April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 859 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/04/11 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. O Lord, guide us so that we may use the privilege given us as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently and the courage to think and to speak with clarity and conviction and without prejudice or pride. Amen.

Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, today I’ve been advised that there is quite a list, so let’s have some patience with respect to several of the matters on the Routine today. We’ll first of all recognize the hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition I received last Friday at one of my open houses urging the government to withdraw Bill 11. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 328 Albertans from Edmonton, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, Wabamun, Stony Plain, and Fallis.

It is urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and under- mining our public health care system.” I’m pleased to note that by the time the Official Opposition tables the petitions for today, which will be 4,317 additional, it will lead to a total to date of 50,159 Albertans from right across this great province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a petition signed by 340 residents of Sherwood Park.

Their petition reads as follows: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to rise and table petitions signed by 205 Albertans from the communities of Edmonton, Wainwright, and Vegreville. These citizens “petition the Legislative Assembly to urge th e government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I’m delighted this afternoon to present a petition signed by 257 Albertans from the communities of Calgary, Okotoks, and Cochrane who “urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a real privilege today to present a petition on behalf of 789 Albertans from Lethbridge, Barons, Coaldale, Raymond, Longview, Cardston, Milk River, Medicine Hat, and Taber asking the Legislative Assembly to institute an after-hours law that would make sure that everybody has someone else working with them when they’re working in busi- nesses in Alberta. As second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from 3,221 Albertans from Calgary, Lethbridge, Okotoks, De Winton, Coalhurst, Fort Macleod, Raymond, Duchess, Vulcan, Taber, Granum, and Pincher Creek. It’s in a different form than the other one.

This is a petition also requesting that a law be introduced to protect employees’ lives when they work after hours. Mr. Speaker, a third petition again is from 336 Albertans from Lethbridge, Claresholm, Redcliff, Medicine Hat, Coleman, Bellevue, Hillcrest, Blairmore, and Picture Butte. This is petitioning “the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition this afternoon.

It’s petitioning “the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” It’s signed by 236 Albertans from Edmonton, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, and St. Albert. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition signed by 126 Albertans from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, St. Albert, and Morinville urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [sys- tem].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party.

DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got two petitions. The first one is signed by 734 Albertans who come from Priddis, Cold Lake, Vegreville, Spruce Grove, Edmonton, Edson, Onoway, Ardrossan, Leduc, St. Albert, Westlock, Morinville, Redwater, Calgary, Drayton Valley, Wetaskiwin, Westlock, La Crete, Sherwood Park, Rimbey, Gibbons, Tofield, Bon Accord, Whispering Hills, Thorhild, Bruderheim, and Boyle. The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 69 Albertans. Both petitions are asking for this Assembly to bring in legislation to ban private, for-profit hospitals. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to present a petition signed by 264 Albertans from Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Sherwood Park, and Ardrossan. They are urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would

860 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 present a petition signed by 215 citizens from Edmonton, Stony Plain, Carvel, and Sherwood Park urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition signed by 233 people in St. Albert, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, Alberta Beach, Legal, Riviere Qui Barre, Calahoo, Onoway, Alcomdale, and Leduc.

They are petitioning “the Legisla- tive Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [sys- tem].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to present a petition signed by 218 Albertans from Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove, and Sherwood Park. They are urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and under- mining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to present a petition signed by 218 residents of Alberta from Edmonton and Sherwood Park. They are urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased and proud to present to the Legislature today and table with the Assembly a petition from 230 residents of Edmonton, St. Albert, and Sherwood Park. Primarily they are from my constituency and were gathered by two elderly, courageous ladies.

The petition is to “urge the govern- ment to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care,” sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition supporting public health care from 219 residents from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and Ardrossan urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly that states: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. It’s signed by 239 Albertans in Slave Lake, Widewater, Grande Prairie, Wembley, High Prairie, Fox Creek, and Grouard. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions to present to the Assembly this afternoon. The first petition is from a group of 257 individuals from Edson and Sangudo.

They are urging the Assembly and the government of Alberta “to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” The majority of these signatures were acquired at a public meeting held in Edson on March 21 of this year. Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is from another 396 constituents of Edmonton-Gold Bar, and my constituents are urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1:40 head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: Once again, hon. members, there’s quite a lengthy list. The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to have a petition on behalf of the Member for Lethbridge-East from March 23, 2000, read and r eceived and, sec ondly, that a petition in my name from April 10 on private health care be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, request that the petition standing under my name be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of the province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would ask that the petition I tabled yesterday opposing private health care now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora.

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 861 MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition which I presented to the Assembly on April 10, 2000, regarding the government’s promotion of private health care now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would rise and ask that the petition under my name on the Order Paper be now read and received, please. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. At this point in this after- noon’s program I’d request that the petition I introduced the other day with respect to concerns about undermining public health care might now be read and received, please.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented the other day now be read and received. It was regarding supporting public health care in this province. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the petition I presented to the Legislature yesterday urging the govern- ment to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care now be read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the petition I presented regarding the undermining of public health care be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would request that the petition I presented on April 10 regarding private health care now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask with your permission that the petition I presented on April 10 from 225 Edmonton and area residents opposing private health care be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request the reading of the petition I presented to the Legislative Assembly on April 10 by 1,300 Edmonton residents requesting that the promotion of private health care and the undermining of public health care be stopped. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, request that the petition I presented on April 10 signed by 286 Albertans requesting that the promotion of private health care and the undermining of public health care be stopped be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that the petition with respect to public health care that I read yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

862 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d request that the petition standing on the Order Paper under my name from April 3 with respect to people on night shifts now be read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce legislation requiring a minimum of two people on shifts from dark to daylight. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 11, 12, and 13. I’m also giving notice that tomorrow I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to table five copies of the response to estimates from the March 13 subcommittee D meeting.

I’d also like to table five copies of the response to Public Ac- counts held on March 15 for the Department of Resource Develop- ment. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of the Environment. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the last session I accepted motions for returns 233 and 234, and today I table the requisite number of copies of my responses to those two motions for returns. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated on March 15 during Committee of Supply, I am able to now table five copies of the responses to questions raised that evening.

MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have two tablings today. I’d like to table with the Legislative Assembly five copies of two news releases dated March 22, 2000, and April 7, 2000, concerning bills 207 and 208. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got three tablings today. The first one is a letter from Debra Morris, chairperson, Edmonton presbytery, United Church of Canada, representing 30 churches in Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert area, and she’s requesting the Premier to withdraw Bill 11.

The second one is from Ms Moira Hogg from Calgary, again requesting that the Premier withdraw the bill. The third one, Mr. Speaker, is also from Calgary from Harry Chase protesting Bill 11. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table three recent reviews of public opinion with respect to private hospital legislation currently before this Assembly.

The first is the Angus Reid worldwide poll that shows that 65 percent of Albertans are very concerned about Bill 11, a poll released today by the Canadian Union of Public Employees showing that 55 percent of Albertans are opposed and 33 percent support Bill 11, and finally an A-Channel Insight Research health care poll showing that 58.5 percent of Albertans would oppose Bill 11,

whereas only 21 percent support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quickly I have six items to table. Firstly, a cost-benefit analysis of trust on Bill 11; secondly, a Liberal news release of even date with respect to the government propaganda campaign on Bill 11; thirdly, the complete package evidencing Liberal costs of $29,290.78; fourthly, an updated checklist for the reference of the Premier when he completes his outline of government costs in its propaganda campaign; fifthly, a

summary entitled Government Closure of Second Reading on Bill 11 Limits Debate; and finally, a list of those MLAs not afforded a chance to speak at second reading on Bill 1l. Thank you very much. Speaker’s Ruling Inflammatory Language THE SPEAKER: You know, hon. members, tabling returns and reports could be such a simple little thing. Oftentimes certain language is used in question period and during debate which may inflame, but there’s really no need for such language to be used in tabling returns and reports. Let’s be very clinical about this. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) MR. WICKMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have two letters to table this afternoon, one from Con Duemler providing an analysis of Bill 11 and asking that Bill 11 be withdrawn, the other from Dale Levy, who is expressing his opinion of Bill 11. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of tablings today. The first tabling is five copies of a May 2, 1994, letter from the former deputy minister of h ealth suggesting that the Gimbel foundation bill could violate the Canada Health Act.

Along with that letter I’m tabling supporting documentation, Mr. Speaker, that faster care at a price, Klein wants medicare changes . . . THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS OLSEN: I have two tablings. THE SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry. I’ve recognized the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two documents

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 863 to table, both from constituents. The first is a letter from Brenda Gilboe, and with that came the Bill 11 mail-out. The second was also the Bill 11 mail-out being returned from Ewa Cyganek. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is from the mayor up north in the town of High Prairie, and he’s sending a letter to the Minister of Environment about the concerns he and his town have with regard to the importa- tion of foreign toxic waste at Swan Hills.

The second is a letter from Richard Collier of Calgary, and Richard is opposing any further development in Kananaskis, specifically the Genesis land corporation proposal. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings from Delwood school parents, the parent council: a letter signed by 102 parents representing 109 parents and 142 children discussing the many challenges incurred by the school as a direct result of current underfunding for public education. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I have three tablings today. The first is a report completed by the Calgary Homeless Foundation, Housing Our Homeless, a stakeholder consultation assessing shelter needs in Calgary, dated March of 2000. The second is a report released by the South P eace Social Planning Council, Working Together to Break the Chains of Poverty, an excellent analysis of the demographics of poverty in Alberta. The third report I’d like to table this afternoon is titled It’s Up to Us: Report of the Progressive Conservative National Caucus Task Force on Poverty, dated January of 2000. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a letter dated September 1, 1999, that I received from the hon. Minister of Justice, and in this letter we are discussing the Fatality Review Board. I also have a policy declaration from the Canadian Alliance as my second tabling, Mr. Speaker. This is an initiative to restore demo- cratic accountability by allowing free votes in a Legislative Assem- bly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today.

First of all, I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a phone survey that has been ongoing in Castle Downs since the introduction of Bill 11 asking for constituents’ comments. The second tabling is the appropriate number of copies of a questionnaire with respect to Bill 11 that I placed in the local Castle News. head: Introduction of Guests MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a group of volunteers seated in your gallery. April 9 to 15 is National Volunteer Week.

It’s a special time set aside to honour people who donate their time and energy to their fellow citizens. It’s also meant to raise aware- ness of the vital contribution volunteers make to our communities. On your behalf, Mr.

Speaker, and on behalf of the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta I’d like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to the following volunteers in the public information branch, visitor services office who are seated in your gallery: Jean Yates for eight years of service, Doreen O’Callaghan six years of service, Myrna Grimm two years of service, Pat Foster two years of service, Jean Sui two years of service, and Rita Alfrey two years of service. I’d also like to recognize Clive Lomax, who was not able to be with us this afternoon, for five years of service.

I’d now ask that the group rise and receive the warm, traditional welcome of the Assembly. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, today I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 64 students from Bluffton school. They are accompanied by teachers and supervisors Mr. Dan Eveleigh, Mrs. Sharon Johnston, and Ms Michelle Jean. I’d like to point out that they are seated in both the public and members’ gallery, and I would ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to introduce two parents from Delwood school council to the Legislative Assembly. They were responsible for obtaining all the signatures on the letters that I presented today. Mr. David Colburn and Wendy Keiver, if you would please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 21 students from Mee-Yah-Noh elementary school.

They are currently participating in the School in the Legislature program. They will be here all week. They had a debate this morning on a bill. They are accompanied today by their teacher, Mrs. Marjorie Scharfenberger; her father, Mr. Wes Rider, who is a retired principal from Edmonton public schools; and parent helper Mr. Leonard Bauder. They are seated in the members’ gallery today, and with your permission I would ask they now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. 2:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. MELCHIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise today and to introduce a good friend of mine to you and through you to members of the Assembly. Louise Kidney, a member of our constituency, certainly was a tremendous supporter to myself in our last campaign. She’s sitting in the public gallery. I’d ask that she stand now and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dunvegan. MR. CLEGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to introduce to you and through you Matthew Holden of Spirit River and his fiancee, Ann Eikeland of Norway. We welcome Ann to Dunvegan and to Alberta and to Canada.

Matthew and Ann are to marry on June 24

864 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 in Norway, and in August Ann will be moving to Canada to make Spirit River her home with Matthew. I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly and wish them all the best. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 26 students from M.E. LaZerte high school in the Edmonton- Manning constituency. They’re in the international baccalaureate program, grade 10 social studies.

Their teacher accompanying them is Marie Freiha, and they’re in the public gallery. With your permission I’d ask that they stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased today to rise and introduce some special guests who will be joining us later in question period. We have with us this afternoon a total of 28 students from the Laurier Heights elementary school. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Louise MacGregor, and parent helpers Jean Lundeen and Anne Lalonde. I would like to welcome these students to the Assembly.

They have a fantastic French-immersion program at Laurier Heights school in the constituency of Edmonton-Riverview. I would ask all members to welcome them to the House this afternoon. MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, likewise, I would wish to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly 37 guests that will arrive from Jean Vanier school today, three teachers and four parent helpers who will join us soon. Accompanying the students are Nadine Gerrie, Darlene Korpany, Mrs. Mairead Michniewski, Teresa Busenius and teachers Vicki Whalley, Bob Dulaba, and Kristen Kowalchuk.

I ask the Assembly to welcome them as they will be walking in forthwith. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my very special pleasure today to introduce to you and to all of my colleagues in the Assembly two very special guests, Mr. and Mrs. Koticha, who are very new Canadians. Jitendra Koticha is a civil engineer and a businessman in Edmonton. Neeta Koticha is an accomplished artist. Since her childhood Neeta has been very creative and enjoyed painting on canvas and fabric.

Her imagination flows in both ancient and modern art, uniquely blending both culture and time. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to now rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a now frequent visitor to the Assembly. Mr. Con Duemler has joined us again this afternoon. He is a friend to seniors in particular in this province and has recently just prepared an excellent analysis of Bill 11.

I hope that all members of the government caucus in particular will read that analysis. I thank Con for that. I welcome him to the Assembly and would ask him to please rise and be welcomed by all members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Melissa Wheeler. Melissa is participating in Mr. Speaker’s Youth Parliament as the MLA for Edmonton-Centre for the Rupertland Municipal Party. Melissa is also a grade 11 student at Victoria school of performing and visual arts.

Her favourite class is drama, so she was very well ma tched with me. I’d also like to thank her grandmother, who encouraged her to come and participate in the youth parliament. Melissa is in the public gallery, and I would ask her to please stand and accept the warm welcome of the Legislature. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. Limiting Debate on Bill 11 MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not only is public health care on the critical list in this province, so is democracy.

The members of this Assembly are elected representatives and are the voices of the people of this province. To stifle these voices is an affront to the people of this province and

an act of cowardice. My questions are to the Premier. When dismantling the public health care system in this province, how does the Premier determine how much time he will provide for the views of Albertans to be spoken and which voices will be heard? How much time is enough? MR. KLEIN: The simple answer is: as much time as is reasonable, Mr. Speaker. First of all, in response to the

preamble we are not dismantling public health care. We’re protecting publicly funded health care as we know it today and fulfilling our commitment in law – if they’re opposed to it, let them stand up and say so – to the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act. That can hardly be dismantling it. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know to what aspect of democracy the leader of the Liberal opposition alludes. As I understand it, there was an amendment.

It was supposed to be a reasoned amendment proposed by the Liberals, which was accepted, but only seven members of their caucus bothered to show up to even vote on their own amend- ment. Seven members. That is a disgrace to democracy, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. MR. DICKSON: Point of order. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier decide to limit debate when he’s afraid of what his own backbenchers might say? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, democracy in action. There were 31 members of the government caucus in the House to vote.

There were only seven members – now, this leader of the Liberal opposi- tion will say: well, they were in the back room. Right? They were in the back room, and they were ready to come out. Do they not have speakers in the back room? Do they not have a party whip? Do they not have any discipline over there in the Liberal caucus? You know, they talk about democracy, and when they have a chance to participate in democracy, they don’t even show up. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, given this Premier’s record of invoking closure 26 times to cut off debate when his predecessor invoked it once under Premier Lougheed, does he muzzle debate when he’s afraid to hear what Albertans are saying about his legislation?

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 865 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I noticed with a great deal of interest that at the Liberal policy conference over the weekend the delegates, all 300 of them, voted not to rule out the use of closure as a tool in the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, you know, I hold out the promise again: if the Liberals promise not to filibuster, we promise not to use closure. Now, I understand and maybe they can correct me if . . . [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Hon. the Premier, you have the floor. 2:10 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we haven’ t used closure.

There’s still lots of time to speak on second reading. [interjections] If they care to show up, they w ill have the oppor tunity to speak to second reading. MR. DICKSON: Point of order. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, what I find is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy and affront to this Legislature is that they introduced an amendment, and only seven of them showed up. And they talk about democracy. They have made a mockery out of democracy. THE SPEAKER: That first exchange of questions led to two points of order for me to deal with later.

Sometimes one should look at these points of order during the question period, but let’s see how we develop further. Second main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We must open up the government to more public scrutiny to give us in effect a more human face; I foresee more meaningful participation by private members, free votes in the Legislature: not my words but the words of the current Premier on September 17, 1992, when he announced his candidacy for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Albertans vote for their MLAs in the expecta- tion that they will represent their views in the Legislature, but this Premier seems to have a view contrary to the words he used when he launched his leadership in 1992. He sees MLAs as pawns to push his agenda for private hospitals, contrary to his earlier pledge. My question is to the Premier. Why has this Premier broken his promise made in 1992 to Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you that more private members’ bills have been passed since 1993 than ever in the history of the Legislature, and the largest percentage of those bills were the result of free votes, Mr. Speaker. Now, as for the leader of the Liberal opposition’s assertion that MLAs are being used as pawns, I would only hearken back to those who were private members when the leader of the Liberal opposition was the health minister. The biggest complaint that I received and one of the reasons she lost the leadership is that in fact she was using the MLAs as pawns. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, why won’t this Premier let his MLAs represent the wishes of their constituents on his private hospital policy? Why is that? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no private hos pitals policy. Therefore the question is irrelevant. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will this Premier just change his mind and let the MLAs vote according to the wishes of their constituents? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the bill be fore us is a government bill, and therefore there is caucus solidarity. I’m sure the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition understands that.

When she was minister of health in the Conservative government, she absolutely demanded, as she does, I understand, in her own caucus, absolute solidarity. That’s why none of these people ever stray from their script. I’m told by members of the Liberal caucus that they are not allowed to stray from their script. Now, is that being dictatorial or not? I think it is. That’s not the way I operate with my caucus, but it’s obviously the way she is still operating with her caucus. THE SPEAKER: Third main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR.

TAYLOR: Three strikes and you’re out, Nancy. MRS. MacBETH: A government that dictates the way its members vote, a government that cuts off debate . . . THE SPEAKER: Please. I’m going to let you start over again, but I’m going to ask certain members to my right, who are members of the government caucus, to kindly button it, and that includes the Minister of Innovation and Science. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, a government that dictates the way its members vote, a government that cuts off debate, a government that ignores the wishes of the people and forces its members to toe the party line: I am not talking about some dictatorship but rather talking about Alberta. My questions are to the Premier. Will this Premier confirm that part of the reason he has muzzled the voice of Albertans is to save his backbenchers from being forced to toe the party line in direct conflict with th e views of the majority of their constituents? MR. KLEIN: Well, the simple answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no, absolutely not.

We operate in a much less restrictive fashion than the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition was used to when she was a member of cabinet, a member of Treasury Board, and a member of priorities. I recall as a minister having to set up at least three or four weeks in advance an opportunity to even have a phone call with that minister. That’s the way she operated, and that’s the way she’s still operating today. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Premier doesn’t want to answer the questions, but let’s try again.

What is so important about this government’s private health care policy that this Premier is muzzling not only the opposition but his own caucus as well? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, I would ask each and every member of this caucus as they proceed through the debate on Bill 11 or any other bill in the Legislature to stand up and slip in the word that they’re being muzzled. I don’t know. I look around, and I see this marvelous caucus here. Just nod. Can you shake your heads? Are you being muzzled?

866 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that the Premier has shot down the opposition, has muzzled his own caucus, is ignoring doctors, nurses, the majority of Albertans as represented in the three recent polls that I have tabled, just who is this Premier listening to in this discussion? MR. KLEIN: We’re listening to Albertans, Mr. Speaker, and overall Albertans have a tremendous am ount of trust. What we do from time to time might not be the most popular thing to do, but as I’ve always said, you have to make tough decisions.

That’s something that the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition failed to do when she was minister of health. She would never go out into the constituen- cies. Instead, she sent her bureaucrats out to do her dirty work for her. This caucus is willing to stand solidly behind a decision that is made collectively by all members and make the tough decisions to do what is right for this great province of ours. That’s what it’s all about. Speaker’s Ruling Decorum THE SPEAKER: The citizens of Alberta may not necessarily be aware that the Legislative Assembly of their province sat until nearly midnight last night.

One tends to think that ther e’s a correlation between lateness of sitting and exuberance the next day in question period. The hon. leader of the third party. 2:20 DR. PANNU: Thank you . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Why don’t we just take the next couple of minutes and everybody just yell back and forth at one another. Okay? Just do it. Hon. leader of the third party, wait for the all the exuberance – let them go back and forth, yell and everything else. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. Private Health Services DR. PANNU: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Poll after poll, including the one released just this morning by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, shows that the opposition to the private, for- profit hospital scheme is rock solid while what little support the government has is soft, soft, and soft. The government has become so desperate that it’s now making medical decisions to try to blunt public opposition. My questions are, of course, to the Premier.

Now that your government has made the long overdue decision to do away with direct patient charges for foldable lenses, will it move quickly to get rid of patient charges for other upgraded medical appliances like titanium hips? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know, and I’ll have the hon. minister supplement relative to the situation vis-a-vis upgraded services. There was one interesting outcome from that poll. I’m not discounting the poll. I understand there was a sampling of 700 people. This survey was done by HRGS WorkScans in Ottawa.

I don’t know the firm, but we have to assume that it was a reputable polling firm. Question 4 says, understanding that the opinion showed that the majority of people were moderately opposed or strongly opposed to the bill, “For each of the following possible amendments, please let me know whether it may or may not help you change your opinion”: “a ban on overnight stays,” 21 percent yes, 68 percent no. So obviously the 68 percent were fundamentally, ideologically opposed to the bill. But here’s the very interesting one.

It says, “A guarantee of no extra billing”: 71 percent of those polled said yes, that would have an influence on them changing their mind. Perhaps we can accommodate that if the hon. member would help us. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. We’ve been going on to long answers. Brevity. There are many, many members here today. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is very little in that poll for the Premier to seek comfort in.

My second question to the Premier: how many Calgarians had to endure long recovery times and additional suffering simply because the government has until now turned a blind eye to the practice of add-on patient charges for foldable lenses? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness respond to that. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think it would be accepted across this nation that Calgary through the significant number of very expert doctors has probably had the best, most advanced health care relative to eye care in the country.

They have pioneered a number of new techniques, and I think Calgarians are well served. With respect to the overall issue of foldable versus solid lenses, Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have asked to be assessed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, because we know that the science is changing. There is continuing evaluation of what is the best type of appliance for eyes. We also have looked at what other provinces do, and generally speaking, they do not cover the foldable lens accept for Ontario and Prince Edward Island, as I understand it.

After an overall assessment and noting that, yes, there was inconsistency in the province, ge nerally speaking in terms of the rural parts of the province outside of Edmonton and Calgary providing foldable lenses and the two major cities not doing so, both in terms of patient comfort and in terms of consistency across the province, we made the announcement that has been communicated today. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister still hasn’t answered the question on the number of Calgarians who were put in this position. My last question to the hon.

Premier: why is the government choosing to make pi ecemeal changes, such as the decision on affordable lenses, rather than doing what Albertans really want, which is to scrap its private, for-profit hospital scheme? MR. KLEIN: There is no private, for-profit scheme, Mr. Speaker. Basically, the bill comes about as the result of a request by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the federal minister to provide some rules and regulations as those rules and regulations affect surgical clinics. The simple fact is that there are 52 surgical clinics now in operation in this province.

Many of those clinics were stand-alone facilities, and in recent years, with Alberta’s adherence to Minister Marleau’s request, with the elimination of facility fees, those clinics are now contracting to hospitals. What we need to have are simply rules and regulations relative to contracting out as it affects surgical clinics that now do 152 different procedures, as I understand it, and perform about 20,000 procedures a year within the publicly funded system. All we want to do is put some fences around them. It’s as simple as that.

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 867 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Foldable Intraocular Lenses MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the announcement made earlier this morning about the foldable lenses being paid for by the public system, I’d ask the Minister of Health and Wellness to elaborate on the reasons for the move and if the public health system will also be paying for foldable lenses supplied in the private surgical facilities. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, Alberta Health and Wellness as an integral part of the government overall is fulfilling its responsibility in continually assessing the provision of services under our publicly funded, publicly administered system. I would remind members of the Assembly that periodically we make changes in coverage. A very good example would be the whole area of funding approval for the coverage of certain pharmaceuticals, and the same is the case with respect to appliances. This issue of foldable versus solid lenses has been a matter of discussion for many months.

As all members of the Assembly would know if they were interested in this particular area, there has been a debate on the whole issue of what is medically required: are there advantages in having the foldable lens? Mr. Speaker, after an overall assessment of the situation and looking at also, yes, the need to have consistency across the province, we made the announcement that was conveyed to the public today. 2:30 MR. LOUGHEED: Further, Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: regarding the benefit of the foldable lens to the patient, would he elaborate on that and why the publicly funded health system did not previously pay for that lens? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it – and I can only speak from a layman’s perspective as it is explained to me – as the foldable lens went into use in certain parts of Canada and in this province, there was an ongoing assessment made of the benefits of using the lens.

It has been determined over a period of time that it does help in terms of comfort and recovery time following an operation, and that is deemed to be important for patients, albeit both types of lenses do serve basically the same purpose or perform the same way in terms of restoring or improving one’s sight. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to the same minister: would he comment please on whether the hard lens is an inferior product as compared to the soft lens? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, it’s my understanding that in terms of the actual restoration or improvement of sight after a certain surgical procedure has been done, the results are very, very, very compara- ble, but as I’ve said, in terms of recovery time, in terms of comfort and certain other factors, it has at least for a significant period of time an advantage over the solid lens. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. Private Health Services (continued) MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Wednesday this Premier made a commitment to us in this Assembly to release the 30 blanked-out pages from his private hospitals policy, including focus group research, if the Official Opposition would release the results of its focus group research. Well, the Official Opposition has not conducted any focus gr oups on the Premier’s private health care scheme. We don’t need to do that because we listen to the thousands of Albertans who communicate by faxes, letters, e-mails, public meetings, and telephone calls. My questions are all to the Premier.

Let me start by asking the Premier this: given that the Official Opposition has released and in fact tabled today the full costs of its campaign to protect public health care in Alberta, will this Premier now release all of the invoices, the receipts, the copies of the contracts from his taxpayer funded propaganda campaign at least since it was initiated in June of 1999? Will he live up to the commitment he made last Wednesday? MR. KLEIN: There was no propaganda campaign. I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about, Mr. Speaker. The bill that was mailed out purports to be law.

There is nothing more honest and straightforward than the law. This hon. member, if I can use that word, is a lawyer. He knows what the law is all about. Or maybe he doesn’t. He’s sat here in this Legislative Assembly day in and day out making a mockery out of the law and himself. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question to the Premier would be this: will he in fact do what he said he would do last Wednesday? Will he make available the full particulars of those focus groups? We don’t need names; we just want the i nput, Mr. Premier, through the Speaker. MR. KLEIN: Yes. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr.

Speaker. My final question is: will the Premier, then, fill out the checklist that we had provided as a courtesy earlier this afternoon that gives us the full particulars of all of the costs and expenses that this government has incurred in terms of promoting its private health care project? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the public accounts provide that check- list. I don’t have the tablings, and I don’t have the checklist. I find it incomprehensible for this leader to stand up and honestly say that they only spent – what was it? – $290. I mean, the radio ads, the television ads, the brochures.

How much did it cost to produce this piece of garbage? And how much did it cost to produce this? You know, I’ve had some experience in media and public relations. You don’t produce this kind of garbage propaganda and send it to hundreds of thousands of people for $290. Who is this member trying to kid? What is the cost of this? Are you saying that this cost $290? Mr. Speaker, he sits there and lies. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: The only two teams in the House that followed the decorum of the House in the last few minutes were the team led by the hon. leader of the third party and the team led by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. The hon. Member for Little Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Endangered Species MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of my constituents and other Albertans work with conservation groups to protect the natural habitat of animals on their private property. Today they’re concerned about the federal government’s endangered

868 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 species legislation that was introduced earlier, and I’m not talking about Liberals. My questions are to the Minister of Environment. What are you doing to ensure that Albertans’ rights as landowners are protected, Mr. Minister? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I’d like to say that we’ve worked very co-operatively with landowners, because it is our view that co-operation with landowners is the most critical thing that we can do to ensure that the habitat for these species is protected.

As minister responsible for wildlife for the province of Alberta I can assure you that I’m working with my department and with landown- ers and with nongovernment agencies and others to ensure that we do take steps to protect wildlife and its habitat. Now, it would come as a surprise to many Canadians, Mr. Speaker, that the last time a mammal was extinct in Canada was back in the 1920s, and the last time a bird was extinct was the passenger pigeon, which also was roughly 85 years ago.

Interest- ingly, I’m advised that the last fish to be made extinct in the province of Alberta was a fish in Banff national park, the longnose dace. So, Mr. Speaker, that raises an interesting question as to the necessity for the legislation that was tabled today by the federal minister, Mr. Anderson, his Species at Risk Act. First of all, I think we are doing a good job with our legislation, and we do have a number of outstanding examples where we have brought species back from the brink of extinction through programs that we’ve undertaken. Mr.

Speaker, what this government opposes is the use by the federal government of their criminal power authority to enforce what I believe to be a confrontational and punitive approach to the protection of species. Now, Minister Anderson himself says that 99 percent of Canadians are doing the right thing when it comes to protection of species at risk. I agree with him, and that raises an interesting question. If you have legislation that many landowners will find offensive, will they in fact comply with it?

The question then is: will this in fact have the exact opposite effect of what the Minister of the Environment from the federal government is trying to achieve? Mr. Speaker, I’d simply like to conclude this by saying that we believe co-operation with landowners is the most critical thing that we can do to ensure that there’s protection of habitat and species in the province of Alberta. 2:40 MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the same minister.

Given that the fox will take more burrowing owls than any human, what is Alberta doing to respect landowner rights and respect the protection of endangered species co-opera- tively? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, we are interested in partnerships. We are interested in co-operation. In fact, in 1996 the federal government, with the provinces of Canada, signed an accord, a national accord for the protection of species. That accord, in my opinion, was a good model for co-operation among provinces, territories, the federal government, and stakeholder groups.

However, this legislation seems to fly in the face of that very accord. We’ve been involved provincially for over 25 years with solid legislation, our Wildlife Act, which protects plants, insects, inverte- brates, and fish. Mr. Speaker, we’ve expanded our traditional coverage of these areas. We’ve in fact had our legislation reviewed by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, and they indicate that Alberta is in a very good position to meet its obligations, as set out in the accord, for the protection of endangered species. Mr.

Speaker, we are improving our standard conditions and buffers to prevent disturbance or displacement of threatened or endangered species in areas of industrial activity. But I must reiterate that co-operation with landowners is critical, and it’s the reason why we’ve done such a good job of protecting endangered species in this province. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. I do know that the federal government has a group of scientists and specialists that identify and track endangered species in Canada.

Would you please let me know what you’ve done to complement this with common sense in Alberta? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have co-operated with the federal government and others and with COSEWIC, which is the committee that the hon. member is referri ng to. COSEWIC is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. We have worked with their scientists, and that was pursuant to the accord.

The accord, in my opinion, is a model for co-operation that, if lived up to by the provinces and the territories and the federal government, I think would be a continued good model for the protection of species in Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, under our own Wildlife Act we do have an Endangered Species Conservation Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. The purpose of that committee is to identify management and recovery of species at risk in the province of Alberta. The input is then provided to the federal committee and outlines the progress and the initiatives that we are taking.

We can report great progress on species such as the peregrine falcon, the sage grouse, Sprague’s pipit. It’s been accomplished by working with our landowners, with our stake- holders, with nongovernment organizations. Albertans through this process have been educated and have worked with us co-operatively, and that has been key. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary–Fort. Private Health Services (continued) MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 27 at the Amethyst Lodge a group of concerned residents in Jasper held a vote on private health care, and all except one were opposed to privatiza- tion of the public health care system. The Member for West Yellowhead stated: the people spoke to me here tonight; if all the people of West Yellowhead said no, then I’d have to stand up, but the big thing is, I’m only one voice out of 64. To the Premier: would you let this one member speak out and represent the voices of the Albertans he was elected to represent? MR.

KLEIN: If the hon. member is alluding to the Member for West Yellowhead, well, he can speak out as much as he wants, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, while I’m on my feet, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize sincerely and most profusely to the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. I did call him a liar. I understood him to say it was $290. I guess the chattering back and forth drowned it out, the $29,290. I accept the breakdown, Mr. Speaker, of the costs associated with the Liberal’s propaganda campaign, and I again apologize to the hon. member because I didn’t hear the $29,000 part of his answer.

I just heard $290, so I do apologize. MRS. SOETAERT: My second question, Mr. Speaker. Given that last night in a debate in St. Albert people wanted their MLA to

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 869 represent their views against this government’s privatization, will the government allow the Member for St. Albert to vote the way her constituents want her to? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no private health care bill on the table. I can understand why members of this caucus would not participate in a debate on private health care, because there is nothing, and that’s what I find so offensive about this pamphlet. Whether it’s included in the $29,290 or not is beside the point. The pamphlet, no matter how much it cost the taxpayers of this province, is wrong.

It is misleading. It is fraudulent, because it says that it legalizes private, for-profit hospitals. That is wrong. It says that it “creates a two-tier health care system.” That is wrong. That is fraudulent. That is misleading. That is absolutely wrong. That is false, and they should be held accountable for putting out false advertising. It says, “opens the door to extra charges without patient protection.” That is absolutely wrong, as you will see by the amendments to address this particular situation as a result of our correspondence with Mr. Rock and our consultations with the public.

Here is the biggest – what can I say? This is the biggest fabrica- tion, and this is the most flagrant of all the malicious information that the Liberals are putting out, paid for by taxpayers. They say that the bill permits queue-jumping. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill specifically and absolutely prohibits queue-jumping. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of vicious, malicious misinformation that the Liberals have been talking about.

When this hon. member talks about town hall meetings, it’s no wonder there is fear and confusion, and it’s no wonder that members of our caucus won’t attend those contrived, those phony kinds of meetings when they’re discussing this kind of malicious, vicious misinformation. MRS. SOETAERT: My final question to the Premier: how many more government MLAs are not allowed to represent the wishes of their constituents who are opposed to the privatization of health care? How many more? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, why would any of the hon. members of the governing caucus attend a meeting that is predicated on this kind of malicious and very deliberate misinformation, this kind of misinformation that portrays the face of the leader of the Liberal opposition? You know, I can’t for the life of me understand why she would allow her name and her face to be attached to fra udulent misinformation, deceit, and a total misrepresentation of what Bill 11 is all about. Why this hon. member would allow herself to be associated with something that is so false and so misleading and so malicious is beyond me.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. 2:50 Brewery Industry Labour Disputes MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are breweries in our Calgary-Fort riding, and there are a number of my high-spirited constituents working in the brewery industry and distribution system. My question today is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. We’ve heard a lot about the labour dispute affecting the Brewers’ Distributor Ltd. in Calgary. Could the minister provide an update on this dispute? MR. DUNFORD: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear that this is a private matter, of course, between the Brewers’ Distributor Ltd. and the union that represents the employees. As of this moment in time, it’s my understanding that no job action has begun. Last Friday there was a vote that was supervised on the last offer of the employer, and we received word earlier today that that vote in fact turned down the employer’s offer by a very wide margin. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is also to the minister. Can the minister tell us what will happen as a result of the workers rejecting the proposal? MR.

DUNFORD: Well, I don’t want to speculate, Mr. Speaker, on what the parties would do next. However, I think it should be clear that the union is in a legal position to strike. If they decided to do that, of course they would present the employer with that particular notice and could then take that legal job action in 72 hours. For their part, the employer of course can conduct a lockout poll and choose to lock out their workers. Now, this is a situation that has happened in Edmonton. I’m not sure that anyone is particularly happy with that kind of a situation, but once again, Mr.

Speaker, we have a democracy in this particular province. We have freedom for employees to bargain collectively. We have freedom for an employer to conduct their business. So what we have in the situation in Calgary, as well as in the dispute that’s ongoing currently in the city of Edmonton, is legal entities practising their legal obligations under legal legislation. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last supplemental question is also to the same minister. What steps is the government taking to assist the parties involved? MR.

DUNFORD: Well, we’ve been involved for a period of time now in the sense of having appointed a mediator. The mediator has worked with the parties and of course is still on standby, and I believe he’s meeting today with one or both of the parties. I guess the point is, hon. member, that we are doing what we can in order to come to grips with th is particular situation. So we’re there, we’ll work as hard as we can on this situation, but again this is a private matter between the employer and employees. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Private Health Services (continued) MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. A month ago a dedicated group of Albertans came to this Assembly with a petition from Red Deer and area signed by 5,000 citizens from central Alberta opposing this government’s privatization of public health care. The former Treasurer and still hon. Member for Red Deer-North recognized the importance of free votes in a democracy and is quoted in his web site as saying that “where an MP finds that a clear consensus has been reached on an issue, his or her responsibility is to represent that consensus over party or personal views.” Just a week ago the hon.

Member for Red Deer-South described the concerns of his constituents when he was saying in quoting them, to quote him: with a probability of more opposition than there has been for it. My questions are to the Acting Premier, if there be so on that side. Why is this government ignoring the voices and the wishes of the people of Red Deer? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, this government listens very closely to the voices of people from all over this province, including the people of Red Deer. There is an opportunity for debate in this

870 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 House. There have been I believe, if I’m not mistaken, some 700 minutes of possible debate on this bill. I believe that during that debate there’s been ample opportunity for both sides of the House to reflect the views of their constituents, to reflect the views that people have given them over the period of time. But I will – and it is well documented by standing votes in this House – place this govern- ment’s record on free votes in the Legislature against any other party in this House, most certainly the opposition party. MR. WHITE: Mr.

Speaker, why won’t the Premier and his govern- ment whip allow those representatives from Red Deer to truly represent the interests of their people by speaking for their people in a free vote on that particular issue? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the two government MLAs from Red Deer have spoken in this House, and the Member for Red Deer- South most recently in this debate had his opportunity, with the amount of time that was allotted to each and every member in this House to speak on this matter.

This caucus has the opportunity to debate this fully, and they will vote on this b ill representing what they believe is right and based on the input they’ve had from talking to people all over this province. MR. WHITE: Will the government caucus not allow the members to represent those that have voiced their concerns through poll after poll, through all the information you’ve received in this House, in the Assembly, and outside in a true free vote? Not a caucus controlled vote but a free vote. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I really appreciate and I know every member of this caucus appreciates the concern that the member is showing for this government caucus. However, I think this government caucus has demonstrated and demonstrated in the last election that they’re quite capable of taking care of their own concerns. I would just advise the hon. member across the way to look after the needs and the views of the Liberal caucus.

I would suspect that they could use his help a little bit more. 3:00 head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in a few seconds from now we’ll call upon the first of three hon. members to participate in Members’ Statements. The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Leaders of Tomorrow Awards MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to acknowl- edge the leaders of tomorrow awards that have recently been presented to young people in my constituency in recognition of their hard work and volunteer efforts in their communities.

These awards are given to young volunteers in four age categories, between six and 21 years of age, who have demonstrated outstanding dedication and excellence in their community service and work. In the Camrose area 19 outstanding young people were nominated to receive leaders of tomorrow awards. Thirty-three outstanding young people were nominated from the city and county of Wetaskiwin and the town of Millet. Each nominee is given a certificate and an invitation to a reception in their honour.

At the March 22 reception in Camrose, Melissa Knockleby, Cari McIlduff, Savon Meak, Michael Wetsch, and Amy Armstrong were named as the recipients of the year 2000 awards. At the ceremony held at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum last evening in Wetaskiwin, Kristine Huot, Chris Kirwin, Cody Soanes, and Shawn Gist were awarded this recognition. The winners were given an engraved plaque to recognize their efforts and a $100 cheque that they will contribute to a nonprofit organization of their choice.

Congratulations to all award winners and recipients for the contributions you have made to your communities and for the important work you do as volunteers. You are leaders of today, and your service and generosity which is recognized now will make you leaders of tomorrow. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Pine Shake Roofing MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No one would argue that education should be a top priority for government. Parents warn of overcrowded classrooms, overworked teachers, and having to fund-raise for things like textbooks that are essential learning tools.

That makes the situation facing two schools in St. Albert even more appalling. L’ecole Marguerite d’Youville and l’ecole Marie Poburan are facing a quarter million dollar bill to replace the rotting pine shakes on their roofs. What a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, money that should be going into classrooms to help educate our children. Even worse, these pine shakes were approved and promoted by this very government who is now forcing Alberta’s children to pay for their bungling. The Premier was in St.

Albert last June and made a promise to set up a task force on the pine shake issue, quote, to see how we can bring about a shared responsibility for this problem, end of quote. I guess we can add this to the growing list of the Premier’s promises not kept. The Premier and the government have continued to dodge this issue by claiming that they do not consider testing for durability as a part of their job when documents show that they did indeed check for durability in 1991 when a roofing contractor warned that untreated pine shakes were a faulty product.

Schoolchildren would be sent to the corner for telling such an obvious untruth, but this government just turns a blind eye and continues with business as usual. While these St. Albert schools see thousands of much-needed dollars paying for a government mistake, the government picks and chooses and decides who to help and when. It has given lottery money to some community groups so they can replace their rotting pine shake roofs. What a double standard. What could be more important than making sure that all money needed for education is going into the classroom to benefit students, not cover government mistakes?

The government acted in bad faith by advancing its political agenda at the expense of Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Volunteer Week MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as a member of the government, and as a representative of the constituency of St. Albert, I wish to pay tribute to one of the most important segments of our society, the volunteer sector. This week has been proclaimed as Volunteer Week, and the theme of this millennium year is: volunteering, a time-honoured tradition.

I believe the volunteer spirit of Albertans is contributing directly to the health and to the well-being of our communities. I would also like to acknowledge the Wild Rose Foundation, who in collaboration with Volunteer Alberta facilitates the provincial focus on Volunteer Week. This year 112 Alberta communities,

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 871 which, I might add, is a record number, representing more than 2 million Albertans are participating in this weeklong series of events. In my own community last Saturday night we recognized the leaders of tomorrow, specifically Shannon Davidson, Alishia Mannix, Stephannie Britton, Gillian Hansen, Kirk Duffee, and the group and members of the St. Albert Youth Council. We also recognized the nominees for the volunteer citizen of the year: Matthew Boiko, Anne Emberly, Nancy Nelson, John Power, and Millie Seitz.

In recognizing past citizens of the year and citizens of the decade, we did recognize the volunteer citizen of the decade from 1990 to the year 2000, the Hon. Lois E. Hole, Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. I am very proud of all of these citizens who represent our community and who contribute so well to the well-being of St. Albert. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have three notices for points of order today. As the agenda today involves time for private mem- bers, the plea here is for brevity with respect to these points of order. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo on your first point of order.

Point of Order Referring to the Absence of Members MR. DICKSON: The authority would be Beauchesne 408(2). In the first set of questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the Premier, the Premier responded by talking about an event last night in the Assembly and indicated that there were only seven Liberals there to vote. The point is that the Votes and Proceedings are clear. What it also indicates is that there were 31 government members present. There are 64 members of the government caucus. By my limited mathematical skills, that makes 33 members of the government caucus also missing.

So it seems to me it does nothing other than flame an argument to attempt to suggest that there’s less than full participation from one caucus when the Premier’s own caucus was less than 50 percent staffed. Those were the observations I wanted to make on this point of order. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously there’s no point of order at all on that point, and it’s surprising that it was even raised given that the first questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition today were trying to point out some sort of insinuation that democracy itself had died because of what happened last night.

The Premier quite rightly pointed to the Votes and Proceedings of the House, which showed that opposition members couldn’t be bothered to show up to vote for their own motion. To make those types of insinuations and direct comments in the

preambles to a question was clearly inflammatory, clearly designed to get the type of answer that they got. Then to stand up on a point of order to argue that the answer was not appropriate because it didn’t go far enough to detail all the rest of the details of the Votes and Proceed- ings is really quite strange. The fact of the matter was that democracy didn’t die last night. That the Liberal members opposite didn’t come out to support their own motion is their problem.

Standing Order 47, the motion that was moved, gives every member of this House an opportunity to participate in debate at second reading once again. In fact, debate at second reading has now proceeded far longer than debate on second reading on any bill this House has seen for a long, long time. The hon. member should know and the hon. Leader of the Opposition in posing her questions this afternoon clearly should know that debate in second reading relates to the principle of the bill.

We dealt with the amendment last night, which attempted to negative the principle of the bill, and we go on to continue debate on second reading tonight under Standing Order 47. Democracy is still alive and well. The fact that the Premier alluded to the Votes and Proceedings, which is the written record of the House that is available for all members to look at and to tell the public about, and that only seven of their members cared to show up to vote for their own amendment is not the fault of the government, nor is it a point of order.

THE SPEAKER: Actually, hon. members might like to read Beauchesne 289, the Canadian House of Commons, which says: “Standing Order 15 states that ‘every Member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him or her by the House’.” The chair has also noted on other occasions that it’s the duty of all hon. members to attend this House.

There were a lot of folks last night who didn’t ask for permission from the chair, in this case the Speaker. 3:10 If we look at, again, the oft-quoted statements of the public record, Votes and Proceedings, there is a notification here of so many for the motion, so many against the motion. In the question period today the hon. leader of the government responded in one case by saying that there were several hon. Liberals and in the other case that there were 31 hon. members of the government caucus.

Essentially when we refer to absences of this and absences of that, we generally are referring to the absence on identification of an individual member. It is certainly public information and public record that there was a vote last night. It was 31 to 7. So an important point of clarifica- tion. Second point of order. The hon. House leader of the Official Opposition. Point of Order Clarification MR. DICKSON: I will try and be brief and hope that my friend across the way does similarly. The same authority, 408(2). I heard the Premier say that the Liberals can still debate Bill 11 at second reading. Well, Mr.

Speaker, once again the rule is abundantly clear on this, that once the motion is made that the previous question be now put, it means that every member of the Assembly is entitled to speak to that. Once that speaking list has been exhausted, the vote is put on that motion, and immediately the vote then takes place on, in this case, the second reading motion. So for those members that did not have a chance to participate in the second reading debate before the motion was put, they in fact will be denied their opportunity to stand in their places and speak for 20 minutes.

The only thing they can speak to is the motion that the previous question be now put. I’m not sure whether it was you or your predecessor, but we’ve had occasion to deal with this motion before. It is not accurate to say and in fact is inflammatory and inaccurate to say that those Liberal members who did not have the chance of participating in second reading prior now can participate in second reading. If that’s the case, it’s wonderful news, but that’s certainly a variance in our procedures.

My advice to my caucus colleagues is that they are limited to speaking to the motion that’s currently in front of us and that once that’s finished and voted, there will then immediately be a vote on second reading. That’s my understanding, so as much as anything I may be asking for clarification, under 13(2), if in fact my

interpretation is inaccurate. Clearly, if the

872 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 Premier is correct in what he said, then my

interpretation is wrong. So I’m hoping for some clarification on that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader, and it would be helpful to the Assembly if the hon. House leader would clarify this understanding or misunderstanding. MR. HANCOCK: I would be delighted, and I will be at least as brief as the hon. Opposition House Leader was in making his presentation. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier was absolutely correct in his assertion.

It wasn’t inflammatory, and in fact the only thing that has been inflammatory in this whole process is the suggestion that debate has been cut off. In fact, many members have spoken at second reading, and by my recollection there were only six Liberal members who hadn’t spoken as of yesterday afternoon. One of them took the opportunity to speak and then took the opportunity to move an amendment. It is perfectly in order to do so, although quite out of the norm. We on this side do not complain when people use the rules of the House to put forward their viewpoints, and the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning did so and did so quite appropriately. He moved an amendment that Bill 11 be withdrawn and that the subject matter be referred to a committee. At second reading there are three types of amendments which are appropriate: the hoist amendment, which if brought would result in an immediate vote on the bill after it was voted on; a reasoned amendment, which after being voted on would allow us to go back to debate on second reading; and the referral amendment, that the hon. member put forward, which would allow us, after being voted on, to go back to second reading.

After the less than vigorous debate that was put forward by th e opposition member s on their own amendment, we took a vote last night. After that vote took place, we returned to second reading, whereupon as I understand it, according to the Blues or the record that I’ve been provided of the debate last night, the hon. Deputy Government House Leader under Standing Order 47 moved the previous question in the form that the question be now put.

That then puts on the floor of the House the opportunity for every member of the House who desires to be involved to debate the question as to whether they’re ready for the vote. Now, I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I think that when you’re debating as to whether or not you’re ready for the vote, you have to deal with the question of whether or not you’ve had the opportunity to put all of your arguments forward and whether everything has been canvassed. In fact, second reading debate is a debate on the principle of the bill.

The amendment that was brought forward by the Member for Edmonton-Manning in effect negatives the principle of the bill, and I would certainly argue that whichever choice you use in terms of amending at second reading, all of them amount to the same thing: it’s negativing the principle. We heard their rather, as I say, less than enthusiastic arguments on that and took a vote.

Any further amendment at that stage would be attempting to do exactly the same thing, and I presume that the reason why their sixth-last speaker moved the amendment was because they maybe wanted to have their fifth-last and their fourth-last and their third-last speakers try a reasoned amendment or another referral motion. But I would only be presuming that. Nonetheless, everybody has the opportunity to speak at second reading. The fact that they cut off five of their speakers by moving the amendment when they did is not the problem of the Government House Leader or any other Member of the Legislative Assembly.

In fact, I would be inaccurate and misspoke myself: he didn’t cut them off but moved the amendment at that point in time, leaving them open to bring in redundant amendments after that. The only amendment which is appropriate at second reading is to negative the principle of the bill, and the H ouse had already dealt with that subject matter. So it’s entirely appropriate, then, to move a Standing Order 47, which, again, is in the rules of the House and quite appropriate, just as the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning’s motion was quite appropriate, and allows every member of the House an opportunity to speak yet again to Bill 11 as to whether or not they’re ready for the question. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know a bout you, but in speaking to that type of motion, if I wasn’t ready for the question, I would be putting forward the reasons why I wasn’t ready for the question, and that certainly would be dealing with some of the essence of the bill. Now, I’m not going to tell members opposite how to raise their debate. Our members are smart enough to figure out how they’re going to raise their debate.

We certainly can represent our constitu- ents well in this Assembly. There’s no cutoff of debate, and apart from the three members, I believe, who spoke to it last night already, every member still has the opportunity to speak to Bill 11 in debate. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the chair certainly respects the views and the positions put forward by the two hon. speakers with respect to this. The bottom line of the whole thing is that debate will continue on Bill 11, and a great deal of flexibility will be provided in terms of the range of the topic for the individuals standing forward.

It will not be restricted to one very, very fine line. One takes it, hon. Government House Leader, that there will not be a series of interjections with respect to relevancy by certain people on the government bench as other members do participate with respect to further continuance. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I would be alarmed if anybody would suggest that any comment about why a person wasn’t ready to vote on Bill 11 would be considered irrelevant. THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. In keeping with this, hon. members must be aware of Standing Order 29 with respect to this matter as well.

Now, that’s very helpful. With respect to that, hon. House leader of the Official Opposition, is there a third point of order, or was that dealt with by the apology? MR. DICKSON: No. That’s been addressed by the Premier, and I’m not doing anything further with respect to that. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you very much. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 207 Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Calculation Act [Adjourned debate April 5: Mr. Paszkowski] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated last

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 873 week, I’m very pleased to be involved in the discussions regarding this particular bill, even though it does indeed appear to be very, very close to if not a money bill. MR. COUTTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod on a point of order. Proceed with a citation and go forward. Point of Order Money Bills MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in accordance with Standing Order 79(1), which says: The Assembly shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appropriation (

a) of any part of the public revenue, or (

b) of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the Assembly by Message of the Lieutenant Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed. I would further like to cite Beauchesne 980(2), Mr. Speaker. It’s a long section, but I want to just highlight the areas that I’m concerned with.

In section (2) it says, “the principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from public revenue.” Then it goes on to say a little farther down, “nor can a Member other than a Minister move for the introduction of a bill framed to effect a reduction of duties.” 3:20 Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to make reference today in this point of order to the Alberta Liberal caucus news release dated March 22, 2000, tabled by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the Assembly.

Bill 207: the Provincial/Municipal Tax Sharing Act will allow for the allocation of a percentage of provincial personal income tax revenues on a per capita basis to local government. The release goes on to state that Bill 207 provides the basis for a new partnership between the province and local governments, emphasizing the principles of respect, fairness, financial stability, accountability, and clear roles and responsibilities. That was a quote by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

I’d further like to reference another Alberta Liberal caucus news release, dated April 7, 2000, also tabled by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the Assembly today, which states that “Bill 207 would provide local governments with access to a portion of the provincial personal income tax base.” In this same release the Member for Edmonton-Manning is quoted as stating that Bill 207 . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have to help me here, please. What the House has before it is the debate on a bill, not a debate on somebody’s press release. MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll be pointing out the difference between what is in th e bill and what is in the press releases. THE SPEAKER: We have a point of order that the hon. member is bringing forward here with respect to the acceptability of a bill or not, within the rules of the House. It’s not a debate about what was said outside the House or in some other source. MR. COUTTS: Might I then, Mr. Speaker, cite the wording in Bill 207 itself. The bill says in

section 3(4) that “a percentage figure set by the Provincial Treasurer under subsection (3) shall be debated and voted upon by the Legislative Assembly.” This bill not only requires a Provincial Treasurer’s report on tax sharing; it further requires the critical component that its content, the income tax percentages to be shared, be determined through a debate and vote in the Legislative Assembly.

Now, the Leader of the Official Opposition was quite, quite clear on what the intent of this bill is, and I refer to page 764 of Hansard of last Wednesday, where the Leader of the Official Opposition said: Madam Speaker, the object of Bill 207 is to provide local governments in Alberta, whether they be for rural or urban munici- palities, with access to a portion of provincial personal income tax. I also refer to page 765. Bill 207 proposes to allocate a percentage of personal income tax revenues to Alberta municipalities on a per capita basis begin- ning in the fiscal year 2000-2001. Given these statements, Mr.

Speaker, and supplemented by the statements in the news releases that I cited earlier, it is clear that Bill 207 contravenes Standing Order 79(1)(a). Further, it is apparent that Bill 207 w ill contravene Beauchesne 980(2) given that this bill contemplates sharing of the provincial income tax, thereby reducing revenues contained in the general revenue fund for the province of Alberta.

Further, Bill 207 necessitates an annual discussion of income tax rates in the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of preparing a government of Alberta report, in direct contravention of Standing Order 79(2), which specifies that any such bill “shall be introduced by a minister,” and 79(2)(a), which requires that “the recommenda- tion of the Lieutenant Governor shall be attached” to any such bill. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule Bill 207 out of order pursuant to Standing Order 69(3) as it is an infringement on the prerogative of the Crown. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I’m going to be brief because this is a private member’s bill, and as you’ve enjoined me from time to time, it’s important that we maximize the opportunity for debate. The point would be this. If one looks at Standing Order 79, the operative word is “appropriation.” Appropriation has a defined and a specific meaning. This is not a bill about appropriation, that creates appropriation, that effects appropriation.

Standing Order 2 provides that in all contingencies unprovided for, the question shall be decided by the Speaker and . . . the Speaker shall base any decision on the usages and precedents of the Assembly. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a number of bills which would all in a similar way talk about an allocation and formulas but don’t amount to an appropriation. I refer you to 1995, to Bill 205, Debt Retire- ment Act, sponsored by Dr. Percy. I refer you to 1998, to Bill 222, sponsored by Mr. Zwozdesky. That was the Fiscal Stab ilization Fund Calculation Act.

Those are both bills that were introduced that created a framework or a scheme as it relates to the distribution of money, which is qualitatively different than an appropriation. The member clearly is leveraging his argument on the basis of some comments that were made, but your own intervention shows, Mr. Speaker, that you’re very much alive to the notion. The issue is: within the four corners of Bill 207, does this bill violate Standing Order 79? It is not an appropriation bill. It is in no sense a bill for appropriation. What the member is doing is talking about comments in debate.

Well, we hear flights of hyperbole all the time when people want to make their bill something grander, something different than it really is. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition may want to see a different scheme and in fact a different appropriation, but Bill 207 is not that appropriation. So those are the observations I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I’m just suggesting again that for you to in fact

874 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 uphold the point of order effectively, you’re overturning a number of precedents and past traditions of this Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The chair brought to the attention of all hon. members some time ago that this was private members’ day and asked for some brevity with respect to input. Unfortunately, that has not come about, and we’re now about a minute and a half away from the next segment of business for today. The chair wants to say the following. Private members’ day is very unique in this parliament and this Legislature.

It is unequaled in virtually any of the 150 parliaments found that follow the British form of government. The changes that were made in this Assembly in 1993 afforded private members, nongovernment members, an opportunity to bring forward an idea and actually have something done about it. The chair believes that in the last six or seven years there have been some 20 examples, including one just a few days ago of a bill brought to this Assembly. So some degree of leverage and some degree of empathy is given by this chairman to the aspirations of private members.

One of the things that the chair hopes is not happening on private members’ days is filibustering a bill by way of points of order. So there’s an instruction here to the Clerk that the last number of minutes dealing with this particular purported point of order are not to be part of the speaking time allocated for the debate with respect to the particular thing. The question has been raised by the hon. Member for Livingstone- Macleod, and in fact the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs, when participating in this debate a few days ago, questioned openly but did not pursue a point of order with respect to this being a money bill or not. This afforded the chair an opportunity since that time to in fact review the matter, review the bill, review the precedents, and review situations that have been dealt with in this House in the past. So he does not come here today unprepared to see such an argument coming forward.

It’s very correct that money bills, or bills that require the appropri- ation of funds, can only be moved by a member of Executive Council and must contain the royal recommendation, as stipulated in Standing Order 79 and in s ection 54 of the Constitution Act of 1867. The chair has taken the time to review this bill. He’s read it clause by clause, and the chair fails to see how Bill 207 would be considered a money bill as it does not require the expenditure of funds. In fact, it appears to the chair that the bill is drafted in such a way so as not to be considered a money bill. 3:30

Section 2 of the bill states that the Provincial Treasurer shall prepare a report on how the financial affairs of the Government would have been affected by sharing income tax revenues with municipalities. The bill then goes on to outline what conditions would apply to the calculation of the report. The chair would also like to remind members that it is not the chair’s role to rule on how people interpret what is before the Assembly or what is said outside of the Assembly. In deciding whether a bill is a money b ill or not, the key is to look at the bill itself.

If members wish to further review this matter, they may wish to examine Speaker Schumacher’s ruling of April 28, 1994, at pages 249 and 250 of the Journals. This is not a point of order that we are considering. This bill can proceed through debate in the normal steps of the matter. Hon. members, I make it very, very clear that the time allocation used in dealing with this point of order will not be part of the time allocation provided for the debate on the bill. Those minutes are still there.

Now we’ve passed the required time of 3:30 on this particular day. head: Motions Other than Government Motions Support for Stay-at-home Parents 506. Mr. MacDonald moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to demonstrate its recognition of the contribution made by parents who stay at home to care for their children by providing support equal to that received by parents choosing other child care options. [Debate adjourned April 4: Mr. Cao speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to continue speaking on Motion 506. Albertans pride themselves on being fair and maintaining a province of fairness. By the year 2001 Albertans will see their taxes cut by $852 million a year.

Albertans from all walks of life will benefit, and the high exemption will mean significant benefits for lower income families. Low-income Albertans get a real break with the new plan. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] In 2005 families with two children who earn less than $31,000 a year will pay no provincial income tax at all. In fact, for these families the refundable Alberta family employment tax credit exceeds the Alberta tax payable. In addressing fairness, the new system reduces the differences in Alberta taxes paid by single- and two-income families.

In the old system the single-income family paid more in personal income taxes than a family at the same income level with two parents working outside the home. The government’s role is clear. Action has been taken to provide for more fairness in the tax regime. This is the fairness that I speak of, a fairness that makes me proud as an Albertan. But I am also proud to leave the decision on what type of child care parents choose up to the parents in Alberta.

Madam Speaker, as a representative of the Calgary-Fort constitu- ency I can say that we believe in the principle and practice that public assistance should be based on need and the level of need. Our existing child care subsidy program is helping large numbers of Alberta families who need assistance. Talking about child care, as a private member I have already introduced Bill 209, Employment Standards (Parental Leave) Amendment Act, 2000. This bill, on infant child care, aims to allow working parents who are in need a longer parental leave to care for their infant.

This bill will be in second reading debate in about a week’s time. Madam Speaker, it is for those reasons that I cannot support Motion 506, brought forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar. Thank you. MS LEIBOVICI: Could I just ask how much time is left on the bill so that I know how to gauge my minutes? Great. In the two minutes that I have, I’d like to speak in favour of this motion.

I believe in and have been a longtime supporter of the Kids First group – I believe that is what they’re called – that has fought long and hard to recognize the contribution that stay-at-home parents, be they mothers or fathers, contribute to their children. Their objective is not to have a subsidy in order to be able to stay at home but is to ensure that there is equity between individuals who choose to stay at home to care for their children and individuals who choose or need to go to work in order to support their children and choose

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 875 other child care options rather than that of staying in the home. I see no reason for anyone in this Legislative Assembly to not support that principle. If we are indeed in support of allowing choices to parents and ensuring that those choices are based not on financial consideration but are based on what is best for that particular family, this motion allows for that to occur. It has nothing to do with subsidization. It has nothing to do with whether an individual is on welfare or not, if I understood the speaker before me.

What it has to do with is allowing parental choice in whether or not there is the ability to stay at home and raise fam ilies and that there be no discrimination in the legislation that is put forward either at the provincial level or at the federal level with regards to swaying a parent to make a particular choice. If we can provide a tax credit for having a stay-at-home nanny, if we can provide tax credits for child care, we can provide those same tax credits and value the work that stay-at-home parents provide to their children in their own home. Thank you very much.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: The time for this item has concluded. [Motion Other than Government Motion 506 lost] Long-term and Home Care 507. Ms Leibovici moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to further increase the number of beds and improve standards for long-term care facilities and home care services with regard to staffing ratios and levels of service to adequate levels and ensure that regional health authority boundaries do not become barriers to placement. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to move the motion that I have on the Order Paper, Motion 507.

This is a motion that I would hope all the Members in this Legislative Assembly could support. It in fact supports and expands upon the long-term care review that has been put forward by the government of Alberta, the Department of Health and Wellness, and which has been a rather extensive process of the policy advisory committee with regards to long-term care, known fondly, I guess, in this Legislative Assembly as the Broda report. What in fact has occurred is that the Broda report made a number of recommendations that are substantiated by the motion that I have put forward.

In fact, I believe that if members vote against this particu- lar motion, then they are putting a vote of nonconfidence in the recommendations of the Broda report. Because this motion is multifaceted, I would like to break it down into its components and address them one at a time. The first component is with regards to increasing the number of beds. Now, we all know that there is a shortage of available long-term care beds throughout this province and that there are a large number of individuals who are on wait lists.

Yet what was surprising with regards to the Broda report was that it seemed to indicate that there should be a reduction in spaces over the long term when we look at what the number of spaces are that are available currently within our system and what the projection is for spaces to the year 2016. 3:40 At this point in time we have, I believe, 12,844 beds that are available in our health care system. That’s mostly where the long- term care beds are. In 2016 we’re actually going to a level of 12,685, which is a decrease.

As we have heard over and over in this Legislative Assembly, a lot of the decisions that are being driven by this government are based on the fact that we will have an aging and a larger population to deal with. So though I recognize that there are other recommendations in the report that have dealt with the concept of aging in place and providing solutions other than long-term care beds, the reality is that there is , I believe, a need to increase the number of beds, not decrease the number of beds, and that the bed reduction targets as put forward may well not be sustainable in the long term.

In the short term there is a real need to increase the number of beds. Another consideration is with re gards to the benchmark that the number of beds is based on, and that may well be one of the reasons that the number of beds being recommended is so low. Age 75 is what is considered to be the benchmark for planning long-term care spaces.

In fact, a recent recommendation from the Alberta Medical Association with regards to the final report of the policy advisory committee, the Broda report, indicated on January 31, 2000, that the government should in fact be using projected care levels as opposed to age to plan for the entire spectrum of continuing care. So those numbers that are currently being projected and are currently being assessed as perhaps sufficient to meet the needs of individuals who require long-term care beds are based on a benchmark that may in fact be faulty.

It would be interesting to know whether the govern- ment has in fact moved to that benchmark of 75 from the current benchmark that was utilized prior to that. The other concern with regards to the current number of long-term care beds within the system is the fact that the Broda report seems to have relied on using the current acute care beds within our system. Right now we have a proposal in front of us, Bill 11.

One of the reasons that that particular bill is being put forward is to alleviate the current shortages within our acute care system, yet conflicting with that particular direction of government is now a recommendation that says: use those acute care beds for long-term care patients. That is not a satisfactory use of those current acute care spaces. In fact, those acute care beds are required for acute care patients. As we know, there are shortages within the system. As well, in actual fact what the use of those acute care beds may well lead to is a warehousing of elderly patients in acute care facilities.

I don’t think that anyone wants to see our elderly patients or patients who are in need of long-term care being warehoused in acute care facilities. Those facilities do not provide the kind of stimulation, the kind of physical surroundings, or the kind of care required by patients who are in a long-term care setting.

With regards to the particular part of the motion that requests that the government “further increase the number of beds,” what I hope I have set forward to the members is an indication of the needs at the current point in time with regards to the beds and the lack of beds available to the individuals requiring long-term care as well as the future needs. If in fact the thoughts of members are, “Well, we don’t want to build more bricks and mortar,” that in fact is a logical response, but there are some facilities that have been closed down that could well provide the spaces that are required.

Vilna is one such example of a facility that is fully functional and that has been closed down and in fact did house long-term care patients but is now standing empty and not being utilized. What we are trying to avoid by ensuring that there are enough long-term care spaces in all of the jurisdictions across this province is what I call the phenomenon of divorce by institution, where you see individuals who have lived together for 40, 50 years who no longer can live together because the facilities are not there to accommodate them in their own communities. What they are is

876 Alberta Hansard April 11, 2000 separated, and their families are torn between visiting elderly parents – the families themselves are generally elderly – and being able to meet the needs of their parents. So this resolution would urge the government to increase the number of beds to deal with those kinds of situations.

A second part of the resolution is to “improve standards for long- term care facilities and home care services.” One of the common complaints that I hear with rega rds to the standards for long-term care services with regard to staffing ratios and level of services to adequate levels is the shortage of staff and the qualifications of staff. In fact, one of the recommendations of the Broda report was that additional funding should be targeted to increase the number of qualified front line staff available to address the increasing acuity of people in long term care centres.

I agree with that particular recommendation wholeheartedly. The issue of staffing is poignantly outlined in the winter of 2000 document Health & Healing: A Review of the Catholic Health Association of Alberta & Affiliates, wherein the writer, Micheline Pare, who’s the founder of the Pare Labrecque Centre, indicates that there are considerable concerns with regards to caregivers’ working conditions. She indicates: My hope also is to give caregivers better working conditions. Most of them are “casual” full time, with no benefits and obliged to work in 2 or 3 long term care facilities in order to make a living.

How can we expect quality of care if we are not concerned with the welfare of our caregivers? Who would be ready to be underpaid, over- worked and experience unfair conditions of employment??? Our loved ones are suffering from it and one day it will be our turn. Do we wish to be treated like this??? She further indicates that she saw dedicated, compassionate caregivers but also caregivers without sufficient knowledge and/or skills, that in order to care for th e elderly with respect and dignity, it is important to understand their journey with a compassionate heart.

These are very fine observations that indicate what some of our problems are currently within our long-term care centres. The staffing ratios are ones that are questionable as there are, in my understanding, no standards across the province with regards to the number of frontline staff required on each shift and the ratio of RNs, LPNs, PCAs, for instance, on any particular shift.

If I can just refer to an e-mail that I received with regards to a particular long-term care centre in Calgary – and it’s the new Signal Pointe Alzheimer’s long-term care centre – the point is made that “on each shift there is 1 RN and 2 Personal Care Aides per each of the five homes for a total of 11 staff for up to 60 residents.” This e- mail further goes on to indicate that Signal Point is badly understaffed . . . and while only one RN for up to 60 residents per shift may meet legal requirements, I question whether one RN is sufficient for up to 60 residents . . .

It would seem very shortsighted to build a fairly expensive facility . . . and then economize on staffing to the point where residents are given, perhaps, inadequate care. So staffing is a key issue. The issue of ensuring that there are adequate ratios of LPNs to RNs, PCAs to residents is also key. 3:50 Another concern that was brought up, I believe, in Broda as well as having been addressed in other areas is to ensure that the use of volunteers is appropriate, and if it is, what kind of training is being provided.

So what we need with regards to improving the standards for long-term care facilities and with regards to staffing and levels of service are clear standards, quantifiable standards, and measurable standards, and there needs to be systemwide legislation. What we also need are some surprise inspections. I have often heard from individuals across the province that inspections are made of long- term care facilities, but they are not surprise inspections.

So, in fact, if a complaint is provided, what ends up happening is that the facility is then investigated – and I use that term loosely – and all of a sudden the meals provided are just so much better than they normally are in the facility. I would also like to indicate that the FAIRE group, which is the Families Allied to Influence Responsible Eldercare, has put forward an initiative addressing the needs and rights of Alberta’s nursing home residents. In there they outline a number of recommendations which directly support this particular motion.

They indicate – and I’m reading from their document – that there should be: • Increased Staffing Levels and Proficiency • Staff/Patient Ratios Comparable To Those In Germany (1:5) – Belgium (1:3) – the Nordic Countries & the Netherlands (1:1) • Increased Daily Hours of Direct Patient Care, Including Substan- tially More Hands-on Care by Registered Nurses • Regulated Entry-Level Certification For All New Personal Support Workers • Government-Funded Mandatory Training Programs for Current, But Undertrained Personal Support Workers • Standardized Criteria That Determines the Required Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes of All Care Providers • Increased Involvement of Physicians and Geriatricians in Direct Patient Care . . . • Training of Nurse Specialists in Geriatric Care . . . • External Quality Assurance Audit That Assesses Facility Compliance With Legislated Standards; Staff Competency and Suitability; The Quality, Delivery and Effectiveness of Patient Services; If and How Resident’s Individual Needs and Goals Are Being Met • A Mechanism For Residents and Their Families to Voice What They Want & Need Within The Facility • A Mechanism That Holds Regional Health Authorities Account- able For The Job That Is Done And last but not least – and I’ve left out a few for the sake of time. • Regional Ombudsman Appointments To Long Term Care.

So we know that there needs to be and there appears to be a consensus that the standards for long-term care facilities need to be standardized and staffing ratios as well. If I can move to the third part of my motion: we need to improve “home care services with regard to staffing ratios and levels of service to adequate levels.” I know that the Member for Calgary- West was at a conference for Canada’s Association for the Fifty- Plus, which has put a lot of work into home care and home care requirements and services.

There was a national conference held just a little while ago, and the results of that conference as well as their report on home care in Canada in 1999 – so this is a very recent study – indicate that “home care is underfunded, undervalued and over-stressed.” In fact, there seems to be a lack of leadership by governments, which “have extolled the virtues of home care, in part, to deflect criticism of hospital restructuring,” that there’s a “lack of commitment and follow-through to develop home- and community-based care.” “Human resource issues emerged as the most important concern” in the study they did.

Eighty-eight percent of those that were part of this particular study felt it was an issue in their community [and that] people working in the home care environment are over-extended and under consider- able stress from difficulties in the workplace such as low wages, recruitment and retention and training. “Inadequate funding was the second largest issue facing health care” that was considered by this particular report. There were also significant pressures on the voluntary sector, especially with regard to informal caregivers.

It was felt that that terminology was insulting to individuals who take on the caregiving burden of their loved ones and are doing this on either a part-time or a full-time

April 11, 2000 Alberta Hansard 877 basis and in fact become the primary caregivers. What has occurred is that there have been many responsibilities shifted to the caregivers in their particular homes without any support provided to the caregivers that are looking after their loved ones.

There are a number of observations in this report on home care, but they made an observation with regards to the role of the private, for-profit providers in home care and what in fact their profit margins were with regards to their bottom line and how much of that is transferred to individuals who are providing home care services. This is a very, very important point and one that should not be overlooked with regards to the provision of home care services.

They made a number of recommendations, and I would like to know actually – and this is slightly aside from the motion – what the government’s position is with regard to the recommendations of CARP. I look forward to the debate on this particular initiative. Thank you very much. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s certainly my pleasure to rise on Motion 507, sponsored by the MLA for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

Although I agree with a lot of the com- ments made in the motion itself or the content of the motion, I do think that at this time in point the motion is really redundant. As she has referred to the Broda report, I’d like to bring forward, Madam Speaker, how we arrived at some of the comments in our report itself. When the long-term care report began in November of ’97 – and it was also chaired by my colleague for Calgary-West – we had committee members that did not represent any specific organiza- tion.

We had seniors, physicians, health authority personnel, consumers, and long-term care, home care, and housing-sector individuals. We went to 55 sites throughout the province to gather information from everyday Albertans, to hear from them as to what they saw the need to be in long-term care. Certainly, before we even went out to the communities, we consulted with the regional health authorities, the Mental Health Board, and the Cancer Board.

Also, these 55 sites that we attended throughout the province worked via the community health councils, which put those on, and we had community people facilitating that for us. We listened to what Albertans said. The report itself reflects the high values Albertans place on their health system.

It shows that while Alberta is leading the nation in developing and implementing innovative approaches to continued care, we need to carefully plan for the future to ensure that our increasing numbers of seniors get the kind of continuing care they need when they need it. 4:00 Madam Speaker, we also had consultants from expert panels. As a matter of fact, we had three expert panels. We also had consul- tants from not only the province of Alberta but also from across Canada, nationally, and internationally.

We heard from these expert panel sessions the changes that are occurring in other areas of the world, not only here in Alberta. We looked to see whether we could adopt some or whether we could not, that maybe it wouldn’t work here. So it was important to attend those sessions. We also had Canada Health involved in those three expert panels. They were very interested to know what was happening in Alberta, as we have always been frontrunners in our health system in this province.

Madam Speaker, in reference to Motion 507, as I said, I agree with the comments made in there, but the motion is redundant, seeing that we’ve already done a report. There have been some very good reports out in the community, as the member opposite has indicated and referred to. Those reports are something very valid, that have to tie together not only the report that I was involved in, but I think there are other reports out there that the government has taken some time to look at. I think it’s important to do a good job rather than going into it full tilt, without looking at what is really out there.

It’s not a matter of spending more money. I think it’