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

20000404

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 691 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, April 4, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/04/04 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank You for Your abundant blessings for our province and ourselves. We ask You to ensure to us Your guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have a long list of hon. members who have advised me today that they would like to participate in this point in the Routine, as we have long lists for other aspects of the Routine.

So let us be patient as we move forward. The hon. Member for Calgary-East. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to present a petition signed by 7,500 people. The petition reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to . . . introduce legislation requiring a minimum of two people on shifts from dark to daylight. Employers must be respon- sible for their employees’ safety! We are asking the Legislature of Alberta to pass a “Tara McDonald Law” to protect employees’ lives. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table a petition here from a number of young people in St. Albert and area who are in support of Bill 11. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition today signed by 100 Albertans from Leduc to High Prairie and a great many in north-central Edmonton. They do petition and “urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare,” sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These petitions just keep rolling in regardless of the damage control the Premier tries to do. I have more than a hundred here signed by people throughout Edmonton, St. Albert, Leduc, and Spruce Grove who are urging “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. With your permission I would like to table a petition signed by 247 Albertans from Edson, Robb, Carrot Creek, Grande Cache, Wildwood, Hinton, St. Paul, and Smoky Lake.

This petition is urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. 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 369 people from the Edmonton, Stony Plain, Carvel, Sangudo, Spruce Grove, Seba Beach, Evansburg, Wabamun, and Sherwood Park areas, and they are petitioning “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. I have two petitions to present this afternoon. The first is a petition signed from citizens in Calgary and Edson urging the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. The second is a petition signed by 352 citizens from Edmonton, Leduc, Ardrossan, and Sherwood Park urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I have two petitions to present toda y. The first is signed by 185 people from Edmonton, Grande Prairie, St. Paul, Calgary, and Devon. This is on the issue of mature and aging women and asks that the government take an enlightened, preventative approach and add medications and therapies to the Alberta drug list. The second petition is signed by 125 people from a variety of locations in northern and central Alberta. They are asking that the government “stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to table petitions signed by citizens from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Beaumont, Legal, Carvel, Fort Saskatchewan, and Alberta Beach asking “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [our] public health care [system].” At the end of today’s tablings we will have tabled 5,033 names, bringing the total to date to 38,426 concerned Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure this afternoon to also table a petition.

It is signed by 495 Albertans who reside in Edmonton, Gibbons, Redwater, Ardrossan, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert. They are asking the Legislative Assembly “to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermin- ing [our] public health care [system].” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tabling petitions with 155 names of Albertans from Edson, Robb, Carrot Creek, Wildwood, Gainford, Boyle, Smoky Lake, Lamont, and Bonnyville urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

692 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to be able to present a petition to the Assembly. This is signed by 291 Calgarians, including those living in a number of the southwest Calgary constituencies like Calgary-Glenmore. They are petitioning this Assembly to “urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to present to the Assembly a petition signed by 215 Albertans.

They reside in Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Morinville, Vegreville, and Fort Saskatchewan, and the petition to which they’ve added their names reads as follows: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta pet ition 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, too, have a petition supporting public health care in Alberta, urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care” in the province.

This is signed by 332 Albertans from Red Deer, Sylvan Lake, Ponoka, Stettler, Vermilion, Smoky Lake, St. Paul, New Dayton, Warspite, Cold Lake, Vilna, and especially Edson. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions to present today. The first one is signed by 265 Albertans from Peace River, St. Isidore, Fairview, Grimshaw, Grande Prairie, McLennan, La Crete, Nampa, and Falher.

Their petition states: We the undersigned c itizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. The second petition that I have today, Mr. Speaker, states: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare. It is signed by 154 citizens of this province from Edmonton, Millet, Stony Plain, Gibbons, and Sherwood Park. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR.

MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to present to the Assembly. It’s signed by 439 Albertans from Red Deer, Lacombe, Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Cold Lake, Rimbey, Bluffton, Ponoka, Smoky Lake, Leduc, Spruce Grove, Eckville, Rimbey, Wetaskiwin, Stettler, Mulhurst, St. Albert, Grande Prairie, Fort Saskatchewan, Lethbridge, Raymond, and Cardston. These citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly “to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR.

PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table a petition signed by 1,055 Albertans from Grande Prairie, Beaverlodge, Wembley, Sexsmith, Calgary, Rimbey, Marwayne, Morinville, Canmore, Banff, Blackfalds, Medicine Hat, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Stettler, Valleyview, Red Deer, Bashaw, Bluffton, Winfield, Edmonton, Darwell, Lethbridge, Fox Creek, Carvel, Barrhead, and Fallis. This brings the total number signing this petition to 9,464.

The petitioners request the Assembly “to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the petition standing in my name on the Order Paper be read for a first time. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would request that the petition which I recently tabled with this Assembly urging the government to stop its move towards privatizing our public health care system now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and request that the petition I tabled recently be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to protect, support, and enhance public health care in Alberta and to ban for-profit, private hospitals from receiving public dollars. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that at this point the petition with respect to concern about erosion of our public health care system 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 Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s with great pleasure this afternoon that I ask that the petition I presented the other day now be read and received. It’s the one dealing with stopping private health care in this province.

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

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 693 MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I tabled the other week be now read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to request that the petition I presented yesterday and, if possible, the petition I pre- sented on March 23 be read and received. Thank you.

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. 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-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to ask that the petition filed on the 22nd of March and another one on the 3rd of April be now read and received. They are regarding the privatization of health care in the 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. 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-Ellerslie.

MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented in this Assembly on March 23 regarding the underfunding of public 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-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would ask now that the petitions I filed in the Assembly on March 23 and April 3 now be read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. 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, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented regarding the undermining of public health care and the concerns about it be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would request that the petition I presented on March 23 urging the government to stop privatizing the health care system now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented against for-profit health care on March 23 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 that the petition I presented on behalf of 114 Edmonton and area residents requesting that the promotion of private health care and the under- mining of public health care be stopped be now read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, request that the petition I presented on March 23 signed by 287 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 would ask that the

694 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 petitions in respect to support for public health care that I introduced on March 23 and yesterday, April 3, be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. 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. 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 7, 8, and 10. I’m also giving oral notice today 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 13, 14, 15, 16, and 24. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table five copies of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister confirming the discussions that took place in Calgary on March 23.

This letter alludes to the Prime Minister and myself agreeing that there would be a review of all legislation across the country by various provincial jurisdictions as it pertains to contracting out medical services. It alludes to an agreement between the Prime Minister and myself that we would uphold the five principles of the Canada Health Act, that these principles are paramount, and we agreed to work together to defend those principles.

We agreed that “Canada should not allow a two-tier, for-profit health system to develop.” The letter states that we agreed that “the status quo in health care is not working and we agreed to work together in developing a new system that is economically sustainable” but still operates within the parameters of the Canada Health Act. It points out to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister “raised no objection to the passage of Bill Eleven.” 1:50 DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to table responses to written questions 218, 219, 220, 226, and 227. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to file with the Assembly today a news release entitled No NAFTA Implications for Bill 11. Accompanying this is a legal review by Shawna Vogel, an international business lawyer with an Edmonton firm, Cruickshank Karvellas. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to table five copies of a document entitled Restoring Federal Funding Support for Alberta’s Health System. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to rise today and table a statement in recognition of Building Safety Week, being held April 2 through to the 8th. In recognition of this week I invite all members of this Assembly to join me in recognizing the importance of building safety, construction, and building codes and the dedicated building officials who administer these codes. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose. MR. PHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table five copies of a letter I signed today in response to the letter dated March 21, 2000, from the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

I would like to quote two sentences in my letter. If she would like a thorough debate on Bill 11 with full record and in an environment representative and open to all Albertans, there is no better place than the Legislature. If this challenge is just a cheap political ploy to attract attention, please don’t waste my time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table several letters from concerned Albertans from Fort McMurray, Calgary, and Edmonton who are opposed to Bill 11. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings this afternoon. Let’s start off with a letter from Michael Dobbin, a very prominent Calgarian, expressing his opposition to Bill 11. Next, a commentary which appeared in the April/May 2000 issue of LawNow by the editor, an analysis of Bill 11 and where it takes us. The next one is a program from the groundbreaking for the Calgary Centre of Hope, a wonderful new facility by the Salvation Army in that city. Next, a report on homelessness. Now, this is a

summary of federal government initiatives dealing with homelessness dated January 21, 2000. The next one is a

summary of national activities prepared by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities providing a perspective on housing with a bigger focus on how we provide safe, affordable housing to every citizen. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the most voluminous document I’ve got is a report from the government of Canada and the Hon. Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour and minister responsible for home- lessness, that inventories, catalogues some of the programs that deal with homelessness across the country, including this province. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have several tablings this afternoon as well. The first tabling that I have is a letter from Mrs. Anderson from Edmonton, who has asked that a copy of this be tabled in the Assembly. She has herself faxed a copy of her correspondence to every Member of the Legislative Assembly, and it is imploring the government to scrap Bill 11. The second tabling I have is from Monica Hughes, a constituent of Edmonton-Glenora, who writes the Premier and suggests that Bill 11 should not be passed and that there is no justification for supporting this bill. Mr.

Speaker, I also have five copies of the cover page of several copies of the government’s householder that are being sent back to

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 695 the Premier, including statements saying: “I am absolutely opposed to this Bill”; the Premier and “his band of ‘truth squad’ bandits”; just say no; and say no to Bill 11. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table five copies of an Alberta Liberal caucus news release dated April 4, 2000. I’m taking the unusual stand of tabling a news release in the Assembly because of the importance of the issue. The news release says that despite the Acting Provincial Treasurer, the Alberta Liberals will oppose the imposition of a sales tax in the province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a number of tablings this afternoon. The first is a letter from Dr. David Bond, who is president of the Alberta Medical Association, wherein he outlines his understanding of the meeting that was held between himself and the Premier. He indicates that he anticipates the proposed amendments to Bill 11 by mid-April, whereby they will be assessed each on its own merit and that this may not necessarily translate into support from the AMA for the legislation.

The second is a letter from Darlene Konduc from Sherwood Park, wherein she indicates that there is a place for free enterprise and business for profit in our society, but as a tax payer, a voter, and a businessperson she does not want any of her tax dollars to support health care for profit. The third is a paper that has been put forward by Dr. Laura Shanner. She is with the J. Do ssetor Health Ethics Centre and department of public health sciences at the University of Alberta, and she indicates that Bill 11 should be removed entirely and a new approach to actual reform of health care undertaken.

Increasing surgical facilities will do extremely little to reduce costs and improve health care for Albertans. The paper is entitled Ethical Concerns about Bill 11. The other tabling that I have is from Dr. Kathrine Peters, who is associate professor of the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta. She indicates that the Premier appears “to have no regard to the constituents” that he serves, and it appears that he has “been starving the public health care system to prepare the way for a private system.” My last tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a copy of a speech entitled The Immorality of Bill 11 given by Reverend Dr. Bruce Miller that indicates: Besides being dishonest and deceptive, with the name “Health Care Protection Act,” Bill 11 undermines the moral foundation of our health care system, and puts in jeopardy the very values which we treasure, such as compassion, universality and accessibility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first is a res ponse from the Alberta Partnership for Health in regards to Bill 11.

MS LEIBOVICI: Not endorsing it. MR. WICKMAN: Not endorsing it by any means. No, no, no, no, no. MS LEIBOVICI: Sixty-eight associations. MR. WICKMAN: Oh, yes, all 68. My second one, Mr. Speaker, is from a constituent, Mr. Don Dickson from Edmonton-Rutherford, who wishes it known that he is strongly opposed to Bill 11. 2:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings today, the first of which is from a very prominent Edmontonian, a gentle- man and long-term educator in the province of Alberta, a fantastic soccer coach and football coach.

He is now a councillor in the city of Edmonton. His name is Bryan Anderson. He has written a letter to the Hon. Halvar Jonson decrying the discrepancies between the cataract surgery at the Royal Alex hospital and that which is in Lamont at the Archer memorial hospital. He decries the difference between the service there and the service here and that the foldable single lenses are provided free of charge there, where they’re $250 here, sir. The second tabling is from a resident of Banff, Alberta, Yvonne May.

She’s writing the Premier w ith regards to the Genesis Land Development Corp., the heli-skiing operation, and four-seasons resort plan for the Spray Valley. She asks that the Premier immedi- ately halt this development. The third is also of the same subject matter, sir, and will not be repeated, save and except the pers on that wrote this letter to the Premier is Bruce Bembridge from Exshaw, Alberta. The fourth is the same sort of letter to the Hon. Ralph Klein, again that the Genesis Land Development Corp. stop the development immediately and is from Pascal Beaurais from Canmore, Alberta, sir. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have two tablings. The first tabling is a letter to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board signed by 22 people who live just northeast of Edmonton who are opposed to the drilling activity in the vicinity in which they live for a variety of reasons which are outlined in the letter. The second set of tablings I have is three letters, one from Lisa Hauser of Calgary, Laura Downing of Calgary, and Lisa Downing of Canmore.

These three people have written in opposition to the Genesis Land Development proposed development of the Kananas- kis Valley, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the appropriate number of copies signed by six different Albertans. They are Annie Larrivee, Philippe Gauthier, Phil Villeneuve, Terry Burstrom, Darrell Skinner, and Carrie Skinner. These letters are all opposed to the Genesis Land Development Corp. proposal to develop a heli-skiing operation and four-seasons resort in the Spray Valley. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve just brought a small sample of some of the correspondence that have come to my office from Cathryn Furtak, Geo ff Collinge, Carl Scullion, R.L. Sylvester, Karl Kolm, and Patricia Henderson, all expressing grave concerns about Bill 11.

696 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table five copies of a letter from Jennifer Chipman, a very thoughtful letter urging all MLAs to support the integration of the midwifery services evaluation project and, further, to support the funding of midwifery services under Alberta health care. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to table the appropriate copies of two separa te letters from constituents of Edmonton-Manning, Abe Fehr and Marie Fehr, and they’re CC’d to just about everybody. The gist of the letter starting off is: The Alberta Government, under Premier Ralph Klein is once again proving that they are totally irresponsible to the people of Alberta by attempting to privatize our hospitals. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to table a report. In fact, it’s a study prepared by Dr. Donna Wilson, professor of nursing at the University of Alberta.

This very valid and reliable study talks about the shift away from hospital use by terminally ill and dying patients. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a tabling this afternoon on behalf of a constituent, Rita Talen. She is on the board of directors of the Rehoboth Christian ministries, a nonprofit organization serving Albertans who are mentally challenged. Thank you. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how to handle this, but obviously there are some games being played here relative to tablings.

I have just in the past few days received maybe 300, 400 letters in support of Bill 11. I could read every one today and table them, but we’d be here until 6 or 7 o’clock this evening. I’m just serving warning. I’m just going to table a couple today. The first one is addressed to the Leader of the Official Opposition. It says, “Dear Madam: I am totally disappointed listening to you and your socialist followers trying to scare me and my family into believing Bill 11 is all wrong.” Another letter here says: Congratulations! Bill 11 is a masterpiece.

In my view the bill: 1. is a victory for democracy; we citizens have been consulted prior to the legislation. That is a first. Mr. Speaker, I’ll just file one more. Last week I spent an afternoon with a cup of tea and Bill 11. I had heard so much about Alberta’s Health Care Protection Act in the media that I wanted to read the document to gain a better understanding of the contents and what it means to Albertans. I expected to read a much more radical bill than the one put forward. This legislation is a common-sense approach to help solve our health care problems.

You and your government should be congratu- lated, not condemned, for your initiative in this bill. And it goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I’m serving notice today that if this nonsense by the opposition on the other side continues, I will make sure that we pull out every single letter in support. It will take us until mid- night each and every day to table all of the letters that we have, if they want to continue. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Associate Minister of Forestry. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies in response to a letter that was tabled by the Member for Edmonton-Norwood. This letter, of course, is in response to debate. I’ve asked in writing for the member to identify what some of the policies are of their government in rural Alberta, and I’ll just read one little part of it. The last policy we heard was in ’91, of course, when the Liberal leader at the time said: what it means is that instea d of building hospitals in every rinky-dink town in Alberta, we start saying no. That is why I’d like to know what their policies are.

It also goes on to say . . . [interjections] This is very short. For the amount of time you take, this is short. The leader also goes on to say: what it means is that instead of building curling rinks in every town, we say no. He also indicated that they would say no to recreation centres, shelters, and roads: all important issues to rural Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see their response in writing. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a constituent of mine in Edmonton-Whitemud, Mrs. Armelle Bridge- man. She’s seated in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask that she please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an honour for me today to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly some 19 grade 12 students from St. Matthew high school in Rocky Mountain House.

They’re accompanied by their teacher, Darren Brick, and parent Mrs. Darlene Levitt. I believe they’re seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they now rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 2:10 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Legislature 16 distinguished visitors, and 13 of those are very progressive, dedicated students from Mimiw Sakahikan at Pigeon Lake. It’s really a pleasure to have them here today.

They’re accompanied by Richard Espinoza, Michael Toohey, and Elizabeth Rowan. I would ask that they now rise and receive the warm welcome of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to intro- duce to you and through you 29 bright, enthusiastic grade 6 students from Clive school in Clive, Alberta, accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Rob MacKinnon, who is one of my favourite teachers; parent-helpers Mrs. Gloria Friesen, Mrs. Wanda Grose, Mr. Verle Lang, Mrs. Bev Northcott, Mr. Neil Ronald, Mrs. Margaret Ronald, Mr. Allan Rowley, Mrs.

Wanda Wagner, Mrs. Margaret Wester- green, Mr. Mark Westling; and bus driver Mr. Jerome Wildeman.

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 697 They’re seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 11 students that are here in the public gallery. They are with NorQuest College. NorQuest College is very good about having tours through the Legislative Assembly. This group today is accompanied by their group leader, Mr. Cap Tiege.

I would ask them all to please rise and accept the warm and traditional welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a great group of students to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly. I’ve been in their grade 10 classroom, and they had great questions to ask. There are 18 of them here. They are here with their teacher, Miss Dunn. They’re from Sturgeon composite, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR.

DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point this afternoon I’m delighted to be able to introduce to you and through you to all of our colleagues in the Legislative Assembly five individuals who have been very effective and very strong advocates for a strong public health care system. I spot them in the public gallery opposite: Dr. Harold Swanson, Verna Milligan, Dr. Malcolm McPhee, Jane Walker, and Wilma Kassian. I’d invite each of our guests to stand and receive the customary warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise with a great deal of pride and pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a distinguished Canadian who is accompa- nied by a very, very special Albertan and Edmontonian. The distinguished Canadian is none other than Shirley Douglas, a woman of remarkable talent, dedication, and principle. She is currently the spokesperson for the Canadian Health Coalition and a noted actress.

For several years now Ms Douglas has been speaking out across the country about the problems facing the universal public health care system, and as my colleagues have perhaps already guessed, she is the daughter of Tommy Douglas, the former CCF/NDP Premier of Saskatchewan and the man who pioneered medicare in that province. The very special Albertan is none other than my wife, Swinder Pannu. Both of these guests, Mr. Speaker, are seated in your gallery. I will now request them to 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’s a pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you a constituent of Edmonton-Glengarry, Bev Dockrill. She is seated in the public gallery, and with your permission I’d ask that she now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. Thank you. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’ve received notices from 21 hon. members who indicated to me that they wish to raise a question in question period today. I’ve never had such length of a list.

There are 21, so I ask for brevity in questions and brevity in answers today so all hon. members will have an opportunity. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. First main question. Private Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 8 in this Legislative Assembly the Premier said the following about his private hospitals policy: “If we had something to hide, if we had something to be afraid of, we would have kept this from the public.” Yesterday the Official Opposition released a secret report funded by this government, by the Department of Health and Wellness.

The government has held on to this rather damaging report and thus chosen to hide it from Albertans, I guess because it told the truth, not the misinformation being spread by the government’s million dollar propaganda campaign. My questions are to the Premier. Why was this report kept hidden from Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have the hon.

Minister of Health and Wellness supplement, but since the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition has alluded to hiding things, I would like to table a letter dated December 16, 1994, and it says: Dear Nancy: We have recently been approached by the Department of Health with respect to your records as the former Minister responsi- ble for that department. They would like to transfer the material to the Provincial Archives of Alberta. We would like to accept the material.

As ministerial records are currently considered the private property of the respective ministers, your approval will be required to effect the deposit. According to my information, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not replied to this particular memo, and I understand that there are some 155 boxes of records that were compiled when she was Minister of Health that she now refuses to release to the public. Speaker’s Ruling Anticipation THE SPEAKER: Hon. leader, please. As the hon.

Government House Leader has already risen on a point of order that will be dealt with at the conclusion of question period, I can only anticipate that the point of order that the hon. Government House Leader would probably want to raise with the House would have to do with pertinence, relevancy, anticipation of a debate that would go on tonight. I want to make it very clear that yesterday the chair did rise with respect to this matter and di d indicate that questions dealing with Bill 11 would not be dealt with today as there is a scheduled debate tonight and it’s on the Order Paper.

However, that does not preclude questions respecting policy of the government on various matters. So my only plea to anyone who’s raising questions today is: be very skillful in the words of your questions so the chair will not have to intervene again. Private Health Services (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that the Premier has talked over the last few months about the importance of debate, a bout providing Albertans with all of the information about his health care policy, about the importance of being open and accountable, how

698 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 can he justify hiding from Albertans one of the few Alberta-specific reports that are available on private health care policy? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition alludes was prepared autonomously by the University of Alberta, yes, I understand, at the request of the Department of Health and Wellness, and I’ll have the hon. minister respond. 2:20 MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Official Opposition’s portrayal of the status of this report is false.

The study by the Institute of Health Economics, which is an independent and very reputable agency at the University of Alberta – and, yes, it is funded by an unconditional grant of $250,000 a year, and there are at least a dozen other agencies or companies or institutions that provide funding to that institute as well. Mr. Speaker, the document that was alluded to in this Assembly yesterday is an early draft of the report. It still has to undergo further work and also, as is traditional with the institute, peer review. This document is not a final document.

It is independent of government, and the funding that we provide to the institute is on an ongoing basis with no strings attached in terms of the whole assistance that we’re providing. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that yesterday his minister said that there’s very little, if any, evidence in Alberta dealing with private health care, is the Premier keeping his study hidden because it contradicts his private hospital policy and his minister of health? MR. KLEIN: It’s not my study, Mr. Speaker, but since she referred to the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness, I’ll have him respond. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, we look forward to the final report. As I said, the institute has been of c onsiderable assistance to Alberta Health and Wellness and to the h ealth care system in general in terms of providing independent and learned reviews of a number of issues and policy matters as far as the health care system is con- cerned. I would suspect that the final report, which the hon. member should have enough courtesy to recognize and acknowledge is what anybody should be quoting from, I’m sure will be fair and balanced and constructive as far as the health care system is concerned. THE SPEAKER: Second main question.

The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did the Premier tell Albertans on March 14 that there was evidence to support his private hospitals policy when his own report, hidden until yesterday, says that there is no evidence to show that the public health care system is not efficient? Why would he misinform Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this government has never, not now, will never, have a private hospital policy, so when the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition alludes to a private hospital policy, she asks a question that is absolutely totally irrelevant. MRS.

MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier tell Albertans on December 10 of 1999 that private hospitals are more cost- effective when his own report, hidden until yesterday, says that there is no proof of this claim? Why would he misinform Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’ve never alluded to private hospitals. It is not in the language of this caucus. There is nothing being considered by this government that includes private hospitals. As a matter of fact, the opposite, the absolute opposite is true. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, in fact, it talks about private hospitals in this funded study from the government of Alberta. Why did the Premier tell Albertans on March 14 that under his private hospitals policy there would be no queue-jumping when his own report, hidden until yesterday, says that enhanced services and faster access to care will be available for those able to pay, at least according to this government-funded report? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that’s what a University of Alberta report might or might not say. I understand that it’s only in draft stage and has not been subjected to a peer review.

Relative to the report itself I’ll again have the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness respond. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all indicate and repeat that this study is being done by the Institute of Health Economics, which is a respected independent agency of the Univer- sity of Alberta. That is the first misstatement that has been made across the way. Secondly, it is my opinion that the hon. member is misquoting or selectively quoting from this particular report. Some might call it paraphrasing, but they have a curious way of paraphrasing. How- ever, Mr.

Speaker, I think the important thing here is that the report is in the development stages. I would think that any responsible person across the way would want to wait until the final report is completed before quoting it as a set of final findings. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, if this report is an interim report, then why wouldn’t the government pull its private hospitals policy statements and discussions and await the final report before proceed- ing further with their policy, which has caused so much concern amongst Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, there is no private hospital policy statement; therefore the question is irrelevant. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier tell Albertans on November 16, 1999, that under his private hospital policy there would be no two-tier medicine in Alberta when his own report, which has been hidden from Albertans until yesterday, says that his private hospital policy could lead to two-tiered health care. Why would he misinform Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again there is nothing to allude to a so- called private hospital policy, so that question is irrelevant.

It’s quite clear that any policy being developed by this government does not allow a two-tier, for-profit health system to develop, unlike the policy of the Liberal Party, where the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition said: if there is a place for private hospitals in the system, let them operate. She is the only person who has alluded to private hospitals. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, given that the issue is in fact extremely relevant to the people of this province, why did the Premier tell Albertans on March 10 that there was evidence that contracting out surgeries was more cost-effective when his own report, hidden until yesterday, says that no comparative studies to back up the Premier’s claim exist. Why would he misinform the people of this province on such an important debate on public policy?

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 699 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the only person misinforming the people of this province is the leader of the Liberal opposition and her devoted group of loyal followers; namely, the Liberals, who have been on a very intensified campaign of spreading vicious and malicious misinformation. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Public opposition to the government scheme to legalize private, for-profit hospitals under a slightly different name has been growing steadily since last Novem- ber.

All of the government’s expensive PR spin-doctoring has only deepened and solidified public opposition. My questions are to the Premier. Why does the Premier persist in shoving down the throats of Albertans something that they clearly – clearly – do not want? 2:30 MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not so sure that that is the case. I can allude to the policy of the NDs, obviously not the bill. The policy is quite clear and is against what virtually every doctor, even the AMA, has told us.

The policy of the NDs is to eliminate all surgical clinics whatsoever, including therapeutic abortion clinics, including cataract clinics. The policy of the NDs – and this hon. member can clarify it – is to immediately close all surgical clinics that are contracted to regional health authorities. In other words, the policy is no contracting out whatsoever. Everything must be done within the confines of the bricks and mortar of a full-scale hospital. That is their policy. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Premier for explaining my party’s policy to Albertans.

He should leave it to me to do it. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I’d like to proceed. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, I gave you my permission, and you proceeded to give a statement and a

preamble. When you throw it out in this House, you’ve got to expect to get it back. If you have a question, I’ll recognize you. Proceed. DR. PANNU: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again: why won’t the Premier admit that his expensive PR spin-doctoring has failed for the simple reason that Albertans don’t support his privatization scheme no matter how it is packaged? MR. KLEIN: No spin-doctoring here. No privatization here, Mr. Speaker.

The only people who have been guilty of spin-doctoring: well, certainly the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who have probably spent millions on this campaign; the Liberals in particular, who won’t tell us how much they’ve spent on their campaign; and the Friends of Medicare, backed by the Alberta Federation of Labour. That’s been the only spin-doctoring. Mr. Speaker, all we have sent out is a copy of a bill that purports to become law, and as I’ve said, nothing can be more truthful than the law. DR. PANNU: I hope he listens to the AMA, if not to the AFL. Mr.

Speaker, my last question to the Premier: why doesn’t the Premier understand that when Albertans say no, they mean no when it comes to the privatization of health care? MR. KLEIN: I find it so very, very strange that this member in particular would be asking those kinds of questions: the great defender of medicare. Yet he fails to question in any way, shape, or form the legislation that was passed in Saskatchewan, the birthplace of medicare. The daughter of the late hon. Tommy Douglas is here in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. That piece of legislation, passed in 1996, is

an act respecting health facilities. Our act is very, very similar to that act passed in Saskatchewan by the NDs, only our act is much stronger. It even puts more fences around contracted-out surgical facilities. Relative to a comment that was made by the leader of the third party, I’m not trying to explain ND policy on this particular issue, but if he would stand up in this House and explain the policy, I’m sure Albertans would be most appreciative. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Hospital Construction MR.

LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently the Lakeland health authority announced that the Fort Saskatchewan health centre will undergo major fire code upgrades and improvement to the surgical suites. I’d like to ask the Minister of Infrastructure to speak to the reasons the upgrades are needed and what they are expected to accomplish. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The recently an- nounced project in the Fort Saskatchewan hospital deals with upgrading much of the fire and the electrical requirements but also adding some additional space for the much-needed surgery that’s taking place.

Many of the staff are working in small space, espe- cially medical records. We’re also concerned with some of the fire regulations, and we’ll be looking at some window upgrades and improving the total envelope of that part of the hospital. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Fort health centre is a busy facility and does a great many surgeries and they’ve been using temporary facilities, temporary additions for several years, I’d like to ask the minister how a future new facility would fit into the ministry’s long-range plans. MR. STELMACH: Mr.

Speaker, what happens now in the province of Alberta is that individual regional health authorities will be priorizing projects based on need and also on space requirements and program delivery. That particular list will then come to Alberta Infrastructure, and with the co-operation of the minister of health our department will review those space requirements and priorize them on a provincewide basis and then make the necessary announcements as per the budget dollars available in that particular year. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further to that question, would the future construction of a new Fort Saskatchewan hospital or any other health facility be impacted by health authorities leasing facilities in their community? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, from about ’92-93 to ’99 the government invested close to a billion dollars in not only new hospitals but renovations, repairs, and upgrading and in bringing in new technology. Over the next three years we’ll be rolling out a business plan with a $324 million investment, again not only preservation of facilities but new facilities and some upgrades.

The regional health authorities will look at what strategy gives them the best value for the tax dollar, but we’re committed to spend at least $324 million over the next three years.

700 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 Private Health Services (continued) MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of discrepancies between what the Premier has been telling Albertans about private health care policy in this province and what is in reports that the government has commissioned and received. I’m wondering for the record this afternoon if the Premier could define for Albertans the difference between a private hospital and an overnight private surgical facility. What is the difference, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it’s in the policy statement that, of course, led to the bill, which will be introduced for second reading later today. If the hon. member is confused as to what a hospital is, I would reiterate the challenge that I made and ask her to go and visit the Royal Alex or University hospital or Misericordia or Grey Nuns. If she wants to know what a surgical clinic is, whether it’s a day clinic – first of all, there are no overnight clinics that I know of in the province other than, I think, HRG, which contracts to WCB and British Columbia for some services.

I know of no overnight surgical clinics, but I would suspect that an overnight surgical clinic would be an extension of the kind of clinics that now operate on a day basis. There are 140 of them operating in Alberta as I speak. So if the hon. member wants to first of all go to a hospital, like the Royal Alex or the Grey Nuns or Misericordia or University hospital, if she doesn’t know what a hospital looks like, then I would invite her to go down and have a look at one of those.

If she wants to know what a surgical clinic looks like, then I would invite her to go down and have a look at one of the local therapeutic abortion clinics or cataract surgery clinics. Speaker’s Ruling Anticipation THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, all hon. members have been circulated the document called Bill 11, the Health Care Protection Act. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, if you’d like the chair to assist,

Definitions,

section 29 in the act, defines what a designated surgical facility is. There are also sections in here about what public hospital means. 2:40 We indicated yesterday that as the debate has been established and scheduled to start tonight on second reading, there’ll be ample opportunity for it, and the question period s hould not be used in terms of talking about things that are clearly before all members of the House. Now, there have been great liberties taken with some of the questions already this afternoon. I would like to refer all members to Beauchesne 409(11), dealing with government policy.

Hon. member, would you continue, please, but remember what the chair has said. Private Health Services (continued) MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is also to the Premier. Why did the Premier tell Albertans on Novem- ber 24, ’99, that under his private hospital policy no one would get faster service because they have a credit card or cheque book when his own government report, hidden until yesterday, says that there could be receipt of different enhanced services for Albertans according to the ability to pay? Were you not concerned this would mislead Albertans, Mr. Premier? MR.

KLEIN: Before answering the question, I stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker. I talked about 140 clinics. I mean there are 140 procedures being done in 52 clinics, and I’m sure that some of those clinics exist here in Edmonton. I reiterate that if the hon. member wants to see the difference between a surgical clinic and a hospital, go down and see for herself. Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the question.

Since this government has never alluded to private hospitals – only the Liberals have alluded to private hospitals – since the government has never alluded to a private hospitals policy, I consider the question to be irrelevant. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier tell Albertans on November 16, 1999, that there would be no two-tiered, American style health care in Alberta when the government’s report, hidden until yesterday, says that sources of revenue other than that from RHAs may be needed for private hospitals to survive financially? Were you not concerned that this would mislead Albertans, Mr.

Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, relative to the question of two-tier, for- profit, again, this government has never alluded to allowing a two- tier, for-profit health care system to develop. As a matter of fact, I will reiterate the agreement made between the Prime Minister and myself where we agreed that Canada should not ever allow a two- tier, for-profit health system to develop. It’s as simple as that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Organized Crime MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure you my questions this afternoon have absolutely nothing to do with health policy or Bill 11. My questions this afternoon are to the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Albertans are encouraged that the government has committed itself to combat- ing organized and gang crime, but many are concerned with recent media reports of a new courtroom under construction in Edmonton. My first question is to the Minister of Justice.

Apart from spending 1 and a half million dollars on a new courthouse in Edmonton, what exactly has the minister done to stem the increase in gang-related activities in this province? MR. HANCOCK: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Organized crime is a very serious concern of this government and indeed of all governments across the country.

That’s why when I attended a meeting with attorneys general in December – December 5, I believe it was – in Vancouver, we spent a good half day hearing from RCMP and other police forces across the country about the nature and extent of organized crime, the nature and extent of gangs in the country, what is happening with respect to them, what we need to do, and speaking as well about how we can co-ordinate our processes and our information to best combat organized crime. Mr.

Speaker, organized crime does not respect boundaries, so the fact that we police on a municipal basis or on a provincial basis is a bit of an inhibitor in the war against organized crime, and therefore it’s absolutely essential that justice departments across the country, attorneys general across the country, work together to make sure that there’s a good sharing of information and good co-operation between our police services.

For example, I would point out that there was a conference, organized not by the Attorney General’s office but by police forces themselv es, in Banff this last weekend talking about gangs and particularly focusing on aboriginal gangs.

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 701 So there’s been a lot of effort. I’ve referenced in the House before the $8 million which we allocated in November of 1998 to the sharing of information and the Criminal Intelligence Service of Alberta, which again co-ordinates and helps the police forces across this province co-ordinate their efforts on organized crime. One significant result of that was the very significant bust last September where some 30 individuals were arrested and charged with gang- related activities.

Of course, that brings us to the need for a courtroom, not a new courthouse but a courtroom which is of the size and magnitude to allow us to prosecute large groups as may come before us with these arrests on organized crime issues. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister please explain just exactly why a special courtroom is required to try gang members? Can’t they use the same courtrooms as everyone else? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is essential, as part of our battle against organized crime, that we have in place the resources necessary to deal with the second stage.

The police of course have the obligation to investigate and to arrest and to bring to justice the people who are involved in organized crime and gangs, but we then have to provide the infrastructure necessary to deal with those charges in court. When you have gang-related charges, it’s neces- sary to have all of those who are charged on an associated basis in court at the same time, thus the need for a large courtroom. But I would indicate again that we’re not building a specialized courthouse as has been done in other provinces.

Rather, we’re renovating some space in the basement of the existing courthouse in Edmonton to provide for a larger courtroom which will be used for prosecution of gang type offences like this and for many other uses within the province. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Given that the minister is responsible for constructing this courtroom, can he advise if other alternatives were considered prior to this costly construction? MR. STELMACH: Mr.

Speaker, our department, in co-operation with the Department of Justice, looked at a number of alternative locations. One was the base at Namao. However, logistics and some of the security provisions would have been considerable. So we again looked at the courthouse in the city of Edmonton, knowing quite well that the level we’re looking at, the basement level, hasn’t been renovated since 1980. There are some much-needed code upgrades as well. We also consulted with the three levels of court that had assured us they will be using these court facilities in the future.

As a result, we decided to get the best value for the taxpayer dollar and do the renovations, knowing quite well that these courtrooms will be used in the future as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Private Health Services (continued) MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Alberta Liberals released a government-funded report that this government suppressed.

The report confirmed that this government’s push for private hospitals will lead to higher costs to taxpayers, longer waiting lists in the public health care system, two-tiered medicine, and queue jumping. My questions are to the minister of health. Albertans would like to know, Mr. Minister, which branch of the government commissioned this study and when. Was it Health and Wellness? The Premier’s office? Public Affairs Bureau? Which one was it? 2:50 MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the funding, as I indicated I think at least twice this afternoon in answer to other inquiries, is provided to the Institute of Health Economics by Alberta Health and Wellness. I also previously in the Assembly during question period named the amount, $250,000 annually, and that relationship or agreement has been in place since 1995. The institute has an oversight board which is made up of very well qualified people, both in the area of policy development and academia.

The institute reviews issues with Alberta Health and Wellness and with others in the health care sector each year and decides on what their agenda as far as studies and policy development and recommendations will be. They operate quite independently. They are a very credible group, and I think they are a group that we get value from in terms of the studies and the recommendations and the findings they provide for the overall direction and management of the health care system. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that has to be emphasized here is that once again the status of this report is being very much misstated.

The members across the way know very well that it is in one of its earlier drafts. There still has to be work done. There still has to be the standard procedure of a peer review of the report done before it is released and before anybody is going to be expected to consider its recommendations. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is an interim report. It’s not a draft report. It’s an interim report, so it’s valid as it stands. It’s not a draft. Mr. Minister, my question to you is: did your department specifically request this report? Did you, your department, commission this report? MR.

JONSON: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated in my previous answer, the Department of Health and Wellness, other institutions such as our universities, and other parts of the health care sector discuss with the administration and the board of the institute topics that could be well investigated as far as their agenda is concerned as an institute. However, we did not commission that particular study. You know, if she wants to check with the institute as to how they go about their business and how much money we pay them – if they don’t believe that we pay them $250,000, well, fine, because it is the case.

It’s not anything unusual or out of the way. I think we have received over the years g ood value from this particular institute or agency, Mr. Speaker. It is valuable because they do do independent work, and we look forward to their final report. If the hon. member had any courtesy or reasonableness at all, they would want the final and complete report, with the peer review, before they comment or reach conclusions that are not valid. MS OLSEN: Well, I find it difficult to understand why reputable professors at an institution would release this without standing behind it, and it was released to your office, Mr.

Minister. So now that you’ve read it, can you tell us if you agree with the

summary of findings in it? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ve not read the report or received it, of course. THE SPEAKER: And seeking opinions is totally inappropriate for the question period.

702 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, I’m counting on you. Turner’s Syndrome MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two separate families in my constituency have children who’ve been diagnosed with Turner’s syndrome. It’s a growth disorder that affects one in 2,500 female births.

In both those situations the drug Humatrope has been prescribed at a cost of approximately $1,000 a month, even though it is not approved for funding by Alberta Health and Wellness for the treatment of Turner’s syndrome because, as I understand it, Alberta Health and Wellness deems it to be ineffective for the treatment of Turner’s syndrome. My question to the Minister of Health and Wellness: how does the policy of Alberta Health and Wellness compare to other jurisdictions in Canada regarding the approval of payment for Humatrope in the treatment of Turner’s syndrome? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify that the pharmaceutical pr oduct referred to, Humatrope, has been approved on a limited basis in Alberta for an area of treatment where our expert drug committee deems it to be effective according to scientific evidence, and that is with respect to adults which are at a certain stage in this disease or condition. Mr. Speaker, the only province in Canada that I am aware of that covers Humatrope at this time is Manitoba. There may have been some more recent developments in other provinces, but that is the best information I have at the present time. MR.

MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Health and Wellness tell me what the professional qualifications of the Alberta Expert Committee on Drug Quality and Therapeutics is? That’s the body that decides which drugs are covered by Alberta Health. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the expert committee is, I think one would agree, a very prestigious committee in terms of their qualifica- tions. It is made up of physicians, pharmacists, people who are very knowledgeable in the whole area of drugs themselves.

There are socioeconomic experts with respect to the effectiveness and the long- term efficacy of having certain drugs approved. I think the list of individuals that are part of that committee is an indication of a very well qualified group of people, both in terms of practical experience and also in terms of scientific knowledge and its application. MR. MARZ: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. My final supplemen- tary to the same minister: would the minister inquire into why Alberta doctors would be prescribing medications that are not considered to be effective treatment? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, th e process in Canada is that once a pharmaceutical pr oduct, a drug, is approved by Health Canada’s approval agency, then it is legal for a physician to prescribe that particular drug for treatment. However, across Canada each of the provinces has a process of reviewing the scientific evidence, the value of treatment, and the effectiveness of treatment in terms of what should and s hould not be covered under their respective drug payment programs.

Therefore, it is not uncommon for a physician to prescribe a particular pharmaceutical product to an individual case without there being coverage by the province’s drug program. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Private Health Services (continued) DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are serious issues and questions raised regarding the Alberta experience with private provisions of a publicly funded service, issues and questions which should be investigated by a government considering further exten- sions of private provisions of insured services. Not my words, but words primarily from the report of the Institute of Health Economics paid for by this government. My questions are to the minister of health. Will the government continue to support a policy of further health care privatization when this report claims there is trouble with what we already have? 3:00 MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I will reiterate that in another circumstance the hon. member across the way would be criticizing anyone who was quoting from a report that is not finished. It has some distance to go in terms of finalizing its findings, but it is convenient and it is in keeping with their pattern across the way to quote from partially completed documents and those that may change in the future and so forth.

With respect to the draft document that the hon. member is referring to, I will take the view that when that report is complete, it is certainly something that Alberta Health and Wellness will review very carefully and consider in terms of its findings. But the point here, as the Premier has well stated many times today and previ- ously, is that we are not contemplating a bill that has a provision which deals with establishing a tw o-tier health care system in this province. We are not contemplating at all establishing private full- service hospitals. No, Mr. Speaker.

Those decisions are already made, from the government standpoint, in terms of what should be in the legislation. It is in the legislation. It is in Bill 11. So to keep bringing forward what I regard as irrelevant comment is inappropri- ate. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the same minister. Did the minister investigate current privatization efforts before moving ahead with his private health care policy? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any private health care policy.

We have brought forward and reported many factors relevant to why we are establishing a very protective piece of legislation. We’re moving forward with that, and that is because we want to protect the public health care system and adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act. No one has been able to indicate any way that we are not adhering to the principles of the Canada Health Act, so this innuendo and implication and false assertions are not relevant or constructive with respect to the matters before the Assembly. DR. MASSEY: Mr. Speaker, my th ird question is to the same minister.

What are those other private provisions that the govern- ment is considering that are mentioned in the report? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure what he’s alluding to in terms of private provisions. We are not, in Bill 11, developing a private hospital system or a private health care system. We are developing a public health care system, one which is for the public, one where they will not have to worry about queue jumping, one where they will not have to worry about being charged extra for insured services. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 703 Child Health Benefit MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the government has taken many good steps and developed programs to encourage the families who rely on social services alone to become more self- reliant and proud working families, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. What do those programs entail? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, in this government we try to provide assistance to those people who need our assistance.

Many of them, of course, are not able to work, but there are people amongst our citizens that, while they are working, still do need some assistance. So we have programs that can top up earnings, but I think the more important one would be identified as the national child benefit, and in this particular case we’ve been able to use funding in partnership with the federal government to provide for some medical benefits.

To list them, it provides coverage for prescription drugs, for dental and optical services, for emergency ambulance service, and for essential diabetic supplies, agai n, for children in low-income working families. It’s my understanding that this year the child health benefit program will be helping more than 50,000 children. MR. CAO: Mr. Speaker, my second supplemental question is to the same minister.

Given that postsecondary education costs are rising and postsecondary students have made a commitment to learning and have the skills and knowledge to become productive workers in the future, why doesn’t the government provide health care benefits to their children? Some of them are married students. MR. DUNFORD: When we were initially investigating this matter, Mr. Speaker, representatives of student groups said, “No, we don’t want to be in that program; we want to make the decision ourselves,” so we went ahead.

What has happened since that time is that we have heard from students within the system, so now we have changed our policy to cover them, and we expect that 6,500 children will be covered by that benefit now. MR. CAO: My last supplemental question is also to the same minister. How will the students get coverage for their children? MR. DUNFORD: Well, it’s a matter of applying for the coverage, Mr. Speaker. I can read into Hansard a phone number they can call here in Edmonton, 427-6848, or certainly from anywhere in Alberta they can dial 310-0000 and of course ask to be referred.

We can provide them, then, with the information they will need. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now I will call on the one member who will participate in Members’ Statements today. Calgary Centre of Hope MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether this means I get six minutes instead of two. On April 1, 2000, I had the opportunity to attend a wonderful event in downtown Calgary. This was the groundbreaking for the Calgary Centre of Hope. The Centre of Hope is a new facility being built by the Salvation Army in the city I’m from.

It’s going to provide 119 transitional housing beds plus 116 emergency beds for men. There’s going to be a new separate program with 32 beds for a women’s emergency residence. The addictions rehab unit will be increased to serve 46 clients. Significantly, because some 30 percent of the homeless people in downtown Calgary present with a range of mental health issues, there will be a mental health diversion crisis stabilization unit with 30 beds. Mr.

Speaker, what’s so significant about this is that we’ve seen a recent report which estimates that in the city of Calgary on any given evening we may have as many as 5,000 men, women, and children who are in some form or another of housing crisis. There may be somewhere in the order of another 10,000 or 12,000 Calgarians who are one slim paycheque away from the street. I think what we’ve seen in the city of Calgary is a leadership not by any level of government but by the community. We see an amazing leadership not just from the Salvation Army but from churches.

The in-from-the-cold program developed by the city of Calgary is a wonderful example, and we’ve seen support from a range of nonprofit organizations, the work done by CUPS and organizations like that. In connection with that, on March 24 and 25 I attended a homeless in Calgary Future Search conference. The Member for Calgary-Bow attended that session as well, and you saw the energy of people in the Calgary community coming together to identify what progress has been made since the last Future Search conference two years ago and what more has to be done.

I just want to salute all of the men and women working hard in terms of this process to solve the homelessness problem in Calgary. Thank you. 3:10 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the hon. Government House Leader has advised of two points of order. Hon. Official Opposition House Leader, did you advise of a point of order? I heard you say something. MR. DICKSON: No, I did not, sir. No. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Government House Leader, on your first point of order. Point of Order

Preambles MR. HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Speaker, there were three points of order, but the first two related to the

preamble in the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s questions, so perhaps I could deal with both of those as one. Under Standing Order 23(e), anticipation, and 23(

j) as well as 409 and virtually every other rule in Beauchesne, the hon. Leader of the Opposition started off the pro ceedings today firstly by breaching your admonition yesterday not to raise questions which clearly dealt with a matter which is on the Order Paper. You, I think, dealt with that earlier during question period. As well, we’ve seen a continuation of a practice which has become unfortunate in this House, of the Leader of the Opposition and her minions raising in

preamble matters which use “abusive and insulting language . . . likely to create disorder,” encouraging debate. I refer specifically to the refere nce to private hospital bills and private hospital policies when it’s cl ear that there is no such thing and we have before the House Bill 11, which is not called the private hospital act. It is in fact labeled the Health Care Protection Act. So it is argumentative and it is abusive language and it is encouraging debate to continue to use question period to misinform Albertans about the nature of the policy and the nature of the bill. The rest of her

preamble and many of the other

preambles, I might say, were argumentative in that they referred to a study for which the minister of health has quite clearly indicated the source of that

704 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 preliminary report and who paid for it. Ignoring those clearly stated answers as to the source and the preparation of that report, they continued to refer to that report as a government-commissioned report, as a government paid for study, as your report, all of which were argumentative and in the nature of debate rather than appropri- ate questions, which, if I can go back to 409, “must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate.” MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I’d make this observation.

I would have expected the Government House Leader to be more specific in terms of the concern and more precise in his use of language. Sir, I’d refer the Government House Leader to November 7, 1994, when actually this very issue of anticipation was dealt with if not exhaustively then most thoroughly by your predecessor. In fact, we have virtually an entire column on the page of Hansard – for the Government House Leader’s reference, it’s page 2854 – and if I could just go to a quote that the then Speaker made. I think it was Speaker Schumacher, and he was referring to previous rulings of the House.

He was referring to a ruling on June 15, 1989, which he quoted with approval. That was the Reverend David Carter, and I might quote this. Questions can be developed and not ruled out of order if a Bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Once the Bills reach second reading stage, then they’re going to be ruled out of order in terms of question period. Questions developed after a Bill’s introduction should not be detailed and should relate to the general policy rather than a clause-by-clause examination of the Bill.

Now, I listened as carefully as I could and had the benefit, in fact, of seeing some text before the questions were asked, and each one of the questions specifically talked about the policy of the government of the province of Alberta. You, sir, will recall that the government, with much hullabaloo and fanfare, produced a policy statement in November, and that dealt with a range of facilities.

It is very clear that there was a policy statement, and I’d say, with respect, that we are entitled in this House to ask questions about that policy state- ment, what the government means by it, and to explore the nuances and the vagueness and the gaps in that policy statement. Never at any time was reference made in any one of the questions to Bill 11 because we are mindful, sir, not only of your admonition yesterday but the direction of the House since at least Dr. Carter’s comments on June 15, 1989.

If the Government House Leader is suggesting that that eliminates any question about policy of the government of the day, then that’s completely, absolutely at variance with all of the precedent of this Assembly. Now, he goes on to raise a second matter. He’s concerned that we persist in talking about private hospitals and private facilities when he professes innocence and says that the government is doing no such thing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence has been very clear.

Most recently an interim published report, not a draft report, said that the accredited private surgical facility that this government is talking about would, in the minds of 10 out of 10 Albertans, be a private hospital. I think Albertans are smart enough to understand that this government can under their policy create a facility as big and as sophisticated as the Foothills hospital in Calgary, and as long as it does not do emergency services, that would not be a private hospital. In the minds of the government perhaps, but in the minds of Albertans without question that is a private hospital.

So we’re perhaps parsing and mincing words in terms of nuances and definition. [interjection] I received some g ood advice, as I always do, from our friend from Calgary-Varsity. I don’t want to spend most of my energy this afternoon when we’ll get a chance to debate the bill at length tonight, but I just did want to make that observation that an interim report is something that in fact has been published. It’s entitled to be talked about and discussed, and it is clear that the government has funded the report. Now, did they do it by a direct requisition?

Did they do it by indirectly paying the institute that has done it? I read the report, and it says that it was commissioned by the Department of Health and Wellness. To me the linkage is clear and irrefutable. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there were certain interjections this afternoon by the chair with respect to this matter, and the chair did make a statement in the House yesterday with respect to anticipation. The hon.

Opposition House Leader is absolutely correct about the rulings that were given by previous Speakers with respect to this and the traditions of parliaments with respect to this whole matter. If I listened, though, very carefully to the Government House Leader, he was as much concerned about the tone of words and the usage of words as he was about the type of direction with respect to the question. It’s on that point that I’ll make these brief comments. I do quote from the Blues. It says: Mrs. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 8 in this Legislative Assembly the Premier said the following about his private hospitals policy: “If we had something to hide, if we had something to be afraid of, we would have kept this from the public.” Yesterday the Official Opposition released a secret report funded by this government and f unded by the Department of Health and Wellness. The government has held on to this rather damaging report and thus chosen to hide it from Albertans, I guess because it told the truth, not the misinformation being spread by the govern- ment’s million dollar propaganda campaign. My questions, Mr.

Speaker, are to the Premier. Why was this report kept hidden from Albertans?

It certainly makes rather pointed allegations with respect to a member, and while there’s no doubt at all that the chair and, I do believe, a great number of other members would feel that the tone of the question might be rather aggressive and might be rather harsh and could be deplored, I suppose, by some as horrendously unparlia- mentary to a certain degree, the chair would have to really reach, though, to see if it violates any provisions of sections of Standing Order 23, because it has to be taken within the context of the whole thing. However, that having been said, the chair is confused.

I know that the chair is not supposed to be getting involved in any of the debate in this Assembly, but the Leader of the Official Opposition said, “Yesterday the Official Opposition released a secret report funded by this government.” Then the chair heard – and he’s positive about this – the hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood say that an institute released such a report. There has to be consistency with respect to the whole thing.

If one hon. member stands up and says, “Well, we have a report,” and another hon. member stands up and says, “Well, no, it’s not a report; it’s an interim report, and it’s not funded directly by the government,” there is a point in time where you’re going to have two absolutely conflicting views of the whole thing. Presumably, that has to do with a further debate that should really not be taking place in question period. 3:20 Again and again and again I want to remind all hon. members of what the purpose of question period is.

The bottom line today was that after indicating there were 21 members who were on the list, I do believe we arrived at no greater than eight members having an opportunity. Now, hon. Government House Leader, a second point.

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 705 Point of Order Decorum MR. HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I won’t pursue it in any great detail, because it’s sum and substance the same point of order as the last one. I simply want to make the point again for the House and to ask for your more active control of the House under

section 13(1) of Standing Orders in that we do have members in this House who seek to ask questions for information. Unfortunately, most of the members of the opposition seem to want to ask questions for the purposes of allowing lengthy, argumentative

preambles which twist the realities that we know to be existent in Alberta. It’s those irrelevant, irresponsible, unn ecessary, and under our rules illegal

preambles which create the responses that come, which are necessary to set the record straight. As a result, we don’t have in this House a question period, as is the great parliamentary tradition, where private members of this House get to examine members of Executive Council, members of the government, on the policy and direction of the government. Rather, we have positioning by members of the opposition with totally inappropriate

preambles, and we see again and again and again in this House posturing for the cameras. We want to have Albertans see what’s happening in this Legislature. It would be my fondest personal dream that we would broadcast all the proceedings of this House someday. We can’t do that, I don’t believe, if the result is going to be the animal acts that we see during question period, with a great twisting of the truth that comes in these obnoxious

preambles. I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s time to start ruling them out of order and asking members of the opposition and members on the government side, if necessary, to make their

preambles relevant to the question, to make them short, succinct, and in accordance with the rules. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, another one of these free-flowing points of order. The only thing that ’s clear to me is the frustration of the Government House Leader, but need I remind him and you, sir, that there’s an opposition and there’s a government. Each of us has different roles to play. Each of us has different perspectives on many of the issues of the day. The Government House Leader can talk all he wishes about pointed questions that he thinks are argu- mentative.

I can point out to the same extent responses that are not forthright, are not candid, that avoid being provocative and argumen- tative. So where are we left? If the Government House Leader wishes to use Westminster as the standard and to suggest that the questions in some fashion fall short, let me re tort that if he watches question period in the House of Commons in Westminster, he will find that responses are at a much higher level and set a very different standard than anything we see day after day in this Assembly. So the Government House Leader is frustrated. Well, let me assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that members of the opposition are equally frustrated, if not more so, with a government that refuses to accept responsibility for things they do. We will continue to try and hold the government accountable. If the Government House Leader chooses not to like the tone of the questions, then he should work with his colleagues to be more forthcoming and provide us with snappy, pithy, direct, responsive responses instead of the nonsense we hear day after day from the front bench of this government. THE SPEAKER: I honestly do believe we enjoy this.

I honestly believe that at the conclusion of the question period every day this little exchange is better than a coffee break for a lot of people. I really, truly believe that. It just gets us going. Okay. Well, the hon. Government House Leader has referred to

section 13(1), “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order.” Yes, that’s very correct, and the Speaker would love to make sure that we would preserve the order and the decorum according to every body’s

interpretation of what order and decorum is all about. But as there are 82 individuals in this House in addition to the chair, we all have our own subjective decision and

interpretation of what decorum really means. So I guess I’ll have to explain what mine is again, just so that everybody really understands. We have two groups of players in this Assembly. We have one group called the government, and we have another group called the opposition, but part of the government is also private members. The purpose of the question period is to basically allow all private members in the Assembly to bring the government to account, which means that they have great latitude and a wide-ranging opportunity to raise questions of members of Executive Council.

Now, we’ve tended over time to basically say that it is only to members of Executive Council. We’ve also said that the questions should be brief and should be to the point and that the answers should also be brief. We also have other rules that talk about argumentative things and opinion and representative and undebatable things, and we all know that on almost a daily basis these things are all being violated by virtually everyone, because we tend to evolve in terms of what these words mean and how things are.

We also know that we have something called television, and somehow people believe that this is a good thing. Today not too much got on television, because I do believe that we didn’t really start the question period until about 2:17, and by that time most people have already walked away and gone to do their grocery shopping or are out doing their yards or what have you. So that caused a little problem with some other things in terms of decorum.

The chair today was actually going to stand up and start really, really being quite aggressive with tablings, and the first person who tabled was the leader of the government, who then proceeded to read from a letter, which sort of shot that little argument out of the way because if it was good for one, it had to be good for everyone else. So 25 minutes later we’re into this.

Maybe one of these days all members will recall that the Speaker several weeks ago indicated in a letter to them that one day he actually foresees – I’m sure it will come to pass – that we will be here at 5:30 and will s till be into tablings. There will be no question period that day, and that sort of thing will happen.

Preambles and relevancy are really important. I’ll appeal to you once again. The hon. Oppos ition House Leader referred to West- minster, and he basically then said that questions are a certain type and answers are a certain type. But the hon. Opposition House Leader basically forgot to give to the House by way of information that it has been to a great degree a long-standing tradition in Westminster that those who want to raise questions actually send the question to the minister in advance. The minister can anticipate, knows what the question is, and then when he comes to stand up, he does provide an answer.

If the hon. Opposition House Leader is basically saying that we want to establish that tradition in the parliament of Alberta, that’s something the House leaders might want to rediscover for themselves in advance. If we want to start tomorrow, then henceforth by 11 o’clock in the morning the questions should be sent to the members of Executive Council, who would know what the questions are. I’m sure they’ll have a chance to stand up and respond, and I’m sure we’ll have brevity. You know, these tete-a-tetes on a regular basis basically do cause some problems for hon. private members.

Now, the chair is going to end this, and we’re going to proceed.

706 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 205 Emblems of Alberta (Alberta Dress Tartan) Amendment Act, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the opportunity to speak for a moment, I would like to thank all who have participated, including the Calgarians who had this idea. At this time I would like to move third reading of Bill 205 and call for the question. [Motion carried; Bill 205 read a third time] 3:30 head: Motions Other than Government Motions Advisory Council on Women’s Health 505. Mrs. Fritz moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish an advisory council on women’s health to support education and research promoting women’s health and to address issues relating to the prevention and treatment of diseases including osteoporosis, eating disorders, heart disease, and breast cancer as well as diseases which women are becoming increasingly susceptible to such as lung cancer and autoimmune diseases. [Debate adjourned March 21: Mrs. Soetaert speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I had just started to speak on this motion, which I am pleased to be able to support. Some people may not remember back a few years ago to when a women’s advisory council ended before its time. It was mandated to go for another year, yet it was shut down by this government. I remember voting against that at the time and in fact asked questions about it in the Legislature. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] It was a pity that that was ended, because you know what? Those women on that council did some very good work from across this province. You know what else?

That was a neat aspect of that advisory council, because there were women from right across this province. We talk about the differences and we celebrate those differences, but certainly women in isolated rural communities have different needs than women in cities, to some respect. Some are all the same; some are different. Now, the motion on this women’s health council.

Women’s health is the same across this province, with the same issues: the fact that we have women in their childbearing years, that we have women with breast cancer, osteoporosis, AIDS, endometritis, all kinds of things that affect women regardless of where they live. So I think this council is a good idea. I am hoping, though, that we will have women from across the province on this council. I’ve been to some farm women’s conferences, some women’s wellness conferences across the province. In fact, I will be speaking at another wellness conference.

I’m glad nobody over there is questioning, but they’d be welcome to come and feel well for an hour. Just imagine how well this Assembly must feel sometimes when I’m done speaking. In fact, stress is a factor that many women and men deal with, and that, I’m sure, will be covered. We all deal with things differently. Certainly on the issue of women’s health, as I was mentioning before, rural women have issues of isolation that often we don’t understand. They don’t have the same ability to access health care that others do that live in bigger cities.

The real issue, too, is that if you have to come to the city for treatments, you don’t just plan two hours of child care. You may plan two days or may have the expense of a hotel room or hope that you find a relative that lives in the city that will help you out. So those realities for women in rural Alberta and their health and wellness I hope will be addressed by this council. That is one of the things that I would really like to see on this council: people from across the province. I would also love to see a native woman on this council. The chief at Alexander First Nation in my riding is Victoria Arcand.

She’s a remarkable woman, and she has also worked with health care within her own reserve and with others across the province. They have issues, too, that are different, that relate to their community differ- ently. I would love to see a representative from that community, because I truly respect the work they have done and the balance they could bring to that council. I would hope that one of the focuses of this council is, of course, preventative medicine for women.

One of the things that I know is supported by this government and that I hope will not be changed is the whole fetal alcohol syndrome program, which of course affects women. A totally preventable disease yet totally incurable. I have a nephew who has fetal alcohol syndrome, and the heartache that his family has gone through and that he has gone through – if only people could know what drinking when you’re pregnant does to you.

I think there’s a lot of work to be done in preventative medicine, and certainly this advisory council could have a powerful, powerful role in that and could put very positive resolutions through to this Assembly that, with commitment, could be acted upon. That is my hope for this council. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the remaining time I have left, I want to rise today in this Assembly and lend my support for Motion 505.

Before I continue, I want to congratulate the Member for Calgary- Cross for her well-respected expertise in this Assembly. We are very fortunate to have the member in this Assembly. She often stands on relevant issues and legislation to do with health care, and I thank her for her previous professional status and her professional opinion that she brings to this Assembly often.

We’ve indeed been very lucky to have her, and I can say on the public record that I do believe she would have been an excellent nurse, a very caring caregiver, as she certainly in the Assembly brings forward timely health issues and legislation. Mr. Speaker, there’s so much that can be said for this particular motion. I think everyone in th is House would agree that it is something that needs to be done and put in place. Something I think was interesting.

I do know that in British Columbia, for instance – I don’t know whether they’re still utilizing it, but they used to – they would equip vans and buses with all the necessary equipment to allow women to come to the van or bus for

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 707 mammograms. They took this specially equipped vehicle out so that the mammograms went to the people instead of the people coming to them. I thought this was a very innovative approach, and I know that often in downtown Vancouver you could see a van or a bus parked there on a Saturday allowing women, as they did their grocery shopping or other shopping, to come in and have this very worthwhile test.

I don’t have a lot of time to expand upon this, but I think we can see certain things in the health care field that we could look at to be innovative and work towards early prevention and early diagnosis and early treatment to do with women and women’s health issues. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler, but under Standing Order 8(4) I must put all questions to conclude debate on the motion under consideration. [Motion Other than Government Motion 505 carried unanimously] 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. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to bring this motion before the Assembly. There was a similar motion, by the hon.

Member for Wainwright, dealt with earlier in this 24th Legislature, and we have, I believe, seen progress with this issue since that motion was first discu ssed in this Assembly. As the discussion on this motion progresses, I look forward to the com- ments from other members of the Assembly. 3:40 Well, we look at this motion and have to recognize that the most important job in society is raising the next generation. A motion such as this gives parents simply one more choice or one more option in raising their families.

Now, this motion comes before the Assembly at a time when one of the most well-recognized public figures perhaps in the western world, the Prime Minister of Britain, and his wife are expecting their fourth child. This is a debate that goes beyond the province, because of course how are the Prime Minister and his family in England going to deal with this? It’s going to be interesting to see how that unfolds, and it could also be in a small way some direction for us.

Now, when I first talked about this motion with many people across the province, I have to give credit to many people who brought this issue forward before. They would be the Kids First Parent Association, and I’ve read also information from the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, the Alberta/Northwest Territories Network of Immigrant Women Association, the Calgary home educators, or CHEERS, the Catholic Women’s League from Calgary, and the National Foundation for Family Research and Education. All of these groups have developed ideas and policies regarding this issue.

In 1998 a Calgarian, Beverley Smith, a former schoolt eacher, decided to raise her four children in her home. Mr. Speaker, you would almost have to withdraw the phrase “stay-at-home parent” and say: a parent who works in the home. Certainly it is work, and it is hard work. It is work that I think should be recognized by all hon. members of the Assembly.

Beverley Smith brought this issue into the national spotlight by challenging our federal government to treat families in which one parent chooses to stay at home or to work at home to care for the children the same as families in which both parents are working outside the home. Beverley Smith believes that stay-at-home mothers or fathers, but mothers in particular, are discriminated against both socially and by our current tax system. She went so far as to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about our federal government’s treatment of stay-at-home parents.

Now, hon. members are correct in asking: well, what’s he talking about with the federal government? An idea has to start somewhere. Earlier, when the hon. Member for Wainwright brought this issue forward – and I will get to that in my remarks in a minute – there were some positive things that came about, and I think with this motion there can again be positive results, Mr. Speaker. I spoke earlier about the Kids First Parent Association of Canada, but they have gone national with their concerns and their ideas on this issue.

We should look carefully at what they have to say, and I assure all hon. members that later on in my remarks we will. I would appreciate it if everyone in the Assembly, all hon. members, would have a look at this motion and consider supporting it, because we must value equally parents who want to stay in their home and work and raise their families that way. We must respect that choice. The volunteer care sector of the economy is made up of many of these individuals, and their work cannot be taken for granted.

We all know that it makes a large economic contribution to society, whether it’s in the service clubs, whether it’s in the schools. These are the volunteers who help out teachers. Many of our teachers are overworked. There are a lot of students in each classroom. I’m not going to get into that, Mr. Speaker. These individuals – and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a mother or father – are picking up a lot of the slack, whether it be with Boy Scouts, whether it be with church groups, or whether it be with schools, all service organiza- tions. It is a factor that we have to consider in this debate.

Now, this government’s flat tax proposal will not completely fix the problem, even though it does remove the inequity between single- and dual-income families. That was an issue in our tax policy that I believe was long overdue for correction, and I would commend the hon. members from across the way for incorporating that into the provincial tax regime. But I think the spousal tax exemption must be increased further to achieve equality. Whenever I talk about spousal tax exemption, I am not just referring to the stay-at-home mother. Mr.

Speaker, in the last 40 years women have been entering the workforce in larger numbers. In some couples it would be the woman who would have the greatest earning power. If a couple wants to make that choice of staying in the home and working in the home and raising their own children, if this decision is going to be based on who can make the most amount of money in the workforce, in some cases it would be the father that would remain in the home, not the mother.

I don’t want all hon. members of this Assembly to get confused about that issue, because in some circumstances it could be the father that’s staying home. Now, we all know that parents who work in the home take a financial hit. They are giving up an income in order to raise their children themselves. It is not only working parents who incur more expenses to raise their children, and this is an issue that I would also remind hon. colleagues about. I said before that the term “stay-at- home parent” is very misleading. These parents are not simply staying at home.

They are working in their homes raising the next generation, and in many cases they are putting in longer workdays than employed people and spending much of their time outside the

708 Alberta Hansard April 4, 2000 home going to appointments, whether it’s to the doctor or to the dentist, wherever, or they’re simply running errands. Sometimes these errands are on behalf of the schools. I think at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to incorporate into my remarks some of the remarks and some of the concerns that were brought forward by the Kids First Parent Association of Canada, which is based in Airdrie. They have studied and written extensively on this issue. Here’s what the Kids First Parent Association of Canada has to say regarding current tax policy.

It is their view that tax policy has changed significantly in the past 50 years. 3:50 W e h a v e m o v e d a w a y f r o m a s y s t e m t h a t h e l d t r u e t o t h e traditional principle of ability to pay - one which recognised that taxation should reflect not only the level of income but the number of people dependent upon it - to one that sees children as just another individual expenditure. As a consequence, the parental caring of children is seen as a wa ste of an adult’s time and talent and, for women, a significant barrier to equality and fulfillment.

This devaluation of parental care through tax policy . . . occurs at the same time as an ever expanding body of research is confirm- ing what common sense has always told us – parents are critical to a child’s optimal well-being. It is parents who have the greatest potential and ability, the intrinsic motivation due to their immense love and instinctual bond, to . . . meet the needs of their children. What children need to thrive and develop positively is massive quantities of time with their parents. Children themselves call this quality time with dad or mom.

Yet families today are deprived of the vital time they need together to bond and to nurture with “unhurried patience”. The logical solution would be to remove the disincentives and barriers to parental care, to give families the opportunity and flexibility to decide what is best to meet their individual family’s needs. This is the choice that I believe Motion 506 would provide to all Alberta families. Family life is not static but dynamic. The combination of work and family varies significantly . . . depending on each family’s circum- stances.

A family may have a parent at home full-time during the preschool years, with that parent gradually re-entering the paid labourforce once children are in school. Circumstances such as illness or disability, job promotion or loss, separation or divorce and relocation may mean a change in work and family patterns. Policies [of all governments] must recognize the dynamics of family life and support families, not frustrate them, in moving through transitions.

The intense care demands of young children [move forward all the time.] A family of two or three children, spaced two or three years apart, means full-time parenthood for ten or twelve years at the most. It should surely be possible to plan for this short-segment of the lifecycle, which represents less time than most able-bodied people spend in retirement, for which increasingly lavish provision is made.

Some of the thought, planning and finance that now goes into the construction of pension schemes and student loans needs to go towards the re-creation of tax policies that will support parents at the most heavily loaded point in the lifecycle. Those are the comments by the Kids First Parent Association of Canada regarding our current tax policies in this country. What about the issue of making the decision to work in the home or being given that choice, whether it be the father or the mother?

One of the biggest myths surrounding the issue of at-home parent- ing is that families need two incomes to make ends meet, while single income families can afford the choice to have a parent at home. This inaccurate perception is what fuels current discrimina- tory policy that rewards dual earner families and penalises those with a parent [working] at home. Statistically, low family income is more common among single-earner families, especially young families. The average income of one earner families is $26,000 less than that of dual- earner families.

In the majority of families, the decision to have two wage earners is not based solely on economics but takes into account factors of lifestyle and values. If two incomes are really necessary to “make ends meet”, we would expect to find a much higher proportion of working spouses (full- and part-time) in families whose head had a lower income. In fact, the percentages of double income families is virtually equal . . . And this is quite interesting. . . . across all income levels.

This fact was acknowledged in the Sub-Committee on Tax Equity for Canadian Families with Dependent Children’s report [called] For the Benefit of Our Children: Improving Tax Fairness. The report found that the decisions on how to combine work and family “are largely independent of the financial position of the families . . . no matter what the income level of families, roughly the same proportion of families have both parents working full-time all year.

Looked at in a different way, the probability that a mother would choose to work full-time in the labour force is, for the most part, independent of the income of the father. This point was confirmed by Status of Women Canada when they stated that “Fathers’ income does not have a large effect on mothers’ employ- ment status.” The temptation might be, therefore, to argue that since econom- ics are obviously not the dominant factor in how families combine work and family the current tax system, despite inequities, is not influencing a family’s decision . . .

Since factors of lifestyle and values are more influential in terms of affecting decisions, it could appear that the status quo is fine. This, however [I believe] is misguided. Although economics is not the prime factor in a family’s decision regarding whether to have two parents in the paid labour force or a parent at home, the tax system has a powerful impact on shaping social attitudes with respect to how it values certain choices. Modern society places much emphasis on money; value is equated with monetary gain or the amount of wealth generated.

This combined with rampant consumerism and material- ism feeds the social pressures that families experience, heavily influencing both parents to continue participating in the paid labour force regardless of the negative impact it may have on their own and their families’ physical and emotional health. Money is viewed as more important to a child’s well-being than parental time, material possessions are given priority over family time. Despite the research to the contrary, these attitudes continue.

While tax reform can’t address the whole problem it can, by eliminating tax inequity, send a powerful message to parents that their presence and time is important and that parental care is a valuable contribution to society. That is the view that the Kids First Parent Association presented regarding the decisions and choice to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Now, I find that very, very interesting, and it is an accurate reflection of our entire province as far as our ability to have the choice of whether we want to stay at home with our children or whether we want to see them placed in day care and continue in the workforce. Any changes and all changes must treat all families and all parents fairly and equitably. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I shall sit down and anxiously await the comments of my hon. colleagues. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by Edmonton-Centre. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me to enter into the debate on Motion 506, sponsored by the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. The family unit and its well-being are extremely important to me as I feel that no other bond ties the society of this country together more than strong, vibrant families. The family is an important institution to all Albertans. I believe that we

April 4, 2000 Alberta Hansard 709 as politicians have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything possible to foster environments in which to raise loved, secure, healthy children and strengthen the family. A healthy family means strong communities and a strong country. 4:00 While I respect the intent of the hon. member’s motion, I am unable to support it for reasons which I will explain. The Canadian family is undergoing a transition, as it has been increasingly for decades. I believe we have come to a point where we need to revisit the role of the state and the development of the family unit.

Our government has been committed to the family throughout its mandate and has focused on ensuring its strength in a world that increasingly poses challenges to the nature and the role of the family. One of the ways in which families have faced an uphill battle is with respect to the financial penalties suffered by one-income families in which one parent stays at home to care for children relative to two-income families where both parents work. For example, a one-earner family with two children currently pays approximately $4,394 in personal income taxes.

However, a dual- earner family earning the same gross wage would pay $3,332, or almost $1,000 less. Obviously, this type of differential tax scheme has a clear financial effect on one-earner families as t

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20000404
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20000404 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	55b6bc1f18fe1d57ed393edb3e78c157b89e55dd

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