Alberta Hansard — 2 November 2010, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 27, Session 3)

20101102

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

Province of Alberta The 27th Legislature Third Session Alberta Hansard Tuesday, November 2, 2010 Issue 37 The Honourable Kenneth R. Kowalski, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 27th Legislature Third Session Kowalski, Hon. Ken, Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock, Speaker Cao, Wayne C.N., Calgary-Fort, Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Mitzel, Len, Cypress-Medicine Hat, Deputy Chair of Committees Ady, Hon. Cindy, Calgary-Shaw (PC) Allred, Ken, St. Albert (PC) Amery, Moe, Calgary-East (PC) Anderson, Rob, Airdrie-Chestermere (WA), WA Opposition House Leader Benito, Carl, Edmonton-Mill Woods (PC) Berger, Evan, Livingstone-Macleod (PC) Bhardwaj, Naresh, Edmonton-Ellerslie (PC) Bhullar, Manmeet Singh, Calgary-Montrose (PC) Blackett, Hon.

Lindsay, Calgary-North West (PC) Blakeman, Laurie, Edmonton-Centre (AL), Official Opposition Deputy Leader, Official Opposition House Leader Boutilier, Guy C., Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (WA) Brown, Dr. Neil, QC, Calgary-Nose Hill (PC) Calahasen, Pearl, Lesser Slave Lake (PC) Campbell, Robin, West Yellowhead (PC), Government Whip Chase, Harry B., Calgary-Varsity (AL), Official Opposition Whip Dallas, Cal, Red Deer-South (PC) Danyluk, Hon. Ray, Lac La Biche-St. Paul (PC) DeLong, Alana, Calgary-Bow (PC) Denis, Hon.

Jonathan, QC, Calgary-Egmont (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Doerksen, Arno, Strathmore-Brooks (PC), Deputy Government Whip Drysdale, Wayne, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (PC) Elniski, Doug, Edmonton-Calder (PC) Evans, Hon. Iris, Sherwood Park (PC) Fawcett, Kyle, Calgary-North Hill (PC) Forsyth, Heather, Calgary-Fish Creek (WA), WA Opposition Whip Fritz, Hon. Yvonne, Calgary-Cross (PC) Goudreau, Hon. Hector G., Dunvegan-Central Peace (PC) Griffiths, Doug, Battle River-Wainwright (PC) Groeneveld, George, Highwood (PC) Hancock, Hon. Dave, QC, Edmonton-Whitemud (PC), Government House Leader Hayden, Hon.

Jack, Drumheller-Stettler (PC) Hehr, Kent, Calgary-Buffalo (AL) Hinman, Paul, Calgary-Glenmore (WA), WA Opposition Deputy Leader Horne, Fred, Edmonton-Rutherford (PC) Horner, Hon. Doug, Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert (PC) Jablonski, Hon. Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC) Jacobs, Broyce, Cardston-Taber-Warner (PC) Johnson, Jeff, Athabasca-Redwater (PC) Johnston, Art, Calgary-Hays (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL) Klimchuk, Hon. Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC) Knight, Hon. Mel, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC) Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Liepert, Hon.

Ron, Calgary-West (PC) Lindsay, Fred, Stony Plain (PC) Lukaszuk, Hon. Thomas A., Edmonton-Castle Downs (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Lund, Ty, Rocky Mountain House (PC) MacDonald, Hugh, Edmonton-Gold Bar (AL) Marz, Richard, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (PC) Mason, Brian, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (ND), Leader of the ND Opposition McFarland, Barry, Little Bow (PC) McQueen, Diana, Drayton Valley-Calmar (PC) Morton, Hon. F.L., Foothills-Rocky View (PC) Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (ND), ND Opposition House Leader Oberle, Hon.

Frank, Peace River (PC) Olson, Verlyn, QC, Wetaskiwin-Camrose (PC) Ouellette, Hon. Luke, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (PC) Pastoor, Bridget Brennan, Lethbridge-East (AL), Official Opposition Deputy Whip Prins, Ray, Lacombe-Ponoka (PC) Quest, Dave, Strathcona (PC) Redford, Hon. Alison M., QC, Calgary-Elbow (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Renner, Hon. Rob, Medicine Hat (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Rodney, Dave, Calgary-Lougheed (PC) Rogers, George, Leduc-Beaumont-Devon (PC) Sandhu, Peter, Edmonton-Manning (PC) Sarich, Janice, Edmonton-Decore (PC) Sherman, Dr. Raj, Edmonton-Meadowlark (PC) Snelgrove, Hon.

Lloyd, Vermilion-Lloydminster (PC) Stelmach, Hon. Ed, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (PC) Swann, Dr. David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL), Leader of the Official Opposition Taft, Dr. Kevin, Edmonton-Riverview (AL) Tarchuk, Janis, Banff-Cochrane (PC) Taylor, Dave, Calgary-Currie (Ind) VanderBurg, George, Whitecourt-Ste. Anne (PC) Vandermeer, Tony, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (PC) Weadick, Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC) Webber, Hon. Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC) Woo-Paw, Teresa, Calgary-Mackay (PC) Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC) Zwozdesky, Hon.

Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Clerk W.J. David McNeil Clerk Assistant/Director of House Services Louise J. Kamuchik Law Clerk/Director of Interparliamentary Relations Robert H. Reynolds, QC Senior Parliamentary Counsel/ Clerk of Committees Shannon Dean Clerk of Journals/Table Research Micheline S. Gravel Parliamentary Counsel Stephanie LeBlanc Sergeant-at-Arms Brian G. Hodgson Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Chris Caughell Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Gordon H.

Munk Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard Liz Sim Party standings: Progressive Conservative: 68 Alberta Liberal: 8 Wildrose Alliance: 4 New Democrat: 2 Independent: 1

Executive Council Ed Stelmach Premier, President of Executive Council, Chair of Agenda and Priorities Committee, Vice-chair of Treasury Board Doug Horner Deputy Premier, Minister of Advanced Education and Technology, Minister Liaison to the Canadian Armed Forces Ted Morton Minister of Finance and Enterprise David Hancock Minister of Education, Political Minister for Edmonton Lloyd Snelgrove President of the Treasury Board Iris Evans Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations Ron Liepert Minister of Energy Luke Ouellette Minister of Transportation Mel Knight Minister of Sustainable Resource Development Alison Redford Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Political Minister for Calgary Rob Renner Minister of Environment Gene Zwozdesky Minister of Health and Wellness Yvonne Fritz Minister of Children and Youth Services Jack Hayden Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Ray Danyluk Minister of Infrastructure Mary Anne Jablonski Minister of Seniors and Community Supports Lindsay Blackett Minister of Culture and Community Spirit Heather Klimchuk Minister of Service Alberta Cindy Ady Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation Hector Goudreau Minister of Municipal Affairs Frank Oberle Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security Len Webber Minister of Aboriginal Relations Jonathan Denis Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Thomas Lukaszuk Minister of Employment and Immigration Parliamentary Assistants Evan Berger Sustainable Resource Development Manmeet Singh Bhullar Municipal Affairs Cal Dallas Environment Doug Griffiths Finance and Enterprise Fred Horne Seniors and Community Supports Broyce Jacobs Agriculture and Rural Development Jeff Johnson Treasury Board Diana McQueen Energy Janice Sarich Education Dr.

Raj Sherman Health and Wellness Greg Weadick Advanced Education and Technology Teresa Woo-Paw Employment and Immigration

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Standing Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Chair: Ms Tarchuk Deputy Chair: Mr. Elniski Blakeman DeLong Forsyth Groeneveld Johnston MacDonald Quest Standing Committee on Community Services Chair: Mr. Doerksen Deputy Chair: Mr. Hehr Allred Anderson Benito Bhullar Chase Johnston Notley Rodney Sarich Taylor Standing Committee on the Economy Chair: Mr. Bhardwaj Deputy Chair: Mr. Chase Amery Fawcett Griffiths Hinman Lund Marz Taft Taylor Weadick Woo-Paw Standing Committee on Health Chair: Mr.

McFarland Deputy Chair: Ms Pastoor Forsyth Groeneveld Horne Lindsay Notley Olson Quest Sherman Taft Vandermeer Standing Committee on Legislative Offices Chair: Mr. Mitzel Deputy Chair: Mr. Lund Bhullar Blakeman Campbell Hinman Lindsay MacDonald Marz Notley Quest Rogers Special Standing Committee on Members’ Services Chair: Mr. Kowalski Deputy Chair: Mr. Campbell Anderson Elniski Hehr Leskiw Mason Oberle Pastoor Rogers VanderBurg Weadick Standing Committee on Private Bills Chair: Dr.

Brown Deputy Chair: Ms Woo-Paw Allred Jacobs Amery Kang Benito Lindsay Bhardwaj McQueen Boutilier Olson Calahasen Sandhu Dallas Sarich Doerksen Taft Drysdale Xiao Hinman Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing Chair: Mr. Prins Deputy Chair: Mr. Hancock Amery Lindsay Berger McFarland Calahasen Mitzel DeLong Notley Doerksen Pastoor Forsyth Quest Groeneveld Sherman Hinman Tarchuk Jacobs Taylor Leskiw Standing Committee on Public Accounts Chair: Mr. MacDonald Deputy Chair: Mr.

Rodney Anderson Groeneveld Benito Kang Calahasen Mason Chase Olson Dallas Sandhu Elniski Vandermeer Fawcett Xiao Griffiths Standing Committee on Public Safety and Services Chair: Mr. Drysdale Deputy Chair: Mr. Kang Boutilier Brown Calahasen Cao Forsyth Johnson MacDonald Rogers Sandhu Xiao Standing Committee on Resources and Environment Chair: Mr. Prins Deputy Chair: Ms Blakeman Anderson Berger Boutilier Dallas Hehr Jacobs Mason McQueen Mitzel VanderBurg

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1053 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 2, 2010 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, let us pray. We give thanks for our abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. Let us ask for guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Security and Solicitor General. Mr. Oberle: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great honour and pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly two people who are very dedicated to making our communities stronger and safer, Chief Mike Boyd and the Edmonton Police Commission chair, Brian Gibson. Mr. Gibson has been a member of the Edmonton Police Commis- sion since 2005. He’s also the current board chair of the Alberta law enforcement response teams. Mr. Gibson has been on the boards of many community organizations. He has an extensive background as an entrepreneur and philanthropist.

He’s committed to ensuring the safety and security of Edmonton neighbourhoods, and he is a valuable partner with my ministry in that regard. With him today is somewhat of a guest of honour, Chief Mike Boyd, who has been with the Edmonton Police Service for the past five years of a longer than 40-year career in policing. During that time he’s proved himself to be both a leader and a community builder, Mr. Speaker. Chief Boyd has worked hard to enhance the professionalism of the Edmonton Police Service, and he has raised the profile of the EPS and of the city as a result.

He has r eceived many accolades in his career, including being invested as a com- mander of the order of merit of the police forces by the Governor General of Canada. Chief Boyd appears here today on the eve of his retirement. He will step down from his position as chief of the Edmonton Police Service at the end of this year. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we join and offer our thanks and our traditional warm welcome to our two special guests today. head: Introduction of Guests The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 47 students from Deer Meadow school that comprise two grade 6 classes there. What could be better on a beautiful fall day than leaving the classroom on a field trip and coming up and visiting their Legislature? As I pointed out, they do own the place. I also ask a question to each of my classes: “Who all wants to be an MLA in the future?” I have to say that out of all the classes I’ve introduced over the years, there are more aspiring MLAs in this group than any of the others that I’ve ever introduced before.

Not only that, if you look at them seated in the public gallery, you’ll notice some very fresh haircuts. These are fantastic students who volunteered to raise funds for cancer. I’d like all the members of the Assembly to welcome them here today and give them the traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay. Ms Woo-Paw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose it is with great pleasure that I introduce to you and through you a group of 15 grade 6 and grade 9 students from the Eastside Christian Academy in Calgary.

The students are joined today by Mrs. Marie Poulin and principal Frank Moody. I had a chance to meet with them very briefly earlier this afternoon. It is always a rare pleasure to receive students from the Calgary area, so I ask that they all please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. Mr. Dallas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an honour for me today to introduce to you and through to all members of the Assembly a group of 46 students from Westpark middle school in Red Deer. This is the school that our children attended.

In Red Deer we’re very proud of the work that’s done in preparing our future leaders, and Westpark middle school has an excellent reputation for advancing the ambitions of our future leaders. The students are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Lana Beierbach and Mr. Dave Cozens and parent helpers Mrs. Mariette Williamson and Mrs. Patti Stinson. I’d invite members from the Westpark middle school delegation to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and through to all members of this Assembly Mr. Matt McFadyen. He’s accompanied today by my wife, Shirley. They’re in the members’ gallery. Matt is a second cousin to my wife. Although Matt is a born and bred Edmontonian, he cheers for the Stampeders, he tells me. He works for Trans Am pipeline, and I’d like you to give him the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my previous life as a lawyer I had the good fortune to meet a lot of clients who became friends.

That’s right: clients who became friends. There are two people here today who I count as very good friends although they are no longer clients. They come from northern Germany. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature Peter and Evi Schröder. They’re from Bremervörde, which is about halfway between Hamburg and Bremen. They are experts in municipal infrastructure. Peter is a civil engineer, and Evi works with him. They are experts in water management and environmental issues. They are here touring the Legislature today, and it was a great pleasure to have lunch with them.

They’re in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask that all members give them the traditional warm welcome. head: Members’ Statements The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd Mrs. Sarich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier the Solicitor General

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101054 *The text in italics exceeded the time limit and was not read in the House. and Minister of Public Security introduced Chief Mike Boyd of the Edmonton Police Service. I am truly honoured to rise today and have the privilege to congratulate Chief Boyd on his achievements during his time with the Edmonton Police Service and to extend best wishes as he will be retiring at the end of this year. Chief Boyd was officially sworn in as the chief of police on January 1, 2006.

This followed 35 years of illustrious and distin- guished service with the Toronto Police Service, leading into a short retirement. Our city and our province are very grateful that he was willing to reconsider retirement in favour of an opportunity to provide additional dedicated service and leadership to the one of the finest policing organizations, the Edmonton Police Service. Initially I invited Chief Boyd to join us at the Alberta Legislature to celebrate receiving the national exemplary service medal bar on April 23, 2010.

This award recognizes his 40 years of exemplary police service in our nation, which is characterized by good conduct, industry, and efficiency that serves as a model for others. Mr. Speaker, this recognition is important to acknowledge since to date Chief Boyd is the only member of the Edmonton Police Service to have received this award.

Chief Boyd received this award in 1989 for the first time to mark 20 years of exemplary service, and the bars are subsequently awarded at 10-year intervals to honour the service to the community. 1:40 Chief Boyd has also been awarded several other honours, including his investiture as commander of the order of merit of the police forces by the Governor General of Canada, the Queen’s golden jubilee medal by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and the medal of merit by the Toronto Police Services Board. Since his arrival in Edmonton, Mr.

Speaker, Chief Boyd did not waver on his commitment to intelligence-led policing, combatting organized crime, and building proactive, safer communities for all to enjoy. He has served on many task forces and committees to promote safe community initiatives, including the Premier’s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force. Recently Chief Boyd announced his retirement from the Edmonton Police Service. After 40 years dedicated to policing and service, he will truly be missed by many.

On behalf of our province and our city we are grateful for Chief Boyd’s strong leadership and exemplary policing service.* Congratulations and heartfelt wishes to Chief Boyd and his wife, Margo, as they continue their life’s journey. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. Emergency Medical Services Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our biggest mistakes in life are often the results of refusal to recognize and admit our mistakes. This government continues to jeopardize the lives of Albertans with its centrally controlled health superboard.

They started out with a totalitarian gag order, forbidding our health care providers from speaking out. They threatened disciplinary action to any who dared speak out, then claimed to rescind the order a year later, but the reality and perception from our health care providers is that the code of silence hangs over their heads. Over the past several weeks it has become public and clear that emergency room care in Alberta is in crisis. Several highly re- spected emergency room doctors have graphically described our ER system as on the brink of collapse. Leaked documents have detailed hundreds of ER horror stories.

The Wildrose caucus has listened to and met with many health professionals across the province in order to formulate a series of proposals aimed at immediately addressing the ER crisis in a practical and time-sensitive manner. The Wildrose Alliance proposes that the government of Alberta implement the following measures. One, ensure a chief medical officer is assigned at all times in every hospital with an emergency room. The CMO should be given unilateral authority to make decisions concerning all units in the hospital.

The CMO must be able to open beds in non-ER units, reassign staff, activate additional staff, and if necessary override AHS directives, regulations, and regular staffing ratios in order to alleviate ER blockages that are endangering lives. Two, immediately activate the nurses needed to deal with the ER crisis. Three, immediately increase all necessary support staff. Four, open up additional acute-care beds by moving healthy seniors waiting in hospitals into temporary living accommo- dations such as senior-friendly apartments and other lodging arrangements.

Five, work to greatly accelerate the building of long- term care and assisted living facilities as well as home care. In closing, I want to thank those health care providers who have bravely spoken out and all front-line workers, without whom the crisis would be worse. Family Violence Prevention Month Ms Calahasen: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, black, blue, and white pins are being worn by all MLAs today. These pins signify our support to end family violence. Since November has been consid- ered Family Violence Prevention Month, I thank all for that courtesy.

We all know family violence is a complex issue that is present in all our communities and affects more people than many of us realize. That is why Alberta continues to provide strong leadership and supports to help individuals and families facing family violence. The prevention of family violence and bullying initiative has made important strides in increasing our understanding of this issue. Through public awareness campaigns attitudes are changing, and people are learning how they can help someone who is affected by family violence. The toll-free family violence info line is available at 310-1818.

This 24-hour resource offers help in more than 170 languages and can also give concerned Albertans information about how to help someone who may be in a difficult family situation. Alberta also provides other resources like emergency shelters for women like Northern Haven in Slave Lake, safe visitation sites, victim support programs, domestic violence courts, help with establishing new households, treatment for offenders, protection orders, specialized police teams, and services for high-risk situa- tions. Mr.

Speaker, the more we know about family violence, the more we can do what the pins say, and that is: End the Silence, Stop the Violence. Thank you. School Board Trustee Elections Mrs. Leskiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to extend the Assembly’s congratulations to the school board trustees across Alberta who are newly elected or re-elected to the position. Everyone acknowledges the importance of education to Alberta’s future, but these individuals have shown the depth of their commit- ment to the educational success of Alberta’s children.

Trustees have a pivotal role to play in the transformation of the K to 12 education system in Alberta to enable it to meet the educa- tional demands of the 21st century. Their challenge will be to continue to engage Albertans in the discussion of the future of education that was created through Inspiring Education, Setting the

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1055 Direction, and Speak Out and to help shape the response to those initiatives, the results of which are contained in the Inspiring Action report, released in June of this year. The information gathered from these initiatives will be used to help determine just how we begin to build the foundation for a K to 12 education system that will meet the needs of the 21st century. Government has listened and responded to Albertans’ wishes for the future of education. The focus of trustees is likely to change as a result of public engagement and education we have undertaken.

Student success, community engagement, and fostering collabora- tion will be top priorities. Trustees will have the biggest impact by directly engaging their communities in the education of their children and by fostering collaboration with other organizations that have a hand in assuring student success. Parents, relatives, neigh- bours, mentors, and the general public have a role, too, in making sure our young people take care of themselves and others and contribute back to their community. Trustees can help enable that to happen. Thank you very much. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Gifts for Government MLAs and Cabinet Ministers Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Politicians and pundits these days spend a lot of time wondering why voters feel increasingly disconnected from democracy. The answer is simple. People don’t trust politicians anymore. Why should they? It becomes more and more obvious every day that government MLAs in this province are compromised by a plethora of free gifts they receive from special interests. Everyone knows that gifts come with an expectation of access to power and influence.

If these gifts are allowed in the ethics guidelines, then it’s time the guidelines were changed. Free trips, concert tickets, rounds of golf at exclusive resorts, fishing expeditions: government MLAs are really living it up. When the people that create our laws are seen to accept gifts from big donors and big business, it casts a pall over our entire democratic process. The vast majority of Albertans receive no such perks for doing their jobs. They put in a solid day’s work for a day’s pay and feel rightfully proud of themselves for making a contribution to Alberta.

Government MLAs not only receive a very generous salary and benefits package – the 30 per cent plus raise a couple of years back is more than an average salary in most of Canada – including bonuses for sitting on committees, additional compensation for being ministers, but on top of it all they feel it’s okay to accept large gifts. You can afford to pay for your own Lady Gaga tickets. You can afford to play 18 holes on your own dime. You can afford to take a fishing trip to B.C. You can afford your own hotel rooms.

What you can’t afford is to erode your own integrity and the trust voters have placed in you, when many of them can’t afford to care for their developmentally disabled children or their infirm parents, who languish in a continuing care system that your government has allowed to fall apart. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I’m surprised; instead, all I can do is join my fellow citizens in disgust. The Deputy Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. National Pain Awareness Week Mr. Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to draw the attention of the House to National Pain Awareness Week, recog- nized across Canada each year during the first week of November. Chronic pain is a serious issue affecting approximately 6 million Canadians, 1 in 5 Albertans, and many of my constituents in Edmonton-Rutherford. Generally defined as pain persisting for longer than three to six months, chronic pain often accompanies chronic diseases such as arthritis, diabetes, and various neurological disorders.

In addition to the devastating impact on the lives of individuals and their families, recent studies indicate that direct health care costs associated with chronic pain are estimated at more than $6 billion annually and lost productivity costs relating to sick days and job loss are at more than $37 billion nationally. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity today to recognize the Canadian Pain Coalition. The coalition is a partner- ship of patient support groups, health professionals who care for people in pain, and scientists studying better ways of treating pain.

The coalition develops educational programs and raises awareness in order to find solutions and treatment for people living with pain. As we commemorate National Pain Awareness Week in this House and in Legislatures across Canada, I would like to thank the members and volunteers of the Canadian Pain Coalition for their hard work and dedication. They have called for a national pain strategy to be developed in accordance with a charter of patient rights and responsibilities with respect to pain. We thank them for their continued efforts to raise awareness of this most important issue. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. 1:50head: Oral Question Period The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, first question. Gifts for Government MLAs and Cabinet Ministers Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our Premier is off on a junket to India with his entourage. We’ve got ministers accepting gifts of fishing trips in B.C. and rounds of golf in luxury resorts. Other ministers are taking free tickets to concerts: Rod Stewart, Fleetwood Mac, and Lady Gaga. We have a government MLA who didn’t pay property taxes until the debt became public . . . Mr. Oberle: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I recognize a point of order. We’ll deal with it after question period. Dr. Swann: . . . and we see the recent Progressive Conservative conference awash with advertising by corporations that do business with this government. To the Deputy Premier: how can Albertans have any faith that this government is not beholden to special interests? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is an officer of this Legislature.

The Ethics Commissioner is the one that this Legislature has set in place to manage the rules that this Legislature has put in place around gifts, around donations, around all of those things that MLAs go to the Ethics Commissioner to talk about. Despite what the opposition and many pundits claim, there’s no scandal here. All MLAs are routinely invited to various functions and various events, where we have the opportunity to build relation- ships and we have the opportunity to interact with our stakeholders. That’s what our job is intended to do. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member.

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101056 Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, how can Albertans have any confidence that this government’s decisions are based on good judgment and not on returning favours? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate. The rules that are set are set by this House, including the hon. members across the way. The rules state very clearly that MLAs are allowed to accept gifts as a result of social obligations or protocol up to a limit of $400, and if it’s above that, the Ethics Commissioner must approve it.

All of the items that have been listed in the report as well as what the hon. member is bringing forward have been discussed with the Ethics Commissioner, and he has not ruled that there’s anything unethical or scandalous there. I would suggest that the hon. member might want to take his report to the Ethics Commissioner. Dr. Swann: Mr. Speaker, it’s been argued by this government that there’s a connection between taking a golf trip to B.C. and being a public champion for physical activity. Really?

Can the Deputy Premier explain how the interests of Albertans are advanced by ministers travelling out of province to play golf and go fishing, specifically? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t advance that argument. I’m not sure where he got it from. But I can tell you what we need to do as MLAs. All MLAs need to build relationships with their constituents and with stakeholders, and we also have to go outside of our borders. The hon. member mentioned the trip to India. Where does he think Alberta is going to export the massive amounts of productivity that we have?

Where does he think we’re going to get the customers that are going to allow us to create the tax revenue that’s going to generate the type of social programs Albertans have become accustomed to and deserve? The Deputy Speaker: Second question from the Official Opposi- tion. Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again my questions are for the Deputy Premier.

Over the last couple of years we’ve seen example after example of this administration’s personal greed, from giving themselves huge raises to paying big salaries for committees that do not work to paying political a ppointees huge bonuses and giving sweet patronage appointments, with all the trimmings, to ex-MLAs. The government seems to ignore any limits to good taste and the bounds of propriety. To the Deputy Premier: today Albertans are once again angry over government ministers and MLAs accepting all kinds of free gifts, gifts that could not be described in any other way except as bonuses, more MLA bonuses.

Can you explain why MLAs are still claiming bonuses? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was here during the Members’ Services discussions and all those other things that brought that to the House in this Legislature and is obviously grabbing a little bit at straws. I would say that we might want to look to the Ethics Commissioner’s comments in the report, including the newspaper

article that they love to quote, where the commis- sioner’s office said that the MLAs in Alberta are really very ethical, an ethical bunch of people. So we are fortunate as Albertans that we have the rules in place, that we’re as transparent as we are that we’re having this discussion today. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Looking at the record of prosecutions and sanctions for breaching the ethics rules, we find that in the 20 years of the existence of the legislation not one breach has been prosecuted – not one. Does this not show, Mr.

Deputy Premier, that the legislation is woefully inadequate? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would say that’s because of the fact that we’re transparent in the sense that we publish these things that we’re required to report to the Ethics Commissioner, that every member of this Legislature sits down with the Ethics Commissioner on an annual basis and has discussions about things that have happened and that might happen in the future. The Ethics Commissioner is the one that gives the ruling and says that it’s either within the realm of the rules or it’s outside of the realm of the rules.

If it’s outside of the realm of the rules, we cut the cheque. The Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Ethics Commissioner finds that the government is keeping to the straight and narrow, but normal Albertans are outraged by this trick-or-treating by govern- ment MLAs. When will the government give real strength to the ethics rules so that the rules are no longer a joke to average Alber- tans? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, he’s obviously looking for ghouls and goblins under the pumpkin patch.

I think that what we have is a discussion around the rules that this Legislature has set, the rules that are set by all members of this Legislature, by all parties. There’s been no breach of those rules. One of the reasons why we haven’t had those kinds of breaches is because we’ve had great communication with all of the ethics commissioners in the past, and I believe that this Ethics Commissioner has the true appreciation for Albertans and the true feelings of Albertans in his heart. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Emergency Medical Services in Red Deer Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My next set of questions is for the minister of health. Red Deer regional hospital has the longest wait times of all the regional hospitals in Alberta, three and a half times longer to be admitted than if that patient was in the Medicine Hat hospital, for example. Yet this government is closing 200 long- term care beds in Red Deer and doing nothing to help reduce the wait times in emergency. To the minister: why is the minister ignoring the simple solution of keeping these beds open to help move patients out of acute care? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, what I’ve asked Alberta Health Services to do is take a look at what they can do in the immediate time frame there. I am aware that there might be a crunch coming in the emergency rooms in Red Deer, and we’re looking at alterna- tives. For example, possibly the Valley Park Manor might come into play here. Residents have been moved from there over to the Extendicare Michener Hill centre, as they have been from the other nursing home. So there are some opportunities there that I’ve asked them to explore. Dr. Swann: Seriously, Mr.

Speaker, physicians from Red Deer and the surrounding area have said that even temporarily keeping those 200 long-term care beds open would seriously reduce the pressures on acute-care beds and emergency room times. If the minister won’t listen to us and won’t listen to the health care professionals, who is he listening to on this?

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1057 Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the emergency docs who represented Edmonton, Calgary, and Medicine Hat but provincially in a way as well, obviously, because the chair from the AMA was there, brought to my attention what some of the difficul- ties were, specifically in Edmonton and Calgary. I believe that there’s a similar meeting that will be coming up with respect to Red Deer. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the people of Red Deer want some action on keeping the Valley Park Manor and the Red Deer nursing home open, do they have to book a game of golf with the minister at a private course in Victoria just to get the minister to listen? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of Valley Park Manor in the first question. I won’t take up the House’s time to do that. But I think physical activity is a very good thing, and I stand by helping out junior golfers. I’m president of the Alberta Friends of Golf.

We helped start the U of A Golden Bears golf program, and I’m very proud of that for the youth of this province. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. 2:00 Emergency Medical Services Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today the Wildrose caucus hand delivered a letter to the health minister and to the Premier’s office outlining proposals we’ve gathered from ER doctors and health care professionals across this province to address the ER crisis and other health care issues.

Unlike the minister, who talks about how many ERs he’s been to and who he’s talked to, we don’t talk, Minister; we listen. We’re proposing some real ideas from the professionals who work in the trenches. Minister, my question to you, firstly, is: will you immediately . . . The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think she quite got to the question. But I did receive the letter that she’s referring to. I find it really interesting that in this particular letter they’re talking about spending more money, adding more staff.

Whereas two months ago they were talking about cutting staff, cutting $1.3 billion to health and education, today they’re talking about spending. You know, blowing and sucking is something reserved for other parties. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the minister should read the whole letter. We talk about prioritization.

To the same minister: will you immediately designate chief medical officers for every hospital in Alberta who have the authority to make decisions about care in every hospital ward, including the authority to override Alberta Health Services’ directives? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, I’m sure that people would find it quite offensive if the letter they suggested here were to be enacted, where they say, “if necessary, override AHS directives, regulations or regular staffing ratios.” Clearly, they don’t know what they’re talking about because you’ve got collective agreements, you’ve got bargaining agreements, you’ve got protocols that have to be adhered to. I think they should do a little bit more homework before they offend all of the nurses and others that are tied to collective agree- ments. Mrs. Forsyth: You know, Mr.

Speaker, he has a good point on some of the things that he’s brought up in regard to the regulations and the ratios. Again to the same minister: given that the health care profession- als have warned us there is a shell game going on in respect to beds – in other words, Mr. Minister, you open two beds; you close two beds – what is the net increase of beds in Calgary since January 1 of this year? The net increase. [interjections] Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that today AHS is opening 12 transition unit beds at the Foothills. Twelve new transition beds will be opened at the Rockyview in about 10 days.

Fourteen new transition beds will be opened at the U of A within a week. Two new medical observation beds will be opened at the Royal Alex within a week. On November 29 an additional 20 new hospice beds will be opened at the Peter Lougheed. [interjections] Wait; there’s lots of good news here. The new Villa Caritas will bring on stream 46 more geriatric psychiatric beds. [interjections] Could I have permission to continue? The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, when there are questions and answers, lower your noise level, please. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood. East Edmonton Health Centre Mr.

Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister of health told this House the provision of services at the East Edmonton health centre was a planned “staged, phased-in approach.” The minister is utterly wrong in this claim. I have documents from Alberta Health Services going back to 2006 that show the urgent care centre was planned for the spring of 2009. Will the minister apologize to the House for his incorrect assertions yesterday and admit that it was government cuts that ended the plan to bring in the urgent care centre in 2009? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, Alberta Health Services did not exist in 2006. What I stated in the House yesterday was that I was not aware of anything other than a staged or phased plan for the East Edmonton health centre as advanced to me by Alberta Health Services. The reason that it had to be staged is because of the economic recession and, secondly, because we had to bring in a staged approach to address how many staff members were needed there. I can tell you right now that there are 136 staff members approximately at that facility providing outstanding community services needed there. Mr. Mason: I’m sure they are, Mr.

Speaker, but the point, really, that we’re dealing with now is wait times in emergency rooms. The ER at the Royal Alexandra hospital is one of the most crowded in the entire province. Given that the urgent care centre was intended to handle up to 34,000 cases that would no longer go to that emergency room, will the minister fund the urgent care centre immediately to ease the strain on wait times at the Royal Alexandra emergency room? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the member is doing a very good job of confusing things here.

He knows full well that an urgent care centre is coming there and that it’s not going to have overnight stays for so-called admitted patients. So let’s get that straight. Urgent

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101058 care is about nonadmitted patients, about helping those people with more minor injuries. Those are not the kinds of people that are blocking beds, as the medics would tell you, over at our acute care centres. So let’s get some facts on the table here. That urgent care centre will come in as part of phase 2. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, the minister is trying to clear up confusion by creating even more confusion.

This urgent care centre was designed to keep 34,000 people from going to the emergency room at the Royal Alex in the first place. It’s only $9 million to fund it, Mr. Minister. Will you please fund it and get it up and running next year as soon as possible? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there’s no confusion whatsoever. We’re talking about minor cases, typically a few broken bones that are non life threatening, okay? Those are the kinds of things that urgent care centres tend to be focused around. Now, the $9 million, if that’s what the correct number is for current costs, is being looked at as part of phase 2.

When we get along to phase 2 – that’ll take about a year to two years, perhaps slightly more to build that added capacity into the system, to hire the staff for it – it will be done. It’s in the plans to do it. So I don’t know what the member is confused about over there. [interjections] The Deputy Speaker: Again I want to remind hon. members in that corner to please keep the noise down. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. PDD Administrative Review Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people supported by PDD and the service providers who give the needed supports have been unfairly treated by this government over the last year. First, it was the cuts to service providers’ budgets. Then this summer the minister had KPMG do a review of the PDD community boards and service providers, and the future of PDD is still hanging in the balance. To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: the terms of reference for this review show that the final report was supposed to have been received on September 15, so why hasn’t it been released yet? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, on June 16 I announced a PDD administrative review. The review is a bout a more effec tive and efficient administration of the PDD program. I’d like to make it clear that the review is not about reducing funding or changing the PDD program. I have received the re port, and the re port is under review. Ms Pastoor: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Taxpayers’ dollars went to pay for this review, so Albertans and the people who rely on PDD services have a right to know what the minister is planning for the program. When will the full report, complete with recommenda- tions, be released? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, I know that we all share the same goal of having an effective and efficient PDD program for our people with developmental disabilities. This administrative review focuses on how we administer the services, and everything is on the table. The report is now proceeding through the government process. When I have finished reviewing it, I will be releasing this to the public. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps a couple of ques- tions: could I get a timeline on that, and will the minister commit right now that the PDD community boards will not be centralized, when the example from the health care system leaves much to be desired? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important review. It’s about delivering services the best way possible so that we have the best results for our people with disab ilities. We’ve put everything on the table. When the review is ready to go forward, we will bring it forward to everyone in this Legislature. 2:10 Sale of Public Land for Commercial Use Dr. Brown: Mr.

Speaker, I and many of my colleagues in the House have been receiving messages from Albertans who are concerned about the proposal to purchase 16,000 acres of public land in Cypress county. The lands under consideration are largely intact parcels of native grasslands which are important to many wildlife species, including most of Alberta’s species at risk. Only 14 and a half per cent of Alberta’s grasslands are still in their intact state and remain in the public domain. Hunters, conservation groups, farmers, ranchers, and ordinary Albertans are asking questions about the potential loss of this precious resource.

My questions are all for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Will the minister do the right thing and assure Albertans that there will be no sale of this public land unless . . . The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As has been explained in the House previously, our department has received a proposal to buy a parcel of public la nd. The department revi ewed the proposal for wildlife and conservation values and also for the economic value of the proposal.

The question remains of the maximum value for Albertans being received on a direct sale versus an open tender process. That question remains. However, I must point out that the proponent has requested that this application be withdrawn, and this has been done. Dr. Brown: Well, that’s very good news, Minister. Will the minister ensure that any future proposals to purchase public lands in the white area will be subject to a public consultation process to examine the merits of any proposed scheme and to preserve the wildlife? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, it’s an important question and needs to be answered.

We do not at this point in time and I do not anticipate that the transfer of public land for agricultural purposes would require public consultation. Dr. Brown: Will the minister and his department develop a policy to ensure future protection of Alberta’s remaining publicly owned grasslands? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, you know, the truth of the matter is that what we are talking about here is that there are about 10.4 million acres of native grassland that remain in the province of Alberta. This particular proposal, although it seemed large, was about .15 per cent.

We’re talking today with groups of people in municipalities in northern Alberta about the transfer of 30,000 to 40,000 acres of

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1059 public land to put into agricultural production. This province believes that agricultural production is extremely important, and we will continue to deal with it. Tailings Pond Emergency Response Plans Ms Blakeman: Mr. Speaker, an aluminum tailings pond failure in Hungary, a mercury tailings pond failure in B.C., a copper tailings pond failure in Quebec, a lead and zinc tailings pond failure in Macedonia: things do go wrong with tailings ponds, and when they do, the effects are catastrophic.

The oil spill at Wabamun exposed government emergency response plans as pathetically unprepared, and government response plans continue to be shrouded in secrecy. We’re expected to take their word and trust them. Well, I, for one, don’t trust them. To the Minister of Environment: why aren’t Alberta Environment’s dam safety emergency response plans publicly available? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the incident at Wabamun.

I was not the minister at the time, but my colleague across the way was, and I think he did a very intelligent thing at that point in time when he formed a rapid-response emergency response team within Alberta Environment. That is ASERT. It’s a system that has worked very, very well. It is ASERT in conjunction with the operators of any kinds of these facilities as well as municipalities that are responsible for those emergency plans. Ms Blakeman: They’re not publicly available.

Back to the same minister: given that it is reasonable to keep critical infrastructure and the security around it private but not what the community can expect in case of an emergency, why does the government keep tailings emergency response plans confidential and away from the neighbours that are affected by it? Why? This is no terrorism thing. Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the member has identified one of the significant issues.

If we are in fact going to have an emergency response team to deal with these kinds of issues, one of the things that we don’t want to do is let someone who may want to be subversive, may want to be able to create a situation be aware of all of the plans that we do have in place. Ms Blakeman: That’s phony, and he knows it.

Back to the same minister: given that the oil sands are located in a challenging northern climate and a leak during the winter under the ice may not be discovered until months later, what effort has government put into a concrete, detailed plan on winter breaches of tailings ponds, and would he make it public? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, there is a rigid requirement for ongoing monitoring of these dams and dikes that are there. The fact of the matter is that we are confident that there are the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that the scenario the member describes is remote in the extreme.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Medicine Hat Pain Management Clinic Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I tabled a petition in the House on behalf of my constituents in Cypress-Medicine Hat urging the government to adequately fund the pain management clinic in Medicine Hat, operated by Dr. Wardell, beyond the current two-year contract program. In follow-up to this petition I would like to direct all my questions to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Number one, given that Dr.

Wardell’s clinic provides reputable and cost-effective pain management services to the citizens of Medicine Hat and area, why did it take so long for Alberta Health Services to commit to the current contract with Dr. Wardell? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, as members here would know, contracts are negotiated instruments, and they can take quite some time to get down to the nitty-gritty details. I think the important thing is that there is now a new contract in place for two years so that the important service for pain management that Dr. Wardell and his staff provide is available to the community.

This is very good news. It took a little longer to negotiate perhaps than people had hoped, but the job got done, and the services are continuing on. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental: given the fact that the current contract is for two years only, what assur- ances can this minister give my constituents that funding for this vital clinic will continue beyond the two-year contract period? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, one of the things that Alberta Health Services did was to immediately create a steering committee that would take a look at the entire south half of the province, roughly from Calgary down. That includes, obviously, Medicine Hat and Lethbridge and other places in between. As part of that, Dr. Wardell will be lending his expertise so that perhaps they will be able to come to a longer term solution. That’s what’s been requested, and I hope that’s what they will deliver. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental is to the same minister. Will Dr.

Wardell’s clinic be part of the future pain management program that you’re planning, Mr. Minister? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I would person- ally hope so. I visited Dr. Wardell’s pain management clinic. It looks like an excellent facility, and the services they provide are equally excellent because we’ve heard from some of the people receiving services through that pain management clinic. I can’t predict the future, but I would certainly hope that with Dr. Wardell providing his expertise to this steering committee, those points of view would come forward and be addressed.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, followed by the hon. Member for Strathcona. Child Intervention System Review Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ministry of children’s services has finally released recommendations from the Child Intervention Review Panel. The panel made 14 recommendations that point to layers of mismanagement in the ministry. In response the ministry has rejected four central recommendations, some of which I’ve raised in the past.

To the Minister of Children and Youth Services: it is clear that the minister is unable to single-handedly solve the numerous problems within the ministry, so why not accept the recommendation to empower the Child and Youth Advocate to provide individual support? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister.

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101060 Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important report that this member is referring to. You’ve heard here in the Assembly over the past year that we’ve been looking forward to the report. I can tell you that it has been recently released. There were 14 recommendations, as you know, hon. member, and we did accept 10 of the recommendations and did not accept four, as the member has identified. The one that he is referring to is the Child and Youth Advocate position.

But if you look at the next recommendation, recommendation 8, it relates to the child and family service quality council, which w ill report publicly at arm’s length through this ministry. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. 2:20 Mr. Chase: Thank you. The problem is the shortness of the arm. Why does the minister refuse to accept the recommendation to improve off-reserve service delivery for aboriginal children and youth, who account for only 9 per cent of Alberta’s population but make up over 63 per cent of children in government care? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. This recommendation that the member is referring to is recommendation 4. You’re correct. There are 64 per cent of aboriginal children in child intervention. We know that through our experience, through our research, and that is trending upward to 70 per cent, which is a very sad situation. The reason I did not accept this recommendation, hon. member, is because I did hear from aboriginal leaders – elders, chiefs – in the community that they would like to be very much a part of the solution that would empower aboriginal people to look after their children and to protect them, and I respect that.

I will be meeting with them once again at the end of November. They have said that this is not the right model for them, and I will look to see what is the right model. Mr. Chase: Seventy per cent of children and youth in care being aboriginal: how long can we tolerate this? How much longer will this minister stand behind the excuse of needing more consultation before actually taking action to improve care of aboriginal children in the system? This panel has already consulted for well over a year. Action. Mrs. Fritz: You know, Mr.

Speaker, I cannot believe that I am hearing this member say that aboriginal elders and leaders in the community should not be a part of responding to the needs of their children and how to protect them in care. That’s what you have just said. This recommendation is a recommendation of principle, but I can tell you that I will be listening to the aboriginal community in the formation of what is the right model for their children off reserve. Mr. Chase: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: We’ll deal with it at the end of the question period. The hon. Member for Strathcona, followed by the hon.

Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo. Highway 21 Mr. Quest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see that the twinning work on highway 21 just east of Sherwood Park has finally wrapped up. More than 10,000 cars a day use this stretch of highway, and my constituents are looking forward to the enhanced access and safety of this new four-lane highway. My questions are for the Minister of Transportation. Although this is good news, my constituents continue to raise issues regarding the light wait times. It takes a long time to get through those intersections, Minister.

I’m just wondering what you’re planning to do about that. Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell this hon. member and all his constituents that the taxpayers of Alberta have invested $115 million in that stretch of highway, and that’s about quality of life for Albertans. About the lights. Yes, the Transportation department has been monitoring those four new traffic lights since we installed them last December, and there have been some adjustments made during the winter to improve the left turning lane.

The department will continue to monitor the operation, and we will do the adjustments as needed . . . The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. [interjection] The hon. member. Mr. Anderson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Point of order. We’ll deal with it after. The hon. member. Mr. Quest: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Agreed, it is good news, and our constituents, obviously, really appreciate this new highway. My first supplemental to the same minister. Constituents also do have some concerns, though, Minister, about the noise levels on that

section of highway as it passes alongside Sherwood Park. I’m wondering what’s happening to address those concerns. Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind this hon. member once again that the noise levels from that particular

section are below our provincial guidelines. The province measured those sound levels along highway 21 in the spring of ’07, and those levels were way below the guidelines of 65 decibels over a 24-hour period. Those sound levels are not expected to exceed provincial guidelines till at least 2040. That said, the department will be making sound measurements again now that the twinning is complete. Mr. Quest: Well, it’s good that we’re taking another look at it, Minister.

My final supplemental to the same minister: the speed limits on this new stretch of highway are also a concern, so I’m just wonder- ing what the minister is doing to address those. Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member should be happy to know that the speed limit has been reduced already to 80 kilometres per hour from north of highway 16 to south of 628. All of the new signals have prewarning flashing lights on them. The reduction in speed is necessary to accommodate the new configura- tion, that allows for smoother traffic flow.

This is a significant project, and we will continue to invest in our highways to keep Alberta moving. Medical Procedure Wait Times Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House – and I quote – the minister of health said to the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek:

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1061 I don’t have the answer on why I have not been able to provide wait times; however, I will get the answer when I leave this House. To the minister. Today I’d like the answer on what he found out. Mr. Zwozdesky: I’m not sure which wait times you’re referring to, but I can tell you that in Edmonton and Calgary we have EIP wait times. Are you talking about admitted patients or nonadmitted patients? Mr. Boutilier: There are so many wait times, how many answers do you want me to give you in terms of wait times? It’s happening all over Alberta.

Given that the minister doesn’t have an answer today, as he committed to this House, does the minister of health realize that he could jeopardize the millions of dollars from the federal government because of his failure to report wait times in Alberta hospitals as a benchmark? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there are many different types of wait times. If the member would just tell me exactly what he’s looking for, I’d be happy to oblige. I’ll get Alberta Health Services on it right away. We keep track of and we report wait times at various facilities. I mean, there are 400 different facilities in the province.

If you could just sharpen up your question, hon. member, that would be appreciated. Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health, to all Albertans who are watching in emergency rooms, is failing to answer the question. He’s not aware of the Wait Time Alliance relative to the question yesterday, so clearly he’s not actually listening, again, to the question. You’re jeopardizing millions of dollars from the federal government. You talked tough at the PC convention about: we’re going to fight Ottawa. Yet your failure to report wait times federally is costing Albertans millions of dollars. Explain this, Mr.

Minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly off on some other tangent in some field of his own because we do report. That information is available. If he’s talking about wait times in emer- gency rooms, that information is available on a per-site basis, and there is going to be more of it coming forward. In fact, I’m going to be doing more of it with the docs when I chat with them on Friday. That information is already there. It’s already being reported. Perhaps the member could tell me exactly which site he’s interested in. I’d be happy to give him the specific details.

There’s no problem whatsoever. [interjections] The Deputy Speaker: Again, hon. members, we need to hear the answer. Please, when the answer is given, don’t make too much noise. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Legal Aid Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, due to the reductions in legal aid eligibility guidelines Albertans who receive assured income for the severely handicapped, the poorest of the p oor here in Alberta, now have to make a down payment or pay monthly for assistance in court.

Albertans who receive AISH already live beneath the poverty line, and now they have to pay extra for help in court. Does the minister really call that access to justice? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If people come within the financial eligibility guidelines, then they will certainly be eligible for legal aid. Based on the circumstances the member has just de- scribed, I see no reason why that wouldn’t be the case. Mr.

Hehr: Well, the CTLA believes your pilot project has created a two-tier legal system, one where the wealthy get first-class legal services and the poor get denied access to justice. What is your response to this? Ms Redford: Mr. Speaker, I’m very aware of the CTLA’s view. I’m not quite sure what the member’s view is. He may have an independent view, or he may simply be quoting other people. We have not cut legal aid in this province. We have doubled our commitment to legal aid over the past four years.

People that require legal representation in criminal court and civil court, family law in this province get it. 2:30 Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s not what I’m hearing. How can the minister say that she’s meeting commitments when Legal Aid Alberta is clawing back money from Alberta’s most vulnerable people to provide services that she concedes are both a legal right and a natural right? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know if the member should really be characterizing any action of the Legal Aid board. We’re in touch on a weekly basis with Legal Aid.

We manage legal aid in conjunction with the Legal Aid board. We’re fully aware of what Legal Aid is doing. Legal Aid is continuing to do what we as Albertans want them to do, which is to ensure that people who are going to court are getting legal advice and legal representation. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. CCSVI Clinical Trials Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Multiple sclerosis patients have experienced some relief from their conditions by the so-called liberation treatment invented by Italian Dr.

Zamboni by going out of the country for treatment. In Canada an MS patient cannot even get a scan to determine if there is a blockage in the veins leading to the brain. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have recently agreed to go ahead with clinical trials to study the effective- ness of the liberation treatment. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Are you proposing to join these other two provinces in conducting clinical trials? If not, why not? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, just for clarification, I believe Saskatchewan is exploring the possibility of clinical trials once they have received ethical approval,

whereas Newfoundland is doing observational studies. Last week I met with a number of neurolo- gists here in Alberta as well as patients who have had the Zamboni treatment and with advocates for MS research in general. With respect to the question, however, specifically, please know that we are looking at some strategies that would help move this along to fill what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research called a void or a shortage of clinical evidence that would support the safety and efficacy of proceeding. Once safety and efficacy have been addressed, at that point we can consider the next steps, including possible clinical trials if that’s what’s warranted.

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101062 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Allred: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental to the same minister: given that the test is commonly administered for other blockages of the veins, what can possibly be the downside of allowing the test to determine if there is a blockage in the veins of an MS patient? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the Doppler test is that it’s noninvasive, that it’s an ultrasonic diagnostic test. I did speak with some people who actually had it done in Vancouver I believe it was.

I also understood that some had something similar done in Ontario, but I don’t know that that practice is still continuing there. The point here is that the particular test being referred to is not typically conducted for possible blockages of veins leading from the brain. At least that’s my understanding. We’ll find out more for you, hon. member, or your constituents on whose behalf you’re asking in terms of the technical medical descriptions. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Allred: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A further question, that again is somewhat technical, to the same minister: given that a blockage exists in a person’s veins, does it not seem like common sense that the relief of that blockage would improve one’s health? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, that is part of the thesis advanced by some. I want to indicate, however, that the Zamboni research only came to light, the preliminary research in that respect, in 2009.

Again I have to stress that safety and efficacy have to first be satisfied before doctors will endorse it, embrace it and before the world-renowned experts who met in Ottawa at the end of August would also endorse it. But work is progressing, and we are doing our part through the Hotchkiss Brain Institute study, which is being undertaken by Dr. Costello, and as soon as we have that information plus some other information that we’re actively working on, I think we’ll see some good progress in this regard. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti.

Building Construction Review Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Shoddy workmanship continues to put homes and condos at risk of rotting from moisture penetration and mould. Two years ago a municipal study warned that if the government did not do a better job of protecting Albertans from shoddy builders, the results could be, quote, disastrous. This report was the latest in a series that goes back almost a decade, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs thinks we need more studies.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: why is the government of the richest province in Canada powerless to protect homeowners from high repair costs and the health risks caused by mould and moisture? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ministry and our staff are looking at a range of solutions to address the individual concerns that are out there.

I need to point out to the Legislature here that we are the ones that initiated the re ports following the complaints that we were getting from citizens right across the province of Alberta, and we’re the ones that are following up on it. Nobody else had initiated those particular reports. We’re spending time now to analyze the reports and look at the various solutions that might be available to us. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been 10 years, Mr. Minister, and Albertans are still waiting for some action.

How can the minister claim that poorly built outer walls affect only a small number of homes and condos when we know that the government does not collect any data on rotting buildings? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, we have done some surveys, and we’ve got an indication of how extensive the damage is. Certainly, in the late summer of 2008, for instance, the parliamentary assistant led the first broad review in consultation with various stakeholders on various construction practices to address the particular issues. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister again: will the minister take some responsibility and actually investigate complaints that municipal inspections are not finding shoddy workmanship before it’s passed on to the buyers? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at potential solutions, and we are working with industry. We’re working with our inspection services to try to find solutions that will satisfy individu- als. We recognize that the purchase of a home or a condo is probably one of the biggest investments that individuals will do in their lifetime, and we want to ensure that that investment is pro- tected.

Grande Prairie Hospital Construction Mr. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, Grande Prairie is one of Canada’s fastest growing cities. Its population has nearly doubled in 20 years. The people need another hospital. In July the Premier announced that a new health facility would finally be bu ilt in Grande Prairie, which is great news for my constituents, but they want to see signs that the project is really happening. My questions are for the Minister of Infrastructure. How do we know that the project is actually moving ahead? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in fact, we are making excellent progress on the Grande Prairie hospital. I’m very happy to report that soil testing is complete. We have completed the request for qualification process, that closed on October 19. We did have 29 submissions, which really showed a strong industry interest, and I’m very confident that the consultants will be selected in December. Mr. Drysdale: To the same minister: when will we actually see construction happening? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, the zoning of the land acquisition is moving ahead.

Health along with the college officials and the municipal officials are working together to include a postsecondary component at the hospital. I am very confident that next summer we will see the initial construction under way, that we’ll see some earth being moved. By fall I expect that the concrete and steel will begin to be part of the project. Mr. Drysdale: To the same minister: what will happen with the existing facilities at the Queen E II hospital?

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1063 Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s an excellent question. I want to say that the existing Queen E II has served the Grande Prairie area and will continue to serve the people of Grande Prairie. The existing hospital will be renovated, and we will expand the ambulatory care. I also say that the needed renovations for the emergency room will be completed so that emergency services can continue while we build the new hospital.

I think it’s very important for the people of Grande Prairie to know that the hospital that is being built is a hospital that is going to include acute care . . . The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton-Riverview. 2:40 Medical Procedure Wait Times (continued) Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Health and Wellness. On page 79 of the 2009-10 annual re port from that minister’s department it itemizes under transfers from the govern- ment of Canada the wait times reduction. It itemizes about $27 million in funding coming from the federal government to reduce wait times.

The Wait Time Alliance, that’s being discussed here, is telling us that your government is not reporting information to them that they require, the only province not to do so. Why aren’t you? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the Wait Time Alliance is a group of physician specialty associations who publish their own monitoring of wait times. As such, they do this by looking at publicly available wait times on websites. Unfortunately, as I indicated yesterday, our wait-list registry, the public site, is down right now. We hope to have it up fairly soon.

It’s not a question of us wanting to or not wanting to; it’s a question of that site simply being not available. However, basically the same information is available through Alberta Health Services in their quarterly reports. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s apparently news to this minister, but his department committed to file information on one wait time. Each province took on one. Alberta took on cancer wait times and has failed to report to the federal government.

Is this because cancer treatment wait times are c hronically and continu- ously getting worse in this province? Mr. Zwozdesky: No, Mr. Speaker. I would hope not. In fact, we have a very aggressive cancer strategy, and the people that I’ve met with and spoken with have requested that we accelerate some of our plans in that regard. That’s why we opened the radiation therapy corridor a couple of months ago in Lethbridge. That’s why the new Grande Prairie hospital will have another radiation therapy corridor. That’s why Red Deer is also going to have one.

And that’s why we’re stepping up our recruitment processes for more GI oncolog- ists, which has now yielded two more people in that field. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thanks. My last question, Mr. Speaker, will be to the minister of finance, who has raised concerns in this Assembly about unfair federal transfers to the provincial government. How can this government complain about federal transfers from Health when its own department of health is failing to report on current federal programs? Where’s the accountability? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, we can complain about federal transfers to health.

If you take out the Alberta portion, which is a couple of billion, the total value of that program, the Canada health transfer, is $23 billion; $21 billion is, in effect, paid by Alberta. We pay $21 billion out of the $23 billion, yet we get less than any other province in Canada. No equal treatment. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, this concludes our question period this afternoon. We have a note from the Minister of Health and Wellness that he would like to clarify an answer he gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I’ve just given the clarification in answer to the question from the Member for Edmonton-Riverview. It was simply to point out that the Wait Time Alliance is a group of physician specialty associations who get most of their information from publicly available websites. So I won’t need to clarify anything any further. The Deputy Speaker: That entitles the hon. Member for Calgary- Fish Creek to a question. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has clarified now that he knows what the Wait Time Alliance is.

I would like to know why he’s willing to jeopardize $27 million from the federal govern- ment because he won’t comply with an agreement that was signed by your government in 2007. Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, nobody is putting anything at risk or in jeopardy. If there is a compliance that needs to be adhered to, I can assure the hon. member and all members of this House that it will be adhered to. End of story. The Deputy Speaker: This concludes our question period. According to my count we had 105 questions and answers. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Deputy Speaker: Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood, you have something to table? Mr. Mason: Oh, I sure do, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to table the appropriate number of copies of several documents which show clearly that the minister was incorrect yesterday when he asserted that the plan had always been to phase in the urgent care centre at the East Edmonton health clinic. They are comprised of two documents from Alberta Health Services . . . The Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, just briefly table. Mr.

Mason: Okay. . . . and a photograph of the sign outside the East Edmonton health centre clearly showing at the top of the list that urgent medical care is part of the package. This was taken some years ago. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, do you have some material to table? Mr. Chase: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings that follow along the lines of Motion 510, encouraging entrepreneurial education. The first is Thrive: Advancing Community Economic Development for Calgary, Calgary’s Community Economic Development Network.

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101064 Also, Thriving: Critical, Calgary’s VitalSigns 2009 Citizens’ Report Card, Taking the Pulse of Calgary, from the Calgary Foundation for Calgary Forever. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, you have something to table? Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today regarding Alberta Hospital Edmonton. The first one is from Sandra Glor, the second one is from Heather Macri, and the third one would be from Matthew Cuvilier. They’re all constituents of Edmonton-Gold Bar.

They have given me permission to table these documents. They’re concerned about the government’s plans regarding psychiatric care at Alberta Hospital. My final tabling. I do enjoy and anxiously await correspondence from the President of the Treasury Board, and this is a letter that I received from him on July 22, 2010, regarding the cabinet policy committees and whether or not the chairs are paid correctly. I appreciate that. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other tablings? Well, the chair has some material to table here.

Hon. members, in accordance with the amendment to the Government Motion 18, approved Tuesday, October 26, 2010, regarding the 2009-10 Electoral Boundaries Commission report, the chair is pleased to table five copies of the revised DVD prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer which incorporates those amendments and which is entitled Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta, As Approved by the Legislative Assembly on October 26, 2010. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk. On behalf of the hon. Dr.

Morton, Minister of Finance and Enterprise, pursuant to the Members of the Legislative Assembly Pension Plan Act the Members of the Legislative Assembly pension plan annual report for the year ended March 31, 2009, and the Members of the Legislative Assembly pension plan annual report for the year ended March 31, 2010. On behalf of the hon. Mr.

Goudreau, Minister of Municipal Affairs, pursuant to the Safety Codes Act the Safety Codes Council 2009 annual report; pursuant to the Special Areas Act the special areas trust account financial statements dated December 31, 2009; pursuant to the Capital Region Board regulation the Capital Region Board 2009 annual report. Pursuant to the Government Organization Act the Alberta Boilers Safety Association annual report 2009; the Alberta Elevating Devices and Amusement Ride Safety Association annual report, April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010; the authorized accredited agencies

summary 2008-2009; and the Petroleum Tank Management Association of Alberta annual report 2009. 2:50 The Deputy Speaker: Let’s deal with the points of order now. The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security has with- drawn? Mr. Oberle: I withdraw. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Okay. Hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, you have a point of order. Point of Order Allegations against a Member Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m going to refer first to our standing orders, Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 23(h), which states: “makes allegations against another Member.” I asked the question – and hopefully you have the Blues to provide the answer that was given – “How much longer will this minister stand behind the excuse of needing more consultation before actually taking action to improve care of aboriginal children in the system? This panel has already consulted for well over a year.” The minister in her reply stated, implied, alleged that I didn’t value input from First Nations elders.

I would also like to reference Beauchesne 409(7), wherein it states, “Imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.” I’ll also refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 618, under the

section entitled Unparliamentary Language: the use of “personal attacks, insults and obscenities.” Well, obviously the minister did not swear, but she alleged that I did not take into account the interests of First Nations elders. How she came across that information I do not know. But instead of answering the question, Mr. Speaker, an allegation was tossed back. Hopefully you have the Blues and you can read them and share what the minister stated and clarify this matter for the House. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that the member is really trying to explain the comment more than bring forward a point of order. He suggests that allegations were made by the minister in answering the question. The minister was simply pointing out that the aboriginal community had requested additional time for further consultation that would be specific to the child care issues related to the aboriginal community.

The member made a rather – I won’t call it rhetorical, but there were inferences in his question that somehow the minister was avoiding dealing with an issue under the guise of further consultation when, in fact, the minister had indicated that she had heard very clearly from the aboriginal community that they wished to have an opportunity to have more input into designing a system that would better meet their needs. There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have to echo the comments of the last speaker.

The member quoted the Blues and indicated in his question that somehow the minister is hiding behind things. Somehow that is absolutely fine to say in this House, but for any similar comment back – and I don’t even believe it was anywhere near as egregious – this member takes offence to that. Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here. If the member can’t handle the heat, he should get out of the question period. Mr. Chase: Mr.

Speaker, I ask that you share the precise comments that the Minister of Children and Youth Services provided in the Blues where an allegation was made that I did not value the opinions and the recommendations of elders. Would you please read the direct information so that a decision can be made as opposed to what we thought we heard or what we might have heard? The Deputy Speaker: Is any other hon. member wishing to join in? Seeing none, in fact, in contemplating a bit and trying to recall the situation at that time, there are two things in here. I have a sense

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1065 that the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity wants to clear the record, and he has had that opportunity. He has explained now about the situation. My judgment is that there is no allegation of any sort of point of order. The member has had an opportunity to clear the record on his statement, and there’s no need for further debate on this as a point of order. Thank you. Another point of order. Point of Order Oral Question Period Time Limits Mr. Anderson: I’m sure the members opposite will be very excited about this point of order. In 2010, last session, Mr.

Speaker, the House leaders met to discuss how question period was going to be dealt with. In a ruling in 2010 that is in Hansard, this is what the Speaker at the time said: “The chair will continue to undertake a vigilant watch of the clock to ensure that questions and answers do not exceed 35 seconds.” I personally love when questions and answers go a little longer than 35 seconds. I like to hear the long – even if it’s 40, 45 seconds, I like that. However, there’s got to be some consistency, Mr. Speaker, between the questions and the answers with regard to the time that those answers and questions are cut off.

Clearly, through- out the question period today if you look at the answers given from the members for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, from Lac La Biche-St. Paul, the health minister, certainly the member’s statement from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore, that time constraint, at least in our opinion, was not enforced by the chair. Our questions. If you look to the hon. Member for Calgary- Glenmore and the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek, in their members’ statements and in their questions clearly they were cut off immediately at that time. Now, that’s fine. They can be cut off at that time.

However, it needs to go both ways. It’s very unfair, and we felt that throughout the question period they were given flexibil- ity and were able to finish their members’ statements and questions and answers, and we were not. Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I know that it’s not parliamentary tradition to do a point of order on a point of order, necessarily. However, there is an agreement that was made, and it should and it ought to be lived up to. I think that the Speaker made it very clear to these members that we’re trying to stay within the 30 seconds.

Occasionally you might have to go over by five seconds, as they do with some of their questions, so this knife cuts both ways. Nonethe- less, the point has been made. We will ensure that our members try a little harder to stick within the 30 seconds that we’re allowed to answer a question, and I would hope that the people asking the questions would give the same abidance. Secondly, I think it should also be made clear that if we had a little more co-operation and tolerance from the other side of the House during the questions, it would make it clearer and easier to understand what they are.

That would help in terms of preserving decorum in the House. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere. Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although I appreciate that what the health minister was saying is absolutely true – it should be on both sides 35 seconds, 35 seconds – we’re not arguing that you’re not doing what you’re supposed to do. We’re arguing that the chair did not enforce both sides. According to the standing orders,

chapter 2,

section 13(2), it says, “The Speaker shall explain the reasons for any decision on the request of a Member.” I just would ask the Speaker to please explain the reasons why those were cut off. If you look back at the tape, it will be clear. You were cutting off members on this side at the time limit, as you should, but you were not doing so for the government side. The Deputy Speaker: First of all, your point of order about the 35 seconds in responses and answers over the time limit. I received notes here from both sides of the House saying that I cut them off, okay? The hon.

Member for Airdrie-Chestermere said that I favour one side or the other. That is factually not true, so I want to clarify that. Also, I try to enforce the rule of timing, okay? Within that, we need to have co-operation, less noise so that we can hear the question and the answer. The time is kept strictly by the table officer here, so I just follow their indication, and I enforce the rule. Thank you. I rule that there is no point of order. 3:00head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 20 Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2010 The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill 20, the Class Proceedings Amend- ment Act, 2010. Passed in 2004, the Class Proceedings Act established procedural rules enabling one or more persons to advance an action on behalf of a group of people who have suffered the same or a similar wrong. The existing act serves three important purposes: increasing efficiency, improving access to justice, and modifying behaviours. While the act is procedural in nature, it is a powerful tool in accomplishing these three purposes.

Efficiency is gained by joining together a number of lawsuits that might otherwise be brought separately. Access to justice is created by grouping together many small claims in a larger proceeding in which the legal costs will be shared. Behavioural modification is obtained as claims that might otherwise go unprosecuted will be brought. The prospect of these class actions removes the comfort zone for those who might assume that minor wrongs would not result in litigation. It is also important to remember that while accomplishing these purposes, the Class Proceedings Act does not create any new causes of action.

Since Alberta’s Class Proceedings Act was passed, three changes have been recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the court. The first is that nonresidents should be treated in the same manner as residents for the purpose of participation in a class proceeding. The second is that criteria should be adopted to assist the court in determining whether Alberta or another province is the most appropriate jurisdiction for a class action to proceed.

Third, their recommendation is to expand the requirement for the court approval of settlement, abandonment, and discontinuance of proceedings to include a situation in which a certificate application has been brought but has not yet been decided. These amendments seek to reflect these recommendations in the existing legislation. The first proposed change will align Alberta with the majority of other provinces by shifting from an opt-in to an opt-out regime for nonresidents.

Currently residents of Alberta who meet the requirements of the class are automatically participants in a class proceeding brought in Alberta. Nonresidents may participate only if they take the steps to opt in. The amendments proposed in Bill 20 would allow nonresidents to participate in class proceedings

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101066 in the same manner as residents. Both residents and nonresidents who meet the requirements of the class would automatically be participants in that class proceeding unless they opt out. Many times the same or similar class proceedings are brought in more than one province.

The proposed amendments in this bill would resolve issues around jurisdiction by establishing criteria to guide the courts in determining whether Alberta is the most appro- priate venue for the class action to proceed and requiring notice to be given by those bringing a class proceeding in Alberta to individu- als who have brought similar proceedings in other provinces. These individuals will then have the ability to make submissions to court.

In instances where class proceedings brought forward in Alberta overlap with class proceedings in other Canadian jurisdictions, the court will decide whether it is appropriate for the lawsuit to proceed as a multijurisdictional class proceeding in Alberta or whether it is more appropriate for the court to defer to the jurisdiction of another court. Several objectives will be considered when making these decisions.

These include but are not limited to ensuring that interests of all parties are given due consideration, ensuring that justice is served, avoiding the possibility of irreconcilable judg- ments, and promoting judicial economy. The third proposed amendment to this bill will expand the requirement for court approval for settlement of actions. Currently court approval of settlement is required in two situations. The first situation is when proceedings have been certified as a class proceed- ing. Court approval is also required in order to abandon or discon- tinue a class proceeding.

The second situation is when certification is sought as a condition of settlement for the purpose of imposing the settlement on persons who will be class members. The proposed amendments would expand the requirement of court approval for settlement, abandonment, and discontinuance to include situations in which an application to certify a proceeding has been brought but has not yet been decided. This change will allow the court to protect the interests of prospective class members.

In conclusion, shifting from an opt-in to an opt-out regime for nonresidents will align Alberta’s Class Proceedings Act with legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions. Expanding the require- ment for court approval for settlement will increase the protection for plaintiffs in class proceedings. These changes together with adoption of criteria to guide the court strengthen the existing act to better reach the goals of increased efficiency, improved access to justice, and behaviour modification. I urge all my colleagues to support Bill 20, and I look forward to hearing feedback from the House. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. With that, I adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Bill 21 Wills and Succession Act The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill 21, the Wills and Succession Act. Our family and property interests are considerably different today than in the 1920s, which was the last time there was a general review of Alberta’s succession laws. We’re living longer, we’re seeing more nontraditional family forms, and over our lifespans we are holding many different jobs.

We become involved in many different financial interactions, whether personal, family, or business-related. Alberta needs a modernized law to reflect the changing social realities for Albertans. This is the purpose of Bill 21. Bill 21 does not change the underlying principles of our succes- sion law. Succession law continues to be about balancing property, family, and contractual rights and responsibilities. The traditional principle of succession law will continue, and that principle is, with certain exceptions, that a person should be free to dispose of one’s own property as one wishes.

This is the principle of testamentary freedom, or freedom of disposition. The exceptions include that one’s legal and contractual obligations must be met and one’s family should be looked after. A related principle also remains constant. If a person dies without a w ill, after legal obligations are met, it’s reasonable to assume that he or she wants family to inherit the estate. However, the purpose of the new legislation is to allow these principles to operate in the evolving family and economic context of Alberta. The new legislation refocuses succession law.

To be clear, there’s no evidence that Albertans care less or will in the future care less about their families. Family comes first when Albertans think about what happens to their property when they die, but there is a change in the possible ways that Albertans carry out this intent. This legislation attempts to do this in several ways. The statute is intended to allow development of succession law in a modern and evolving family context. For example, recent Supreme Court of Canada cases established presumptions about gratuitous transfers of property from parent to child.

These cases are based on current family values and practices. This modern common law should continue, and evolution of the law should be fostered. In recognition that a family business deal and a disposition in a will may intersect, the statute allows for application of basic business or property law, including limitations rules, the law of gifts, or contract law, to the circumstances of a family transfer.

For example, if a court finds a deal between a deceased and an heir is a valid loan agreement, it can direct an appropriate remedy. 3:10 The statute is designed with settlement of disputes and efficient use in mind. This is demonstrated in three ways. Firstly, there was a conscious attempt to harmonize with existing law both in succes- sion law and in relation to other areas such as trusts, pensions, adult guardianship, contracts, and general property. Secondly, the bill removes hurdles to finding the law. Outdated terminology is removed, and five statutes are consolidated into one and modernized.

Those five statutes are the Wills Act, the Intestate Succession Act, the Survivorship Act, the Dependants Relief Act, and

section 47 of the Trustee Act. Thirdly, although the legislation is drafted in terms of what courts can and cannot do – for example, it directs how a court must interpret a will – this is not to suggest that Albertans will take all their wills or estate matters to court. Most people do not do this, and there’s no reason to believe that that will change. Some have referred to succession law as family law for the deceased, and in some cases conflict is inevitable where property and family issues mix.

With the new statute Albertans and their advisers can look to the act to see what a court may do and use this information to predict court outcomes, thereby resolving disputes. As you can see, clear rules found in a single statute will make resolution of estate matters more efficient and less costly. All of this said, the c ourts remain integral to the operation of succession law. The legal principles we are working with can be traced back two centuries. If history is a predictor, the fundamental principles of this law will not change for a long time. The statute is a principle framework.

The court applies it over time and as Alberta society changes. Take, for example, family support on death, formerly called dependant relief. It’s important to note the name change, which

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1067 signals a modern trend away from describing people as dependants. In future family support cases it will be for the court to apply cases such as the Stang case, which sets out how the principles currently operate to the new and evolving community and legal standards. I’ve just provided a general overview. I’d like to now provide you with the specifics of this legislation. The content of the changes was strongly supported in public and technical consultation. I’ll begin with modernizing the definition of child.

The new act defines child as all children of a person as defined in the Family Law Act and including children in the womb at the time of death. This harmo- nizes with Alberta’s family law, including the changes proposed to the Family Law Act in Bill 20. Regarding survivorship, this is an example of a reform designed to match modern values and create efficiency. It eliminates the need for double probate and creates consistency with insurance law.

Current law is that if two people die at the same time or in circum- stances where it’s unknown who died first, all the property interests flow as if the youngest person survived. The new act will provide that for the purposes of property each person is deemed to have died first. If they owned property jointly, the property is deemed to be split among them. Regarding wills, the current Wills Act is repealed, but certain basics such as formalities for making wills are continued. New provisions modernize the way w ills are interpreted and validated.

Recognizing current social realities, Bill 21 removes the rule that marriage revokes a will. It adds a rule that a gift to an ex-partner or ex-spouse is void unless the will says otherwise. The bill provides for minors’ wills. We recognize that some minors may have considerable estates and may have the maturity to decide about its disposition. Focusing on determining testamentary intent, the principle that a person is free to dispose of his or her property as he or she wishes, in addition to codifying common law for interpreting wills, the bill allows extrinsic evidence of a deceased’s intent to aid in the

interpretation of a will. The courts will have new powers to validate a will, and the court will be able to rectify mistakes by adding or correcting words if it is clear that there was a mistake. Witnesses who are disqualified from inheriting can qualify if they prove there is no undue influence. The new act will also help resolve uncertainties in a will. Now if a named beneficiary is unable to inherit, there is a clear list of default beneficiaries. In addition, the act defines certain words such as “kin” or “child” if they are not defined in the will.

Regarding intestate estates there are two significant amendments in the legislation that reflect current values and will increase efficiency when there is no will. If a deceased person leaves a spouse and the children of the relationship with that spouse, everything goes to the spouse or partner instead of being shared between the spouse and children. This allows the surviving spouse to decide how to look after the children.

Secondly, if a person leaves no living descendants or parents, the estate will be split between the maternal and paternal side of his family rather than just going to the closest living relative. Regarding beneficiary designations, the beneficiary designation rules allow properties such as pensions or RRSPs to be disposed of on death by a written designation rather than by will. The law will be moved from the Trustee Act and will be easier to find. Other- wise, there is no legal change here.

Regarding family maintenance and support, this part of the act maintains the current law, allowing certain family members to apply for support from the estate. There are two major changes. The first is a new provision. An adult interdependent partner or a spouse of a deceased person will have an automatic right to stay in their shared home for three months after death. This provides a temporary right of shelter for spouses or partners who are not registered on the title of their home or named on the lease.

This reflects the fact that a home is required for compassionate reasons and prevents individuals from changing the locks on a grieving spouse. In addition to cleaning up some wording and updating procedure, we are also adding to the list of family members who can claim support from the estate to include minor grandchildren and great- grandchildren as well as adult children under the age 22 who are in school full-time. These changes reflect the st rong support we received during our public consultation, which was in favour of broadening the group of family members who can apply for support from the estate.

Regarding advancement and appeal in aid of modernization a number of outdated presumptions and doctrines are repealed. To replace some of these ancient rules, if there is a dispute about whether property transfers made during life impact inheritance, the court can decide what the party’s intention was and make a direc- tion. Again, this is intended to better reflect modern realities and to ensure that individuals settle their legal obligations.

Regarding the Matrimonial Property Act amendments, the new Wills and Succession Act will amend the Matrimonial Property Act to entitle a spouse to matrimonial property whether the marriage ends due to death or due to divorce. As the law now stands, married people who divorce are entitled to more or less half the property acquired during marriage. However, couples who lose a spouse to death do not have this same entitlement. It’s worth noting that Albertans leave most if not all of their estates to their spouse in most cases.

Similar to the other changes made by the bill, this was well supported in public consultation and is consistent with the law in other provinces. In conclusion, the work through this bill will not be entirely done. In the coming years, further reforms are planned for the rules for estate administration; that is, the role of executors or others who administer property on death. Mr. Speaker, family comes first, and Bill 21 affects all Albertans. For the future this law provides modernized means to achieve the accepted principles, freedom of disposition, support of family, and fulfillment of legal obligations.

The amendments I discussed today will result in a relevant and accessible law that will better serve Albertans, providing for a more prompt resolution to issues concern- ing family and property matters so essential during times of bereavement. I urge all my colleagues to support Bill 21. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now move to adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 3:20 Bill 22 Family Law Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to move second reading of Bill 22, the Family Law Statutes Amend- ment Act, 2010, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to amend three family law acts: the Family Law Act, the Maintenance Enforcement Act, and the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. Changes to these pieces of legislation reflect the needs of Alberta’s changing families and will help increase service, improve efficiencies, provide clarity, and streamline processes.

Alberta Hansard November 2, 20101068 The first piece of legislation that Bill 22 purports to amend is the Family Law Act. This is the legislation that contains the core of family law in this province. It deals with parent-child relationships and the rights and obligations of guardians. When the Family Law Act was proclaimed on October 1, 2005, it consolidated, harmo- nized, and updated provisions from many provincial family law acts and contained substantial changes to government policy.

The act has been well received; however, some amendments are needed to ensure that it provides answers to the legal issues relevant to Alberta families today. Amendments to the Family Law Act will complete the g round- work with regard to the parentage of children being born using assisted human reproduction, it will clarify certain aspects of law relating to parents’ guardianship of their children, it will eradicate the status of illegitimacy, which I will touch on later, and it will clarify some matters of core jurisdiction and procedure as well as tend to housekeeping matters. Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the assisted human reproduction issues and solutions that were identified, there’s been extensive work done by the federal, provincial, and territorial deputy ministers of Justice and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The work was conducted by a national committee of senior family law officials upon which Alberta has played a significant role. We also consulted with the bench, the bar, and service providers and explored case law at all levels of the court. As well, independent evaluation of the Family Law Act was performed by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.

Infertility is a real barrier to many Albertans who wish to create a family, Mr. Speaker. There’s an estimated infertility rate of 7 to 8 and a half per cent in Canada. This could translate to 25,000 couples in this province alone. Advances in assisted human reproduction technologies have created new opportunities for infertile couples to become parents. The demand for this technology may increase as more couples seek infertility services as costs of these said services decrease and fewer children are available for adoption.

The medical aspects of assisted human reproduction such as what technologies can be practised are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, the legal role for provinces and territories is to establish parentage status when children are born as a result of this technology. Mr. Speaker, Alberta currently has the most advanced law in Canada with respect to these children. Our parentage law has not kept up with the advances in this technology. Not all the combina- tions of parents and children are covered.

There are a number of consequences to this, including Charter deficiencies in the current law, the need for some couples to resort to adoption to be recognized as parents, and judges being required to make decisions without clear policy and law in place. Adoption law is important, but it does not fill the need identified in assisted human reproduction situations. The changes were are looking at are aimed at facilitating parentage at the birth in situations when the intended parents cannot produce a child by natural means.

We must of all things remember that in this province the interests of the child are paramount. For their protection and best interests the parentage of children born through this technology needs to be certain at the first possible moment subsequent to their birth. In Alberta unless a statute or a court says otherwise, the legal parents must both have a biological connection to the child.

Our current assisted human reproduction provisions are built in on this idea with a small exception allowing for a person to be a parent if they consent to their spouse or their partner’s use of artificial insemination or surrogacy. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this quickly become very complex. But this alone does not cover all the possibilities.

In developing these amendments, we are working on the basic policy premise that for any couple using any form of this technol- ogy, a biological connection to at least one of the intended parents and the consent of their spouse or partner will substitute for the traditional requirement of biological connections to both parents. This allows expansion of parentage law to assisted human reproduc- tion situations, including those where surrogates may be involved.

The law will continue that a birth mother can only lose her status as the parent if she consents after the birth of the child, and surro- gacy agreements will continue to be unenforceable. This is in order to encourage surrogacy for altruistic and not economic reasons. The law will continue to provide that a person who donates reproductive material – that is, who provides it purely for someone else’s use – would not be a legal parent of the child by reason of donation alone. These amendments would provide the same level of legal certainty for parents and children regardless of the method of conception.

Pursuant to the proposed amendments the child’s legal parents must fall under one of the following categories, the first one, where assisted reproduction is not used, the birth mother and the biological father; the second, where assisted reproduction is used but does not involve a surrogate, the parents are the birth mother and the spouse or common law partner of the birth mother who at the time that the pregnancy was started consented to be a parent of the child; or where a surrogate is involved, the parents will be the person who provided the genetic material and their spouse or partner, as long as the surrogate consents after the birth to relinquish the child, confirmed by a special order of the court.

Of course, if the child is adopted, the parents are the persons specified as parents in an adoption order. Mr. Speaker, Alberta legislation will continue to be based on the principles that a child can have a maximum of two parents and that a child may have multiple guardians. Dealing with guardianship, under Alberta law the power and responsibility to look after a child is attached to the guardianship status, not the parenthood status.

In Alberta both parents are guardians of their children although exceptions need to be made for this role such as when a parent cannot be located or when the pregnancy was the result of a sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, we currently base guardianship partly on the residence of the child, and this has created some uncertainty. Bill 22 will make the standard for determining a parent’s guardianship the parent’s willingness to be a guardian. If there is a dispute about a parent’s guardianship, the court will have the ability to make a determination on individual circumstances.

Where it is in the best interests of the child, the court w ill continue to be able to appoint other individuals as guardians. Dealing with the matter of illegitimacy, Mr. Speaker, amendments to this bill will also abolish any distinction between the status of a child born within marriage and a child born outside of marriage. Most of these distinctions have already disappeared from the law. Consequential amendments to a number of statutes are required, including the repeal of the Legitimacy Act. There are some other amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Other amend- ments to the Family Law Act contained in Bill 22 include providing for applications to vary the support orders and support agreements that bind the estate of a payer parent after that parent’s death so that the estate could be wound up; also, changing the reference from “primary home” to “family home” to coincide with proposals in the Wills and Succession Act that are also before the House, as refer- enced before the House by the Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose; clarifying that the obligation to provide spousal or adult interdepen- dent partner support is not absolute and depends on a variety of factors; and clarifying that the court’s jurisdiction to grant a guardianship order, a parenting order, or contact order pursuant to

November 2, 2010 Alberta Hansard 1069 the Family Law Act continues unless and until a court makes an order with respect to custody or access in divorce proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my comments to amendments to the Maintenance Enforcement Act, which are already included under Bill 22. Alberta’s maintenance enforcement program, or MEP, enforces child and spousal support orders and certain agreements to take action in a fair and unbiased manner.

The program continually examines its policies and procedures to ensure it is providing the best possible service to all clients as well as monitoring trends in family law cases and legislation. The MEP has identified areas that require amendments to increase efficiency, fairness, and service to its clients. One area we’re looking at is contact information. Currently, there’s no legislative requirement for debtors or those who owe support to keep their contact or employment information c urrent.

The MEP is currently not able to require creditors or those who receive support payments to provide their contact or financial information. It is important for the MEP to be able to contact clients for a variety of reasons, including, without limitation, advising clients of changes to the program, verifying the eligibility status of the dependents, and collecting fees and penalties that may be owing. Mr. Speaker, the MEP uses a great deal of resources to gather this information, and the delay in having up-to-date information impacts certain collection activities.

Amendments in Bill 22 require debtors to keep their employment information current as well as requiring both creditors and debtors to keep their personal addresses and contact information up to date. Mr. Speaker, amendments will also require that persons, businesses, and government entities release the information in their possession regarding the location of creditors, allowing the MEP to communi- cate with creditors in a timely manner pursuant to the information in their files.

This will also put Alberta’s legislation in line with Manitoba’s and Ontario’s maintenance enforcement legislation in those two respective provinces. 3:30 Bill 22 also seeks to update the definition of business organization to ensure that the MEP will be able to communicate and gather information from new and emerging corporations and entities. By ensuring that these entities are covered pursuant to the act’s

definitions, it will allow the MEP to demand enforcement-related information from an expanded group of business organizations. It will also ensure that the MEP is able to locate and place the appropriate enforcement tools, allowing them to collect maintenance payments on a timely basis and, ultimately, getting these payments to the vulnerable Albertans who count on them. Confidentiality is also addressed in this bill, Mr. Speaker. The Maintenance Enforcement Act places tighter constraints on the release of information than the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Bill 22 proposes a shift towards aligning the release of the client information with the principles contained in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This will ensure that the maintenance enforcement program is providing trans

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20101102
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L27 S3 20101102 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	790b28a9dc1ba668c3290e8d7595c4ef5987bf4e

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