April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1327 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 2, 1998 1:30 p.m. Date: 98/04/02 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this Assembly, we renew our thanks and ask that we may continue our work under Y our guidance. Amen. Please be seated. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I would request that the Clerk now read back the petition which I introduced into this Assembly yesterday calling on the government to ensure that there are two sessions of the Legislative Assembly each year guaranteed in legislation. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to amend the Legislative Assembly Act in such a manner as to make it mandatory for the Government to hold two sittings of the Legislature each year, in the Spring and the Fall. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the ND opposition.

MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 30 I hereby give notice that after the daily Routine and before Orders of the Day I will request leave to move to adjourn the ordinary business of the A ssembly to discuss the following matter of urgent public importance, that being the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the Delwin Vriend case in which the justices unanimously agreed that Alberta's human rights legislation violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to protect the fundamental rights of Albertans on the basis of sexual orientation.

I have copies for distribution. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. Bill 40 Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 1998 MR. HANCOCK: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 40, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 1998. This act is enabling legislation. It removes the requirement for there to be a vacancy in the Senate of Canada prior to holding an election.

It creates, in essence, the office of Senate nominee, and it allows for the holding of a Senate election in conjunction with municipal elections, provincial elections, or otherwise at the call of the government. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Gee, I certainly hope all hon. members heard that so they'll know what they're voting on. [Leave granted; Bill 40 read a first time] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Bill 41 Agriculture Statutes (Livestock Identification) Amendment Act, 1998 MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request leave to introduce Bill 41, being the Agriculture Statutes (Livestock Identification) Amendment Act, 1998. The purpose of this bill is to allow the delegation of the administration of livestock insp ection services to the livestock industry. [Leave granted; Bill 41 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to file with the Assembly today an information bulletin on Tartan Day, which is April 6. This day was chosen as it marks the anniversary of Scottish independence in 1320.

Many Albertans celebrate Tartan Day by wearing tartans proudly and celebrating their clan's heritage. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table four copies of a letter to the Premier from Robin McClung, who is the great- niece of Nellie McClung. Her letter fully s upports equal rights for all Albertans. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to table at this time copies of the decision rendered this morning by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Delwin Vriend and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta.

In addition I have a number of other tablings. I have seven different letters. I won't identify the correspondents by name to economize on time. I have one additional letter from a psychia- trist who makes an impassioned commentary in terms of the danger and injury to Albertans – it's Dr. Ian Kroll. His letter is dated March 31, 1998. He talks about the negative impact on Albertans in not protecting against sexual orientation discrimina- tion. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure today to table five copies of the 1997 annual report of the Métis Settlements Appeal Tr ibunal. The report includes the mission statement, the review of its business plan, and its report on accomplishments, including its 5R strategy: recognition, responsi- ble, reliable, resolve, and relationship. The Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal does a very good job of introducing a métisation program, which is a mediation program, and I commend the report to the reading of our members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

1328 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to table twenty more letters from Albertans received in the last 24 hours urging the government to do the right thing and to write the protection for sexual orientation into the human rights legislation and refrain from using the notwithstanding clause. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to table four copies of a letter from the Capital regional health authority advising that a 3.5 percent adjustment to salary ranges has been approved for management and exempt, out-of- scope staff. This change takes effect March 1 of this year. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a very good friend of mine. He's well respected in St. Albert, very involved in the community.

He is the former MLA for St. Albert, and he actually even taught me once upon a time. He taught me a lot about life and integrity and honesty. I would like to welcome Len Bracko. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to introduce this afternoon three very courageous dietary tec hnologists from the city of Calgary: Valerie Csilics, Margaret Morgan, and Gail Challand. I'd invite those three women to stand in the public gallery and receive the traditional warm welcome from the Assembly members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River. MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure to introduce to you and to the members of the Assembly a group of visitors from my constituency. They are 34 students from the La Crête public school. They are accompanied today by t eachers Herman Steuernagel and Margaret Fehr; parents John Harder, George Krahn, and Eva Krahn; bus driver, Carl Friesen. Considering that they've come from about as far from Edmonton as you can in this province, I would expect that they'll likely be eligible for endurance medals by the time they get home tomorrow night for riding in a school bus.

I'd like to ask that they stand in the members' gallery and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce to you and through you on behalf of the Member for Innisfail- Sylvan Lake 39 visitors from John Wilson elementary school. Teachers are Pat Paluck and Doug Falk. Parent helpers are Mr. Renaud, Mrs. Konsmo, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Stretch, Mr. Temo- shawski, Mrs. Beagle, and Mrs. Shaw. I'll ask everyone to give them a warm welcome. 1:40 MRS. O'NEILL: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legisla- tive Assembly residents of St. Albert and neighbours. They are sitting in the members' gallery. Ruth Lynch is accompanied by her children, Nathan and Natalya, who attend l'école Father Jan school, and Mikhaela, who attends l'école secondaire Sainte- Marguerite d'Y ouville school. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you grade 9 students who have traveled, I guess, the second farthest in this province in some time. They've been up since 4:30 this morning. They're members of the Rosedale Christian school in the Crooked Creek area. The grade 9 students are accompanied by Trevor Penner and his wife, Kathy, the teacher, and Orlan Isaac and his wife, Judy. I'd ask that they rise and receive the usual cordial welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly another group of visitors who have joined us in the gallery, and I suppose they would like to be added to the furthest distance competition that we have this afternoon as well. We have eight members of the Medicine Hat Community Credit Union who have joined us and are seated in the members' gallery. They are in Edmonton this weekend to attend the annual meeting of Alberta credit unions. I would ask them to rise as I introduce them.

They are Emily Haubrich, Cheryl Pigula, Hazel Stroh, Carol Cooper, Kathryn Sept, Fran Hadden, Marlene Kurtz, and Davida Giesinger. I ask that members give them a warm welcome as they join us this day. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly a young man who I had the opportunity to coach for years in community basketball and who is now an outstanding player at Highlands junior high.

He has taken time from his spring break activities to come to the Legislature to see what happens in question period. Nicolas Lathe is seated in the public gallery, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission I would ask that he rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise today and introduce four residents of Canterbury Court and residents of Edmonton-Riverview: Mr. and Mrs. John and Jennie Olthuis and Mrs. Dorothea Pragnell; accompanying them is Mrs. Christine Haugen.

I would ask them to rise with your permission and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased today to rise and introduce to you and through you to members of

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1329 the Assembly four constituents from Edmonton-Centre who are seated in the public gallery. They have come down today to watch the proceedings. I would like to ask Gregg Bamford, Linda Henwood, Mike Mullowney, and Cathy Reed to please rise and accept the warm and traditional welcome of the Chamber. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to members of the Assembly today two, amongst many others, tireless fighters and advocates for inclusive human rights. They're seated in the public gallery.

They are president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, Audrey Cormack, and president of the Edmonton and District Labour Council, Alex Grimaldi. I ask all members to join me in welcoming them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted today to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly two of my former students. The first one is Jairo Garzon. He tells me that he took a course from me in 1977. He's a math teacher at the Edmonton Y oung Offender Centre and is a graduate of our fine University of Alberta. The second guest is Dr.

Daniel Schuguren- sky, who has been a visiting professor at UCLA – that is, the University of California, Los Angeles – since 1994 and graduated as a PhD candidate in 1994. I would ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Sexual Orientation MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to bigotry, to discrimination, and to prejudice, somehow someone can always come up with some kind of ugly reason. But there is never a justification for discrimination; there is never an excuse for discrimination.

It is never uglier than when a government with all its power and all its responsibility comes up with some kind of ugly reason to promote discrimination. The Premier has a chance right now to set it right. Will the Premier stand in the House, accept the Supreme Court ruling, oppose the notwithstanding clause, and kill any suggestion that discrimination of any kind can be allowed to fester in this province? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to those remarks. I in no way, shape, or form condone discrimination of any nature. This was a matter of law. This was a matter of law and an

interpretation of the Charter of Rights as it related to our own human rights legislation. Indeed there was a court case; there was a trial. Mr. Vriend won at the trial stage. There was an appeal. The province of Alberta won at the appeal stage through the Alberta Court of Appeal. MRS. SLOAN: The highest court in the land says you were . . . MR. KLEIN: Will you please shut up? [interjections] Well, Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to hear the answer, then don't ask the question. Speaker's Ruling Inflammatory Language THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period of course is to seek information.

Inflammatory words and statements do not do justice to anyone in the Assembly even though the words may be appropriate in terms of parliamentary tradition. MR. MITCHELL: “Shut up” is a pretty inflammatory word, Mr. Speaker. Sexual Orientation (continued) MR. MITCHELL: Does the Prem ier not understand that if he doesn't stand and oppose discrimination whenever it is in doubt, whenever it is in question, then he condones discrimination, Mr. Speaker? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't condone discrimination. I was explaining. There was a trial. There was an appeal. At the trial stage Mr. Vriend won.

At the appeal stage the Alberta govern- ment won. It was subsequently taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the whole questi on of the constitutionality, the legality of the situation was clearly defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As it stands today, the human rights legislation of this province now includes – now includes – sexual orientation, because it has been read into the law. The Supreme Court decision has been read into the act. It is there. As of this very, very moment Mr.

Vriend or anyone else who wants to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission based on sexual orientation can do so. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's very easy. Will the Premier stand in the next very moment – in the next very moment – in this Legislative Assembly and say that he will lead his caucus to make sure it doesn't change from this moment onwards? 1:50 MR. KLEIN: We have no intention. The public statement we have been making, Mr. Speaker, is that certainly there are some long-term implications relative to this legislation. The question was never discrimination relative to housing and employment.

There were a lot of other factors relative to the Vriend situation. The case that was heard was his right to have access to the Human Rights Commission, which did not at the time have in its act sexual orientation. It now does. Certainly we have been getting a lot of calls both pro and con. I mean, people are very, very emotional about this. [interjections] Well, I don't know. Are you not getting any calls? Will the Liberals stand up and say that they are not getting any calls on this matter, Mr. Speaker?

If they do, if they say they are getting no calls, I think they're fibbing. [interjections] Speaker's Ruling Decorum THE SPEAKER: Okay. Okay. [interjections] Please. The Premier has the floor, hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Hon. Opposition House Leader, there's a trad ition in this place that somebody asks a question and somebody resp onds to the question. Periodically there are some interjections and that sort of thing. That happens periodically, but it doesn't have to happen every three seconds. Hon. the Premier, you have the floor. Would you please conclude with your response?

1330 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 Sexual Orientation (continued) MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, yes. The law as it now exists, as it exists at this very moment, and as it probably will exist for all time is that this has been written into it, but there are a lot of other questions that need to be answered relative to the whole issue of sexual orientation. We will be bringing back to our caucus within a week an assessment of the judgment. It's a 100- page judgment. Has this hon. member read all 100 pages right now?

Does he have it clear in his mind what each and every word says and how each and every page and word s hould be interpreted? I don't think so. I think that, first of all, we should have the opportunity. It took five months for the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, to render their ruling. I think we should have one week to provide a reasonable response over and above that we've already pro- vided. The response we've provided is that it is now in the law, and I think that's important.

Relative to the implications of this from a constitutional point of view, from a legal point of view, from a human rights point of view, from a financial point of view, these are all the issues that we need to examine in detail. I can tell you this: had the courts not written into our law the decision, that indeed was the number one option that our caucus was considering, and we were going to act on that immediately anyway. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government in 1993 had appointed a panel.

The panel traveled across Alberta to review Alberta's human rights law. The panel listened to 167 public presentations, reviewed over 1,700 written submissions, and in 1994 that panel unanimously recommended that sexual orientation be included as a prohibited ground for discrimination in our statute.

My question to the Premier this afternoon: given what he's just said a moment ago, will he further undertake that in this spring session of the Legislative Assembly he will amend in express words the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? He absolutely has to do that. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a lawyer. Does he not understand what it means to read in the law? Why would you amend legislation if it has in fact already been amended by virtue of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land?

Does he not agree with the Supreme Court of Canada? Does he not agree with the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada and the powers that this court has in terms of reading into provincial legislation a law? MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

My follow-up question to the Premier is this: given that the Premier's lawyer has argued on our behalf in the Supreme Court of Canada that the Legislature has, quote, chosen a neutral silence, close quote, can the Premier explain just how he squares that argument with his record, a record of ignoring the recommendations of the 1993 consultation, refusing to deal with this issue when he amended the human rights law just two years ago? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it has been read in.

Relative to the recommendations, I can't speak for the then minister, but there were a number of recommendations in that report that were accepted. These people over here, when they sit around in caucus, unless it's run in such a dictatorial manner that whatever the leader says, you know, has to go – every recommendation that comes forward from a member of the Liberal caucus is not necessarily accepted by the caucus. I would think that it doesn't work that way. I would hope that it doesn't work that way. If it does work that way, then they have a caucus that flies in the very face of democracy. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm tabling an excerpt from the Edmonton Journal, January 6, 1993, and asking the Premier why, when the Premier was trolling for votes in 1992 in his leadership campaign, he or his campaigners promised GALA, the Gay and Lesbian Awareness group, that if they supported him for Premier, he would outlaw sexual orientation in statute and he'd do so in six months. Why another broken promise, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making that statement at any time. Where was that statement made? They stand up, and they throw out these comments. Where did they have this statement?

Where is it published? Will you show me the publication? [interjections] Will you hand it to a page and bring it over here right now, because I'd sure like to have a look at that. [interjections] What newspaper? What is the name of the newspaper? Y ou know, I mean, I can pick up bits and pieces of paper from here and there and so on. “Promise was made to get vote out, GALA says.” [interjec- tions] Mr.

Speaker, it says that “a Klein volunteer, spoke to him three times in the final week of the campaign, soliciting support for Klein.” [interjections] Speaker's Ruling Questions about Media Reports THE SPEAKER: Actually, hon. members, the purpose of question period is not to verify statements in newspapers. Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. [interjections] Sexual Orientation (continued) MRS. SLOAN: Human rights and freedom from discrimination are the basic tenets of a free and democratic society. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Actually, Mr.

Clerk, how much time is there left in the question period? Thirty-seven minutes. That would be a great recess. That is an option, but that would not do justice to any member in this House. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Human rights and freedom from discrimination are the basic tenets of a free and democratic society. In Alberta it appears that a ministerial task force and public opinion poll is required to determine who is entitled to the full rights of freedom.

To the Provincial Treasurer and member of the task force on human rights: for the record will you distinguish between your views and biases on sexual orientation and your ministerial responsibility to preserve a nd uphold individual and societal freedom? THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1331 is not to solicit personal opinions and personal views. Second question, please. MRS. SLOAN: To the Provincial Treasurer: do you see a conflict of interest between the views that you might hold personally and your ministerial responsibility to preserve and uphold . . . 2:00 THE SPEAKER: Let's move on to the third question. Once again, the purpose of question period is not to solicit personal opinions. MRS. SLOAN: All right. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we've dealt with the last two. Let's move to the third one, hon. member. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd be pleased to. To the Provincial Treasurer: could the minister state for the record what he believes the role of the task force he is chairing is with respect to preserving and upholding individual and societal freedom? MR. DA Y: I am not chairing a task force on that. And I would suggest that her red dress is as red as the previous member's red face for this type of very misleading question that they're putting upon this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the ND opposition. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few weeks ago the government attempted to invoke the notwithstanding clause and said that it was an issue about money, money, money. They tried to deny Albertans the legal right to get fair settlements. A few minutes ago the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview caught my eye while he went like this to the emergency motion I'm asking to sponsor this afternoon. I haven't heard a clear commit- ment from this government. Will the Premier now commit categorically to never invoking the notwithstanding clause, given what happened this morning from the Supreme Court? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is there for every provincial jurisdiction to use when it is deemed to be proper to use. Relative to Bill 26 certainly this caucus came back, and we had a good examination of this. We said that this was not the time or the place to use it. I've also given a public undertaking – a public undertaking – that if the notwithstanding clause is ever to be even considered again, there would have to be full and open and intensive public consultation. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that that governing caucus is split on this issue. It is very clear.

My question to the Premier is this: given that he is more open to including sexual orientation in the human rights code than some of his caucus, will he agree to take some leadership on the issue and actively persuade his caucus to do the right thing and never invoke the notwithstanding clause on sexual orientation? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, no single member of a caucus can invoke the notwithstanding clause. That would have to be a government decision. That is a tool that is available to the government or a Legislature relative to a number of issues that affect the Constitution.

Again I repeat that first of all we have a process that we're putting in place, and that is really to examine in detail the judgment, all 100 pages of the judgment. We have agreed to accept that the law is now amended by virtue of the judgment being read into the human rights legislation, that it is in fact, as we speak, right now, this very, very moment the law of this province, and we will have a good discussion. Y ou know what we would like to hear, Mr. Speaker? I don't know if these people over ther e think their constituents are important. We do. [interjections] Y es.

They alluded to the fact that really we should just be jumping up and making all these decisions and that really it's our job, that we shouldn't be listening to our constituents. Well, we do like to listen to our constituents, and I think a week is little enough time to take to deal with such a complex matter that could have such far-ranging implications. A week, Mr.

Speaker, but in the interim certainly we have accepted that the law of the land is the law that now has been read into the human rights legislation, which in fact says that anyone who wants to appeal to the Human Rights Commission on the basis of sexual orientation can do so. MS BARRETT: It says a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the Premier is this: given . . . MR. HAVELOCK: Give us time to read it. MS BARRETT: I've read quite a bit of it, and I'll read excerpts in a while. Mr.

Speaker, given what the Premier just said, is he saying that basic human rights are issues that you go out and do public opinion polls about before you make up your mind, like VLTs? Basic human rights? That's what he just said. MR. KLEIN: Well, basic human rights, Mr. Speaker. No, I think everyone adopts the fundamental principle. And we did, even prior to this case going to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have always subscribed to basic fundamental rights, and we've always opposed discrimination. I mean, just look at this caucus here. Look at the tremendous mosaic of this caucus.

We oppose as much and as vigorously as anyone else the whole notion of discrimination. This was a matter of law, and that matter of law had to be decided based on a trial, based on an appeal, with totally different opinions, and to have one final decision by the highest court in the land. That decision now has been written into our legislation. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Adoption Records MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past January the task force committee on open adoption records made a public presentation to the standing policy committee. The Minister of Family and Social Services promised at that time to review their request to open up adoption records. My question is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Will the minister explain what steps he has taken to change the legislation to permit open adoption records? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must apologize to the Assembly that my answer will seem a little anticlimactic compared to what has just taken place.

I don't have any sticky things to stick on me, but such is life.

1332 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. The committee came before the standing policy committee, and at that time I gave them the undertaking that I would take a look at opening adoption records. We are in the process of discussing this. We are in the process of looking at it. We have come forward with some legislative changes that will be taken to the standing policy committee. So I would advise the hon. member to make sure he's there. There are some very good changes. Mr.

Speaker, what I've said to the people that have come before me is that this is a case where I as minister have to protect the minority. I realize it's a minority, but I have to protect the minority who do not want these adoption records opened. If the people that came before me – and I've given this challenge to them – can tell me how we can open adoption records yet still protect the minority of people who do not want the adoption records open, I'd be more than happy to do that. MR. DOERKSEN: To the same minister: is it possible to have access to adoption files through the court process? DR. OBERG: Mr.

Speaker, that's a very good question. The adoption records are sealed by the court following adoption. There have been a couple of cases. There was one case in central Alberta, for example, where the person received his a doption records, but this was already after the individual gained the knowledge of who his parents were. So this was quite simply just giving him the information he already had. But as of today in Alberta the court records are sealed when it comes to an adoption. MR. DOERKSEN: My final question is also to the Minister of Family and Social Services.

Will the minister take any interim steps to permit easier access to records in cases where obtaining family medical history is a necessity? 2:10 DR. OBERG: Y es, Mr. Speaker. The law presently states that when there is an issue of medical diseases, when there's an issue of urgency, the minister has the obligation and the ability to open adoption records at any time. Quite frankly, probably about 10 to 12 times per year I open adoption records in case of genetic illnesses, in case of illn esses that run in families, and this very important information is passed on to the adoptive parents and the adoptees.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, followed by the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. Health Care Labour Relations MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to hear of the Premier's commitment to listen to constituents because today in Calgary between 500 and 600 licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants continue to walk the picket line at the Bethany care centre and the Dr. Vernon Fanning centre, both in Calgary.

These frontline workers have been without a contract for nearly one year, and in spite of their offer to enter into mediation, their employer refuses to bargain without the threat of fines and other disciplinary action. These workers had their wages rolled back by 5 percent in 1994, and they took a further 2 percent rollback in 1997, and many of them had their jobs reclassified to lower paid positions. My questions are to the Premier.

Why has the Premier allowed the Minister of Labour to do nothing at all while hun- dreds of hardworking Calgarians are forced to risk legal repercus- sions just so that they might have a chance to negotiate a fair labour settlement? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister of Labour has been very, very busy these days. MRS. SLOAN: Doing what? MR. KLEIN: Well, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour and myself met with the head of the guild and the president of AUPE, certainly with regards to the situation here in Edmonton but also with the situation in Calgary.

There was a general agreement that everyone would get back to the table and start to bargain in good faith. That obviously happened yesterday, because the situation in Edmonton has been settled. I think that we're all breathing a sigh of relief today that indeed it has been settled. If there is anything the Minister of Labour can do through the offer of mediation services – and that's really what led to the settlement yesterday, mediation that began at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon – I'm sure those services would be available. I'll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's entirely correct. In fact, the ability to mediate is th ere. It has been ongoing. It continues. I think the frustration that creates a will in people to break the law is always difficult, and that has to be dealt with accordingly. Most importantly, the purpose of the provincial government is to build working relationships, to build an environ- ment that facilitates and expedites labour agreements, secondly, to recognize productivity gains through technology, and thirdly, to see pay packets increase across Alberta.

In fact, if you look at average Canadian weekly earnings, you'll note that Alberta consistently runs 8 to 10 percent above the average of all of Canada. That's consistently the case today. So we continue to work with them. MR. SAPERS: Thank you. My second question is also to the Premier.

Given that the meeting he referred to dealt specifically with the negotiations in Edmonton, specifically with the labour unrest in the city of Edmonton, will the Premier immediately convene a meeting between the Canadian Health Care Guild, the Carewest group, Bethany Care, and the Minister of Labour to deal specifically with the labour dispute in Calgary? MR. KLEIN: Well, my recollection of the meeting yesterday, certainly we alluded – because the president of the guild was there – to the situation in Calgary.

It was my understanding that that memorandum we agreed upon would be extended to Calgary as well on behalf of the guild. So I just don't know where the situation is today, but perhaps the hon. minister can bring us up to date. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I detect a move by the member of the opposition to try and involve us directly in negotiation. Nothing could be in fact further from the case. Our job as the Ministry of Labour and the government of Alberta is to create the environ- ment in which these settlements can take place in a fair and equitable manner. That's exactly what we've tried to do.

We are not interfering with the bargaining process. We are not overrid- ing or interfering or influencing the decisions of the Labour

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1333 Relations Board. We are in fact trying to act as a catalyst where required that can help expedite fair settlement that benefits both employer and employee, and we'll continue to do so. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The Bethany care group and Carewest don't think that memora ndum of understanding applies to them. So, Mr.

Premier, I'll ask you one more time: given that both the employees and the employers who are embroiled in this labour dispute in Calgary are equally being held hostage by the government's health care and labour policies, will the Premier give his personal assurances that there will be no fines, no disciplinary actions arising from this strike, and that he will call on those employers to enter into mediation, just as he did in Edmonton? Will you do that, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the Minister of Labour is absolutely right in his comments.

The floor of the Legislature is not the place to bargain. The place to do that is at the negotiating table. As the hon. Minister of Labour pointed out, if there are requirements for facilitation, for mediation, then the minister could be available, I could be available, or certainly members of his department, experts in this field, are always available. As I've said before, in the Legislature we represent neither labour nor management, but we do want to make sure as much as possible that there is a good working relationship amongst all the labour and management groups.

If we can do anything to facilitate that, we will. Relative to getting into the specifics of whether those who are out on illegal strike will be fined, relative to getting into the specifics with respect to the negotiations, the dollar amounts, no, we don't get involved in those things. MR. SMITH: Twenty seconds because of the importance of the issue. Mr. Speaker, let's again put in focus on the floor of the Legislature that there are 61 percent of unionized health care staff currently working under a collective agreement that has been consummated, agreed to by both parties.

It's happened without breaking the law, without resorting to illegal strike action, and we're confident that can happen again. Also, that has happened without direct government intervention and will continue to do so. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Safety Code Enforcement MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the major fire that ravaged parts of my constituency last December, the issue of fire investigations is important for my volunteer fire chiefs.

On March 30 at the AAMD and C convention I met with members of the Willow Creek district to discuss some of these concerns. These councillors are concerned about the quality management plans, or QMPs, they must have in place to receive accreditation by Alberta Labour for fire investigations. So my question today is to the Minister of Labour. Can you please tell me why these quality management plans are so complicated? MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is the day of burning issues, so I'm pleased to respond to this.

The implemen- tation of the Safety Code Act in 1994 allowed municipalities the ability to do what was best for th em in their area of influence, their area of accreditation. From that came quality management programs or ways of doing business that directly affected their customer group. Now, as this unfolded, it was important to note that different plans of doing business to serve customers properly evolved in different areas of Alberta.

What we've done now is we've seen, after some good healthy individual creativity throughout the province, that there are areas where standardization and simplification can take place, and we'll be proceeding in that vein. MR. COUTTS: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: what are the liability issues for municipalities accredited under the Safety Codes Act? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, municipalities are exempted from liabilities by the Safety Codes Act as long as they carry out their responsibilities in good faith and follow good business practices.

As we work with municipalities on their quality management programs or ways of doing business for their customers, we're going to ensure that we're going to provide our services as a customer-focused department to the municipalities so that they have the proper processes in place to carry out these responsibili- ties. 2:20 MR. COUTTS: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the same minister: is the minister willing to change the current safety code system so it is less of a burden on municipalities in their fire investigations? MR. SMITH: It is a good question, Mr.

Speaker, and of course this customer service department always remains attuned to what we can do better for our customers. When our customers are municipalities, we're more than happy to deal with them on a consultation basis in a wide division of discussion and public forums that say: “Let's talk about a review of the Safety Codes Act. We've come this far this fast; what can we do better? What can we do more efficiently? How do we gain that productivity in the marketplace and still serve our customers?” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort.

Electric Utilities Deregulation MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Public Institutional Consumers of Alberta, representing all the hospitals, schools, and public colleges in the province of Alberta, is the latest organiza- tion to express concern about this government's policy on electricity deregulation. That makes, Mr. Minister, seven of 15 of the members of the minister's own stakeholder advisory committee who are on record now as wanting this government to change their policy to ensure that full return of the benefits is to the consumers.

How can this minister insist that there is a consensus amongst that group when nearly half now have reservations about that policy? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the letter I'm holding from PICA states here, “We are generally supportive of the deregulation plan set out in Bill 27 and believe the legislation should go forward without delay.” MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, precisely. The minister neglected to say that they do have and express full concern about the reserva-

1334 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 tions that the full extent of the benefits is not being returned to the consumers, and he knows it. What do you say to that? Read the letter. DR. WEST: Well, Mr. Speaker, as stakeholders that have been involved – and yes they have, along with hundreds of others – we have assured them as we go forth with the regulations that they will be fully involved in the development of those as a stakeholder group. They are saying: get on with this bill, we need this bill, and we're willing to sit down with you. I mean, that's intended behind this if they say go forthwith with the bill. MR.

WHITE: Mr. Speaker, to the minister: why then are the interests of consumers not taking the same precedence in your mind and your policies as the utility companies? DR. WEST: I don't understand the question. The Public Institutional Consumers of Alberta . . . representing Hospitals, Schools and Public Colleges, have actively partici- pated, together with other stakeholders, in the Electric Industry Restructuring effort to date. We are generally supportive of the deregulation plan set out in Bill 27 and believe the legislation should go forward without delay.

Signed, Michael Higgins, chair of PICA, and it's signed April 1, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Health Care Funding MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Among the issues flying around, there is a very important and practical subject which can be a matter of life or death for every Albertan. It is the subject of health care. My question is to the Minister of Health. There is a news release from Alberta Health about the funding increase. Now, no doubt this is commendable to the minister and good news to health care and regional authorities.

My question is: could the minister tell us what is the basis for this increase? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the announcement of additional funding to the regional health authorities, the key component of the process that led to that decision was first of all that we received our most recent overall population figures for the province. There has been a substantial increase in population in the province.

In addition there have been certain areas of the province which have experienced very rapid growth, and one of the factors was certainly population growth and the adding of money proportionately in that area. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there has been reassessment in terms of overall costs within the system with respect to everything from utilities to other operational costs. We have also, as has been mentioned several times in the Assembly, acknowledged receiving representation from the regional health authorities.

Government MLAs have listened carefully to these presentations and put forward their recommendations and views. Also there was an overall presentation, a document that I received from the regional health authorities that outlined overall cost pressures. So putting those things together and looking at it very carefully, we have allocated an additional 6.2 percent to the RHAs as far as opera- tional funding is concerned. This does not deal with substantial capital reinvestment. MRS. BLACK: How much? MR. JONSON: Six point two percent, or $66.6 million, Mr. Speaker.

We have announced that today, and I think it will be very important to the regional health authorities and of course very important for quality health care. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The total increase is a large sum. So my question is: where do these additional increases come from? Is it from the health care premium increase or from gaming sources? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the 66.6 million operational dollars that I referred to will have to be paid out of this year's budget.

It will be a challenge that we w ill have to look at as a govern- ment, as a caucus in the months ahead in terms of being able to reallocate moneys so that can be paid out to the high-priority area of health care. There has of course been an additional amount of money, a very, very significant additional amount of money for Y2K costs and for capital equipment, and that has to a great degree come from our lottery funds. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the same minister. Albertans are very concerned about the overusage of our publicly funded health care system.

Is there any program or effort to continue to make it more economical, efficient in delivery, and effective in caring? MR. JONSON: I think, Mr. Speaker, the greatest incentive is the fact that being in good health is much more pleasant than being in bad health, and I hope all individuals consider that factor. In fact there have been a number of them recently announced. A number of prevention programs, such as the communicable disease immunization program, have been announced and are part of our overall budget. We have a number of health promotion initia- tives.

We have looked at the whole area of other incentives that we might build into the health car e system. It is part of health reform, it is part of redirecting our health care system, and we are working on that area and always open to additional good ideas. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Dietary Technologists MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recent strikes by health care workers are not isolated cases of workers simply wanting a few extra dollars from their employer.

Nurses, support staff, and other frontline workers are the ones paying the price for slashed funding and hasty restructuring. Dietary technologists were unjustly terminated by the Calgary district hospital group in 1994 and still have not r eceived a fair settlement. My first question is to the Minister of Labour. W ill the minister stop employers from skirting the Employment Standards Code by laying off workers without cause while suggesting that they might rehire them, when in reality their positions have been eliminated? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, in fact last year 596 collective agreements were settled.

There were 10 with work st oppages. The ability for Albertans to negotiate in a reasonable and temper- ate format is there. Again, as said earlier, we're here to provide the environment so that workers, employers, and business can flourish and prosper. That's happened.

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1335 With respect to the specific issue, the employment standards group has an excellent record of being able to enforce the standards that are there, and in fact if the standards aren't appropriate, we're right in the middle of asking Albertans to talk to us about standards, what they'd like to see changed. With respect to the very specific issue brought up by the member, I'd be more than pleased to shed any further light that I could upon further examination. 2:30 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the Minister of Health.

Can he tell the three dietary technicians from Calgary who are sitting in the gallery this afternoon why, after a combined total of 57 years' service, they were terminated without cause by health authority administrators, who in the face of reduced f unding for other workers, r ecently gave themselves a 3.5 percent increase? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, this is an individual case that I'm sure is very, very important to the individuals. It happened in 1994. I'm not aware of the circumstances of the case. As I recall, I was not in this portfolio in 1994. I do not know the background of the case. MR.

MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to meet and discuss compensation to these workers – if he wants to inform himself of this file, these workers were not even offered a severance package or an opportunity to reapply – especially since the Premier jus tified cuts by saying that all Albertans affected will receive some form of fair severance? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I and my department – I'm sure we would consult with the Minister of Labour and his department on any written, factual presentation that would be submitted to us on this particular case or any other, and we would follow up and investigate. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Unlicensed Care Facilities MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March of 1995 I sponsored Motion 505, which urged the government to ensure that health and safety standards are being met in all personal care facilities.

This includes the small, unlicensed facilities. This motion was passed unanimously in this Assembly. My question is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Would the minister please inform this Assembly what recommendations came out of the interdepartmental committee which reviewed the unlicensed care facilities for clients, often vulnerable seniors? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There were three very important decisions that came out of that interdepart- mental committee. The first was to go forward and develop broad-based interdepartmental standards for this residential care.

The second was to establish a steering committee made up of the various departments as well as key stakeholders. The third, which I think is probably one of the most important, was to establish a registry so that the people who are looking to use these residential homes will have a registry that they can go to and see if the standards are being met in this particular home. MRS. LAING: My supplemental question is to the same minister. Would the minister please explain when these things will happen, when these recommendations will come into being? DR. OBERG: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, what has happened with the registry is that a voluntary registry has been set up at the moment and is working as a temporary measure until we can get a full, permanent, mandatory registry in place. In addition, the interdepartmental steering committee that I alluded to previously is up and running, and we're looking forward to this. We think it will help Albertans who are looking for residential care, and we think it will be a big bonus to them. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My last supplemental, again to the same minister: would the minister please inform the Assembly whether or not unscrupulous operators will be moni- tored and regulated to prevent the abuse that has happened in some of these small facilities? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to say that I hope that there are no such things as unscrupulous operators out there, but I think all of us know that there has been that in the past, where unsuspecting seniors, unsuspecting dependent adults have been taken advantage of by these people. Our job is to ensure that this doesn't occur again.

The biggest thing that we can do and that we are doing at the moment is developing provincial standards to take a look at residential care. We feel this is extremely important and will probably set the trend for Canada essentially. We're also working very closely with the various stakeholders to look into these standards. So I think we're taking huge steps in this direction. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, today three hon. members have indicated their desire to present a member's statement. We'll proceed in the following order: first of all, the hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. Augustana University College MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday, April 4, and Sunday, April 5, the Augustana University College department of music will present performances of J.S. Bach's monumental Mass in D Minor in Edmonton and Camrose. The 70-voice Augustana choral union will be joined by soloists Kathleen Lotz, Elizabeth Raycroft, Joy-Anne Murphy, Robert King, and Allan Monk and will be accompanied by the Profes- sional Chamber Orchestra of Augustana.

A small liberal arts and sciences university in Camrose that offers three- and four-year degrees in music, Augustana Univer- sity College has a history of excellence in music, performance, and scholarship. Its strong choral tradition has lasted more than 85 years, and in that time the residents of Camrose and area have enjoyed outstanding performances of the highest calibre. The musical heritage of Augustana owes much to its early choir director Dr. Chester Ronning, whose name many will recognize as being a one-time member of this Assembly and later a distin- guished Canadian diplomat. Under Dr.

Ronning's direction this small private school, at that time known as Camrose Lutheran College, received many accolades at provincial music festivals.

1336 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 Since those early years the music program has grown and flourished, thanks to the dedicated leaders that followed, including Mr. Ed Marken, Mr. Jim Neff, Mr. Jonathan Mohr, and presently Mr. Marc Hafso. Over the years the Augustana choir has traveled extensively in Alberta, North America, and Europe. The present director of choral music, Marc Hafso, has received several provincial awards and a major grant from the Canada Council in recognition of his musical contributions to our province.

In 1990 Marc and his wife, Judy, were commissioned by the Alberta government to open the Lieutenant Governor's conference on the family. They wrote and performed a mock oratorio with family members on Alberta's first Family Day in 1990 here in Edmonton. The contribution to Alberta's culture from this small college in my constituency with its outstanding choral music program has been and continues to be significant indeed. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Labour Relations MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta labour market is rapidly changing.

Innovative approaches are needed to ensure that labour and business communities can work together to find solutions to th eir problems. We must ensure collective bargaining is conducted on a level playing field so that the positions of all employers and employees are clearly stated and solutions acceptable to all parties result from the process. Three wildcat strikes by health care workers in this province in the last two weeks are proof that we need to change our attitude.

Strikes by support workers in Edmonton and licensed practical nurses have clearly indicated the unstable nature of labour relations in this province. Thes e workers had to deal with a 5 percent wage cut in 1994 but have also f aced other pressures brought on by f unding cuts, like reduced hours, increased responsibilities, and general anxiety about their future. They are worried about their ability to provide for their families. When inflation is included in calculations, these workers have seen their yearly salaries decrease by 12 to 15 percent.

LPNs in particular in the 1980s made 75 percent of what the registered nurses made, but they are now making approximately 57 percent of an RN's salary while they perform many duties that were once the responsibilities of RNs. The system is only still functioning because of their hard work and dedication, while their wages and working conditions have sunk to an even lower standard. It is a tribute to their professional concern for their patients that actions that have occurred in the past few weeks have not occurred sooner and do not occur more frequently.

Responsibility for these strikes and the situation health care workers find themselves in falls squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour and this government. The government has developed key performance measures to judge how well they are doing their job. According to their own measures this government is a dismal failure. Their goal is a good one, not to lose any work days to strikes. Sadly, the events of the past two weeks have clearly illustrated the government's inability to achieve this goal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Livingstone-Macleod. 2:40 Boundary Commission Anniversary Trail Ride MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canada had assumed control of the lands west of the Great Lakes from the Hudson's Bay Company by 1870, and there was a need to find exactly where the Canada/U.S. border was. The governments of Canada, Britain, and the United States put their differences aside and formed a group of engineers, surveyors, soldiers, and Métis scouts and created the British/U.S. boundary commission.

The commission established and documented the 49th parallel to what has become the world's largest unprotected international border. In 1991 a group of historians fostered the idea of following the original commission's trail, beginning at Emerson, Manitoba, originally Fort Dufferin, through to Fort Macleod. The first group moved west, retracing the original boundary survey. Other groups have continued the boundary trek each subsequent summer, and the idea of reliving history had gained momentum.

This year on July 15, 1998, we'll see the final leg of this historic ride begin in Etzikom, Alberta, where 1,000 horses and riders and 100 wagons will wind their way across the prairie by the Whoop-Up Trail to Lethbridge and the original site of Fort Kipp and on to Fort Macleod. The town of Fort Macleod already has the hospitality doors wide open as the trek ends on July 25. The camping area near the original fort site will host a barbecue, dance, and social, and the historic main street will be open for business. Live theatre, fort museum tours, the RCMP Musical Ride will be the hit of the day.

By the way, don't forget a visit to Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. Mr. Speaker, I invite everyone to come see this historic ride and take

part in experiencing our living history, as this event is only a prelude to next year's ride on the 125th anniversary of the RCMP. Then just when your saddle sores have healed, you can come join the north/south 2000 ride between Fort Benton, Montana, and Fort Macleod, Alberta. head: Projected Government Business THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would call upon the Deputy Government House Leader to share with the Assembly the projected government business for next week. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to do that. I'll get my dates right this week.

On Monday, April 6, after 1:30 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for second reading we anticipate proceeding with Bill 34, the Municipal Government Amendment Act; Bill 35, the Colleges, Technical Institutes and University Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 37, Health Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 38, Public Health Amendment Act; Bill 21, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act; and Bill 40, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act; and as per the Order Paper, depending on progress this afternoon.

At 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders, Private Bills, and Committee of the Whole we will deal with bills Pr. 1, Pr. 2, and Pr. 4, and bills 23, 28, 33, 36, 24, 27, and anticipating we'll be moving speedily through that, as per the Order Paper. On Tuesday, April 7, at 4:30 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders, Private Bills, third reading for bills Pr. 1, Pr. 2, Pr. 3, and as per the Order Paper; second reading on Bill 40; Committee of the Whole on Bill 27. At 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders in Committee of the Whole, Bill 2 and Bill 27, and as per

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1337 the Order Paper based on progress on Monday and in true consultation with the opposition House leaders. On Wednesday, April 8, at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders in Committee of the Whole, bills 25, 27, and as per the Order Paper, based on progress Monday and Tuesday and in consultation with the opposition. On Thursday, April 9, after 1:30 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for second reading, Comm ittee of the Whole, and third reading, all as per the Order Paper and based on progress on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday and in consultation with the opposition.

THE SPEAKER: During question period two hon. members rose and indicated their desire to rise on a purported point of order. We'll proceed on this basis: first of all, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, and then the hon. Deputy Government House Leader. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Point of Order Abusive Language MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 23(j), which refers to the use of “abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.” I'm specifically referring to a response given by the Treasurer to a question put by the Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

During that time the Treasurer stood, and as he has from time to time, instead of addressing the question that was put to him, he used the opportu- nity to go much further afield and to go back and make some kind of accusation against the Member for Calgary-Buffalo, who at that point had already taken his seat and had finished his round of questioning, and indicated by using words to the effect of “misleading” that the Member for Calgary-Buffalo had in fact done something that was out of order and inappropriate.

Of course, my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo did nothing of the same. [interjections] As we are witnessing right now, Mr. Speaker, it's not unusual for the Treasurer to have these kinds of rather juvenile outbursts. It's about time, I believe, that he is called to order for his often invocation of language that is abusive or insulting or of a nature likely to create debate and disorder in this Assembly.

So I would hope that the Treasurer would do what is only honourable; that is, withdraw any suggestion he left in this Assembly that the Member for Calgary-Buffalo in any way did or attempted to mislead the Chamber. THE SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Provincial Treasurer. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, Beauchesne 490 is very clear. “Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions,” and one of those deals with “misleading” or if somebody has “misled” the House.

The Member for Calgary-Buffalo – and I believe that's a point of order that's to follow this one – clearly misled the House. He stood up, waved a piece of paper from the source of all wisdom and truth, that being the Edmonton Journal , and said that the Premier had endorsed the gay and lesbian association back in 1993. That's what he said, that the Premier had done that. The Premier, whose instincts are better than anyone else's in the House, stood and waited until he received a copy . . . MR. MITCHELL: He didn't say that. MR. DA Y: Hey, buddy. Hey, pal, I'm talking now. Y ou have to be quiet.

Thank you. [interjection] Would you be quiet, please? MR. MITCHELL: Y ou're misleading the House. MR. DA Y: Would you please be quiet? MR. MITCHELL: No. MR. DA Y: Y es. Be quiet. [interjection] Y ou be quiet. Y ou can stand up on a point of order. MR. MITCHELL: Okay; I will. MR. DA Y: Thank you for being quiet. It took you a while. So, Mr. Speaker, the member stood up, waved an

article from the Edmonton Journal, and said that the Premier had supported and would support the gay and lesbian association as related to sexual orientation rights. That's what the Member for Calgary- Buffalo said. The Premier quite wisely, while he stood here, asked and waited for that particular newspaper

article to come over here. The Premier is not quoted in the article. The only person quoted is a worker, who then further down in the

article says: it is foolish for anybody to think that I, the worker, would have said such a thing. The Member for Calgary-Buffalo, whatever his words were, attempted to mislead the House and the people of Alberta. It was a blatant attempt to mislead. It was false information. Then, at that point, when the next question coming from the wanna-be leader from – I forget; help me, Linda. – Edmonton- Riverbend stood up, I made reference to the colour of her clothing today . . . MRS. SOETAERT: Y eah. Well, we don't make fun of your tie. MR. DA Y: Y es, you do; you make fun of my tie quite a bit. MRS.

SOETAERT: Not publicly. MR. DA Y: Y es, you have. Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the fact that her dress, being red, was as red as the face of the Member for Calgary-Buffalo, who ran scurrying – sorry; I take that back; I can't say that – who shamefacedly sat there and trembled and hung his head in shame because he realized that not only had he misled the House, but he had been caught cold-handed by the Premier himself. Now, I'm not speaking to that point of order. That, I understand, is following, from the Deputy Government House Leader. I'm referring to the point of order under Beauchesne 490.

There is no point of order. It is parliamentary on occasion to use the word “misled.” That's what I did because that is what he in fact did. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: One thing is very clear to me, and it should be very clear to all members of this Assembly. Y ou're all experi- enced now. There's not one person in here who has been in this House for less than a year. Surely in any profession, in any occupation, in any vocation after a minimum of one year people

1338 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 expect some understanding and some responsibility. All members of this House know the rules. One of the rules is that question period is not to be used for the verification of materials in newspapers. That having been done in the mood today leads to other things. There are contradictory statements in this Assembly with respect to the use of “mislead- ing”. Fair. The bottom line of a ll of this is that this is what question period is all about.

It leads to this sort of point of order, and it leads to this kind of a display, and it seems to me that citizens should actually ask themselves what they would expect from hon. members. The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. Point of Order False Allegations MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today under 23(

h) and (l), under Beauchesne 409(7), and I should be rising under 408 as well, but you've already commented on that. MR. MITCHELL: Surely it's just a small technical legal matter you're speaking about. THE SPEAKER: Okay; let's move on. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't rise on points of order except to defend them normally because I consider, as the Minister of Energy has said from time to time, that we should only raise points of order on matters of a very serious nature. The point of order that I'm raising today is a matter . . . [interjec- tions] Mr.

Speaker, I consider the decorum of this House to be something that's extremely important, and I wish that some of the other members would as well. The matter that I'm raising t oday is a question raised by Calgary-Buffalo, using a newspaper

article and alleging that the Premier of our province had made a statement. Y ou've already ruled on the point of order about using newspaper articles and asking for verification, but it goes beyond that. There was a clear allegation made that the Premier had made a statement. When I finally obtained a copy of the article, it is clear on the face of it that no such statement was made, that the allegation was entirely false. Anybody reading the f ace of the

article which Calgary- Buffalo tabled could read in it that the statement he was using as the basis for his question was totally inaccurate and false. That is an abuse of the process of question period. That is misleading the House. It's not adhering to the proprieties of the House. In fact, if it's not, it should be raised as a point of personal privi- lege. It's only the fact that it's the Premier that he doesn't raise it. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo to do the honourable thing, to indicate that he should not have made that allegation based on the article.

I wish I had the benefit of the Blues to quote what he said exactly, but I think all members of the House heard what he said. All members now have the opportunity to review the article. The record should be clear, and we would ask you to ask Calgary- Buffalo to withdraw his remarks and to bring some propriety back to this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was listening closely to the Deputy Government House Leader because, unlike some members of the front bench, he doesn't rise often on points of order one way or the other, so I was expecting a substantive argument to be put. The facts of this circumstance in my understanding are as follows. The Premier was asked a question about his commitment to protect gay rights, and my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo referenced in part, in one of his questions to the Premier during question period, a newspaper

article that appeared in the Edmon- ton Journal on January 6, 1993. The substance of that newspaper

article is that workers representing themselves to represent the Premier made commitments that if the gay and lesbian community supported the Premier in his bid to become leader of the Progres- sive Conservative Party, he would promise to change the Individ- ual's Rights Protection Act, as it was known at the time, to include sexual orientation as grounds protected against discrimina- tion.

Now, the Premier was asked to verify whether or not this was the case, and he was given an opportunity in question period to explain whether or not his position as Premier, his position as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, or the position of the government had changed between 1993 and 1998, and if it had changed, why had it changed, and under what circumstances would he have made the representation or would people on his behalf have made the representation. Mr.

Speaker, this is not the first time nor do I imagine it will be the last time that news reports become the basis of questions or responses in this Assembly. There have been several occasions, even this week, when members of the executive of government have referred to newspaper articles in support of their answers. The Member for Calgary-Buffalo clearly did not mislead. As the Deputy Government House Leader talks about points of personal privilege, I will note that 489 does talk about the word “mislead” being unparliamentary.

We also know that Beauchesne tells us that words from time to time may be considered parlia- mentary or unparliamentary. But this is far greater than simply a disagreement amongst members. When the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud says that what he would suggest is that perhaps this could be a point of privilege, I would argue that my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo has the point of privilege, because now two members of the front bench have accused him of purposefully misleading this Assembly, when nothing is further from the truth. The intent of the question clearly, Mr.

Speaker, was to determine whether or not the Premier made a commitment and, if he did make a commitment, what the nature of the commitment was and if that commitment has changed or varied since 1993, particularly in light of the Supreme Court ruling, which today has said that Alberta has no choice but to come into the modern age with its human rights legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, it's very sad that we would be standing in the House on this day, the day the Supreme Court has finally corrected a deficiency in Alberta law, and having to argue this point.

Obviously the government is sensitive about this, as they should be. They should be embarrassed about this. There is clearly no point of order as there was no attempt to mislead, except perhaps what happened as reported in the January 6, 1993, edition of the Edmonton Journal. THE SPEAKER: Well, I'm going to bring this matter to a head by doing two things. First of all, I'm going to quote what was said in question period by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr.

Speaker, I'm tabling an excerpt from the Edmonton Journal, January 6, 1993, and asking the Premier why, when the Premier was trolling for votes in 1992 in his leadership campaign, did he

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1339 or his campaigners promise GALA, the Gay and Lesbian Awareness group, if they supported him for Premier, he would outlaw sexual orientation in statute, and he'd do so in six months. Why another broken promise, Mr. Premier? Then the Premier responds and says: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making that statement at any time. Where was that statement made? They stand up and they throw out these comments. Where did they have this statement? Where is it published? Will you show me the publication? Will you hand it to a page and bring it over here right now?

The second thing I'm going to say is I'm going to refer all hon. members to Beauchesne 408(1)(b). It's a long-established practice that questions should “not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.” Then I heard two arguments back and forth with respect to a point of order, but I also heard “privilege” used on both sides.

So I'm going to let the matter go and wait until Monday and see if any hon. member raises a point of privilege with respect to this matter. head: Request for Emergency Debate 3:00 Sexual Orientation THE SPEAKER: We have notice, as well, of an hon. member who has advised the House, advised the Speaker in the appropriate way that the hon. member wishes to rise and present a Standing Order 30 motion. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe all members were here earlier, so I won't bother reading the motion again.

It does have to do with the Supreme Court ruling on Vriend, and it's on your desks. The urgency is this, Mr. Speaker. One, I could put a motion on the Order Paper, but we'd never get to it. So that's just not a realistic option. Number two, it is clear that there is dissention amongst the government ranks on whether or not to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Now, I heard the Premier say that he would have a decision within a week.

However, I think it is important to democracy that on this historic day we find out whether or not a majority of members of the government caucus would be supportive of invoking the notwithstanding clause in order to get around the Supreme Court ruling. That ruling, by the way, makes Alberta consistent with every other jurisdiction in the country, which voluntarily through their Legislatures changed their legislation to protect gays and lesbians from sanctioned discrimination. It seems to me that this is the day to do this on.

I guess I'm saying that this is our chance to smoke out where people stand so that Albertans tonight can know whether or not they have to worry about whether the notwithstanding clause will be invoked. I listened to the comments of the Premier, and I was somewhat encouraged to hear some of what he had to say until he said: well, we might just start kind of polling. I would like to know if they plan to poll in a fair fashion. Maybe the government members would rise and tell us in what fashion they would like to do that polling. We are technically in a legislative void in Alberta.

I think that speaks to the issue of urgency. We have not seen a proposal nor did we get a commitment for a proposal to actually change our human rights legislation. I think that's it. I think the issue of urgency is quite clear. Today was the day of an historic decision. We need to know where the government is headed on this. Albertans have the right to know. This is the only occasion when we can do that in a democratic fashion. Let's get everybody on the record. No one has to speak their full five minutes. They can just address the issue: would you be in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause or not?

Now, this Assembly doesn't make a decision in this debate. All we have to do is talk about it under the concept of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as I proposed earlier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, I just want to reaffirm to all members what Standing Order 30(2) says. The member may briefly state the arguments in favour of the request for leave and the Speaker may allow such debate as he considers relevant to the question of urgency of debate and shall then rule on whether or not the request for leave is in order. I want to thank the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands for, number one, being brief and to the urgency of the question. The chair is prepared at this point to recognize the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. Deputy Government House Leader and at this point doesn't see why he would need to call on additional members. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter raised by the leader of the New Democrats under Standing Order 30 is urgent because the government did not do instinctively and immediately what is so obviously right to do with respect to the Supreme Court ruling today. If the Premier had unequivocally said that he and his govern- ment endorse the Supreme Court ruling and if he had unequivo- cally said that he will bring a piece of legislation to this Legisla- ture to change the Individual's Rights Protection Act to make a visible and public commitment to the Supreme Court ruling, then there would not be urgency to this matter today.

However, in this Legislature today, the first chance that the Premier had to respond officially to the Supreme Court ruling in the Legislative Assembly, he refused to endorse unequivocally the Supreme Court ruling, and he refused to defend, therefore, definitively all Albertans against any form of discrimination. That he would have had one moment of delay or doubt about endorsing the Supreme Court ruling reveals that his government would under some circumstances contemplate that it is justifiable to discrimi- nate. It is never justifiable to discriminate, Mr.

Speaker, and no end can ever justify the means if that means is discrimination. Harbouring that festering thought for the briefest of moments . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. leader, the purpose is urgency. That's the subject under Standing Order 30. [interjection] No. I'm listening very attentively, and we're giving reasons. It's urgency. That's the question under Standing Order 30. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, this failure to act instinctively and immediately raises questions about the government's ability to govern with credibility.

Harbouring that festering thought for the briefest of moments brings directly into question this govern- ment's ability to govern with legitimate authority and to rule on issues that affect people's lives daily with any credibility whatso- ever. In failing to do what should have been done today, the Premier raises doubts about his government's commitment to the range of things that will be discussed in this Legislature immedi-

1340 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 ately this afternoon and next week and the weeks after that. I refer again, Mr. Speaker, to the Reverend Neimoeller, whom I quoted two weeks ago, and I will just paraphrase. He said: they came to take different groups away, and I wasn't a part of those groups, so I didn't do anything; they came to take me away, and there was nobody left to help. Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that the urgency of this matter relates to its magnitude in people' s lives and to the fact that the government cannot truly conduct itself with credibility and legitimacy until this matter is resolved.

There is no more urgent reason for suspending the debate in the Legislative Assembly than the apparent predisposition of a government to deny anyone's basic human rights and then the need to air that and clarify that and get to the bottom of it so we can stop it festering in this province. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that Albertans are very interested in the topic of the Supreme Court decision which came down today. There's no better way to be involved in the topic of discussion that came down today than to read the decision and to read it in its fu llest context.

It's a 92-page decision, as I understand it. I for one have not had the opportu- nity this morning to read it. I would very much like to have that opportunity. AN HON. MEMBER: I have a copy. MR. HANCOCK: I have it as well, but I haven't read it. If you've only read a synopsis, that's not good enough. Mr. Speaker, the decision is effective immediately. The Supreme Court, as I understand from the excerpts that I've read, has said that reading sexual orientation into the Human Rights Act – that's now the law in Alberta. The discussion can go on, but the law is clear. The Supreme of Court of Canada has ruled it in.

There is no urgency for us to debate this issue. Therefore, I would suggest that if there's going to be a debate on this issue at some time – there definitely will be some public discussion, maybe even a discussion in this House at some point in time, but it should be done when all hon. members here can have the full advantage of knowing what was in the case and can then engage in a debate in a timely way, conscious of all the facts of the case. Then we can have a proper discussion.

The government regards the issues that were raised by the court as important but not as urgent for this afternoon's debate and suggests that it would be more important that we all discuss this issue not in an emotional and irrational manner but, rather, in a calm manner, discussing what it means for Albertans, recognizing that the Supreme Court of Canada has read sexual orientation into the act. It's now the law in Alberta, and we're . . . MR. MITCHELL: Y ou should have understood that in first-year law. MR. HANCOCK: And so should you. MR. MITCHELL: I'm not a lawyer. MR. HANCOCK: So, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest there's no urgency to continue with this debate this afternoon. THE SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders of our Assembly and under the precedents of Beauchesne and other rules of parliament, subjectivity is provided to the Speaker with respect to this. The Speaker affords an opportunity to various members to basically put forward arguments with respect to this and appreciates very much the brevity of all three individuals who did speak with respect to the Standing Order 30 application.

I want to point out again, which I've already pointed out before, that certainly this application was provided to my office in plenty of time to meet the requirements under Standing Order 30(1). In listening and in reviewing the document that was provided to me, I afforded myself an opportunity to read Beau- chesne, particularly sections 387 through to 398. In coming to the conclusion after listening, coming to the conclusion that I will come to in just a moment, I would like to point out to hon. members that I'll also be governed by 398 of Beauchesne.

Under our Standing Order 30(7), “the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency.” While there is a bit of difference between the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the Standing Orders that we use here, essentially Beauchesne from 389 forward has been used by previous Speakers in the rulings that we've had in there. Paragraph 389 of Beau- chesne states that the matter requiring urgent consideration “must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.” This particular decision, the Supreme Court decision today, is important.

One can argue very subjectively how important, and it's an individual's right to use the adjective that they want to describe it. But I will do it in a very clinical way and basically make the statement that the Supreme Court decision is important. I do not, however, come to the conclusion that the decision constitutes a “genuine emergency” so as to adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly.

Accordingly, I rule that the require- ments of Standing Order 30(7) have not been met, and the question will not be put. head: Orders of the Day 3:10 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there was a request by an hon. member to revert to Introduction of Guests, if that's okay. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Little Bow, your guests have waited a long period of time. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome 59 very patient students and guests from the W.R.

Myers high school in Taber who came up this morning. I would like them to rise after I introduce them by name. Their teacher is Mrs. Andrea Makarchuk; parent helpers Mrs. Susan Grant, Mr. Ivan Klok, Mrs. Cheryl Carlin, Mr. Barry Grant, Mrs. Christine Lumley, Ms Lara Bertsch, Mr. Dwight McKeage. I would like you to receive the warm welcome – I don't know how warm today, but it's warm down here – of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: Before calling on the hon.

Minister of Health – to these young individuals who have come from so far away: you have seen a full variety of activity in the Alberta Legislative Assembly this afternoon in a matter of one hour.

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1341 head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading THE SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Health, we're recognizing you to come forward with Bill 21. Bill 21 Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, 1998 MR. JONSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to bring Bill 21, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, to the Assembly for second reading today.

The bill will help to ensure that all Albertans have access to medically necessary physician services within our publicly funded health system and ensure that the decision of a physician or group of physicians wishing to opt out of our public system will not seriously impact on the availabil- ity of services. As most members are probably aware, under the Canada Health Act any physician in Canada can choose to opt out of the nation's public health system and work completely in the private sector. Mr.

Speaker, when a physician el ects to follow this path, they directly bill their patients for all procedures performed, whether insured under the health system or uninsured. The patient pays the physician and is not eligible for any reimbursement from the public system. At the same time, the opted-out physician does not receive any reimbursement from the public system for procedures performed. When they opt out, they must be completely opted out; that is, they cannot charge some patients directly and collect from the public system for others. Mr.

Speaker, it's important to stress here the difference between an opted-out physician collecting fees directly from a patient where none of those fees are reimbursable to the patient and the situation where an opted-in physician may collect a fee directly from the patient, but the patient can in turn be reim- bursed. In the second instance the physician is practising within the public system, charging fees set by the public system, and those fees are paid by the public system directly to the doctor or the patient. Mr.

Speaker, in the case of the opted-out physician, the doctor is able to charge any fee he or she wishes, higher or lower than those paid by the public system, and no portion is reimbursable to either the physician or the patie nt. Now, while this government strongly supports the principles of the Canada Health Act and the rights of physicians to decide not to be part of a public health system, we also want to ensure that the application of the principle really supports and protects Albertans' access to quality, publicly funded health services.

Unfortunately, the principles of the Canada Health Act, developed many years ago, did not set out any guidelines whatso- ever in terms of processes for physicians wishing to exercise their right to opt out. The Canada Health Act, for example, does not anticipate the consequences of a physician in a rural or remote area withdrawing from the public system as the only physician in the area, charging fees and possibly leaving local residents with no alternatives in terms of access to publicly funded services.

The Canada Health Act also does not anticipate the consequences should an entire group of specialists together all opt out of the public system at the same time, leaving no public access to key lifesaving procedures. Further, the Canada Health Act does not anticipate the consequences of a physician electing to opt in and out of the public system on a regular basis, perhaps even weekly or daily, so that some patients pay directly and some are paid for by the public health system. This, in turn, potentially opens up the possibility of patients paying higher fees for faster service. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 21 seeks to fill the gaps – I should perhaps not use the term “gaps” but say the unanticipated possibilities – left by the Canada Health Act by reinforcing the rights of physicians to opt out of the public system while providing a clear process and procedure for them to do so. More importantly, the bill helps protect the right of Albertans to have access to neces- sary physician services within our publicly funded system. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, the bill establishes a clear process for physicians seeking to opt out of the public system and requires the physician to obtain the approval of the Minister of Health to do so. I understand that this is of some concern, possibly, to the Alberta Medical Association, and certainly I think it is a given that the minister of the day would seek expert advice from the profession itself and from other sources before making that type of decision. The physician will be required to apply in writing to the Minister of Health 90 days prior to the proposed effective date of opting out.

The minister would then have 60 days to consider and review the effect of a physician or groups of physicians withdrawing their services from the public system. In particular, it would provide the opportunity to ensure that such an opting out would not prevent any Albertan from accessing medically necessary physician services. When an application to opt out is approved by the minister following such an assessment, Bill 21 lays out the subsequent steps a physician needs to take to advise patients of the opting-out decision.

This information process would include direct contact with current patients as well as a public notice and newspaper advertising, the important principle here being the right of Albertans to know that a physician has or will be opting out and that the patient is fully responsible for all fees. Once opted out, Mr. Speaker, a physician will be required to remain opted out for a minimum of one year. This would ensure stability and predictability within the public system in terms of the availability of physician services.

There would, however, be an opportunity for a physician to opt back into the system prior to the one-year limit with the approval of the Minister of Health. That approval would be based on an assessment, again, of the need for that physician's services within the public system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in a further measure to protect Albertans' access to publicly funded physician services, Bill 21 prohibits any person from charging for goods or services any fee as a condition to receiving an insured medical service from an opted-in physi- cian.

It as well prohibits any opting-in physician from providing insured services where such a fee is being charged and provides the Minister of Health the authority to recover any such charges. Again, this provision further protects the principles of the Canada Health Act and ensures Albertans' access to publicly funded services without paying additional fees to be able to access those services. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that although the Canada Health Act allows physicians to opt out of the public system, very few have chosen to exercise that option.

Indeed, in Alberta I would like to acknowledge and emphasize that in the past many years we have had only one physician elect to opt out of the public health care system of our province. That is, I think, a very good situation, one that I am certainly appreciative of. 3:20 However, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that relatively recently but rather intensively there has been a great deal of discussion about the issue of opting in or out of practice within the public system.

1342 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 It has highlighted a potential problem, and it has highlighted the need for legislation which will outline the process to be followed for both opting in and opting out and also support the ability and the integrity of our public health system to provide medical care. I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by just raising two or three more general points. We want to make sure that there is a clear process which complements the provisions of the Canada Health Act. I think I have outlined in my remarks the principles of the bill and what we are trying to accomplish.

It may be that in the course of committee study we can collectively as a govern- ment and possibly with the suggestions of the opposition – and I assume we will get input from the stakeholders, particularly doctors concerned about the bill. There may be changes that will further improve it. But I think given the times we are in and the amount of scrutiny that has been placed upon the Canada Health Act and its application, it is nece ssary for us to have legislation which provides a clear set of guidelines and rules with respect to this matter of opting in and opting out.

The bill is presented with no prejudgment of anybody's intentions or decisions, but it is presented in anticipation of the need to be able to have such guidelines and legislation so we can act in a clear and understand- able manner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Bill 21 would amend the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act so that doctors could opt out, and in giving them permission to opt out, the minister will be clearly playing a role in how the practice of medicine is conducted in this province.

Now, the concerns about the protection of our public health care system have been stated on the record in this Chamber by many members, myself included, many times, and this debate has certainly raged outside of this Assembly in the str eets and the living rooms and the waiting rooms and the emergency rooms throughout Alberta. Bill 21 is a rather imperfect solution to a very thorny problem. We are at a point right now, Mr. Speaker, where the negotiations between the government of Alberta and the province's doctors are at a particularly low ebb.

It's been in trouble before, but I can't recall a time when the relationship has ever been quite as tense as it is now.

Even though Bill 21 is numbered relatively highly and was apparently ready to be introduced at some point previous in this session, the fact that it was introduced at this point, just this week, cannot simply be coincidental to the fact that the current contract with Alberta's doctors expired this week and that the two sides are searching for ways to get back to the table to have an open exchange about how the impasse on physician remuneration can be broken and how the doctors can achieve what it is they believe they need to achieve while the government can achieve what it believes will be the proper stewardship of provincial resources.

So I am very skeptical of the true intent behind Bill 21. Now, that's not to say that Bill 21 does not have an upside. The upside to Bill 21 is this. There has been confusion about the manner in which physicians may choose to opt out and the implications of that decision should they so choose. This bill does make it clear. It makes it clear that if a doctor in this province opts out, they opt out for one year and they opt out for all services they otherwise may have been publicly reimbursed for.

So physicians will not be permitted to pick and choose the timing of coming into the system and coming out of the system or the procedures they may choose to be publicly reimbursed for versus those they may choose to be privately reimbursed for. This clarity is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that in many respects is long overdue. However, there are many, many components to the legislative and regulatory framework which surrounds or encompasses the practice of medicine in this province. There are several statutes. There are contracts between Alberta Health and the AMA.

There are memorandums of understanding and agreement. There is the enabling legislation and the regulations and bylaws that flow from that legislation in regard to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and there are several other bits and pieces that go into this framework which regulates the practice of medicine in Alberta. If the government had simply wanted to clarify the process for a physician opting out and had simply wanted to make it crystal clear what the implications of that decision would be, the government has many, many, many devices available to itself to do so without bringing in Bill 21.

Now, that begs the obvious next question. Why then a bill, when this is a government that has said, “We will only legislate when we have to, and in fact we won't even convene the Legisla- tive Assembly unless we have a solid legislative agenda to present”? So why indeed, Mr. Speaker, is Bill 21 before us when the government has the ability to accomplish at least part of its purpose in another way? Well, Mr. Speaker, that goes back to my cynicism or skepti- cism about the timing.

The fact that physicians would now have to apply to the Minister of Health for permission to opt out I believe is the key feature of this bill.

And the fact that at this time the relationship between the 4,000 or 5,000 physicians in this province and the government of Alberta has so deteriorated I think is the reason why the government wants to show its hand by saying: if you in the practice of medicine intend to intimidate us as a government by threatening some sort of job action, we will see your threat and raise you one better by saying that you must first receive the government's permission to do what it is you threaten to do. Now, this is clearly not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It's not acceptable for a couple of reasons.

It's not acceptable because it is certainly not in any way, shape, or form negotiating in good faith. It is also not acceptable because I believe it is an unwar- ranted intrusion into the area of professional practice, in this case the practice of medicine.

I don't think this House would take too kindly to legislation that would suggest that a nurse who chose to work in a dermatology clinic, who otherwise may have been employed in a publicly funded hospital, should have to seek the Minister of Health's approval for permission to go and get that job. 3:30 I don't think this House would take too kindly to a bill that suggested that a man or woman who was serving the province as a prosecutor, working for the Minister of Justice, should have to go to that minister and seek permission to leave the prosecutorial ranks and join the private defence bar and serve in a private capacity.

I don't think this House would take too kindly to a bill that would suggest that a schoolteacher who works in a publicly funded public education venue would have to seek the Minister of Education's approval should that schoolteacher decide to seek employment at a private school or vocational college. Mr. Speaker, what we have is a bill that does exactly that, only for doctors. And even though the legislation covers both physi- cians and dental surgeons, the bill makes a distinction or discrimi-

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1343 nates between dentists and physicians and treats them differently even within the same bill. Now, the government may argue that doctors are different. And doctors are different. Doctors do represent a special role in society but not a role that should attract the wrath of government; rather, a role that should attract the respect of government. Part of that respect has to be to respect their professional choices. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have to get any more on record in defence of the public administration of a universally accessible health care system.

My belief in medicare and the principles of the Canada Health Act are rock solid and unshak- able. My beliefs also in free will and free choice are rock solid and unshakable. If a man or woman who has been licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to carry on the practice of medicine in this province chooses to opt out of the Alberta health care insurance plan and set up shop as a purely independent private practitioner, that is the choice and the right of that physician. I respect that choice and that right.

In no way should the minister have a role other than to ensure that the remainder, those who choose to honour and respect the public health care system, are properly and fairly compensated for the services they provide to Albertans.

In fact, I would suggest that Bill 21 would not even be neces- sary if we had a health care system that was staffed by individuals who were well treated and valued and who were offered the respect they deserve by government, that was funded to a level that was adequate, not funded in a way that requires every man and woman in that system to be constantly thinking of how to do things the cheapest way, not funded in a way that drives wedges between this professional group and some other professional group, and not underfunded to the extent that we have the kinds of strikes, labour disputes, and threats of labour disputes we are now faced with.

Bill 21 cannot be separated from the environ- ment in which it has been spawned. That is an environment that is characterized by a lack of trust, a lack of goodwill, a lack of adequate resources, and ultimately a lack of respect. The bottom line to Bill 21 is that lack of respect. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Now, I would encourage the Minister of Health to do a couple of things. I would encourage the Minister of Health to seek another venue for clarifying the roles and the rules for physicians who opt out.

I would encourage the Minister of Health to make it crystal clear that doctors who opt out do not receive any compensation from the public purse. I would encourage the Minister of Health to make it crystal clear that physicians who opt out do not have at their own whim in an entirely unrestricted way the luxury or the ability to pick and choose when they will opt in and out and for what services.

I would also encourage the Minister of Health to take out the offensive parts of this legislation, which require, in essence, doctors in this province asking the Minister of Health for permis- sion to use the washroom or, in th is case, if it's okay with the Minister of Health that they choose to practise medicine in a way other than what his preference for them might be. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful that we not be misunderstood. Bill 21 is not about protecting medicare. Bill 21 is about protecting the government's hand in its negotiations with the Alberta Medical Association.

Bill 21 does not prevent opting out. Bill 21 provides a blueprint for how that might happen. Bill 21 does not deny doctors the right, but Bill 21 fetters that right through the minister's office. So we need to be crystal clear ourselves, as we encourage the government to search for that clarity, what it is that Bill 21 will and will not accomplish. It will not accomplish better funding for health care.

It will not accom- plish better access to medical services, and it will not accomplish any guarantee that those communities in our province that right now have a shortage of medical practitioners will be any better served after Bill 21 becomes law. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government has overshot its mark in Bill 21 and is using a device that is far too large, heavy, and clumsy to achieve a rather precise purpose.

I would ask the Minister of Health to seriously consider the damage he may be doing in this bill, the further damage he may be doing to the relationship between the government of Alberta and the physicians that serve Alberta. I would ask that at the very, very least he consider amendments that would remove the necessity for his approval to be given to physicians who would seek to opt out of medicare.

Then I would ask the minister to do everything in his power as quickly as he can to mend the relationship between the govern- ment and doctors and to ensure that the system is adequately funded, that physicians have hospitals available in which they can place their patients who need them, that patients have access to the surgeries they need when they need them, and that there are adequate staff and funds available so physicians and other health care professionals can get on with the job of delivering high- quality health care to Albertans. If all of that were accomplished, Mr.

Speaker, then we wouldn't need to have a very lengthy debate on Bill 21. But in the absence of any of that, I would suggest that Bill 21 will be around for a very long time, and if in fact it ever does become a law in this province, it will be around to haunt us for a long while after that. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of my colleague with Bill 21.

I accept each of the reasons that he has established for his concern, and I would like to draw a broader conclusion from his observations about this bill and what it really reflects in terms of the quality of this government's management of health care and what's going on. I learned a long time ago – and I say it often to my children – that when you are deeply concerned about something, you can often begin to react or act in a way that will actually make what you're concerned about occur.

I remember a colleague at a job years and years ago who was very concerned that our supervisor had changed a letter she had written, which was of course completely within his purview to do. She was so angered by that that she was prepared to go in and express her anger to him about it in a way that would accomplish exactly what she was afraid was happening; that is, that she would in fact be seen to be somebody who wasn't conducting herself as an employee in that situation should.

So her concern over being supervised in a way that was perfectly acceptable led to her making the very mistake which would ensure that she would be seen in the way she was afraid to be seen. I think there's a parallel here, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that this government has been motivated, it says – and some of his actions would indicate this – by wanting to have less intrusive

1344 Alberta Hansard April 2, 1998 government by reducing the role of government in people's lives. In fact, this piece of legislation does exactly the opposite. It opens the concern that this government is prepared to intervene in people's lives in ways that even its rhetoric would suggest aren't acceptable. 3:40 The reason this has occurred and the reason the government finds itself in the position of having to bring in this piece of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, is because they have so poorly managed health care that the Minister of Health is now finding himself reduced to sticking his fingers in all kinds of holes in the dam. He is running out of fingers. When you evaluate a government, you would say that if the government's here to do anything, it would be here to run a well- functioning health care system, to run a well-functioning education system, to run child policies in a way that would protect children. That's how you would measure the managers you had appointed to do that.

But what we find is a health care system that isn't particularly well-managed by this government at all; in fact, quite the contrary. It has been reduced to crisis management, to two illegal strikes in Edmonton and one now in Calgary in the last three weeks by good people who wouldn't normally be inclined to break the law. Y ou find a health care system that is ad hocking more funds into the system. Y ou find a bill today that could have been anticipated months ago, if management had been anticipat- ing, because they should have known that this very problem was going to be created.

So you find a minister who is reduced to and provoked into making split decisions by legislation on a moment's reactive time without properly considering them and in response to mistakes that his policies have made in the health care system. And if that doesn't add up to anything other than this, Mr. Speaker, for sure it adds up to very, very poor management and very poor government.

Any business who had a minister of health who was creating the kinds of problems that have been created in this system and seemed incapable of fixing those problems and was bringing in reactive ad hoc policy decisions that ran counter to the values of that firm would certainly not maintain the employ of that manager in that position for very long, Mr. Speaker.

What this bill indicates is a government that is managing by crisis, that is incapable as a manager of anticipating issues and problems that could arise, a government that is charged with running an effective health care system and has created a health care system with a litany of problems and crises. That is quite a legacy for this government to leave. It's also an amazing legacy, Mr. Speaker, for this government to admit to by bringing in this kind of ad hoc legislation to plug yet another of the minister's fingers into yet another hole in the dam.

This government that prides itself and brags about being a government in favour of less government is creating the worst kind of more government, and it's intervening in decisions that properly and appropriately should be left to individuals in our society. Again it's a slippery slope, Mr. Speaker. Y ou see it today, when the Premier won't stand up and say no to the notwithstanding clause definitively, finally, and without any question. Y ou saw it two weeks ago, when they thought they could get away with the notwithstanding clause to abuse 700 of the weakest people in this province . Y ou see it today.

It is a slippery, ugly slope they have launched themselves on, and they should stand up and stop it. They should be very concerned about what this bill says about their Minister of Health and about the tenor and the nature of their government. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I guess the Liberals are going to accuse me of going Tory again, but I support this bill. [interjections] I do. I do. I do. Y ou know, I read Ron Kustra's comments in the newspaper, and I don't interpret this as being draconian. There's a choice here.

Wherever there are choices, draconian measures are obviously not in place. All right? MRS. FORSYTH: Y ou got it, Pam. That's right. MS BARRETT: Thank you. The Member for Calgary-Fish Creek is saying that's right, and I agree with her. My only concern with this bill is related to what it omits, and that is the quid pro quo on facility fees. If doctors want to opt out, let them go. Let them go, and make them stay out for a long enough period of time so that they really have the true, full sense of experience that goes with it and the true, full experience of trying to collect money from their patients. Let them.

But if they want to be using a hospital, a publicly owned and funded hospital to be treating their patients – and remember that it's the doctor who decides upon admissions; no one else, the doc – let them pay a facility fee, just like the taxpayers in this province are forced to pick up the facility fee costs for private clinics in Alberta. I don't understand.

If we've got the Alberta public paying facility fees for private, for-profit clinics, why can't we ask the doctors who choose to opt out to pay a fac ility fee every time they admit a patient, bring a patient in, conduct a surgery, order lab tests and examinations, and enjoy the support staff and all of the other medical staff at those hospitals? That, I will tell you right now, is my one and only amendment to this bill, and I'm going to lobby you hard.

I'm going to stand outside that door that the government members enter through on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, and I'm going to lobby the members to get that amendment through, because that's the way it should be. In the meantime, I don't believe this is any longer, quote, a negotiating tool, close quote, as was rumoured for the weeks and weeks that it sat on the Order Paper and the minister wouldn't introduce it. I think he knew that he could use it, and I think the doctors didn't think he would. I'm glad he did.

But I will be offering the amendment to the minister and the government members in hopes of getting that one amendment through. It'd be nice to have a victory. I had a real victorious day today. I've been singing in my head all day “I'm walking on sunshine” because of the Supreme Court decision. I'd be really grateful if I could have just one more win in this sitting, and that's the win I would want. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 21, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, 1998. So often I have heard the Minister of Labour make the quote: plan your work and work your plan. I think it's a very, very good policy to follow. Unfortunately, when I look at this particular bill, where was the plan to deal with our doctors? Certainly in negotiations the last

April 2, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1345 thing you want to do is add fuel to the fire. We don't have to cause greater conflict at negotiating times. We don't have to get things percolating to the point that the sides dig in. I think that is exactly what this bill does. There is too much coincidence that this here has appeared in the Assembly today at the same time that negotiations are taking place. It is, again, too coincidental that this did take place today, at this time when the contract or the agreement with the doctors ended.

In some ways I must agree with the leader of the ND that when it comes down to doctors opting in or out, they should make a commitment. Also, if they are going to make that commitment, then let's let them assume all costs related. They should not be able to piggyback on a system that is in place here. 3:50 Unfortunately, what this bill will allow is something that we've seen too often in this Assembly. Where it is convenient for the government to be on one side with a principle on one particular bill, they can simply flip-flop and be on the totally opposite side.

So in speaking to this bill, I th ink we have to get some consis- tency, and that consistency is the principle that in the province they can either be in or out with the Canada Health Act, but if they do decide to opt out, then they are out. I do like the reference to it. For many years in this province doctors did have to run a very true business where they did their own billing and they did their own collection of fees. In fact, I think back to a story told to me by a lady whose father was the first gynecologist in Edmonton.

She said that it was not uncommon for them to wake up on a Saturday morning and have a couple of pigs running around the front yard, because that was the only way that a farmer could pay for his wife to have an operation. So I think as well that if we're going to allow doctors to have this particular option of getting in or getting out, then make the decision and stick with that decision. If you do want to run a business and run it as a true business, then take all the responsibilities that go with it. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I only have a few others here that I would like to make.

One, of course, is when we're looking at whether you are a dental surgeon or whether you are a physician. There isn't cons istency in both of these as to whether people can opt in or opt out. Why are there two different sets of criteria in this bill between dental surgeons and physicians? I'll look forward to those comments. As well, when I read this bill, I also see other problems that do occur. Certainly this bill is not helping to cure those. There's absolutely no doubt that many of our fine young doctors here in the province are leaving this province for greener pastures elsewhere.

I think that if we did have the statistics – and perhaps the Minister of Health does have these statistics – we would find that the average age of doctors is increasing quite quickly in this province, because many of our young doctors have decided to leave. When I see in here the president of the Alberta Medical Association making comments that they are having a tremendously hard time . . . [interjections] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I'll put your name on the speaking list. Right now it's Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. SMITH: Ah, no. MR.

BONNER: The Minister of Labour could plan his work and work his plan, and I would love to listen to any comments he might have when I am finished. This is Bill 21 that we are speaking to, I believe, Mr. Speaker. In listening to the head of the Alberta Medical Association, he certainly indicated that even at this time the situation in Alberta is such that they are having a very difficult time attracting proper specialists, very qualified specialists, particularly in the fields of cardiology, neurology, and orthopedics. I would say that if we are having trouble in these areas, why don't we do something to correct