Alberta Hansard — 18 October 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19841018

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1185 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, October 18, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly the Canadian Ambas sador to the Federal Republic of Germany, His Excellency Donald MacPhail. I ask that Mr. MacPhail, who is in your gallery, rise and receive the welcome of members of the Assem bly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 220 Public Ambulance Act MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 220, entitled the Public Ambulance Act. The Act would ensure provincewide uniform and adequate standards in training for personnel, equipment, communica tions, and other essentials of good ambulance service. Through the power to license, the minister responsible could ensure that no substandard ambulance service would operate in the prov ince of Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill 220 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: I am tabling the interim report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which was received when the House was not sitting; also the final report, which was received today. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the financial statements for the Crown hospitals for the year ended March 31, 1984. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Alberta Art Foundation for the year 1983-84. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm tabling the annual report of the Alberta Securities Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table the response to Written Question No. 176 of this session. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's not very often that I have the pleasure of introducing students from my constituency to members of the Assembly. Perhaps the students could have chosen a little better day to be here; nevertheless they are welcome. Along with 30 students from the Spirit River ele mentary grade 6 class, we have Mr. James Brandon, the prin cipal of the school, Miss Patricia Cavasin, a teacher, Mr. Lee Smithson, Cliff Dolhan, Linda Dika, Beth McLane, and Carol Sellin.

They are seated in the members' gallery. I ask them to stand and be welcomed by members of the House. MR. SPEAKER: May I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of two gentlemen who have joined the service of the Assembly: Mr. Charles Eliuk, the new chief of Administration, and Mr. David Greer, the acting Editor of Alberta Hansard. I ask them to stand, and ask the Assembly to welcome them to this Chamber and to the service of the House. MR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some visitors who, through their endeavours and philosophy, bring joy and happiness to countless numbers throughout the world. These are young citizens who bring enthusiasm, excitement, and positiveness to all of us who know them. I'm referring to the organization called Up With People. This organization began in 1968, primarily as an interna tional education organization. The Up With People cast with us today have men and women aged 18 to 26 years from 13 different countries. Since their inception, Mr.

Speaker, they have travelled and performed in 47 countries throughout the world. It is so popular, in fact, that over 10,000 apply to be members each year and only 800 are accepted into the organ ization. The cast here today is being sponsored by the Alberta Chil dren's Hospital Foundation, and they will be performing two performances this Sunday at the Jubilee Auditorium. I would like members to welcome 50 members from the Up With People organization, including group leaders Ann Chriswell and Sally Hawks. They are seated in both galleries.

I ask them to now rise and receive the warm welcome and best wishes of this Assembly. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly some 16 members of the adult career development class of Grant MacEwan, situated in the constituency of Edmonton Norwood. They are here with their group leader, Don Whalen, and are seated in the members' gallery. I ask them to stand so that members can give them the traditional welcome of this Assembly. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce to you 14 students from the Alberta Vocational Centre that is situated in Edmonton Centre. These students are learning English as a second language. I had the opportunity of having a conversation with them prior to coming into the Assembly, and I was most impressed. Two of the students have only been here for nine and a half months, and the way they have mastered the English language is to be admired. Accompanied by their teacher, Michelle Tracy, they are sitting in the public gallery.

I ask that they please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Treasury Department MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce two new tax initiatives designed to broaden the base of the Alberta econ omy, create jobs, and increase manufacturing and processing. Although the harvesting, extraction, and sale of our basic resources will continue to be fundamental to our economic strength for foreseeable decades, since 1971 Alberta has made significant strides in economic diversification and job creation.

Progress has been especially rapid in petrochemicals, agricul tural processing, forest products, telecommunications, oil and

1186 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 gas equipment technology, financial services, engineering serv ices, and tourism facilities. The value of all Alberta manufac turing shipments rose from almost $3 billion in 1973 to more than $12.7 billion in 1983. Since 1971 almost half a million new jobs have been created in Alberta, many in the manufac turing and processing area.

To boost job opportunities and make more secure the employment of those with jobs, it is now timely to initiate added incentives which will encourage both a larger and a more diversified range of manufacturing, processing, and upgrading in the province. In 1980 Alberta brought back home its responsibilities for corporate tax, and the system is now fully operational and functioning smoothly.

Today I am pleased to announce two business tax initiatives that will encourage diversification and job creation for Albertans: — Firstly, the existing general corporate tax rate of 11 percent will be reduced to 5 percent on all manu facturing and processing income earned in Alberta. — Secondly, the existing small business tax rate of 5 percent will be reduced to zero for companies with manufacturing and processing income earned in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I will propose legislation early next spring to implement these rates for a five-year period beginning April 1, 1985.

These initiatives will encourage manufacturing and pro cessing activity by a wide range of businesses and industries in Alberta, by stimulating not only the expansion of existing firms but also the setting up of new operations. The five-year tax holiday for small manufacturing and processing businesses will assist entrepreneurs and create new employment. These two new tax moves parallel the government's major youth employment initiatives of October 3, which resulted in $.5 billion now being committed to job creation and training assistance for 80,000 Albertans.

The challenge facing the pri vate sector is to use both programs to create long-term jobs. With the Alberta economic recovery in progress and firming up month by month, private-sector decision-makers are now considering manufacturing and processing investment decisions for 1985 and onwards. They now know that these significant new tax incentives will be in place effective April 1, 1985, and can plan accordingly. The two tax reductions will assist a total of more than 3,200 Alberta companies, of which some 2,500 are small businesses.

With these new tax incentives, Alberta's new tax rates on manufacturing and processing become the lowest in Canada. This move is yet another signal to investors that the Alberta government welcomes and will facilitate decisions by entre preneurs to carry on manufacturing and processing and create jobs here. The average rate of provincial corporate tax on manu facturing and processing in the other nine provinces is now about 14 percent. Following existing policy, Mr. Speaker, these measures will be implemented in the simplest possible way.

Definitions already existing in the tax system will be used. Small businesses whose activity is primarily manufacturing and processing will not be required to separate out that income from other activity. The cost of the program, in terms of forgone tax revenue to government, is estimated at approximately $65 million for a full year. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these job creation initiatives reflect item 2(

b) on page 58 of the Alberta white paper entitled Proposals for an Industrial and Science Strategy for Albertans, 1985 to 1990. During public discussion over past weeks, there has been widespread support for this diversification proposal. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Agricultural Assistance MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question this afternoon to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Yesterday, on the question of farm bankruptcies, the Premier made the comment — I think it's on page 7 of Hansard [Blues] — that going from memory and [subject to] checking into the figures, "a very small percentage of farm bankruptcies" . . . Today, of course, we had the president of Unifarm indicate that as many as 15 percent, or some 8,400 Alberta farmers, could be in trouble. My question to the Minister of Agriculture is simply this: what special action is the government going to take to deal with not only the issue of bankruptcy but forced sale by many farmers in Alberta? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, there's no doubt that farmers are going through a difficult time with the cost/price squeeze and a number of other factors. But I think we have to recognize and put into context that the Premier's statement yesterday was accurate in that a very small percentage of farm ers are in difficulty. The health and viability of the agricultural sector are of major concern to our government and have been since 1971, and we have been making a significant number of moves.

I refer the hon. member to a recent publication on the government of Alberta drought assistance programs, which I know I sent to his office and which outlines some of the moves we made lately. With respect to financing, we have made a number of moves with the Agricultural Development Corporation, recognizing that with the change in the policy of the banks to loan on cash flow rather than equity and also the high rates at the Farm Credit Corporation, the Agricultural Development Corporation has to play an even larger role in helping our producers. We have done that and will continue to look at those programs.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I refer hon. members to pages 20, 64, and 65 and Appendix A of the white paper, which outline some of the moves we've made to assist farmers. In addition, it also states some new initiatives we're looking at. This past July, at the ministers' conference in Winnipeg, the top item of concern among all ministers was the financial situation of farmers. At that time we established a task force that would work and report to ministers at a special meeting in Toronto in the first part of November.

It will look at all new areas of helping and creating new pools of capital and trying to assist agriculture. But not waiting for that, we have made a number of moves and are looking at other areas where we might be able to enhance and improve our programs. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What directive, if any, has the minister given the Agricultural Devel opment Corporation to evaluate the recent announcement by President Reagan in the United States that the Farmers Home Administration will defer up to 25 percent of farm debts — at no interest, I might add?

What direction has the minister given Alberta agencies to review that initiative? MR. SPEAKER: At the moment the question should probably be permitted, but it's a very, very thinly disguised effort at making a representation and saying: this is what another juris diction is doing; what's going on in this jurisdiction? It's really not a true question, to simply find something that's going on

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1187 somewhere else and say, what study is the minister making of it? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, if I may. It certainly would have some effect on our farmers. But the more important question is whether or not, in the ongoing administration of a very large department of this government, there is monitoring of events that impact on farmers elsewhere and might have advantage to farmers in Alberta. My specific question is, has there been any direction from the minister's department to evaluate that program? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, the answer to that ques tion is no. However, I don't think the thought should be left in anyone's mind that we aren't making all moves we can with the Agricultural Development Corporation. In fact you could say that in some way there's been an unofficial moratorium on agricultural debts through the corporation, because we have been trying in every way possible to work with all our clients and even some who aren't clients of ADC. They're welcome to come to ADC, and our counsellors will try to help them to work out their financial difficulties.

So there really wasn't any directive needed to try to enhance what ADC is always doing, because I really think the Agricultural Development Corpora tion is the best friend the farmers have in Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Maybe a better friend than the government. Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister: is the minister telling the House that in spite of actions by other jurisdictions, including the United States, the government's position at this point in time is that the programs in place by the ADC are adequate to deal with the present financial plight of Alberta farmers? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, I said in my comments that we always are looking at ways we can enhance that. There is a need for creation of new pools of capital. Two were iden tified in the white paper: agribonds and the Alberta agricultural credit bank. There are new pools of capital necessary for Alber- tans and for the farm producers and processors in this province, and we're looking at all of them. Of course, I think the task force report that will be made to the ministers of agriculture in November is pretty key also in looking at new areas where we can be of even greater assist ance.

We have that good, solid strength in our agricultural community. We want it to continue, and we'll look at all options that are open to try to meet that challenge. And it is a challenge. It takes all of us working together — farm organizations, banks, the government, and the federal government included. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to monitor, study, and work to try to improve and enhance our programs so that agriculture in Alberta remains strong. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Apart from looking at other options down the road, has the minister any program in place, beyond the programs already identified, to deal with the debt crisis faced, according to the president of Unifarm, by 15 percent or some 8,400 Alberta farmers, many of whom are in very, very serious trouble? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition can quote Unifarm, but there are two other farm organizations in the province that have done a study. Their review indicates that while there is a serious problem for some farmers, there is no crisis yet for all farmers.

I don't know whether the 15 percent figure the hon. Leader of the Opposition used is accurate or not, but certainly a number of producers have some difficulty with their cash flow. That was one of the reasons we moved to put in a trade account debt consolidation through the Ag Development Corporation and made some other moves to try to be of assistance. We will do all we can to try to assist our producers.

We have to remember that all our programs, including the Agri cultural Development Corporation programs, are to provide every opportunity and every break for people to be involved in agriculture and to succeed, but there is no guarantee of success. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister indicated the situation with respect to some farmers and not others.

Following that along, could the minister advise the Assembly whether the government gave any consideration to a program similar to the Saskatchewan northeastern flood compensation program, where acreage payments were made to farmers in those areas where there was very serious rainfall during spring seeding? The minister is well aware of problems in pockets of northern Alberta. Why was no program announced in Alberta, when one was announced in Saskatchewan? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm aware of the pro gram, and I believe that's a joint program between the federal government PFRA and the province of Saskatchewan. I have asked for a review of that program and what impact it may have on any pockets in Alberta that may be of concern. I know about the program, and I've asked for an assessment. If a way could be identified to help any area of Alberta, I certainly would like our producers to have that opportunity. So I'm looking at it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister tell the House why the government is looking at it, when Saskatchewan has in fact acted upon it? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that there's been a different mix of agriculture in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and a different relationship with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those provinces. It was one issue I raised on October 1, when I signed the drought agreement on behalf of the province of Alberta with the federal minister. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary in this series. MR.

NOTLEY: Given the very serious problem snowfall has created for unharvested crops, particularly in northern Alberta, where spring seeding conditions were very bad, could the min ister advise whether this government is prepared to look at any contingency program to provide cash inflow for farmers who may not be successful getting their crops off, with as much as a foot of snowfall in the last few hours? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer on what may or may not be done. I regret that we ended up with a snowfall like this, but my report is that the majority of the crops in Alberta are completed.

There are certain pockets that have some difficulty. I've asked the department to give me an assessment of how broad the range of concern is: how big an area is impacted, and how much of the crops are actually out. So we're monitoring the situation, Mr. Speaker.

1188 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 Oil and Gas Revenues MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Premier. It's with respect to the sessional paper his colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources released yesterday, showing that rather than the $64 billion anticipated from the energy agreement the Premier signed in 1981, it will be $27.6 billion, or about 60 percent less.

Could the Premier advise the Assembly what assessment the government has made of the whole process of forecasting in estimates, as a result of this obvious significant difference between the expected amount and what now in fact seems to be the most recent forecast? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be asked about that matter.

The real question that I believe has to be discussed in the Legislative Assembly is the revenue flows to both the industry and the government that would have occurred in relationship to the provisions of the national energy program of October 28, 1980, compared to the revenue flows that are now flowing as a result of the agreement of September 1, 1981. The forecasts that were contained in that agreement came about as a result of intense discussions involving both the fed eral government and the Alberta government during the spring of 1981.

The forecasts that were in fact presented by the federal government were by far the highest scenario of price forecasts. At the same time, we canvassed industry representatives during that period of the spring and summer of 1981, and their forecasts were relatively close to the federal government. Ours were not as high as either but certainly were much higher than what in fact occurred. About 99.2 percent of forecasters were roughly close to the average of the forecasters in the spring and summer of 1981 on world oil pricing. I have difficulty even remem bering who that exceptional case might be.

The interesting aspect that has to relate to that forecast — because I remember the negotiations very clearly — is that the higher the forecast that was placed in the agreement, the better for the province of Alberta because the more quickly the price increases accelerated. We were quite prepared and quite sat isfied with a forecast that had an acceleration, because it moved us to world oil price more quickly than would otherwise have been the case with a lower price forecast. So having a higher forecast worked out very well for the people of Alberta, the province of Alberta, and the industry.

The really important question is a 20 percent increase in revenue flow, I believe — and that's into many billions of dollars — both to the industry and to the province as a result of the agreement of September 1, 1981, compared to the national energy program of October 28, 1980. [some applause] MR. MARTIN: They're clapping because they lost money. MR. NOTLEY: I think they've lost the train of the Premier's answer. A supplementary question.

Given this drastic reduction from $64 billion down to $27.6 billion and the listing here of eight steps taken by the government — and we know that on April 1, 1982, the Premier very nicely gave us an estimate of $5.4 billion over the lifetime of the agreement — could I ask the hon. Premier if this government has any estimate as to the total cost of the eight initiatives identified by his minister in the sessional paper yesterday? MR. LOUGHEED: I refer the question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, the document that was tabled indicated events that have occurred since signing the September 1, 1981, agreement and subsequent to the imposition of the NEP — with the support of the NDP. I'm not sure whether the hon. leader of the NDP is referring to those specific calendar date references. Perhaps he could be more specific. MR. MARTIN: Pay attention, John. MR. NOTLEY: Yes, I'm sure the minister is paying attention now. MR. MARTIN: He's trying to be funny again. MR. NOTLEY: Not successfully.

Nevertheless I put to the minister whether there has now been a complete inventory and estimate of the cost of all the incentives and decisions made subsequent to the April 1982 economic resurgence announce ment in this House, where a figure was given. Do we have a total for all the changes that were made subsequent to that? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, for each of the incentive pro grams that have been announced — and most specifically the oil and gas activity plan — the revenue and cost implications were identified at the time they were brought forward.

I'm sure if we want to go through the arithmetic exercise of compilation, that would be a matter ideally suited for the Order Paper and could be placed there. Mr.

Speaker, what's very important to note is that the factors outlined in the supporting documentation tabled in the answer to the question relate in a very significant way to the subsequent measures which have been successful in pushing back the boundaries of the NEP, outlining instance after instance where the government of Alberta, working with industry, has been able to cause the federal government to move back the bound aries of the NEP, to allow more oil to qualify for world price. These are the initiatives that are outlined as much as anything else in the documentation.

But in terms of asking for a mathematical or arithmetic computation, I'd be happy to receive such a question on the Order Paper if the member wishes to put it there. MR. NOTLEY: So the answer is, no, the minister can't tell us. We know it's at least $5.4 billion . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. leader, but I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have now gone over a third of the question period and, in addition to the hon. leader of the Independents, I have eight other members who have indicated that they wish to ask questions.

I'm just trying to encourage a little brevity. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, bearing that stricture in mind — and I think making the point — I will yield to the next ques tioner. Corporate Income Tax MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial Treasurer is with regard to the announcement today. Could the Provincial Treasurer advise the Assembly why April 1, 1985, was set as the date on which the tax reduction would come into effect? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, some careful planning in the drafting of the legislation and consideration of it by the Leg

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1189 islature are to take place. As well, there are indications that the federal government may be moving in the area of tax changes, and we'd want to mesh with those. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate whether the tax reductions would be factors in avoiding bankruptcy or in assisting businesses that are in difficulty at the present time to avoid bankruptcy or difficult cash-flow situations? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, as noted by the Premier yes terday, the bankruptcies in respect of business are lower in Alberta than in Ontario or British Columbia and are less than 1 percent of all the businesses in the province. I think that would answer the question posed. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In terms of tax reduction, could the Provincial Treasurer clarify whether one of the intents is to assist the business in a better cash-flow position? MR. HYNDMAN: The intent is very clear, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to restate it: to encourage upgrading, manufacturing, and processing in the province of Alberta; to broaden the economic base; to create jobs; to expand existing industries and have new jobs there; and to have new ones created and expanded, with added employment opportun ities. Those are the clear and stated benefits, and they have accrued in this province as they have in others. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question in line with what the minister said.

Does that mean that will enhance the business opportunity, the future of businesses in this province? MR. HYNDMAN: It certainly will, Mr. Speaker. For the 99 percent who are in a position to take advantage of the benefit, I'm sure there will be benefits. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. My question is very clear: why isn't the legislation brought into the Assembly during this session and the tax implemented as quickly as possible, to help businesses this fall and early in 1985 rather than waiting until April 1, 1985? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I think tax legislation must, in fairness, be considered and approved by the Assembly before it is implemented. [interjections] That's absolutely essential. What this announcement today does is provide a signal to those who are planning in the private sector, entrepreneurs who want to get out and make decisions for beginning next April — they now know that — in order to have opportunities for manufac turing and upgrading and processing, which will create jobs. [interjections] Holy Cross Hospital MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

It relates to the discussion that is taking place, particularly in Calgary, with regard to Holy Cross hospital. I wonder if any decisions have been made with regard to the concern raised by many citizens of the city of Calgary as to the ultimate use of Holy Cross hospital. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, members may recall that the day after the Treasurer announced his budget for this year I also announced a proposal that affected two existing hospital boards here in the province.

I should say that there has been a fair amount of work done — quite a lot — with both those boards with respect to the proposals that were put in front of them and the evaluation of counter proposals, et cetera. I know this has resulted in a great deal of speculation in the media as to what is happening or what certain dates may produce by way of a decision. With respect to the Holy Cross board, I can only say that I believe we're very near the point of reaching what I think is an excellent compromise proposition. As soon as we've dealt with a few more details, we hope to jointly make that decision public. MR.

NELSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister presently in a position to advise when he might be in a position to make a decision and an announcement as to the ultimate use of the Holy Cross? And — well, I'll ask a third one. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, in a case where you're nego tiating with other outside parties, near the end it's always dif ficult to state a date on which you hope to announce a decision. I can say that I very recently met with the board, and our objective is to get an announcement out as quickly as possible. Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted MR. LYSONS: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Attorney General, on a question of policy. Could the Attor ney General tell the House what our policy is with respect to compensation for people who were convicted of a crime but it was later established that they were not guilty? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think two or three factors want to be considered with respect to that.

Firstly, there is of course the desire of all people — I think it would be very widely supported — that there be a system of compensation for people finding themselves in the position, as described by the hon. member, of having been in fact wrongly convicted. The issue becomes one of the responsibility of the Crown and of the taxpayer for what amounts to a miscarriage of justice. In at least some cases — in fact it would be difficult to conceive of a case otherwise — there would also probably be a liability on the part of a witness in the proceedings having testified in a way that brought about the conviction.

That person might have given wrong or false testimony, and that would be a factor. I raise that for one reason only; that is, to identify where the responsibility might actually lie, as distinct from the Crown, in a typical case. It also is a factor that the existing criminal injuries compensation system doesn't cover this type of situation. Mr. Speaker, I think only two other things might be said. One is that each case would have to be judged on its own.

I think it's well known that there have recently been two or three cases in Canada where it is reported that some compensation has been paid in similar situations. I say that each case should be judged on its own because it is of course possible to conspire to bring about a situation where a person might, in these cir cumstances, gain some advantage at the expense of the tax payer.

Having said that the decision would have to be made in each individual case, though, the policy I have under consider ation at the present time for all such cases is that although there is no provision whereby the Crimes Compensation Board might

1190 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 grant an award, that board might be used by way of reference in order to determine whether or not an appropriate case exists, to give an opinion to the government in specific cases and receive that by way of recommendation. Food Banks MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I am wondering if the minister could indicate to the Assembly the extent of his contact and communication with Edmonton's Food Bank and the amount of service provided by that organization. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, this summer I met with the chair man of the board of Edmonton's Food Bank, also called the Edmonton Gleaners' Association, and discussed the questions they had and the questions I had for them.

We decided that several of their people and people from the Department of Social Services and Community Health would meet to see if they could address three basic questions: one, whether or not the social allowance benefits that are being provided were meet ing the needs of social allowance recipients; secondly, whether or not we need to change existing policies; also to determine other factors that may be contributing to the demand on the food bank services in the city. MR. SZWENDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister indicate if the services provided by Edmonton's Food Bank have had any increase in demand over the past year? MR. SPEAKER: I question whether the hon. minister has among his official duties to report what goes on internally in voluntary organizations. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the discussions I had with these people, I think it's important that we indicate that there has been an increase in demand in both Edmonton and Calgary in the last couple of years. The demand in Edmonton has increased more than in Calgary.

I'd like to indicate one of the probable reasons for that; that is, there has been quite an increase in the number of agencies in Edmonton — 76 right now, I believe — that are providing services to the public. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. minister, I think we're getting quite far away from what was intended to be the question. MR. SZWENDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that partial answer, could the minister indicate if his department has any plans to provide funding to Edmonton's Food Bank? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, there is no intention to provide funding, and there was no indication in our recent meeting that there should be any increase in funding. I believe the opinion of many who are involved in the food bank area is that they do not want government funding and that it would take away from it being a real community, volunteer effort. They want to be able to manage the resources they have through their central agency, which provides services through the 76 branches of the food bank.

If I could go on for a moment on that, in the meeting I had with them we discussed the significance of the increase in the number of agencies that are providing these services. One rea son they perceive for the increase in demand is simply the increase in the availability of these agencies, and that has not been the case in Calgary. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I perceive that the minister is getting at it from another direction and going back to the pre vious point of order. Mount Allan Olympic Ski Site MR. OMAN: Mr.

Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, and it concerns Mount Allan. Could the minister bring us up to date on developments on the mountain? I understand there's been an excessive amount of snow, which has hindered the schedule. But could he tell us what's happening and how the budget looks? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I should point out two things to the Assembly. Number one, the construction of the Mount Allan site is now in the hands of my capable colleague the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

But in relation to seeking a private-sector operator, that is still my responsi bility. At the present time we're reviewing some 15 applications we have from the private sector, who expressed an interest in being considered as a lease operator of the site. I anticipate that in the next couple of months we'll reach a short list and get down to discussions with the individual groups. So from my particular standpoint, yes, there is snow on Mount Allan. It's not only in between the trees; it's on the slopes that are now cut. My understanding is that progress is on target, on time, and on budget. MR.

OMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think Mr. Niven, the president of CODA — the Calgary Olympic Devel opment Association, which is to be in charge of postgame activities — apparently made a request that they take over the operation of the Mount Allan facility and, if it were to be turned over to somebody else, that they would make the decision. Has the minister had the opportunity to review that request? MR. ADAIR: Not totally, Mr. Speaker. I received the letter late yesterday afternoon, and I'm looking at it right now.

I should point out, though, that the original request as to anyone who might be interested in being a lease operator on the site, which was sent out in August 1984, drew 39 interested parties. Then 15 submitted proposals relative to being interested in being the lease operators. One of the conditions of that request we have is that they must be in place prior to the Olympics, and then through the Olympics as well as after.

My first review of the letter from the CODA group indicates a preference to be the operator after the Olympics, so we'll have to look at that to see what is the actual intent of the letter and how it may fit in with our request for a lease operator that will be in place prior to, during, and after. MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary. I assume that if the CODA group were to manage it, it would remain in their hands. Is it still the minister's or the government's intent to find a private buyer for that, if possible? MR. ADAIR: As I explained this spring, Mr.

Speaker, I guess the long-term intent is that initially we'd be looking for a lease operator, and that would carry us primarily through the period of the Olympics. Our preference would be to have a lease/ purchase arrangement made at some stage down the road. If that interest is there in the private sector, we'll respond to it. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I asked this question last year. Maybe the minister has further infor mation. Has the government done a study as to what impact

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1191 there will be on Fortress Mountain, which is just up from Kananaskis? I believe that's the name of it. What effect is there on the facilities already in place in Banff and Lake Louise? What detrimental economic effects will there be on these com munities, in light of the fact that the government is putting this facility on Mount Allan? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, two things that I should bring for the information of the House are that the good people from Fortress Mountain are one of those interested in being the operator of the existing site, so that may well tie . . . DR.

BUCK: That's survival. MR. ADAIR: That's called ingenuity, enthusiasm, and inno- vativeness, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the private sector. I should also point out that we've had quite a number of discussions with other private-sector operators. One of the prob lems the industry has faced over the last couple of years is the fact that we have not had snow and, ironically enough, it wasn't just at Mount Allan; it was along the entire eastern slopes of not just Alberta but some parts of the U.S. With the advent of the snowfall we have now and the possibilities of a good winter, that may rectify itself in part.

But having said that, right now there is quite an interest in operation of the Mount Allan site by the industry itself and by people directly involved in the industry, and specifically in the ski business, in the province of Alberta. MR. OMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If a ski area is improved — and by that I mean Banff generally — would that not mean that more people would likely come to the area for skiing, and thus enhance all ski areas? MR. SPEAKER: I think we've entered the area of speculation, with or without snow. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

With due respect, the minister didn't answer the portion about what stud ies the government has done to find out what detrimental eco nomic effects there will be on the communities of Banff and Lake Louise, which already have skiing facilities in place. MR. ADAIR: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there are no studies directed at any detrimental effect. Primarily, construc tion of that site and bringing forth the 1988 Winter Olympics will generally have positive effects.

In essence, that would mean that the construction operations and after-operations of an Olympic site like Mount Allan would be to the general benefit of the ski industry in this province, in order to be able to attract more out-of-province, out-of-country skiers to this particular area. Having said that, then that would obviously help those other operators within the Eastern Slopes. Payments to Municipalities DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question . . . [interjection]. Tell your buddy Ralph Scurfield that. Mr. Speaker, my question to either the Premier or the Pro vincial Treasurer has to do with government waste.

It has to do with the transmittal of cheques, grants in lieu of taxes, and major facilities grants. Can the Provincial Treasurer or the Premier indicate what government policy is in place to make sure that these cheques get in the hands of the municipalities as quickly as possibly, just as quickly as they are written? MR. HYNDMAN: The general policy is that they get in the hands of the municipalities as quickly as possible. Of course that depends on the government departments, as appropriate, receiving all the necessary information. When that is received and approved, the cheques are made payable and sent out.

DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the Provincial Treasurer check with his caucus buddies to find out how long some of these cheques stay in the pockets of government MLAs who are waiting for an appropriate time to get their picture taken or transmit the cheque? [interjections] Mr. Speaker, can the Pro vincial Treasurer indicate if these cheques are delivered through the hands of the MLAs or their constituency offices, or are they mailed directly to the municipalities affected? MR. HYNDMAN: I don't have the details as to how that is done, Mr. Speaker.

But if the hon. member has a specific matter of concern with respect to a cheque payable to some munici pality within his riding, I would be happy to follow up on it if he would let me know. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the specific question: what is the government policy with regard to getting the cheques in the hands of the municipalities as quickly as possible? [interjec tions] Mr.

Speaker, is the Provincial Treasurer in a position to indicate to this Legislature if he is aware of or knows of instances where large cheques have been held in an MLA's pocket for as long as three weeks, waiting for an opportunity to be presented to a group? Is he aware of this going on? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, again, I know that the cheques are delivered to the municipalities in the appropriate way as soon as possible. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know, because that's not the way it happens. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Can the Premier indicate to the Legislature if he is aware that government MLAs and, in many instances, opposition MLAs are asked to deliver these cheques to the municipalities? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I've never heard any com plaint in the matter. If there is one, I'm sure we'll hear. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the question from my hon. colleague to the Premier is very clear. Do government and opposition MLAs intervene or deliver cheques to various muni cipalities and other groups in this province? Is it a policy of government to have the MLAs do it? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think that matter has been answered by the Provincial Treasurer. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the question has not been answered. The question is very clear. Is it a requirement of this government to have cheques delivered by MLAs to various recipients such as municipalities and community organizations? I could name a number. Is that the policy of the Conservative government in this province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I believe the policy is to have the Members of the Legislative Assembly fulfill their respon sibilities, and that's one of them.

1192 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for . . . DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier or the Provincial Treasurer. [interjection] That may be funny, Johnston. It's not your money, though. You're starting to think it's your money. Mr. Speaker, will the Provincial Treasurer undertake to find out from the Treasury Board if there are instances where che ques have been held for a long time and interest has been lost to the municipality because the cheque was not delivered imme diately? Can the minister indicate if that study will be under taken? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, as indicated, I believe that the present system is operating satisfactorily and that the method is appropriate. However, if the hon. member or any hon. mem ber wants to bring specific concerns to my attention, I'd be pleased to follow up on them. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier, if I may. Has there been . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I had already recognized the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, and we are running close to the end of the question period. MR. MARTIN: I'll pass. DR. BUCK: What's the matter? Is it getting warm, Mr. Speaker? [interjections] MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. That's really hardly . . . [inter jection] Order please. We have had an example of the same question being asked a number of times, and I haven't inter vened. I realize that there has been a lack of enthusiasm about some of the answers, but that does not enter into the rules of the question period. DR. BUCK: Just keep covering for them. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's quite improper. In a calmer moment, the hon. member might recognize that. However, the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood . . . DR. BUCK: When are you going to quit? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame. MR.

SPEAKER: . . . has said that he would like to yield his place on his question so that we might accommodate a sup plementary by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. While we don't really have formal assignments of rights in that way, I'm sure we can do that. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Premier would like to answer this question.

Given the concern expressed about the time lag, has there been any direction by the leader of government to government MLAs that once received, those cheques should be delivered promptly not for the convenience of getting their picture taken and printed in the local newspaper, but delivered promptly? Has there been any direction so that municipalities do not lose interest they would otherwise earn? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the best information I have is that they have been delivered promptly. As the Provincial Treasurer said, if there are exceptions, we'd be glad to hear about them. MR.

STROMBERG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if the Provincial Treasurer has any idea how many thousands and thousands of dollars in interest I have saved the county of Camrose, the city of Camrose, and different groups, in delivering the cheque two hours after I have received it. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I am sure the hon. member has made his representation. I did think he had a quizzical look on his face and that it was a question, but I found out otherwise. Impaired Driving — Blood Tests MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Attorney General.

It deals with the use of mandatory blood tests for people suspected of impaired driving and who cannot be tested with a breathalyzer due to injury or uncon sciousness. Given a new federal government in Ottawa, my question is: has the minister or have officials of his department been in contact with the new Justice minister regarding possible new legislation permitting mandatory blood tests in this prov ince? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that hasn't occurred yet. The situation, as I think the hon. member knows, is that the previous Minister of Justice had some proposals in that respect.

The position of our government at that time was that if the federal government was going to act legislatively under their entitle ment to enact laws under the criminal law heading of the Con stitution, that would be more appropriate than our trying through provincial legislation, by way of legislating under the Evidence Act or under the Motor Vehicle Administration Act or the like, to try to do the same thing. It's my intention, because I support the direction of legislation in that way, to address that issue with the new Minister of Justice.

At the present time, it appears that I may be able to do that as early as next month. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this area, has the Attorney General any specific types of legislation he will be discussing with the new Minister of Justice that he would like to share now? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the sort of represen tation we would make is simply to provide for an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada relative to the sections that have to do with impairment and introduce the blood test in limited circumstances in the same way that tests are now taken by breathalyzer.

MR. PAPROSKI: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last year British Columbia introduced and passed mandatory blood tests. Can the hon. Attorney General inform this House as to the relative success of B.C.'s initiatives in this area? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that information. I must stand on the previous answer, that I believe it's better handled in a federal way. That's no criticism of any province which has undertaken it by way of provincial statute. Agricultural Credit MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.

It is in regard to establishing an agricultural credit bank and an issue of agribonds. Both of these issues were debated in principle and passed in last fall's session under a private member's motion. Could the minister indicate the progress made toward implementing these private-sector based agricultural credit initiatives?

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1193 MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, they are exciting con cepts. We have been working on them for some time in co operation with the Alberta Cattle Commission, who originally brought the idea to us. It's a new and innovative approach to agricultural financing, and the department is still working on assessing it. I've also had the task force on agricultural credit, that's going to be meeting in Toronto in November when it reports to ministers, looking at the concept with respect to using it nationwide, not just in Alberta. So I think we've made sig nificant progress with it.

The next steps will depend to some degree on what new initiatives arise from the ministers' meeting in November. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 220. Moved by Mr. Oman:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to con sider new systems for the delivery of medical services which would (

a) allow nurses and other health care professionals to author ize the provision of health care services, and (

b) recognize the use of private clinics and other services which might be more efficient and thus less costly than the traditional doctor/hospital orientation. MR. OMAN: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, Motion 220 really has to do with medical costs. We've heard a good deal about medical costs in the last year or two. The statistics I have indicate that medical services in Alberta have increased in cost about 25 percent per year over the last little while, using up approximately 25 cents of every dollar that the provincial government spends.

I know that our minister has been wrestling with this problem, and he is to be commended for the kind of effort he's putting in to try to curtail, or at least put some fence around, expenditures in the medical field. My concern today is one that hopefully will be an aid and encouragement to the minister in order to do this. There are many areas in which we might look. One of the areas I'm really not going to deal with is prevention. But that's certainly come alive today. It's a kind of good thing to see the explosion of joggers around the country that has happened in the last five to 10 years.

Some of these, I am told, are running to get rid of furniture disease. That's a kind of quasi-medical term that's used a little bit loosely to describe the situation where the chest falls into the drawer. The other thing that's happening is that people in increasing numbers are breaking the habit of smoking. Of course we have our own department of AADAC, headed by our able Member for Lethbridge West, who I think is doing a commendable job in reducing some of the abuses of alcohol and drugs. Mr. Speaker, Alberta has been in the forefront of trying to do something about medical costs.

Quite frankly, I think this a day for bold initiatives in this area. Traditionally the whole health care system has centred around doctor/hospital orien tation, and that's become very, very expensive. In effect, we are oftentimes providing thousand dollar treatments for one hundred dollar needs. I think our physicians are often over- qualified for much of the work they are doing that could be done by someone with less skills, for they are unquestionably the primary people in the area of medical treatment and, in a sense, should be overseers.

Because their skills are often used on such things as flu, headaches, sore throats, and that sort of thing, which quite frankly could easily be taken care of by those who are less well trained or skilled, we could probably do a good deal with regard to curtailing medical costs by putting them into the hands of other people. Furthermore, with the rapid increase in medical fees — I believe that in Alberta last year medical fees increased by about 23 percent. In effect, if there was competition, the doctors might have priced themselves out of work. But there isn't competition. It's a monopoly.

For this reason, it seems to me that perhaps some competitive aspects ought to be brought into the system. The other thing is with regard to hospitals, where I think the same thing applies. Hospitals are sometimes overequipped. For instance, those of us in Calgary know that the Holy Cross and the Foothills, all of them, are out for the latest equipment, the high-budget items — CAT scanners or whatever. But again, they are overequipped for many of the procedures that are being taken care of in their beds. Perhaps there are other situations for medical care which would be less costly and therefore more suitable.

Of course primary medical care is what I'm talking about. Because of both their size and organization, hospitals aren't able to move to provide the kind of care that is suitable to the particular need involved. So my motion today is really to try to seek other alternatives which would be cost saving and more efficient. Incidentally, the members of the Official Opposition brought out a paper over the summer. I'm not sure if it was my motion that spurred them to action. Of course my motion was put on the paper early last spring. If it did inspire them to some good work, I'm very happy to have had a

part in that. I think there are many things in that paper to be applauded and that we might well look at. In fact they are giving a good deal of support to some of the things I am going to say. The first area I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is the utilization of the nursing profession as copractitioners or points of entry into the medical system. My motion really has to do with improved access, improved quality, more effective control of expenditures, greater cost effectiveness, and the extension of services to a relatively neglected area.

As originally proposed, the Canada Health Act limited access to the medical system and insurance only to doctors. It really was through the lobbying of the Canadian Nurses Asso ciation that that was changed to include a health practitioner rather than just a medical practitioner. I think that opens the door to a great many possibilities, not only nurses and phys iotherapists but all kinds of medical practitioners.

I recognize that unquestionably it's possible to put so many layers in the system that it wouldn't make sense, but in effect the Canada Health Act now leaves to the provinces the application of these, as to whom they will recognize as health practitioners. It's been my view for a number of years that nurses have tended to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, underutil ized for the training that has prepared them in the medical field. It appears now that there are many doctors, of course, that are wise enough to recognize . . .

Incidentally, my brief today is not antidoctor as such; rather it is a brief that would like to see a broadening of medical usage. Nurses are already being used in many areas of primary care in both the doctor's office and the hospital, partly because of the nurses' own initiative, I'm sure, and also because of a recognition of their broadening base of applicability. There have been studies done that indicate that the nurse is a very proficient user and applicator of health care services. I could reiterate some of these to you, Mr. Speaker. For instance, a research study in '72 demonstrated that senior cit

1194 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 izens in a building with on-site public health nursing services fared far better on scales for morale and mobility and had fewer admissions to hospital than a matched group of tenants in a building that did not have direct access to such nursing care. The results support the view that the health of elderly persons can be enhanced by access to a health care system without reference to either physicians or hospitals.

Another study, in Manitoba, indicated that patients attending a hypertension clinic staffed by nurse practitioners were more successful at lowering blood pressure and losing weight than patients attending a clinic staffed by physicians. Don't ask me exactly why, but that was the outcome. There was another study in Newfoundland which compared two groups, one receiving traditional physician-based care and another with access to primary health care by nurses.

In the group receiving primary health care provided by nurses, the study showed that acute care in the hospital decreased by 5 percent while increasing 39 percent in the group receiving tra ditional physician-based care. In addition, annual costs per thousand population were substantially lower for the primary health care group than for the physician-care group. That would be $85,690 versus $112,730. I don't think we are talking about setting out services that are necessarily in competition with each other; rather, I would be inclined to say that they should be seen as services in co-operation with each other.

There was a project called the Beaverton project, sponsored or worked out by the Victorian Order of Nurses in Ottawa. A nurse practitioner acted as a copractitioner with a physician, in rural practice in this case, taking responsibility for a significant portion of the patient load. The nurse practitioner's function left the physician free to devote more time to the management of more complex problems for which medical intervention was appropriate. The study concluded that home visiting by the nurse practitioner actually decreased the need for hospital or other institutional care.

She was also able to identify health problems in early stages, which, if they had gone unnoticed, would have developed into problems requiring more expensive forms of care. Mr. Speaker, a study that came out in July 1982 was done by McMaster University in Hamilton. That study tried to project what costs, on a percentage basis, could be saved if nursing practitioners were brought on stream. I won't take up the time of the Legislature with all the details, except the conclusion.

There were some questions left unanswered, but they said: Caveats and uncertainties notwithstanding, there is little question that the use of nurse practitioners could effect substantial savings. Based on our "standard" set of assumptions and parameter values, we estimate that 10.0 percent of all medical costs and 15.9 percent of ambulatory costs could have been saved in 1980 had nurse practitioner time been substituted for physician time in the provision of all services for which such substitution has been dem onstrated to be safe and [reasonable].

Furthermore, they said: allowing for the conservatism built into our estimates, the savings might be considerably higher: for all medical serv ices a range of 10-15 percent seems quite likely to us; for ambulatory services alone the corresponding range might be 16-24 percent. The savings across Canada would amount to over $300 million annually, a figure I think not to be lightly sneezed at. Aside from the area of nurse practitioners, Mr. Speaker, you have such health care practitioners as physiotherapists. Many of them are already operating private clinics within the province.

I understand that the maximum billing the province will allow for those private clinics is some $18 per hour,

whereas we are charged about $30 per hour for similar or exact services in a hospital setting. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives to the traditional setting, and what we are called upon to do today is use our imagination and investigate those areas where we can do something about reducing our costs and not reducing our medical services at the same time. The other area that I find most interesting is freestanding clinics. These have become very popular. I believe they were started in the United States some years ago, but they have now come into their own in Alberta.

A personal friend of mine — in fact he was my personal physician — Dr. Stan Cassin, operated the medical design and management firm which oper ates four such clinics in Calgary. They have become extremely popular, so much so that they have taken away business from our hospitals, which I think is a good thing in the sense that he's providing competition. The criticism may be made that that's just an add-on service which we could be providing and have the facilities for, so it's a kind of double service that isn't needed at the moment.

I think the point is that whenever you bring in a new service like this, there are going to be some duplications of effort. Nevertheless, the cost of that service on a comparable basis, on the figures I have seen, is substantial. To indicate the kind of demand or use for them: they're set in the community, sometimes in an office building; they're usually open 24 hours a day; and they're convenient for people. People can go and get treatment for minor or primary services and what would ordinarily be considered day care services — minor surgery, this type of thing. Dr.

Cassin indicates to me that in the year 1983 in four walk-in clinics in the city of Calgary they served 109,000 patients, which is the equivalent of two major metropolitan hospitals anywhere in Canada. Incidentally, he tells me also that with the establishment of the clinics, emergency depart ment entries in Calgary not only stopped growing but the emer gency patients seen in the Calgary hospitals has been reduced by approximately [50] percent from the 1981 levels.

Also there's no question — and the anomaly here is that we're saving money by this, because our government does not, at present at least, fund these freestanding clinics for the facility use. At the moment all they're funding them for is the doctor's fee, and the patient is paying for the facility use. If we feel they can provide a more efficient service, it may be that we ought to think about encouraging this kind of service. It's estimated that soon about 25 percent of all primary care situ ations in the United States will be taken care of by a freestanding or walk-in clinic.

Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of midwifery. Being a layman, I'm not going to evaluate whether or not home births should be the norm in our society. There has been some con troversy about this for some time, and I know our own College of Physicians and Surgeons has recommended that they not be carried out and that no doctors participate in this. That may be legitimate; I have some doubts about that. I wonder if we ought not to be making use of midwives, as copractitioners at least, in a hospital setting.

Why not have two or three midwives on hospital staff who would perform or assist in all the births in the hospital? The doctor wouldn't have to come at all, as a matter of fact. He might even appreciate not being called and having to go in the middle of the night. After years of experience, I think these midwives probably become more skilled than the physicians themselves in delivery procedures. Of course where there were indications of com plications beforehand, the doctor would be called to be present. There are emergency services and doctors always present in a hospital emergency situation in any case.

So it seems to me

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1195 that there is the possibility of making good use of some other facilities or skills other than the traditional doctor orientation. It might solve another — well, I won't mention that one. AN HON. MEMBER: Come on. MR. OMAN: You want it? I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a rather prominent doctor passed away recently in one of our — I'm told it was a rural community.

At the funeral service, the politician, who shall go unnamed, wanted to get in on the act and said a few words: that the doctor was well known to his family and that in fact it was the doctor who had brought him into the world. Someone behind him hissed and said: didn't you know he was a veterinarian? That's some of the problems you sometimes get into. [interjections] Yes, that's a tough one. I want to just touch a moment on the matter of problems of the aging.

Statistics Canada estimates that by the year 2022 — if I can get my figures right here — every hospital bed in Canada will be filled by an elderly person unless massive addi tions are made to the number of beds or there is a shift to community-based care.

Because the proportion of our senior population is growing as a result of both longevity and better health care and also because the number of people bom in a given family is smaller today than it was a generation ago, the costs by way of pensions, health care, and housing for a society to carry, as it should carry, the elderly are increasing in rather alarming proportions and percentages.

Many of the medical problems of these elderly people are not of a serious nature, do not require specialists, and could be taken care of by home care services or community-oriented health care centres, which would be staffed by nurses who would then refer people to physicians in those cases where it is necessary. As I pointed out earlier, it has been indicated that the elderly do respond to the nursing practitioners and have confidence in them, and that it is indeed a feasible service.

As we're proceeding into an area where the costs are going to escalate far beyond our ability to take care of them, it seems to me that now is the day when we should be looking at these options rather than waiting to the point they are upon us and we have to act almost in a desperation situation. Mr. Speaker, it's a day that calls for bold initiatives. I have only scratched the surface of the possibilities. Yes, there's going to be some resistance. I can understand that the medical profession might feel threatened.

Across the United States and Canada where some of these proposals have come up, I think they have reacted defensively. That doesn't mean there's no value here. I think it is for people like you, me, and those of us present to make some evaluations in these areas. As I said, I am not here doctor-bashing. I am here to say that I think the system needs some reworking, and indeed these are the days that call for bold initiatives. Our province has been known for leadership.

I would be thrilled if the province of Alberta became known as a place where things were really happening in the medical field that would be an example to others. Thank you, sir. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: Whether or not my eye happened to be pointed in the right direction, I did happen to see the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood first. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to be short so the other member can get in. I would like to rise and congratulate the Member for Calgary North Hill on Motion No. 220.

He knows that he has the support of the Official Opposition in many of the things he's saying; he has already alluded to a document. I hate to disillusion him, but we had this task force a year ago. I think the hon. Member for Grande Prairie will know. We were up there, and we were in Calgary. A lot of these ideas came from that public task force that we held, where we actually talked to people that were involved. I appreciate the help the hon. member is giving the Official Opposition in bringing forth a motion like this, because I think it is a motion we should take very seriously at this time. Mr.

Speaker, we have heard the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care go on and on many, many times about the high cost of medicare. There's no doubt that it is an expensive service. What we in the Official Opposition have suggested from time to time is that before we look at things we consider regressive, like user fees, higher premiums, extra billing — I'm not going to go into this argument here — we begin to look at the whole medicare system itself. I believe this is what the member is talking about in Motion 220. Let's try to get the best bang for the buck and enhance, if you like, our medicare system.

I believe it can be done and that many people — there are many examples, and the member alluded to them already. I would just go through some things that I believe could save money in the medicare system. I won't spend a lot of time, because the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill has alluded to some of them. We talked about deinstitutionalization and home care. In some ways, to give the government credit, they moved in the last time. I think that would be a choice for senior citizens. We believe that would save money, because then we don't have to build a lot of buildings to house older people.

The one thing that we will come back to has to do with seat belts. I don't know if it's on the Bill again. Besides saving lives, we know — and this is a report about hospital utilization given to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, where they did an analysis of Ontario's experience. They said that they felt from the study that there was a 15 percent average reduction in deaths, injuries, expenditures for physicians' fees, and time of hospitalization. That's significant.

The other thing that is even more significant in terms of cost — and this is very expensive in medical care — is that the average cost of treating each typical accident victim was markedly reduced when they were wearing seat belts. The patient not wearing a seat belt cost an average $419 to treat, and those who were using belts cost $228 per patient, a saving in the order of 40 percent. In terms of costs, I would suggest that's another reason for seat- belt legislation. We could talk about an infection centre, for example, which is estimated to save $3 million to $5 million a year.

We can talk, as the hon. member did and we have from time to time in this House, about doing more about preventative medicine and education. But to stay on the topic, I'd like to come to what I think is the crux of the problem and relate it to Motion 220. First of all, I think we have a problem, and the Member for Calgary North Hill has talked about it. In fact we've had a medical-dominated system, and it's a very expensive system. In the United States, they're facing the same problems, and they're finding their system very expensive also.

One of the problems alluded to in a couple of documents that have become public — the Toronto study of Alberta surgical rates deals with the fact that in their opinion there seems to be some unnecessary surgery in Alberta. We had the highest surgery rate in the country, Mr. Speaker. Of course surgery is very expensive.

1196 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 One of the other things they allude to — they don't go into it in much detail — is the fact that the whole fee-for-service may be creating some of the problems. In other words, the more operations you perform, the more money you make. They're suggesting that we look at that. I think that's part of the problem we face in trying to go to another system, and I will come back to that. Just for the sake of interest — and I know the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill would be interested — they have a different system in the States.

A recent book from the Legis lature Library, called Health Plan: The Only Practical Solution to the Soaring Cost of Medical Care — in the United States it's different; you can't take it holus-bolus. But again they talk about fee-for-service being a problem, so they're facing the same problem. Mr. Speaker, I think the crux, though, has to do with the fee-for-service. I think the Member for Calgary North Hill is dead on when he says we have to begin to use other health professionals.

I would suggest even having consumers involved much more in the decision-making that is occurring in terms of the medical care system. I refer to people like paramedics, nurses, and physiotherapists; I suppose we could go into some areas like psychologists and social workers. All these people should have a legitimate place in terms of the overall delivery of the medicare system. I suggest, and I will quote some evidence as the Member for Calgary North Hill did, that in the long run this would save money for our medicare system.

Since the Member for Calgary North Hill has talked about it and we have sent copies to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health and the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, I'll be tabling this document so all members will have access to it. Feel free; if the government wants to take some of the ideas to help the people in Alberta, we'd be quite glad if they did. That's the purpose of it. One of the things we clearly talked about on page 8 — and I'd like to quote a paragraph because I think it hits to the crux, if you like, of the matter we've been talking about.

It has to do with utilization of other health care professionals. During the course of the Task Force hearings, the point was made repeatedly [to us] that medical doctors play the central, and to a large extent the dominant, role in pro viding health care services. While no one questions the qualifications and competence of the vast majority of Alberta's doctors, the question arises as to whether this reliance on doctors is the most efficient means of health care delivery.

A number of other health care professionals, including registered nurses, paramedics, midwives, chi ropractors, etc., are qualified to perform many of the rou tine procedures now performed by doctors. And I think this is back to the crux of the matter and why it will take the bold sort of approach the member talked about. However, they are effectively prevented from so doing by a medical fee

schedule that encourages doctors to per form as many of these procedures as possible themselves. The key to greater use of other professionals and para- professionals lies not only in a restructured fee system, but also in maximizing the range of treatment options in treatment delivery. This would also reduce the strain on doctors' waiting lists. The efficiency of the health care system could be substantially improved.

As I said, until we deal with how we pay in the medical care system — when we find out that some doctors are going to be billing over $1 million, that's a very expensive item, and it's going to be difficult to bring other health professionals in. I would like to suggest one other method, though, and again it would take a bold move. There are examples of where other health care professionals — the Member for Calgary North Hill talked about some of them. I would like to bring some figures to members of the Assembly, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the community clinic.

This is one of the things that we've alluded to in this paper. We find a community clinic would basically have members of all health professions working together as a team to do what is best for the patient. Going into the hospital is not always best for the patient; we know that. I believe we often put too many people in the hospital when they do not need to be there. That of course is very expensive and, again, not necessarily the best treatment. The community clinic example where they had other health professionals is in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

At the time they brought this in in the early '70s, as the Member for Calgary North Hill said, there was a great deal of resentment from the medical profession. In fact they could not get Saskatchewan doctors to participate in this community clinic. They had to go outside the country to bring people in. But they did get very qualified doctors, people who believed in this team approach, if you like. This clinic has been going on for approximately 12 years. We have some figures in terms of cost. As I said, there are a number of health professionals working in a team approach. I believe the figures are significant.

I'd just like to share them with the Assembly, Mr. Speaker. In 1979, the last year that we have the figures compiled, the clinic saw a total of 17,295 individual patients at a total cost of some $2 million. Taking the same number of patients, 17,295, as a comparison, the total cost provincially was $6 million. In other words, the clinic was nearly $4 million less expensive than hospital care. If we could do that throughout the province, that would be very significant. Other figures are interesting, Mr. Speaker.

In 1979 the average hospital utili zation provincially in Saskatchewan was 2,555 hospital days used per 1,000 patients seen, and this of course is one of the reasons it was so expensive. In comparison, with the use of the community health care clinic, there were only 837 hospital days used for every 1,000 patients — 2,555 for the province as a whole to 837 in that clinic. That's significant, and of course that's one of the reasons they save money. The last point dealing with this community clinic, Mr. Speaker, is that for every 1,000 patients seen in Saskatchewan, 257 of those were admitted.

So for every 1,000 people they saw across the province, 257 ended up in the hospital. With the community clinic in Prince Albert, for every 1,000 patients, only 94 needed to be admitted to hospital. Mr. Speaker, I suggest those figures, plus the ones that were mentioned before by the Member for Calgary North Hill, are significant. If we are serious about good health care and about the costs — getting the best bang for the buck — I agree totally with the Member for Calgary North Hill: it is time for bold steps.

We are going to have to take bold steps, because frankly we would be stepping on the toes of some very vested interests. Surely as the government of Alberta we are here to represent all the people of Alberta. When we have a very expensive system that the hon. minister has talked about from time to time and it looks as if there might be a way to have even better health care and to do it cheaper, then I think it's the respon sibility of the members of this Assembly to take a serious look at it.

Maybe you can't go into it holus-bolus, but perhaps it's time to at least set up some experiments and begin to look at how we can grapple with the costs and still have a decent medical care system. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again compliment the mem ber. I think it's a very appropriate motion to debate in this House, and I thank him for bringing it forward.

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1197 MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to participate in the debate on Motion 220 today. First of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague the Member for Calgary North Hill for initiating this motion before the Assembly. I think it is very timely for each of us to consider the two parts to the motion and also to reflect a little bit on our health care system which, as most people know, is one of the finest health care systems in Canada.

We also need to spend a little time and reflect on what has happened over the past few years: the tremendous growth in the health care system, the new and modern technology, and many other factors which so influence what happens to the health of not only Albertans but all Canadians. As I said, over the past year the whole area of health care has been subjected to very close scrutiny, not only by the governments of each province and the federal government but also —and probably it's been a good thing — by members of the public.

More and more of the public are becoming more and more aware of what makes up the health care system and understanding to some extent the terrific cost of not only the acute care facilities and other ancillary institutions or services but also our health insur ance program that pays for not only physicians and surgeons but other members of the health professions. One of the factors that heightened the awareness over this past year was the final passing of the Canada Health Act.

Prior to that time, there was a long process where hearings were held throughout Canada, and subsequently there was a lot of input to the present Canada Health Act. One of the sad outcomes of the Canada Health Act is that it penalizes a province like Alberta that is trying to look at the cost of the system we have, by utilizing extra billing and allowing the concept of user fees. Of course all Albertans are very aware that not one hospital in Alberta is using that concept.

But because these were the major issues, and so they should be with the cost of health care being so important, there is an exclusion of other issues raised by the new Act. One of the issues that I mention will be one of the basic issues the Member for Calgary North Hill raised in his motion. This is not to downplay at all the fact that health care costs have increased dramatically. From 1983 to 1984, the budget for Hospitals and Medical Care was in excess of $2 billion. Social Services and Community Health also provides a lot of health care financing in Alberta.

I think it was the Member for Calgary North Hill who mentioned what all of a sudden seems to be becoming a new concept to many people, and that is the word "prevention". Of course that is part of any health pro fessional's role in any setting where they practice. It isn't really a new concept at all; it's just a heightened awareness by people that with a little care and utilizing different methods of pre vention, people would probably not end up with the sick care problems they have later on in life.

As our provincial revenue growth has slowed and the federal government has reduced the health care funding even though the costs are increasing, the key has to be to strive for a much more efficient health care delivery system. Hopefully one way to do that is by considering alternate methods, such as suggested in this motion today. One of the topics raised by the Member for Edmonton Norwood was the concept of community clinics. Although we would probably both support the same type of service offered, a multidisciplinary approach, one of the philosophical differ ences he and I might have is: who runs the clinics?

It seems that we're almost in a time of a chicken-and-egg situation, when people are saying that government must do this. Yet the Member for Calgary North Hill already talked about one system where our entrepreneurs, our medical practitioners with a high degree of expertise, have gone out on their own and set up these clinics. I think that is one of the things we have to look at. We should be trying to persuade the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care to consider more incentives for these people to operate. It is a very worn-out explanation.

I'm sure many members of the Assembly really agree with me and have pur sued this issue on many occasions with the minister and with other people and said: why not; if it's working, what can we do to enhance this system? Unfortunately the answer that was mentioned earlier is the answer you get: we already have the facilities over here; therefore they are the facilities, if they have been provided. I think that's the sad thing about having a totally financed public system.

If the institutions are not considered to be efficient or the people are not being served to the same degree they can be in private clinics, then I think we should be supporting the private clinics. One interesting fact: I know that when it was made possible for private physiotherapy clinics — these were expanded since 1972, I believe. We had a few clinics that could claim from the health insurance plan, but this was expanded not so many years ago. If any of us checked with the minister, I believe we would find out that the services escalated.

One would have to study that further and see if that was just an initial escalation and then it levelled off. It's hard to justify those rapid increases in costs unless it is in a time of high population growth or other factors that would contribute to it. But unfortunately this is the perception. It doesn't matter what we do in any field of pre vention or in offering other types of services, the cost does not go down or remain at a certain level; it is continually escalating. So it's pretty hard to justify changes to this system.

The first part of the motion the Member for Calgary North Hill introduced was to allow nurses and other health care pro fessionals to authorize the provision of health care services. In essence I suppose this motion is visualizing what has always been known in nursing as an expanded role for not only nurses but other health care professionals. But what it really means is better utilization of their services.

My remarks will be directed to the role of nurses, primarily because of my back ground, but I also must say that I have had representations from another health professional group, the psychologists, that really questions why they are not offering a treatment, a proper service to people mentally, that should also be paid for by our health care insurance plan. This is going to be one of the problems when there's such competition for those dollars in that health care plan to pay.

Maybe we're going to have to become a little bit more realistic and look at having people contribute more money themselves to the cost of the services. I know there are lots of people who won't like that, and there are lots of areas of this province that may not care for that. But I think you will find that there are a lot of people out there saying: I do want to pay something toward the services that I need, because as long as I am paying something, I have some control over the type of service I can have.

I think people are very naive when they say, "Let government pay for it all", because that means you have lost almost total control of the system you want to utilize. Getting back to the concept of nursing, the Member for Calgary North Hill mentioned that this concept was actually successfully included in the amendments to the Canada Health Act, primarily through the lobbying of members of the Canadian Nurses Association. I know that many nurses across Canada would pay tribute to Dr.

Helen Glass, the past president of the Canadian Nurses Association, for the outstanding work she did in this regard, not only spending a lot of time in Ottawa in this field of lobbying but also travelling across the country to inform nurses on a lot more of the issues so they also could carry out this process.

1198 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 So as the member explained earlier, what we have is a changing of terminology in the introduction to the Canada Health Act, which now says the services can be provided by health care practitioners, when and where a province permits. No doubt a lot of questions will come out of this debate, because people are going to say, what is happening now in the province? As you know, we have had a change of government, and I'm sure the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has not yet had a meeting with the new health minister to see what the expectations will be.

Before I go on to my remarks which totally support the concept of nurses being utilized in this manner, I would like to suggest that nurses, along with others, will have to address some very important issues. Maybe we are unique in this prov ince because we have a multiapproach to education. As most people know, we have two-, three-, and four-year programs in nursing. The two- and three-year programs that occur in the hospital schools of nursing and in colleges lead to passing your examinations and becoming a registered nurse.

The four-year program in the university is a basic baccalaureate degree, a bachelor of science or bachelor of nursing degree. Also, the nurses with their RNs can receive what has been known as a — it's a very interesting term that is still used; it's a little redundant today to call it a postbasic degree, but it does explain that they can go on with their basic RN and then complete a bachelor degree in nursing. In Alberta we have graduate studies in nursing at the masters level, at both the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary.

With a little bit of initiative and foresight and possibly support from this government, we could become the first province in Canada to have a doctoral degree program in nursing. The question arises, what will the level be if nursing is considered under this insured program; what level of nurse will it be? Or can we better define it by: what specific skills will she have and in what setting will she practice? Those are some of the questions that will no doubt take time for the nursing associations to address. Some might question the rationale behind creating new points of entry into the health care system.

Critics would cer tainly argue that with the cost of health care increasing all the time, we cannot afford these new points of entry. I would like to suggest today that we can no longer afford not to open up the health care system to these alternative points of entry. The traditional doctor/hospital orientation has become a luxury that we as a society can no longer afford. Our health care system needs to be reassessed and new measures taken if we are to retain the excellent health care system that we have all come to know and enjoy in this province.

We have to move away from an illness-oriented approach and put the health back into the health care system. It's interesting; I always thought it was a great sign of progress that while some other provinces still have a minister of health, in this province we have two min isters, one a Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care and one a Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

The suggestion was made to me the other day by way of a question which said, when are you going to get back to having a minister of health instead of so much emphasis on the Minister of Hos pitals and Medical Care, which indicates an illness-oriented system? There are many examples given by the Member for Calgary North Hill about the role of the nurse and how we finally have some research studies to prove that the nurse can make a dif ference in some situations. There certainly are target groups that I think we all understand could well benefit from the uti lization of the nurses' skills.

One target group of course is the elderly. Another group is people with hypertension, and nurses have always played a major role in pre- and post-natal care. So you can see that nurses could well be the logical point of entry in terms of both cost and care. It has been proven that nurses can provide lower cost alternatives to costly physician and hospital services. As I said, there are some research studies.

One I would like to quote to you is: A study conducted in rural Newfoundland showed that in an area where people received nursing primary care, acute care in the hospital decreased by five percent while increasing 39 percent in a control population receiving traditional physician-based [care]. In addition, annual costs per 1,000 population were substantially lower of the experimental population than for the control population in the study period. Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I would like to adjourn debate. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree with the motion? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

SPEAKER: It is so ordered. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 233 Motor Vehicle Accident Medical Costs Act MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 233, the Motor Vehicle Accident Medical Costs Act. It is an irony of the human condition that as we approach the advent of the Christmas season to celebrate the birth of Christ, at the same time we will face an increasing incidence of impaired driving.

This particular human condition, overin dulgence in alcohol or drugs, combined with the operation of a motor vehicle, cannot of course be cured by legislation. The real problem of alcohol overuse, its attendant loss of judgment and potential self-destruction, is a condition to be addressed elsewhere. However, we must deal with the effects of impaired driving if only to limit and contain the damage. Thus Bill 233 attempts to address the issue with a limited focus on two or three prin ciples which may help to offset the damage.

Recognize that this Bill is but another arrow in the quiver, another tool among a growing array of legal sanctions against this particular anti social act. This Bill is but another signal that we are serious about this problem, a reflection of an angry and frustrated citizenry. Briefly stated, the principles of Bill 233 would make a driver who is convicted of impaired driving under the Criminal Code of Canada liable for expenses otherwise payable to the Alberta health care insurance plan. Medical expenses in question relate to injuries sustained by the driver or any other person as a result of the accident.

The court must be satisfied before making such judgment that the driver was wholly or partly to blame for the accident. The Bill suggests a cap of $5,000 on those expenses. It suggests that in order to pay those expenses, the vehicle may be impounded or sold or, failing either of those, other penalties such as community service may be levied. The original wording of the Bill has caused some confusion concerning its intent. While parliamentary procedure prevents

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1199 me from introducing amendments during second reading, I would like to indicate my intention to do so during Committee of the Whole. First, this Act would state that the impounding of a vehicle pursuant to the Act does not affect the ability of a person with a prior charge to take recovery steps. The second would have to do with the insurability.

I would also like to clear up any misunderstanding which has existed up to now that the penalty was unduly harsh by reason of disqualifying individuals from receiving medical care for illnesses or disa bilities unrelated to the accident. That was not intended. Thus the medical expenses in question would be arising solely from the accident. It is not now my intention to either bore members or encum ber this discussion with the encyclopedia of detail which has been amassed from jurisdictions all over the world.

Suffice it to say that the problem is as old as mankind, it is almost universal, and it appears to be intractable. It appears that law is generally ineffective against impaired driving but not for lack of laws or lack of trying. We anxiously scan the world for ideas, we analyze the data, and we try to formulate new laws that will find some missing link. The previous Liberal government of Canada proposed a number of amendments to the Criminal Code in this country dealing with impaired driving under Bill C-19. It's harsh.

On the first offence, a fine should be not less than $300, which unfortunately may be harsher on some than it is on others. The second offence would see imprisonment for not less than 14 days; on subsequent offences, imprisonment for not less than 90 days. It creates additional offences. Impaired driving causing bodily harm could be punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years. Impaired driving causing death could be punishable by imprisonment for up to 14 years. Further penalties would be immobilization of the vehicle, and on.

I think we can all agree that if the new Conservative government passes these amend ments, the impaired driver will face much stricter punishment. However, the question I would like to consider is, do increased arrests and harsher penalties solve the drunk-driving problem? Regrettably, the answer is no, and it is based on the experience of countries which have much stricter penalties for impaired driving. Members will have seen statistics from many jurisdictions which show varying degrees of short-term effec tiveness of some measures but generally long-term ineffec tiveness.

Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, England, New Zealand: all have made attempts of the type posed by Bill C- 19. The difficulty is that they don't appear to get to the heart of the problem. Mandatory jail terms for impaired driving, regardless of the nature of the driving itself, force the courts into compromises and evasions that seem to lessen the dignity of the law and undermine its effectiveness. As an example, the great Chicago crackdown of some years ago saw 6,600 motor ists arrested for drunk driving but less than 10 percent actually receiving jail sentences which the judges themselves had agreed to impose.

California prescribes a mandatory jail term for drunk driving that leads to an injury, for a second conviction within seven years, or for driving with a suspended licence. But in cases studied over a three-year period, 65 percent of all defend ants were given other sentences, while many of the rest received probation. In hopes of stopping such practices, numerous cit izens' groups, some led by family members of those who have been killed during such accidents, have been agitating for stricter laws. Drunk driving cannot be condoned, even when it is not done in a hostile or aggressive manner.

The increased risks entailed make it an offence against the social order. Mr. Speaker, the penalty for an offence against society should try to do three things, and it is these three things at which I have aimed Bill [233]. The first is that it should increase the defendant's respect for the law. Secondly, it should improve his understanding of drunk driving. Third, it should deter this further undesirable behaviour. How does Bill 233 propose to help accomplish a reduction in impaired driving? By achieving these changes in attitude. In my view, the principles are fundamental.

The first one is that we must bring a more direct relationship between the act and its consequences, the crime and the punishment, if you like. That is presently not the case. In bringing the conse quences of a vehicle accident virtually to the time of hospital checkout, the impact would be much more significant, far more significant than the present system. The present system entails roughly the accident itself and immediate hospitalization, in which all involved are treated like the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, if you like; that is, they're given first-class treatment despite the nature of the act.

So at that point in time the penalty is not apparent. Then there are charges against the driver. Then the driver is probably released from hospital. At a much later date, he appears before the court to answer the charges. The time lapse is one of the problems. What happens is another one. The conviction, if any, and the penalty — so often a minimal penalty — are far from the act and inappropriate to the nature of the act.

I suggest that this lapse of many weeks or many months, perhaps a year, breaks the offender's focus on the offence, and thus his ability to learn from it, and naturally transfers his concentration to getting off as lightly as possible. Bill 233 would require that an invoice for all hospital and medical charges be provided the impaired driver as soon as the fact of impairment is established. There are other benefits which flow from this procedure. The cost of the accident would be accounted for in the system.

Patients, doctors, nurses — all those involved in the delivery system — would follow the excellent example of the Fort McMurray hospital in costing their operations and making those costs known. Secondly, this increased awareness of costs would be beneficial to all. The payment of those costs by an impaired driver would reimburse the system and relieve some pressure on continually rising costs. As the word gets around, the edu cational value to society, as well as the value to the offender, which is the important factor, would be substantial in my view.

In repeated offences the penalty is clear; it is even calculable. The impaired driver will know that he cannot hope the courts will be lenient again. He will know the consequences and the costs. It is an appalling statistic, but 75 percent of impaired drivers are repeat offenders, some as many as 21 times accord ing to the record; the average in some places, 3.1 times. Obviously we're not getting to the bottom of the problem. Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of Bill 233, I've seen some misunderstandings of the intent, and I hope that intent will be made clearer.

Interest groups with whom the Bill has been vetted have had some of their reservations alleviated, and their concerns now seem to be in helping to solve the problem. I'm pleased to see an increase in support for a needed initiative. I recognize all the complexities. I know the difficulties. I've been through many scenarios. Many of them have been counted to me. In my view, they can be handled. It has been said that this Bill is just a sort of sly, sidewinder attack on medicare. It's not an attack on medicare, but it's an attack on those who inflict senseless costs on medicare and on all the rest of us.

At the moment they do so with relative impunity. If we are to achieve the principles I previously delin eated, which are widely recognized as being necessary if we're

1200 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 going to get at the root of the problem, we must attack the problem where it is. Let me conclude by reiterating the principles I think are at stake here. One, whatever law we pass must increase the defendant's respect for the law, not his deviousness, shall I say, in finding ways to circumvent it. Secondly, it must improve his understanding of drunk driving.

As I think of the possibility of landing in the hospital along with three or four others who have been severely injured by an impaired accident, I can see the Bill being presented, with the delineated, outlined costs on it, having the kind of impact and delivering the kind of under standing to the defendant that he would not otherwise receive. The third principle again is to deter further undesirable behav iour. It strikes me that if I knew the possibility of a $5,000 cost existed when I stepped into my car to drive home in an impaired condition, I could safely say that I would think twice.

I think the principles are worth supporting and, as a con sequence, I recommend Bill 233 to hon. members. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address some remarks to Bill 233, the Motor Vehicle [Accident] Medical Costs Act. I noted that the mover of the Bill, the Member for Edmonton Whitemud, indicated in his remarks that it has some complexities. They are acknowledged; they're recognized. I'm encouraged to see that over the course of time since the member introduced the Bill, he has given further consideration to the Bill and is proposing some amendments to it.

The member spoke about some attacks on the Bill he has heard in the past and perhaps has been accused, as he said, of some "sly attack on medicare". I don't believe that is in this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the principles of the Bill. In considering the principles that are debated in this House and outside this House, as so many principles on social policy are, it strikes me that many of the arguments can be rendered down and perhaps crudely characterized as a debate between the hardheaded conservatives and the softhearted liberals.

Sometimes this debate focusses on one side tending to blame the individual and exonerating the system, the other blaming the system and exonerating the individual. It seems to me that the debate pervades public policy. I believe the debate can be useless and perhaps harmful. I believe the answer is yes; any public policy that ignores either individual accountability or system accountability, emphasizing one to the exclusion of the other, will fail to that extent. I subscribe to a proper balance between individual accountability and system accountability.

Holding individuals accountable for their behaviour does not excuse or justify a bad system that encourages poor individual behaviour. A bad system demands reform. But equally, bad systems do not justify bad behaviour. Individuals must be held accountable for their actions. I agree that it's a tough balancing act. But public policy must be both softhearted and hardheaded. Where does that lead us with respect to Bill 233? It seems to me we're dealing with a Bill that proposes harsher penalties for drunk driving, especially when injury results.

If it's imple mented, this Bill would focus sharply on the seriousness of that activity. Moreover, it would shift the burden of medical costs of up to $5,000 — and I want to come back to that later — to the individual who committed the offence, as opposed to society. It seems to me the Bill presupposes that the current system does not hold individuals accountable enough for their actions and calls for some system reform to ameliorate this situation. Mr. Speaker, the Bill makes a strong statement that society shouldn't have to pay for self-inflicted injury incurred during the commission of a crime.

Bill 233 provides for individual freedom of choice. A person has a choice to step into a car and drive away when he's drunk, but by exercising that choice he's not only breaking the law but putting the innocent lives of others as well as his own at risk. Moreover, our present system seems to operate in such a way that the very people on whom he may have wrought so much personal injury support the very costs that are involved. The question Bill 233 asks is this: who should pay for the medical costs involved?

It answers it by saying: if an individual wants to exercise his choice of breaking the law by drinking while driving, he should be willing to step up to the Bar and accept the consequences of his actions. Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of the Bill because we've seen a steady erosion of personal freedoms in this country by transferring individual responsibility to the government. I support the principle because we continually debate ways of curbing the carnage on our highways and roads from drunken driving.

If we're going to get serious about this carnage — the heartache, the upset families — let's allow the powerful natural forces of individual responsibility, individual constraint, to at least enter into the decision-making, rather than allowing people to make their own decisions and then shifting the costs of those consequences where they simply get lost in the system. Mr. Speaker, there's an old truism: if you reward an activity, you get more of it; if you penalize an activity, you get less of it. Certainly we have penalties for drinking while driving, if you get caught and if you get convicted.

It seems, however, that the penalties aren't offering all that much of a deterrent. According to the 1983 Alberta traffic collision statistics, the proportion of drinking drivers involved in fatal collisions has increased over the past five years from 24.9 percent in 1978 to 28.2 percent in 1983. Admittedly, that same report goes on to indicate that the number of drinking drivers involved in injury collisions has remained fairly stable over the past five years at approximately 14.5 percent.

While any evidence that suggests penalties are an effective deterrent against drinking and driving are anecdotal, we have witnessed a slowing in the consumption of alcohol by Albertans since 1971. This is a positive trend, and I think that trend results from many of the fine efforts by organizations like AADAC through their prevention campaigns directed toward positive life-style and fitness. I notice the hon. Member for Lethbridge West attended this debate, and I compliment and commend the activities and efforts of that organization. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that public attitude toward drinking and driving has to change. Education is the key. We must get to a point where drinking and driving simply becomes socially unacceptable. This shift in attitude must start at the bottom of the caldron and boil up to the top of society's con sciousness. I'd like to take a few moments in this debate to share with members what I consider to be a very important development in reducing the problem I'm alluding to. It's a development that's been put forth by the Optimists Club in Red Deer.

Hon. members may be interested in knowing that the Optimists Club in Red Deer has embarked on a community service project known as DUTI, which is aimed at reducing the incidence of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The purpose of the program is to reduce drinking and driving by (

a) increasing individual awareness that presently held attitudes are a signif icant part of the problem, (

b) encouraging the development of alternatives to presently held attitudes, and (

c) stimulating com munication on the problem. Mr. Speaker, the DUTI projects undertaken so far by the Optimists Club in Red Deer are rather significant. Their first project was a commitment by all members of the Optimists Club that they would not drive while under the influence of

October 18, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1201 alcohol and the encouragement of the use of alternate means of transportation to their residences in such an event. The other program they have embarked on is this. As hon. members may know, at the time of high school graduation every year, there is a tradition of very large parties held in various high schools around the province that have generally been fairly disorganized and resulted in young students drinking and driving their vehicles home.

Notwithstanding the noncom- mitment of schools to become involved in such activities, the Optimists Club managed to contact the organizers of these parties, the graduating classes, and offered their services to provide transportation on a strictly voluntary basis. It's had a fantastic result in the Red Deer and central Alberta area. I will enumerate just a couple. The Camille J. Lerouge Collegiate graduation bush party: last year the club provided a school bus, Optimists' cars, and drivers all night for some 450 students from the party to their residences.

The Delburne high school graduation party, 85 guests: Optimists arranged for a group of parents to drive students home all night. The River Glen high school graduation bush party included 100 guests, and again the Optimists provided students with transportation both to the party and home. And the Lindsay Thurber Com prehensive high school graduation party, some 400 guests: again, the voluntary activities of the Optimists Club in Red Deer provided transportation to and from the party.

They have also been involved in establishing a program of taxi vouchers in Red Deer, whereby you can get a taxi voucher from the organizer of a party, even a residential party, and that taxi voucher will provide you with a ride home through the Optimists Club. Although the club doesn't pay for the actual cost of the taxi ride, the host of the party will do that. That has been very successful. They've been involved in many, many programs, Mr. Speaker.

They hope to encourage the Alberta Liquor Control Board to approve a program where these taxi vouchers would be made available in Alberta liquor stores and, moreover, where liquor stores would approve the placement of their DUTI cards outlining the program in all stores across the province. They have been successful in developing a documentary film which is going to be aired on CTV on December 3, 1984. It is truly a remarkable program, Mr. Speaker, and the initi atives of that club in Red Deer are really grass-roots initiatives. The DUTI project is a terrific idea, and ideas have conse quences.

I commend the Optimists Club and offer them my support and best wishes. Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to raise in the activities of the Optimists Club in Red Deer is that it seems to me that they have recognized that effective, compassionate social pol icy must combine both individual accountability and system accountability. Our health care system in Alberta is essentially a public utility. Certainly there are those who are drawn to the public utility approach. I don't happen to see them in the House at the moment, but there are those who are drawn to the aspect of a public utility approach.

There are those who believe that a government franchise, a government set of regulations, and government-set prices will lead to an efficient, effective system responsive to consumer needs, even if the consumers have absolutely no incentives or accountability for the cost conse quences of their own decisions. I don't subscribe to that. In my view, you don't curb cost increases or constrain deleterious social activity by removing all aspects of individual account ability. Conversely, I don't think one should face a financial catas trophe for being sick or injured.

Therefore I would be more favourably inclined to see the $5,000 limit enumerated in the Bill under

section 7 exchanged for, let's say, 10 percent of family income, to recognize different financial circumstances. I think the net result would be about the same. The result though, Mr. Speaker, would be to attach some measure of personal responsibility to the individual for his own actions. If those actions result in injuring oneself or others by drinking and driving, that individual should be prepared to accept the consequences of those actions, and I think that would be a progressive move. Thank you. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of par ticipating in second reading of Bill 233, the Motor Vehicle Accident Medical Costs Act. First of all, I want to commend the Member for Edmonton Whitemud for bringing this forward. The amount of work and study he's put into it is obvious by the comments he's made. The Member for Red Deer continues to impress me with a great deal of ability to ferret out issues, obviously do his homework in great detail, and present very logical arguments to this Assembly. If I could, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to begin my discussion with some indication of the severity, as I would call it, or magnitude of the problem here in the province of Alberta, and of those who are actively working to change what I think is a truly preventable number of actions by citizens who, for a variety of reasons, simply have no consideration for their fellow man. Two years ago, there were over a hundred people convicted every day in this province for impaired driving. That's about 28,000 a year. Last year it was down to 26,000. That attests — and I hope the hon.

Solicitor General would enter the debate at some point because he has better knowledge than I — to the very great type of enforcement or quality of police we have in this province. In the province of British Columbia, with some 3 million people — half a million more — their convictions are at 17,000, which indicates, to me anyway, not the high degree of enforcement that we have in this province, which I think is an indicator of the dedication of the police forces serving in Alberta. Of those 28,000, Mr.

Speaker, the law now says they must attend an impaired drivers' course in this province before they can be reinstated. From the latest figures we have, there are some 17,000 attending, which means there are from 9,000 to 11,000 or 12,000 who don't attend. It's my view that many of those are driving today. And if they're driving today, while they're suspended, they're certainly not insured and not licensed.

I'm of the view that with the type of society we have today — we can put men and women on the moon, talk to them, and bring them home — surely to God we can determine whether those very people have medicare coverage in this prov ince and whether they have a licence. It wouldn't be difficult to determine whether or not they're driving. We must recognize that the one great common American ization in this province, represented by 1.7 million sets of licence plates, is that a lot of people are driving.

And for all we say about public transit, if you have to make a choice between working on Refinery Row without access to a bus and supporting your family, then I submit that, recognizing the chance of getting caught is about one in 2,000, you'll invariably take a chance and drive without a licence — drive many times without a licence. Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Edmonton Whitemud indi cated, the problem is not new; it's been going on for a long, long time. There are groups out there virtually screaming to government to take some action.

The People Against Impaired Drivers, a group of volunteers in this province that now has something like 12 chapters — they're people who have been

1202 ALBERTA HANSARD October 18, 1984 hurt, hurt severely, as a result of personal experiences and losses — are saying to government: it's time you acted. The Alberta Motor Association, the Alberta Medical Association, the Alberta safety league, church groups — a variety of groups — are demanding some type of action from government to lower the problem. What are we doing? Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have now — reference is made by the sponsor of the Bill in

section 1 to the sections under the Criminal Code indicated th

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19841018
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19841018 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6f5ab991c0d352b8745bc53ebcabc8bbc644478e

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