April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 179 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 14, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, Senator Della Briotta. Senator Delia Briotta has been in Canada since April 8, meeting with various governments and Italian communities across the country.

I have learned that the Senator has followed a number of different pursuits during his life prior to his present position as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including that of a primary teacher, obtaining a Master of Arts, as well as having published a number of essays on local history. Within government he has been a member of the Commission for Agriculture, Labour, and Foreign Affairs. He has dealt with problems such as immigration and sat as a member of the European Parliament.

Senator Delia Briotta's visit to Alberta is particularly timely in view of the joint efforts of the Italian commu­ nity and the province of Alberta in response to the severe earthquake Italy suffered last year. The people of Alberta raised over $460,000, which was matched by the province of Alberta. These funds were used to purchase temporary buildings requested by the government of Italy to be used as schools, medical clinics, and town centres. Forty-nine of these structures were flown to Italy by two Canadian aircraft. Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to ask the Senator and his delegation to rise so they may receive the cordial welcome of the House. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual report for the year ended December 31, 1979, regarding financial statements of the Special Areas Board, as required by statute. MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to table the 1980 annual report of Alberta Hansard. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, this afternoon it's a privi­ lege to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, grade 9 students from the Ellerslie school in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teach­ ers Mr. George Rice, Karen Shevy, and Ron Jeremy, and bus drivers Ken Staughan and Ken Schiewe. They are seated in both the members gallery and the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, today it's indeed my pleas­ ure to introduce to you and to hon. members of this Assembly students from the Memorial Composite high school in Stony Plain.

Included with the group from Memorial Composite high school are a number of British exchange students from Southampton, who are here for a two-week visit. They are doing a number of tours in the province of Alberta and seeing our way of life. After April 27, a number of the students from the Stony Plain composite school will be travelling to Britain on the exchange class. The students from Britain are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Jerry Richardson, and the Stony Plain stu­ dents are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Mike Mar- tyn.

They're in the public gallery, and I ask the students to rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Energy Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I thought that possibly the minister would like to have given us a message of good will within the opportunity of Ministeri­ al Statements. Since the minister hasn't done that, I'd appreciate very much if the minister could indicate at this time some of the results of the meetings in Winnipeg.

Specifically, could the minister indicate whether any con­ sideration was given with regard to the temporary sus­ pension to oil cutbacks, the postponement of additional cutbacks as of June 1, or any other specifics? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I will respond first to the latter part of the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition by saying that in Winnipeg we did not discuss the questions of the production cutbacks. We did discuss the other wide range of energy issues. As I said late yesterday afternoon in Winnipeg, I feel we made some progress. Each side brought forward some new ap­ proaches.

As a result we agreed to hold a further meeting, probably in late May. In the meantime our respective officials will be doing some more work on gathering and assessing data. I simply conclude my answer by saying that while we have made some progress, I wouldn't want that to leave an optimistic impression, because I think it is very clear that there is a long way yet to go before we could reach an agreement. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources with re­ gard to the discussions.

Could "made some progress" be an indication that some movement has been made from the July 25, 1980, position of the government? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to do this every day during question period, and again point out that we're simply going to impair our capacity to carry on these negotiations if we reveal in the House the particu­ lars of what was discussed or particulars of proposals made by either side. As I said the other day, in this kind of matter one has to have some strategies and some tactical plans.

Certainly you can't discuss details of pro­ posals or suggestions without revealing to a greater or lesser extent what that strategy or those tactics are. Cer­ tainly there's no point having them if you're going to

180 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 reveal them publicly. The question really involved an answer that would relate to that. I don't think I can go any further than I went in response to the first question by saying that some new approaches were put forward. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the position of the government and understand that tech­ nique in negotiations. Could the minister indicate wheth­ er the tar sands or the Cold Lake development were discussed? MR. LEITCH: As I said, Mr. Speaker, our discussions on Monday covered the wide range of energy issues.

But as I pointed out in response to the first question, we did not discuss the matter of production cutbacks. Dickson Dam MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques­ tion to the Minister of Environment, and ask the minister if he could indicate to the Assembly if the Dickson dam completion

schedule is still in the '82-83 time frame, if my memory is accurate. Has a decision been made on wheth­ er recreational activities will be able to be carried on at the site once the construction is completed? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, it's our hope — and I think everything points to this — that the dam will be filling in the spring of '83 and, unless something unfore­ seen happens during the interim, that should be our target. Insofar as recreation, in the general area we have a special advisory committee, chaired by the Member for Innisfail.

They are making recommendations to us with regard to any additional public lands above the high- water mark that might be available when we're completed with negotiations for land purchase. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Would the hon. minister indicate to the Assembly what circumstances have led to the change in the government's commitment? When the government made the announcement in '75, there was a clear indica­ tion that there would be considerable recreation poten­ tial. What has led to the government now shifting its position? MR.

COOKSON: The hon. member of the opposition must be hearing something I don't hear, because there's really been no change insofar as recreation. I think the policy has always been that we'll provide as many facili­ ties for recreation as possible. One has to keep in mind, though, that in the case of dams being constructed in the province that will have fluctuating water levels, very careful consideration has to be taken as to what can be developed with access to the water, for example, or along the shoreline, because of the hazards of the fluctuating water levels.

So certainly in the irrigation areas of the province it is a policy to minimize as much as possible the problems that could be associated with joint use of such a facility. Those particular restrictions may not be the same as a dam such as the Dickson dam, for example, which may not have the fluctuating water levels of irrigation reser­ voirs. I guess to conclude, I'm open to any suggestions we can live with in the province. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Can the minister indicate to the Assembly what has changed since '75, when the government made the announcement that the dam would be going ahead, and one of things the government tried to convince people in central Alberta was good about the dam was the great recreational poten­ tial? What has happened since that time, that the minister is now in a position where he has to indicate to the House that recreational potential may very well not be realized? MR. COOKSON: Perhaps the Minister of Recreation and Parks would like to add to the comments I've already made, Mr. Speaker.

If the member of the opposition is talking about a provincial park, that comes under his jurisdiction. He may want to refer the question to the minister concerned. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, noting the lack of enthu­ siasm by the Minister of Recreation and Parks to pick up the ball from the Minister of Environment, I'd ask the Minister of Environment one additional supplementary question. What has happened to raise the price of the Dickson dam from the less than $40 million initially estimated by the government to a figure that is now in excess of $132 million?

What has caused this almost 300 per cent increase in the cost of the dam? MR. NOTLEY: He had the Kananaskis planners in charge. DR. BUCK: It's called Tory budgeting. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, if the member of the opposition looks carefully at the original estimate, which I think was around $66 million, in that area, and takes into consideration somewhere in the area of 10 to 12 per cent escalation in costs; the projection now is that by 1983 the costs will have totalled about $132 million.

I haven't done the rapid calculation on this, but I think if you work the figures out, it should come pretty close to the included inflationary costs. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might pose just one additional question to the minister. Are there any other factors that have led to this 300 per cent increase in the cost of the dam, other than the cost of inflation? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to check very closely, but my understanding is that a fair number of the tenders we have received — as high as six to eight different contractors are tendering — have come in pretty close to what we estimated in terms of tendering costs, taking inflation into consideration. The area where we may have been out in our original estimates would perhaps be land purchase. At the time I think it was said that we should be as generous as possible to the farm people in the general area, and I think the member of the opposition would support that position.

At the time we couldn't predict just what those costs would be. But cer­ tainly if the correspondence I've received in terms of land purchase is any indication, we were certainly generous in our land settlements, because I've had no correspondence to the contrary. MR. R. CLARK: To the minister: according to the minister's own officials, the additional land costs will add about $7.5 million to the total cost, which is going to be $132 million. Mr. Minister, I take it from that answer

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 181 that the only cause for the 300 per cent increase in the project, other than the cost of inflation, is the $7.5 million of additional money that had to be made available to the landowners, which no one is arguing about. MR. COOKSON: As I say, I think that's the information I have too, Mr. Speaker. Unless there are some other unknown factors, the land certainly came in higher be­ cause of our generous policy to the relocation of the landowners. The tendering was pretty close to what we estimated, as close as you can possibly be with these large tendering projects.

Fire Safety Regulations DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of Labour deals with the regulations pertaining to high-rise hotels. Can the minister indicate if he or the government is considering any changes to the fire safety regulations as they apply to high-rise hotels? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I presume by that that the hon. Member for Clover Bar means the regulations which apply during the construction phase, as opposed to those which apply during the maintenance and operation of the building. The regulations applying during construction phase were just amended, as all hon. members know.

In respect of the question of high-rise buildings, and particularly hotels, there are about three different initia­ tives: one of them is supported by the Canadian Associa­ tion of Fire Chiefs; one is at the instigation of the National Research Council, or a subcommittee of that council; and I believe one is a private endeavor. As the results of these initiatives become known, they will be reconsidered. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Has the minister had any liaison or discus­ sion with the members of the Alberta Hotel Association as to placing sprinkler systems in high-rise hotels? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not had discussions with the Alberta Hotel Association. I can advise the members of the Assembly that when the review of the proposed National Building Code commenced last year, the information was supplied to all parties who indicated interest. I did have the opportunity to speak to a number of groups representing different business and regulatory in­ terests and indicate that that review would be under way during 1980.

Some 83 groups, I believe — and I stand to be corrected, because I don't remember exactly now — made submissions concerning the regulations. I was ob­ viously not in personal communication with each one of those groups, but I could get the list and review it if the hon. member wishes. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary to the minister. Is the minister in a position to indicate at this time if the government is considering mandatory sprink­ lers in new hotel construction? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, the government, or at least the department, is keeping track of the initiatives I mentioned earlier, not just with respect to hotels but generally with respect to large buildings. There have been some interesting new developments which offer some quite new and markedly advanced tech­ nology and potential savings, one of which is being promoted commercially in the Edmonton area and I be­ lieve may have been installed or is in the process of installation in a number of buildings, and which uses the main sprinkler system for heating and air conditioning the building.

As these things develop, they are being reviewed. But I would say that underground areas in large buildings, rooms with certain functions, and rooms over a certain size must be sprinklered. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. Can the minister indicate if he or his department are giving consideration to making suction fans in hotel stairways mandatory? When investigating some of these high-rise fires, it appears that many people perish in stairwells. Is the minister looking at that as a stopgap measure, until this other legislation is in place? MR.

YOUNG: In the National Building Code and the Alberta Building Code are 13 different systems intended to inhibit the spread of smoke within a building. Pressur­ izing parts of the building relative to other parts is fundamental to the largest number of those alternative choices which are available to a builder. I don't think I can respond further to the notion of fans, which may be an exhausting exercise — exhausting for the hon. member as well as for me, Mr. Speaker — because that clearly comes under the broader grouping of having different air pressures in different parts of a build­ ing to inhibit the smoke.

DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the last point. Can the minister bring before the Assembly any studies his department has had d one on the use of exhaust fans as a measure that can be used until we get these other things in place? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Building Code is based upon the recommendations of the National Research Council and subcommittees thereof which make a recommendation for the National Building Code. As nearly as I am aware, all the elements of the Alberta Building Code which apply to tall buildings are taken directly from the National Building Code.

The Alberta government staff and interests of the province of Alberta are represented in a number of ways on the subcommit­ tees of the National Research Council. In that manner the research presumably is done at that level. I can assure the hon. member that the Alberta Building Standards Coun­ cil reviews all incidents in Alberta, also makes recom­ mendations to the National Research Council subcom­ mittees when there is evidence that any of the existing code requirements should be open to reconsideration. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question to the hon. minister, Mr.

Speaker, as a follow-up to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. When these studies with regard to mechanical preventions were being done — I'm referring to smoke, exhaust fans, and water sprinkler systems: these are not fail safe. When these studies were being made or when the minister's depart­ ment was considering these fail-safe methods, was he considering as well the possibility of having the contrac­ tors install heliports on these buildings for evacuation purposes, in consideration of the possibility of these other mechanical items failing?

182 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 MR. YOUNG: On checking, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that that notion was one of those advanced to the Build­ ing Standards Council, which did not greet it with great favor, so it did not get included in the code. I have been advised, and am having a check done on it, that the officials who certify pilots would remove a pilot's licence if the pilot were found to be hovering a helicopter over a building on fire, unless there were very, very unusual circumstances. Indeed the circumstances might have to be so unusual, they would not include the case of a fire. RITE System MR.

THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister in­ form the House if any changes are contemplated in the use of the RITE number, especially as regards the irriga­ tion districts? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, members will probably recall that in the early part of 1981 the government announced an improvement to the regional information telephone enquiry system — that's the first time I've ever got that right — which extended the system to the citizens of that 14 per cent of the province who were not then able to get onto the system, and also extended the system to community volunteer non-profit organizations. It is my understanding that the irrigation districts try very hard not to fit into that definition. MR. THOMPSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In my constituency the only real complaint with the use of the RITE number is the overload factor. Is the minister aware of this problem and, if so, is he prepared to allevi­ ate it? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, we had a number of complaints about overloading prior to the improvements done about the time of the January 1981 announcement. Since that time I think most of the overload or related problems have been handled. The best advice I have right now is that the system is working without too much congestion. I can relate that we have undertaken to review the whole matter within 15 to 18 months.

If the overload is not too great, we would probably seriously consider ex­ tending the opportunity to use what is a very popular system to other organizations such as the irrigation dis­ tricts. I'm sorry I can't give that commitment right now that we will extend it to them, but certainly it is under active consideration. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Zenith number directed only at 427 numbers, or at all government services? MR. McCRAE: Mr: Speaker, I would have to take that under advisement and get back to the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. Natural Gas Tax MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones. Has the minister had any recent discussion with officials of the Federation of Gas Co-ops with regard to the federal excise tax on natural gas? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I meet with the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops on a regular basis. That was one of the issues discussed at our most recent meeting. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had any reports of the gas co-ops experiencing difficulties with collecting the federal tax on natural gas and having to forward it to Ottawa within the 30-day period? MR.

SHABEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of the billing procedure, the time lapse between the consumption of natural gas and the actual billing, and the requirement of the federal excise people for the payment of that tax, the rural gas utilities have indicated that they are having difficulty in collecting the tax. Representations have been made by the federation to federal officials on this matter. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the minister or any official from his de­ partment met with any federal officials with regard to the problem gas co-ops are facing with the 30-day period? MR.

SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, matters related to energy and discussions related to all aspects of the national energy proposals, are being dealt with by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. MR. MANDEVILLE: Then a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has the minister made any representation to Ottawa with regard to the difficulties our gas co-ops are experiencing with the 30-day period they have to collect the gas tax and forward it on to Ottawa? MR. LEITCH: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker. MR. BATIUK: A supplementary to the Minister of Utili­ ties and Telephones.

Could the minister advise whether the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops had any success when they went on a mission to meet with the federal government in this regard? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Alberta rural consumers, a number of directors of the federation did travel to Ottawa to object to the imposition of the excise tax. Of course we in this Assembly share that concern with the imposition of this tax. I haven't seen any evi­ dence of any change in the national energy program as a result of their representations. Trappers' Compensation MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wild­ life. It flows from concern with respect to the trappers' compensation board. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly why it's necessary for a trapper to fill out the statement in a statement of claim that "should this claim be false . . . the Trapper Compensation Board will assess the cost of this inspection to me"? Mr. Speak­ er, I ask this in view of the fact that even Revenue Canada doesn't demand that kind of information. Why so stringent? MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, the trappers' compensation board was structured this past fall and is composed of three members: a chairman, a representative from indus­

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 183 try, and a representative from the trappers' association. In the statement of claims the trapper puts forward, he outlines the damages he feels have occurred because of resource development. From the past performance of the trapper and the amount of revenue he has obtained within the period of three years prior to the damage occurring, they determine the amount of compensation which would be payable. In regard to the specific proposal, we do have people out in the field working with these people who are putting in these claims, to make sure the claims are justified.

The people we have out there are not only going to be looking at the damage claims, but also be aware of the way the trapline is being maintained and the amount of fur being harvested. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, certainly we all want the claims to be justified, but my question very directly to the hon. minister is: why force the trapper, for many of whom English isn't their first language, to sign an affida­ vit which in effect is more stringent than many legal requirements, including that of Revenue Canada?

Will that not in fact act as an impediment to submitting justi­ fiable claims to the trappers' compensation board? On what basis did the government conclude that this kind of statement was necessary and that all costs of the investi­ gation, which could be very substantial, would be attrib­ uted to the trapper? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, we do have people in the field assisting these people to submit their claims. The fact of the matter is that this is public money that is being dispensed. We feel that the criteria we've established can easily be met by the trappers seek­ ing compensation. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Bearing in mind the minister's answer, why is the government only making available three positions for inspectors at this stage, in view of the widespread concern among hundreds of trappers in this province? Almost without exception, they've expressed concern that three inspectors aren't nearly adequate. If we're going to have them helping to fill out claims . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. NOTLEY: Just a minute. My question is: why are not more inspectors being scheduled to be appointed? [interjections] Just calm down.

The question is there. Why only three inspectors? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, you recognize that not all trappers will be submitting claims. The three people we have appointed are stationed regionally throughout the province, and we feel they'll be able to handle all the claims which will be forthcoming. MR. NOTLEY: I'm glad that the minister is so confident. Trappers are not. My question to the minister: is the decision to proceed with the advertising for three positions a result of the unanimous position of the trappers' compensation board, or is it in fact a government position?

Has concern been expressed to the minister by trappers that three positions are in fact totally inadequate? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge we've had no correspondence where the trappers have said that three weren't sufficient. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister, then. The present compensation deals with property only, as opposed to loss of income. Why does the government not include loss of income in terms of the trappers' compensation Act, considering that some trap­ pers face the loss of many thousands of dollars?

Why only loss of property, as opposed to loss of income? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, we do take into considera­ tion the amount of money received from trapping in the two previous years when the compensation is applied for, so that is a factor taken into consideration. MR. NOTLEY: Just so there's no misunderstanding, the minister is saying that in addition to loss of property there will be full compensation of loss of income? Along with that . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I had suggested that the previous supplementary might be the last one.

I realize that hon. members occasionally stretch the situation a bit, but when it gets stretched into two or three questions rolled into one, I think that's going too far. Family Day Home Program MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Social Services and Commu­ nity Health. It arises from a letter I have from a constitu­ ent, a copy to the minister, asking questions of the minister with regard to the administration of the day home program.

I would like the minister to advise the House if the program is run by the city of Calgary or by the province, or is an integral part of a PSS program. Could the minister please advise? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the family day home pro­ gram is one which some municipalities have accepted as part of their preventive social services responsibilities. Other municipalities are still examining the various op­ tions open to them. MR. MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be — at least in the mind of the mayor; perhaps the communication between the mayor and the minister isn't as good as it might be.

I'm wondering if the policy decisions of the province have been transferred to the mayor so he knows what our objectives are in this particular program. Has the minister been meeting with or consulted the mayor? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there's any misunderstanding between Mayor Klein of the city of Calgary and me. Yesterday morning I did receive a telex from him with regard to some concerns as to the import of a question asked in this Assembly last week.

I followed that telex by phoning the mayor at about noon and suggested to him that, with the information which will be made available following the Treasurer's Budget Address this evening, I'm confident the officials of the city and the province will adequately be able to address the issues outstanding. I further suggested to the mayor that if for

184 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 any reason our officials are not able to come to an agreement, on Saturday the 25th of this month there be a meeting of the mayor, members of city council, and Calgary MLAs who are able to attend. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether he has received any representations from day home organizers to the effect that the province handle the administration of both the day home program as well as the day care program, to try to streamline administration? Is the minister pre­ pared to give consideration to such a proposal? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, that matter was very careful­ ly considered by the Provincial Day Care Advisory Committee. The recommendation was made and imple­ mented by this government that day care is in fact preschool care and that care provided for youngsters who are school age should be handled in a different way. Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the complexities, because a number of the after-school programs are oper­ ated through day care centres.

One reason we want to ensure that there are the fullest meetings in terms of information between officials from the various municipal­ ities and the department, is to ensure that there is a very smooth transition and that children who require care, and in many cases can best receive that care through day care centres as well as other facilities, continue to do so. Telephone Directories MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of Telephones.

I wonder if the minister could inform the Assembly of the reasoning behind the decision by Alberta Government Telephones to rearrange the areas to be included in some of the rural telephone directories. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, several changes were made in the last year with regard to the directories. One of them was with respect to a problem that existed between Edmonton Telephones and AGT, so some of the sur­ rounding communities do have their own separate directories. However, I believe the question the hon. member is referring to is with respect to directories that apply fur­ ther out.

Some changes have been made, but I would have to take it as notice as to why those changes took place. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of Telephones. It's with regard to the Edmonton directory where the black pages, you might say, for Stony Plain and other localities outside Edmonton are included in the back of the book, but the Edmonton telephone book that comes out to the rural part of the province hasn't got those listings. I wonder if the minister can clarify or find out for the Assembly why that has taken place. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in the areas immediately around Edmonton, AGT is providing its own directory — white pages, right now, and also yellow pages. Certainly those communities are included in the black pages of the Edmonton directory. But as the hon. member has pointed out, they are not included in some of the directories that have gone out to that area. We're checking out the reasons for that. MRS. FYFE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could advise if he has received any concerns relating to not having an adequate number of yellow pages from the Edmonton directory being made available for people who are using the telephone direc­ tories within the entire region. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, there were some concerns immediately after the directories came out some time ago, but since then I haven't received any complaints or phone calls with regard to that. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Programs DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West, who is the chairman of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. I'm sure he will be very anxious to answer the question. I wonder if the hon. member would indicate to the House whether any new policies or programs regarding education in alcohol and drug abuse have been developed recently, regarding the commission. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that today is budget day, and I think there is invaluable information available after the budget speech tonight.

I would be somewhat reluctant to comment on the specifics, lest I disclose information that really would not be applicable until we debate it here in the Assembly. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, then. I wouldn't want him to expose anything that's going to be discussed tonight. Mr. Speaker, have public relations regarding alcohol and drug abuse been extended to schools in a significant way in recent times? MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very important question.

I'd like to comment from this point of view: in my opinion as chairman of the commission, there has been a reawakening throughout Alberta in terms of the community responsibilities dealing with problems such as alcohol and drug abuse. I'm impressed with the co-operation we've had from school authorities.

The programs evident in our schools are carried out on a regional basis throughout the prov­ ince, not in concert with the Department of Education or its minister, indeed not even in concert with the school boards, but with the principals of schools who have undertaken, it seems as a personal commitment in educat­ ing youngsters in this province, a commitment to educa­ tion being more than academics, indeed being some life style orientation.

So although there will be more as a result of the budget speech to be announced shortly and the appropriation passed by the House, I'd have to say that it's very encouraging to see the sense of commitment by school teachers and administrators in the province of Alberta to a very, very important matter. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would further clarify that particular point. He indicated in concert with this and that, but is it in concert with the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission with the educational system? MR. GOGO: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I thought the fact that I was on my feet indicated that I was responding

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 185 from the point of view of acting as chairman of that commission. Indeed it is through the initiatives of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission that these pro­ grams are taking place. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, that's nice to hear. I wonder if the hon. member would answer the final sup­ plementary. Is the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commis­ sion considering phasing out therapeutic facilities such as Henwood, then deploying to active hospitals such pa­ tients who would ordinarily use such facilities? Or is the commission considering not building such facilities in the future and just leaving those that are in existence? MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, in terms of

definitions, al­ though the medical community tends to view most people who have a problem of that nature as patients, we term them clients. The Henwood facility is indeed really the flagship in terms of treatment facilities in Alberta for alcohol and drug abuse. There was no intent at all with regard to reducing either the budget or the level of facilities pro­ vided for inpatient or outpatient treatment for those with the illness of alcoholism in the province of Alberta.

So in substance, I'd have to respond that indeed we're looking at and seriously addressing what expansion is necessary in the future in terms of the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse problems. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Minister of Transporta­ tion revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I made a fairly lengthy introduction of some young people from special areas. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. KROEGER: Today I will give a very short intro­ duction of some adults from special areas.

But since you're being so agreeable, maybe I'll cross you up. I just want to put you on the alert that while there are only about 15 of them, compared to the group they're facing, any time the odds are 15 to 1 against them, they're even. In the visitors' gallery are members of the Special Areas Board. Would you please stand and receive the welcome of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with other business, I'd like to rise on a point of privilege. I'm sorry I haven't been able to give you the one hour's notice. This information was just brought to my atten­ tion.

It's my understanding that members of the press have been given copies of the budget for their perusal without the normal lockup. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, sir, to find out who authorized that and on what basis it was authorized. I would remind you of the debate that took place in the House of Commons recently — February 26, 1981, to be exact — when members of the Conservative opposition in the House of Commons quite properly raised a point of privilege concerning the press obtaining copies of the budget without . . . At that point there was a lockup, but there'd been a leak.

As a result of the leak, the opposition raised the matter as a point of privilege. It's my under­ standing, Mr. Speaker, that there was no formal lockup. Keeping in mind the traditions of our parliamentary sys­ tem, which clearly indicate that the budget is to be kept completely confidential until such time as it is read to all the members of the Assembly or whatever the parliament may be, I would say that in the absence of a clearly defined lockup, there is in fact a question of privilege which members of this House must consider. Beyond that, Mr.

Speaker, I would say that the ab­ sence of a lockup opens the opportunity, or the possibili­ ty at least, of information which is not going to be formally released until 8 o'clock tonight being made available, and the whole purpose of keeping this informa­ tion confidential until it's read, so people can't make financial transactions on the basis of information on the budget, is defeated. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon the government to indicate on what basis this was done, why it was done, and if in fact it was done, as I'm given to understand it has happened, what precedent the gov­ ernment can cite to justify this particular action. I raise that bearing in mind that a number of precedents indicate that pre-release of this information leads to automatic resignation.

The most important case was Hugh Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour government of Great Britain in 1947, who accidentally, just in an off-hand way, walking out of the House of Commons, made information available to the press, which was re­ ported. That particular gentleman had to resign. I'm not suggesting today that we have that serious a breach of privilege, but I do think, Mr. Speaker, that if this government is going to take the Legislature seriously at all, any information given to the press can only be done strictly in accordance with a lockup.

I might just conclude my question of privilege by recalling that when the Premier made his speech last fall, there was a lockup regarding the press at that time. I think that was appro­ priate at the time; it would seem to me equally appropri­ ate today. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm interested that the hon. member raised that issue today and chose to use the happenings in the House of Commons in February in respect of the tabling of the estimates as a precedent to some extent, at least for the purposes of argument.

That of course was not in respect of the presentation of the budget, because in the House of Commons the budget and the estimates are normally not provided at the same time. In fact the budget was presented in October, the estimates in February. That was in accordance with a standing order of the House of Commons requiring that they be presented to the House by March 1 each year. I would say, though, Mr. Speaker, that as to matters of precedent, there are more important considerations.

It's often been noted here that the traditions and precedents that really apply are those of this Assembly; that the traditions and precedents of other parliaments are of as­ sistance and can certainly be turned to and looked at, but the important one is the one established here. The tradi­ tion in the Assembly here is that a procedure to which the members of the press gallery agree should be followed each year, and it is the same tradition. It is recorded as a

186 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 resolution of the members of the press gallery, and by tradition has not required that they be locked in until the time the budget is presented; that they have the informa­ tion presented to them and make certain undertakings in regard to that. I'm pleased to provide additional copies to hon. members, if given a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

The result is that in the tradition of this Assembly the arrangement is that in accordance with a meeting of the press gallery executive committee on February 1978, still in effect now, a number of conditions are set out: first, that only paid up members of the gallery are permitted to attend the budget briefing and that in order to receive an advance copy of the budget and estimates, a member must attend the news conference. No copies are distri­ buted later in the day, until after the speech has been concluded.

These documents are distributed . . . on an honorary and confidential basis and are embargoed with no discussion with anyone prior to the . . . speech at 8:00 p.m. Then there are some conditions relating to tapings. Mr. Speaker, I think the point raised is always a valuable one.

To have the opportunity to discuss what the proper acts of the members of the Assembly may be is always useful, but to try to intrude into a well-established practice in the province some references to what may have occurred in another parliament is of no assistance in dealing with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member today. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond briefly to the minister's response. I would say to the members of the House that we simply cannot ignore the practice of other parliamentary institutions. A very clear precedent was set in the Mother of Parliaments.

That precedent is that the budget must not be released until it is formally read in the British House of Commons, because of the possible financial implications to the jurisdiction of pre-release of the budget. During the discussion in the House of Commons over the estimates, the same argument was made. I might point out that the argument was made most persuasively by Mr. Sinclair Stevens, the hon. Member for York-Peel, who observed quite properly that this kind of information, if made available in a properly constituted lockup, protects the public.

On the other hand, if there is a breach of that, in my judgment the public interest is not properly protected. Frankly, this is the first time in my years in the Legisla­ ture that I am advised there has been this kind of agreement with the Press Gallery. May I say, Mr. Speak­ er, that as a practice I don't think it is acceptable in this House. If there is going to be pre-release of the informa­ tion, I have no quarrel with that as long as there is a properly constituted lockup.

But I don't think we can simply say that we're going to leave it up to the honor of individual members of the press to decide whether or not this long-standing precedent, that dates back scores of years in our parliamentary system, is going to be lived up to the letter. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, while I'm unaware of the speci­ fics of the actions over the last three years, I think the long-standing tradition in our parliamentary system is clear: if there is going to be pre-release of information to the press, it must be done, as it has been in other jurisdic­ tions, in a properly constituted lockup. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of privilege, I'd like to make two points. I was not aware of the agreed regulations, but I'd like to raise the point with regard to who is held responsible when information may get out to someone in the financial world or to someone inadvertently or intentionally. Is the Provincial Treasurer held responsible when that information does leak, or is the press person, if identified, held responsible? Is there something in those regulations that looks after that concern? That's my one question. The second is with regard to the effect on the financial community.

I think today may be an unusual situation, or a typical situation where we could have some difficul­ ties, in that it is Tuesday of the week. At the present time, the stock market is open. If certain information is in the budget that would affect that market, it certainly could be to the gain of an individual or a group of individuals. That is of much concern. Historically, I had always been under the impression, but have not been directly involved in releasing budgetary presentations to the press, that the information was to be confidential.

I recall that one of the reasons we had our budgets released on Friday night was so we didn't affect the stock market in any way. That is of great concern to me if it does happen. Hopefully, the honor system holds true, but it doesn't necessarily have to. I would make the other point, Mr. Speaker, that there may be these loopholes. As legislators and persons re­ sponsible in this province, we should set up a committee or refer the matter to a committee for review. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has perhaps raised an issue which has not occurred and is not relevant, and that is the suggestion or the implication of a leak. I know of no suggested or implied leak. I hope he was not trying to suggest that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure members of the Legislature that I was not making any accusation. I was raising the possibility that it could happen. Hopefully, it never does. MR. HYNDMAN: Let me just say, Mr.

Speaker, that it's my view that certainly it's been the tradition of this Assembly for many years, if not many decades, to follow the procedure which has been followed. I suggest that that procedure is a very valid one. The budget of this province is a complex document, incorporating the esti­ mates and large amounts of money. It is because the government feels that the media generally can be trusted with the information, for a number of hours, that the information is made available to them on a preliminary basis; in this case, early this morning. There's a great deal of information to review and assess.

There is an opportu­ nity for them to meet with me and ask questions, which has occurred. But it seems to me that's a useful exercise for the media. If the members of the opposition and the Member for Spirit River-Fairview feel that's not appropriate, we could perhaps reassess, for a future year, whether or not there should be advance release. We're prepared to trust the media. We feel the hon. members opposite should be prepared to do the same. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I rather resent that last inference by the hon. Provincial Treasurer. [interjections]

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 187 DR. BUCK: Certainly. Cheap shot, Lou. MR. R. SPEAKER: My remarks in no way made any inference about not trusting the press. I think that was a little unfair, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: There's obviously only one thing the Chair can say at this point, and that is that I'll give the matter the most careful consideration possible and report back to the Assembly as soon as that has happened. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that questions 1, 10, 11, and 12, and motions for returns 113 to 119 inclusive stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 202. Moved by Mr. Little:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government of Alberta to consider the establishment of a task force to study the need for human tissue for therapeutic purposes, medical education, and scientific research, and to recom­ mend appropriate ways of meeting any such need. MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Motion 202.

There are three main purposes or objectives in introducing this motion: one is to make members of the Legislature, and the public, more aware of the organ transplant program, and to this end, each member of the Legislature has been handed one of these pamphlets; secondly, to encourage the donation of human organs; and three, to alleviate the anxiety and suffering of those many, many persons in this province who are waiting for a transplant. At this point I think it might be useful to review briefly the history of transplants in the world.

Believe it or not, the first human transplant was in 1667 in France, when lamb's blood was transmitted to a human; in 1818 the first blood transfusions in England, person to person. In the late 1800s, blood, skin, and bone homotransplants were common in a clinical atmosphere. The very first human organ transplant in the world took place in Boston in 1951. That, Mr. Speaker, was a kidney trans­ plant. Seven years later, that was followed by the first transplant in Canada, which was also the first transplant in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

That took place in Montreal in 1957 and involved the transferral of one kidney to an identical twin, which eliminated the need for tissue matching. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] However, Mr. Speaker, the transplant that brought the attention of the whole world and actually brought us up to the age of the transplant was performed by Dr. Chris- tiaan Barnard in South Africa, in 1967. That is a date I would like to see recorded in our history, members of the Assembly. On that date, December 2, 1967, Dr.

Chris- tiaan Barnard removed the heart from a young accident victim and transplanted it into the body of Louis Wash- kansky, an aged and critically ill grocer in South Africa. Unfortunately, Washkansky lived only 18 days. But that in no way takes away the skill and dedication of the doctors who performed that operation. Dr. Barnard in company with 20 other expert surgeons performed the operation. It was totally successful. Wash­ kansky died from pneumonia brought on by lowering of the immunity mechanism of the body.

Once again, science triumphed in that we gained further knowledge of immunology and further knowledge of open-heart sur­ gery, to which I believe some members of this Assembly can attest. I think it would also be of benefit to review the legisla­ tion this province enacted through the years to not only recognize but support, by both legislation and financially, human organ transplants. In 1967 The Human Tissue Act provided that any person 18 or over in his or her last illness could allow lawful removal of organs by the medical profession by signing a document in front of two witnesses, both of whom were adults.

The Human Tissue [Gift] Act in 1973 replaced the above Act. It made the same provisions, except the age of 21 was replaced by the age of majority as were the possible witnesses to the signature. The Act extended also to inter vivos donations — that is, while living — as well as post-mortem donations.

A most important piece of legislation brought into the House by, I believe, the Member for Edmonton Mill Woods was The Fatality Inquiries Act of 1976, which supplemented the above Act by allowing any unidentified body to be donated to a university on request or demand of that university and allowed for removal of the pituitary gland from all deceased. Currently in Alberta a number of agencies are active in the procurement and distribution of organs: the CNIB; the Kidney Foundation of Canada; the Human Parts Bank of Canada, under the direction of Mrs.

Mae Cox of Edmonton; and the human organ procurement exchange program to educate medical staff and the public about the need for organ donations. Both these programs are supported by a substantial annual grant from the gov­ ernment of Alberta. The two young ladies in charge of these programs are Miss Janice Mann for Calgary and Miss Pauline McCormick for Edmonton. Last year the government approved a proposal for a $10 million blood transfusion service building to be lo­ cated at the University of Alberta.

It is hoped this can be expanded into a comprehensive tissue bank storing bones, joints, corneas, skin, blood, and cells. Mr. Speak­ er, the most important of all the legislation was in 1977 when the Department of the Solicitor General began attaching an organ donor card to the Alberta driver's licence. We will speak to that at more length in a moment. The order of use or preference for the various organs are, first, corneas. More cornea operations are completed in this province than any other type of transplant.

This is partly due to the fact that the cornea is inert; that is, it can be stored and used at a later date. However, cornea donations are not nearly answering the demand. Second in order are kidneys. From the first transplant in Boston in 1951 and the second in Montreal in 1958, there have been 20,000 successful kidney transplants. In­ deed the medical staff at the Foothills hospital tell me it's almost routine now and more successful than many other operations. Approximately 2,000 persons in the country are on renal dialysis at any particular time.

It is estimated that 1,500 of these are good candidates for transplants. However, approximately 800 Canadians each year are added to the list; that is, 800 Canadians suffer kidney failure and must spend the rest of their lives attached to a

188 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 dialysis machine or be candidates for kidney transplant. This is where our real problem lies, Mr. Speaker. Only 304 kidney transplants were performed in the country last year — 1,500 candidates, then another 800 added to this list each year. So unless we get more donations, the programs cannot possibly survive. A few minutes ago I mentioned The Fatality Inquiries Act of Alberta, which allows medical men to remove the pituitary gland. This also is a very, very important area.

One in 100,000 people will suffer from dwarfism as a result of a lack of secretion from this particular gland. But it takes up to 100,000 glands per year to satisfy the present need, and presently we are getting less than half of that. Other tissues: skin, bone — and to allay the rotten rumor I've heard from time to time that some persons have accused me of having a selfish motive in bringing in this legislation, I would like to transmit to all members that I am not looking for a scalp. [laughter] I mentioned, that a short time ago I visited the renal unit at the Foothills hospital.

There are no words I can use — no words you can read, no pictures you can see — to impress this Legislature nearly as much as a visit to that unit. Reporting constantly to that ward are 37 persons who must be attached to the machine every week for four hours to purify their blood, another four hours of recuperation. Most of them could be relieved from this desperate prognosis if they had a kidney transplant. I talked with a number of persons who were on dialysis. I also talked to a young man, 32 years of age, supporting a wife and family, who had both kidneys removed the previous day.

They were diseased because of an occupa­ tion. At 32 years of age this man is faced with dependence on a machine unless he can get a kidney. One thing I would like to make clear is that a trans­ plant involves only one kidney. A good donor supplies two and can look after two persons, providing a tissue match can be made. However, with 20,000 successful transplants since that original one, the outlook is very, very positive. Dr. John Klassen, who guided me around that unit, said their success rate at the present time is well over 90 per cent. It isn't a last resort.

There are patients who received a kidney that didn't work out; that is, it was rejected. They can go through surgery again and receive another kidney. There was also a young boy, 16 years of age, who had a kidney transplant. I didn't meet the boy, but Dr. Klassen showed me the letter from him. He said: Dr. Klassen, for the first time in my life I can run, I can play, I can use roller skates; I can't thank you enough for what you've done for me. The team there can do a great deal more if they have enough organs to supply the need.

A few moments ago I indicated the large numbers in Canada who require kidney transplants. I haven't got up-to-date statistics on Alberta, but this is what took place in the transplant program in Calgary and Edmon­ ton last year. At the Foothills hospital, 22 kidneys were removed, eight were transplanted, and 14 were sent to various hospitals around the country. In Edmonton, 36 kidneys were removed from 18 donors, 17 transplanted, 14 sent to various other hospitals, and five were not used for a variety of reasons. Up to this point, Mr.

Speaker, I've given you an histor­ ic background; a history of the legislation, which is most encouraging. So what's the problem? The problem is that not enough donations are being harvested — you'll find that an odd word, but that's the term they use in the renal unit. There aren't enough organs being harvested to look after the demand. I would suggest that the stated pur­ poses of the Bill, to make the public more aware . . . In fact in one of the Scandinavian countries you have to sign out; if you don't sign a document that you want out, it's taken for granted you are in the donation program.

We've got to make the public more aware. We must take a look at the driver's licence donor card. Once again, the Department of the Solicitor General does not maintain records, so we can't determine how many donations were a direct result of the driver's licence. But I can tell you that in other jurisdictions where statistics have been carefully recorded, it just hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for several reasons. First of all, no central registry indicates that the person has agreed to donate his organs after death.

Most times in the case of a fatal or near fatal accident, be it an industrial or a car accident, the first people on the scene, the police, take possession of the valuables for safekeeping. Not infrequently days go by before it is determined that the deceased, or the cadaver, is an organ donor. We also find that in spite of that little document that goes with the driver's licence, most hospitals will not accept it. Most hospitals and most medical men, who are afraid of the legal implications, insist upon clearance from the nearest relatives before they will accept the body as a donor body.

These are the problems we have to overcome. My motion indicates that I would like to see a task force appointed to study all aspects of the problem. But I do have a couple of suggestions. If we could have this information recorded in a central registry on computer with 24-hour access, not only to indicate that the person is a donor but to indicate the witnesses, the nearest kin, this problem could be looked after very, very quickly, because organs do not last. In fact the most successful kidney transplants are taken directly from a person who is, as they say, brain dead. That is not a derogatory expression.

The body is healthy, but for all practical purposes the person is dead. That can be easily determined. AN HON. MEMBER: A Socred. MR. LITTLE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what we have done this afternoon will make the public and the mem­ bers more aware. I trust that every one of them will fill out this little form before they leave this afternoon. I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, with a piece of prose that was found on the bedside table of a Calgary lady a year ago, hours after she died.

It was on found on the bedside table of Patricia Jane Finn, the wife of Frank Finn, the president of the Calgary Stampeders; a very fine lady. I had met her on more than one occasion. This prose is not original, but it does indicate the thinking of Patricia-Finn. With your permission, I would like to read it to you. The day will come when my body will lie on a white sheet neatly tucked under four corners of a mattress located in a hospital busily occupied with the living and the dying.

At a certain moment a doctor will determine that my brain has ceased to function and that, for all intents and purposes, my life has stopped. When that happens, do not attempt to instil artificial life into my body by the use of a machine and don't call this my deathbed.

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 189 Let it be called the Bed of Life, and let my body be taken from it to help others lead fuller [and better] lives. Give my sight to the man who has never seen a sunrise, a baby's face, or love in the eyes of a woman. Give my heart to a person whose own heart has caused nothing but endless days of pain Give my blood to the teenager who was pulled from the wreckage of his car, so that he might live to see his grandchildren play. Give my kidneys to one who depends on a machine to exist.

Take my bones, every muscle, every fibre and nerve in my body and find a way to make a crippled child walk. Explore every corner of my brain. Take my cells, if necessary, and let them grow so that some day, a speechless boy will shout at the crack of a bat and a deaf girl will hear the sound of rain against her window. Burn what is left of me and scatter the ashes to the winds to help the flowers grow. If you must bury something, let it be my faults, my weaknesses and all prejudices against my fellow man. If, by chance, you wish to remember me, do it with a kind deed or word to someone who needs you.

If you do all I have asked, I will live forever. If Patricia Finn were here today, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure she could make the appeal much more eloquently than I. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary McCall has made a very eloquent introduction of his motion. I'm surprised at what a good medical historian he is. I have three policemen in my background; I under­ stand that's his background, and I don't know as much about policing as he knows about medicine. It's a very suitable motion this year. After all, this is the International Year of Disabled Persons, as declared by the United Nations.

Because of that, the subject of disabi­ lities and handicaps is going to be on most people's minds at various times during the year. Earlier in the throne speech debate, I said that one must make a differentiation between disability and handicap. Not all disabled people are handicapped. On the other hand, many people are handicapped and their causative disability is not always very obvious. A perfect example of that is the person who has serious kidney disease and has to spend time at a dialysis unit, sometimes twice a week, in order to con­ tinue to live. I'll get back to that subject later on.

There are three aspects to this motion, Mr. Speaker: therapeutic purposes, medical education, and scientific research. I'm going to apply most of my remarks this afternoon — I suppose naturally, being a doctor — to the therapeutic purposes of the motion and the study of human tissue. The medical aspects of taking human tissue from peo­ ple who are dying or recently dead apply to very many organs in our body. The classic one, and the one that has gone on most successfully and of course in the largest numbers, is the cornea on the eye.

To put that in perspec­ tive, it only applies to a certain number of blind people, those who are blind because the front window of their eye is diseased to the extent that it cannot let light through or cannot allow light through in a suitable way for the rest of the eye to function. Unfortunately corneal transplant does not give sight back to a diabetic who has lost his eyesight because of disease of the retina, to people who have had massive hemorrhage into the eye, or to people who have disease of the optic nerve that carries the message back to the brain.

But there is still a significant number of blind people whose sight can be restored to a very useful level by the transplantation of the cornea from someone else. I checked just today, and currently in Edmonton 140 blind people whose sight could be restored to a functional level are waiting for corneas from others. With the current rate of supply of corneas in Edmonton, that means a two to three year wait. In the meantime, by the time we run through that list, at least another 140 people will be waiting. In other words, we have a roll-over system, and they are never getting closer to the end of the problem.

That's only the cornea. For a blind person not being able to see, he can still function in many ways and can travel with other people's help. He can do everything except see and take

part in sports that require sight. Even then, on the ski hill you will sometimes see blind people skiing with the assistance of others. I'd now like to address the other very successful pro­ gram, the kidney transplantation program. Here we're dealing with a very different problem. The cornea is rela­ tively inert tissue, and you can take a cornea from anyone and transplant it to another person. It has no blood supply. There is no difficulty with tissue typing. There is no problem with rejection of the tissue in the ordinary, accepted meaning of that word.

With the kidney we are now talking about transplanting a whole organ with a very large blood supply and with all the tissue typing difficulties that people understand when it's applied to blood matching. Tissue matching is even more difficult, because there are more problems with incompatibilities due to the various types of tissue and the antigens that can be produced. The result of this is that when a kidney is obtained, it may not be possible to use it in the location where it has been obtained.

For that reason the human organ trans­ plant exchange system, which works across the breadth of Canada, was developed. Kidneys obtained in Edmonton may be used at the Dalhousie Centre in Nova Scotia; kidneys from Quebec might be used in Vancouver. That may sound like it's very easy to get a kidney, but it isn't. Again I'll just give the Edmonton figures. At the moment approximately 60 people in Edmonton are on constant dialysis once or twice every week because they do not have a kidney of their own that functions any longer because of disease.

The only alternative for them while they wait for a kidney — and that wait may be five years or more — is to go once or twice a week to one of the dialysis centres in this province and spend time on a dialysis machine where their own blood goes through the machine. The by-products of our bodily systems normally excreted by the kidney are removed by the machine, and the person can then go back to a form of living for

190 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 another three to five days. During the time they're on dialysis, people are not well. The day before they have the dialysis they usually feel very tired. They have a lack of activity because of that fatigue, and they are prone to many other infections and diseases during that time. Also of course, unlike the blind person I was talking about, they have very marked re­ strictions on their mobility.

They can make arrangements to have dialysis in Edmonton and then take a train, car, or plane to Vancouver for a week, but they have to make arrangements to have dialysis continued while they're in Vancouver. Of course most of the dialysis programs are functioning at the limit, and it may not be possible to arrange dialysis in another location. I mentioned the tissue antigen typing problem that exists with kidneys because they are whole organs. That problem came to most people's knowledge at the time of the first heart transplant performed in South Africa, which the hon. Member for Calgary McCall mentioned.

The problem of tissue typing is that even when it is done with the accuracy that is possibly available at this time, there is still some incompatibility on every occasion un­ less the donor is an identical twin. The incompatibility may be very slight and may not require constant drug therapy, but it usually does require some therapy with drugs that affects the immunity of the recipient to infec­ tion and, in some cases, cancer. So the recipient does have some difficulty.

But com­ pared to the person on dialysis, the person functioning with somebody else's kidney, with the aid of immuno­ suppression — as the young gentlemen mentioned by the hon. member — is able to live in an almost normal fashion. Many of these people are young adults, or indeed teen-agers who have suffered from diseases of the kidney in childhood. The procurement of kidneys for these people restores them to probably 80 or 90 per cent of the normal function available to those age groups. It gives them a normal life they can enjoy.

They can travel, and as long as they keep under immuno-suppressive therapy, there is a very high success ratio with implanted kidneys. The more recently the kidney is obtained to the transplant time of course increases the effectiveness of the transplant and the duration of its function. Currently in good centres the success ratio in trans­ planted kidneys is in excess of 90 per cent. This means that for those 10 per cent in whom it fails there is also the possibility of a further transplant, hopefully with a better tissue match and longer success.

But second tissue trans­ plants in the case of kidneys puts those people on the waiting list I just mentioned, 60 in the case of Edmonton. In relation to rejection and the tissue typing problem, when the first transplants were done in non-identical twins, the drugs used at that time were toxic of them­ selves. Their effects on the other immune mechanisms were serious and, apart from that, their side effects were also serious.

With the passage of time there has been a gradual improvement and evolution in immuno­ suppression, so that the rejection mechanism by the recip­ ient of a kidney or a heart can be controlled with a minimum of side effects and a minimum effect on their other immunities. Recently there has been investigation of a new drug produced by the Sandoz Corporation in Switzerland, a drug called Cyclosporin A. That drug would appear to be a considerable improvement in both effectiveness and safety as regards side effects.

In Canada there is currently a 12-centre study, called a randomized double-blind study, of its effectiveness. That study is being carried out in centres in Edmonton and Calgary, these being two of the 12 in Canada. If Cyclosporin A turns out to be a genuine and success­ ful improvement, it will be very effective in the case of kidneys and in the case of bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are not quite as simple as blood transfusions. They are required by people who have to have certain drug therapy and total body irradiation for leukemia and other diseases of the bone marrow.

Al­ though easy in theory and sometimes successful in prac­ tice, the bone marrow transplant program has given us considerable problems. I'd now like to mention yet a different use of human tissue, the use of the pituitary mentioned by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall. Corneas, kidneys, and bone marrow have to be obtained under very sterile conditions, and relatively soon after death. Because of the require­ ment for blood circulation through the kidney at all times, the kidney has to be taken almost immediately after death or, in the case of the brain-damage highway accident, in the process of dying.

We can take the pitui­ tary under less sterile conditions, and for a considerable length of time after death, and extract from it the growth hormone that is required for that small percentage of people — and even amongst those who are dwarfs, who have decreased growth, only a certain number of them suffer from pituitary dwarfism. We can take the pituitary, extract the growth hormone and, if we have enough, we can give those children normal growth, so that to all intents and purposes they will be normal human beings in stature.

At the moment, because of the restriction on availabili­ ty of the growth hormone, we are looking at standards where for boys we cut off the growth hormone when they get to approximately 5 feet 2 in height. Don't ask me to put that into the current metric system; I refuse. We have to cut them off because we don't have enough growth hormone. We take girls to a height of 5 feet 4. That's mainly so their pelvises will grow large enough so that if in the future they decide to have babies they will be able to have them. That may be a sexist approach. If that's the case, then for once it's the male who comes off short.

We have increased the supply of pituitaries by the availability through The Fatality Inquiries Act from people who come under the medical examiner system. But most of the shortfall that exists will have to be made up from other pituitaries. Those will have to be pituitaries voluntarily donated by people, either the person prior to their death or their relatives.

In the case of this particular problem there is the possibility, through recombinant DNA research — what is called recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA as people prefer to call it for obvious reasons — of produc­ ing the human growth hormone in adequate quantities to get rid of this particular problem. Indeed the preparation is available just now on a research basis to see if it will work without producing side effects. Of course it's diffi­ cult with that kind of research to be absolutely sure that the synthetic product is exactly the same as the human growth hormone. The hon.

Member for Calgary McCall mentioned the most spectacular transplants that have been done to date, and that is in the entity of heart transplants. As he mentioned, they were first done some 13 years ago in South Africa, based on work that was done at the Stanford medical centre by Dr. Shumway. In actual fact, Christiaan Barnard was a pupil of Dr. Shumway. He learned the technique at Stanford doing operations on chimpanzees, and happened to be the first person success­

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 191 ful in using that technique on human beings. After the initial flurry of excitement — and you may remember Dr. Cooley in Texas who was transplanting sometimes five hearts a week with remarkable lack of success because he did not have the immunologist required. It's a team approach that's required. After that initial flurry of exci­ tement and failures, most people thought that cardiac transplantation had come to a stop. It has not. It has continued with Dr. Shumway at Stanford in a very suc­ cessful manner.

At that particular location they have acquired considerable expertise in controlling the rejec­ tion of that very large and functioning organ. It's still going on at Stanford and, interestingly enough, Dr. Shumway is still using his original surgical technique. But again, the immuno-suppression has been considerably improved. He is currently using Cyclosporin A as an experimental immuno-suppressive. I've talked at some length about the different organs that can be used and are being used successfully. Some other organs have been considered and used on occasion.

Liver transplant has been tried and has been temporarily successful. Lung transplants have been tried, so far with a marked lack of success unfortunately. There have been other more exotic uses of organs: middle ear and larynx. But I think even the ones I have mentioned of cornea, kidney, pituitary, and heart have shown a marked benefit to the living that can be obtained from the body of the dead. From the original identical twin concept to the current tissue typing and immuno-suppression, the advances that have happened are only the beginning of what will probably be a long trail for human beings.

One thing that makes us different from other animals is that we are never satisfied with the status quo and always want to improve, if that is the right word. We always want to try something different and advance. Essentially the problem at the moment is one of recruitment of donors, either the persons themselves or the relatives of somebody who is dying or recently dead; of identifying the potential donor and obtaining the organ and, in some cases, transporting the organ, which indeed might be from Vancouver to Halifax.

The problem of transportation of, say, a kidney has resulted in the development of transport boxes. Flying kidneys around in jet fighters, courtesy of the Canadian Forces and the U.S. Air Force, is now an accepted prac­ tice of medicine. Those boxes can also be used for transporting kidneys from a major hospital — such as there will be at Fort McMurray, where there is not a transplant team — to Edmonton or Winnipeg. That itself would increase the availability of organs for transplant.

In the case of corneas, they could be obtained in much smaller hospitals than the Fort McMurray hospital, and could be transferred successfully to centres such as Edmonton where corneal transplant is available. That problem has been solved. The problem really is one of recruitment and identification. The motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall to urge the government of Alberta to establish a task force, or at least consider the establish­ ment of such a task force, hopefully would address those two remaining problems.

It could be very important to any of us, but at the moment it is very important to a group of people who could function with much greater success in life, and who could enjoy life much more than they are currently able to do. For that reason, I would recommend the motion to the members and urge their acceptance of it. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and speak positively with respect to Motion No. 202, as proposed by my colleague for Calgary McCall.

I'd like to commend him for the manner in which he presented his argument and the sensitivity he showed with respect to the issue, in particular the very sensitive manner in which he read the concluding remarks. With respect to the two speakers who spoke before me in the debate, I find also that considerable information has been given. I really regard the debate — thus far, at any rate — as being most informative and, as a matter of fact, indicating a very high level of expertise and sensitivi­ ty with respect to the discussion.

I can't help but comment with respect to some of the comments made by the Member for Calgary McCall when he mentioned the early transfusion of lion's blood. It was a rather esoteric reference, and I wonder what happened after the lion's blood had been given to the patient. With respect to the issue before us in the Assembly at the moment, I know there is considerable interest throughout the province in this area. I also realize a considerable portion of that interest is to be manifested at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary in particular.

So the comments I place before the Assembly today have been gleaned in some measure from Dr. Marvin Fritzler, who is involved in research at the Uni­ versity of Calgary. His area of research and expertise is with respect to lupus erythematosus. I understand that if a tissue bank is created, obviously it brings into existence the kind of storage facilities re­ quired. That in itself needs a fair amount of research, not simply on the matter of the costing component but the whole matter of the location and type of facilities re­ quired.

Obviously, if we're going to deal in the area of tissue banks, their locations, and the whole creation of the facility, no matter what specific tissue or organ will be handled in those facilities, what is needed is sophisticated personnel. We're talking about a very limited resource not only in Canada but in the world. We're talking of sophisticated personnel, persons of international renown. In effect the motion before the Assembly today is one that requires some comity arrangements with other juris­ dictions.

For example, we may also be involved in terms of continental policy with regard to certain areas of tissue collection or expertise in terms of the personnel required to do the transplants. It is my understanding, with respect to operations and transplants involving the liver, for example, there is one specialist in North America at the moment, and that person is located in Pittsburgh. With respect to bone marrow transplants, the facility in operation at the moment is located in Seattle, Washing­ ton.

Fairly recently, no less a facility as the one in Denver was considering establishing a bank with respect to bone marrow. They discovered that in fact it was still better to continue to co-operate with the present facility in opera­ tion in Seattle. That Seattle facility does serve the north­ west United States and western Canada at the moment. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] One of the items mentioned was cartilage. Again it's my understanding that the techniques for this are not that well established at the moment.

Presently some work is being undertaken, but in terms of North America the location for this research is Boston, Massachusetts. The examples cited with respect to kidney transplants are of great interest to numbers of us in the Assembly.

192 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 Some of us have known persons who require kidney dialysis. There is the possibility that with respect to some of my own family this may well be lurking on the horizon. It's my understanding that with regard to kidney transplants this facility has now been computerized and, as mentioned by Dr. Reid, the transport of kidneys from place to place has been greatly facilitated by the whole operation being computerized. Therefore we are in a continental framework, not simply a national framework, of moving the donor kidney, in terms of matching, anywhere within North America.

With respect to the use of transplants, obviously the- cornea example is quite familiar to most Albertans. One of the members of my family should have a cornea transplant, but because of the nature of the disease the body immediately starts to reject. For me this is another item that comes fairly close to home. By the same token, many of us should really be carrying in our wallets those little cards whereby we are able to donate and especially able to give the very special gift of sight, which is obviously of tremendous importance and a gift we'll keep on giving.

The other example that is very familiar and was exemp­ lified within the walls of the Legislature a week ago is the whole matter of giving blood. I know that last week in the building, together with staff and members of the Legislature, something in excess of 65 pints of blood was given with respect to this kind of giving gift. The previous speakers mentioned that a pamphlet is published by both the Alberta Department of Social Services and Community Health and the Solicitor Gener­ al whereby a donor card is presented. That pamphlet is readily available.

Hopefully, because of the debate here in the Assembly this afternoon, other members of this Assembly, together with a considerable number of other residents in the province, will take advantage of the donor cards and not only obtain them but fill them out and carry them around with them. I know that a number of members of the Assembly such as me have a donor card in their wallets. Hopefully those cards will be acted upon, especially if our bodies are in shape to be used after the moment of death. [interjection] I realize hon. mem­ bers are complaining about the shape of my body.

Per­ haps they might take a look in the mirror with respect to their own. Nevertheless there is that aspect which is embraced within the whole motion this afternoon: that we should also think in terms of donating our bodies to the universi­ ty, whether it be the University of Alberta or the Univer­ sity of Calgary, so medical research can be furthered and medical students of the generation after Dr. Anderson, Dr. Reid, or Dr. Paproski are able to be even better physicians when they come into the field of medical practice. Mr.

Speaker, I believe it is entirely appropriate that this motion is before the Assembly this week. If I might make a comment for a moment that relates to the reli­ gious background of a tremendous number of Albertans, this week is Holy Week within the Christian year. This week we remind ourselves of the image presented to us by the life style of Jesus the Christ, in the sense that here was a person who was prepared to live his life for others. One of the elements of his life style was that one should live for others.

So I believe that in this Holy Week, when he himself went to his death on behalf of other persons, it is entirely appropriate that Motion 202 is before the As­ sembly.

We might think in terms of living our lives for others even beyond the moment of death; that there is that capability for us to give the gift of sight, as previous­ ly mentioned; that we can give other portions of our bodies so that in a sense we might live on in the lives of others; but more importantly, whether it be from a humanitarian or a Christian point of view, that we really are prepared to give to other persons and able to give of that most precious gift of ours, our bodily organs and tissue. So I entirely support the intent of Motion 202, Mr. Speaker.

It seems fairly obvious that there is indeed a need to establish a task force within one of the govern­ ment departments, a task force that would be widely representative of a number of disciplines, so that one might examine the moral issues as well as the physical and fiscal issues. In all likelihood, given the level of expertise at the moment, a five- to 10-year lead time is required to establish some of these facilities.

So I speak in favor of the motion, hopefully so that further work might be accomplished with respect to sorting out the logistics, the expertise, the cost elements, and the siting of such facilities. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Calgary McCall for bringing Motion 202 to this Assembly. I suppose what I'm about to say may be gross in the modern definition. Nevertheless I must say it. We all assume there is no pain after death. At least I haven't heard anybody complain about it. AN HON. MEMBER: I should rise on a point of person­ al privilege. MR. KUSHNER: Excuse me.

I just received a note from an hon. member, asking if I'd donate my nose. But they couldn't find anybody 8 feet tall to accept it. Seeing that that's the case, Mr. Speaker, I think I'll get back to Motion 202, if you don't mind. Upon death, in a religious sense I suppose, the soul leaves the body. What's left? In my case, I guess not much. But in other instances, Mr.

Speaker, to some blind person, to someone on a kidney machine, someone who's deaf, a person with serious heart, liver, or arthritic prob­ lems — and this goes on — to those people and the medical and scientific professions, that corpse is as valu­ able as life itself, because in some cases that corpse could in fact save a life.

As a government, we have a responsibility to the people of this province with regard to Motion 202 which is twofold: first, to those Albertans totally unaware of the fact that they have the ability, after their deaths, to assist another individual in living a full life, by providing a healthy organ for that individual. Our responsibility there, Mr. Speaker, is to make people aware that by their generosity they are able to assist other human beings. Our second responsibility is to the people requiring the dona­ tions.

The shortages of various organs is, to say the least, not optimistic for anyone requiring a transplant. Some of those people are suffering terrible agonies because of non-functioning or malfunctioning parts of their bodies. In a lot of cases the expenses incurred as a result of medication and treatments are horrendous. Take the example of someone with a kidney disorder. The cost to that patient to go in for kidney dialysis could be as high as $22,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, $22,000 is more than a lot of us Albertans take home after a year's work. And these costs recur.

The irony is that the actual kidney donated is more valuable than any dollar value beyond our wildest dreams, but the cost of a kidney transplant is

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 193 a mere $8,000, as opposed to $22,000 year after year after year. I also understand that 36 per cent of the eligible population of Canada have no intention of donating any portion of their bodies, no matter what. Fair enough. It's their body, and they have the right to make that decision. But what about the other 64 per cent? Where are they? I think the only way we'll ever know is to set in motion this task force that the hon. Member for Calgary McCall is recommending to this Assembly and capture that 64 per cent of the population.

In 1980 we had 155 people waiting for various types of transplants. If 64 per cent or even 50 per cent of the eligible people in this province had been made aware of what a valuable contribution they would be making to their fellow man, I really don't think we would have the serious shortage of organs we are experiencing today. The saying that money can't buy everything has never meant so much, when referring to human tissue donors. Sure, this government could build excellent facilities through­ out this whole province, but what good would that do without the vital organs required?

We already have very excellent facilities located in Calgary and Edmonton. But I also said that last year 155 people were awaiting trans­ plants. We have to rectify this very serious situation as quickly as possible. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. members to please support Motion 202. Thank you. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, in considering Motion 202:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the govern­ ment of Alberta to consider the establishment of a task force to study the need for human tissue for therapeutic purposes, medical education, and scien­ tific research, and to recommend appropriate ways of meeting any such need. Mr. Speaker, although according to my blood donor card I am A-negative, I am, like the hon. Member for Calgary Millican, positive on this motion.

In standing in my place to speak to the motion, I must admit that I am somewhat intimidated by the ease with which my col­ league for Edson and my learned colleague for Calgary Millican managed a diversity of medical terminology, when it took me some time to pronounce pituitary gland properly in sponsoring The Fatality Inquiries Amend­ ment Act, 1979, which I must admit first made me aware of the very great need for awareness of organ transplants, the encouragement of donors, and of course alleviating the anxiety and suffering of those people waiting for transplants, as the moving Member for Calgary McCall referred to.

Certainly the history outlined by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall and the hon. Member for Edson shows what a quantum jump there has been in technology and the gains and progress in the process of human tissue transplants. In my sponsorship of The Fatality Inquiries Amend­ ment Act of 1979, I was made aware of the fact that not only is there a need for pituitary glands to provide a growth hormone; there's a need for this particular extract in order for research to go on to have the effect in the few short years of being able to provide a lesser amount of extract to achieve the same ends through measured doses.

Although it is certainly a gift of normal growth that is received, this extract has to be taken by injection. Any improvements in providing oral dosages, et cetera, would provide a further step. The history of legislation in our province, starting with the 1967 Human Tissue Act and improvements in 1973, followed by the first Fatality Inquiries Act in 1976, which led the way to facilitating what was amended in 1979 through The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act, shows there is considerable progress within the province in the area the motion is addressing.

In my involvement in legislation with respect to the pituitary gland, I also found that the organ donor work done by volunteers, such as Mrs. Mae Cox of the Human Parts Bank of Canada here in Edmonton, shows there is a growing level of awareness among our citizenry that will facilitate the encouragement of donors and meet the very great need that exists in our community. I was impressed by hon. members speaking before me with respect to the level of success that is now enjoyed with kidney transplants.

It would appear to me to be almost routine, and certainly public awareness of the success of this and of corneal transplants is becoming broader. I was somewhat distressed to learn from the remarks of the hon. Member for Calgary McCall of the problems with respect to a central registry for donors and the cross-typing, the technical problems outlined so well by the Member for Edson. On that point, it would seem to me — I almost feel like my body is now on loan. I have a blood donor card, a driver's licence that has me providing any needed organs, tissues, or parts — after death, I note.

The important point I want to make is that the Human Parts Bank of Canada provided an organ donor sticker. I think the problem the hon. Member for Calgary McCall referred to with respect to the knowledge of people being donors is overcome, at least in the case of people entering hospitals. Have you ever tried to get into hospital without your Alberta Hospitals and Medical Care insurance plan card? I think this little sticker would go a long way to solving the problem. Perhaps that's one of the things a task force could look at.

I realize the problem with respect to cadavers would be more difficult, but I feel that is a matter that could be appropriately placed before the task force to study. With respect to the question of awareness, and to encourage donors, the prose of Patricia Jane Finn of Calgary with respect to her Bed of Life leads me to observe that it's a shame not more of the press gallery were here to share that. Unfortunately attendance in the gallery sometimes has a proportionate effect on the pur­ pose that was to be achieved here.

I certainly hope some members of the gallery will take that thoughtful and moving prose, and with permission — that has already been granted, I assume — it will be more widely available. I was also impressed with the description of the hon. Member for Edson of the window of the eye, the cornea. I'm sure that sort of description, in understandable terms, will help the level of awareness. I was also very much impressed by the numbers he presented. He said 140 people in Edmonton suffer or are in line for a two- to three-year wait to receive a cornea and, therefore, the gift, of sight. In more direct terms, Mr.

Speaker, that would be a 12- to 18-month wait for sight for about the number of members sitting in this Assembly. Putting it in terms of 60 people in Edmonton suffering a five-year wait for kidneys, if we were all suffering from kidney deficiency we would be faced with more than a five-year wait to receive the required attention. Those sorts of numbers have to bring it home, I think. Not only the numbers in the remarks of the hon. Member for Edson impressed me, but the fact that even with the impressive gains we have made in medical re­ search and procedure, a great deal of problems and tribu­

194 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 lation are associated with such things as being on kidney dialysis which, without thinking about it, or perhaps without knowledge of the problem, one tends to assume is a routine and easy thing. Mr. Speaker, my purpose in supporting the motion — not only supporting the intent of a task force, which I think would address some of these problems of awareness of the need and registration of donors — is to also perhaps address the idea of putting more information on the Red Cross blood donor card.

They have compu­ terized registries already, and I suppose with the appro­ priate legislative permission and support it may be possi­ ble to address some of the advance typing problems the hon. Member for Edson outlined to us. Those are embo­ died within the motion, and I support them. In rising I also had the purpose of trying to speak to the second purpose the hon. Member for Calgary McCall outlined, and that's to encourage donors to make the commitment to pass on a gift of life to others.

I guess I feel I'm investing in the blood bank when I donate blood, but I would say that it feels good to feel that you may be able to contribute to the needs of others in such a vital area. This motivation in our, if you will, more enlight­ ened times could be enhanced by the fact that, as outlined in the pamphlet presented by the hon. Member for Cal­ gary McCall — produced, by the way, by the Alberta Department of Social Services and Community Health and the Solicitor General — the traumatic times of death, funeral services, and burial are not in any way compro­ mised by the giving of tissue.

That sort of awareness perhaps will encourage more people to consider more positively the idea of donating parts of their body after death. Mr. Speaker, I feel the motion has been well presented, in the sense that there is a need for awareness, a need to encourage donors, and a very real need to alleviate the suffering of people who could . . . There's a both way winning in effect. The hon. Member for Edmonton Glen­ garry would appreciate the conserve-our-society element of this, recycling and the opportunity for others to gain after one has enjoyed the full life of the body. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I urge all hon. members to seriously consider support of the motion, which would set up a task force to study the need for human tissue for therapeutic purposes, medical education, and scientific research, which I think would go forward in helping enhance the commitment this government made to medi­ cal research in the province. Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to take part briefly in the debate this afternoon. I would like to compliment the hon. member for bringing the issue before the Legislature. I basically support all com­ ments made this afternoon.

I will try to give the govern­ ment the benefit of some of my constructive criticism at the end of my speech. The hon. Member for Calgary McCall, Mr. Little, focussed very clearly for us that there certainly is a need and a need for education of the public on some of the problems we have. I do not wish to rethrash old straw and won't touch on some of the information given to us this afternoon. I want to indicate to the members some background on some of the advances we have made and review the present legislation we have.

The Human Tissue Gift Act of 1973 allowed the living and post-mortem transplants where the donor is given permission to use some of those. Then we had The Fatality Inquiries Act of 1976, which allows an unidentified body to be donated to a university if a demand is made by the university and allows for removal of the pituitary gland if no objection by the deceased is known. Mr. Speaker, in the present program, as was indicated, we have donor's cards. I would like to say at this time that I really think that program should be publicized. I don't know how you would publicize it any more than we have.

When we look at the number of driver's licences in the province and the number of people who made a commitment for donations, I'm sure that program is not nearly as widely used as it could be. That is one area where I think we should look at an ongoing publicity program and indicate the need to the public. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Social Services and Community Health has taken some action in the area of the human organ procurement and exchange program. In 1979 we had two nurses posted to the program. The main purpose is to educate medical staff and the public about the need for organ donations.

As the man on the moon said, that's a small step. But at least it is a step. The blood transfusion service — I was quite appalled when we thought we may be regressing to the point where we have to pay people to donate blood, as they used to do many, many years ago; this will certainly be a retro­ gressive step. I hope the people of this province will continue, as they have in the past, to be voluntary blood donors. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's just a small donation we can make to our fellow man, as indicated by the hon. member on the opposite side of the House when he said that we make this type of donation that means so much to the recipient but really takes very little effort on the part of the donator. I'd also like to indicate to the Assembly that we have private groups doing some of the work. What I'm leading up to is that it's really time the government got off its backside and did more than just talk and debate in this Assembly, hon. Member for Calgary McCall.

We have private groups now: the CNIB, with their eye bank; the Kidney Foundation of Canada; and the Human Parts Bank of Canada. I think one area that wasn't touched on — or maybe it was — would be of information to hon. members. When we think of parts we basically think of the heart trans­ plant, the kidney transplant, the corneal transplant, and the pituitary secretions, but many, many other parts are being used. Now we're even looking at joint transplants, middle ear transplants, larynx, eardrums, and the dura mater. We're also looking at experimental usage of muscles and nerves. The touching letter the hon.

Member for Calgary McCall read really indicates to us that there is no limit in the amount of tissue we can use for transplants. Mr. Speaker, one area of concern we as legislators will have to face in the future is the area of embryo trans­ plants. We know this is being done in animals and commercially with high-grade and pedigreed cattle. The medical profession are now doing experimental trans­ plants of human embryos. There is even a move that we may be quick freezing them and using them some years down the road as human implants. We can see there will be medical, legal, and moral problems.

I hope no one is so backward as to suggest that we use sperm from members of elected assemblies and pass that on. I think that would be a retrogressive step. [interjections] I'm sure there are people who would like to preserve future generations more than elected people. But seriously, hon. members of the Assembly, it will become a moral issue

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 195 years down the road. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to bring to members' attention, especially government members, is: where has the government been all this time? Last fall we had an announcement of the $10 million blood bank program. At that time, people involved in the spare parts or organ transplant business met the $10 million report of the government with enthusiasm. Then the minister indicat­ ed, no, that's just for the blood program.

So I'd like to say to hon. government members who are so enthusiastic about the program of looking at parts banks that, as well as making hearts and flowers speeches in the Assembly, they get to work in caucus and get the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care moving on the program. I say to the hon. member who moved the resolution that that's what we want; we don't need speeches. We need speeches of course, but we need action more. Mr.

Speaker, if this resolution doesn't receive any more enthusiasm than the resolution of 1974, passed by this Assembly, that we were going to look at setting up a province-wide ambulance service, many people in this province are going to be dead waiting for this program to take place. So I'm saying to the government that if this resolution is passed — and I hope it is passed — this government will take more expeditious movement than they did on the ambulance service. I say with all sincerity that this resolution should be passed.

But after the resolu­ tion is passed, we want some government action and we want that action quickly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MRS. FYFE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to a motion at this point in time reminds one a little bit of the bachelor who married the widow with 11 children. There's very little left to say and very little else left to be done. But because I think this is a very important subject, I want to enter the debate this afternoon. First, I would like to commend the hon. Member for Calgary McCall for bringing forward this motion today.

I also agree with the Member for Calgary Millican, who wondered about the outcome of the patient who received the transfusion of lion's blood. In his

summary, at what­ ever point that comes, I hope he would have the outcome of that patient's experimental treatment. Just before speaking, I received a note from the Member for Edson that suggested that perhaps both he and the Member for Calgary McCall could arrange mutual transplants. I am wondering if the Member for Clover Bar would like to join that trio. If I could comment briefly without overlapping too greatly on what's been said, I want to mention three different areas: first, the cost factors; secondly, the law; and thirdly, public education.

I think the Member for Calgary Mountain View mentioned there are substantial savings. If we're looking at priorities, as the Member for Clover Bar has suggested we should be doing, I think that's probably true. In the long run we're going to have to look at types of spending priorities. This is one where a savings in dollars and cents can definitely take place, if we can find donors who are willing to give and a success­ ful transplant takes place.

As the Member for Calgary Mountain View demonstrated, there is a very significant saving in dollars and cents, in addition of course to the tremendous savings in personal and human suffering. Obviously the second area of concern is the law. The law requires that surgeons must obtain either permission from the donor or consent from the next of kin before the organs are removed from the cadaver. A prime issue is the question of definition of death. I think this was covered very well by the Member for Calgary McCall, who set out the

definitions and the accepted times that organs can be removed. It's very obvious that there has to be protection for the person dying, ensuring that death has taken place, from anyone who perhaps at some inconceivable time would be more anxious to remove the organs for the recipient than wait until the proper time. But of course in Alberta this will not happen, because death must be pronounced in a hospital by at least two physicians who have no relationship with the transplantations. Perhaps the one concern I have with the motion itself would relate to the wording.

I wonder if the mover would consider a change to the use of "medical education". My concern in this area — unless I am not interpreting the wording correctly — would be that it's not the medical aspect we hope to educate, but the public; the 64 per cent who would agree that transplants and donating parts of their bodies are an acceptable part of their values. It's to this large group of people we would like to address concerns through the subject of this motion.

I guess the greatest challenge in public education is to try to convince people to make this decision — not at the time of bereavement or at a time when many difficult decisions have to be made relating to a death of one's next of kin, but to have this discussion take place within a family, when they can properly evaluate their own values and their feelings towards this subject. It's very important, in my mind, that this take place well in advance of any tragic situation. If families can give full consideration to this, I think it should be handled simi- Iarly to making a will or buying insurance.

It's often too late to consider a will at the time of death, at the time when a person is no longer capable of signing his name, or whatever situation may arise. I believe this decision should be treated as the same type of consequential deci­ sion, that can have such great positive results, effects, and benefits for people suffering from the multitude of condi­ tions and diseases that have been enunciated this afternoon. Of course donations can be made at the time of death with very little disfigurement to the body.

This should not be a concern to the family: that they would still not be able to go through the same type of last last rites normally acceptable within their family. I hope that in the passage of this motion a task force will consider a lot of different options that have been set out this afternoon. I think the central registry is an excellent idea, something that could provide information without having to have that card signed immediately.

I know that perhaps there may be some problems with the confidential nature of it and ensuring that it is not mistreated, but I do believe it can be workable, and certainly it's an option I would like to see fully explored. I'd like to congratulate the Member for Calgary Milli­ can again for bringing forward his concern. I think he did it in a very caring way. I appreciate the deep amount of research he's done on this motion. I would like to assure him that he has my support with Motion 202. Thank you. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure to rise to speak today.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the Member for Calgary McCall for taking the initiative in presenting this very important motion. The motion calls for the establishment of a task force to study the need for human tissue for therapeutic purposes, medical

196 ALBERTA HANSARD April 14, 1981 education, and medical and scientific research. Mr. Speaker, it would be ungrateful of me not to rise in my place and speak today. I owe much to the person who dedicated and donated his body so that I could have an opportunity to enter med. school and use his body, so that I could learn my profession and treat and help others in the future. We owe much to those who have donated their bodies to medical research and to the institutions we have within our country. We owe much to the develop­ ments within medical science that have taken place.

I remember going into the anatomy lab the first morn­ ing — to have the cadaver opened that we might stand in front of it and treat the person with respect and dignity, to learn the profession I practise today. I also remember the first opportunity I had as a fourth-year medical student at the University hospital to participate in one of the kidney transplants by Dr. Lakey and Dr. McLeod. Since that time Dr. McLeod has left the university and gone to the Foothills hospital in Calgary to set up a very important kidney transplant unit in that area. The Member for Clover Bar states, where has the government been?

I think it's appropriate to consider this motion today in relation to the establishment of the Walter C. McKenzie Health Science Centre, which is going to make Edmonton one of the most important research centres in Canada. I think it's important to consider it on the basis of the Alberta heritage medical research trust fund, established to improve research through the province and the world and giving renewed hope to those suffering people throughout the country. However, transplants and tissue banks present prob­ lems with moral and religious conflicts.

We'll have to face those problems, as the Member for Clover Bar stated previously. However, as we say in our burial ceremonies, earth to earth and ashes to ashes and dust to dust, it really doesn't matter where our tissue goes. Because a person has had a disease and has lost a part or a member of his body, does that make him any less, and will our superior creator look on that person any differently than one of us who hasn't lost any part of our body? I believe the spirit will be reunited with the body and made perfect. We don't have to worry whether we've donated to somebody else.

I believe that as citizens we need to do everything in our power to help ourselves live. First we must use the initiatives available in medical science to keep our bodies going, and then we depend on a superior force to give us life and death. Prior to 1972 in the United States, committees used to decide who would be treated and who would not, giving the death penalty to some people and not to others because of the financial burdens that were in place. I'm proud to say that in Alberta finances are not the main priority in transplant situations.

At the present time in Norway, legislation stipulates that the person has to sign a document to opt out of donating body parts rather than opting in. I think that creates problems within society, because somebody may have overlooked the signing and not have willingly wanted to have his body or a tissue given. At the present time in Canada we have an opportunity for a signed donor card giving authorization for the donation. Even though that authorization is given, doc­ tors still give the nearest relative the opportunity to refuse that and to live with the requests of the family.

We have a universal donor card that takes up less than a quarter of the annual renewal form for our driver's licence. If we went around the Legislature and took a count, I wonder what percentage of that would be filled out. Mr. Speaker, the human tissue donation is of major importance to our society. We have many tissues being donated, and that was elaborated on by many members within the Assembly today. Over the time of my practice, I've had the opportunity to see many conditions being treated with transplants.

Middle ear disease and loss of hearing have been cured with the transplant of the middle ear bones into people who have had audiosclerosis. Ear­ drums have been used to create a new eardrum for people who have lost their eardrums through rampant otitis media infections. Livers have been used to keep and give life to those people who have had chronic liver failure. Bone and carti­ lage, and now bone marrow, are being used to improve the quality of life of those people disabled by illness, injury, or tumor. Corneal transplants are being used to give renewed vision to those less fortunate than us.

The pituitary gland extract has made it possible for those of us who do not have the capability to grow to be away from the problem of dwarfism and its effects, the cruelty in our school-age children, and later in adults, as we look at them as being different. Kidney transplants are being used to give new life and new initiative to people in society. Blood is being used to extend the lives of those who have been involved in accidents. In some countries throughout the world, even cadaver blood is being used. We don't use it in Canada or the United States, but there are places that do.

After the death occurs and the heart and the lungs stop functioning, the blood clots. But as it clots, the enzymes within the blood dissolve the congealed blood and it becomes liquid again. At that time they withdraw the blood from the body, purify the compo­ nents, and use the components for other needy victims. I'd like to reassure the Assembly that the removal of tissue is done with dignity and care. The transplant surgeon, as he is operating on the cadaver, does so with the same type of care and dignity as he does on a live patient. There is care to preserve the external appearance of the donor.

If bone is removed, an artificial prosthesis is put in to preserve the appearance and substitute it. There is care to make sure there's no delay in the funeral arrangements for the relatives. Mr. Speaker, transplantation gives some problems in trying to interpret death. With the new life support mechanisms available today which keep the heart and lungs pumping, it's often difficult to determine when a patient is dead. However mechanisms have been set up to ensure that the transplant tissue is brought from a truly deceased patient.

In order to have authority to remove tissue, two physicians must sign a declaration that the patient is dead. Those physicians must not be associated in any way with the transplant team. There must not be any indication, that there was any expectation of that tissue being used prior to the death of the patient; in other words, a preconceived use of the tissue before the patient had died. Mr. Speaker, there are many psychological and social problems associated with transplant tissue going to pa­ tients. Many patients have difficulty knowing the infor­ mation.

They actually deny that they are seriously ill and often refuse information about their condition and the need for transplantation. It's very important that the recipient have a proper attitude if the transplant is to be successful. Mr. Speaker, the kidney is the blood's sewage treat­ ment plant. It looks after the removal and concentration of blood chemical wastes in the urine. Chronic renal

April 14, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 197 failure, or the failure of the kidney, is treated in two ways: either through hemodialysis or through transplan­ tation. Hemodialysis for the permanent renal failure case is expensive, and it's very restrictive to the patient. The patient must follow a strict diet. He's under a considera­ ble time restraint, due to four or five hours per day on the machine approximately three times a week for the rest of his life. His capability of travelling is restricted by access to a machine, and there's a marked loss of independence because of the dependence on the machine.

This often leads to social problems, with a high incidence of mar­ riage break-up and family breakdown. However, some people do very well on dialysis and can live within the restrictions placed on them. Mr. Speaker, transplantation is a treatment and not a cure. There's