Alberta Hansard — 21 November 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20071121

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2097 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/11/21 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Deputy Speaker: Let us pray. Give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Give us deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Amen. You may be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Mr. Ouellette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a few guests joining us today from Delburne school. We have 30 grade 6 students joining us, and accompanying them are their teachers and volunteers. With them is Mr. Larry Neville, their teacher; Mrs. Terry MacDonnell, Mrs. Tracy Jackson, Mrs. Kathy Ivey, Mrs. Teressa Greening; and Mr. Hugh Greenwood, their bus driver. I get to coffee with him once in a while whenever I go to Delburne. I’m pleased that they could make their way up to Edmonton.

I have visited Delburne school many times because both of my sons went to school there from K to 12. I just have a soft spot in my heart for that Delburne school. I’d like them to rise. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Athabasca-Redwater. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly students from the Thorhild school. Eighteen students along with their teacher, Mike Popowicz, are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed my honour this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly 76 visitors from St. Teresa school in the constituency of Edmonton-Rutherford. We have with us today 70 bright, inquisitive young minds that are here to observe the proceed- ings of this House and to watch their MLA ask a question in question period. They’re joined by three teachers and three parent helpers. The teachers are Mr. Charlie Stuart, Mrs. Thérèse Coates, and Mrs. Tracee Laba, and the parent helpers are Mrs.

Susan Garbutt, Ms Kim Frey, and Mrs. Andrea North. I would ask them all to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my honour today to introduce to you and through to members of the Assembly Dr. Cy Frank, executive director of the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute. Under the direction of Dr. Frank the institute is dedicated to creating and maintaining a standard of bone and joint health and health care that is the best in the world. Dr.

Frank and his colleagues are well on their way to meeting that goal. The hip and knee joint replacement project at the institute was a great success, signifying reduced waiting times and benefiting patients in need. At the same time, it’s garnered national attention for the institute and for Alberta as being a leader in the field. I ask Dr. Cy Frank to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Accompanying Dr.

Cy Frank, of course, is my own executive assistant and senior policy adviser, Fred Horne, who has helped as well in moving this initiative along as we are working this week to provide ongoing funding to the institute so that Dr. Frank and his team can continue their great work. I’d ask Fred Horne to rise as well to be recognized and thanked by the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Mr.

Clifton Purvis, the civilian di rector of the new Alberta serious incident response team, also known as ASIRT. This provincial unit provides another option under the Police Act to investigate serious or sensitive allegations of police wrongdoing in circumstances where there is a serious injury or death resulting from police actions. Maintaining objectivity, accountability, and public trust are key elements of these types of investig ations. With that in mind, Mr. Purvis’s extensive legal background, including 17 years’ prosecuting all manner of cases, makes him an ideal choice to lead and guide this new team.

I would ask Mr. Purvis to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. CKUA radio network has grown from a one-room low-wattage radio station into a full-fledged radio and Internet broadcast network staffed by world- class broadcast and business professionals. I would like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a number of those world-class staff and board members.

Joining us today to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the CKUA radio network is Lynn Friedrick, a board member of CKUA. Lynn, would you rise, please. Joining and with her is Ken Regan, the general manager of CKUA, and Katrina Regan-Ingram, the manager of marketing and communi- cations for CKUA. A wonderful radio station. Thank you so much for the gift of 80 years. Please join me in celebrating and welcoming them. head: Members’ Statements The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve been told by some of my constituents in Red Deer-North that waiting for a hip or knee replacement is one of the most painful conditions they have ever experienced. I have listened to people in pain describe their agony and then ask me why they have to wait so long for an operation. Today I’m very proud and happy to let you know and to let all Albertans know about the su ccess of the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute. This not-for-p rofit organization is dedicated to creating and maintaining the best bone and joint health care in the world.

A couple of years ago the Alberta hip and knee joint replacement pilot provided 1,200 hip and knee surgeries using a multidisciplinary

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072098 team of health care professionals. It was a tremendous su ccess, gaining national attention for Alberta as a leader in this field. An independent evaluation of the project showed these results: there was an 85 per cent reduction in wait times, from 145 days to 21 days, bone and joint institute patients spent less time in the operating room, bone and joint institute patients were discharged in 4.2 days compared to 6.2 days, and 94 per cent of the patients were satisfied with their overall experience. That’s just the start of the good news, Mr. Speaker.

Today Health and Wellness announced $18 million in new funding to ensure that the institute is able to keep up the good work and expand what we’ve learned in new areas of health care. Last June they received $6 million to conduct projects regarding joint disabilities, conditions, and diseases and to share this knowledge of leading practices with regional health authorities and physicians. We need to use the pilot project as a model in other areas of health care to achieve better care and reduced wait times. Perhaps we can even duplicate the bone and joint health institute in other regions. Mr.

Speaker, please join me in recognizing the significant achievements of Dr. Cy Frank and his colleagues and thank him for helping to ease the pain of Albertans. Let’s keep working towards the goal of achieving the best bone and joint care in the world and better wait times for all Albertans. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member fo r Battle River-Wain- wright. Castor Area Grass Fire Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak of an event that happened in my constituency last week. A grass fire broke out within the constituency just north of Castor.

If you recall, last week when this event happened, the winds on that day were gusting over 80 kilometres an hour. The fire spread rapidly, with over 2,000 acres burning at any one time. But an amazing thing happened that I think is symbolic of Alberta and Albertans’ spirit. Volunteer firefighters from Stettler, Castor, Coronation, Galahad, Forestburg, Hanna, and virtually everywhere else within a 40-mile radius jumped to the call of a local emergency disaster to stave off what could have been a provincial disaster with winds that high. These volunteers fought off a fast, hot fire in high winds.

They came together like Albertans do to solve a problem, and they saved farms, and they saved lives. 1:10 One of the farms they saved is owned by a young friend of mine, Daryl Fetaz, who I’m sure someday will take my place in this Assembly. His parents, Rosemary and Paul, and his sister Jennifer watched as the fire licked around their farm right up yards from the house, terrified that it would take everything they owned. But it didn’t, thanks to the hard work of those volunteer firefighters and locals that came in and joined to save this family’s farm.

On behalf of myself, the Fetazes, the government, and all Albertans, thank you to all volunteer firefighters and those that jumped to the call for what you do and what you did that day. Thank you for answering the call. You made us proud. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. CKUA Radio Network Anniversary Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today is the 80th anniversary of the CKUA radio network, and I am pleased to be joined by members of the network to celebrate this important milestone.

CKUA has the distinction of being Canada’s first public broadcaster and the first radio station in Canada to go online. As the voice of Alberta artists, musicians, and cultural enthusiasts CKUA broadcasts a wide selection of music and possesses a music library of more than a quarter million CDs and LPs. CKUA operates on a not-for-profit basis, relying on listener donations, program sponsorship, subscriptions, and corporate support to continue offering its valuable programming.

The annual fundraising drive supported by volunteers like my neighbour Louise demonstrates how important CKUA is to both individual listeners and to the Alberta music scene. At a folk festival a few years ago a B.C. musician and music promoter spoke to me about how lucky we are to have a radio station that plays local artists and how important that is to promote artists on a wider basis. He was quite jealous. The CKUA radio network has given Alberta, Canada, and the world many of its most beloved artists.

Many of Alberta’s well- known musicians have launched their career through CKUA radio network, including Jann Arden, k.d. lang, Amos Garrett, and Tommy Banks, to name a few. The number of CKUA listeners continues to grow. Its audience has in fact doubled since 1996, with an average of more than 160,000 weekly listeners. A province-wide signal and online presence of 4.5 million hits per month brings in listeners from across Alberta and around the globe. The network has embraced the use of the Internet and iPods to offer its services to listeners.

Please join me in recognizing the leadership and the valuable contribution CKUA has made in its 80 years of broadcasting in Alberta. Happy birthday, and thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. National Bullying Awareness Week Mr. Rodney: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are in the very middle of National Bullying Awareness Week, November 19 to 24. No one deserves to be bullied, but research shows that 1 in every 4 Canadian children in grades 4 to 6 reports being bullied and 1 in 10 admits to bullying others.

The government of Alberta has taken a leadership role in prevent- ing bullying in our province. Alberta’s strategy for the prevention of bullying raises awareness of what bullying is, it identifies what we can do to stop it, and it encourages changes in societal attitudes towards bullying. Under this mandate our government launched the third phase of the bullying prevention and public awareness campaign this morning at H.E. Beriault school in Edmonton. The Reverse It; Be Better than Bullying campaign is aimed at children and youth between 7 and 13 years of age.

It builds on previous campaigns and is focused on educating children, youth, and adults in prevention and safe intervention. It’s based on research that shows that bullying behaviour is best changed by having the person who is exhibiting the bullying behaviour develop empathy for the victim. I encourage adults who want to learn more about bullying to visit www.bullyfreealberta.ca. Links are available there for websites for children and youth, as is access to the 24- hour bullying prevention helpline number. Mr. Speaker, bullying is hurtful and harmful, and in an ideal world it would not be part of growing up.

Perhaps we can all agree that bullying can prevent children and youth from reaching their full potential and that together we can decrease bullying and help create stronger communities.

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2099 I just want to add that I’m really glad there are many young people in the gallery here today. I trust they will do all they can today and every day to make positive choices for themselves and others around them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Medicine Hat Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I have the great pleasure of visiting a model Canadian city, Alberta’s own Medicine Hat.

I’ve called Medicine Hat a model city many times because it really does set an example for the rest of the province and, indeed, the nation. For one thing, it has a fabulous affordable housing program, something the rest of the province desperately needs. Medicine Hat also had the good fortune to be exempted from electricity deregulation by this Legislature. Thanks to that decision and its vast natural gas reserves, Kipling’s famous “all hell for a basement,” the city enjoys some of the lowest power rates and best reliability in Alberta.

By and large the people and leadership of Medicine Hat have done a superb job of managing growth and developing a balanced, diverse economy. That’s not to say that Medicine Hat doesn’t face its share of challenges. Access to health care needs to be improved. As in other cities the people of Medicine Hat often face long waiting lists for basic services. Transportation links to the city must be upgraded. For example, my colleague the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East has pointed out in this House that highway 3 should be twinned.

Citizens in Medicine Hat are also considering the value of a new transportation corridor along Alberta’s eastern border, linking the U.S. with Medicine Hat up through eastern Alberta all the way to Fort McMurray. They want to make sure that th eir children get the best possible education, recognizing, as we all should, that Alberta’s future can be assured only if we create the very best education system we possibly can. I’ll be speaking with the folks of Medicine Hat about all these issues and more and listening to their hopes for the future. In short, Mr.

Speaker, I anticipate a productive and enlightening visit to the Hat. It may well have all hell for a basement, but what’s above the surface is pretty divine. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. National Housing Day Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak about National Housing Day, recognized on November 22. A safe and affordable place to call home is important to our health and to our quality of life. It helps provide an atmosphere for families to grow together, for children to learn, and provides a sense of security and comfort.

This government is taking action to address affordable housing in the province. In April our government announced its response to the Alberta Affordable Housing Task Force with $285 million to address immediate housing pressures, where the goal is to create more than 11,000 affordable housing units over the next five years. As part of this funding, Mr. Speaker, high-need, high-growth communities will benefit from $143 million in new funding through the municipal sustainability housing program.

Smaller municipali- ties that were not eligible to receive funding out of this program may apply for a share of the $60 million request for proposals f und. Successful projects, announced earlier today, are expected to produce more than 500 affordable housing units outside of Edmon- ton and Calgary. I was pleased to be a part of this announcement this morning in Beaumont. I’m also pleased to know that an application from my constituency of Cypress-Medicine Hat was favourably received and approved.

I look forward to meeting in the near future with the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society and the city to help present the cheque for nearly $5 million. Sixteen million dollars was also made available for the off-reserve aboriginal housing program. The successful applicants will be announced later this month. In addition, the rent supplement program funding has been increased from $14.3 million to $33 million. The new homeless and eviction prevention fund has already helped more than 21,000 people, and our direct rent supplement program has helped over 1,800 low-income families across Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, we’re addressing affordable housing in the true Alberta spirit, by working together with our communities and our partners to give hope and opportunity for our families, friends, and neighbours so they can have a safe and affordable place to call home. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Presenting Petitions The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to immediately abandon plans to increase the role of private insurance in the health care system, and instead, commit to strengthening the single-payer, public system. This is signed by many constituents from Edmonton-Gold Bar. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 1:20 Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to present a petition signed by 182 people, mostly from Edmonton, who are urging the government to ensure that remuneration paid to employees working with people with disabilities is standardized across this sector, that these employees are fairly compensated and their wages remain competitive, that they have improved access to professional development opportunities, and also asking the government to provide province-wide service and outcomes-focused level of care standards. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to present a petition signed by 262 Calgarians to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows. We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to introduce legislation that will 1. place a temporary limit of 10% per year on the amount that rent may be increased; and 2. prevent landlords from avoiding the one year notice require- ment for [condo] conversions by forcing tenants to leave due to unreasonable rent increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072100 head: Introduction of Bills The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Bill 50 Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2) Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to rise to introduce Bill 50, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No.2), for first reading. Bill 50 proposes providing liability protection to Alberta health care professionals who agree to assess the skills of other health care professionals from outside Alberta who wish to practise in our province.

For example, this assessment is often required when health care professionals trained in another province or country apply for registration in Alberta. Providing this assurance will encourage a greater number of health care professionals to assist with these assessments and enable them to be completed on a quicker and more efficient basis. This legislation is another tool government is bringing forward in our efforts to recruit and retain health care professionals. I move first reading of Bill 50. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 50 read a first time] The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d move that Bill 50 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 53 Teachers’ Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2007 Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a bill being the Teachers’ Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2007. This Bill 53 is amending legislation, which will allow for the $25 million payment to teachers which was previously approved in this Assembly. [Motion carried; Bill 53 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr.

Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise today to make one tabling. It’s th e program for the very successful community awards dinner in Edmonton-Manning last night. It is a very nice program, and it has a quote on it: “The heart and soul of Alberta doesn’t lie in the rich farmland, the majestic Rockies, the precious oilfields or bustling cities. As wondrous and important as those features may be, that heart resides in our people.” That’s a quote from Lois Hole. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table two messages today. The first one is a letter from Kathy Hogman, chair of the Edmonton presbytery of the United Church of Canada. The letter includes a motion passed by the presbytery expressing deep regret at the forcible eviction of homeless people last summer from a vacant lot in Edmonton and urging the province to implement the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force. The second one, Mr. Speaker. I table the appropriate number of copies of a letter sent to me by Christopher Legere, one of my constituents.

Christopher is waiting for minor surgery while appealing his WCB claim decision. He’s concerned that the slow appeal process is delaying his return to the workforce. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of a letter from Dr. Timothy Losey and Mrs. Cheryl Kerpan expressing their concern about a proposal to drill sour gas near Tomahawk, which is near a school attended by 139 students. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have six tablings. They have come from my constituents Ravi Anand, Raminder Gill, Carla Segura, Gladys Segura, Margaret Lenny, and George Lenny. They are all concerned about Alberta labour laws and strongly believe in major changes to encourage fairness to all working people, strongly urging this government to implement and support changes to our province’s antiquated and unfair laws and bring Alberta labour into the 21st century. I have two other tablings, Mr. Speaker, from residents of Edmon- ton Randie Anderson and Rebekah Movold.

They are all concerned about the homeless problem in Edmonton, urging this government to do something. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take great pleasure today in tabling the requisite number of copies of a news release issued today.

I’m tabling it just so that all members will be aware of the $18 million that we have provided to the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute to continue funding their good work on multiyear projects, focusing on areas of development of guidelines, processes, and clinical protocols to support planning and program design beyond hip and knee replacement to other areas of care such as back, spine, inflammatory joint conditions, joint surgeries, bone fractures, et cetera. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to

Section 15 of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act as chair of the Standing Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund it is my pleasure to rise today and table the required number of copies of the second-quarter update of the fund. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. They are both regarding Bill 4. One is from Nicole Scharmann, and

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2101 she says: “This proposal will not help the daycare situation in this province. My daycare will go from 24 licensed spaces to a mere 16. What we need are more daycares and more spaces, not less!” The other one is from Carol Hanson of Sherwood Park. As a mother of two boys aged six and seven, I am quite concerned about where our child care system is headed. First I would like to start by saying it is a little hard for parents to become involved with attending the one and only information session when we find out about it after the fact. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table five copies of the Seniors Advisory Council annual report 2006- 2007. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the appropriate copies of five letters to table from my constituency requesting that Alberta’s labour laws be changed to encourage fairness to all working people in Alberta. These letters are from Antonio Alves, Paulo Ferreira, Ernest Aumond, Ernest Fuller, and Anthony Scowen. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr.

Elsalhy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise to table the requisite number of copies of letters I received from six of my constituents, all urging the government and the Assembly to look at revamping Alberta’s labour laws, which, in their opinion, are antiquated and unfair to all working people in Alberta. These letters are from Larry Casovan, Richard Parks, Hakimeh Hashemzadeh, Dallas Ogilvie, Shauna Warrilow, and Barb Sutherland. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the appropriate number of copies from an event on Friday.

It was at the Military Family Resource Centre. They were honouring corporate and citizen donors who keep the program running. If it wasn’t for them, the program would not be able to support the military families. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Elbow. Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods to table five copies of a letter from Jennifer Dong, who writes concerning the problem of homelessness in Edmonton and calls for federal and provincial governments to commit 1 per cent of their budgets to housing programs.

I also would like to table on behalf of the same member five copies of a letter on behalf of Carlie Smith from the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton outlining in well-considered detail concerns about upcoming changes to child care licensing regulations. Finally, on behalf of the same colleague I’d like to table five copies of a letter from Jules Mounteer from the University of Alberta, pointedly expressing concerns with proposed changes to the Alberta child care policy. 1:30 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have five copies from my wonderful constituents, all on the issue of labour laws in Alberta. They’re asking for five significant changes, the first of which is a process for first contract arbitration. The letters are from Mary Elizabeth Archer, Lauren Jeffreys, Jay Hannley, Dr. Basaraba, and Seymour Neumann. Thank you very much. The Clerk: Tablings to the Clerk. The Deputy Speaker: We will continue with the Routine after question period is over. head: Oral Question Period The Deputy Speaker: The first main question for the Official Opposition. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Industrial Development in Fort McMurray Area Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government did not collect billions in royalties, insisting this money was reinvested in Alberta. Fort McMurray knows without a doubt that these missing billions were not reinvested in public services in their community. The Premier has refused to touch the brakes on development in the oil sands, ignoring the impacts of unrestrained growth on Fort McMurray. My question is to the Premier.

Does the Premier still hold the view that he is not touching the brakes on oil sands development despite the concerns of municipal leaders and residents who have said clearly that they cannot keep up? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things our government did was to support the municipality of Fort McMurray with an injection of $396 million. That money is to go to water and waste water, additional infrastructure, look at supporting the municipality with additional staff support in a number of areas: social services, supporting people in education, and other programs.

We immedi- ately recognized the need, and we delivered as soon as possible. Dr. Taft: Well, the people of Fort McMurray are not feeling the love from this government, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. Communities at the heart of the oil sands know the difference between private investment and public services. Again to the Premier. This government failed to collect billions in royalties, and industry did not invest that money in public services in Fort McMurray. Industries do not invest in public roads or in schools or in continuing care facilities.

Given how critically important additional public investments are in this region, whose job is it to make these investments if it’s not this government’s? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, when I talked about the $396 million, that’s over and above what goes to the community with respect to the basic funding and all the programs.

Th e $396 milli on: $100 million for the new municipal sustainability housing program, $96 million to the capital enhancement fund, $13 million for homeless support, a $3 million increase to the provincial homeless initiative – that’s a $6 million total budget for the community – $14.3 million for rent supplements, $4.3 million increase for support to housing, $45 million for new affordable housing for 300 units in Fort McMurray, $7 million for the new homeless and eviction prevention fund, and $2.5 million for the new Alberta transitional housing initiative. Dr. Taft: Mr.

Speaker, the Radke report clearly indicated the government’s failings on the environment in the oil sands region.

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072102 The report shows that the Department of Environment has no capacity to complete environmental impact assessments. If there’s no capacity to do individual EIAs, then there’s no way they can do cumulative impact assessments. To the Premier: why has this government not provided the capacity to conduct cumulative environmental impact assessments in the oil sands as they have in the Industrial Heartland? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the Minister of Environment answer that question specifically. But once again the hon. member is totally wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes it’s easier to perpetuate a myth than to acknowledge reality. I want to point out to the hon. member what Environment has done with respect to the oil sands. We’ve realigned the department and created an oil sands division specific to the oil sands. We announced in- stream flow needs and a water management system for the Athabasca River. We began the water management framework for the South Saskatchewan River as it affects the Industrial Heartland.

We have been involved in various issues with respect to cumulative impact, the in-stream flow needs being only the very beginning. The Deputy Speaker: I’m sure we’ll get to that with the next set of questions, hon. minister. Second main question of the Official Oppos ition. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Watershed Management Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has released a cumulative effects framework for the Industrial Heartland as a pilot project. Terrific.

However, they’ve not completed such a framework for the oil sands despite the recommendations of the Radke report and the Oil Sands Multi-Stakeholder Committee. A cumulative-impacts approach is desperately needed in the Fort McMurray region. To the Premier. This may be the largest industrial development on the planet. Is it the Premier’s position that a development of this scale should pro ceed without an under- standing of its cumulative environmental effects? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this government undertook a policy to study cumulative impacts on all major development.

We started with the Industrial Heartland, we’re working in Fort McMurray, but we also made a commitment that if there is any large development anywhere in Alberta, we’ll look at the cumulative impacts, those environmental impacts. Of course, our top priority in government is to ensure the safety of our air, soil, and water, certainly. That’s a new way of doing it, I know, for the opposition, but we’re going to find that a much better way to secure the long-term prosperity of the province of Alberta is by doing a very good, solid environmental review of the cumulative impacts. Dr. Taft: Mr.

Speaker, most people seem to have a different view on this than the Premier. Water concerns in the Athabasca are serious. This government’s water management framework, which the minister seemed to mention, was released in response to the Radke report, but it does not do enough to protect water resources. As one of our province’s prominent water experts, Dr. David Schindler, said, I’m sure they’re trying to put the best face on a bad scene. My question is to the Premier.

Can the Premier assure the residents that its framework provides the best science available to protect the long-term health of the Athabasca River? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence in the scientists that the Department of Environment uses to evaluate the cumulative effects of the various pressures on the environment, and I have great respect for Dr. Schindler. In fact, I talked to him not that long ago at the University of Alberta when we introduced a new approach for the Water for Life strategy.

He is part of that group, and I am looking forward to continued working relationships with all of the scientists involved in this particular area, a very important area. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The heart of sound water management is watershed management planning, but in Alberta only the South Saskatchewan basin has a plan for the entire watershed. There is no way to make sound water decisions in the absence of watershed management plans.

Again, to the Premier: why is watershed management planning not mandatory for all river basins, including the Athabasca River basin? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I guess, just another example of where the leader is completely out of touch. In fact, we’ve had more industry participation, not only from the oil and gas sector but from agriculture as well and forestry, working together towards ensuring the quality of water in this province of Alberta. We understand that good clean water is critical not only for continued economic investment but is also necessary for a good quality of life in the province of Alberta.

It’s a top priority. In fact, we’ve put more money towards the Water for Life strategy than ever before, and we’ll continue to invest in this very important key area. The Deputy Speaker: Third main question for the Official Opposi- tion. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. 1:40 Heritage Savings Trust Fund Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced another $2.2 billion increase in the surprise surplus while at the same time – at the same time – we learned that the Alberta heritage savings trust fund actually lost half a billion dollars in value.

My question is for the Premier. When will you finally adopt the Alberta Liberals’ plan for funding Alberta’s future and start saving 30 per cent of natural resource revenue for future generations? When will you do it? Mr. Mason: Just say never. Mr. Stelmach: Actually, the leader of the third party gave me the answer, but I won’t repeat that. Mr. Speaker, the government is determined to secure long-term prosperity for the province of Alberta. Certainly, saving for the future is important.

It’s also very important to make very prudent, necessary investments in infrastructure, and it’s also very important to ensure that we’ve set money aside to maintain the infrastructure that we’re building and the infrastructure that was built a number of years ago. Yes, it’s good to have savings – we have about $30 billion in savings today – but it’s also good to set some money aside so the next generation doesn’t reach deeper in their pockets to pay for all the maintenance of the infrastructure we’re building.

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2103 Mr. R. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, if he won’t listen to us, perhaps he’ll take the advice of his own ministers. “My platform has put forward a plan to save 50% of our non-renewable resource revenue in the Heritage Fund,” said the minister of health just over a year ago. Or how about this one: “I will commit to saving at least 30 per cent of resource revenues collected each year to reinvest in the Heritage Savings and Trust Fund,” said the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development just over a year ago. When will the Premier start taking the advice of his own ministers? Mr.

Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I guess what the hon. member fails to mention is, I suspect, that those statements were made while all of us were on the campaign trail and had resigned from cabinet. So get the facts straight. With respect to savings what we have done is appointed a commission to review Alberta’s fiscal policy. Now that we’ve eliminated the deficit and paid off the debt, we have to look to further advice to see how we can secure the long-term future prosperity of the province. The Minister of Finance is awaiting the report.

November 30 is when the report will arrive, and we’ll be able to share that with the public. Mr. R. Miller: Well, I’m glad that he mentioned the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, because of course I have more examples. Let’s look at this gem. “I have recommended in my platform that a minimum of 20% per year be placed into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.” That from the Minister of Finance a year ago. The Premier says he won’t adopt the Alberta Liberals’ plan. He won’t do as his ministers say.

My question, once again, for the Premier: how much longer is this Premier going to c ontinue to ignore the advice of his very own Minister of Finance? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one piece of advice coming from the Liberal party that we will definitely not implement, and that is building an upgrader in Manitoba. That’s guaranteed. The Deputy Speaker: First main question of the third party opposition. The hon. leader of the ND opposition. Homeless Children Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The Tories’ neglect of homeless children is unforgivable.

The lack of emergency shelter space for kids is so acute that they are exchanging sex for shelter just to stay out of the cold. A worker at the Old Strathcona Youth Co-op says, and I quote: it’s so common it breaks my heart; they’re not prostitutes, they’re not addicted to drugs or doing it for money; they’re doing it because it’s cold outside and they need somewhere to sleep. To the Premier. These kids don’t have time to wait for your 10-year plan to end homelessness in Alberta. What are you going to do to protect them tonight? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, that question was raised in the House the other day by the other party. We have a very good, solid plan to eradicate homelessness in 10 years. It’s following up on a number of proposals that are coming forward from the city of Calgary, the city of Edmonton, and other communities. We just helped in partnership with the city of Red Deer to add another 40 units. We’re increasing the number of units available in different communities across Alberta.

This is something that, of course, we cannot deal with overnight, but we are making the necessary investment because I do agree with the hon. member that every family deserves a home. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, again, the Premier talks about a 10-year plan to end homelessness, but the government has known about this for some time. Boyle Street Community Services identified this problem last year.

In the city of Edmonton there are only 36 beds devoted to kids that are 19 years old or younger, but there are up to 360 children under 17 years of age living on the street in Edmonton alone. Around half of those have fled an unsafe situation at home. There’s one person who can do something about this right now, and that’s the Premier. My question is to him. Mr. Premier, will you act to get vulnerable young people off the street today? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we actually, not today, started a number of months ago with a very comprehensive housing program for the province of Alberta.

We’re continuing in that direction. We see some very positive signs. In fact, more housing units are available. There are more rental spaces available if you’re looking at some of the statistics that are coming both from real estate and also from the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. So we’re moving in a positive direction. Of course, we were criticized yesterday by the opposition for spending as much money as we did in the eviction fund protecting families so that they’re not evicted and out on the street. That’s the kind of compassion that this government shows towards families. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, no government has done more to create homelessness in this province than this government. Instead of spending the money necessary to fix the shelter problem, the Liberals and Conservatives voted for a $265 million corporate tax cut. That money could have solved the shelter problem immediately and made a huge dent in homelessness today, not 10 years from now. My question is to the Premier. Will you do the right thing today and commit to spending the money needed to give every homeless child a safe place to sleep today? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we’ve already committed the funds.

We have already committed the funds. But this, again, is a differ- ence in ideology from the third party. What they want to do is to tax as much as possible and then share that money out. One of the proven examples in this province is that by working together with the private sector and finding the right model to encourage continued investment in housing, we see more housing units available, we see more rental units available, and in fact we have made tremendous progress in this area in the last eight months.

If we would have followed their advice, we would have had less – less – rental units and zero increase in the number of housing available. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Affordable Housing for Students Ms Calahasen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My constitu- ency has experienced incredible growth. Rent increases have skyrocketed, and to find affordable rental accommodation is like finding hen’s teeth. Students attending Northern Lakes College in Slave Lake are especially finding it difficult to get housing on their limited funding.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. What is it that you’re doing to address the affordable housing needs of students in this province? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, I want to say to the hon. member that our programs are designated to

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072104 address the people that are most in need, as identified by the local municipalities. This morning we were able to make an announce- ment for affordable housing in rural Alberta. In addition, on affordable housing and how it benefits communities, students are also able to qualify for funding under the rent supplement program, which amounts to approximately $14.3 million more to assist 6,700 households. 1:50 Ms Calahasen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the announce- ment this morning.

However, how does that, then, fit into what my needs are in Slave Lake and for the students of that community, who are experiencing such incredible difficulty in trying to find afford- able accommodation? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, Slave Lake is a community with a college, and with the growth pressures that that community has in housing, the community of Slave Lake brought forward a proposal for housing for students. Students come into Slave Lake for trade schooling. It could be anywhere from seven to eight weeks to six months. There is no such facility to be able to address those needs.

This morning we approved an application for over $3 million for the community of Slave Lake to assist that community with student housing. Ms Calahasen: I really thank the minister for that, Mr. Speaker. However, there are partnerships that have occurred in the past within my constituency with various groups. My question, then, is to the minister again. Is it partnerships that drive this kind of idea in order for us to be able to get more money for those areas or those commu- nities that need affordable housing? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in the criteria for the attainable or affordable housing, one of the criteria, of course, is contribution from other sources, co-operation. It’s not necessarily necessary, but it adds to part of the project. I do want to say that it is critical that the communities, the municipalities get together with the schools, with not-for-profit agencies because in actuality communities are working together to one goal, and that is to make that community better. Yes, it is very advantageous to work together. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Energy and Utilities Board Mr.

MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When it was revealed that a government agency hired private eyes to spy on innocent landowners at EUB hearings, Albertans felt betrayed, violated, disgusted, and repulsed. Not the Premier, though. He initially defended the use of spies by his government. My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Given that the government was provided all the details last May in advance of the illegal undercover spying operation in Rimbey, why didn’t they do anything to stop it? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, you know, the situation around the EUB is certainly deplorable, I would suggest, to say the very least. None of us – none of us – on this side of the House and not very many, I think, on the other side of the House would agree that hiring any kind of private service to look into the private affairs of Albertans is something that we would tolerate. I haven’t tolerated it, and the fact of the matter is that that has been dealt with very severely. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Minister of Energy: why, then, are you tolerating the attending board members of the EUB by allowing them to still sit and serve? John Nichol, Ian Douglas, and Graham Lock were aware of the covert spy operation in Rimbey. You hired them. Why don’t you now fire them? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, what I should probably suggest that the member do now is that perhaps tomorrow morning he may want to check with the EUB to see who actually is sitting on the board of the EUB. Mr. MacDonald: Again to the same minister.

Now, when the information was provided to the Legislative Assembly security that this covert spy operation was going to occur, why did this govern- ment not do anything and stop it, stop it right there before it occurred? It was illegal; it was wrong; it was intolerable. Why didn’t you do anything? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, again, what I can tell you and all Albertans is that I have done exactly that. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont- Devon. Affordable Housing for Smaller Communities Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta continues to be a beacon of hope for Canadians looking for a province that provides them with opportunities. The rest of the country and indeed the world is beating a path to our door, a place to call home. November 22 is generally recognized as National Housing Day in Canada, and it serves to highlight the importance of having a safe and affordable place to call home. My first question is for the Minister of Munici- pal Affairs and Housing. Can the minister advise this House about what specific actions he is taking to help smaller urban and rural municipalities to address their affordable housing needs?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do want to acknowledge what the hon. member has presented in his question, and that is that rural municipalities or smaller municipalities are experiencing those growth pressures. This morning we did make an announcement. The program offered $60 million, which individual municipalities were able to apply for. This morning we made that announcement, and there were 15 municipalities w ith 16 projects that were approved. We will get over 500 units that will be devel- oped from that funding.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. Can the minister tell the House more about the projects and what this funding will mean? What does it mean on the ground, Mr. Minister? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, what’s on the ground are 500 units, units that are throughout Alberta in small communities where there is a need. Those projects are projects for education, attainable affordable housing for special needs. They are projects that are needed in those communities. I again suggest to you: over 500 units being built in Alberta.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member.

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2105 Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplemental is to the same minister. Mr. Minister, we all know that partnerships can make a huge difference. You get a bigger bang for the buck. Can you give us any examples of partnerships on these projects? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that one of the best partnership programs or applications that came forward was exactly the partnership from Leduc/Beaumont/Devon.

Their project was the three municipalities getting together and working together on a three-year project. In fact, that organization got $7 million for 56 units to be built in their communities. So it does show how communities can work together for a positive, united goal. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Water Licence Transfer Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans expect their government to take their concerns seriously, to listen to them when they have concerns about actions and approvals, especially in relation to water in southern Alberta.

Albertans are increasingly distrustful of this government, including issues around Bill 46, coal- bed methane drilling without groundwater testing, and the Balzac situation, and the list goes on. Now, in relation to Balzac the Springbank water provider Westridge Utilities and the Tsuu T’ina First Nation appealed Alberta Environment’s decision to approve the water licence transfer from the western irrigation district to the megamall in Balzac and never heard back from Alberta Environ- ment. To the minister: why did the minister ignore the statements of concern from Westridge Utilities? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that decisions with respect to licence applications, water applications are dealt with by a director within my department. If affected parties are dissatisfied with that decision, they have the right to appeal that decision to the Environmental Appeal Board. Then and only then, after the Environmental Appeal Board has dealt with an issue, is the minister entitled to be or in fact legally allowed to be part of that decision-making process. 2:00 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With a moratorium on all new allocations from the Bow River can the minister outline what principles he followed in determining the priority that Balzac had for this replacement water? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this particular issue is before the appeal board as we speak, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment one way or the other until the board has dealt with the issue. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that the government ignored other water users’ concerns and made sure the developers of the megamall got their water raises more questions of public trust and the involvement of this government in the Balzac megamall. This government also gave millions of taxpayer dollars to develop the water system there. They appear to have bent the rules to allow them to access the money. They approved a water licence in the blink of an eye. Did the minister bury the statement of concern because of government promises to the developers in the MD, because this government was involved in the megamall from the beginning?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to comment on this particular licence application, but let me talk about the general issue of dealing with licence and water allocations on the South Saskatch- ewan River basin. As the member has already pointed out, there are no additional licences that are to be issued in that system. That, then, necessitates the transfer of existing licences. It’s not the government that initiates those transfers; it’s the licence holders that initiate those transfers.

The responsib ility of the government is to ensure that in the process of transferring licences, we don’t put any risk or additional risk or harm to the ecosystem. That is the overriding policy. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Affordable Housing in West Yellowhead Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later this week affordable housing day is being recognized throughout the province. Can the minister of municipal affairs please advise the Legislature what government is doing to help with the affordable housing issue for all Albertans that are in need? The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I need to let this Assembly know that housing is a priority for this govern- ment: in fact, 11,000 units planned over five years – 11,000 – $285 million this year allocated to housing and programs, new money, and also $143 million of that going to the high-growth communities; $35 million for homeless support to provide, an earlier question, 3,100 spaces; $7.5 million for the winter contingency funding for 940 extra spaces. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first supplementary question is to the same minister. What are you doing to answer the affordable housing issue in West Yellowhead? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In this morn- ing’s announcement of $60 million there was a program for $4.9 million going to the Happy Creek Estates project in Hinton. This project provides 58 units of low-cost, affordable housing, including 30 units that are accessible to assist Albertans with special needs. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second supplementary question is to the same minister. With affordable housing being an issue in West Yellowhead, what ar e you doing to help those other communities that didn’t receive the grants process? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, in particular in the constituency of the member $550,000 for 23 community housing units, 85 rent supplements, $4.4 million for 69 units in the Alberta affordable

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072106 housing program, $2.3 million for off-reserve aboriginal housing for 35 units, more than $900,000 under the municipal sustainability and capital enhancement program. This is just one example in one constituency of what this government is doing to assist in housing and services in this province. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Continuing Care Needs in Fort McMurray Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s a shortage of continuing care beds in Fort McMurray, and the few beds that do exist are located within the hospital.

A hospital’s ability to take new patients into an emergency room or for surgery depends on having the ability to discharge patients into a continuing care facility. To the minister of health. The health region has been asking for and has needed a continuing care facility for five years. When will they get one? Mr. Hancock: Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, the short answer is: as soon as I get the money for it.

But I can tell the hon. member that, indeed, the health region has a plan in place and has requested as part of their capital request for this year – and we’ve approved money to buy land for it – to build a facility so that the continuing care facility can be moved out of the hospital, supplemented in terms of the numbers, and that we can reclaim the hospital beds for active hospital acute care. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister of health again.

I’d be more than willing to write letters to your colleagues when it’s budget time to see if we can get you that money. The region is under great strain not only because of not having the long-term care beds. They are very afraid of a major industrial accident or even a widespread pandemic and being able to go into all of those beds. You have indicated that it might be dependent on the budget. Could I have, perhaps, a little tighter time frame on that? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member has offered to lobby my colleagues, I think – that’s not the term she used – with respect to the budget process when it becomes time. She ought to be aware, of course, that the budget process for this government starts very early in the process, so it’s well past the point where lobbying might be effective. I can say this: it’s a very important part of our capital projects. We put forward the requests, and obviously the result will depend on the number of priorities that have to be funded in terms of the capital that’s available.

But I’m very acutely aware of the need for a long- term care and continuing care facility in Fort McMurray and the need to reclaim the hospital beds that are currently occupied. Ms Pastoor: Well, I’m disappointed to hear that I can’t do some good, solid lobbying. I’m pleased to hear that this is where the minister is going because continuing care beds in the long run really are less expensive. But my question would be: at this point in time are people who are in considered long-term care beds being charged as long-term care beds, or are they getting them at hospital rates? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I couldn’t answer that off the top of my head as to what charges might be levied. In terms of long- term care patients, normally long-term care patients are treated differently than lodge or continuing care in terms of whether they’re charged for their housing. I wouldn’t believe that anyone is being charged for housing because I believe that’s treated as a long-term care facility, but I would have to check into that and get back to the hon. member. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. Condominium Conversions Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government’s housing policy stumbles and bumbles from one disaster to another. In the first 10 months of this year the city of Edmonton has experienced 6,915 condo conversions. Before this year the largest number was 4,776, in 2004. To the President of the Treasury Board. You brought us Bill 34. Wasn’t the purpose of this bill to give renters a year of relief and peace of mind that they’d at least be able to stay in their homes for at least a year, or was the point of Bill 34 just to make the government look like they were doing something for renters? 2:10 Mr. Snelgrove: Mr.

Speaker, there is a balance in governing, where you need to respect the property rights of people, and you need to balance that in some cases against the greater need of others. What we did with our landlord/tenant act was to ensure that people would have time to plan should circumstances change with regard to ownership of buildings or property and, if there were to be conver- sions or sales, that they would have the opportunity to look for other places to live at that time. It has never been this government’s position to arbitrarily assume control or ownership of private property. Mr. Martin: Mr.

Speaker, what was the point of having Bill 34, then? We spent all night here debating it, and I thought the purpose was so that they would have that year. Now the minister is saying that they don’t. The legislation is so full of loopholes that you could drive a truck through it. It’s virtually useless. Service Alberta tells us to take the landlords to court. That’s the advice we get when we call. Again to the President of the Treasury Board. Forget about the balance and worrying about the landlords all the time.

When will you acknowledge that this isn’t working and implement something that keeps people in their homes, like a temporary moratorium, till this has settled down a little? Mr. Snelgrove: You know, Mr. Speaker, what keeps people in their homes are jobs and work. When we can support the people that need help, when we can put in programs that will allow people who for a short period of time need some assistance, we’re very happy and able to do that. The only solution to a lack of housing, whether it be expensive or very affordable, is the number of units.

If the hon. people would read any literature or just listen to anyone, they would understand that the solution lies in developing more units. Mr. Martin: We’re getting a lecture from Milton Friedman over there in supply-side economics, Mr. Speaker. Let’s put it in perspective. The minister over there is bragging about creating 11,000 units over five years. In Edmonton alone we’re losing 7,000 units of affordable housing. That’s just in Edmonton. Never mind Calgary and the rest of the province. How can you possibly justify this with this going on? Mr. Snelgrove: His time, Mr.

Speaker, would probably be better spent out looking where they’re going to. They’re not going anywhere, hon. member. They are housing people in Edmonton and

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2107 all of the communities ar ound here. Under your plan people quit building, quit providing anything, and they leave. This allows an opportunity for people to transition to whatever kind of housing they choose. Rather than everyone moving in with your grandiose opportunity for Alberta, where we can all live in a cardboard box, we strive to let people go to the top. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Agricultural Income Stabilization Program Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, Alberta’s livestock producers are facing many challenges due to the strong Canadian dollar and the skyrocketing cost of fuel, feed, and fertilizer. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. While my constituents appreciate the assistance being provided under the recently announced Alberta farm recovery plan, some are wondering why this plan is based on the CAIS program and not on a per-head/per-acre basis. Can the minister explain why. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food. Mr. Groeneveld: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, a per-head or a per-acre program does not reflect producer need, nor is it trade neutral. For the AFRP we wanted a quick response but not through an ad hoc or a shotgun, scattergun approach. CAIS, obviously, offers the best available data that we have to be able to target producers who require assistance. Mr. VanderBurg: Mr. Speaker, you know that in your constituency CAIS doesn’t work for your producers. Minister, you know it doesn’t work for your producers. My producers spread manure every day, but they can’t spread it as high as the CAIS program. Mr.

Minister, tell us: when will you fix this program? When will you get together with the feds and get this right? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve made no secret all along that CAIS has never been my favourite program. However, we are in this with the federal government on a 60-40 deal. We are endeavouring to make some changes to the CAIS program. In fact, I’ve charged the people at AFSC to come up with a new program. They have done so, and we’ve presented it to western Canada. It’s been fairly well received. We presented it to the federal government last Saturday.

It’s been fairly well received there. We’re now doing a comprehensive report to the eastern Canadian people, so hopefully down the road we’re going to get this fixed. Mr. VanderBurg: Mr. Speaker, okay. I give. I’ll give in on this point. Can the minister tell us: when will my producers get the cheques from this program? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, cheques have started coming out on the current program. So far we’ve sent out $14 million, with an average payment of $72,000. Hog producers will be the first to receive this program, and the cattle pr oducers will follow very shortly.

In total $165 m illion will be distributed to all eligible producers by March 2008. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Elbow. Drug Treatment Courts Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the recent report of the Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force one of the simpler recommendations was the expansion of drug treatment courts to meet the needs of Albe rtans struggling with addictions. Will the Minister of Justice provide a target cost for establishing these institutions outside of Alberta’s two largest municipalities? Mr. Stevens: Mr.

Speaker, it is true that one of the recommenda- tions of the task force was to expand specialty courts. At this point in time we have a very successful domestic violence court program, some eight domestic violence courts throughout the province. That is the template that we use when we talk about this type of court. We’ve been able to expand that one court at a time as a result of ultimately building the capacity w ithin communities to deal with these matters, and as we go forward with respect to either drug courts or mental health courts, which are the other recommendations, that will be our approach.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The task force report points out that drug treatment courts will only work if offenders receive immediate help getting into treatment. How will the Minister of Justice address the shortage of treatment spaces that currently exists, for example, in Fort McMurray? Mr. Stevens: The drug court that we have in the province at this particular point in time, Mr. Speaker, is located here in Edmonton. It came about as a result of a federal government initiative.

The city of Edmonton and other concerned individuals put forward a proposal to the federal government, so we’ve now had a drug court here for, I believe, in excess of one year. The involvement of Alberta Justice with respect to the drug court – we do not do the prosecutions because prosecutions are done principally by the federal govern- ment; they prosecute adult drug offenders – is the participation of the court staff, and at this point in time the cost is being linked to . . . The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A related question.

The task force also recommends, based on the earlier work of the Premier’s Task Force on Crystal Meth’s report, that a minimum of 200 treatment beds are required across this province. How can addictions treatment be expanded in this province given the struggle that service providers face in providing service to those currently involved in treatment programs? Mr. Stevens: There’s absolutely no doubt that treatment goes along with courts like the drug court. But, Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to treatment beds is not a Justice issue; it’s ultimately a Ministry of Health and Wellness issue.

Perhaps another day he’ll be able to comment on this. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill. High-Security Drivers’ Licences Dr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Officials from the United States recently announced that they plan to accept high-tech drivers’ licences instead of passports to allow Canadians to cross the border. Such drivers’ licences would have embedded personal information, including citizenship, and would be harder to counterfeit or steal. My question is to the hon. President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Service Alberta.

What is his department doing to bring on the proper technology in Alberta to allow Albertans to cross the border without passports?

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072108 2:20 Mr. Snelgrove: That’s a good question. I’m not exactly sure that the premise is correct, Mr. Speaker. There is a group that is working with our American counterparts to understand if there is a possibility to develop a secure document that may take the place of a passport. If that document were able to be included in a driver’s licence in some way or another, then that would be good. The Alberta driver’s licence itself is one of the most secure documents in North America, but at this time it is only a document that entitles you to drive a motor vehicle.

That’s all it signifies. Dr. Brown: To the same minister: what does the minister anticipate in terms of timing in bringing on this technology to allow us to cross the border without passports? Mr. Snelgrove: To be clear, Mr. Speaker, the standing right now for Albertans to cross into the United States on land without passports is likely going to be this next fall. If you travel by air now, you have to have it. Is the Alberta government going to be ready to produce a driver’s licence that would enable them to cross into the United States within a year?

I don’t think so b ecause the information that would be needed to do that in a driver’s licence would very much resemble the information you need to collect to have a passport. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member? Hon members, that was 83 questions and answers today. We will now resume with the Routine. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have four tablings today, the first being a letter from Derek Wynnyk, a resident of south Edmonton, who is writing to express his concern about the homelessness situation and encourages governments to commit 1 per cent of their budgets to housing programs. The second letter is from another south Edmonton resident, Bruce Horsman, with concerns about AISH. He wants to let the govern- ment know how difficult it is for people who live on AISH, and he says, “The streets are no place to live in a land so rich.” Mr. Hancock: A point of order. Mr. R.

Miller: A letter from Neil Evans, a resident of Edmonton- Mill Woods, who is writing with concerns about Alberta’s parks. He says that every time that he stays in a campground in a B.C. provincial park, a Washington or Oregon state park, or a Canadian or U.S. national park, he wonders why we don’t have the same high- quality parks and campgrounds here in Alberta. The last one, Mr. Speaker, is from Joyce Peeke, a resident of south Edmonton, expressing her concern about unfair bargaining that she has experienced for local 003,

chapter 008. She’s a 24-year employee of the Alberta government. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: Were there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. I have four tablings today. The first is on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Malcolm Ball, who is writing regarding prospective changes to labour law . . . [interjection] The Deputy Speaker: We have a point of order. We’ll deal with it afterwards. Mr. MacDonald: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hancock: You don’t interrupt question period for points of order, but it’s appropriate at other times.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. What’s your point of order? Mr. Hancock: Well, Tablings to the Clerk were called and the Routine was finished. The Deputy Speaker: We had some left over. Mr. Hancock: But the Clerk called Tablings to the Clerk. The Deputy Speaker: I believe it was premature on his part because I still had some on the list. It was a lack of communication, hon. minister, so we’re continuing on with this program. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. After that interruption I will start over. The Deputy Speaker: Continue from where you left, please. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. On behalf of Mr.

Malcolm Ball, a constituent of Edmonton-Gold Bar, I would like to table the following letter, which is indicating that we must change Alberta’s labour laws in five significant ways. The second tabling I have is a letter dated September 6, 2007, to the hon. Minister of Energy. This is in regard to the government’s slow elimination of the regulated rate option and forcing up power bills. My third tabling is on behalf of a constituent, Olga Sandberg, who also is very concerned about Alberta’s labour laws and is suggesting in this letter that there be five significant changes. My last tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is from a constituent from Edmonton-Gold Bar by the name of Mr. Justin Fex. Mr. Justin Fex is also writing requesting that ther e be five significant changes to Alberta’s labour laws. Thank you very much for your patience. I appreciate it. head: Orders of the Day head: Transmittal of Estimates The Deputy Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, I have received a certain message from His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, which I now transmit to you. The Sergeant-at-Arms: Order!

The Deputy Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supple- mentary supply estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, and recom- mends the same to the Legislative Assembly. You may be seated. The hon. Minister of Finance. Dr. Oberg: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. When a second or subsequent set of estimates is to be tabled,

section 8 of the Govern- ment Accountability Act requires that an amended fiscal plan also be

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2109 tabled. Accordingly, I wish to table the 2007-2008 quarterly budget report for the second quarter, which serves as the amended fiscal plan. This quarterly report was provided to all MLAs on November 20. I also made this report public as required by

section 9 of the Government Accountability Act. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The quarterly report tabled by the Minister of Finance provides the framework for additional spending authority for 16 departments of the government. I now wish to table the 2007-08 supplementary supply estimates. These will provide additional spending authority to 16 departments of the government. When passed, the estimates will authorize approximate increases of about $1.5 billion in voted expense and equipment purchases.

The majority of these estimates are for the savings, with $825 million going to the heritage fund and $408 million for capital projects, including capital maintenance and renewal and affordable housing. This is available from higher than anticipated fourth quarter results from last fiscal year and this year to date. The remainder of the estimates are for $197 million in disaster emer- gency assistance, and $68 million for public service and salary settlements, contracted agency recruitment and retention initiatives, and the Fort McMurray allowance.

Also, an additional requirement of $15 million in statutory nonbudgetary disbursements is disclosed in these estimates. Disaster emergency assistance is funded through the sustainability f und, and other changes are addressed through dedicated revenue, expense changes, or the contingency allowance announced at budget. Mr. Speaker, as was reported yesterday at second quarter, it is important to note that due to lapses operating expenses remain lower than forecast at budget. head: Government Motions 32. Mr. Snelgrove moved:

Be it resolved that the message of His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the 2007-08 s upplementary supply estimates for the general revenue fund, and all matters con- nected therewith be referred to Committee of Supply. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, this is a debatable motion. Does anyone wish to? The hon. President of the Treasury Board to close debate? [Government Motion 32 carried] 33. Mr. Snelgrove moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 61(9) the number of days that Committee of Supply will be called to consider the 2007-08 supplementary supply estimates for the general revenue fund shall be one day. [Government Motion 33 carried] head: 2:30 Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 41 Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 [Adjourned debate November 14: Mr. Oberle] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River? Are there any others? The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s an honour to stand and speak to the issues of Bill 41, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Let me say that this is a bill that raises significant concerns for many of the professions, not only the health professionals. It amends the Health Professions Act to require immediate notification of the medical officer of health, and it amends the Health Professions Act and the Medical Profession Act to give the minister the power to replace the functions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons or to direct the college to adopt bylaws, regulations, and standards. Clearly, Mr.

Speaker, this raises some significant concerns for the medical profession in particular but all health professionals as it empowers the minister to make orders directing the college to adopt a code of ethics for standards of practice, to appoint an administrator to carry out powers and duties of the college if in the opinion of the minister it would be in the public interest. He could make any regulation, bylaw, code of ethics, or standard of practice that a council may make, and those decisions override any made by the college.

This is both a heavy-handed and an unnecessary interven- tion by the minister, and it violates the principle of self-regulation that this government has said it was committed to over several decades. It raises a number of questions, most fundamental of which is: what problem is being addressed by this, and what is the best way to solve it? Infection control practices, which appear to have been a stimulus for this new amendment, identify roles and responsibilities for infection control that include the Alberta Department of Health and Wellness itself.

It’s not clear where the responsibility for some of these breakdowns lies, but quite apart from that there are gross underfunding problems in the Alberta health ministry, low morale is well known, and it may prove just as constructive to look within the department to look at ways that we can improve the supervision and management of infection control in the province. Another question in relation to this is the question that this amendment may prohibit or discourage doctors from criticizing government and health authorities from pointing out other shortfalls to the system.

It’s clearly not in the best interests of improving quality of health and improving relations with the medical profession to intervene in such a heavy-handed way. A further question would be: how does the minister determine the public interest? Again, it’s very unclear that politicians would have a better sense of what represents the public interest than those individuals who have spent their lives studying and committed to improving the public health. Yet another question is: why is the minister undermining the self- governance process that this Legislative Assembly empowered them to have?

Would the minister feel equally strongly about other professions, including the legal profession, if this is an important oversight that all professions may need by this government? A further question relates to that of the cabinet role. Would the cabinet be in a better position to set standards of practice for medical professionals than these professionals themselves? Should politics be in a position to trump professional ethical bodies and their codes? Yet another question that the minister may wish to answer is why he’s focusing this draconian change on the health professions.

Surely we have equal and serious concerns with all professions in Alberta. Finally, will the health minister accept the liability associated with making decisions that affect the practice of medicine in this province, especially if it involves changing the roles and responsibil- ities of one profession in relation to others? If there are concerns or a failure of communication, as may have occurred in the infection control problems in Alberta East Central, surely the most appropriate

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072110 and constructive response would be to identify those concerns and participate in solving them. It’s unfortunate that the ministry of health has chosen to use a significant breakdown in infection control practice as an excuse to violate decades-old trust given to a deeply revered profession in the province. This does not bode well in a province struggling to meet minimum health professional numbers and practices.

So it’s difficult for this particular member to support this health professions statutes amendment, and I think it would not be in the best interests of the public health and all Albertans to support this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is available for any questions or comments. Seeing none, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to speak about Bill 41 in second reading, Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Along with my hon. colleague from Calgary-Mountain View I am also concerned about the kind of powers that are allocated to the Minister of Health and Wellness under this act.

It seems to me that the effect of Bill 41 will give the Minister of Health and Wellness power to dictate codes of conduct, namely ethical and practice standards, of the various occupational groups that are covered by the Health Professions Act. It gives the minister power to dictate bylaws; that is, internal constitution and rules. It gives the minister power to order a council to do anything the council can do. It gives the minister power to take over the operation of any of the health profession self-regulatory bodies. In

part 8.1, 135.1, which indicates the minister’s direction and the powers of the minister in respect to health care, if you ask the question “What is the safeguard against the misuse of such powers?” the only safeguard really mentioned here is the notion of the minister’s opinion whether it is in the public interest or not if the minister interferes or participates and directs the council to do anything. That gives a tremendous amount of leeway, I think, or latitude for the minister because it’s open to a treme ndous amount of

interpretation. What is in the public interest? I think that’s too broad. I don’t think that’s really in the interest of the regulation of the professions. I mean, Mr. Speaker, this bill seems to actually lead to the negation of the principle of self- regulation because it’s suggesting that it’s not sufficient for physi- cians under the college of physicians to regulate themselves. There’s going to be some sort of oversight and interference in their ability to self-regulate. I mean, what are such statutes for when it comes to the professions if not to establish the right of professions to regulate themselves?

Surely that’s what we have in place when we look at various other professions. I might refer to Law Society in this respect. When we have these kinds of acts, they establish the parameters upon which the profession is going to regulate itself. To have this kind of statement in this bill seems to undermine the very authority of a profession to regulate itself. Now, in the minister of health’s explanation in second reading of this kind of change and this amendment in this bill the minister explained.

He said, “I want to be very clear that it’s not my intention as minister and it’s not government’s intention, nor would it be appropriate, for us to step in and do things with respect to the standards of practice or the codes of conduct.” Well, Mr. Speaker, if that’s the case, why have legislative powers to be able to step in if it’s not their intention to step in? It seems to me to be inappropri- ate to have this kind of component in the bill.

If the intention is not really to interfere with the ability of the profession to establish its own code of conduct and ethics, then why have legislation like this, which outlines the possibility of being able to interfere? 2:40 Now, I agree with the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View that if we look at the problem – the minister, when he looked at the issue of the problem that it’s trying to address, named the complex- ity of the health care system, th e multidisciplinary team approach, questions of collaboration between different professions. He mentioned, you know, the need for a synergizing of standards.

Those are the words he used: standards “are synergized.” But it seems to me that the solution to that is not through some sort of legislative authority that’s laid on the professions. It seems to me that the professions, in dialogue with people in government and, namely, the Department of Health and Wellness, can certainly move forward in a collaborative way to share their expertise and to develop ways of dealing with the complexities of the health care system today. I have a real problem once you pass legislation like this.

Then the onus is on the department to provide some sort of expertise to be able to make decisions about these kinds of things when it’s the people in the profession that have the expertise. I’ve done a lot of reading about bioethics in the past, and it seems to me that of all the professions that we have in our society, it’s physicians and nurses, the health care practitioners, who have made the greatest advances in ethics and have developed codes of ethics that apply to their team approach in making decisions within a hospital setting and so on.

I don’t see the necessity of this kind of imposition through the role of the ministry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with Bill 1 and Bill 2 in this Legislature is improving on our own codes of ethics for ourselves, so we as members of this Legislature are determining what is the code of ethics that applies to us. No one outside of the Legislature is imposing a code of ethics on us although it is true that we are responsible to the general public.

But we are articulating and we are passing legislation outlining a code of ethics for ourselves, and surely that’s what all professions are doing, and the physicians and the nurses have done it very well. Mr. Speaker, I really take objection to this kind of imposition of authority from government upon a profession like the physicians and health care practitioners. My onl y question is: what profession is next? The legal profession: is that the profession that’s next?

And so we continue along a path of authoritarianism, which to me is not in the interests of professional development and the freedoms that professionals have to do their work and to get together and deter- mine what are best practices and what is the kind of ethics that they’re supposed to follow. Those are the remarks that I have, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Again, hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is available. Seeing none, the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As an RN I stand here today very, very troubled with what I see on the pages before me. I returned to school as a mature student. I think that probably might be up for discussion about the definition of mature. However, I felt I was mature, and I worked very, very hard to get my RN. I also believe that once I graduated, I delivered very good care as a geriatric specialist. I loved my job, and I did it well. But now this is making me feel like I’m a widget in some system.

I was very proud of the decisions that I could make as a professional because I had to make them often on the fly, but I could stand up and defend the decisions that I’d made because I was that professional. As I mentioned before, I think I feel now like a widget in the system. An Hon. Member: Bridget the widget.

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2111 Ms Pastoor: A Bridget widget. You betcha. I want to feel like Bridget the nurse, not a widget.

Section 8 amends

section 36, and it talks about adding criteria that fees have to be paid in order to become a regulated member. That also troubles me. In the old days, prior to this bill – which I hope will be defeated, but never mind – I really believe that the RN association, which was the AARN, which is now CARNA, actually had a very, very strong fiscal policy and were very responsible with the fees that we gave them, the registration fees. They had a very small staff, and they did huge jobs with the staff that they had.

My fear with this one is that the increase could go in fees to pay for a huge bureaucratic administration that would be required in looking after these fees. They should not leave the profession. One of the things that I think may have triggered this although it looks like it may have been in the works for a while is the infection control episode which occurred in one of our health regions. The minister stepped in – rightly so, certainly, at that point – and took over that particular problem and got it solved.

However, it’s at that point that he should have also stepped back because infection control really boils down to cleanliness. The dollars were cut in the middle ’90s, and by cutting those dollars, we also cut the cleaning staff. I believe that that’s where part of that infection control is. Even today we can go through hospitals that are public hospitals that really aren’t clean, never mind sterile. Let’s just go for clean. The other thing that I have noticed with that particular episode is that there were dollars put towards the solution of that problem.

I’m not sure where those dollars have gone, and what has really hap- pened in the real world is that the cleaning component has now been downloaded onto PCAs and to some extent even the LPNs. So now we’ve got PCAs running ar ound doing what actually should be cleaning staff duties, and now the residents have got even less of the PCA’s time. I’m getting a lot of letters and e-mails to that effect, that PCAs are feeling downloaded upon because of this infection control, and I’m not sure where those dollars went. They may have gone to, God forbid, another study.

However, all they have to do is send the money down to the front lines, and the jobs will get done. The RNs have been a self-governing profession in Alberta since 1916. Three weeks ago in this House we talked about real estate, and we actually gave them the ability to self-regulate. Surely, if real estate agents are capable of self-regulating, RNs, that have been doing it since 1916, certainly should be able to do it. Registered nurses have worked very hard to earn the privilege of self-gover- nance, and the current level of public trust in our profession is very, very high.

In fact, might I suggest that the public trust in an RN is a whole pile higher than the public trust in a politician despite the fact that I’m both. Wellness is the ultimate responsibility for public safety. It does fall under the minister of health. However, I do believe that self- regulation should not come under a minister’s jurisdiction.

CARNA doesn’t have the jurisdiction to review the policies and processes of health authorities, but what they did have and how they did address the infection control episode was that they had specific directions and guidelines for their members, particularly in the self-employed practice, who often then made sure that those guidelines were passed down to the actual front-line workers, the RNs who were really delivering that care. 2:50 CARNA also recognizes that infection prevention and control is a science, and it requires a considerable depth of expertise available at that service level.

The expertise must be accessible to all health providers, and to be able to get it to those health providers, I believe that RNs are probably the ones that are best qualified for that. CARNA is also concerned about sections 135.1, 135.2, 135.4 of this bill because it provides sweeping powers to the minister of health or to the Lieutenant Governor to direct that a council of a college adopt a code of ethics, adopt a standard of practice, adopt regulations, and carry out any power or duty of a council under the Health Professions Act in the absence of parameters clarifying prudent use.

The proposed amendments can erode self-governance and were developed without the benefit of consultation with the health professionals affected by them. Again, I see this government not talking to the people on the front lines. It’s important to recognize that the foundation of public trust must be very, very clear, that the public totally trusts the people that are delivering their health care. You are at your most vulnerable when you’re sick or in an accident and you need the care of an RN or another health care professional, i.e. a doctor or a pharmacist.

You want to be able to close your eyes and know that you’re going to be looked after. Damaging the credibility of a profession is not in the public interest, and it’s another reason that CARNA recommends clarifying the purpose of giving the minister such sweeping powers. What is the purpose? Why would he want those powers when it’s worked well for so long? The precedent has been for government to take a collaborative approach to the college to resolve an identified issue. CARNA certainly supports this approach rather than enacting very broad legislation, which, again, could erode self-governance for all colleges.

I believe that in the past this collaborative process has worked very well and served the people of Alberta in terms of being able to trust their public health care.

Section 135.2 allows the minister to appoint an administrator to take over the running of a college. There must be a clarification of the type of situation which would justify allowing the self-governing role of a college to be revoked using a ministerial order. This is very, very troublesome. I think this has to be clarified. If it has to be clarified to such a narrow degree, then why bother with it in the first place? If the intent of this is to provide s upport for small colleges, there really are other ways. Very small colleges could be partnered with larger ones which have the infrastructure to support them.

I’m thinking, perhaps, that under the umbrella of CARNA we could have LPNs, that we could have psych nurses and also PCAs. At this point in time we are hiring people with less than two weeks of experience to work in an industry where vulnerable people are counting on them. We really, simply must have PCA training that could then give them that designation of a PCA professional that could be well looked after and come under CARNA. The fees in this

section 1(7), which amends 28(1)(b), is going to now refer to fees as an application fee. My questions would be: who is this going to become payable to? Would it go to CARNA, or will it fall into that black hole called the general revenue? If it does, then CARNA may be very, very strapped in terms of running its own organization, which really, really, really isn’t fair. Should this bill go through, these dollars simply must stay in CARNA so that they can run the organization that they’ve been running since 1916. The complaint resolution also troubles me as an RN.

As an RN I want a fellow peer to be able to review my behaviour if someone has made a complaint. I want to be sure that all the information is there and that it is totally understood by someone. I could probably agree to an appeal panel that would be outside, perhaps, of CARNA or a professional complaint process. If someone feels that they haven’t been fairly dealt with within their own profession, an outside appeal I could support. However, to actually take it out right off the top as a nurse I find really offensive.

I think that nurses have had, certainly, a proud hundred-year history of working collaboratively with the government, but I also think that if nurses hadn’t had this self-regulation, we wouldn’t have

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072112 the profession that it has grown into today. We have PhDs in nursing. I doubt very much if this would have happened, if it would have had the opportunity to grow if it was under a government ministry that probably could well be peopled by people who have never even been near a hospital or physically cared for someone or physically stood beside a bed and realized that that vulnerable person only had you. Sections 135.1, 135.2, and 135. 4 should be deferred and s hould certainly be reassessed to enhance provisions for transparency and accountability.

All of this should be very, very open. I feel that if it disappears into a ministry, it will go, again, onto some shelf, into some hole, and it’ll take forever. It may well take FOIP to get it out, and as we all know, FOIP comes back with lots of black marks on the pages, so you’re really back where you started from. I would leave you with one thought. Good governance starts in the Legislature, but if you don’t listen to the people who work in the system – and that would certainly be the nurses, the doctors, and the pharmacists – then it is doomed to fail.

For the many reasons that I have just reiterated, I simply cannot support this bill. The Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is available. Seeing none, are there others that wish to participate in the debate? Does the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness wish to close debate? Mr. Hancock: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that have been brought forward today with respect to Bill 41. I can let members of the House know that I have been having discussions with members of the professions, in particular the College of Physicians and Surgeons, CARNA, and the College of Pharmacists, with respect to certain sections of the act.

I do anticipate that in Committee of the Whole we will be bringing forward some amendments to help deal with some of the issues or concerns that they have. We won’t be going all the way with respect to those amendments, and we won’t be going all the way for a very simple reason. When the public is concerned about an issue, where they look for assurance is to their government, not to the colleges. While I’m a very strong supporter of self-regulation for professions – it’s an absolutely important concept – it’s not an absolute concept. Self-regulation is delegated to professions by act of the Legislature.

When there are issues with respect to health – if there’s a SARS pandemic, if there’s an issue with respect to water quality – it’s not the health profession- als from whom the public requires accountability. It is the govern- ment, and it’s the minister of health. The amendments that are being proposed in Bill 41 are not in fact intended to be derogation of the self-governance of the profession but, rather, to ensure that govern- ment has the ability, the role, and authority to carry out its duty of assurance to the public. That is the long and the short of it.

Now, I’ve indicated, I believe, in opening comments that with respect to sections 135.1, 135.2, 135.3, obviously, when you use language like “if in the opinion of the Minister,” that is interpreted at law as acting reasonably. It’s not a question of waving a magic wand or showing up one day in the office and saying: oh, it’s my opinion that this should be changed. There is a course of construct with respect to statutes that requires

an act being reasonably processed. 3:00 So it’s not a question of the minister or the government interfering with professions just because it wants to, but it is a question, Mr. Speaker, of being able to play that role of assurance, which is so important in a public health system.

Particularly in an environment where we’re seeing an increase in complexity in the system, where we’re encouraging health care professions to work together collabor- atively, that all health care professionals ought to be allowed to act to the full extent of their capability, training, and expertise, there needs to be standards of practice, codes of conduct, et cetera, that work synergistically together, that work collaboratively and, as well, when health care professionals are employed or work in the context of a health facility, that the standards of practice and the way in which they operate works in con cert with the standards which are expected of the health facility.

Yes, there is a role for the minister of health and for government in making sure that those things happen, not in telling the health professions what to do – they obviously are the experts in the area – but in making sure that when essential issues are necessarily discussed, there’s a process in place and an ability for the minister to play a role in bringing the health care professions to make sure that those concerns are addressed and, then, if that in the last resort doesn’t work, to be able to direct the profession to do it.

Now, one of the questions that wa s raised was with respect to it being done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council rather than by the minister. Well, if you read the construct of the bill and the act, the minister can in fact order under the provisions of this act. But if that order is not complied with – in other words, if a college doesn’t follow that order – then if you want to change the bylaw or the code, you have to come back and do it by Lieutenant Governor in Council. So in fact that provision is already implicit – well, actually explicit – in the way that both the bill and the act are drafted.

A number of the concerns that are being raised I believe have been addressed. Some of the other concerns will be addressed when we bring forward amendments in committee. So I would ask the members to vote in favour of this bill at second reading because it’s essential, in my view, that government have the ability to respond.

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that the opposition doesn’t believe it necessary for there to be a comprehensive health system and accountability at the apex of that health system, in the minister and in the government, to make sure that the public of Alberta are protected. [Motion carried; Bill 41 read a second time] head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll call the committee to order.

Bill 40 Personal Directives Amendment Act, 2007 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise today in Committee of the Whole to present Bill 40, the Personal Directives Amendment Act. I appreciate the support this legislation received in second reading. It is indeed progressive legislation that helps Albertans plan for a time when they may not be able to make their own personal decisions.

Before I respond to the questions that were raised in second reading, I would like to give a brief recap of the elements included in the Personal Directives Amendment Act. Bill 40 will amend the

November 21, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2113 Personal Directives Act, the legislation that allows Albertans to write down their wishes about personal matters in case they are ever unable to speak for themselves. This legislation allows Albertans to lay out instructions for personal decisions like health care and where they want to live. It also lets them choose someone to act on their behalf and make decisions according to their specified wishes.

The Personal Directives Amendment Act will update this important legislation through providing a voluntary form and a voluntary registry, allowing parents to include in their personal directive provisions for minor children, recognizing planning tools from outside the province, adding a new method for reassessing capacity should the maker of a personal directive regain their decision-making ability, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the substitute decision-maker, the ag ent, allowing the office of the public guardian to investigate complaints about the actions of an agent, and, finally, allowing the office of the public guardian to act as the guardian of last resort should an Albertan be without a family member or friend who could act as an agent.

Mr. Chairman, all of these amendments will strengthen the Personal Directives Act and ensure that it continues to meet the needs of Albertans now and in the future. I would like to now address some of the questions that arose during second reading of Bill 40. One of the defining characteristics of this legislation is that it’s voluntary. Albertans have the freedom to write a personal directive if they want and when they want, and now they will have the freedom to either fill in a voluntary standard form or use the form as a guide.

This is a very personal document, and we don’t want to prescribe to Albertans how they should write it. A voluntary standard form will make it easier for Albertans to write a personal directive but will also allow them to have the kitchen table approach, which gives them the freedom to write a personal directive when and how they feel compelled. As well, many lawyers can use their own forms with clients. There was strong support for a standard form during the legislative review consultations, but Albertans did not want it to be mandatory; they wanted a choice.

We also feel that choice is important for the creation of a personal directive in the first place. We agree that young people should plan for their futures and that more public education to reach this audience should be a priority. The sugges- tion to reach high sc hool students through the career and life management program will be followed up through consultation with Alberta Education. One hon. member brought up possible confusion around planning documents from outside the province. Bill 40 requires that direc- tives made outside Alberta must meet the requirements of personal directives under our act.

These requirements include that a docu- ment is written, dated, signed, and witnessed and is about personal matters. This is expected to be a simple process for health care providers. Once again, it’s written, dated, signed, and witnessed. If there are any questions, they can contact the office of the public guardian. Translation services would normally be available if the problem is that a person does not speak English well or that the personal directive is not written in English. During second reading a few hon. members asked about the role of the office of the public guardian as investigator.

The investiga- tion process is clearly outlined in Bill 40 and will be further detailed in the regulations. If the maker is concerned about an agent’s decision, they will be able to submit a written complaint to the office of the public guardian. If the complaint meets the criteria in the act in

section 24.2(2), then the decision of the agent would be investi- gated. All complaints will be reviewed, and all complainants will be informed if an investigation will proceed or not. To resolve a complaint, the public guardian could take the matter to court following an investiga tion or use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or the complainant could take the matter to court. There is no administrative appeal process set out in the act, but the court can review the decisions of an agent.

In the case where the public guardian is acting as agent and there is a complaint, the public guardian has the ability to delegate the authority to investigate to a neutral third party to avoid a conflict-of-interest situation. The third party would have all the same responsibilities to investigate the actions of the public guardian as agent. 3:10 The question of regained capacity seemed to be the issue most raised during second reading. Capacity is defined in

section 1(

b) of the Personal Directives Act, not in this bill. We are not changing that definition. “‘Capacity’ means the ability to understand the information that is relevant to the making of a personal decision and the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision.” Bill 40 outlines the required process for determining whether a maker has regained the capacity to make a decision about a personal matter.

The agent is required to initiate an assessment if they believe that the maker has had a significant change in their condi- tion, change meaning an observable and sustained improvement that does not appear to be temporary. The assessment includes consulta- tion with a service provider who is providing health care services to the maker and may include interviewing the maker, reviewing health care records, and discussing the matter with others who may have contact with the maker.

If both the agent and service provider agree that there has been a significant change, then they complete the determination of regained capacity form and the personal directive is deactivated and the maker regains their decision-making powers in that personal area. Once a determination of regained capacity has been completed with respect to an area of authority – for example, health care treatment or all areas of personal authority – the adult is considered to have the capacity to decide on their treatment and be legally competent in this decision-making area.

A health care provider can also initiate an assessment of regained capacity if they notice a significant change. They consult with the agent and follow a similar process as the one that I just talked about. If there is a disagreement between the agent and the health care provider on whether the maker has regained capacity, a full neutral assessment needs to be completed by service providers, one of whom must be a doctor or a psychologist. The maker also has many choices to trigger a reassessment if they feel they have regained their capacity.

They can ask the agent or any health care provider who provides a health care service to them to do an assessment of regained capacity or ask the office of the public guardian or an interested person to consult with their agent on their behalf. They may also take the matter to court and ask the court to make a determination of capacity. All of these options will ensure that if the maker of a personal directive does regain their ability to make decisions, their personal directive can be deactivated, and they regain control of their own decision-making.

Personal directives speak for Albertans who cannot speak for themselves. These amendments ensure that Albertans have choices, freedom, and that safeguards are in place to ensure that agents are acting in their best interests. I am encouraged by the support this legislation received in second reading. I hope that I have addressed all of the hon. members’ concerns. I urge all members to support Bill 40, the Personal Directives Amendment Act, important legislation that helps Albertans plan for their futures. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard November 21, 20072114 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, I commend my fellow colleague from across the way. This is an excellent bill. It is so needed. I will speak further to the bill after I raise my amend- ment. I believe that it is being passed. The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, there is an amendment being circulated, and the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East will be moving that amendment momentarily. We shall refer to this as amendment A1. You may proceed. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The proposed amendment to this amendment of the original bill reads as so: “The Public Guard- ian must conduct an investigation where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant has been, or will be harmed mentally or physically.” One of the reasons that I bring this forward – it’s a small tweak- ing, if you will – is that I really believe it strengthens the authority of the public guardian by having very clear guidelines in the act rather than in the regulations.

Often persons with discretionary powers, particularly when someone is dealing with someone’s life or their personal safety or, in fact, just their personal care may feel more comfortable because it is quite a bit different than making a decision about increasing the number of widgets that a factory may turn out. Bill 40 in

section 24.3, the new provision for the investigation of complaints by the public guardian of situations involving the failure of an agent to comply with the personal directive or the duties of an agent, currently says that “the Public Guardian must review a complaint to decide whether an investigation of the complaint is necessary and must notify the complainant of the decision.” I believe that what I’m bringing forward strengthens that by saying that they must review the complaints.

It’s important as it explicitly states that an investigation by the public guardian is mandatory if there’s a reason to believe that physical and/or mental harm to the maker has or is likely to occur. Making an investigation mandatory when harm is evident adds further protection to the maker of a personal directive. When makers write down their wishes, they want that total peace of mind that they know that there will be somebody out there to fight for what has been their wishes, certainly for their end of life and even when they’re younger.

There are stories that cross my desk about people who are afraid to come forward. I think that if people knew that that public guardian would go ahead and investigate complaints, they wouldn’t have the fear that they have today to come forward. It would give them the comfort to know that they wouldn’t be ostracized and, in terms of staff, lose their jobs if they would come forward to make complaints.

The other thing that sometimes happen is that families could be complaining about the care or the agent could be complain- ing about the care that the person they’re in charge of would be receiving, and sometimes institutions’ attitude to that is: well, if you don’t like them, take your loved one home. That’s not good enough. I believe that this is where the public guardian could step in and protect people who have the courage to come forward.

It establishes a mandatory duty for the public guardian to review complaints about an agent, but the duty of the public guardian to investigate these complaints is discretionary. Discretionary authority is not problem- atic on its own; however, there are no explicit criteria for determin- ing when an investigation would be conducted by the public guardian. In order to promote transparency and accountability,

section 24.3 should specify the test to be applied by the public guardian in the course of deciding whether or not to conduct an investigation. If the test is met, a mandatory duty should be to investigate, and it should be triggered at that point. This same threshold is applied in the context of investigations of child abuse and neglect under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. A similar recommendation was also made by the western Canada law review agencies in its report in relation to investigation of complaints about attorneys under the EPA.

That report recommends that investigation should be mandatory where the public official has reasonable grounds to believe that the donor of the EPA has been declared incapable and that the attorney has breached one or more of the attorney duties listed in the EPA. I believe that the comfort zone that this would create would be appreciated by all people who have these discretionary powers. I would ask the House for support for this amendment for what I believe would strengthen what is already a very good bill. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East for her proposal; however, the current wording of the proposed

section 24.3(1) states that “the Public Guardian must review a complaint to decide whether an investigation of the complaint is necessary and must notify the complainant of the decision.” The criteria for determining whether a complaint must be investigated are already set out in

section 24.2(1) of Bill 40. We should retain the dual criteria of the com- plainant having reason to believe that (

a) an agent of the maker is failing to comply with the personal directive or the duties of an agent, and (

b) the failure is likely to cause harm to the physical or mental health of the maker. The public guardian should have the authority to screen out com- plaints that don’t meet both criteria before an investigation is commenced. 3:20 The existing language also recognizes that there are many agencies responsible for adult protection, and there will be cases where it is appropriate for others to investigate a situation. Exam- ples would be the police or investigators with the protection for persons in care program.

We didn’t want to create a situation in which the public guardian would be compelled to do an investigation while someone else was already investigating. For these reasons I respectfully recommend that we do not support this amendment. The Deputy Chair: Would anyone wish to partici

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20071121
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20071121 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	29fd242899c923bc32a84dda69fb62eb931ea73b

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