Alberta Hansard — 9 May 1996, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 4)

19960509

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1749 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, May 9, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/05/09 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. We give thanks to God for the rich heritage of this province as found in our people. We pray that native-born Albertans and those who have come from other places may continue to work together to preserve and enlarge the precious heritage called Alberta. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions MR. KIRKLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition this afternoon signed by 2,051 Leduc and area residents.

They are opposing the proposed use of the Leduc hospital “by a private- interest company.” MR. ZWOZDESKY: Two thousand? MR. KIRKLAND: And 51. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, on February 22, 1996, while responding to a question from the hon. Member for Little Bow regarding preventive medicine, I indicated I would endeavour to table a variety of the initiatives that have been taken across the province by regional health authorities.

Today I'm pleased to file copies of success stories and an inventory of innovative health programs and services that have been introduced by the regional health authorities. They were presented to the Premier and to me at the regional health authorities' forum in February. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table copies of two major policy initiatives which will put back into government policy the word “multiculturalism,” the words “commitment to a policy,” the words “contribution made by ethnocultural groups,” and the words “cultural retention.” These words don't cost the government anything. Everyone can benefit from them. They are amendments that I'm proposing to Bill 24, which unfortunately the government is using to abolish the Alberta Multiculturalism Act and along with it these very key words and these very key phrases.

These were approved by Parliamentary Counsel on May 6, and I table them for the House now. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I table today six copies of 25 letters from constituents around the province urging the government to put a ban on smoking in government buildings. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today we're pleased to have 143 visitors from the Olds high school in my constituency. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Garry Woodruff, Mrs. Gaylene Roelfsema, Mr.

Robert Worsfold, Mrs. Rhonda Varga, Mr. Dana Negrey, and parents Mrs. Adeline Johnson, Mr. Jim Crawford, Mrs. Linda Gall, Mrs. Helen Niemeyer, Mrs. Wendy Clarke, Mrs. Meryl Machellus, Mrs. Annalisa Jackson, Mrs. Audrey McKenzie, Mrs. Anhorn, Mrs. Linda Hall, Mr. Lyn Roberts, and Mrs. Diane Ross. We have a number of these guests with us in the gallery, and I wonder if they would stand and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I'd like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a good friend of mine from the Lac La Biche area, currently living in Agassiz, B.C., a businessman who has come here to Alberta looking for the Alberta advantage. SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's here, Sine. It's here. MR. CHADI: He hasn't found it yet though. He's looking. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also add that Ray Prevost, who is now standing in the public gallery, is also a son-in-law of a former member of this Assembly, the late Dr. Dam Bouvier from Lac La Biche.

He was a member of this Assembly in, I believe, the late '60s, early '70s. I would ask all members of the Assem- bly to please give Mr. Prevost a warm applause. THE SPEAKER: The hon. deputy Leader of the Opposition. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legisla- tive Assembly two of my constituents. Judy and Franz Scharfen- berger are here today accompanied by Judy's parents, Gerald and Fronie Miller, and by two visitors from Newfoundland, Clarence and Primrose Verge.

I would ask that they all stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Today it is my pleasure on behalf of myself and I suppose the hon. Treasurer to introduce visitors from Archbishop MacDonald high school in the constitu- ency of Edmonton-Glenora. It's a group of exceptional students accompanied by their teacher Mr. Bill Kobluk. I would invite them to please stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Bow Valley Centre MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, the people of Calgary are continuing to ask questions about the rationale for closing the Bow Valley centre. They're asking questions, but they're not getting any answers from the Minister of Health or from the Calgary regional health authority. Dr. Fred Moriarty, a doctor who works at the Bow Valley centre and the well-respected former head of the Alberta Medical Association, describes the health care system in Calgary as being, quote, at a very critical level, unquote. He

1750 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 goes on to say: every day every bed is full; this city is working at the red line. To the Minister of Health: can she explain how the health care system in Calgary will cope given that today every bed is full, yet she is still planning to shut down the 376 beds now open at the Bow Valley centre? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I read the same

article yesterday. Dr. Moriarty I believe probably does practise at the Bow Valley now; he was a physician at the Holy Cross hospital previously. If the hon. leader researched his information fully, he would know that the Calgary regional health authority have determined that they have enough bed capacity in their region into the year 2005, I believe it is, but it's certainly over the year 2000. I'll certainly get that information and make sure that that is the exact year that they have documented. There are a number of beds that are not open in the other facilities. I think that if the hon.

Leader of the Opposition and his caucus wanted to be really, truly helpful to the citizens of that community in Calgary, they would do as the government MLAs are on this side of the House.

They're invo lved with the discussions at a community level as to what type of care is best for the inner-city residents, looking at the services that are important to the inner- city residents, ensuring that they have high-quality care in that city and that they indeed have centre s of excellence in that city that serve the residents of that city and, I'm proud to say, a great deal of southern Alberta, including some inpatient work that they do for a portion of lower southeastern British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's time to get proactive on the other side of the House, to get involved in those community discussions. They are occurring right now in Calgary. It is an opportunity to not look at the status quo and what was but to look ahead and say: “What's best for the future? What's best for the citizens of Calgary and the inner city?” That's what my MLAs are doing. 1:40 MR. MITCHELL: The one person who should be proactive about health care in this province, Mr. Speaker . . . THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. [interjections] Order please. Those remarks did not appear on the record. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition for a supplemental question. MR. MITCHELL: Should I say them again for the record, Mr. Speaker? That's the MLA who should take responsibility. Mr. Speaker, given that Calgary's bed ratio is already below the minister's own standard and that a well-respected member of the medical community, yet another one, is saying that there are bed shortages already before closing the Bow Valley centre, will she at least order an independent public review of the decision to close this hospital? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.

Leader of the Opposition at least, at minimum, at the very least get some information on the number of available beds in Calgary in the facilities that are designed to stay open? At the very least. Now, I understand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not required to answer questions in this House, and for that I'm thankful. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that the Calgary health authority are working with the citizens in that region to determine the health needs of the inner-city residents and how best to serve them.

The MLAs on this side of the House, particularly those from Calgary, are working with that Calgary regional health authority in a very proactive way to determine those needs, to listen to the citizens, and to provide the best way of delivering those services. They are looking forward, not backwards. MR. MITCHELL: Listen to the citizens right up until they say . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. MR.

MITCHELL: What will it take for this minister to accept the conclusion of University of Calgary health care economist Malcolm Brown, who has said recently that with the closure of the Bow Valley centre, Calgarians can look forward to higher mortality rates? Mr. Speaker, this means more people are going to die unnecessarily in Calgary. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the work of health economists in this province, whether they be from Edmonton or Calgary.

In fact, that noted health economist has been a part of some of the work that we have done in determining the future health needs of this province. Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate again that the discussion is occurring in Calgary right now: how do we provide the best services to the people of the inner city, the downtown area?

I can tell you that the MLA for Calgary-Mountain View is out there listening to the people in his c onstituency, where that hospital is situated, working with those resi dents, working with the health authority, and making sure that his constituents and all of the people in that inner city are going to be well served. He is supported by the rest of the MLAs in a very proactive and productive way. I invite them to get on board and get proactive. Out-of-Country Medical Services MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, it seems that every time an Albertan has a problem with the health care system, the Minister of Health says to refer it to one of her many health care appeals committees. Well, recently Margo Plotsky t ook the minister's advice and wrote to the minister's health services appeal panel about this government's refusal to put her 13-year-old daughter on the U.S. list for a badly needed heart transplant. Mrs. Plotsky isn't even going to be allowed to attend the meeting where the panel will decide her fate.

To the Minister of Health: what kind of appeals process can this possibly be when this mother can't even attend this appeal meeting in person to plead her case for her daughter? MRS. McCLELLAN: There was a great deal of discussion in this province – and in fact I think if you reviewed Hansard, there were some criticisms from the opposition, surprising as that might be – on the process that we had for out-of-country services and a suggestion that the minister might carry influence.

Now, not because of that discussion – I'm kind of used to those comments – I sat down with a group of people who were providing referrals to the out-of-country committee, with parents, and indeed potential recipients of transplants in a very large meeting in this very building, Mr. Speaker. I asked them how that appeal process, how that referral process should work. Now, these are people that are directly involved either as providing the referrals or providing the service or indeed being recipients of needed services.

With that input and with that advice from medical experts and families, we provided a procedure for out-of-province services.

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1751 That was outlined clearly. There is an expert group that reviews that. There is an appeal process. Physicians may come to that and present the case. This process is one that was recommended, and it was adopted. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us: why does this panel have to conduct itself in such a secretive way? What does this committee have to be afraid of? Why can't it be open and provide some sense of justice to this woman and her 13-year-old daughter, who needs a heart trans- plant? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, the out-of-country committee itself does have a public member on it. Why the proceedings of the committee work and the appeal group are not public or held in a public venue is to protect the confidentiality of medical information of persons from this province. It was my understand- ing that a full report on the findings of that committee will be made available to the family, that family or any other family. Frankly, I believe this is a medical issue, and it should be determined on a medical basis.

I believe that the physicians who are in charge of cases are in the best position to put those medical issues before this committee that decides on a medical procedure. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, what good does some report after the fact do for that woman and her child if she hasn't even had the chance to present her case before that panel that's going to determine the fate of her child? That is such an arrogant answer, and if anybody should be proactive, this . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. [interjections] Order, hon. members. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the minister has acted in a very proactive way in listening to people who gave us advice as to how out-of-country services authorization should occur. It was determined that this was a medical issue, that it should be decided by medical professionals. Indeed, to ensure that public interest was also there, a public member was named to that committee.

I remind the hon. member again that confidenti- ality of information is extremely important, and if the person, the subject of this discussion now, has any questions about this procedure or their ability to participate, I would prefer that they would direct them directly to me. Capital Health Authority MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister's lack of faith in the Capital health authority board members has resulted in them being unable to do their job. Y esterday they were only able to release a four-month budget even though we are more than a month into the fiscal year.

The Capital health authority has already cut spending by over $163 million, and their funding from govern- ment is down by almost 17 percent. People in Edmonton need to have some reassurance that the minister knows what she is doing and that performance targets are in place. How does the Minister of Health know that she hasn't already cut too many dollars out of this budget, and where are the performance targets? 1:50 MRS. McCLELLAN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Capital health authority is in full support of the process that is a bout to take place.

The decision to review the Capital health authority's clinical needs and services was made in a decision with the Capital health authority. I met with the entire board, and we discussed this very thoroughly. They support this recommenda- tion and this activity taking place. I can assure the hon. member that the Capital health authority board members are as anxious as we are to understand why the Capital region is having difficulty meeting its health care services needs within budgets that 16 other regions in this province are working under. They want to understand that.

They don't have the answers; we don't have the answers. If we had the answers, Mr. Speaker, we would not be embarking on this process. To suggest in any way that we are undermining the Capital health authority does a disservice to those board members, who support this process and also are extremely supportive of the fact that the Premier of this province said that patient care in this region will not be compromised while we have those reviews occur and that the $7 million that they indicate they need to continue their programming is there in place until the conclusion of that review.

MS CARLSON: Being replaced means being undermined. Mr. Speaker, given that acute care beds for inpatient days have dropped from 637 per thousand population to 442, which is far, far below the national average, can the Minister of Health tell us how much further below the national average she's going to allow us to drop in this region? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is taking a very positive part of what the Ca pital health authority has been able to achieve in this area and trying to turn it into something negative.

We should be applauding the Capital health authority and the physicians that work in this region, as the Auditor General noted and the KPMG report noted, for the success that this authority has had in putting in new ways of delivering services, with more emphasis on day surgery, more emphasis on at-home care. That is a success story in this city no matter how they try to turn it around. Maybe the nation will try to rise to their achievement levels. MS CARLSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Health please tell us if her performance target for beds in this region is going to stay at 1.47 per thousand when the provincial average is 2.4? Is it going to drop even further? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the bed count for this region is not my target. The provincial average policy set by this government is 2.4, and it is an average. Most people who understand delivery of health services know that that bed target will fluctuate across this province because we have differences in our population, differences in numbers of seniors, numbers of babies being born.

There are a lot of things that enter into a bed number target. They would understand, if they got out of here once in a while and traveled out into the country, that there are places where it's a hundred miles between facilities, and obviously a hundred miles between facilities will cause a different need on those beds. Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I will say one more time: health is too important a subject for partisan politics. I invite all members in this Asse mbly to get involved in positive work to ensure that we have a sustainable health system for our province for the future. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Lacombe-Stettler.

1752 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 Alberta Savings Certificates MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta capital bond program has long been a popular investment choice with many Albertans. In fact, many of my constituents continue to invest in our province by purchasing them. Y esterday an announcement was made regarding this year's offering. My questions are to the Provincial Treasurer. What changes have been made to the program for this year, and why is it now called the Alberta savings certificates program? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct.

We have announced r ecently that we are once again issuing investment opportunities for Albertans. We've gone to an Alberta savings certificate this year because the label “Alberta capital bonds” perhaps doesn't fit the program today like it used to. We're not borrowing specifically for capital purposes. These are now savings opportunities, investment opportunities for Albertans. As a result we felt that the name “Alberta savings certificates” was a more appropriate name. This year, Mr.

Speaker, we're not only offering the normal six- month redeemable certificates for a seven-year term, but we're going this year to a nonredeemable, fixed-rate, three-year program that has a higher rate of interest than the redeemable one. That gives Albertans a locked-in, reasonably competitive investment opportunity at the rate of 6 and three-eighths percent. We're also taking an extra step this year in allowing for direct deposit to bring our method of delivering this program more in keeping with the way many Albertans are increasingly doing their banking activities. So we expect, Mr.

Speaker, that the number of Albertans whose certificates will be maturing – some 475 m illion dollars are maturing. We hope that Albertans will not only take up and renew those maturing bonds but see the Alberta savings certificate as something that is worthy of their confidence and their hard- earned dollars. MRS. GORDON: What precipitated or determined the setting of the interest rates for this year's offering? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member won't be surprised that we get calls from Albertans saying: give us a good rate of return.

I've even had a few comments from some of my colleagues on both sides of the Assembly that they'd like to see a higher coupon rate on this investment. Also, my colleagues are supportive of our borrowing money at the lowest possible cost. So when we set a rate of 4 and three-quarters percent for the six- month reset, the redeemable bonds on a seven-year basis, we looked at institutional Treasury bills that were trading in the order of about 5 percent – that's a high – and in the case of bank and trust company GICs over six months, we were looking at 3 and five-eighths.

Setting a rate at 4 and three-quarters we felt was a fair but appropriately low rate that made sure our borrowing was at the lowest possible cost. The same in setting a 6 and three-eighths rate: we were looking at bank and trust company GICs on a three- year basis at 5 and three-quarters vis-à-vis institutional Alberta bonds at about 6.7 percent. So we tried to find that balance, and we received the advice of dealers here in the province as well as those on Bay Street, whose advice we rely on once in a while, and we decided that these were appropriate rates. MRS.

GORDON: Are these certificates comparable to other similar types of investments available, or is there an added advantage, an Alberta advantage? MR. DINNING: There is an added advantage. I've had a number of Albertans write to us saying: “Look; we believe in what the government of Alberta is doing. We want to invest with confi- dence in what you're doing.” We believe that by offering Albertans these savings certificates, an appropriately priced certificate, Albertans are able to one more time sort of lock in their vote for this government taking the fiscally responsible approach that it has taken.

I won't tell Albertans that they're getting a good, g ood, good deal, Mr. Speaker. If they want to get a higher rate of return, they should go invest in the Liberal bonds that are perhaps offered by the government of Canada, where they have to offer that higher premium because those who are rating those bonds don't have the same kind of confidence in what a Liberal government might be doing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. 2:00 Grain Marketing DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Y esterday the informa- tion was released on the minister's plan to facilitate the export of grain from Alberta by the province of Alberta buying the grain from farmers and then having this grain transported across the border and then selling it back to the farmer. I would just like to ask my question to the minister of agriculture. Have you had an opinion on this from the Minister of Justice as to whether or not this process is legal? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Y es, we made a commitment to our producers after the plebiscite which indicated that two-thirds of the producers wanted the option of dual marketing that we would assist the producers in trying to find and establish ways that would ultimately achieve a dual marketing structure. The process that we have looked at – and no decisions have been made as yet – has been in many areas. We are looking at many avenues. One of the areas that was mentioned in the paper of course is one of the approaches that's considered along the way. However, there are many other avenues that are still being explored.

There have been no decisions made at this time. When the final decision is made, we will assure everyone that they will be so advised. DR. NICOL: He didn't tell us whether it was legal, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the minister also: how much is this going to cost the taxpayers of the province of Alberta for administration, transportation, gas, all the rest of it, plus potential legal fees? Has he looked into that? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I just responded to the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, we are exploring; no decisions have been made. So I don't quite understand why the follow-up question.

When a decision hasn't been made, why would he be asking for the details of a decision that hasn't been made? We're simply dealing with a hypothetical question here. If you want me to, I can give you hypothetical answers, but I'm not sure that's what question period is about.

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1753 DR. NICOL: It's called good planning, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister of agriculture right now if he will commit to the people of the province of Alberta that this government will not get involved in any kind of an activity that is illegal. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. We respect the laws of this province; we respect the laws of this country. Certainly we are very strong proponents that if indeed we don't agree with the law, we work together to change the law. Mr. Speaker, I really have to stress to the hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East that we have an issue here with a lot of common- ality, that we have an issue here that's of great concern to the agricultural community of this province. So I would encourage the members of the opposition to work together to lobby our federal counterparts and stress how important it is that changes to the Wheat Board are to be made. We have an opportunity now to work together, and I would encourage that we come together on this particular issue. Breaking the law is not one of the options.

We have always been very clear and we will continue to be very clear that breaking the law is not an option that is being considered. Indeed we have to at the end of the day allow our farmers the opportunity to be able to achieve the highest possible return that they can for the product that they produce. Our producers are concerned about that, as they rightfully should be, as we all should be, because we are obliged to see that they have that option.

So I certainly would encourage everyone in this Legislature to lobby their federal counterparts to see that indeed our federal brethren work together to see that our producers are allowed to get the highest possible return. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. National Education Conference MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Education. The Canadian School Boards Associa- tion recently released a paper entitled Accountability in Education: A Challenge to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

The report calls on education ministers to develop a clear vision of an education system which has its central focus on improved learner outcomes. To the minister: given that our province is hosting a national consultation this weekend based on the theme of accountability in education, could the minister explain which Alberta accountability initiatives he will bring forward at that conference? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the recent release by the Canadian School Boards Association.

It is, however, some- thing that I do not fully understand in the sense that I think it is some two and a half years ago that the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development and myself participated in the development of what was referred to as the Victoria declaration of the Council of Ministers of Education in this nation. I think it lays out a pretty good set of objectives across this country for education as far as the ministers of education are concerned. At this particular conference, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to be putting forth from the Alberta point of view, first of all, the importance of an accountable and open education system in this province and all across Canada, something that is included in both departments' objectives. Secondly, we will be talking about the performance measures that we have put in place, those that have been successful, the degree to which they've been accepted by the public of this province, particularly students and parents, which I think is very significant.

We'll of course be there to learn and to listen to the successes in this area that other parts of the country have experienced. I think the conference, one of several national conferences that have been attracted to Alberta this summer, particularly to the city of Edmonton, promises to be a very important event. I certainly hope that good, clear, accountability measures based on a solid basic core education program in this province will be something that is supported by this conference and that we'll be able to assist the rest of the country and that they will be able to advise and we will learn from them.

THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister outline some of the areas where Canadian ministers of education are working in partnership to increase the quality of education to our students? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, there's been a true spirit of co- operation among ministers of education across this great nation over the last number of years, particularly the last two or three years.

In ECS to grade 12 education, which I'm responsible for, we have put in place the national indicators testing project, where we work together on common assessments in the core subjects of the education system across Canada.

We are also working on a regional basis in this case, as they are in the Maritimes, on the development of common curriculum standards and goals in the core subjects, which I think has a tremendous advantage, every- thing from savings on the purchase of educational materials to allowing students to transfer more easily among provinces and not experience a deficit when they move from one province to another. There have also been some key initiatives in the area of advanced education. I would invite my colleague to supplement. MR. ADY: Mr.

Speaker, I think one of the important areas that we've been involved in is the ability of students to transfer within our system. We have one of the best transfer programs in Canada, if not the best one. As a matter of fact, Alberta was the lead on the interprovincial study on improving transfers in Canada within the CMEC organization. CMEC is asking institutions to sign a protocol for accepting credits and courses from different provinces, and Alberta supports that pan-Canadian protocol on the transferability of credits.

So we'll be discussing that as part of the conference this weekend, which will actually involve some 250 stakeholders from across Canada. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. 2:10 MR. HERARD: Y es, Mr . Speaker . T o the Minister of Educa- tion: given the debate surrounding the role of school councils in this province, will the minister bring forward any recommenda- tions in this area? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, certainly we will share with this conference the very extensive process of consultation that we went through and the results of it with respect to the establishment of our directions and our legi slation and our regulations with

1754 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 respect to school councils. I understand that one of the organiza- tions nationally has raised some concern about school councils; that is, the Canadian School Boards Association. I would think that at this conference the School Boards Association representa- tives would be coming forward very anxious to improve the structures as far as school councils are concerned, because, after all, they are there to support education in this nation and to work with school boards to improve the quality of education.

We'll share our information, and I'm sure the School Boards Association will be there enthusiastically working in this area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Speech Therapy MR. BENIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Up to about 12 years ago school boards had the ability to assign sp eech/language pathologists to assess and treat students in the schools. Control was then transferred over to community health centres, and the schools had to make the request to these centres for assessment and treatment.

Since the establishment of the regional health authorities there seems to be some confusion as to who has what responsibility to ensure that the students receive the treatment they require. To the Minister of Health: once the parents, teachers, and principal of a school determine that speech/language therapy may be required by certain students within the school, what steps should be taken to get the students assessed and the school assigned a speech/language pathologist? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the speech therapy program is under redesign at the present time in the Capital region.

They have put together a task group of parents, school personnel, and experts in this area to look at how the program is delivered and see if they can improve the delivery of this program. To access information on this, certainly the school could contact the community health promotion and preventative services branch of the Capital regional health authority. MR. BENIUK: To the same minister: once the students have been assessed as requiring speech/language therapy, what is the criteria that determines which schools will obtain the services of a speech/language pathologist?

That is, does there have to be a certain number of students requiring treatment before a therapist is sent to the school? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the point that the hon. member raises is a very important one, and I think that because of the concern in this area the regional health authority is looking at a redesign of that program to ensure that there are clear criteria for assessment and for follow-up work after that assessment occurs.

So I would suggest to the hon. member that if he has some information from an area of his constituency that would be of help to that review, he might want to obtain that information and send it to the area that I ju st mentioned to him with the Capital health authority. I think that that could be extremely helpful to those people who are attempting to redesign this program to ensure that it meets more of the needs of the children in the area. MR.

BENIUK: To the same minister: given that a school in the Edmonton-Norwood constituency is currently facing the problem of obtaining the necessary services, will the minister investigate to determine why 18 elementary students who have already been assessed as requiring speech/language therapy are still waiting for treatment to begin after two years? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, recognizing this problem, the Capital health authority is ve ry aggressively recruiting an additional nine I believe it is speech/language therapists.

When they are successful in that recru iting, they will be able to bring that waiting list down considerably. It is an area where there is a shortage, and certainly they recognize this and are recruiting very aggressively right now to try and fill those vacancies to serve those needs that have been identified and to shorten that waiting list. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. Quarterly School System MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Education.

Several months ago I accompa- nied the Minister of Education to Okotoks to hear a presentation by a group of enthusiastic students from Foothills composite high school. These students spoke positively about their experience with the quarter system, and as this school's records clearly demonstrated, they've achieved commendable results: lower dropout rates, higher marks and better student achievement, improved attendance rates, fewer lates, greater flexibility for students, and overwhelming parental support.

To the Minister of Education: what impact did this student presentation have on your welcome announcement yesterday that grade 12 departmental exams will be offered in the 1996-97 school year for schools on the quarterly system? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would have to preface my remarks by saying that certainly these students were not the only representation that I received on this particular topic, but I don't mind quite frankly admitting that the nature of their presentation, the enthusiasm – a very articulate group of students that the hon. member has in his constituency – certainly did have an impact on my thinking and my enthusiasm for putting this particular initiative forward. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Minister of Education: why is your department only offering two grade 12 exam subjects for the first and third quarters of the coming year? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, although there's been a considerable growth – I think about 400 students are currently involved at the grade 12 level in the quarter system – there is a considerable cost involved in the development and administration of additional diploma examinations. We already have three sets of examina- tions – in January, June, and August – for the bulk of the students in the province.

In talking not only with these students but with representatives of school boards, particularly superintendents and others throughout the province, we felt that the two additional examinations, given that, you know, they're taking two courses per quarter under the Copernican system, would meet the needs certainly for the immediate term. Therefore, balancing cost and development time with the needs of students, we came up with two subjects in each of the additional two writings, and I think it's quite acceptable.

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1755 THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Education. Mr. Minister, the question, then, begs to be asked: how much will these additional exam times cost Alberta Educa- tion? Can it be fitted into the current budget, or will it require special warrants? MR. JONSON: The additional cost, Mr. Speaker, is factored into our current budget. It will not require any additional special warrant.

As far as the overall cost is concerned, because we have more long-term plans in terms of expanding the number of examinations, I think ultimately to meet the needs of the modern education system, we will have to develop even more flexibility in the years ahead to administer diploma examinations, and we're going to be factoring in to our approved budget over a period of time probably eventually several hundred thousands of dollars for this particular initiative. THE SPEAKER: Order, please, in the Assembly. There are too many conversations going on. The hon.

Member for West Y ellowhead. 2:20 Kindergarten Programs MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First this government slashed kindergarten funding in half, if you wish, stating that 200 hours was adequate, then in response to public outcry decided 240 hours was actually needed. Now under pressure from parents, teachers, business leaders, and this caucus they've changed their minds again. They've finally seen the light and reinstated 400 hours of program funding, except the funding is now $236 per student short compared to three years ago. So I have some questions on that to the Minister of Education.

Why has the minister reduced funding for a 400-hour ECS program by $236 compared to three years ago when operational costs have increased? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, as all members of the Assembly know, as part of our three-year business plan grants generally across education were subject to a grant reduction: very straight- forward, very open. It was in our three-year business plan. In terms of the restoration of 400 hours of ECS funding, we applied the same standard reduction in grants for ECS when we reinstated the 400 hours as was applied to any of the other grants across the education system.

This has been said before, the question has been posed before, and it's a very logical situation. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, the minister used the word “open,” but why did he announce the return to 400 hours of funded programming, and why did he fail to mention the $236 that was missing? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, we restored the 400 hours of funding less the standard percentage decrease in such grants. [interjections] The hon.

Member for West Y ellowhead across the way, including this one that's yapping – pardon me – this one that's interjecting over here, was several weeks ago provided information from my office that outlined all of the grants, the projected revenues for their jurisdictions, et cetera. This they've known for quite a long time. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that school boards now have a decision to make: either pay the missing $236 or make it up out of other funds, other programs? MR. JONSON: Y es, I certainly do, Mr.

Speaker, and it's a decision to be made, as it was for a number of years with respect to ECS, even before our current budget plan, where school boards made decisions where they were operating ECS as to whether they would pay extra into the ECS grants to enhance their program or not. Last year a number of school boards made a decision to provide 350, 360 hours above the 240 out of their budget without charging a fee, and others at the local school board level – and I've indicated this before quite candidly – decided to charge a very substantial fee. That's not a new development. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Bow Valley. Regional Health Authority Nominations DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The deadline for applying to serve on the province's 17 regional health authorities is Friday, May 10. Could the minister please advise the Assem- bly as to the volume of applications received so far? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members should know that the applications for the regional health authorities do not come directly to the minister. They go to a review committee. However, in discussions with the chair of that review committee I do understand that there are a number of applications coming in.

I also understand that very regrettably the weekly newspapers in our province did not have ads placed in them. This is a very serious concern to me. Nominations to the regional health authorities are extremely important. These boards will be in place until the fall of 1998. Mr. Speaker, to rectify this, because I think it is a serious issue, I have ensured that ads are placed in our weeklies, which cover the most of this province, and have extended the deadline to Wednesday, May 22.

I have written a letter to the Leader of the Opposition informing him of this change and have asked him to advise his caucus of that change so that they can ensure that people in their regions are aware of the extension of this deadline. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a kinder, gentler note, are members now serving on RHAs automatically considered for reappointment, or must they submit a new application form? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, sitting members of the authorities are eligible to put their names forward by application and obviously accompanied by references, as everyone else who wishes to apply to these boards. They are not automatically reappointed. They must apply. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order to expedite the process and the number of applications, could the minister please reiterate where the application forms are available? [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. It doesn't sound too urgent to the Chair.

Might we revert to Introduction of Guests before Members' Statements?

1756 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As mentioned earlier, we have a number of students from the town of Olds visiting with us today. There are 126 students. They're accom- panied by five teachers and 12 parents. I've already identified the names of the parents and teachers, but I would like to intr oduce the 60 that are sitting in the gallery today.

I wonder if they would rise and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Canada Health Day MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunday, May 12, has been officially designated Canada Health Day under the theme A New Perspective on Health. I would ask my colleagues in the Legislature to join me in recognizing this important event. May 12 has been chosen as Canada Health Day in recognition of the anniversary of Florence Nightingale's birth, one of the first public health nurses, indeed a symbol of dedication to all health providers.

Under the joint sponsorship of the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Healthcare Association, health professionals, medical facilities, community programs, and various individuals will be taking

part in activities that highlight the importance of quality health care in Canada. During this time when provinces across the country are making their health care systems more affordable and responsive, Sunday's activities are an excellent opportunity for communities to highlight innovative approaches to care and new programs that meet local health needs.

Here in Alberta, Canada Health Day will help bring attention to the positive changes that have been made in recent years, particularly the intr oduction of innovative services, programs that help promote healthy living, and planning that emphasizes personal choice and community-based input. This is an excellent opportunity for our province to focus on the excellent health services we all enjoy. 2:30 Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all Albertans to celebrate Canada Health Day by participating in their local activities and by contributing in the development of health services in their own communities. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Health Restructuring MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you. On Friday, April 19, I was visited in my constituency office by a woman who asked me to bring the situation of her 88-year-old mother, Mrs. Wasyliw, to the Assembly's attention. In mid-January Mrs. Wasyliw was complaining of severe pains radiating to her back, front, and sides. It appeared at that time that her pain might have come from improper use of a walker. However, as the pain continued, Mrs. Wasyliw was taken to the Royal Alexandra emergency, where she was informed that there were no acute beds available.

On February 10 she was admitted to the Allen Grey auxiliary hospital, where she was prescribed an antidepressant, though she had no record of mental illness, and painkillers. As her pain still continued, a bone scan was ordered on March 14. On March 19 Mrs. Wasyliw was sent to the Royal Alex, fevered, dehydrated, with ulcerated mouth sores and suffering from pneumonia. On March 26 she passed away. It's sad to note that only three days prior to her death it was discovered that she had fractures of the ribs and two freshly fractured vertebrae. The family questions why this was not discovered earlier.

Now the family are left to not only grieve for the loss of their mother but are also left with many unanswered questions, among them: why did the health care system fail their mother when she was refused admittance to the R oyal Alex hospital, how did the dehydration happen, why was Mrs. Wasyliw not transferred to the Royal Alexandra earlier from the auxiliary hospital, why were her fractures not discovered earlier, and how could a woman who was in good health deteriorate so quickly?

The family is left wonder- ing how their mother fell through the cracks and why she did not receive the quality of care that they felt she was entitled to. They want to know how many more Albertans have to fall through the cracks in order for the government to realize that the health care of Albertans must come first. It would appear that this government has assigned a dollar value to each and every Albertan with respect to health care and that once the dollar quota is used up, Albertans' lives become disposable and too expensive to maintain. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie.

Mental Health Week MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The inability to find work or accommodation, shame, low self-esteem, exclusion, and ridicule: added to the burden of coping with mental illness, many Albertans face the added challenges of dealing with the stigma associated with mental illness. May 6 to 12 is Mental Health Week. This year the theme is Stigma.

Throughout the province the Provincial Mental Health Board, the regional health authorities, and the Canadian Mental Health Association have teamed with other agencies and community groups to draw attention to the fact that sometimes the biggest challenge to people with mental illness is not the illn ess itself but society's attitudes towards the mentally ill. In Fort McMurray we have displays in mall areas. The mayor has made a proclamation, and public service announcements are drawing attention to the damaging effects of stigma.

In Edmonton an Open Mind poster and information campaign will be launched involving 651 public facilities and civic work sites. In Red Deer the Red Deer Business Association will host seminars on business sensitivity toward the mentally ill, while human service agencies host a mental health information fair. Calgarians will be urged to perform random acts of kindness, while the youth suicide citizen action committee will be holding a candlelight vigil. In Leth- bridge a coalition of community agencies will host an awareness walk with fund-raising activities, film festivals, and school presentations.

Meanwhile, in the southeast region an advertising campaign is planned. Mr. Speaker, Alberta Health, the Provincial Mental Health Board and the Canadian Mental Health Association, Alberta

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1757 division, will be releasing two joint publications, Bipolar Disor- der: Where's the Balance? and Depression: What is it? What to do? During Mental Health Week and all year long Albertans are urged to find it in their hearts to show compassion and under- standing toward the mentally ill. We do not have the powers to cure all mental illness, but we do have the responsib ility to remove the barriers and give them the quality of life that they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Projected Government Business MR. COLLINGWOOD: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Govern- ment House Leader, pursuant to Standing Order 7(5), the order of business for next week. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, first, as a voluntary suggestion, I would hope all government members would be wishing their mothers a happy Mother's Day on Sunday. From there, as we did last week, we'll have to consult on a daily basis. As we look at the Order Paper today, some six or seven different Bills in committee, and depending on the progress of those, we will be working on a day-to-day basis to inform the opposition about projected business.

THE SPEAKER: Does the Government House Leader have a point of order? Point of Order Provocative Language MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie today predicated her question to the Minister of Health by saying that the minister had lost faith in members of the board. Beau- chesne 408(2) is very clear in terms of comments that are provocative, 409(3) is very clear in terms of comments that are argumentative, and 409(7) talks very clearly about, again, that issue of talking about people who aren't here in the House.

As people see question period on television or as they may read about it in various media publications, the statement made by the member is very provocative, very argumentative, and does cast certain aspersions on people outside the House. The Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie usually doesn't stray into that area normally occupied by other members of her front bench, and I would hope that she would be sensitive to the sanctions in Beauchesne about those questions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on the point of order. MR. SAPERS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

A couple of things to be said about the assertions just made by the Government House Leader. Firstly, the question relates specifi- cally to the Minister of Health and her area of competence as minister and did not refer in any disparaging way to people outside of this Assembly. In f act, it's the Minister of Health – and that was really the point to the question – who has cast a shadow of doubt over the men and women who have worked very hard to do this government's bidding in meeting their budget targets. So on that point clearly the Government House Leader has gone astray with his point of order. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure all members of this Assembly know, if you can relate those allegations to defamation, for example, one of the primary defences to defamation, as I've learned, is justification. Of c ourse, justification, simply put, is the truth. The comments made in the deputy Leader of the Opposition's question were very clearly rooted in truth and therefore do not offend the Standing Orders or Beauchesne. THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair is not prepared to rule that the hon. deputy opposition leader's questions were contrary to the rules. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Point of Order Clarification MR.

RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 23(

h) and (i). At the conclusion of the opposition leader's question regarding Kristy Plotsky, clearly off the record – and I recognize that it was off the record – but also clearly audible from this member's perspective both the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Edmonton-Glenora indicated that Mrs. Plotsky had already contacted Rob Renner and that he'd done nothing to assist her. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Mrs. Plotsky has contacted me, and I have met with Mrs. Plotsky. I have discussed the situation with her a number of times on the telephone.

I have worked with Mrs. Plotsky. In fact, I was the one that pointed out to her that there was an appeal available to her. At that point she was not aware of her right to an appeal. I went through the process with her, and I have assisted her in submitting her appeal. At the same time, Mrs. Plotsky – and I don't blame her – is very concerned about the health of her daughter, like any mother would be. I empathize with Mrs. Plotsky, and I have assisted her in every way that I possibly can. Mrs. Plotsky is attempting to use any assistance that she can get.

At the same time as she contacted me, she contacted her own MLA, the Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, and she also contacted the opposition, the Member for Edmonton-Glenora. She is looking to receive assistance as best she can. 2:40 I am assisting her in a very meaningful way, helping her to understand the system and move through the system, rather than making political grandstanding points by rising in question period and raising points in this Assembly that quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, are not true. There is a process in place for Mrs. Plotsky. I am assisting her through that process.

I'm not politically grandstanding over it; I'm just doing my job as an MLA. I would like the Member for Edmonton-Glenora to retract the statements indicating that I was not acting on the behalf of Mrs. Plotsky. THE SPEAKER: Order please. This is very difficult to deal with because, as the hon. member pointed out, it probably is not part of the record. Our rules do provide for some leeway in making clarifications, and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat has certainly taken advantage of that. The Chair feels that this

chapter should now be closed. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I'd call the committee to order.

1758 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 Bill 35 Personal Directives Act SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have an hon. member standing. The hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. MS HALEY: Good try though. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have three specific areas that I would like to cover in my opening comments.

The first is to respond to questions that were raised in second reading, the second is to respond to concerns that were raised a bout the enduring powers of attorney Act, and the third area that I want to cover is a package of amendments that I've just had distributed throughout the House. I will begin with the first part, which is to answer some of the questions that were raised.

First I want to emphasize that the purpose of Bill 35 is to empower Albertans and to promote self-determination by recog- nizing that Albertans have the ability to appoint an agent and that they can provide written instructions respecting personal matters about making a personal directive, that it is voluntary, and that it must involve careful thought and discussion with one's loved ones. To assist Albertans in making personal directives, an educational package will be developed to explain how to make a directive and to highlight things that a maker of such a document should think about.

There have been questions about the effect of a personal directive on an agent as well as on service providers. For example, can a person be forced to act as someone's agent, or is a service provider required to fo llow instructions in a directive that contravene his or her morals or values? The answer to both of those questions, Mr. Chairman, is emphatically no. If you are named as someone's agent, you can simply refuse to make decisions. Similarly, Bill 35 does not force a service provider to provide services to a maker.

If a directive provides clear instructions that the maker wants or doesn't want a specific service, a service provider has two options: one, to follow the clear and relevant instructions or, two, indicate that he or she is not prepared to follow the instructions and refer the maker to another service provider. This is now an option and will continue to be an option for service providers dealing with any patient with or without capacity.

Public consultation on Bill 58, which was the predecessor to this Bill and was called the Advance Directives Act, identified concerns about having a proxy chosen automatically from a list of relatives to make decisions for an individual. The main concern related to a proxy's lack of knowledge about the wishes of an individual. In addition, the list of nearest relatives was dropped from the legislation as it does not promote self-determination.

It was not dropped b ecause of Bill 28, the Dependent Adults Amendment Act, but I would like to assure you that staff from both departments, Health and Family and Social Services, have worked together on formulating Bill 35. Contrary to what has been suggested, Bill 35 in no way attempts to eliminate the invo lvement of the family in the discussion of personal directives.

In fact, it is expected that most people will name one or more family members to act as their agent and that many people who choose to name someone to assess their capacity for purposes of bringing the directive into effect will in fact name a family member to help with that assessment. In making personal directives, individuals take responsibility for their future personal decisions. This responsibility includes updating or revoking their directive as their wishes, beliefs, and relationships change.

For example, if a person has a directive appointing a spouse as their agent and the couple subsequently divorce, the maker of the directive should consider whether he or she wants their spouse to continue to be their agent. The Powers of Attorney Act, which allows an individual to appoint an attorney to make decisions about financial and property matters on his or her behalf in anticipation of future capacity, does not include a provision to automatically revoke the appointment of a spouse as an agent upon their divorce.

Similarly, an individual should understand that they can specify a date or an event in their directive which results in the revocation of a directive. For example, they could say that this directive is only in effect for a period of five years from the date of signing or that the directive is void if the spouse and the maker of the directive divorce. This is an area that can easily be explained in the educational

section that will be included with the directives. If situations arise where an agent seems to be making inappro- priate decisions or someone is questioning the appropriateness of an agent named in a directive, for example an ex-spouse, any interested party can apply to the court to review the matter. Given the pace of advancement in medical practice, situations may arise where instructions in a directive do not take into account such advances. In these situations Bill 35 would require an agent to follow clear and relevant instructions provided in the directive.

Changes in medical practice may cause instructions to become irrelevant. This possibility highlights the importance of appoint- ing and ensuring that the agent is aware of an individual's beliefs, wishes, and values. Further, if an agent or a service provider is uncertain about whether an instruction is relevant given advance- ments in medical practice, he or she may seek advice from an ethics committee, a family member, or clergy. They may also apply to the court for further advice on the matter. Several members questioned the absence of a provision in the Bill recognizing out-of-province directives.

Such a provision was not included in the Bill because regardless of where a personal directive is made, it will be considered valid in Alberta as long as it meets the requirements for making a directive in Alberta as are outlined in the Personal Directiv es Act.

Also, I believe that recognizing directives made according to requirements and legislation from other provinces would be onerous for service providers as they would be required to verify whether the directive meets the requirements of that province's legislation rather than our own. 2:50 It was suggested that the requirement for service providers to assess a maker's capacity before providing a service is onerous. This requirement simply recognizes existing practice in Alberta of service providers.

In providing any service which requires consent, a service provider must first make a judgment about whether he or she believes that the individual understands the proposed service and is capable of consenting to it. Another commented on issues related to the capacity of an individual to make and revoke a personal directive and suggested that making a personal directive may be a trap that is difficult to get out of.

The requirement for making and revoking or changing a directive are the same with one exception: a directive may be revoked simply by destroying all copies of the original with the intent to revoke it. I believe there are a number of safeguards in the Bill to address

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1759 the issue of capacity. A maker may name someone who after consulting with a physician or a psychologist may determine if a maker lacks capacity and his or her directive should come into effect. In the absence of such a person, two service providers, one of whom must be a physician or a psychologist, may deter- mine if a maker lacks capacity and his or her directive should then come into effect.

Service providers are required to access a maker's capacity before providing a service to determine if the maker continues to lack capacity, and an agent who lacks capacity has no authority to make personal decisions for the maker of the directive. Any interested party may apply to the court to review the capacity of a maker or of the agent. Based on results from the public consultation on Bill 58 and in order to be consistent with the Powers of Attorney Act, a person must be at least 18 years of age to make a personal directive or to act as an agent.

Age requirements for making a directive in other provinces include: at least 19 years of age in British Columbia and Newfoundland, at least 18 years old in Nova Scotia, at least 16 years old in Ontario and Manitoba. During the consultation on Bill 58 the majority of respondents agreed that making an advance directive should be a simple undertaking.

Requiring a certificate of legal advice to make a personal directive could deter many people from making one: those people who cannot afford the legal fees, people who do not want to share their personal matters with a lawyer, people who live in communities where there are no lawyers. Under Bill 35 individuals have the option of going to a lawyer and making their personal directive. I also want to note that in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland a certificate of legal advice is not required to make a directive.

In response to the suggestion that people may refuse to act as an agent for fear of losing their inheritance or entitlement under an insurance policy due to

section 28, my understanding is that a court would look at the circumstances of the situation and all decisions that an agent has made to determine whether or not the agent has acted in good faith before making a decision about that agent's entitlement. A provision similar to

section 28 is included in Manitoba's and Newfoundland's particular directive legislation. One of the principles of Bill 35 that I'd mentioned during second reading of the Bill is that making a personal directive is a voluntary action.

Section 31 is intended to ensure that making or having a personal directive is not a condition of entry to or continued residence in an accommodation. Some commented that Bill 35 may be seen as the first step towards allowing euthanasia or assisted suicide. I believe we've clarified the Bill by including a clear statement about this in the

preamble as well as a clear statement in clause 7(2) of the Bill: illegal instructions are void. I also want to note that some ethicists believe that passing this type of legislation will in fact reduce requests for assisted suicide and euthanasia because people will not feel the helplessness associated with the lack of control over their future care.

The provision respecting remuneration of agents was included in the Bill in an attempt to be consistent with the intent of Bill 28, the Dependent Adults Amendment Act, and to emphasize that a person who agrees to act as an agent should do so b ecause of a close relationship they have with the maker rather than out of an expected gain. A maker may, however, wish to specify in his directive that his agent should be reimbursed or could be reim- bursed for travel costs, time, and other personal expenses. Mr. Chairman, that's

part 1 of my comments.

Part 2 is a response to the concern raised about the changes to the enduring power of attorney Act. It is amended in the Personal Directives Act to ensure consistency in legislation. At this point I would like to table four copies of a letter from the Canadian Bar Association from April of 1991 when debate was going on with regard to the enduring power of attorney Act. The Canadian Bar Association clearly states in their letter their opposition to needing a lawyer or things like an enduring power of attorney Act.

I refer to one paragraph of their letter in which they state: No other jurisdiction in the world, except New South Wales, requires a certificate and even New South Wales only requires that the witness explain the effect of the document and does not require a certificate as to compet ency. Some U.S. jurisdictions go so far as to require the EPA to be witnessed by a notary public (who does not necessarily have to be a lawyer). Some jurisdic- tions require registration, which we would not support. The EPA scheme as proposed prevents people from execut- ing an EPA without seeing a lawyer.

The approach taken by the Government of Alberta to date has been one which permits Albertans to organize their business and personal affairs without the intervention of lawyers. For example, in the wills and estates areas, a person can prepare their own will and can administer an estate without the requirement that a lawyer be involved. If they wish to seek a lawyer's advice they are free to do so. To require the certificate is paternalistic and interventionist.

Well, clearly I support their position, and that's reflected in the Personal Directives Act, which empowers people to make decisions about their own personal matters without involving a lawyer. The third and final area that I want to cover is the package of amendments which have been distributed to all members. I'd like to move the package of government amendments to Bill 35 and that they be debated as a package. I will now take a few minutes to just explain them. With regard to

section A, we've rewritten this to make it perfectly clear that assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other instruction prohibited by law are not to be included in an advance directive. Clause 7(2) states that if a directive contains an illegal instruction, then the directive itself is void.

Section B clarifies the expectation that the person named to assess capacity means an independent decision about the maker's capacity, not during a consultation with a physician or psycholo- gist but after the consultation is complete.

Section C clarifies that an agent is only required to provide the maker's legal representative or any other agent with a copy of that portion of the record of decisions that is relevant to the person's authority. For example, if a maker named an agent for health care matters and an agent for legal affairs, the agent for health care would not be required to provide the agent for legal affairs with a copy of any portion of the record that was not relevant to the agent for the legal affairs side. Subsection (

b) at the top of page 2 is new and allows an agent to share information contained in a record in order to facilitate decision-making on the maker's behalf.

Section D clarifies when a service provider is required to notify a maker's nearest relative; for example, when an agent has not been appointed and a directive does not contain “clear and relevant instructions” or “the agent cannot be contacted” or is “unable or unwilling to make a personal decision.”

Section E. All we've done with this

section is to simply highlight it because we believe it contains a substantive point in law.

Section F clarifies that a service provider is protected from liability for acting in good faith under the Act but is not protected from negligence in providing personal services under this Act.

1760 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 Further, it extends protection from liability to a service provider for following clear and relevant instructions in a directive that does not appoint an agent and that has been changed or revoked without the service provider's knowledge. Page 3.

Section G clarifies the situations where the court may appoint a guardian for a person who has a personal directive and further clarifies that a guardian must follow any clear and relevant instructions in a personal directive and places this requirement in a

section of the Dependent Adults Act that outlines how a guardian must make a decision.

Section H uses terminology that is common to the Dependent Adults Act, and

section I is a consequential amendment to the Human Tissue Gift Act by adding the definition of a maker and a personal directive and by clarifying the principle of enabling a maker to provide instructions to allow his agent to consult to tissue donation and ensures that this is recognized in the Human Tissue Gift Act. Finally,

section J amends the Powers of Attorney Act. It makes the requirements for making an enduring power of attorney the same as those for making a personal directive. We've also adjusted it to make sure that we have a witness. So the second part of the amendment adds the requirements for witnessing the making of an enduring power of attorney that are analogous to those outlined in Bill 35. Mr. Chairman, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes anyone else, I just would like to clarify with the hon. member.

It's your intention, hon. member, to have all of these amendments debated and moved at the same time? MS HALEY: Y es. THE CHAIRMAN: If that's agreeable, I see no reason why not. MS HALEY: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. The whole set will be called amend- ment A1. Sherwood-Park on the amendments. 3:00 MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the several pages of amendments that we've just received – I'll thank the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie for taking some time to give some explanation as to the amendments that are being put forward, including the

preamble to the enacting clause. I think it's a reasonable approach to take, to at least give some indication that the legislation itself will not condone personal directives that would allow for an illegal activity such as an aided suicide or euthanasia. These amendments, Mr. Chairman, are fairly comprehensive. Just having tried to follow the statements that were made by Three Hills-Airdrie to understand what some of these amendments are, I'm taking the hon. member's statements to basically say they are clarifications of what's already in the Bill, that for the most part they're not anything new.

They're just clarifications of sections that are currently in the Bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to on behalf of my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo also introduce some amendments, and I don't think they will be impacted significantly or at all by the amend- ments that are being put forward by the Member for Three Hills- Airdrie, but there are some issues that we've identified in the Bill that we will want to spend some time on in debate in an attempt to convince the member and the government to allow those amendments to go through and, again, are really just some attempts to improve on the Bill.

I think the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie is aware that members on this side of the House are prepared to vote in favour of Bill 35. There is one aspect that I listened to the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie on, and that was with respect to corres pondence from the Canadian Bar Association dated 1991 with respect to the enduring power of attorney. Before I close debate, there is reference, Mr. Chairman, in this particular correspondence to the submissions on Bill 10, and I'm not sure exactly what Bill 10 was, if it was . . . MS HALEY: It was the enduring powers of attorney Act. MR.

COLLINGWOOD: So it was the enduring powers of attorney Act. We currently have the Powers of Attorney Act, and that was in relation to that piece of legislation, not on the advance directive legislation. I guess what I'll do, Mr. Chairman, is I'm going to speak to that issue right now, because there is some contrary opinion. There has been some correspondence much more recently, April 30, 1996, from Shel Laven, who was the chair of the Canadian Bar Association, wills and trusts subsection for southern Alberta, who specifically points to

section 39 of Bill 35 and expresses some serious concerns with th e removal of the involvement of legal counsel in creating an enduring power of attorney. So we appear to have before us some interesting contradictions between what the position is of the Canadian Bar Association and at least of some of the members of the Canadian Bar Association. There is a specific concern expressed with

section 39 in that it removes the requirement for a lawyer in the Powers of Attorney Act for the execution of a power of attorney. What's interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that in Bill 35 the changes to the Powers of Attorney Act are included as consequential amendments to the Personal Directives Act. There has been some argument made that the Powers of Attorney Act amendment is consequential to the Personal Directives Act. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I can't see the connection at all.

The personal directives legislation that is contained in Bill 35 essentially deals with how a person is cared for when they are incapacitated. They can give instructions as to how they will be cared for and decisions made about health care and personal care and so on through an advance directive, but that is essentially the essence of what the personal directive legislation is for. The enduring powers of attorney legislation, the Powers of Attorney Act, deals specifically with the financial affairs of that particular individual.

Because it's dealing specifically with the financial affairs of that individual, it takes on a whole new flavour, because you're now dealing with essentially the estate of that individual, and you're talking about the financial affairs, the assets of that individual. The reason that counsel has been involved in the process of an enduring power of attorney from the beginning is because of the explanatory notes that are contained in the sched- ule, so that the individual understands clearly – understands clearly – the consequences of entering into that enduring power of attorney. It hands over, Mr.

Chairman, tremendous powers to the individual named in the power of attorney as to what can and can't happen to your assets and to your estate. Now, it's a very

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1761 different matter than a personal directive where you're essentially giving instructions about how you are to be cared for in and at a time when you cannot make those decisions for yourself. Now, how those two interconnect. Mr. Chairman, I cannot find the connection between the Powers of Attorney Act, that deals with your financial affairs, and the Personal Directives Act, that deals with your personal care. So I do not accept the argument that has been put forward by Three Hills-Airdrie that it is a necessary, consequential amendment as a result of Bill 35, the Personal Directives Act. If you cut out

section 39, nothing in the Personal Directives Act changes. The Personal Directives Act carries on without having any impact at all, and the Powers of Attorney Act carries on. So that individual can still enter into an enduring power of attorney arrangement with a designate and will still require the inclusion of counsel to explain the process and to be part and parcel of the process.

They are so different in what it is that they accomplish – one, to transfer authority relative to financial affairs; the other, to deal with personal affairs in the case of incapacitation – that there is simply no way, no nexus that I can find between the Personal Directives Act and the Powers of Attorney Act. So with respect to that aspect, I will, if I can, call upon the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie to indicate to me that

section 39 amendments that are contained in amendment A1 essentially entrench and retain what is currently in

section 39 and then give some clarification as to the execution of the power of attorney. The essence of the amendment does not change the fact that you are attempting to cut out the lawyer in

section 39. Now, I simply cannot be persuaded by that argument and because I have seen corres pondence from the chair of the Canadian Bar Association, wills and trust subsection, expressing an immediate concern with

section 39, suggesting that it is a backdoor amendment, that an enduring power of attorney could be executed without legal advice, could be executed without explanatory notes.

By allowing that to happen, you are indeed opening up the possibility, a greater potential for abuse and fraud. 3:10 If an individual can execute an enduring power of attorney without having had the explanatory notes and the advice of legal counsel before the execution becomes valid, I can certainly contemplate many situations where children of elderly parents, where brothers and sisters of elderly brothers and sisters might want to encourage that individual to execute an enduring power of attorney and take over the legal authority over that person's assets, over that person's estate.

This is one of the necessary checks and balances that ought to be in the enduring power of attorney. I will not disagree with the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie that the involvement of legal counsel is not necessary for the personal directive. I accept that proposition entirely. That's because it deals with a decision about personal care in the future on the basis of incapacity and does not deal with the financial affairs and the estate and the financial wealth of that particular individual. I would make no comparison between the two. As I've already stated, Mr.

Chairman, I can't accept the fact that that is a consequential amendment to the personal directive. Now, I am persuaded by the concerns of the Canadian Bar Association, wills and trust

section of southern Alberta that the involvement of legal counsel is necessary for enduring powers of attorney. Because the amendment of the hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie continues to deal w ith that particular issue, I can't agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I'm in a position where I would have to vote against all of the amendments as a package. I don't n ecessarily want to do that, but I'm in a situation where the member has moved all aspects of these amendments in one package. So while I am certainly in favour of some of the aspects of these amendments, I can't accept the amendments relative to

section 39. Therefore, I'm caught between whether I say yes to all or no to all, and I'm afraid I'm in the position of having to say no to all because of the very serious and legitimate concern with

section 39. Y ou know, the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie talked about the power of attorney legislation that we have. She talked about the requirement of legal counsel, saying that was intrusionist and paternalistic and that was interfering in people's lives. I simply can't agree with that proposition either, Mr. Chairman.

This is a circumstance where the necessity of legal counsel ought to be maintained and ought to be retained b ecause there's just no question that there is the potential for serious abuse if there is no requirement to have legal counsel, who gives you the certificate of legal advice and who has taken you through the explanatory notes. I know, Mr. Chairman, that there are two sides to this issue. I know that there are Albertans who would agree with the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. I know that there are Albertans who would agree with my position, that they do not want to be subjected to undue influence.

They do not want to be subjected to, for lack of a better term and to use the vernacular, guilt trips by siblings, sons, daughters, relatives, and so on, who will no doubt express to them: “It's all in your best interest. It's really quick; you just sign here and we're finished.” I think that these are the kinds of protections that have served very well in the past.

I'm not sure that I have heard many who find themselves having to execute a power of attorney say, “Isn't it a hassle for me to have to use counsel to protect my interest in ensuring that I have followed the rules and am aware of what I've done?” Y es, it could be left to being a voluntary propos ition. Y es, individuals could say, “Well, I'm not going to sign a power of attorney until I speak to legal counsel.” I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are many, many Albertans – many Albertans – who do not have a family lawyer in the same way that they have a family doctor.

It is still for many, many, many Albertans a difficult thing to do, to contact a lawyer to talk about concerns that they have. I can imagine many circumstances where a power of attorney could be executed even if the person executing that document is probably saying in the back of their mind, “I should probably be talking to a lawyer about this,” may be persuaded to sign that power of attorney in any event.

If down the road there are problems that arise, if there is abuse or if there is fraud, that individual in protecting their rights yet again will then have to pursue the court for a remedy, and we know that that can be a long and time-consuming and expensive proposition. In

section 39, if we leave the Powers of Attorney Act alone, it is still a case of prevention rather than a case of finding a cure for an abuse or a fraud further down the road, which is simply going to cost that individual more. I don't know that I need to speak to the other matters. I do want to speak to the issue of the psychologist. I did hear the member talk about the “in consultation,” so that would be

section 9(2). If you'll just give me a second, I'll flip to it here. I'm just going to look for it, hon. member. Where are we?

Section 9(2)(a). I'll defer my discussion to moving an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but there is concern with the use of the word “psy- chologist” there, and I'll debate that and deal with that in the form

1762 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 of an amendment. I don't have any difficulty with that change. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any particular difficulty. At least on first blush I don't have any difficulty. If there are other members speaking, I'll make an attempt to look a little more carefully at the amendments that are being put forward, and if I have any other concerns, I'll certainly jump to my feet. At this point in time, with respect to the proposed amendments to

section 39, the

section that d eals with the Powers of Attorney Act, I would encourage all hon. members and certainly my colleagues to express their concern with the government's attempt in Bill 35 to consequentially amend a completely and totally different piece of legislation that has no c onnection to this piece of legislation at all in any way, shape, or form, where they are putting Albertans at risk, where they are walking away from a preventative approach to enduring powers of attorney, where they are encouraging or at least inviting by the dropping of legal counsel requirements the increased potential for fraud and abuse on the people in our society who are in all likelihood, in executing a power of attorney, elderly people or those who for some other reason want others to take care of their assets and their wealth for them. [Mr.

Clegg in the Chair] I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have to recognize the fact as to who we're talking about and who we're dealing with with respect to enduring powers of attorney. My suspicion is that we are not dealing with the wealthy businessman who's middle aged and who wants to execute a power of attorney. My suspicion is that we are dealing with elderly people who are in a situation where they want to do that. So I'm going to encourage my colleagues to speak on this particular issue and, as a result, to vote against the block of amendments. 3:20 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Three Hills- Airdrie.

MS HALEY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to get up and refer to

section 39. We're talking about the amendments to it, and in the amendments the only thing that we have adjusted, according to the way the Bill is with the amendments now, is to require a witness and a dating. I want to go back to what the hon. member said about the Canadian Bar Association now saying that we need to in fact have lawyers involved. I'm troubled by that, b ecause Alberta is the only jurisdiction in the world where we're not capable or compe- tent to sign a power of attorney without a lawyer. If you want to talk about paternalistic, that's probably the worst example of all of them.

As a resident and a citizen of this province and as a nonlawyer I want to be able to write up my own documents and sign them, and when I need to consult with a lawyer, I personally want to be able to make that decision. I don't need the government of Alberta telling me that in order to set my own affairs in order I have to go and see a lawyer. So as a consequential amendment it was felt by the Department of Justice that we needed to have some consistency between our different Bills and directives, so the Dependent Adults Act, the Powers of Attorney Act, the Personal Directives Act all work together.

My goal is to make sure that they all work together in a very simple way, that people can sit down with a loved one and work out the details of their own lives without having to pay somebody $200 an hour to do it. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Red Deer- South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At second reading of Bill 35 it was noted by the mover and other speakers to the Bill that this Bill espoused a principle of self-determination. Self-determination is a concept that appeals to our individualism and in fact has become a politically correct term.

Self-determina- tion of course is closely linked to another term known as auton- omy. Bioethics as taught in textbooks cites autonomy as one of the principles used in framing ethical decisions. Patient autonomy could be simply defined as occurring when patients are able to determine their own destiny without being subjected to the controlling constraint by others. In so doing, the content or the substance of the decision has little significance. The principle of autonomy should not be accepted wit hout debate and most certainly should not be accepted as an absolute right.

Permitting self-determination and autonomy to reach their logical conclusion will result in chaos because the individual is left to themselves to decide matters of right or wrong without reference to a common standard. Therefore, in this Bill, Mr. Chairman, we need to look for those moral constraints that will keep the move to unbridled self-determination in check. I fear that this Bill might allow the claims of individual autonomy to trump all other claims, including those such as the bond between a husband and wife and between parents and children.

Issues as they relate to the person, in particular health care issues, need to be discussed between husband, wife, and with family members. Y ou will recall from your school days that we discussed the idea that no man is an island. We are all dependent and interde- pendent on others. This discussion of values and of navigating the complexities of modern medicine is paramount, and it should at least take place with the individual who will be appointed as the health care agent. If this Bill, Mr. Chairman, fosters that discussion, then it will do what its intentions are.

The irony of the personal advance directives may be the replacement of relationship with the contractual agreement. While we are on the subject of autonomy, I would like to examine and look at clause 7(2). It reads as follows: “If a personal directive contains an instruction that is prohibited by law, the instruction is void.” This clause provides some of the constraints to autonomy to which I referred earlier. I want to be very clear on this point: the present law in Canada forbids assisted suicide, nonvoluntary euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, or involuntary euthanasia. Mr.

Chairman, I'm pleased with the amendment, the

preamble, which makes it clearer what the intent of this Bill is. The

preamble says:

Whereas Albertans should be able to provide advance personal instructions regarding their own personal matters while recogniz- ing that such instructions cannot include instructions relating to aided suicide, euthanasia or other instructions prohibited by law, and on it goes. So then, Mr. Chairman, the constraint on autonomy for the moment is that assisted suicide and euthanasia are not permitted in Canada. I want to be clear on this point, because when people down the road come back to read the debate on this particular Bill, they will see very clearly the intent of this Legislature with respect to these issues. My concern is that should the law change to permit the

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1763 foregoing, this clause no longer provides that necessary constraint. There is reason for concern. On February 23, '94, a special committee of the Senate of Canada was established to examine the issues relating to euthanasia a nd assisted suicide. While the committee generally recommended that existing Criminal Code prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia remain intact, it was not a unanimous view. A minority of the Senate committee recommended to protect individuals who assist in another person's suicide.

A minority also recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to permit voluntary euthanasia for competent individuals who are physically incapable of committing assisted suicide. It is then apparent that the possibility for a change in the present law is not that remote. Precedents from the U.S. courts invalidating laws prohibiting assisted suicide are further evidence that there is cause for concern. Mr. Chairman, permitting the principle of the sanctity of human life to be pre-empted by the principle of autonomy allows anything to be possible. Mr.

Chairman, I also want to make just a few comments about other sections of the Bill as it relates to the obligations of the maker and their agent. We've had some discussion about the involvement of the legal profession this afternoon. There is nothing in this particular Bill that requires the maker to seek out medical advice or legal advice when completing a personal directive. There are a number of responsibilities within this Bill that the maker and the agent need to be aware of when they are fulfilling their duties as required under this legislation.

So I'm going to encourage the minister – because what's going to be important in this Bill, since it's not a requirement to seek medical advice or legal advice, is to make sure that the education and communication is clear on what the responsibilities for both the maker and the agent are with respect to filling out a personal directive. So with those few comments, Mr. Chairman, I will take my place. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few words on Bill 35, the Personal Directives Act.

I stood and spoke in favour of the principle of this Bill at second reading, and I would tell you I'm still in favour of the concept of the principle. I think it's desirable. I would have to share – and I'm sorry to see that in fact she isn't listening, or maybe she is – with Three Hills- Airdrie that I'm a little unsettled by the magnitude of the amend- ments that have come forth.

Now, when we're looking at trying to get some legislation through this particular House, for the sake of efficiency when we're dealing with Bills of a legal nature and amendments of such magnitude, I think it would bode well for the hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie to, I would suggest, consult prior to bringing it to this particular stage. I think she understands the nature of this business very well, whereby a suspicion seems to drive – I mean, that side opposite doesn't trust this side and this side doesn't trust that side.

So that being the case – and I've telegraphed and I think some of my other colleagues have in fact telegraphed that we're supportive of this concept in principle. I do believe that in fact – and I took her at face value when she introduced the Bill, and as I indicated, I still support the principle and concept – it would have assisted us here this afternoon if those could have been shared previously, because the nature of a legal Bill like this, first of all, is very overwhelming. I find myself somewhat handi- capped speaking to some of these amendments that I'm holding in my hand here, Mr.

Chairman, simply because of the time required to read legalese and then digest it. 3:30 Now, I listened to the hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie indicate that she in her situation certainly would like to be given due credit for having the lucid intelligence to construct her own final departure, I guess, if I could use that term, and I think that's a laudable principle. I certainly would like to be in the situation that I could provide that direction. I'm referring to

section 39, the amendment on page 4 that has been handed out. That's a laudable objective, I would suggest, and I would like to capture it as well, and in the perfect world I think that's very, very desirable. I also listened to the Member for Sherwood Park indicating that to remove all legal intervention in this particular case is something we have to be cautious with, Mr. Chairman. Now, as we've dealt with matters in this House, I was thinking of an incident in fact that probably would highlight or give reason or cause to ensure that there's some legal filter to ensure that there's nothing untoward that occurs with the wording of

section 39. We've spent a lot of time chatting about some principles in this House, and it's a matter of public record, for example, that Viola Edgar, who is the mother of Page Edgar, was asked to leave her residence, her home, and in order for Viola Edgar to recover her possessions, she actually had to take her own daughter to court to recover those possessions. If you'll bear with me, you'll see the concern that I have here. In this case here Page Edgar, of course, filed a countersuit to sue her very own mother, and also Mr. Talbot became involved in that suit and also was in the process of suing Viola Edgar.

If you look at this situation, it is not one that is friendly. It is full of acrimony. There was a potential here to be very controlling. Certainly I would think of Mrs. Viola Edgar, who happened to be very ill at the time, not being in a situation to deal with this in a lucid manner, and I would see some controlling, overpowering interest that may drive this woman to make some decisions that perhaps weren't in her best interest. That's where I see a need for some legal – call it intervention; I would call it guidance.

Certainly I would prefer to walk through my life without having to consult a lawyer, because I don't like to spend my $200 accepting advice. AN HON. MEMBER: More. MR. KIRKLAND: Well, that's a beginner perhaps. Some members may charge a lot more than that for their legal advice. I would like to operate without that legal intervention. I share that concern with the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. It is again the perfect world, but we can't write legislation for the perfect world.

I think we have to write legislation to ensure that if there's 10 or 15 percent of the world that operates in somewhat less than ethical practices, it has to be addressed, Mr. Chairman. I think that, if nothing else, there should be that inclusion and perhaps some clause that would indicate that you can ask counsel to step down or sign it off. I'm not sure exactly how it'd work because I don't have that legal training or that legal background, and I'm speaking more from a practical sense.

Though I speak of the principle of the Bill – and I still support the principle of the Bill, because I think the concept is a good concept. I look at these amendments, and it would take somebody without legal training probably many hours to go over these. I would ask the hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie if she would

1764 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 give some thought to maybe an adjournment. Y ou have had us telegraph that we intend to support it. Could we be given the courtesy or the opportunity to look at the amendments, which may impact significantly on Albertans, in more detail? I've conveyed to her that I'm a supporter of the concept and the principle, but these amendments, because I have not had the opportunity to review them in detail and understand them, I'm apprehensive. It's legalese.

I guess I would take the direction of one of our learned colleagues that has left this Assembly to joint the Canadian Senate, and that would be Nick Taylor. He says: when in doubt you vote against, Mr. Chairman, and I'm in doubt. I'm in doubt not because I don't accept the intentions of the hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie, but I'm overwhelmed by the number of amendments, and I'm overwhelmed by the fact that they're of a legal nature, which takes somebody without that training some significant time to understand.

I would ask the hon. member if she can give thought perhaps to maybe even an adjournment with the assurance that we'd bring it back up this afternoon to take it on to the next level, if we had half an hour, or 30 minutes, to review it and have a good feel for the Bill. I have indicated and telegraphed to her that I intend to vote for it. I'm going to vote against the amendments even though you might say that's a bit of a dichotomy because they're enhancing a Bill that I'm supporting in principle. I just need a level of comfort here, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't have that in the short time I've had to look at these amendments and the legal implications thereof. So, Mr. Chairman, with those comments I would ask other members if they would like to rise and speak to the issue. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join debate on Bill 35 to address the amendments as they form part of the greater Bill. I'd like to pose a couple of questions. As I read the legislation and as I went through the amendments, two questions came to mind.

One was: who is this legislation intended to serve and what are these amendments attempting to do? It seems to me that this legislation is aimed at ordinary Albertans. These are people who primarily lack legal training. They may be well educated but lack legal training. Many will have rudimen- tary reading skills. Many will have reading skills necessary to conduct the daily business of life. It's also aimed at people who are in distress of some kind. I think of an elderly uncle that we're now trying to help through a difficult time in his life when he's experiencing some really severe health problems.

The concerns that are raised in this legislation are the concerns that are on his mind. I asked myself: how easy would it be for that uncle to take this legislation and to understand exactly how he might go about preparing a living will? I think the answer to that is: it would be extremely difficult. As you read the amendments, as you go back to the legislation, it's a lawyer's field day, and I don't think it serves ordinary Albertans, the very people to whom it was intended to provide some assurance and some direction and some comfort.

It goes back to a promise that was made by the government prior to the last election. I remember reading a comment in the local newspaper, an

article where the government was promising to introduce plain language legislation and to go through existing statutes and try to simplify the language, and I think that if any piece of legislation demands simplification, it's this piece of legislation. The second question I looked at is: what should be the shape of that legislation if it is to serve the ordinary man or woman on the street? I think it makes a number of demands.

First of all, it should be readable, and it should be readable I think without convoluted subsections and “and ifs” and “wherebys” and “therefores” and “if thens.” I think readability is paramount if it's going to best serve Albertans. I think it should be very easily understood. That again means the sentence construction.

It means that the choice of language is language that should be used in ordinary conversation, and I think the language itself again should be language that people will find easily handled. 3:40 I compare the language in this draft legislation with the report put out by the University of Toronto, the Centre for Bioethics, and it seems to me that what impresses you about that report is how reader friendly it is, how easy it would be for someone who is attempting to deal with the matters that the Bill deals with.

It says in very plain and simple language: these are some of the personal care decisions that you're going to have to make. It goes through and it provides a checklist. It gives some of the concerns that individuals are going to have to be concerned with as they make their living will. Let me give you an example. It starts off with: “What is a proxy directive?” It says: “A proxy directive specifies who you want to make decisions on your behalf.” Really very simple. Who do you want to make decisions on your behalf if you can no longer do so?

The proxy should be someone you know and trust, such as a spouse, partner, family member, or close friend. This person should be capable of making health care and other personal care decisions and willing to be your proxy. I think it's very abundantly clear this is what a proxy is. Again, I think of someone who is in distress, trying to make a living will when they're being threatened healthwise. That kind of language would serve them.

It also goes on to outline the kinds of personal care decisions, not the rather preventative and “this won't apply” and “this may apply” and “if you say this, this is what's going to happen,” in very simple language. Here are some of the kinds of personal care decisions you are going to make, and they include shelter, nutrition, hygiene, clothing, and safety. That's what a living will is supposed to address.

So if the Bill is going to be amended further, I just would make a very, very strong plea to the mover of the Bill to go back and look at who's going to read this Bill and how easy and how useful they're going to actually find the legislation without consulting that family lawyer that my colleague assures me most Albertans don't have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've made some notes on the amendments that have been tabled by Three Hills-Airdrie and listened to he r comments with respect to the enduring powers of attorney. I appreciate the member entering into debate and making those comments because in fact that's what this is all about. The point that I'm trying to make and trying to persuade hon. members on is what the inclusion of legal counsel with the explanatory notes and the certificate of legal advice does. It builds in some checks and balances to prevent

May 9, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1765 abuse of the execution of the power of attorney. The Member for Three Hills-Airdrie said: well, we're the only jurisdiction in Canada or maybe North America – I think she said Canada – that continues to have that. The hon. member says that that's bad. Well, in fact, I take the contrary view, and I say that's good that we are providing that extra level of protection. Now, what's interesting about this argument, Mr. Chairman, is that I look at the amendment that was put forward with respect to

section 39, which is

section J, and the member has made some – well, I don't know – editorial, cosmetic changes to that. One of the new sections she's putting in says: by repealing subsection (3) in the Powers of Attorney Act and replacing it with the following:

(3) The following persons may not sign an enduring power of attorney on behalf of the donor: (

a) a person designated in th e enduring power of attorney as the attorney; (

b) the spouse of a person designated in the enduring power of attorney as the attorney. So the attorney and the spouse of that individual cannot sign.

(3.1) The following persons may not witness the signing of an enduring power of attorney: (

a) a person designated . . . as the attorney; (

b) the spouse of a person designated . . . as the attorney; (

c) the spouse of the donor [can't sign]; (

d) a person who signs the enduring power of attorney on behalf of the donor; (

e) the spouse of a person who signs the enduring power of attorney on behalf of the donor. Well, I guess my question to the hon. member is: why not? Why not? Why can't those people sign that? Why can't the spouse of the donor witness? Why can't the person who is designated in the power of attorney as the attorney sign or witness? Why can't the spouse of a person designated in the enduring power of attorney as the attorney sign the document or witness the document? I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why.

The reason why is because those individuals do not want themselves placed in a position where they could be construed as putting undue influence or pressure on that individual to sign the power of attorney. So the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie argues that interference is paternalistic, yet introduces an amendment that says: here are all the protections we're going to list. Well, hon. member, isn't that being an intrusionist? Isn't that being paternalistic?

I mean, if we follow the argument of the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie – you know, “Stop intruding in our lives by putting in these checks and balances.” It's her argument. It's not my argument. My argument is: “Keep the checks and balances in the Powers of Attorney Act. Don't put those people in that position where they can be construed as putting undue influence on someone to sign a power of attorney.” How do you do that? Y ou insist that there be a certificate of legal advice, and you insist that the explanatory notes are followed.

The argument may go in practical terms: “Well, why the heck do I have to go down and see a lawyer to do all this? Why can't I just sign?” There's a further argument in the amendments put forward by the Member for Three-Hills Airdrie, where an individual says: “What do you mean I can't have my spouse witness this thing? I've got my spouse sitting right here. I've got my friends here. I want to sign this document. Let's get on with it.” “Sorry; your spouse can't sign.” Oh, by the way the individual will have to have read Bill 35 before they know that their spouse can't sign or witness.

So the member will I guess broadcast the personal directives Bill to every household in the province of Alberta so that they know that their spouse can't sign. Well, how are they going to know that? There's a very simple way of knowing that: call the lawyer. AN HON. MEMBER: Or read Hansard. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Or they could read Hansard, hon. member. Y es, many Albertans could sit around the fire and have a cup of tea and read Hansard and say, “Ah ha, personal direc- tives: this is important.” Mr. Chairman, my point in my argument is that the member's argument does not wash.

She is putting forward amendments that speak directly to the issue that I am in support of, and I turn the argument back to the hon. member and say: thank you; you've just made my case.

Section 39 of the Powers of Attorney Act should remain intact and for exactly the kinds of checks and balances that are being proposed in the amendments, which are, I think, already included in the Powers of Attorney Act. There is no reason for us to change

section 39. There is no reason for us to argue that it is a consequential amendment to Bill 35. 3:50 The only reference I can see to the Powers of Attorney Act is in the definition of “legal representative” as the individual who is the attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act. Well, that doesn't change how you execute the document that creates that person as a legal representative under the Powers of Attorney Act. Why do you have to change that procedure when it has nothing to do with Bill 35? So I am still not convinced, notwithstanding the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie joining in debate on our differences of opinion on

section 39 of the Bill, which attempts to amend the Powers of Attorney Act. I am still not persuaded, and in fact by virtue of her argument and by virtue of the amendments that she puts forward, I'm even further persuaded that my side of the argument is correct. [Mr. Herard in the Chair] Mr. Chairman, I'll just go through some of the amendments. I look at amendment A, and I'm prepared to accept that. I look at amendment B, and I'm prepared to accept that, that we're simply saying that the decision in

section 9(2) is after the consul- tation process, not in the consultation process. “In consultation” with will read “after consulting” with. That's all right.

Section 17(2). I think that is – well, I don't want to be seen, Mr. Chairman, to be contradicting my colleague from Edmonton- Mill Woods. He says that this is all legalese and it's all jargon and it's not plain language. MS HANSON: I agree. MR. COLLINGWOOD: And my colleague from Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly. I was about to say that the wording is clear, but I think maybe I better not say that, Mr. Chairman, because I may have my colleagues jumping up to contradict me as to whether or not the wording is clearer now than it was before. I guess I'll say that in a relative manner as opposed to an absolute manner.

Nonetheless, I guess my colleagues do have a point, that for Albertans who need to feel a part of their legislative process, when they sit down to read the jargon, they will have some difficulty in understanding what it means in terms of the substance of the amendment, which I see as editorial. I'm reasonably happy

1766 Alberta Hansard May 9, 1996 with the substance of it being editorial in nature. [interjection] Y es, hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, I am indeed a lawyer. DR. MASSEY: He said: just a lawyer. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Oh, just a lawyer. Well. I do have some problems, Mr. Chairman, with amendment D in A1. This refers to the aspect of the agent, and I'll try and read some of this into the record just so that I can lay out the founda- tion and the groundwork. If (

a) an agent has not been designa ted under the personal directive [for] a personal matter and th e personal directive does not contain any clear and relevant instructions for the service provider . . . or (

b) an agent has been designated . . . with respect to a personal matter, but (

i) the agent cannot be contacted after every reasonable effort has been made by the service provider, or (ii) the agent is unable or unwilling to make a personal decision, the service provider must make every reasonable effort to contact the maker's nearest relative or any other individual described in the regulations for the purpose of informing the relative or other individual of the circumstances. Now, what that

section is referring to, Mr. Chairman, is when you've got a problem. Y ou have a problem that the agent cannot be contacted by the service provider. Y ou have a problem in that the agent is unable or unwilling to make a personal decision. Y ou have a situation where an agent has not been designated or the personal directive does not contain clear and relevant instructions for the service provider, and the service provider then has the responsibility, by virtue of this

section 19(2) in its new form in the amendment, to make every effort to contact the maker's nearest relative or other individual. The problem I have with this whole section, Mr. Chairman, is that it just kind of ends and leaves you hanging. Now, it seems to suggest that the service provider has to make an effort to make contact, but then what? What happens then? Who has authority? Who has rights? Who makes final decisions? Do we end up going to court? There's nothing in this

section that assists the service provider with anything other than saying that I have to attempt to make contact with the nearest relative. Well, so? So the nearest relative says, “Thank you for contacting me.” So? And the service provider says, “Y es, I fulfilled and discharged my obligation; I've contacted you.” So? There's no answer here. There's no answer. What's the resolution of this whole issue? Why in this particu- lar amendment that's been tabled by the Member for Three Hills- Airdrie doesn't it say what happens next? If I've missed some- thing, Mr.

Chairman, and there is some other place where there is clear authority, where there is clear instruction, where there is clear direction so the contact between the service provider and “the maker's nearest relative or . . . other individual” has some meaning that is not clear in this particular amendment, then fine. I'm prepared to listen to what that is. But as I read the amend- ment, I'm simply left hanging, saying: well, so what? There's an obligation to make contact, but there's no statement as to how resolution can occur.

I think that leaves a lot to be desired in that particular amendment, so I did want to comment on that particular one. Amendment E in the package A1 I've no problem with. Amendment F I do have a problem with. Amendment F does change

section 27 of Bill 35, and as I compare the wording of subsection (2) as it currently stands with the wording that is being introduced in this amendment, I can't understand why the change is being made.

Section 27(2) in the current Bill talks about the protection of the service provider in terms of an action against the service provider. The current wording, Mr. Chairman, is: No action lies against a service provider for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a personal service or obligation in accordance with this Act. That's exactly right. That is exactly right. What a service provider does is take direction in the provision of services from the empowerment provisions of this Act. The service provider doesn't do anything under this Act.

The service provider does something “in accordance with this Act” because the service provider isn't involved until a personal directive is made. So there's no direct link between the service provider and this Act. It is all done “in accordance with this Act.” But here's the new wording: No action lies against a service provider for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in acting or purporting to act in accordance with this Act. Well, they don't act according to the Act. They act “while carrying out a personal service obligation.” So I don't understand, Mr.

Chairman, why this change of wording has been put forward in

section F of the package A1 amendments. I'm looking forward to hearing from the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie why this change has been put in, why we changed the words to say “in acting or purporting to act in accordance with this Act.” Why that change is necessary I don't understand, and I'd like to hear from the member about that. I'm going to leave with the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie this question as well. In amendment G of package A1 there is reference to

section 34(d). Now, when we get to

section 33 and onwards, we're dealing with consequential amendments. We are now at 34(d), which is a change to

section 10 of the Dependent Adults Act. What this is doing, as I describe it, Mr. Chairman, is that the new amendment that's coming forward in

section G creates a 34(

d) and a 34(d.1). It's essentially the same thing, but it's broken down into two different components rather than remaining in one area. One talks about the court's termination of the agent's authority when rights have been granted to a guardian under the Dependent Adults Act. So essentially the same content of what is currently in

section 34(

d) of the Bill continues to appear in (

d) and (d.1), but it breaks th em out in

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19960509
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S4 19960509 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	891a36769cd44a566a9ef57f1872380fc0d24b28

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