had indicated to me that they have improved the number of surgeries that they do by 20 percent this year to 1,445. Mr. Speaker, we are working on this particular area.

I wanted to note that Alberta is a partner in the western Canada waiting list project, and this project is studying waiting lists for joint replace- ments and other procedures and is trying to look at ways that we can change the way that waiting lists are compiled, making them fairer to patients and ranking them based on a patient’s pain and prognosis for recovery. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Premier will give his word to this House that waiting times for hip and knee replacements will be reduced by adding capacity to the public health care system rather than by contracting out these procedures to private, for-profit hospitals like HRG. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know of any hip or knee replace- ment procedures, defined as probably major surgery, that are contracted out. Indeed, some other minor surgeries are contracted out to alleviate pressure on the public system so that these proce- dures can be performed. We’re constantly working to alleviate those waiting lists.

I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I think that it’s an interesting point to make that the contracting out of cataract surgeries, as an example, to private surgical facilities, that are paid for by the public system by the way, do allow hospitals to use their surgical facilities in hospitals for more critical surgeries like hip and joint replacements.

So the purpose of the Health Care Protection Act to allow a regime that permits this type of contracting out under rigid circumstances and standards will actually help provide exactly what the hon. member is asking for; that is to say, greater capacity within the public system in a public hospital for the doing of things like hips and knees. Mr. Speaker, specifically on the issue of hip and knee surgery the regional health authority in Calgary was given some $2 million to improve access to this particular kind of surgery.

That was part of a package of some $54 million that was announced earlier this year for improvements to access in a number of different areas across the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My third question is to the minister of health. Will the minister assure the House that the reason that waiting times for hip and knee replacements are being allowed to skyrocket in Calgary is not to make it easier for the CRHA to contract out total joint replacements to the HRG private, for-profit hospital once the provincial election is over?

Will you please give that assurance? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, we have in fact put more resources, as I’ve indicated, into dealing with these types of surgical procedures within the public health care system. I’ve not heard of any plan being brought forward by anyone for doing these kinds of surgical procedures in private surgical facilities.

I note that the College of Physicians and Surgeons will determine whether such things could be safely done in such facilities, but to this point no such determination has been made that I’m aware of, because nobody’s come forward with a proposal to do these types of services under a contract under our Health Care Protection Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Maintenance Enforcement Program MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members of this Assem- bly we often receive questions from constituents regarding the maintenance enforcement program. I often hear from both parents and children having difficulty making ends meet because of parents who default on their court-ordered maintenance payments. My question today is to the Minister of Justice. What has this minister done to ensure court-ordered maintenance orders are indeed obeyed? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1998 the MLA review of the maintenance enforcement program and child access concluded that the program did not have the tools to collect mainte- nance in situations where debtors were able to pay but refused to co- operate with the program to fulf ill their court-ordered obligations. In response the Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act was passed in November of 1999 to strengthen the ability of the mainte- nance enforcement program to collect support from those who can afford to pay. Over the past year the program’s ability to take action against defaulting debtors has been expanded.

Staff now have the ability to cancel a debtor’s driver’s licence, to report defaulting debtors to the credit bureau, to place garnishees in a more timely manner, to seek a court order for collection when corporations or other people are used to shelter a debtor’s income or assets. Over the past year the act has enhanced the program’s ability to collect court-ordered payments and to ensure that Alberta families receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Mr. Speaker, the maintenance enforcement program is about helping children receive the support that they need from parents in

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1943 situations where there’s family breakdown. It’s an important way to enhance the quality of life of children and the opportunity of children to achieve in this province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary to the same minister: what’s the maintenance enforcement program doing for cases involving debtors who can afford to pay but constantly neglect their obligations? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, while there are many families in this province where maintenance payments are made on a voluntary basis, as they should, there are unfortunately those situations where parents don’t voluntarily step forward to take care of their parental obligations. Under the maintenance enforcement program we’ve initiated a special investigations unit that was initiated last November to handle their most challenging collections. The unit assesses files for further action when a default hearing order or maintenance enforcement program standard collection procedures do not result in payment.

The unit has collected over the course of this year $4.3 million, Mr. Speaker. It’s been very successful. [interjections] Four point three million dollars which previously was not being collected on behalf of children in this province. Keep in mind that these cases represent only a small fraction of the 43,000 files that the program deals with. The program, Mr. Speaker, over the past year has collected more than $127 million on behalf of children in this province. It is making a difference. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. 2:20 MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister.

Another common complaint is the long wait time in trying to get through to maintenance enforcement program offices. What’s Alberta Justice doing or has done to improve the information services available to the clients? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, with more than 43,000 files it’s essential for us to find new and more efficient ways for people to get information and get service. During the past year we’ve expanded the client services centre by increasing the number of complaint and troubleshooting specialists. Staff on the phone lines field an average of a thousand calls per day.

Last year we also implemented a new MEP info line. This is a computerized, interactive phone system that allows clients to hear and update file information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This system receives more than 3,300 calls a day. I recently ann ounced the launch of the MEP accounts-on-line initiative. From the comfort of their home, public library, or office MEP clients can now access and update account information privately and securely over the Internet. AN HON. MEMBER: That’s if they can afford the computer. MR. HANCOCK: They can go to the public library if they don’t have a computer at home.

The system also provides clients with the ability to submit a question to our staff and receive an electronic response. It’s hoped that the system will free up staff to deal with more complex issues or concerns. Currently the average call wait time to speak with a client service representative is about five minutes. In the past that was up to half an hour. Today, Mr.

Speaker, we announced publicly the Help Us Find program, where we’re publishing the pictures and names and information that we have about chronic debtors who have defaulted and whom we cannot find through any of the other tools available to us to ask the public to help us find these people and help them to live up to their obligations to their families. Youth Suicide MRS. SLOAN: Twenty-five percent of fatality inquiries conducted on the deaths of children in care indicated that these children had died by suicide or under suspicious circumstances.

In the report Lost Promise and Potential, released today in this Assembly, a survey shows that there are serious gaps in the provision of suicide preven- tion programs for children by health and children’s services authorities. My questions are to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why the incidence of suicide amongst children in care is so high? MR. KLEIN: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, any suicide, especially the suicide of a young person, is a terrible and tragic loss.

I can tell the hon. member that the ministry does recognize that youth suicide is a serious concern, and each youth lost is indeed a tragedy, as I said. There are some initiatives as I understand it. Unfortunately the minister responsible is not here to respond to this, but perhaps she can offer the hon. member a written response.

I understand that relative to training in suicide prevention, two days are devoted to suicide intervention training during the four- week child protective services training – these are the staff people within the hon. minister’s department – which is mandatory for all new child welfare workers in the province. All foster parents are required to take suicide awareness training. The Alberta Association of Services for Children and Families’ standards specify that all contracted child welfare service providers must have suicide training.

Children’s mental health within the Alberta children’s initiative: a project is in the developmental stages to address children’s mental health, including youth suicide, led by the Alberta Mental Health Board. In response to recommendations from the Children’s Forum – and the hon. member was part of that forum – and the Task Force on Children at Risk, Children’s Services will be implementing commu- nity response teams for children at risk in three locations across the province. I understand that is a pilot program, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on.

There are a number of initiatives here that are being undertaken, and I’m sure that the hon. minister or my office would be very happy to provide the hon. member with the information she requires. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Premier, if the government’s response has been so comprehensive, why is it that we have 24 to 51 children every year committing suicide in this province and have had so since 1990? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have, Canadian youth aged 15 to 19 had the third highest suicide rate out of 23 countries. This is Canadian youth in the country.

New Zealand and Finland have higher rates. This is sourced from the Suicide Information and Education Centre based on the United Nations’ report The Progress of Nations 1994. This is the same organization that produced this document that was tabled I believe earlier today. Over the last 10 years an average of 26 youths 15 to 19 years of age have committed suicide each year, but the rates are falling. This

1944 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 is as it pertains to the province of Alberta. I understand the peak for male youth suicide rates ages 15 to 19 was 1977 at 40.2 deaths per 100,000. The most r ecent data for 1998 shows 25.1 deaths per 100,000. It’s tragic that we even have that many deaths through suicide, Mr. Speaker, but the rate is falling. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, we have a model of suicide prevention that was developed in our own backyard by the Suicide Information and Education Centre.

It was proposed to this government to be implemented in 1997, has been implemented by the United Nations, Finland, Norway, and Australia, and we today in Alberta continue to not have a provincial program for the prevention of suicide. Why is that, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that statement is not entirely true. I just went through a number of initiatives that have been taken and are currently being undertaken by the Department of Children’s Services.

I only went to about the fifth or sixth point, but I can tell the hon. member that all child and family services authorities have early intervention programs that provide services based on the needs of the community. These services relate in part to the whole problem of children at risk and the suicide problem.

Many child and family services authorities have developed transitional supports for youth who are reaching the age where they are no longer eligible for child welfare supports, and the ministry is now examining options for expanding these transitional programs, particularly by providing more time with a mentor or a caring adult to help support these youths through the transition to adulthood, and this is, as I understand it, the most difficult period in a young person’s life.

We are working in particular with aboriginal groups, where the suicide rate unfortunately is high, and government is to promote capacity building to help aboriginal communities respond to community needs, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Electric Utilities Deregulation (continued) MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are regarding rising electricity costs. Earlier this year Alberta’s independent market surveillance administrator looked at the reasons for jumps in prices over the summer.

To the Minister of Resource Development: did the report find any inappropriate behaviour in activities in the marketplace that might help explain price increases? MR. CARDINAL: No. Mr. Speaker, the market surveillance administrator, also known as the MSA, was very clear in his report. In fact, in a press release he emphasized that there was no particular activity to warrant a sanction against generators. In addition to that, of course we are following up on the recommendations that have been made in that report by the market surveillance administrator. In addition, there is a lot more to come from the MSA.

This is, in fact, only the first report, and it’s a first stab at collecting data. The MSA himself recognized that further analysis has to be done and staff put in place to make sure that the handling of reporting is done properly in the future. In addition to that, of course one of the major areas that was reported by the MSA was the issue of the lack of retail competition in the city of Lethbridge area, and the MSA will be completing this report and forwarding it to us in the near future. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister.

In part the report addresses short supply putting pressure on prices. Is this in some way a result of deregulation? 2:30 MR. CARDINAL: No, Mr. Speaker, definitely not. Full deregula- tion does not start until January 1 of 2001. Of course, you know, the reason for the high prices is driven by the high demand as far as economic activity. As you’re aware, there are over $33 billion worth of economic initiatives, and with the population growth in Alberta the increased demand for electricity is over 6 percent. In relation to the supply itself, Mr.

Speaker, the whole process has already doubled the number of generators in the province since it came in. In fact, in the last three days I’ve met with three different organizations. One was a lumber company in northern Alberta that was in the process of developing a cogen plan using waste wood. Although they’re only generating 20 megawatts, they w ill use 10 megawatts, which will mean taking out 10 megawatts from the existing generation system but in addition to that adding 10 mega- watts to our system. Now, that’s only one company. This deregula- tion has allowed that to happen.

Today I talked to an organization that’s interested in hydrogenera- tion in northern Alberta. Again, this is another company that’s looking at a number of options, and I’m willing to meet with that company. I was in Pincher Creek today and saw the opening of Vision Quest, which has, I believe, 14 new windmill generators set up which will be generating enough electricity to supply 6,000 house- holds, and this is green power, clean, safe, the cleanest, in fact, in the country. They indicated themselves that without deregulation this would not have been possible. So it is working, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: can the minister provide us with an update as far as what the province has done with the issues identified through the MSA report? MR. CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Speaker, the 10-point plan is basically what has come out of part of the MSA report. One of the areas we’re looking at . . . [interjections] Supply seems to be the concern from the opposition. One of the areas we’re looking at, of course, is looking at all angles in getting more supply into our system.

One is supply from B.C. and Saskatchewan and also local industrial load. The other one we’re looking at is increased transmission between Edmonton and Calgary to ensure that any of the economic activity that’s in cogen, in particular in industrial development in the north half of the province – we’ll be able to transfer electricity to the southern part of Alberta. The other one, of course, is for us to move forward in selling the balance of the unsold electricity in smaller packages. This will all happen during the month of November. Electricity Rebates for Condominium Residents MS BLAKEMAN: Mr.

Speaker, last week, recognizing that the growing number of seniors and new families living in condominium complexes are facing huge increases in their utility bills, we asked how the government’s electricity rebate program would apply to them. The Minister of Resource Development didn’t seem clear as to whether condominium units where units were not individually metered would receive the commercial rate electrical rebate, like the high-rise apartments, or just the flat $20 rate, like the single

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1945 residents. Alberta condominium owners facing steep hikes in their condominium fees as a direct result of higher heating and electricity bills need this information. My questions are all to the Minister of Resource Development. First ques tion: will the minister confirm that condominium owners whose units are not separately metered will be receiving the commercial electricity rebate? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Resource Development. MR. CARDINAL: Yes. That’s a good question Mr. Speaker.

Because they’re not metered individually, they will not be getting the $20 rebate, but the condominium project will receive the industrial rate, 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour off. That’s over $760 million again being returned to Albertans as part of the $l.6 billion rebate program we’ve provided. I believe most condominium owners, the board, will probably return that money to the individuals in one form or another. MS BLAKEMAN: I’m sure they’ll be delighted to hear they’re getting the industrial rebate.

Given that most condominium boards are not aware that they’re entitled to this rebate , whether it’s commercial or industrial, what has this government done to inform condominium boards and condominium owners of the rebate amounts and the methods, and what will they be doing? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, have advised already and will be advising the condominium owners. Just remember that seniors will also be eligible for the $300 rebate, and if there happen to be two in the household, they will be receiving $600. So they are eligible.

Now, in addition to that, seniors, we feel, are very high needs sometimes, and there are also other support programs provided through Community Development that can offset any additional expenditures that were not projected as part of their budget. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

For clarification, then, would the minister please clearly state whether the condominiums will be treated under the industrial rebate or the commercial rebate – the minister has said both things thus far – and how exactly the govern- ment will be informing the condominium boards which is applying to them? Nobody has told them anything right now. That’s why all the confusion. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, they will be receiving the industrial rate starting January 1, 2001. The industrial rate will no doubt be more than the $20 rebate at this time, b ecause that $20 rebate can change also.

At this time the industrial rate is no doubt higher than the $20 rebate that’s going to be provided. So, yes, they will. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize is that the renters of the condominium select the board of directors. They have voting authority. They will be advised. We will be advising the public out there as to how to access these rebates, and they in turn as a board can determine how that money is refunded to the owners. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Diabetes Treatment and Prevention MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My constituents are raising concerns regarding coverage of diabetic supplies. These supplies are important in the management of the disease and in avoiding the costly complications associated with diabetes. Since this government places an emphasis upon wellness and prevention of illness, it seems appropriate to provide coverage of diabetes medication and supplies. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: will the coverage be expanded as part of the provincial diabetes strategy? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I should say at the outset that many of the costs associated with diabetes monitoring and management are already covered by Alberta Health and Wellness. I should outline those things before I go on to answering the question: should there be more that’s done? Mr. Speaker, the Alberta monitoring for health program covers a portion of costs related to supplies for adults who are insulin dependent and have no other insurance coverage. Eligible adult Albertans are covered for $350 in costs annually, and there’s an additional subsidy that can be applied for for an additional $200.

In aggregate this results in an annual budget of $2.3 million. Costs of supplies for children with diabetes are covered under the child health benefit program of the Human Resources and Employment depart- ment. 2:40 Mr. Speaker, an important thing to note here is that the develop- ment of a diabetes prevention strategy is an initiative that’s included currently in our Alberta Health and Wellness three-year business plan for 2000-2003. It will look at these needs and issues surround- ing this particular disease. MR.

JOHNSON: The final question then is: when is the implementa- tion of this provincial diabetes strategy expected to start? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the diabetes prevention strategy, as I said, is contemplated for the Department of Health and Wellness in our three-year business plan for 2000-2003. Right now that strategy is in a preliminary stage of development. It will look at the needs and issues that surround the disease, including the issue of such things as test strips, blood sugar test strips, pumps and injection supplies, and also urine-test agents.

There are some 90,000 Albertans who are affected by this disease. Some of them do not know it. However, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Alberta clinical guidelines unit of the Alberta Medical Association, and the Alberta Research Council in holding a provincial forum and releasing a report on its findings. head: Statement by the Speaker head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding to the next item, the chair would like to make a statement.

The chair would like to follow up on an intervention made last Thursday, November 16, 2000, after the member’s statement by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. The chair intervened at that time because in the chair’s view the statement by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder could be construed as an unparliamentary attack upon another member. Therefore, this seems like an appropriate time to review the rules as they apply to Members’ Statements so that all members are clear. The chair indicated on page 1928 of last Thursday’s Hansard that when the Standing Orders were amended in 1993 to provide for

1946 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 Members’ Statements, it was intended they would proceed “without interruption.” In fact the chair ruled on June 5, 1997, on page 1056 of Hansard for that day that a point of order would not be enter- tained during a member’s statement. To be clear, the chair has never meant to imply that all the rules about parliamentary language and order and decorum in this Assembly could be abandoned during Members’ Statements. Standing Orders 23(h), (i), and (

j) still apply to Members’ Statements as they do to all proceedings in the Assembly. It is a tribute to members of this Assembly that we have gone for over seven years without the chair having to address the content of members’ statements. All members should be aware of the rules for the Canadian House of Commons and statements by members. When those rules were established in 1983, Speaker Sauve noted that “personal attacks are not permitted.” This rule has continued according to the book House of Commons Procedure and Practice from pages 363 to 364.

Certainly, as one of the authors of the 1993 amendments to Standing Orders, the chair wants to stress that it was intended that this and similar rules about decorum would apply to Members’ Statements. This chair wants to ensure that the greatest leeway possible is given to members during Members’ Statements. Those statements must conform to the general rules of decorum that we follow in the Assembly. Last Thursday the chair believes this line was crossed in the remarks by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Calder, especially his concluding remark about “the spending habits of this particular member” in speaking of the Provincial Treasurer. The chair believes this clarifies the matter and sincerely hopes we will not have to revisit the subject of the content of a member’s statement again. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Point of Order Explanation of Speaker’s Ruling MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much.

Pursuant to Standing Order 13(2), while you’re clarifying this for our further information, do I take it, then, that the same rules that apply in debate in any other area of activity of this Assembly also then apply? In other words, things that would be permissible in terms of criticism of somebody’s performance as a minister of the Crown, which is permissible in question period and in debate on any bill, also would be available, as it is, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario with private Mem- bers’ Statements, in the House of Commons, and I’ve got a long list of samples of what passes in those other areas.

If you might confirm, sir, that it’s not a different set of rules for private members’ statements and recognitions than apply for the kind of debate that would happen in any other aspect of the activity of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, the uniqueness of members’ statements is that the chair has never, ever allowed interventions during members’ statements. That makes them very special.

The chair recalls the discussions, the honourable discus- sions that occurred between this particular individual, when he served as the Government House Leader, and the honour and the integrity given to this discussion by the former House leader of the Official Opposition.

It was always intended that in this Assembly should the members of this Assembly want to pro ceed with mem- bers’ statements, then hon. members would be provided two minutes to provide and present a case in terms of virtually any subject they wanted, but never was it ever intended, in terms of the integrity displayed to this individual when these rules were being determined by the former House leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, that one would ever venture into an area of which former Canadian House of Commons Speaker Sauve has eloquently said, “Personal attacks are not permitted.” Now, personal attacks are not permitted, period, in this Assembly at any time, but in the case of members’ statements this chair has always ruled that there would never be provision provided for a point of order or a point of privilege,

whereas in virtually all other activities in this Assembly, for an hon. member who feels that the subject matter that is being discussed and debated would afford an affront to them, that hon. member is always given the option of rising and rising immediately on a point of order or on a point of privilege. But the one occasion when the chair has said that it would not intervene would be during the time frame of Members’ State- ments. That was to be a special opportunity afforded to members to make their own statements in any way or shape they wanted.

Now, if there’s any further clarity that’s really required for that, the chair would invite a visitati on from the House leader of the Official Opposition to further analyze what it is that the hon. member is struggling with. But let us just repeat very, very clearly again. Members’ statements were to be dealt with as a special opportunity for members uninterrupted. Uninterrupted. At virtually any other time in this Assembly if one hon. member is speaking and another hon. member feels that there is something incorrect, an affront, that hon. member has an opportunity to rise. They can do it during question period.

They can do it during a debate on the estimates. They can do it during the debate of any bill. The one time there would be no interventions would be allocated to the period of Members’ Statements, and at all times – at all times – decorum and honour should be the mainstay in which members in this Assembly might want to conduct their activities. Now, let us proceed to Recognitions. There will be five today that will be recognized, and in 30 seconds from now the chair will call on the hon. Member for St. Albert. I’m sorry.

Hon. members, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Innovation and Science. DR. TAYLOR: Thank you. I’m very pleased to be able to introduce some guests. I don’t often get guests from Cypress-Medicine Hat, and I’m pleased to have in the members’ gallery today Len Mitzel, who is the reeve of the county of Forty Mile; Harold Halvorson, a producer, rancher, and farmer in that area; and Jim Holofs from Lethbridge. This group was in a meeting with the hon.

Minister of Infrastructure today about a pipeline, the South East Alberta Water Co-op, that will drought-proof all of southern Alberta. Will they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. 2:50 head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Steadward Centre for Personal and Physical Achievement MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday the Rick Hansen Centre, which is a centre for body-working at the University

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1947 of Alberta for disabled persons, was renamed the Bob Steadward Centre. Bob founded the centre in 1978, and he was also instrumen- tal in developing the International Paralympic Games, in which disabled athletes compete. Earlier this year he was named a director of the International Olympic Committee, the IOC. It is fitting that this centre would be named after Bob Steadward, who has dedicated his life to providing opportunities and challenges, particularly in the field of athletics, to persons with disabilities.

The centre was previously named after Rick Hansen after his world tour in 1987. However, he has given his blessing to the new name, and I wish to extend my best wishes to Bob and to all members of the Bob Steadward centre to continue the work that they provide. Youth Suicide MRS. SLOAN: As we nationally acknowledge today as National Child Day, let us do more than mouth platitudes about the value of our children and their worth to our province. Instead, Mr. Speaker, let us seek to understand the challenges and problems lived by Alberta youth and seek to address them.

Lost Promise and Potential, Alberta Statistics on Youth Suicides Programs and Challenges, released today in this Assembly, seeks to acknowledge National Child Day in such a way. Suicide is responsible for 25 percent of the deaths of children and youth between the ages of one and 24. In 1999, 37 children between the ages of zero and 19 committed suicide, according to vital statistics. Lost Promise and Potential confirms that 24 to 51 children annually in Alberta have committed suicide since 1990. For children in government care one-quarter of the deaths reviewed by a fatality inquiry also highlighted this issue.

Despite the severity of these statistics, the Alberta government has refused to implement a provincial program for the prevention of suicides. Concerns exist that the government is leaning towards the development of a prevention framework by the Alberta Mental Health Board. This is simply re-creation of the wheel. Our children are important and deserve the best model and program for suicide prevention that exists. On National Child Day and every day our children deserve nothing less. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker. Rotary Clubs Polio Plus Project MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I wish to recognize the important efforts of Alberta Rotary Clubs. Nearly a hundred Rotary Clubs meet in many constituencies in our province, and all are partners in a worldwide Rotary fund-raising program to end the scourge of polio among children. In the early 1980s Rotarians were looking for a suitable project to celebrate their 100th anniversary as a service club, and in 1985 Rotary Clubs in Alberta joined with clubs around the world to launch Polio Plus, a plan to distribute polio vaccine free of charge to children of 125 countries where polio was endemic.

In the last five years nearly 2 billion children have been immu- nized. By the beginning of this year only 30 polio-endemic countries remain, and within a year this will be reduced to only 10 countries. By joining with UNI CEF, the World Health Organiza- tion, and the national health departments of these countries, the world’s children will be free of polio before the 100th anniversary of Rotary in 2005. Then, thanks to Rotarians in Alberta and Rotarians all over the world, this crippling disease will no longer be a threat to our children. Chief Justice Kenneth Moore MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, on October 19, 2000, some 1,300 friends and supporters of Chief Justice Ken Moore gathered at the Roundup Centre in Calgary. The purpose was to pay tribute to a wonderful leader in this province on his retirement. Chief Justice Moore provided thoughtful and fair direction as he co-ordinated and supervised the administration of justice throughout this province through the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. In fact, he provided that key leadership pretty much from the time that we merged the district court and trial division of the Alberta Supreme Court to create the new Court of Queen’s Bench.

His door was always open and not just to this young lawyer, who showed up needing some guidance and direction. At the event in October colleagues and speakers celebrated his commitment to his family, his profession, his city, and his province. Chief Justice Moore was instrument al in the creation of Calgary Legal Guidance and instrumental in the creation of the Legal Archives Society. We salute this remarkable man and thank him for his huge contribution to the province of Alberta. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Snack in the Shack Program MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is the difference between June 30 and July 1? To some Edmonton children it is the difference between having a hot lunch one day and going hungry the next. Today I’d like to recognize an outstanding program that has made a big difference in the lives of many children. The program is called Snack in the Shack, and it provides lunches for children during the summer months, when they no longer have access to the school lunch programs. The founders of Snack in the Shack, Teresa Androschuk and Candice Furneaux, have turned a small idea into a big success.

It operates out of city park green shacks and serves 500 to 600 kids daily. An impressive 95 percent of the food is donated, and the program runs almost entirely on hardworking community volunteers. This program helps prevent the obvious developmental and physical side effects of poor nutrition, which put children at greater risk for many degenerative diseases. Snack in the Shack is also a big help to families on fixed incomes who often find that their monthly income leaves little left over for food, making things like fresh fruit a luxury item.

Most importantly, Snack in the Shack is an example of a preventa- tive program that works. The long-term benefits of these kinds of programs are shared by all of us. We owe all the volunteers of programs such as Snack in the Shack our gratitude for helping to contribute to the well-being of our children. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Monday we have allocation time for seven recognitions. Will there be additional government members who want to participate today? That being the case, we’ll proceed, then, to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert. Victims of Brain Injuries MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to recognize Albertans who are the victims or have a family member who is a victim of a brain injury. To me it appears like these are the forgotten ones, the ones that are so rt of lost in the medical system

1948 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 and out there on their own, struggling, fighting. Between myself and the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark we tabled a good number of questionnaires in the past week, some this morning. We tabled a number of letters pointing out the concerns they have. Just to briefly go over those concerns. Home care is critical to them. It is capped at a different level. Prescriptions are a problem to them: income, AISH, CPP. Some of them have to use some of their dollars to buy extra drugs and such. Employment opportunities are very limited. Retraining can become a problem.

Transportation: there’s a shortage of trauma centres for victims of brain injuries. There are a great deal of concerns there, and I would hope that the minister and the associate minister of health can address those concerns, will meet with the i ndividuals, and will get something done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Villeneuve Historical Society MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to just take the opportunity to recognize the Villeneuve Historical Society, a group of hardworking people headed by Monique Altman, that did an amazing job over the last three years on a history book made for the Villeneuve community called A View to the Past. It’s based on the early settlers, the Metis, many of the Belgian commu- nity, French and German. Originally the church was St. Pierre’s and then eventually St. Peter’s. There are stories about the hall, the original store, the ball teams, pioneer families of Soetaerts, Boken- fohrs, Belangers, Borles, Sheehans, and Kremers.

It is an absolute tribute to those early pioneers. It also has a special tribute to the young men sent to war. Articles on politicians, if you can believe it, are quite good, I must say. A special congratulation to Monique and her team for a job well done. They have certainly given our community a treasure.

THE SPEAKER: I wish to advise, as all hon. members are aware, that a special Hansard is being prepared to cover the events of Thursday last, dealing with Bill 26, the Holocaust Memorial Day and Genocide Remembrance Act, which covers all the passage through readings one through three, and the text of it will be available shortly. 3:00 head: Motions under Standing Order 40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark with respect to a Standing Order 40 application. Emergency Medical Services in Calgary Ms Leibovici:

Be it resolved that this Assembly address the crisis in access to emergency care in Calgary hospitals. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I gave notice that I would make application under Standing Order 40. The subject of Albertans’ health is always an important one, but recent tragic events in Calgary have turned an important matter into a pressing and urgent one that has to be dealt with now. Health officials in Calgary have blamed the tragic death of a patient in that city on the overcrowded waiting room of the Rocky- view hospital.

Calgarians, either directly through experience or indirectly, have been aware of the serious hospital bed shortage problem plaguing their city’s three acute care facilities for years. Similarly, health care workers, those working directly in the system, know of these problems intimately and have expressed growing concerns over bed shortages and overcrowded waiting rooms in Calgary’s emergency departments.

These bed shortages have created no end of discomfort for Calgarians in emergency situations, but only this past summer has the level of overcrowding and the number of hospital bed shortages reached the stage where Calgar ians’ health and Calgarians’ lives are at risk, and it may get worse unless this matter is debated immediately. The Calgary regional health authority’s own document indicates that some 4,000 people this year have spent the night in emergency waiting rooms because no beds were available.

These people are waiting for hours in emergency department waiting rooms for the simple reason that there are not enough beds in the hospital. A level of risk to patient health and patient life shows no sign of diminish- ing. In January 2000 the average number of people spending the night waiting in Calgary’s three acute care facilities was 10 people per night. Ten people per night were spending the night in emergency department waiting rooms because of the lack of beds.

Today the average number of people spending the night waiting in emergency department waiting rooms because there are no beds available in Calgary is 20 people per night, and it could get worse. This is a 100 percent increase since January. The number of people having to wait in emergency department waiting rooms for a whole night because there are no beds has in fact doubled since January. As we head into the winter flu season, the ever increasing number of people spending the night in emergency department waiting rooms will only get larger.

If we don’t address immediately the bed shortages and the overcrowding problems in Calgary, we will fail Calgarians requiring emergency situations. Calgarians’ health and Calgarians’ lives may be put at risk. This is clearly an emergent matter demanding the immediate attention of this Assembly in emergency debate. Calgarians are facing a crisis in their emergency rooms, a crisis that will only get worse unless this Assembly gives this serious issue the weight it deserves. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, under a Standing Order 40 application certain matters have to be dealt with. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark has correctly followed all the rules, and the only decision now is one of the Assembly to choose to waive what we’ve scheduled to do this afternoon to move to this particular application. So one question will be asked, and the question is: is any hon. member opposed to adjourning the regular Routine for the day and moving to a Standing Order 40 application? [Unanimous consent denied] head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 20 Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2000 [Adjourned debate April 28: Mrs. McClellan] THE SPEAKER: Hon.

Minister of International and Intergovern- mental Relations, you adjourned the debate. Do you wish to continue? MRS. McCLELLAN: No.

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1949 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could take a few minutes to speak about the Justice Statutes Amendment Act. It is quite a lengthy piece of legislation, and I realize that as a statute it has several parts to it. What’s been pointed out to me and one of the things that I have noted is 5(a): the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to make regulations outlining situations in which court fees can be waived. Currently there are no provisions.

That is certainly a thing that I think will serve us well. We’ve all seen situations where court fees should be waived, and this will give that possibility to people who cannot afford that. This has come to the minister’s attention. I haven’t been part of the negotiations back and forth about this legislation, but certainly one of the things that we’ve received correspondence on is

section 74. In that, the bill amends the Survival of Actions Act. Currently, as a result of several decisions by the Court of Appeal of Alberta, if an individual is killed in, for instance, a motor vehicle accident, the estate has the right to claim for damages in relation to what that individual would have earned had their life expectancy not been cut short by the accident. The amendment of the Survival of Actions Act eliminates this claim of damages. However, this does not prevent a deceased’s children from being able to maintain a court action for their dependency claim.

The amendment of the Survival of Actions Act does not eliminate a valid dependency claim. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] Now, I know there are different views on this, and even I know that lots of individuals from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving are raising concerns about this. I realize it’s controversial, and because of that maybe it deserves a bit more discussion. Of course, there’s a provision that if a spouse is killed in an accident by a drunk driver, then there is compensation that can be . . . DR. TAYLOR: Sit down. MRS. SOETAERT: No. I’m not sitting down.

I have the right for 20 minutes, and you just might make me go that long now. [interjec- tion] Thirty. It’s a statute. Oh, let’s go over each one of these, Madam Speaker. Actually I’d like to express some of the concerns I’ve heard, and I am glad they will be in the amendments. Had those been sent over, I might have had a peek at them, but I guess they haven’t been sent over yet. [interjection] Oh, we got a note. Isn’t that thorough? I hope Hansard can record sarcasm. Anyway, I would like to mention that this has come to our concern. I realize that in an accident . . . MR.

HANCOCK: Of course, you never called me about it until today. MRS. SOETAERT: Interestingly, the minister says: I never told you about it until today. I actually have some correspondence here from the former Member for Edmonton-Norwood in which she sent a letter to you the minister on June 29 expressing concerns in the controversy over

section 74. So, hmm, I guess you got the note prior to today, Mr. Minister, but I would never question you on that, understanding all the correspondence that comes across your desk. I know you do the best you can with remembering every piece of paper that comes across that. Just so we know, the former Justice critic did a marvelous job, and she was doing her homework and sent information to the minister. I’m not sure if she got a response from that letter, but it’s getting there, I’m sure. That’s only four or five months ago. Madam Speaker, of course through the chair, as I like to keep it.

I was pointing out that we realize that when a spouse or a parent is killed in a tragic accident, for example when a drunk driver is killed, that is handled, and that is covered. This whole question, though, of compensation for a child who has been killed tragically does need more discussion, and I’m sure we’re all of maybe two minds on that because there is no amount of money that could replace a child. Just no amount of money. We sometimes forget that even when adult children die, that’s a terrible blow to families.

I think of, you know, elderly parents who, for the most part, get support from their adult children who are in their midyears – I like to call them mid-50s now, since I’m still on this side of that – and expect that kind of support. 3:10 I’m not talking financial support but that emotional support, that actual physical support that when the furnace breaks down or the water leaks, someone in their family is available to come over and fix it. You know what? When you’re elderly, when you’re in your 80s and 90s, those kinds of things are very disturbing, and often they don’t think to call the plumber.

They will call their son or their daughter and hope that they can fix those kinds of things. Until I see the amendments, I just don’t think

section 74 has been adequately discussed. People may also know that there was a court case on this, in fact. You know, with all the different decisions on this, I don’t think we’ve got the proper legislation to deal with it yet. So that’s one of my concerns about Bill 20. Within these statutes there is one of the other amendments, to the Provincial Offences Procedure Act. That raises two issues.

The first is that the maximum fine able to be imposed with respect to an offence will increase from $400 to $1,000 and, sec ond, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to make regulations allowing a person acting as an agent of the court to receive payment for offences, most commonly speeding tickets, which are sections 67, 68, and 70. These agents will be allowed to charge a surcharge for providing this service. This means that a speeding ticket for $50 would actually cost the offender $50 plus the service charge.

I’m wondering: will there be job losses for those who currently collect these fines, or is that going to a ffect that at all? Has the minister thought about that? Is it the intention of the ministry to appoint current private registries as agents of the court for collection of these fines? Is that part of the intent of that statute? I know the minister is listening intently. MR. HANCOCK: One more way for people to pay. MRS. SOETAERT: It’s what? One more way for people to pay. You know, the thing that really bugs me about speeding tickets is you can only blame yourself. You can’t blame it on anyone but yourself.

I know that if I’m speeding and I’m actually going to pay a surcharge on top of the fine, maybe that will make my foot be a little less heavy. You know what, Madam Speaker? I have said that it is only the driver’s fault when you get a speeding ticket. What I resent the most, not that I’ve had to do it often, is writing a cheque to the Provincial Treasurer. That really hurts. That really, really hurts when that happens to me. I usually pay it quickly so others members in my family don’t find out. However, the transportation critic: that doesn’t happen often to her.

I appreciate the opportunity to point that out to the minister. A few other points. These are quite the statutes here, a lot of them. The Contributory Negligence Act is also amended, and the

1950 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 amendment is simply to reflect that the last clear chance rule is not applicable in determining liability of a party. This reflects the common law, which eliminated the last clear chance rule many years go and therefore doesn’t alter the law as it is applied currently. You know, these acts truly are interesting, Madam Speaker. The average person – I consider myself average – does have difficulty going through this and slugging through it to see what it changes from one act to another, and there are many acts within this. How many actual acts have been addressed by this?

One, two, three, I believe: the Provincial Court Judges Act, the Provincial Court Act, a few others. It’s quite a big piece of legislation, so if I point out a few other changes, well, that’s the joy of

an act this big. There are so many different angles to it. The Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association has, I know, sent correspondence to the minister and has sent us correspondence as well as we asked for some of their input. Of course, they as well are concerned about

section 74, so I’m anxious to see the changes on that. I guess, Madam Speaker, that I hope all members have had a chance to look at this in full detail. Certainly it is huge, and it is a lot to go through. I guess what I hope comes out of this is that people are served better in our province, that the courts aren’t such a scary place. Now, I know that maybe there are lawyers in here who make it – I mean, it’s their everyday place of work. But I think for a lot of people the court system is quite intimidating. I think it is.

When the former Justice minister set up tours for anyone in the Legislature who was interested in seeing the remand centre and the young offender centre, I really appreciated that. As I journeyed through the day, one of the things I noted in the young offenders court was the young, y oung children who were there. The other thing I noticed: with the maybe 60 young people who were in that room, there might have been eight or 10 parents. That was indica- tive to me of the long way we have to go in this province toward addressing family issues.

You know, if you see a young person in trouble with the law and no guardian or parent with them, then you kind of know that there’s lots of trouble elsewhere in their lives, that the action is just a result of maybe a lot of troubles in their back- ground. So that was quite telling for me. When I visit especially grade 6, the grade that takes government, I often describe the young offender centre to them. Especially around election time I say that there are a couple of reasons you don’t wreck those signs.

They are expensive, they’re advertisement, it’s against the law, and I don’t want to see you in the young offender centre. I tell them about going to the classroom and talking to the teacher and saying to the teacher: “You know, I bet these kids are kind of tough to teach. These are some pretty tough kids.” That teacher said to me: “Colleen, this is one of the easiest classes I have ever taught. Not easy, but discipline is not an issue, because if they’re not behaving, if they don’t want to learn, they just go back to their cell.” Then I tell the young students in the class: “Do you know what’s in their cell?

A window and a bed. No TV, no stereo, and probably worst of all no telephone.” That kind of wakes up a few kids, and they say: “You know, I don’t want to be there. It’s not a fun place to be.” I guess, coming back to the statutes, the reality is I hope this serves our people better. To say that I’m aware of every single statute and exactly the repercussions of it and how it will apply wouldn’t be true, but I have indicated some of the areas of concern that have been brought to us, and I assume those will be addressed in the amendments. So I look forward to that stage.

I am sure that other of my colleagues, who are probably more knowledgeable about the justice system than I, have had maybe a better opportunity to interpret what these statutes will mean to the people of Alberta and to the people who have to deliver them, to the lawyers and to the judges who are given this legislation to work with. So that is my hope for this Justice Statutes Amendment Act, and I look forward to further debate on it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. 3:20 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

After receiving input from groups representing victims, the Alberta government will be bringing forward an amendment to the Justice Statutes Amendment Act that

section 74 be put aside for the time being.

Section 74 proposed an amendment to the Survival of Actions Act, and this amendment came about following a ruling by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that the loss of future income can survive a person’s death. In other words, a person’s estate could sue for the person’s potential income if they had not died. The government does not believe that was what was intended in law. It should also be noted that the Law Reform Institute of Alberta proposed that the law be reversed to indicate that financial loss could be determined only for a person’s living years.

Madam Speaker, the province consulted with the legal community before this particular amendment was proposed. However, we now understand that groups such as MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, are concerned about this proposed amendment. Our concern, conversely, is not to have them unduly concerned about it. They argue that the amendment would affect many Alberta families in addition to the crime that has already been committed against them by an impaired driver.

MADD, or, as I said, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is concerned the proposed change would effectively eliminate any recovery by the estate of a deceased person in relation to their future loss of earnings. So, Madam Speaker, the Alberta government has heard what this group representing victims has to say. I suggest that the second reading on the other proposed amendments should continue in light of the fact that the government will be proposing a House amend- ment to delete the proposed amendment to

section 74. The Alberta government will only bring forward another amendment to

section 74 after it has consulted with these specific victims’ groups. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to focus my debate this afternoon on two specific sections in this bill which, I believe, are not supportable, and I will provide the rationale for that position.

Section 21.21, which is titled “Inability of judge to complete proceedings,” and

section 21.42, “Judge’s residence”, I believe, Madam Speaker, have been cleverly designed to address an embar- rassing situation that this government found itself in arising out of an investigation, which was court ordered, into the Stoney Indian reserve. In 1997 Justice John Reilly ordered an investigation into the Stoney Indian reserve and specifically cited a concern that he had received information that $50,000,000 worth of timber . . . had been taken off the reserve in 1995, and yet none of that money was paid to the tribal government, and none was available for badly needed programs. Specifically, the concern arose when in response to this order the

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1951 then Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Alberta was reported to say that the matter was not in his jurisdiction but was in the jurisdiction of Indian Affairs. The judge said: If he said this, he was incorrect to the extent that criminal activity anywhere in the province is [within] the jurisdiction of the Provin- cial Minister of Justice.

What arose further, Madam Speaker, with respect to this order was the fact that resources on the reserve were acknowledged to be the common property of all members of the community, yet $50 million worth of these resources were apparently removed with no accounting and no distribution to the general population, none of it being available for education, health, welfare, or economic develop- ment. It was the view of Justice Reilly that this was a crime against the Stoney people, including, I might add, Sherman Labelle, who was the young man who committed suicide at 17 years of age that I mentioned this afternoon.

What

section 21 speaks to is the inability for a judge to complete proceedings. Now, most people who are in the know about this case, Madam Speaker, will know that the government and Justice Reilly have been engaged in lengthy court proceedings arising from this matter, and during those proceedings on at least one occasion Justice Reilly became ill. It would be my proposal this afternoon that this

section has been specifically designed to allow the Justice minister to intervene if he does not like the direction that a Provincial Court judge is taking relative to his applications and rulings. Further,

section 21.42, which speaks about the judge’s residence, is exactly what this province attempted to enact to remove Justice Reilly from his division in the Cochrane and Morley areas. They made an application suggesting that this justice should be moved to Calgary. We know that that was in fact reviewed by the courts, and the province lost their position. Now, the plot even gets thicker, Madam Speaker. We also know that over a year ago the province of Alberta was ordered by the court to pay the court fees incurred by Justice John Reilly and to date have not paid that bill. That is in contempt of court. Yet we find ourselves today debating in this Assembly

an act and amendments which directly relate to that very case and most likely would have been enacted had they been in effect at the time Justice Reilly made his decision on the Stoney Indian reserve in 1997. The injustice of all of this, Madam Speaker, is not only for the Stoney Indian people and not only for Justice Reilly, but it directly relates to the socioeconomic status of the Stoney Indian people, of which Sherman Labelle was one.

I’m reading from a fatality inquiry that was written subsequent to Sherman Labelle’s death in May of 1998, a year after Justice Reilly ordered the investigation into the conditions on the Stoney reserve. In the fatality inquiry recommen- dations surrounding Sherman Labelle’s death, he made a number of other recommendations, which we find no evidence this government has responded to. One of them was that he recommended the Provincial Department of Justice establish a Special Prosecutions Branch for the Prosecution of Crimes Against Aboriginal People. We are almost two years since this report was written.

We have a bill before us that could have incorporated that recommendation, Madam Speaker, and it does not. Justice Reilly proposed that such a branch should employ investigators from each of the aboriginal language groups in Alberta so that investigations can be done in the language spoken by victims and accused persons. He suggested that it should be given a mandate to prosecute all matters from domestic assaults to racketeering, and the mandate should specifically include investigating and prosecuting any allegations of criminal activity within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and tribal governments.

Just on that specific point, Madam Speaker, in the 1996 report of the federal Auditor General he said that there was $100 million unaccounted for in the Department of Indian Affairs. It was Justice Reilly’s belief – and it is a belief I share – that when large amounts of money are poorly accounted for, there is a very high risk of theft and fraud. If the Minister of Justice [either past or current] takes the position that this is not his responsibility this will create a fertile field for corruption.

I am assuming, Madam Speaker, given the fact that we do not see these recommendations incorporated in this statute and have not seen anything with respect to the mini stry publicizing that they will be enacted, we are prepared as a government to bear whatever fruit this field of corruption produces. 3:30 The other recommendation that arose from Sherman Labelle’s fatality inquiry was that the provincial government enact a statute that makes it an offence for any person who holds an elected [office], or who is employed in the public sector, to make a false statement.

I can attest that when I swore my oath of office, I was astounded that it did not contain anything about honesty or telling the truth. Not a word. It primarily spoke to swearing your allegiance to the Queen and to her successors but had absolutely nothing about taking an oath that required you to tell the truth. The province continues not to have a statute that requires that, Madam Speaker, despite what the hon. ministers might attest this afternoon.

It was suggested that if such a statute was enacted, penalties should be included that include removal from office or employment, and fines in any amount deemed appropriate by a court, and that the court may direct payment of all or a portion of such fines to informants who bring [forward] the action. The lunacy, Madam Speaker, is that we don’t see that this government is alive to any of those recommendations. None of them are incorporated. What we see are cleverly drafted amendments in Bill 20 before us this afternoon that are directly geared to taking people like Justice Reilly out of the system.

In my mind – and anyone who wants to can stand up and tell this Assembly otherwise – when I look at the facts, the facts are that the court has heard out this case, that they have ordered this government to pay damages to this individual, and that the province is in contempt of that order and has been in contempt of that order for a year. How are we to be led to believe that this government is sincerely concerned about achieving justice, about achieving fairness, about respecting our judiciary? This is manipulation at its finest.

So those two sections, unless the minister would like to provide rationale that they are intended for some other purpose, in my opinion are directly intended to eliminate the problem which this government sees as Justice John Reilly. I want to spend a bit of time also on several other recommenda- tions that came about through Sherman Labelle’s fatality inquiry. It’s important to make the point this afternoon that fatality inquiry recommendations on the deaths of children in care, regardless of their age or origin or race, are not publicly acknowledged by any ministry.

There’s no accounting for how those recommendations have been implemented or funded by government: not in the Children’s Advocate report, not in the ministry of health’s report, not in the Ministry of Justice’s report, and not in Children’s Ser- vices’ annual report. For no other reason than to publicly acknowl- edge the value of a human life, in this case the life of Sherman Labelle, I think it’s important this afternoon that we give air to some of these recommendations. I would invite any minister of the Crown

1952 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 to stand this afternoon and tell me why that is the case, why we do not see fatality inquiry recommendations publicly accounted for and funded. Further recommendations in Sherman Labelle’s fatality inquiry, just completing the statement about telling the truth. When the investigation into the Stoney band was ordered in 1997, there were many public statements made by politicians, officials of the INAC, and others denying that there was a problem in the Stoney band or indicating that if there was a problem, it was an exceptional one.

Now, we know that clearly that’s not the case. We have allegations of corruption and problems in Hobbema, we have well-documented problems within the Stoney Indian reserve, and there are others. Accompanying that, Madam Speaker, we also have statistics that confirm for us that these aboriginal populations are also suffering a high incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, a high incidence of disabilities, a high incidence of suicide. There’s no money for programs on reserves to address these issues. Why is that? Because the province is failing to deal with the corruption that exists.

The Stoney band in that order was a direct example of that. Just to not entirely cast the blame on the Ministry of Justice, Madam Speaker, I think it’s important to point out as well that recommendations were made to the department of health and social services, now human resources, that unilaterally those ministries should provide health care workers to reserve communities, and that all non-aboriginal workers be required to have an aboriginal person in training for their position with a deadline for that aboriginal person to take over the position.

Justice Reilly provided statements that were made in the royal commission relative to this recommendation which I will not cite into the record this afternoon but which most certainly give justifica- tion for that recommendation. He said that the problems of physical and mental health in reserve communities are approaching what will be a national disaster. Whether this is the responsibility of the federal or provincial government should not slow immediate steps to reverse the downward spiral that is occurring.

Again, Madam Speaker, at least during my term of office, when this fatality inquiry was written and the Stoney Indian band proceedings and investigation occurred, I have not heard the ministry of health or the ministry of human resources respond to that recommendation. Further, it was recommended that an aboriginal education system be developed. It was recommended that the provincial government should unilaterally provide teachers and support staff to reserve schools to insure that the standards of education in those schools are equivalent to provincial standards.

Witnesses testified to a number of students transferred from the reserve school to off reserve schools who were found to be function- ing much below the grade level they were said to be. I have not heard the Learning minister respond to that matter. I would appreciate and welcome clarification from the govern- ment side relative to the statements I’ve made this afternoon. While I acknowledge that there are some very positive amendments within this statute, I believe that the amendments proposed under

section 21, specifically

section 21.21 and

section 21.42, cannot be sup- ported, Madam Speaker. With those remarks this afternoon I will conclude. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve listened with interest to the debate so far this afternoon regarding Bill 20, and I have not only questions this afternoon, but I believe that during committee I will have a better chance of perhaps getting some answers. Now, as I understand it, under this bill there will be a significant consolidation in the Provincial Court.

There will no longer be the divisions that we now see with the Criminal Division, the Youth Division, the Family Division, and the Civil Division. But when we talk at any time about the judicial system, one thing has to be certain, and that is that the public has confidence and respect in the judicial system. We have to examine appointments to the Provincial Court system in this province, the appointment of judges. 3:40 As I listened to the remarks of all hon. colleagues of the House, I can’t help but think – and perhaps the hon.

Minister of Justice at some time will answer this for me – that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of female law students graduating from law school. In the last generation there’s been a dramatic increase. I think it’s over 40 percent, and correct me, please, if I’m wrong. It could be that close to 50 percent of all students graduating are female. I would like to know what comparisons there are for judges as far as gender balance in our Provincial Court system.

I would like to know if there has been any consideration by the hon. minister to, say, alternate the post of Chief Judge between a female judge and a male judge. I’m just curious if there has been any consideration to that as this bill was developed and drafted. Certainly I think that we need to have gender balance in the court system. This is a province that’s come a long way and is noted across the country. This is the province that’s the home of the Famous Five. So I’m just curious if any discussion took place of that nature in the development of this bill, Madam Speaker.

Now, as I read this – and I would understand it to be a reason of security – we’re talking in

section 21 of a judge’s residence: “designate the place at which the judge is to reside.” If the hon. minister in due course could explain the reason for this, I would be very grateful. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview talked about the situation down west of Calgary with Judge Reilly, and we have to look at conflict of interest legislation. Here we have a very modest approach to conflict of interest for members of the judiciary, that “a judge does not have jurisdiction to hear any matter in which the judge has or has had an interest.” Well, who’s to know? Who is to know if there was to be a conflict there?

If the hon. minister in the process of this debate could explain that, I would be very, very grateful. Now, this is an issue that is of great importance to me and a lot of other Albertans as well, the whole idea of exhibits. In here in

section 21 we deal with the control of exhibits in a court case. I would like to know what studies have been done in other provinces, for instance. How do other jurisdictions handle exhibits that are before a court? Are they or are they not public information? The pillars of the judiciary are openness and accountability. If people are to have faith in their justice sy stem, you have to have those two items, openness and accountability.

I have to bring one case in particular to the attention of all members of this House, Madam Speaker, and that is the case of the province versus Bovar in Swan Hills, where there was a leak of PCBs, furans, dioxins into the air going back to 1996. This case went before the Provincial Court. Of course, Bovar was fined 600 and some odd thousand dollars. That was the global fine, and it was to be a creative sentence. Now, the exhibits – and there were many in that particular case – were withheld from public view.

When these exhibits were withheld from public view, a lot of questions have gone unanswered, and they have gone unanswered to this day.

November 20, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1953 There are questions relating to the blueprints. There was, Madam Speaker, a repair done on a furnace in Swan Hills, and the repair was done inadequately. There was a lack of inspection. There was a lack of inspection regarding the quality of the welding. There was a lack of inspection regarding the lack – the complete lack – of insulation that was to protect the steel in that furnace from extreme heat, and as a result of those two occurrences, two instances of the lack of inspection, the furnace developed a leak and the pollutants did not burn at a high rate of temperature.

They simply escaped through the cracks in the steel and went up the flue gas into the surrounding atmosphere in Swan Hills. The Liberal researchers and myself thought we could get to the bottom of this, but we went to the courthouse in St. Albert and were denied access to these exhibits. These exhibits would have told us a great deal about how and why this accident happened. It would have told us who the contractor was, probably, that did the welding and installed this plate inadequately. It would have told us if there was any testing done. It would have told us the welding procedure.

It would have told us so many things, but we were denied access to those exhibits, and I cannot understand why, Madam Speaker, if we’re going to have an open and accountable judicial system. Now, I had enough interest in this case that I went to Swan Hills myself. I drove up there on the day there was to be a hearing regarding how this 600-plus thousand dollars was to be spent with the creative sentencing. I got to the courthouse. Both parties were arguing before the judge – I believe the judge’s name was Chief Judge E.J.

Walter at this time – and I listened with interest, along with, I believe, individuals who were associated with the Sucker Creek Indian band. We sat and we listened to arguments and how they were presented. Incredibly, there was an argument presented to take half the money, as I recall – I don’t have the notes before me, Madam Speaker, but I believe it was half the money. Close to $300,000 was to be used to construct a chain-link fence around the Swan Hills waste treatment plant. This chain-link fence was to be in all directions 1.5 kilometres from the centre of the plant.

The first thing that had to be done, of course, was that a cut line was to be cut through the bush, and this chain-link fence was to be installed in the middle of the cut line so that the larger mammals, the moose in particular, could not graze close to the Swan Hills waste treatment plant. The idea behind this, of course, was that the top end of the food chain wouldn’t be eating contaminated plants. So this was one place for the money to be spent. I believe there were to be also graduate students hired to do some long-term studies on the effects of the pollution in the immediate area.

Regardless, Madam Speaker, this information was important then, and it is equally important now that the Swan Hills waste treatment plant has come back into the hands of the taxpayers. The cleanup costs, I have to remind the Assembly, were always going to be paid by the taxpayers. But when we look at the exhibits, as is determined in Bill 20, we have to be very, very careful about what we’re doing here whenever we’re setting up a law to govern exhibits in our Provincial Court system.

It’s very important that the public always has access to those exhibits b ecause of what I, myself, and the Liberal research team experienced in St. Albert. This informa- tion is vital, yet we did not have any access to it after the Chief Judge ordered that all exhibits be sealed from public view. 3:50 Now, the cleanup costs before, Madam Speaker: I can’t imagine how high they are. They’re obviously in the millions and millions of dollars. Is anyone else liable for those cleanup costs, or is the taxpayer going to foot the bill after this faulty repair work was done in the plant? Perhaps we will never know.

When we think of creative sentencing, we usually don’t think of a global fine of over $600,000 and what it’s to be spent on, like we do in Swan Hills. We’re going to build a chain-link fence around an industrial facility, a chain-link fence that’s 1.5 metres high, and we’re going to do some studies. Now, I don’t know the conclusion of this: what happened with this proposal for the chain-link fence. I’ve inquired. I’ve been persistent in my inquiries, and I have received no answers, Madam Speaker. The exhibits, to my knowl- edge, are still sealed from public vi ew.

There’s this lack of confi- dence in Alberta towards the safety code system. Now, perhaps if these exhibits were made available, we could find out the whole inspection process, what happened up in Swan Hills and what did not happen. I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I would ask all hon. members of this Assembly that when we are considering passing a law discussing the exhibits before the Provincial Court, we’re very, very careful that the public always has some form of access to these exhibits.

Now, Madam Speaker, I was of the opinion – and obviously I was wrong – that I could go to a courthouse anywhere or anytime and ask to see those exhibits and I could expect a temporary delay because they would be in a warehouse somewhere. They would be cata- logued somewhere, and perhaps it would be three or four days before they could be assembled. But that is not the case. I think that when we look at the number of tax dollars that are going to have to go into the cleanup of Swan Hills and the timing of this unfortunate release, we need now more than ever to have access to all exhibits.

It is an issue that I don’t believe is going to go away, because certainly there’s going to be a debate about the future of Swan Hills. There’s going to be a debate on the pollution that has occurred there and just how far or how wide an area the pollution has occurred in. Certainly it’s greater than 1.5 kilometres in any direction around the Swan Hills waste treatment plant. One of the experts that was in Swan Hills in the courtroom said that this pollution could drift as far away as the Arctic. When we look at that simple case – it may seem simple to some people, but it’s actually quite complex.

The simple fact is that there was inadequate inspection, and look what it caused. We cannot think for one minute that exhibits in the courtrooms of this province should be sealed from public examination at any time. With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I would cede the floor to any of my colleagues who would like to participate in this debate. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On June 29, 2000, my former colleague Sue Olsen, who was then the Member for Edmonton-Norwood proudly serving her constituents as their MLA and our caucus as the Justice critic, wrote the Minister of Justice, the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, regarding

section 74 of the . . . DR. WEST: Point of Order. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. Point of Order Referring to a Member by Name DR. WEST: There has been a lot said recently about using personal names in the Assembly, and it doesn’t seem to be getting through to some members of the opposition. MR. SAPERS: You know, it’s nice to see the Provincial Treasurer paying attention to the rules for a change.

1954 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2000 Sue Olsen is a former member of this Assembly, and I think we could all say Sue Olsen as many times as we wanted without offending any of the Standing Orders. So I would hope that the Provincial Treasurer would pay close attention to the rules now that he’s discovered that some exist to cover debate. If I could continue. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Actually we did hear last week from the Speaker of the Assembly, who talked about using constituency names instead of proper names. However, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora is right.

The member is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, so proper names can be used, but I think it is worth while to say that we are going to try, as the Speaker men- tioned last week, to make reference to the people that are in the Assembly presently by constituency. Thank you. DR. WEST: My apologies for that. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I note the Provincial Treasurer’s apologies, and I appreciate that. Debate Continued MR.

SAPERS: The point that I’m making, Madam Speaker, is that when Sue Olsen was in fact the Justice critic and responsible for reviewing Bill 20 as put forward by the government, a letter was written to the Minister of Justi ce suggesting that

section 74 was problematic and citing many good reasons for that. Now, we hadn’t heard back until the Member for St. Albert rose earlier in the Assembly today to say that the government had changed its mind on

section 74 and talked specifically about wanting to consult with victims groups. Well, we’ll have much more to say about that when we actually see the form of the amendment. Of course, the time to have introduced an amendment would have been in committee, but since the Member for St. Albert spoke about the proposed amendment and it didn’t offend the chair at the time, I’ll take the opportunity to refer to it as well.

It is very strange to have the government put forward a bill over such a length of time, to have the feedback that is received, to have the correspondence early in the summer and to have no response to that correspondence, and then today during the second reading stage of the bill to be told: oh, don’t worry; an amendment is coming. It’s sort of like when a government tells you that the cheque’s in the mail. Of course, this government does that too, Madam Speaker. They make the same sort of promises. The issue with

section 74 of the Survival of Actions Act, of course, is that it limits the ability of survivors to make claims particularly against the loss of future earnings. I couldn’t help but wonder whether or not the government was trying to insulate itself from lawsuits. All we had to do was reference the headlines with the tragedy in Calgary. Of course, we see that the government has itself been sued many times and will continue to be sued as a result of its mishandling of health care. If there should be a tragic loss of life that is attributable to a government policy, as appears to have been the case in a Calgary hospital, this

section 74 could have limited the government’s liability, or at least it could have limited the penalty assessed to the government. This is not just idle speculation, Madam Speaker. I mean, this is the same government that brought in Bill 26 in the last session, which would have denied the constitutional rights of those individu- als who were forcibly sexually sterilized. The government saw no problem in denying those individuals the legal right to court, to sue the government for compensation. They saw no problem with that.

So it doesn’t take much effort to connect the dots between the government being named in lawsuits as a result of deficient policy and then trying to protect themselves by sneaking in through the back door, really, in a very complex bill, an omnibus bill, this section, which has been quite rightfully targeted by many members of the legal community as obnoxious.

Of course, we hear today that the government intends, so we’re told, to bring in an amendment to correct it. 4:00 You know, I really do worry about what’s going on with the government when they continually bring in these obnoxious bits of legislation which tend to totally ignore that individual citizens need every opportunity they can to go to court. The government should