March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 407 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, March 6, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/03/06 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which Y ou have given us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Bills Bill 12 Services to Persons with Disabilities Foundation Act MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, I seek leave to introduce Bill 12, the Services to Persons with Disabilities Foundation Act. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same. [Leave granted; Bill 12 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I released a discussion paper of the Provincial Health Council of Alberta and announced the membership of the Health Professionals Expert Panel.

I am pleased to file with the Assembly copies of the appeal mechanisms review paper and the news release pertaining to this, which also includes the names of the expert panel. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today with your permission I would like to table four copies of a report titled Report to the Honourable Shirley McClellan, Minister of Health, and The Provincial Mental Health Board. This report has been produced by a number of different parties, and it's titled the Mental Health Action Coalition of Alberta. That's the group's title.

This report provides the minister with numerous positive and proactive recommendations for correcting concerns in mental health. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to table six copies of a letter that I have sent to Mr. Ben Ferreira of Edmonton. The letter is to congratulate Ben on his first international junior men's figure skating title at the Orex Cup in Budapest, Hungary.

Those members of this Assembly looking forward to the upcoming world figure skating championships right here in the city of Edmonton would be pleased to note that Ben included six triples in his long program. As well, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table six copies of three letters which I've sent to Miss Brandi Haberstock of Fort McMurray, Miss Michelle Mah of Slave Lake, and Mr. Devan Nychka of Beaverlodge for their accomplishments at the 1996 Arctic Winter Games in Alaska.

Brandi won a Gold Ulu in the intermediate women's figure skating elements competition, Michelle won gold and silver medals in the junior women's 500 and 1,000 individual speed skating competitions, and Devan won the gold medal in the novice open men's figure skating elements competition. We're all very proud of these accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to more successes in Alaska. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm indeed pleased and proud to table four copies of Strathcona county State of the County Address.

This was history in the making, as his worship Mayor Vern Hartwell is the first mayor of the specialized municipality granted by the province on January 1, 1996. The address also includes the business plan and 1996 municipal interim budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table eight letters from Albertans containing recommendations regarding divorce and its consequences to the children of the marriage. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health. MRS. McCLELLAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly the members of the Provincial Health Council that are with us today. I will introduce each member and ask them to stand as they're introduced, and perhaps we can give them a welcome when they're all standing. First, the chair of the council, Ellen Hambrook; members of the council: Dale Kelley, Joe Acker, Cliff Wright, Terry Katerenchuk, Tom Biggs, Frank Schoenberger, Clara Sigurdur, Don McLeod, and Sharon Matthias, who chaired the appeals subcommittee.

They're standing in the members' gallery, and I would ask that we give them a very warm welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my honour today to introduce to you students from the Holy Family school in Red Deer. I had the privilege of being in their class last fall, and now they have come to visit us in the Legislature to see the proceedings. I'd like to ask them to rise. They're accompanied by their teachers Mr. Peter Innes and Mr. Glenn Macleod and a number of parents. So if they would please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to introduce to you and to Members of the Legislative Assembly some guests from Edmonton-Gold Bar. We have with us 10 students who are home schooled. They are accompanied by four adults: Mrs. Marilyn Côté-Dupuis, Mrs. Sheila Buchanan, Mrs.

408 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 Debbie Dionne, and Mr. Wilfred Buchanan. They're in the public gallery. I'd ask them to stand and be welcomed by the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce a group of special guests from the Belvedere school located in Edmonton-Manning. I most recently visited the school during Reading Week to promote the importance of reading and a good education, and the good news is: I was preaching to the converted.

Today visiting their Assembly and my workplace are 26 very bright grade 6 students accompanied by teacher Mrs. Dianne Unger and parent Mrs. Debra Shumyla. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them now to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly three people in the gallery. Heather Johnston is one of them.

She wants to grow up to be a page, so she's watching very closely what the pages do today. She's here with her friend Kellie Levers and her mother, Nancy Johnston. Would all three of you please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assem- bly. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, we have two visitors with us today from Switzerland. In Switzerland of course all major legislative and budgetary items are settled by referenda, an interesting process that's worked for them for about 700 years.

I would ask Connie Lutz and her sister Karin Lutz to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Provincial Fiscal Policies MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, bankruptcies are up, 20 percent of Alberta's children are living in poverty, one in seven Calgari- ans used the food bank last year, full-time jobs are down, the only jobs that are up are part-time, poorly paid jobs without benefits. The Quality of Life Commission is right when it says that the quality of life in this province has declined significantly since this Premier took over.

The Premier says he can't meet with the commission because he has to have lunch sometime. Why won't the Premier just have lunch with this group to sit down and learn firsthand about some of their solutions to the declining quality of life in this province. 1:40 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that meeting is being co-ordinated. The group in question asked for a meeting, not just asked for a meeting but said: we want the meeting on a specific day.

Here's that particular day: there was agendas and priorities in the morning; there was briefing for estimates, that they wasted in the afternoon, b ecause I was trying to get prepared for all the questions; then there was my caucus and meetings that I had scheduled with other people. Y es, I like to have maybe 15 or 20 minutes for lunch as well. A meeting is being co-ordinated through Family and Social Services and Health. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps saying in so many cases to show him the need and he'll act on it. The commission shows him the need.

How much more evidence does he need before he realizes that he is creating a permanent underclass of the vulnerable in this province? MR. KLEIN: How absurd. How absurd, Mr. Speaker. Y ou know, 103,000 new private-sector jobs have been created in this province over the past two years; 70 percent of those jobs are full- time, well-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just the other day I had the opportunity of speaking with a person in the city who operates a call centre, employs about 350 people.

His largest complaint was that he can't get enough NAIT or SAIT graduates to fill 52 full- time, well-paying positions. That's what's going on in this province. MR. MITCHELL: Underfund education and you don't get enough graduates, Mr. Speaker. We hit the nail on the head. Having focused for so long on the dollar deficit, what process will the Premier put in place to assess the extent of the human deficit that he and his government have created in this province? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with underfunding education.

It's the simple fact that there's a hundred percent take- up, almost 1 10 percent take-up of students graduating from our higher learning institutions in that particular field. Mr. Speaker, this particular individual has taken the bull by the horns, has become very involved with NAIT here in the city of Edmonton to further develop the opportunities for graduates in computer sciences. Home Care MR. MITCHELL: The Premier constantly promises that disabled Albertans will have . . . [interjections] It's my second set of questions, Mr.

Speaker, if this crew over here would pay attention. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier constantly promises that disabled Albertans will achieve improved quality of life by being able to stay in their own homes, but reality has a way of rendering those promises quite hollow. The case of Carla Vaughan of Edmonton graphically illustrates broken promises. This woman, who suffers from cerebral palsy, has lived on her own with the help of home care for 12 years, but that's coming to an end.

She will get none of the promised increased funding for home care. In fact, her funding is being cut by one-third. To the Premier: does he think that Carla Vaughan's quality of life will improve now that she will be taken out of her home and put into an institution because of this Premier's home care cutbacks? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to every story, and to tell the other side and the true side, I will defer to the hon. Minister of Health. MRS.

McCLELLAN: I think that if the hon. member opposite were being entirely fair, he would understand that that decision, the latest information I have, has not been concluded and that

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 409 there is an assessment process for all persons who require home care services. Mr. Speaker, my office is quite aware of this. The Capital regional health authority are working with the particular client. What is important is that we match the needs to the care, and that is the process that we should be following. There is not an automatic number that is right for everyone, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that the precious health care dollars we have are being distributed in an appropriate way to people that need them. That is why we have a home care assessment team. Mr.

Speaker, there has been some discussion that the Capital health authority has removed their $3,000 am ount, which is an upper cap, for home care patients. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. What is correct is that the Capital health authority are properly doing an assessment on the patients that they have, particularly in those high-needs areas, to make sure that they are receiving the appropriate care from the appropriate person at the appropriate amount. MR. MITCHELL: It used to be $3,000 a month, and now it's $2,000 a month, Shirley. [interjections] The facts are right, Mr. Premier.

Y ou can say they're not, but they're dead right, and you're responsible for the problems that are being created in this province. Y ou are responsible over and over and over again. How can the Premier believe that people like Carla Vaughan can possibly hire somebody responsible, a responsible home care provider, for what works out to $2.78 per hour? He's responsi- ble, Mr. Speaker, and he's got to start taking responsibility for what he's doing to the people of this province. MR. KLEIN: Well, I take full responsibility for what I'm doing for the people of this province, I'll tell you that.

One of those responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, is to balance the budget. One of those responsibilities is to dedicate and fulfill our commitment to the pay-down of the debt so we don't leave a legacy of debt. The other is to explore and examine in a reasonable way the reinvest- ment in this province to ensure that we maintain good health care and good education and a proper social safety network. That's what it's all about. They don't understand. MR. MITCHELL: Maybe he shoul d ensure that the 100,000 people in Calgary using the Food Bank get fed.

Can the Premier explain how it will possibly be more economi- cal for Alberta taxpayers to have somebody like Carla Vaughan living in an institution rather than living in her own home? MR. KLEIN: As the hon. Minister of Health pointed out, this is a matter that is under consideration by the Capital regional health authority. If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I will have the minister supplement. 1:50 MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, again I have to reiterate: it is entirely, I think, improper and unfair to draw these types of assumptions when in fact there is an assessment process. Mr.

Speaker, the opposition have a very simple answer for everything: we give everyone $3,000. That is not the right answer. What is the right answer is that we assess a person's need, we being the health authorities, who have that responsibil- ity, and we ensure that they have the appropriate care to meet those needs, whether it is at home or whether it is in an institu- tional setting. The hon. member knows full well that there are opportunities for care at home, and there are times when care has to be delivered in an institutional setting. This Legislature is not the determinant of that.

The policies of this government that are passed on to the regional health authorities are those policies. I would remind the hon. member that we are the people who included all persons under home care. A few years ago it was for 65 and over. We understand that all people have needs and need that opportunity, and we introduced the program that allows home care for all persons in this province, no matter what their age is. Mr. Speaker, home care is working. We've increased the funding significantly every year since the inception of that program.

We have another $40 million that is available for our regional health authorities in this upcoming budget year in addition to the $70 million which is additional money that is there for community services. The regions will define the appropriate care for the individuals that come to them in need. Provincial Health Council MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, Alberta Liberals have listened to the thousands and thousands of people who have demanded that their health care concerns be addressed. Now we have proposed that an independent – independent – health care watchdog be estab- lished.

Instead, the government has formed yet another hand- picked committee. In today's news release the Minister of Health describes the Provincial Health Council as an “arms-length body.” Now, what the council is, in fact, is good people with good intentions who are being used by a government that is more interested in politics than policy. Will the minister please explain how the council is in any way, shape, or form arm's length, when it is appointed by the minister, investigates matters referred by the minister, and reports back only to the minister? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I will say that all of the persons who expressed an interest in being a member of the Provincial Health Council in this province submitted a nomina- tion. I can also tell you that those were vetted by a review panel. There were 15 members that were chosen. I am sure that the hon. member is not questioning the qualifications or the integrity of any person on that council, although I personally find his comments a bit offensive. The council is very arm's length. I have met with them exactly once in their tenure.

I was invited to meet with them just a very short time ago regarding their appeals review report and to establish a time for release of that report. The council will tell you, Mr. Speaker, and all Albertans that that report is as it was presented to me, and it has been released. Mr. Speaker, it has also an expert professional panel, and before the hon. member attacks the credibility of that panel, let me assure him that those names were put forward by the profes- sional associations. So be careful about your comments about them. Mr. Speaker, this council has the mandate to audit the health system.

I can assure you that this council takes their responsibili- ties very seriously. I have said that I will table their report in this Legislature when they provide it. I have tabled in this Legislature today, within practically minutes of receiving it, their report on the appeals mechanism. Mr. Speaker, these fine men and women are doing a service for the province of Alberta. They are accountable, they are responsi- ble, and this government values their work. MR. SAPERS: I sure wish the minister would answer the question that was asked, not the one she expected, Mr. Speaker.

410 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 Mr. Speaker, why would the Minister of Health create a Health Professionals Expert Panel and then muzzle those experts by not allowing them to investigate their own concerns independent of the minister or her provincial council? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon. member is talking about. AN HON. MEMBER: Neither does he. MRS. McCLELLAN: Y eah, that's possible. That is entirely possible. Obviously the hon. member has not done his homework again.

The professionals expert panel is there to assist the Provincial Health Council, work with them, provide them advice and guidance. There is no way that this minister has any mechanism for muzzling those people. They do not report to me. They are there to assist the health council. How the hon. member, as wide- reaching as he is sometimes in his assumptions, could have drawn that, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely beyond me. MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table a copy of the minister's press release from today, another example, I guess, of her not reading her own press, where it says quite specifically that the “panel will, upon request.” Upon request of the minister. I'd like to table this for the minister so she can read it. My question is: doesn't the minister realize that Albertans have lost faith in the government's ability to respond to their health care concerns and what is needed is a truly independent and responsive complaint process, not just another handpicked committee? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to give the hon. member a lesson in grammar. Maybe that would be better done by the Minister of Education. It clearly reads in this press release: The . . . Expert Panel will, upon request, provide the Provincial Health Council with advice regard ing technical and professional issues associated with the performance of Alberta's health system. Nowhere in that sentence is the minister mentioned. “Will, upon request,” I would assume from the Provincial Health Council, seeing they're the only people who are mentioned in that sentence. Mr.

Speaker, the names of these people were provided by their associations. The AMA provided their names, the college of physicians provided their names, the AARN provide their names, and they are there to provide that function. Mr. Speaker, again, I'm offended by the hon. member's aspersions that this council in some way w ill not provide the mandate that this government has given them; that is, to audit, to monitor the health system to en sure that it meets the needs of Albertans.

Well, let me tell the hon. member: I have confidence in these persons on this Provincial Health Council, and I don't doubt their qualifications, their integrity, and their ability. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Health Workforce Adjustments MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometime ago the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour announced that there would be a health workforce adjustment strategy developed for this province. I have a lot of health care workers in Calgary- Currie with respect to the Children's hospital.

As we're now well into the restructuring of our health care services, we know there is a large number of workers who have been impacted. I'm interested in the results of the workforce strategy announced by the ministers. To the Minister of Health: can the minister tell me exactly how much money has been committed to this strategy and what programs are now in place for the health sector workers as a result? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the health workforce strategy was implemented through the co-operation of Alberta Health and the Minister of Labour.

We allotted $15 million at the outset to cover the three years of the restructuring business plan. Those dollars were allocated to the regions, who we felt were in the best position to understand the challenges of rebalancing the work- force. There are a number of different initiatives. Some are work- force referral centres. In Calgary and Edmonton they have career transition centres. Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton, for example, I can tell the hon. member that they had a budget of about $1.5 million. In Calgary last year they had a very similar program.

It has been extremely successful, from the feedback that I have had, in meeting the workforce's need for change. Part of that money, Mr. Speaker – and this is a very important part – was an addi- tional $5 million that was available for developing new training programs, working with the minister of advanced education in those areas. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. 2:00 MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then again in light of the apparent success of this initiative, Madam Minister, would you be considering extending the program beyond its current three years? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, we're assessing the program right now and the amount of dollars that are left in the program. Certainly if the advice that we receive from the regions is that the adjustment or the restructuring process will be longer, we will consider that. However, as you know, a major part of restructur- ing has occurred in most of our regions, so I think there'll have to be an assessment. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supple- mental is to the Minister of Labour.

What sort of actual benefits are workers receiving from workers' centres or other programs that are set up under this strategy? Do you have some specific numbers and programs that you could share with the House? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, right across Canada health care is going through restructuring. Right across Canada, in every province regions are amalgamating; hospitals are amalgamating. Some hospitals close; some community health centres open. That's happening right across Canada in every province.

Many people are looking to Alberta right now in terms of the programs that have begun because of this initiative, an initiative that's had lots of good input from labour and employer representatives. People at, for instance, the health worker referral centre here in Edmon- ton should be congratulated for the innovative work they're doing and the use to which they're putting these funds. Just in the last year over a thousand workers, l ooking at

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 411 transition in health care, have received the information sessions; 1,500 have actually had career planning counseling. About 3,000 have actually had individual counseling. In terms of hard dollars to people, there are financial assistance grants of up to $5,000 that can go directly to individuals who are taking retraining and upgrading. About 800 health care workers have r eceived that benefit right here in Edmonton. They've also taken some interesting initiatives in that particular referral centre in terms of helping displaced workers start new businesses.

Something in the order of 80 individuals have actually received dollars to help them start new businesses. So there have been some very innovative things going on, and those workers at that referral centre should be congratulated for good initiative. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. Education Funding MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Calgary board of education has rebelled against the provincial government's edict to cut system instruction support costs.

In fact, what they've done is they've approved 1.6 percent of their budget instead of what the minister has mandated at 1.2 percent, a difference of .4 percent. This decision has been made by an elected school board who have, in the words of the minister's School Act, as their para- mount consideration, “the best educational interests of the student.” So my question is to the Minister of Education. Will the Minister of Education now rescind his policy of enveloping educational dollars? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, across this province there has been considerable support for the government's direction with respect to concentrating dollars for education on construction on the schools of this province and controlling and reducing administra- tive expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to change our policy with respect to a cap on administration in the school system, and I have no plans to do so. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplemental question to the same minister: will the minister allow the decision of the Calgary board of education, a duly elected board, to stand as they have made it? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge all school jurisdictions across this province are accepting and working very hard to control their administrative expenditure. They are coming within the caps that have been provided. In fact many of them operated for decades within those caps and provided good performance in terms of their local systems.

I'm aware through the news media of this recent development, but I see no reason and I do not intend to propose to government to change our policy with respect to those administrative caps. MR. BRUSEKER: I guess that means that the decision can stand. My question, then, is: how can the minister call behaviour specialists, subject specialists, English as a Second Language and multicultural teachers part of administration? How does that fit in? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think it should be very clear that if there is a teacher who is working particularly in the area of speech pathology and working in the school as part of their staff, providing direct service to students in this province, we've never questioned that they are part of the staffing of the schools, and they are part of the instructional component. But when we're talking about our overall administrative cap – and don't forget we're talking about 1.6 percent plus 4 percent for the overall administration of a centrally oriented nature – I think that it is reasonable to expect that those caps can be met.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Flood Preparedness MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Environmental Protection. The minister is aware of course that we had some devastating floods last spring in the south area. MR. N. TA YLOR: To say nothing about all the private logging in Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Well, our soon to be ex-member from Red- water is just so interesting. I mean I can hardly not listen to what he says, even though it's inappropriate at times. It just keeps proving my earlier comment: he is no Winston Churchill.

He proves it day after day after day. It's great. The minister is aware that our snowpack is above normal this year, perhaps in the order of 20 to 40 percent, so some of our natives down there are getting a little restless. What has the department done to address the concerns of those people in southern Alberta? THE SPEAKER: The Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the snowpack is much above normal in many parts of the watershed, particularly as it relates to the Oldman River.

I must remind the hon. member of course that the flood that occurred last year was in June, so there is a fair bit of time and a lot of things could happen between now and when the highest danger would occur. That doesn't stop us from planning. As a matter of fact the staff from the Oldman River dam and the disaster emergency programs branch of Transportation and Utilities, the town of Pincher Creek, the MD of Pincher Creek have all been working together to come up with a plan for preparedness in the event of a flood. I want to take this opportunity, too, to thank and compliment the hon.

Member for Lethbridge-West and the Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod for their involvement and how they have worked in preparedness as well. Mr. Speaker, the primary warning system will still be personal contact with the various agencies and the individuals. As a matter of fact there has been a direct line put into the town of Pincher Creek to the disaster services people, and that will help serve as an early warning to the town a nd to the residents in the MD of Pincher Creek. 2:10 THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Besides the warning system, what other measures are in place to assist our residents in southern Alberta?

412 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to compliment the staff at the dam and the emergency people that worked on that emergency, the flood that we had last year. As I have said in this Legislature before, the dam did a tremendous service to the area inasmuch as the water flowing into the dam last year did reach a peak of 3,500 cfs, and the maximum that was allowed out was 2,500. So it took 22 percent off. Now, on the preparedness, we're looking at a number of various things.

Personal contact is still going to be the number one way, where in fact there's a phone-out and a personal visit. The electronics system is fine, but it does break down. We're looking at things like pagers, phone-out, those sorts of additional things that we could possibly use to make sure that everyone is notified in case of an event. MR. DUNFORD: Besides a warning system for those downstream on the Oldman River, are there any other precautions your department is doing to ensure the ongoing protection of those living downstream? MR. LUND: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as is always the case after any event, we look at all of the preparedness plans and the notifica- tion, so that has been an ongoing process. As a matter of fact, we've expanded it and looked beyond just the Oldman River dam and looked at the St. Mary's and looked at the Red Deer River dam as well to make sure that we have the best preparedness plans in place. As I indicated earlier, there's a meeting taking place in Pincher Creek next Monday looking at the various things that could possibly be implemented that would assist in the case of such an event. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East.

Computers for Students DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Students at our colleges and universities are being encouraged and in some cases are being required to have computers as part of their personal assets before they are allowed to enter the education system. For many of these students the cost of a computer creates another financial burden that prevents them achieving the education that they want. My questions are to the minister of advanced education. Mr.

Minister, do you have any plans in place right now to work with the colleges and universities to bulk order or in any other way reduce the cost of these computers for students? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, we don't have any plans as a depart- ment to co-ordinate that. However, it certainly doesn't preclude the opportunity for institutions to collaborate with other institu- tions in the province and accomplish the same thing and probably do it better than if we as a department endeavoured to do it. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Currently computers are not allowed as an essential expense when calculating student loan eligibility levels. I'd like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to revise the student loan expense calculations to allow computers to show up as a required expense and increase the eligibility of these students for loans? MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven't given consideration to that, and I suppose there would be some difficulty in defining exactly when a computer is required and when it isn't. It may be much in the eyes of the beholder as to when that requirement really exists.

So to answer his question, no, I have not given consideration to that at this point. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, some of the universities are consider- ing right now making this a requirement. I'd like to ask the minister: if it becomes a requirement for students, would he alter the calculations on the student loan agenda so that it can become part of the eligible expense? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Speaker is interested in ruling that a hypothetical question?

THE SPEAKER: The Speaker could well do that, but it's also open to the hon. minister to characterize it in that nature if he wishes to, but if it is hypothetical, the minister certainly isn't required to answer. MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the event that something that hypothetical could happen, we would hypothetically give it some consideration. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Trade with Cuba MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the United States Senate recently passed a Bill that may affect the ability of Canadian companies to trade with Cuba.

This Bill includes provisions that would allow the United States government to sue foreign companies trading with Cuba under certain circumstances. It also blocks employees and goods from those companies from entering the United States. To the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs: does this Bill contravene the North American free trade agreement or any other Canadian/U.S. treaty in any way? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to it is: without having the entire Bill and all the provisions in it, it's difficult to say.

I would expect that there is some effect on the North American free trade agreement most particularly as it affects the temporary entrance permit for executives from these companies that might go by. It's I guess the political silly season in the United States, as happens wherever there's a big election going on. I know that in November we had written to the consul in Calgary expressing our concerns for the Bill as it was progressing through the Senate at that time. There were two Bills coming: one from the Senate and one from the House of Representatives.

They were different, so they were conferencing to find a common Bill. As the member has pointed out, this Bill has gone through the Senate. We have not got the House of Representatives' yet. It also gives provisions for the President to exempt certain countries. Also, some of the provisions that we know about wouldn't relate to too many operations that are effected by Alberta.

Probably we could make a general comment that most coun- tries, other than in times of war, such as the Second World War, don't use extraterritorial legislation to promote their political agendas within their countries, and we would hope that diplomacy will come forward here and there won't be an effect through NAFTA.

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 413 THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you. To the same minister. Assuming this Bill becomes law, what means are available to us to ensure the continued ability of Albertans . . . [interjections] Perhaps the hon. member who is clothed tastefully in his bed- clothing would shut up while I ask the question. [interjections] And his partner is in a quilt, but anyway . . . [interjections] These two look like a traveling Howard Johnson. Mr.

Speaker, to ask my question: what means are available to us to ensure the continued ability of Albertans to conduct their business without fear of sanction? MR. ROSTAD: Again, Mr. Speaker, without having an actual case in point, it's difficult to say, but I know that there have been instances where companies have reorganized themselves to get around this, but again I hope that diplomacy will reign and that they will recognize that there are other ways of solving their problems with Cuba rather than trying to drag the rest of the world into their extraterritorial regime. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR.

HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you. My final supplemental is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, who, I might add, is nattily dressed today. Mr. Speaker, what are the likely implications of this Bill for Alberta business? 2:20 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as we well know, Alberta's growth depends on exports. We export over $30 billion a year out of a gross domestic product of some $90 billion. So, in fact, the trade to Cuba is some $21 million that could be put at risk.

It's a small percentage of our overall trade, but also we have to recognize that 80 percent of our $30 billion in trade does go to the United States. Alberta companies, Mr. Speaker, have a world reputation of respecting law and are known for their ability to be effective in the world marketplace. They work very closely with the FTA and the NAFTA. They have a great international reputation. I'm sharing the feelings of our minister of intergovernmental affairs in that when the fever season of presidential elections takes place, we're not starved out of the process.

I think the big thing is to continue to ensure that our customers, the private sector, are made aware of trading conditions and trading changes in all global markets. That includes Russia, which is changing, China, Iraq, South Africa, and now Cuba. So these markets are always in flux. In fact, these companies take their own profit-maximizing self-interest and make those decisions on that basis. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Special Education MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Since '92-93 Ritalin use in this province among children has more than doubled.

While Ritalin is effective in controlling extreme behaviour . . . AN HON. MEMBER: It hasn't helped you. THE SPEAKER: Order. MR. HENRY: Believe me, Mr. Speaker, for that hon. member I will continue to be extreme. Mr. Speaker, we know that Ritalin does help control some extreme behaviour among children, but we also know that studies show that it has little significant impact on academic achievement with those children and is certainly no replacement in the classroom for special-needs resources. What we're afraid of here is that we're going to end up w ith the four Rs: reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic, and Ritalin.

So my question to the minister is: what's the benchmark or what point in terms of percentage of children on Ritalin in a classroom would we have to reach before the minister would acknowledge that there's something wrong in terms of resources in special ed and cause him to investigate what's going on? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member raises an issue which is under some discussion and scrutiny, particularly in Calgary, as I understand it. Ritalin is a restricted drug.

It is my understanding that it can only be prescribed and accessed by a young person after assessment and on the prescrip- tion of a doctor, and certainly it involves the family with the young children. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a medical issue in terms of these prescriptions and the rate of use. Certainly I'm sure that the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the medical practitioners across this province would not be prescribing any type of strong drug without it being judged to be in the medical interests of the child. MR. HENRY: Just for clarification.

The figures that I'm referring to are provincial in scope, not just in Calgary but provincial in scope. Since we're seeing a rise in Ritalin and a decrease in funding for mildly and moderately disabled children, I'd like to ask the minister with regard to his funding formula: when he was designing his instructional block in education, how much of that block was intended to replace the removal of the categories of mild and moderate disability from the funding scheme? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer the hon. member's question because it's based on a false premise.

We did not reduce the funding for mild and moderately handicapped children within our education system. To respond to the flexibil- ity that school boards said they needed in terms of allocating this, we did provide that same amount of money in a block grant for school boards, and we expect that with that flexibility they will use and apply that money for the needs of the mild and moderate students across this province, along with the overall amount of money that's available to them as regular students within the schools of this province.

I would hope that school jurisdictions where they have these needs are suitably applying that money. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. HENRY: Okay. Putting aside the

preamble, would the minister tell us: specifically what was the guideline used, the per student amount, in calculating the amount in the block instruc- tional grant that would be used for mildly and moderately disabled children? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I do not have my estimates book with me so that I can quote the exact amount, but it is in the

414 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 neighbourhood of $250, as the hon. member knew before he asked the question. Fish Disease Control MR. COLLINGWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environ- mental Protection has a choice to make about a trout disease called whirling disease. The minister can protect our fish stocks by banning the import of live trout fingerlings, or he can do nothing and put Alberta's $350 m illion sportfishing industry at risk.

If the minister chooses to let imports continue and run the risk of letting this disease spread, he will need to know that wild populations of trout have declined by as much as 90 percent in areas where the disease is known to occur. My question is to the Minister of Environmental Protection. Is the minister going to act and ban the import of live trout to Alberta, or will he choose to gamble with our sportfishing industry and let the imports con- tinue? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious situation that we're facing.

As I outlined on Monday in the House, it's not quite as clear cut and black and white as the hon. member would indicate. We are certainly looking at closing the border. That is an option we're looking at. We've got to also recognize that in fact there is a great danger to our sports fishery, particularly the rainbow trout. The spores can be spread by a bird eating an infected fish and then traveling over the border – and we don't stop that – and the droppings from that bird could in fact be contaminating our streams.

Now, it may very well be that collecting those droppings would be a good job for a bunch of Liberals after the next election. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not asking the minister to regulate bird droppings. What I'm asking the minister is: does he not realize that the import ban is the only effective way of preventing the spread of this disease in Alberta? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that today we do not allow the import of any live fish except from some hatcheries that are approved by the U.S. department. They have to be certified as clean.

We are looking at the situation in those hatcheries. We have to be confident that we are not going to be putting our stock at risk. Certainly that is something we are studying. Y ou have to also remember that this outbreak in Montana was just discovered in 1994, so there's not a lot of knowledge about it at this point. We're not sure of its extent and whether in fact there is a great danger in the hatcheries. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. 2:30 MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister: in choosing to do nothing and to gamble with Alberta's sportfishing industry, has the minister determined what impact a 90 percent decline in trout populations will have on tourism, jobs, recreation, and all parts of our $350 million sportfishing industry? MR. LUND: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is totally hypothetical. I would urge the hon. member to go back and read Monday's Hansard, because I answered all of those questions on M onday except the hypothetical. THE SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired.

This being Wednesday, we'll move directly to Orders of the Day, as there are no points of order. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I move that written questions appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of 158, 160, 161, 162, and 163. [Motion carried] Highway Accidents Q158. Mr. N.

Taylor moved that the following question be accepted: How many nonfatal and how many fatal accidents oc- curred each year between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1995, on each of the following roads: the bridge over the North Saskatchewan River immediately north of Fort Saskatchewan, between the north end of the bridge and the northeast end of the Manning Freeway, on Highway 37 between the northeast end of the Manning Freeway and Highway 28A, and on the Manning Freeway between the northeast end of the freeway and Highway 28A? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities. DR. WEST: Y es.

I accept Written Question 158. [Motion carried] Employment Alternatives Program Q160.

Ms Hanson moved that the following question be ac- cepted: Of the 72 percent of welfare clients who have gone through the employment alternatives program and are now employed or in further training after the three-month evaluation, what is the duration of employment for those classified as employed at the time of evaluation, what percentage of those employed are working full-time, how many are working part-time, what is the average wage of those classified as employed, and for those remaining in training, what kinds of training are they involved in and for what duration? MR. ADY: Mr.

Speaker, in the true order of openness of this government I'll be glad to accept Written Question 160. [Motion carried] Enhanced Employment Alternatives Program Q161. Ms Hanson moved that the following question be ac- cepted: For those welfare clients who have gone through the enhanced employment alternatives program and are employed or in training after the three-month evaluation,

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 415 what is the duration of employment for those classified as employed at the time of evaluation, what percentage of those employed are working full-time, how many are working part-time, what is the average wage of those classified as employed, and for those remaining in train- ing, what kinds of training are they involved in and for what duration? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I accept Question 161 standing on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] Welfare Job Training Q162.

Ms Hanson moved that the following question be ac- cepted: What are the types of jobs and training and what is the average wage for those welfare clients in the 66 percent success rate for training on the job, and for those remain- ing in training, what type of training are they involved in and for what duration? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I accept Question 162. [Motion carried] Video Lottery Terminals Q163. Mr. Wickman moved that the following question be accepted: What are the detailed procedural steps used to determine the 92 percent payout level of video lottery terminals owned by the government?

THE SPEAKER: The Minister of Transportation and Utilities. DR. WEST: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I will accept Written Question 163 [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I move that motions for returns appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of Motion for a Return 171. [Motion carried] Video Lottery Terminals M171. Mr. Wickman moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of tests and/or data which certify the 92 percent payout level of individual video lottery terminals owned by the government. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in anticipation of the minister accepting this particular motion, I'll take the opportunity now to make some comment on it. Otherwise, I lose my . . . [interjec- tion] Just kidding the minister. Go ahead. DR. WEST: Well, silence is golden. I accept Motion for a Return 171, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 205 Limitations Act THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. MR. HERARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's indeed a pleasure to open debate on Bill 205, the Limitations Act.

Before I get into the principles of the Bill, I want, with your permission, to speak briefly on the history of this Bill. Now, hon. members may recall the intensive debate that took place in this House on April 26 last year on Bill 209 and in particular on an amendment to hoist Bill 209 for six months in order to have the summer to improve this Bill. I recall, Mr. Speaker, that numerous members from both sides debated the hoist amendment. I recall the words of the hon. members for Edmonton-Whitemud and Edmonton-Norwood and Sherwood Park and even Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert, Edmonton-Ellerslie, Leduc, and Edmonton-Centre, who all spoke against the hoist but were generally in favour of the Bill itself. On this side of the House, the hon. members for Cypress- Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie-Wapiti, Stony Plain, the Minister of Justice, and myself argued that the Bill needed more work and would be brought back in the fall as a much better piece of legislation. Well, you can imagine my dismay and my great disappoint- ment, Mr. Speaker, when I discovered that there was no process by which Bill 209 or any other hoisted Bill could be returned to the Order Paper.

In fact, I felt a bit betrayed by the system. I would not have argued in favour of the hoist amendment had I known that it was tantamount to the Bill's demise. As I found out last fall, the only time in the history of this great country that a hoisted Bill returned to the Order Paper was in Ottawa in 1882, and that turned out to be in error. I bring up all of this background to celebrate the fact that in Alberta, through your efforts and your dedication to private members, there has been some progress. Notwithstanding the comments that we heard yesterday from the hon.

Member for Barrhead-Westlock – and I agree with a lot of what he said – we have made some progress. There is now a legitimate process for members to defer consideration of his or her Bill. Private members' Bills in this Legislature w ill never again fall in the abyss of hoist amendments because you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out that Standing Order 41(

c) allows deferral of a Bill to a certain date or the first private members' day after the certain date. So I wanted to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enhancing once again the role of private members in this House and making it possible for worthy private members' legislation to work its way through this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, who kindly agreed to switch places on the Bill agenda so that this Bill could come up, because I'm sure that his legislation is also very important.

I want to thank also the Minister of Justice, whose staff did a tremendous job in terms of the consultation process that has taken place on this Bill. Since the time that we hoisted this Bill, we've consulted with more than 60 professional associations and interest groups, and I'm pleased to introduce to you today a better, more inclusive, and comprehensive piece of legislation. The res ponses that we got back from all the consultations were very much in favour of

416 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 the Bill, with some minor wording changes, that I'm sure we'll be able to bring in during committee stage of the Bill. 2:40 As society changes, Mr. Speaker, the perception of legal rights and attitudes towards justice change as well. Our present limitations legislation is outdated. In fact, there are a number of areas in which our current Limitation of Actions Act is in need of reform. So with the help of the Department of Justice everyone in Alberta will now be on the same level playing field. Mr. Speaker, Bill 205 introduces a new approach to limitations law in Alberta.

The Alberta Law Reform Institute has suggested a model for limitations law reform, and it is this model on which Bill 205 is based. It rationalizes, clarifies, and streamlines the law as it relates to the time that actions must be brought before the courts in this province. To clarify, Mr. Speaker, limitation laws establish set periods of time within which a person having a claim must sue or lose the right to do so. The purpose of lim itations law is to balance the rights of those who have claims to bring forth against the rights of those who must defend themselves against these claims.

Also take into account the interest of society at large. In fact, it was the inability of my constituents to get due process under the current law that prompted me to take action as a private member. Mr. Speaker, Bill 205 achieves this balance. It strikes the appropriate equilibrium among claimants, defendants, and the public at large. It achieves what the Alberta Law Reform Institute calls justice with the least injustice.

This Bill provides claimants a reasonable time to discover that they may have a cause of action against someone else, while at the same time it protects potential defendants and society itself from stale claims being brought forward. The traditional approach to limitations legislation describes and assigns varying limitation periods to certain types of claims. For example, in our current legislation Alberta assigns different limitation periods for actions in tort, in contract, and against medical and other practitioners. Bill 205 would simplify the system.

It introduces a new limitations regime which establishes standardized limitation periods for all claims. Two new limitation periods will be created, including a two-year discovery period and an ultimate limitation period of 10 years. Under the traditional rule of limitations law the limitation period begins to run when the damage occurs, whether the plaintiff has the means of knowing that he or she has a claim or not.

Bill 205, however, provides for a two-year discovery period which commences at the time when the claimant either discovered or ought to have discovered that their injury, for which relief is claimed, has occurred. Mr. Speaker, this provides a remedy for situations in which a claimant does not discover that he or she has a claim until a substantial time after the cause of action occurs. This notion of discovery is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. A potential claimant can only bring about a claim if that person can discover it.

I'm sure you can agree that this is a sensible, fair, and understandable approach. The provision of a discovery period is one that has been suggested by law reform groups, including the Alberta Law Reform Institute, for many years now. The concept has even been put to practice in our courts by actual case law. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as far back as 1984 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the city of Kamloops versus Nielsen case that a cause of action in negligence arises only when the plaintiff discovers or ought with reasonable diligence to have discovered the injury.

The discovery period was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court a few years later as a rule of general application. Judges have now begun to apply the rule of discovery periods to claims based on case law. Mr. Speaker, decisions regarding discovery periods should not be left up to the courts. It's important that we entrench the rule of discovery periods in legislation. We must ensure that all Albertans consistently have suffi cient time to discover that they have a cause of action against someone. Bill 205 will provide a two-year limitation period for all causes of action and all profes- sional groups.

This will simplify the system, eliminate the preferential treatment for certain professions in our current legislation, and strike a balance amongst potential claimants and potential defendants. Under the current limitations Act a number of professional groups r eceive the protection of special limitations because presumably the risk of liability is greater for professionals who are in the business of providing goods and services for others, including doctors and dentists. Mr.

Speaker, the one-year period currently provided can be detrimental to claimants, as often people do not realize that damages have been done until years after the fact. In some cases it may take the claimant at least a year to recover from damages done, to retain legal counsel, and to commence proceedings. Limitation periods should not be unduly short so as to be used by defendants to avoid liability. Recently in a precedent-setting case before the Court of Queen's Bench between a patient and her dentist the patient realized the damage had been done only after the one-year limitation period had expired.

The judge ruled that a lawsuit can be launched any time after the treatment as long as it has been no more than one year since the person discovered the problem. Mr. Speaker, a two-year discovery period is a fair and reasonable period of time. Judges are already using their discretion to determine the appro- priate length of time, and it's been determined to be an acceptable length of time in all other jurisdictions that are initiating reforms of their limitation laws.

As important as it is to recognize discovery periods in legisla- tion, relief given to claimants under the discoverability rule must be balanced with some protection for defendants against stale claims. Bill 205 creates this balance with an ultimate period of 10 years, usually from the date of the coming into existence of a claim. The ultimate limitation period is the maximum length of time during which a claim may be brought, relieving potential defendants from the threat of possible legal action indefinitely. This provision is an important improvement to our current situation, Mr. Speaker.

Under the present regime there is no ultimate limitation period for some actions. Defendants are unfairly put at risk from stale claims arising at any time. In fact, some of them may be liable for up to two years beyond the grave and on to the estate of their heirs. Professionals faced with this uncertainty are put to the expe nse of maintaining records long after they are otherwise useful as well as the expense of maintain- ing insurance long after the action occurred. These expenses are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

The greater the degree of uncertainty of possible legal action the greater these costs are likely to be. An ultimate limitation period enables professionals to better anticipate possible legal responsibilities and reduce record keeping costs and insurance premiums. Mr. Speaker, the ultimate period frees defendants from the economic and psychological burdens of the endless possibility of potentia l litigation. In addition, an ultimate limitation period will prevent the court from wasting time and money on old claims for which the quality of evidence is

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 417 likely to be poor at best. Over time memories fade, records are lost, and witnesses may no longer be available. A maximum time limit may help to concentrate the resources of the court on current issues. 2:50 Now, there's been much debate over the appropriate length of time for the ultimate limitation period. It is argued that if it's too short, it may not provide sufficient time for plaintiffs. If it's too long, it may be no different than having no ultimate period at all. Some provinces have a maximum limitation period of 30 years.

The Law Reform Commission in British Columbia has recom- mended that the current 30-year ultimate limitation period in that province be reduced to 10 years. It's felt that the 30-year period imposes unreasonable requirements for maintaining records and insurance. As well, there may be little difference between the difficulty of predicting the possibilities of litigation over an indefinite period over one that is as long as 30 years. The Alberta Law Reform Institute originally recommended an ultimate period of 10 years but has since changed this recommen- dation to 15 years.

Although they do not believe that the ultimate period will strike down many claims, they suggested this particu- lar period of time to ensure balanced protection of all claimants. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is little consensus on what the proper length of time should be for the ultimate limitation period. Liability insurers state that 95 percent of all claims are lodged within five years of completion of a professional service.

They also suggest that the remaining 5 percent of claims initiated after five years may be claims that rely upon the mists of time: obscure recollection and availability of personnel who were directly involved. The proposed limitation period provides for liability to run for a period that is twice as long as experience indicates is practical or is a practical requirement. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta also indicates that in North America it is common industry practice and standards to keep records for a five- to seven-year period.

In addition, it is a common practice for doctors and hospitals to keep all records for 10 years. These factors indicate that a 10-year limitation period will provide a sufficient amount of time for claimants to initiate their actions and a reasonable amount of time for defendants to be liable for their actions. Mr. Speaker, all claims subject to this Act are governed by both the discovery period and the ultimate limitation period, and therefore problems of characterization and categorization associ- ated with the current Act would no longer be present.

This would eliminate, for example, the need for the courts to have to distinguish between whether an action was characterized as a tort action or a contract action, because under present law the limitation period for a tort action can be shorter than the limitation period for a contract action. Clearly, it's time to change our present Limitation of Actions Act. The courts have already established the precedence of a discovery period. It's our responsibility to legislate this into limitations law and to balance it with an ultimate limitation period. Mr.

Speaker, the objective of Bill 205 is to balance the interests of claimants and defendants while taking into account the interests of society. This Bill will improve limitation laws for both claimants and defendants, and it allows for the timely resolution of legal controversies. Mr. Speaker, the principles of Bill 205 have r eceived wide- spread support from the professional associations and interested groups that I have consulted. It is agreed that this legislation is reasonable, fair, and just, and I hope that members of this Assembly will also agree and support Bill 205.

I'll be listening intently to the debate, and I w ill attempt to answer all questions from colleagues on both sides of the House. I trust that all members will support this Bill. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in support of Bill 205 at second reading, but I want to make a couple of observations.

The mover, the Member for Calgary-Egmont, had started by talking about the background and the hoist on Bill 209 on April 26, and it seems to me that begs the question: why is this Bill coming back as a private member's Bill on a Wednesday afternoon? I would have hoped that in the intervening time, since this has been taken off the legislative agenda, our colleague over here the Minister of Justice and all of the analysts in the Depart- ment of Justice would have had an opportunity to determine whether in fact it should come forward as a government Bill, and if not, I'm hoping we get an explanation as to why not.

My hope is this, Mr. Speaker. It's fine for private members to come forward with Bills that have merit, but we have seen a number of Bills that have been approved at second reading and haven't gone beyond that point. It seems to me that if really what we're trying to do here and what I think the Member for Calgary- Egmont is attempting to achieve is particularly some greater sense of fairness to plaintiffs yet in a way that's fair to defendants as well, the government ought to embr ace this.

After all, it was 1989, members, when the Alberta Law Reform Institute made their report, which has been integrated into Bill 205. I understand the importance for broad consultation, but is it not fair to ask: in all of that time has the government of the province of Alberta not determined whether we're going to move in this direction and whether we're going to replace the existing Limitation of Actions Act? So I'm hopeful that before we conclude debate at second reading on this important Bill, we get that very clear indication on the record from the Minister of Justice: yea or nay.

Either the government intends to adopt this Bill as a government Bill, or if not, why not? Otherwise, as we've seen with so many other good initiatives that have come forward from private members, it languishes. We have some good debate. We have some Hansard excerpts that members can send back to their constituents. But Albertans are not advantaged in any concrete way, and that's surely what we should be about, even dealing with a private member's initiative. It's still Albertans who are trying to advantage, just not what we do in here.

I'd like to just speci fically laud the work of the Alberta Law Reform Institute. I think this is an organization not well known to many Albertans, Mr. Speaker, but it's provided a unique kind of leadership in this jurisdiction. Many excellent reports have not resulted in legislation, but I think in each and every case when a report comes forward from the Law Reform Institute, it does provide us with some leadersh ip, it does provide us with some direction.

My only thought would be that I wish we could move with some greater alacrity when they do come forward with thoughtful presentations and recommendations for change. I'll just say parenthetically that the Member for Calgary-Egmont talked about his consultation. Let us rec ognize also, members, that when a Law Reform Institute report comes out, it's broadly

418 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 circulated after publication. So we've had some six years for Albertans, whether in the insurance industry or defence counsel or plaintiff's counsel, groups, organizations, consumers, to be able to weigh in and register their concerns, and I appreciate that the Law Reform Institute has afforded us that opportunity. Now, one specific concern I have – and I want to raise this with the mover now – has to do with the survivors of incest.

Y ou know, the most difficult cases that psychologists deal with are situations where somebody is the victim of incest when they're a young person, when they're an adolescent. It may take that person until they're in their 30s or 40s, undergoing extensive therapy, to be able to deal with what happened to them as a teenager. 3:00 When I look at the Bill – and of course we have to look at the Bill in terms of what it's going to do for claimants, potential plaintiffs – my concern is: I look at

section 3 and the two-year discovery rule, that one would think would be the sort of thing that would apply, and I look at burden in

section 6, and the burden of course is on the claimant to bring themselves within the disability rule. There's no defi nition of “disability” in the Act. There's a definition of a “person under disability” in

section 1(h), and it includes “an adult who is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to the claim.” Now, it sounds to me like this is sort of an incorporation of the test used under the Dependent Adults Act. I guess my question is to the mover of the Bill. I'm not sure in all cases or even in most cases involving incest, as I've suggested before, that that potential plaintiff is going to be incapacitated, if you will, to the extent to meet the test here, regarding the fact that the onus is on the claimant. I'm a bit unclear in terms of how high the threshold is.

I'm wondering aloud whether this is going to empower those people who have been sexually abused by caregivers or uncles or parents when they were a teenager, and now that they're 35 years old and they want to bring a claim, what sort of test, what sort of standard are they going to have to meet? I'm wondering if the mover has turned his mind to that. The Supreme Court of Canada has given some direction in terms of trying to address this problem, but of course the courts act when Legislatures are slow to or haven't done what they should to meet the needs of Canadians.

I expect now that the Legislature is in fact legislating in this area, it's within the four corners of the Bill that we have to find the solution. So that's my concern, hon. member, and I'm interested in your thoughts in terms of what impact this will have.

Now, the difficulty always with a limitations statute is this attempt to find some fair balance, balance between, on the one hand, claimants who want to be able to have access to their legal system for recompense and, on the other hand, some degree of fairness and certainty to defendants, who don't have to keep records forever, who are entitled to go about and order their affairs after a reasonable time period safe in the assumption that there'll be no other claim coming at them from out of left field.

I want to say that I think Bill 205 and the Alberta Law Reform Institute's recommendations do strike that sort of balance. Now, I guess the one concern would be that the ultimate period here is identified as being 10 years. My recollection is that the Law Reform Institute recommended 15 years, and even though we're in a period where we pick these things somewhat arbi- trarily, I would have preferred to see the 15-year rule rather than the 10-year rule. It's something I'll consider in terms of whether I'm going to propose an amendment to that extent, if and when this gets to committee.

But I'd be interested in the comments from the mover in terms of why he didn't follow the recommen- dation from the Law Reform Institute for 15 years applying to the ultimate time period and why he chose to go with the 10-year period that he has. The other thing I say parenthetically: to anybody who has read the existing Limitation of Actions Act, it's I think very confusing. It's very difficult to work your way through.

I support any time a Bill that comes forward which I think is more comprehensible, and even though limitation periods may defy the phrase “user friendly,” I think this is clearer and easier to follow. By eliminat- ing a host of different limitation periods, depending on different causes of action, I think that's very helpful, in applying only the two tests. I'm happy to see that we don't talk here about causes of action, because, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, most laypeople don't know what a cause of action is.

So I'm glad that that recommen- dation from the Law Reform Institute has been carried forward into Bill 205. We've looked for simpler words, clearer clarity in explanation, and just a heightened degree of ability to understand, just far clearer than has been the case before. A couple of comments with respect to specific sections. I'm particularly happy to see in

section 3(4) adverse possession being subject to the ultimate rule. I think that's very positive.

Section 4. I think recognizing the equitable doctrine of laches and acquiescence as defences affords the court some flexibility, and it's a very positive thing that those things are carried forward. Similarly

section 9,

section 10. There hasn't been a substantive change to the law in terms of part payment or acknowledgements, but I think it's brought forward in a way that's more intelligible to Albertans, to members of the public who may be reading this. With respect to

section 13 I have some concern in terms of the transition provisions. Those are going to be very important. It seems that on the basis of what we've got here, if you had a claimant who has known about an injury for 18 months, when the Act comes into force, should we be that fortunate, that person, then, would have a further two years in which to claim relief. I hope at some point the mover is going to share with us his basis for the kinds of decisions that he's made in

section 13 in terms of the transitional provisions, because there's a degree of arbitrari- ness and there may well be compelling reasons why this transi- tional regime has been created in the fashion it appears in Bill 205. I'd be interested to hear from the mover what his intentions are in that respect. I guess the ultimate test is whether this Bill can be more easily understood by litigants, and I expect that will simply have to stand the test of time. There probably is no good test that we can apply in this Legislature to that.

I think limitation periods with this Bill will be far more predictable than is currently the case, and I think that's very positive. We get away from the point now where the court, under the existing Limitation of Actions Act, virtually has to make a determination to characterize what kind of action you've got before we know what limitation period will apply. I think in Bill 205 we've been able to avoid that particular diffi- culty. I've already indicated that I support the notion of having a discovery period as well as the ultimate period. A lot of smaller concerns and suggestions, but I think what I'll do, Mr.

Speaker, is allow other members to speak to the princi- ples of the Bill at this stage. I'll communicate to the mover of the Bill some of the more technical concerns and issues other than those I've raised, and I'd be appreciative if he could respond before we get to a vote on this. I'd be happy to share his

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 419 response with my colleagues. Hopefully, this Bill can receive the positive sort of response from every Member in the Legislative Assembly, which I think it warrants and deserves. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. 3:10 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to comment on Bill 205 and commend the Member for Calgary- Egmont for bringing this Bill forward. If we look at the history of limitation of actions in Alberta and across the country, it is evidenced that Alberta's limitation legislation is behind the times. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 205 introduces a two-year discovery period that is balanced with a 10-year ultimate limitation period. The limitation periods apply uniformly to all claims, eliminating the complexity of our current limitation legislation and special treatment for certain professionals. The discovery period provides potential claimants with a reasonable amount of time to discover that they have a claim against someone.

Too often is the case where the damages become evident only after the limitation period has expired or where a claimant must retain legal counsel before all of the facts are known in order to bring forth a claim before the limitation period expires. Clearly, our current limitation periods are too restrictive, and they limit the rights for potential claimants. Legislating the provision of a discovery period is fair and reasonable. In fact, the concept of a discovery period has been put into practice in our courts, and it is a widely accepted principle by professional associations and interest groups.

As the discovery period protects the interests of potential claimants, it is necessary to introduce a maximum length of time that a claim must be brought forward to protect the interests of a potential defendant. It is not fair to potential defendants or society at large for potential defendants to be faced with the threat of legal action indefinitely. Mr. Speaker, the ultimate limitation period proposed in Bill 205 extends for 10 years from the time the claim comes into existence.

Having a maximum length of time that a defendant could be sued for an action would decrease the costs significantly to most potential defendants and to society at large. Potential defendants would no longer be forced to maintain costly liability insurance and maintain records indefinitely. They would have peace of mind knowing that after 10 years they are no longer liable for an action. We must provide claimants with a reasonable amount of time to bring forth a claim, but we must also provide defendants with a reasonable amount of time to be liable for their actions.

Last session the Member for Calgary-Egmont introduced a Bill amending the present Limitation of Actions Act. As you may remember, Mr. Speaker, many of the members of this Assembly supported the member's amendments to Alberta's limitation laws. However, there were members who expressed concerns that the proposed legislation needed to be more exclusive and that perhaps the length of the ultimate limitation period, then seven years, was too short.

I know that the Member for Calgary-Egmont has been working closely with the Justi ce minister and consulting with various professional associations to make Alberta's limitation legislation more effective, comprehensive, and fair. The final result is what we see today: the Limitations Act. Mr. Speaker, Bill 205 establishes two limitation periods to which all claims are subject. Under this Act certain professions and associations will be liable for longer periods of time than under the current Limitation of Actions Act. These are the professions that are listed under

section 55 of the present Act, and they are now liable for only one year. An Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge recently ruled that the one-year limitation period was patently absurd as it bars a claim for damages before the plaintiff is even aware of its existence. The judge ruled that the discovery rule, which has been termed a common law rule, should not be applied in a restrictive manner; rather it should be applied as a general rule. It is our responsibility as members of the Legislature to legislate this case law to ensure that it is applied fairly and to all Albertans.

The provisions of Bill 205 have received general support from various professional associations that have been consulted. The Member for Calgary-Egmont has been very thorough in contacting all kinds of groups that may be affected by this legislation. The Alberta Association of Architects is just one of the many associa- tions that has expressed its approval of Bill 205. Presently liability extends beyond the grave for architects and engineers or to heirs, successors, and assigns.

Under our current legislation claimants have five years after they discover or should have discovered a problem with any construction to initiate a lawsuit. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the limitation period now extends forever plus five years. The Alberta Association of Architects welcomes Bill 205 as it is in agreement with the standard liability periods for all claims and supports the 10-year ultimate limitation period in conjunction with the two-year discovery period.

It is felt that the provisions of Bill 205 protect the public completely while providing a time of liability which is reasonable to a practitioner. The proposed legislation provides for the opportunity of greater financial stability among consulting firms that are presently forced to maintain expensive insurance premium payments. Mr. Speaker, even those who are included under

section 55 of the Limitation of Actions Act and are subject to a one-year limitation period are in favour of these changes proposed in Bill 205. The Alberta College of Optometrists supports the introduc- tion of uniform limitation periods for all professions and the elimination of potentially unfair or arbitrary distinctions contained in the current legislation. Although this group of professionals is currently protected by

section 55, they feel that it creates prefer- ential treatment for certain professions and that a one-year time period may be too short to determine whether malpractice has occurred. Surely this is a clear indicator that it is time to change our limitation law in Alberta.

In addition, support has been voiced from many other profes- sional associations including the Alberta Society of Engineering Technologists, the Alberta Dental Hygienists' Association, the Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists, the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Alberta, and the Alberta Land Surveyors' Association. I would also like to address one other aspect of Bill 205 today, Mr. Speaker, regarding the legal rights of sexual assault victims. Concerns have been raised over the maximum limitation period of 10 years.

It is feared that in some cases it would protect the criminal and not the victim. Quite often victims of sexual abuse experience extreme psychological and emotional problems and are not able to disclose their abuse for many years. In fact, there are many cases that go to court in which the victim was sexually assaulted more than 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, Bill 205 does protect victims' rights. Victims of sexual abuse are protected under

section 6, dealing with persons under disability. It is designated to suspend limitation periods until such time a person realizes they have a claim regardless of how long it takes. Limitation legislation typically contains special

420 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 provisions dealing with people under disabilities. This includes minors and adults who are unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to this claim. As a limitation regiment it is designed to give a person sufficient time to discover conduct that might lead to a claim. Fairness and responsibility dictate that the ultimate limitation period should be suspended while a person is under a disability that would prevent them from bringing forward an action.

Section 6 provides for a suspension not only when there has been a prior disability, as is the case in present legislation, but also in respect of subsequential disabilities, where the claimant's disability intervenes sometimes between discovery and the ultimate limitation period. As the Alberta Law Reform Institute's report on limitation indicates, this

section covering persons under disabilities is designated to operate in situations such as where sexual assaults have occurred in childhood and the memory of the incident has been psychologically blocked for years. 3:20 Mr. Speaker, Bill 205 protects the rights of victims of sexual abuse. This government is fully aware that for many assault victims one of the most effective ways of empowerment is by addressing the abuser through lawsuits and obtaining compensation for the emotional and economic hard done.

Bill 205 ensures that victims will have a reasonable opportunity to deal with their abuse and then to address the abuser. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Member for Calgary-Egmont for bringing this Bill forward. Our limitation laws are in serious need of reform. I encourage all Members of the Legislative Assembly to support Bill 205. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 205. I'd like to pick up where my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo made a point.

I had a bit of a chuckle when he was saying that one of the things the Limitations Act is going to do is include some plain language to help citizens who do not have legal training understand some of the complexities and some of the technical terminology that we sometimes find in our legislation. It was a noble cause at one point in time in this Legislature to commit to plain language principles in legislation. Somewhere along the way that seems to have been lost. While there is some attempt in this Bill to improve on that, I couldn't help but notice

section 9 of this particular Bill, that refers to “claim,” which in fact is what the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo was referring to. We don't call it causes of action; we call it claims now so that people can understand it. The definition of a claim includes the realization of a security interest or otherwise, of an accrued liquidated pecuniary sum, including, but not limited to a principal debt, rents, income and a share of estate property, and interest on any of the foregoing. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's plain language, I'm not sure that we actually hit the target. MR. EV ANS: Gary didn't read all the Bill.

He didn't get that far. MR. COLLINGWOOD: That's right. I, too, will commend the member for bringing back to the Legislative Assembly Bill 205. As the hon. Member for Calgary- Egmont had indicated, I was one of the members who spoke last year – I think it was Bill 209 in last year's session – very strongly against a motion to hoist this Bill. It was to my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, a rather extraordinary measure for a Member of this Legislative Assembly to stand and move to hoist a private member's Bill because of the very precious time that we have in this Assembly for private members' Bills to be debated.

Certainly in our procedure for private members' Bills, by virtue of the fact that members of the Assembly have agreed to a free vote, if in the debate members are satisfied that there are some difficulties with the Bill in the second reading stage, the Assembly has the right and the privilege to choose not to pass that Bill on to the next stage with some encouragement to the hon. member to come back with further improvements. What surprised me is that when the hon.

Member for Stony Plain moved the hoist, I had assumed that the Bill would probably find its way back to the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders and that in fact the Minister of Justice would carry the ball from that point in bringing forward this Bill, which essentially incorporates the recommendations of the Institute of Law Research and Reform dating back to 1989. I'm not sure, Mr.

Speaker, what message the government intends to send to the legal community, at least, and the insurance industry and the profes- sional organizations in that they are not bringing forward the Bill under Government Bills and Orders and are simply letting a private member pursue that particular cause. The Member for Calgary-Egmont did correctly point out that it is only upon the good graces of his colleagues that we are seeing this Bill at all.

Because of the procedure that we have in place for private members' Bills to be coming forward, it is often happen- chance that any particular Bill coming under private members' Bills will come forward at any particular time. So it is only by good graces and good luck that we are seeing this Bill at all. We applaud the hon. Member for Medicine Hat for standing down so that we can be debating this Bill at this point in time. I concur with my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo that the Bill last year was good in concept. The Bill this year is certainly good in concept.

It does incorporate the recommendations from the Law Reform Institute. I suppose it's fair to say that it's high time some action was taken. So I do hope, as Calgary-Buffalo does, that the Minister of Justice might give us some indication of the reluctance on the part of the Department of Justice or the minister to bring forward the changes that we are dealing with in debates here. There are a couple of sections that I find intriguing.

I heard the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek and the Member for Calgary- Egmont deal with the fact that with the 10-year ultimate limitation period that is proposed in this Bill, potential defendants, profes- sional organizations and their members and so on, will now have the opportunity to have a definitive date whereby they'll know that the limitation period has come and gone and they'll be freed from all of the record keeping and everything that's necessary after that point. What's interesting about that, Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill as it is presented puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

It puts the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that the 10- year limitation period has in fact expired. Now, that creates a very interesting dilemma for those profes- sional organizations and their members. How long do I have to keep my records after the 10-year period so that I have sufficient proof to carry out the burden of proof that now falls to me the potential defendant? If I'm going to be called upon to go into court and prove that the limitation period has expired, I anticipate that my counsel is going to recommend that I keep my records in perpetuity.

How could I ever, then, destroy my records and destroy my proof that the limitation period has expired? The way

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 421 I read the Bill as it's coming forward at this point in time, Mr. Speaker: this may create an extra burden on members of profes- sional organizations or other potential defendants, who will now have to find ways to keep their records longer in case they do get sued and have to prove that the limitation period has expired. That is not the case for the discovery period in subsection (1)(a), but it is the case in subsection (1)(b), which is the 10-year period. So I'm not quite sure we've solved that problem. To me, Mr.

Speaker, it boils down to the question of who ought to have the burden of proof in determining that the 10-year limitation period has indeed expired. We might debate that further. It is a concern to me that we may be creating a problem that we hadn't antici- pated by placing the burden of proof on the potential defendant. Now, I know that many organizations, many professionals – and they were again spoken to by the members for Calgary-Fish Creek and Calgary-Egmont – are now moving very quickly in the area of records management and will potentially have much better means and ways to keep records.

They can, as has been acknowl- edged, be lost or destroyed, but nonetheless in terms of the overall planning and the management of record keeping, I think they will have to look at this particular

section of the Bill very, very closely as they go through those planning processes. The other

section that I noted with interest – perhaps I'll acknowledge that this one might be of interest only to lawyers – is in the conflicts of interest section,

section 12 of the Bill. I find it intriguing, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if there are other precedents in other jurisdictions for this, but what we've indicated is: the conflict of law rules will apply. In other words, if it is a decision of the court that the law of a particular province or a particular state or a particular country will apply, the substantive law, the procedural law in terms of the limitation period will be sort of foisted onto or drawn into the middle of that other jurisdiction's laws.

I'll accept the distinction between substantive law and proce- dural law, although it's interesting that we might accept the law of another province. Limitation may in fact be considered to be a substantive part of the law rather than procedural, and it'll be interesting to see how it will work when we foist limitation laws on top of the law of Saskatchewan or Texas or Oklahoma or whatever law may happen to be chosen as the appropriate law under conflicts of interest rules in any particular litigation. I looked at that with intrigue, and we'll see, I guess, how that particular one plays out.

The Member for Calgary-Egmont may be able to provide me some assistance with that, the issue of how imposing the limitation laws of Alberta will impact on that aspect of litigation when it arises. 3:30 Mr. Speaker, I think I'll just conclude my remarks by saying that we're overdue for this. The courts, as is always the case, manage their affairs. They do find these kinds of problems as they go along. They deal with it as best they can. Sometimes they stretch their decisions to try to accommodate the parties that come before them.

I think it will be a benefit to the judicial system, I think it will be a benefit to the legal community, and I think it will be a benefit to all Albertans involved in the legal system that the limitation periods are set out much more clearly than they are in the current Limitation of Actions Act. So I do stand in support of that and will look forward to further discussion about some of the issues that I've raised in second reading and hopefully hear from the Member for Calgary-Egmont and also hopefully from the Minister of Justice in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. MR. SMITH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak to 205, a private member's Bill. I think the Member for Sherwood Park did a good job of summing up the benefits of it, and there are benefits not only for the legal community but also for the consumer and also as a part of the Alberta advantage. The part about having business knowing some clearly defined limits of the areas in which they do operate and the areas in which they do do business starts to bring up clear advantages for businesses that are headquartered in Alberta.

By taking this move, that is in fact timely and contributes to drawing a fence around what happens in the normal course of business events, this Bill can in fact assist in enhancing the Alberta advantage to companies located outside of Alberta at present and companies that would look towards being in a province that would have this type of legislation, that could support the way they do business and the way they do business with their customers. In fact, in the United States, Mr.

Speaker, Delaware has made great strides in providing specific business legislation and specific business conditions that are conducive to bringing more business into that small state. I think this Bill is very consistent with what we are trying to project in terms of the Alberta advantage to the global community.

The Bill happens to be very consistent with our business plans, with that of continuing regulatory reform, continuing to make that complex web in which the consumer and businesses act as simple as possible to navigate and to bring disputes and to bring resolution to these issues as quickly and expeditiously as possible. So I welcome the initiative brought forward by the Member for Calgary-Egmont as well as the support of his colleagues that have worked long and hard on making this an effective piece of legislation that can support the business environment in which Alberta businesses work in today.

Just to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is again one initiative that can be brought forward by legislators, by politicians that facilitates business practices in the province, saves both businesses and consumers money in the way they resolve issues. It's a way that governments can bring forth a better business environment without costing any money to the taxpayer, without bringing costly tax initiatives, costly bureaucracy, such as we're hearing today in the federal Liberal budget that again talks about deficits and deficit financing and costs to government.

That deficit Liberal way I won't dwell on when we're moving towards a strong Bill that helps to continue to create the environment that allows Alberta businesses to deal expeditiously with its consumers and to create a good business network. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. EV ANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to be brief today in second reading on Bill 205. I would like to begin by congratulating the hon.

Member for Calgary-Egmont for his diligence and his enthusiasm and continued focus on what began as Bill 209, through a hoist motion, and today is Bill 205. During the time from the hoist to now there's been an opportunity for the hon. member to take input from those who would be impacted by the changes that have been contemplated in Bill 205. I believe – and certainly, as he's mentioned, our staff in Justice have been working with him through this process – that there is a great deal of consensus that the recommendations that are being

422 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 promoted in this Bill, which ar e a reflection of the institute's report in 1989, are positive, are going to be to the advantage of Albertans generally so that there will be more certainty and there will be more equity throughout our province in terms of limitation periods. Therefore, I'm going to be supporting this Bill at second reading.

I think there will be some time in the interim to try to get through some of the comments that have been made by some of the stakeholders, none that I've seen thus far that have been of any substantive significance but issues that should be addressed, and there may be some minor amendments brought in once we get to committee to deal with those. Again, I'll continue to work with the hon. member to get us to that stage. Now, a couple of the Liberal members opposite have said, “Well, why are you leaving this as a private member's Bill?” I think it is appropriate for me to make a couple of comments on that.

The Liberals and the members of this government worked diligently to amend the Standing Orders of this House and in the past couple of years have made very substantial changes to those rules so that private members do have a real opportunity to bring forward major pieces of legislation that have impact thr oughout the province, that they decide to shepherd, that they decide to advocate forth. The process as it's been changed, and by both sides of this House, has been changed to give effect to that kind of dedication, to that kind of vision, and to that kind of persever- ance. Far be it for me, Mr.

Speaker, as the Minister of Justice to say to the hon. member, to suggest to the hon. member at some point during the analysis of his legislation: “Well, hon. member, it's been a nice effort. Y ou've been a good boy. Thank you very much for the help, and now I'll stand up and take all of the credit for the great work that you've done.” I do not believe that's appropriate.

I do not believe that's appropriate at all, and in fact it would be totally contrary to the spirit of the amendments that we've made to the Standing Orders to give hon. members who are not members of Executive Council a meaningful way of inputting into the future of Alberta. 3:40 Now, I think what the hon. member has done is the perfect example of why members on both sides of the House challenged for and advocated for the changes in the Standing Orders.

I applaud that member for seeing that opportunity, availing himself of that opportunity, and giving the House the opportunity to applaud him for moving this Bill forward and through and then it becoming a law of the province of Alberta, a very meaningful change that . . . THE SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Sherwood Park is rising on a point of order. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under Beauchesne, I think it's 418, I wonder if the Justice minister might answer a question at this point in time. MR. EV ANS: Absolutely. Debate Continued MR. COLLINGWOOD: Mr.

Speaker, in the debate of the Justice minister I'm wondering if he can advise us what criteria are used by the government when it stands to move a Bill onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders, given his argument just now. MR. EV ANS: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's not a member of government, so I'm really happy to explain that very simple process that occurs quite regularly on this side of the House.

When a department through a minister decides to move ahead with a piece of legislation, it is often available to the minister and to a member of our government caucus who's been actively involved in a particular issue to work together and to determine that that hon. member who is not a member of Executive Council move that Bill forward as a government Bill, provided it is not a money Bill. As you well know, only a member of Executive Council can move a money Bill forward. So we have a process where we as a caucus work together as private members and members of Executive Council.

In those cases where we have a private member who's enthusi- astic and knowledgeable about a particular government-initiated Bill, we then give that member an opportunity to sponsor the Bill and bring it forward. It's very different than this initiative by the hon. member. We, yes, in the Department of Justice have been reviewing this limitation issue, and one of the big issues was: what should be the ultimate limitation period? The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont has talked about this. Should it be 30 years? Should it be 10 years? Y ou know, we've been working through this. Credit given where credit is due.

The hon. member pushed this matter forward. He took on the responsibility that those good people in Calgary-Egmont had faith in back in 1993, when they elected him to be the Member for Calgary-Egmont. [some applause] Y ou know, we all ought to applaud that, Mr. Speaker. I think I even saw a couple of members over there on the Liberal side applaud that comment. That's why this hon. member is in the House, because he's representing his constituents. That's why he's going to be here after the next election as well. He is an aggressive – oh, pardon me.

In the '90s he is an assertive representative of the people of Calgary-Egmont. I say that he's an assertive representative of the people of Alberta. He has an excellent Bill that we are going to . . . Oh, perhaps another question. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark rising on a point of order. Point of Order Questioning a Member MS LEIBOVICI: Y es, if the hon. minister would allow a further question. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, any time the opposition wants to get more information about how we operate in government, the happier I am to try to accommodate.

So, yes, I'd be delighted to take the question. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Debate Continued MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just wondering if the minister could enlighten us as to whether the reason, perhaps, for this Bill not proceeding as a government Bill is that this Bill will go the way of other private members' Bills that have

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 423 been passed in this Legislative Assembly. Specifically, I look at the Bill regarding the motor vehicles amendment from Red Deer- South and also the vulnerable person's Act that was sponsored by the hon. Member for Highwood. If the minister would address that specifically and say whether this one will go the same way as those other two have gone. MR. EV ANS: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members on the Liberal side are aware that Royal Assent is one very important part of the process of creating legislation. Proclamation is quite another.

Proclamation does not always occur at Royal Assent. There is an obligation on government to deal with stakeholders to be sure that we are ready with the proper regulations and with the proper background to enable us to ensure that proper legislation is passed and then carried out. The hon. member has taken a couple of examples where proclamation did not occur at Royal Assent. That should not be seen as something of surprise, and it should not be seen as a negative in terms of private members' motions. The hon.

Member for Calgary-Egmont has been working very closely, as I've mentioned before, with the Department of Justice. We're working towards this piece of very positive legislation becoming law and being proclaimed shortly thereafter. Now, shortly will depend on how the debate goes here, what recommen- dations come and are voted on and approved at committee stage, but it is our intention, of course, to move ahead with this very positive piece of legislation. [The Deputy Speaker in the Chair] In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I hope I've given a little better idea to the opposition as to how private members' Bills work under changes that they were party to and why it is that we are proceed- ing with this Bill as a private member's Bill. A private member's Bill can go through just as quickly or take just as much time as a government Bill, depending on the interest and the enthusiasm and the support in this House. I sense that there's a great deal of support for Bill 205, and I hope we can move on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Point of Order Private Members' Bills MR.

COLLINGWOOD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. A point of order. I think I'll have to cite – just give me a second here – 23(l): Introduces any matter in debate which offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly. The reason I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Justice as a member of Executive Council just indicated in debate: the reason that we decided to proceed with the private member's Bill was for a variety of reasons. I don't think Executive Council decides which Bills a private member is going to pursue.

The private member's Bill is the private member's Bill for the private member to pursue. I don't think the Minister of Justice directs private members as to what Bills can and can't come forward in private members' time through private members of the Assembly. Perhaps what I'd like to do is ask the Minister of Justice to explain what he meant when he said: we, Executive Council, decided to pursue this through a private member's Bill. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know that you have in a point of order any kind of direction for people to answer.

However, in this instance you're raising a point of order on the comments made by the Minister of Justice, and we would invite the Minister of Justice to respond to the point of order. MR. EV ANS: Oh, I'm very pleased to again provide more information to the Liberal oppos ition, Mr. Speaker, because I know that members on this side of the House know full well that the process for private members' Bills is reviewed by we the government. I'm talking about the larger government. I'm talking about the government caucus.

I think if the hon. member will review Hansard, he'll see that I was not speaking about the Executive Council in talking about what Bills come forward and what Bills are approved by this Assembly with respect to private members' Bills. We have a process in government, and without giving too much information away to the Liberals – because they might try to duplicate or mirror some of the things we do, and we don't want that to happen, Mr. Speaker. But to give them a bit of a flavour of how we look at private members' Bills, the government side reviews private members' Bills. We discuss them.

We are a team on this side of the House. We want, we seek out input from private members and members of Executive Council with respect to proposed legislation. That's what a team is all about. That's what makes this the preferred team of the people of Alberta. 3:50 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, it would seem to the Chair that private members' public Bills are essentially that. I hope I didn't get the impression from the hon.

Minister of Justice that somehow the private members' public Bills that may be proposed by the private members who are on the government side are government inspired and government vetted. [interjec- tions] Order. The Chair had to remind members on various occasions in the past that these private members' public Bills are essentially that. They are not government Bills. I hope that I misunderstood what the hon. Minister of Justice was saying in response to the point of order as raised by Sherwood Park. MR. EV ANS: Well, if I may try to clarify, Mr. Speaker. I'm really glad that you brought this to my attention.

Y ou, sir, are very knowledgeable of the Standing Orders of this House, and those Standing Orders are very clear. Private members' public Bills are just that: they are members' Bills. I was pointing out the team effort that we on the government side use to try to assist our private members to get a broad consensus from people represent- ing all corners of this province as to how those Bills would either find favour or find some concerns, some legitimate concerns, prior to those matters coming into the House. That in no way, shape, or form, Mr.

Speaker, was intended nor in practice ever does control or take away from the authority that is vested in private members by the Standing Orders that we have amended recently to give more effect and more opportunities to private members to take on such important procedures as are being suggested in Bill 205. So I hope that clarifies it, Mr. Speaker. My comments are completely consistent with and in support of the Standing Orders that we have and as we have amended recently. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, to the extent that that may clarify it, I would hope that the comments the Chair made a moment ago still stand.

It woul d seem reasonable to the Chair

424 Alberta Hansard March 6, 1996 that a private member may propose a Bill which the government may not approve of and may still go forward, even though that private member sits on the government side. If we don't have a dispute on that kind of issue, then I think we may continue on. Debate Continued THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I remember correctly, it was the Minister of Justice who had just concluded his remarks, and the point of order was made at the end of that. In further debate, the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to commend the Member – the assertive member – for Calgary- Egmont on the tremendous efforts he has made toward improving Alberta's limitation legislation and for bringing forward this Bill. We all recall in the last session that the member did bring to our attention the fact that our current legislation was outdated, complex, and certainly in need of revision, so I'm pleased to see the new limitations Act brought forward. Limitation legislation must provide a balance between the interests of the claimants, the interests of defendants, and the interests of society at large.

Our present legislation does not create this balance in my opinion. Currently a number of professional groups receive protection under special limitations. Professionals listed under

section 55 of the Limitation of Actions Act such as doctors, dentists, and chiropractors are subject to one year of liability, compared to the two years that everyone else is liable for under a tort action. So in many cases one year is not a sufficient amount of time for claimants to know the damage that's been done to them. In some in stances of malpractice the injury may not reveal its symptoms within the one year after the damage has occurred, and therefore the person is quite likely to be legitimately ignorant of its existence.

So even if a person has symptoms, he may not be in a position to connect those symptoms with any conduct on the part of the professional. For example, a situation might exist where a physician negligently examines a patient and fails to properly diagnose a medical problem. The patient is left with the impression that he is medically sound, thus postponing – g eez, I can't say that word – necessary medical treatment. MR. AMERY: Do you need your glasses? MR. DUNFORD: My colleague says that I may need my glasses. It's my mouth that's not in order. My eyes are quite fine.

Clearly, in this instance the one-year limitation period is too short, and it's an unfair disadvantage to any potential claimant. Bill 205 eliminates special provisions and provides uniform limitation periods to all causes of action and all persons under the Act. This simplifies the system and eliminates preferential treatment, creating a level playing field for all professionals. Under the present Limitation of Actions Act the limitation period begins when damage occurs, whether the plaintiff has a means of knowing that he or she has a claim or not. Bill 205 creates a discovery period of two years.

This provides claimants with the time required to discover that damages were done, that they were to some degree attributable to the conduct of the defendant, and that the damages were sufficiently serious to warrant bringing a proceeding. Mr. Speaker, this provides a person with a reasonable opportunity to commence an action. However, and of course, this two-year period cannot go on forever. The establishment of a discovery period must be balanced by an ultimate limitation period.

I believe that Bill 205 creates an ultimate limitation period of 10 years to set an outside limit on the amount of time that a person has in which to bring the claim. It is not fair to the defendant to be subject to the possibility of legal action indefinitely, and Bill 2 05 recognizes this by including an ultimate limitation period. From the point of view of a defendant there are four purposes for implementing an ultimate limitation period. The first is peace of mind.

It is of special concern to professionals that at some point in time after an occurrence of conduct that might be actionable, the potential defendant be able to assume that he or she is no longer at risk. In addition, as time passes between the occurrence of events giving rise to a claim and a court hearing the claim, the quality and availability of evidence diminishes. For example, memories will fade, witnesses will no longer be available, and documents or other records may be lost or de- stroyed. An ultimate limitation period will prevent lawsuits based on unreliable or outdated evidence.

It is also important to consider the economic ramifications of a professional being faced with possible legal actions for an unlimited period of time. A potential defendant faced with the possibility of unknown monetary damages may be unable or unwilling to carry on his or her business or personal affairs because of the cost of maintaining records and the cost of liability insurance. Presently a professional architect or engineer must continue to maintain liability insurance after retirement until death, and even then, Mr. Speaker, liability s till continues to heirs, successors, and assigns.

This is one of the key points that I want to speak in favour of in this Bill, because as a recent drop- in to one of my favourite coffee shops in town, I was able to sit beside an architect, and his explanation of the amount of time that he would have to hang on and hang on and hang on to a potential liability was quite striking. 4:00 Now, a maximum period of time that a potential defendant may face legal action provides for the opportunity of greater financial stability. Mr.

Speaker, professionals would no longer be forced to maintain expensive insurance premium payments, no longer be required to divert funds which otherwise could be relocated to job creation or a reduced project cost. It is not fair or reasonable to expect professionals to be prepared for possible litigation indefi- nitely. Another consideration, Mr. Speaker, is that if a claim is not heard by a judge until many years after the fact, different social, cultural, scientific, and technical values and standards may form the basis for determining fault.

I think we in this Assembly can think of many laws and practices that were considered just in the 1940s and '50s that we do not agree with today. Although it doesn't involve a particular individual any longer in terms of the liability, we simply have to look back to the cases of sterilization which this government is now faced with. This is part of a continuing responsibility of a government: you know, you have to adopt responsibility for what your forefathers have done. Clearly, in the light of the 1990s certainly no member in this House would ever, ever promote a manner of sterilization ever again.

But any student of history can read and, looking at the '20s and the '30s, looking at documented evidence at the time, would understand that the people in the Legislative Assembly at that time were probably justified in thinking they were making a correct and a proper decision.

March 6, 1996 Alberta Hansard 425 MRS. ABDURAHMAN: So what's different today? MR. DUNFORD: Well, it's quite different today, Mr. Speaker, especially on the government side of the House, because we would have a situation where while attaining fiscal responsibility, we do have a social conscience clearly identified by the people of Alberta but unwilling to be acknowledged in any manner by certain members of the opposition. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, an ultimate limitation period is necessary to provide balanced protection to potential defendants.

From the point of view of a claimant, limitation laws must allow sufficient time for an action to be initiated. From the point of view of a defendant, the law must prevent them from being indefinitely subject to the threat of possible litigation. I believe the discovery period and the ultimate limitation period found in Bill 205 create a delicate and meaningful balance between those interests. The provisions of Bill 205 are fair, reasonable, and just and improve the effectiveness of limitation legislation in this province for both claimants and defendants. Mr.

Speaker, the members of this Assembly already agreed on the principles of this Act last session. The Member for Calgary- Egmont has since consulted with professional associations and improved the proposed limi