Alberta Hansard — 24 May 2000, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 4)

20000524

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1753 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/05/24 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Legislature Mrs. Guadalupe Albert, Mexican consul general for western Canada based in Vancouver. This is the consul general’s first official visit to our province, and we’re pleased to welcome her here today. Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s relationship with Mexico has grown tremendously in r ecent years in areas ranging from trade to educa- tional partnerships. We have watched with great interest the impressive growth of the Mexican economy in the last few years.

This visit is an excellent opportunity for us to explore ways to build on our relationship and to discuss areas where we can work together. The consul general is seated in the Speaker’s gallery. I would ask that she now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Governor Dirk Kempthorne of the state of Idaho and his wife, Patricia Kempthorne.

They are leading a delegation from the beautiful state of Idaho and are meeting with various members of government throughout this province. Accompanying the governor is Mr. Pat Takasugi, director of the Idaho state Department of Agriculture. The governor and his delegation are traveling across western Canada this week, and we’re pleased to have the opportunity of welcoming them to Alberta. The meetings that we had this morning were an excellent time for learning more about each other and discussing ways of building a lasting friendship between Alberta and Idaho.

Later this week the governor will be signing a co-operation agreement with our Premier, committing Alberta and Idaho to work together in many areas. At this time I’m very honoured to ask the guests to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. MR. COUTTS: Thank you. I’m pleased today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a visitor to our province here today, Senator Ray Powers of the U.S. state of Colorado.

Senator Powers is the president of the Council of State Governments-West, known as CSG-West, a fine organization of which the province of Alberta has just become a member. Senator Powers is here to take a look at Alberta as an opportunity for future meetings for this great organization of the Council of State Govern- ments. He is seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. I ask him to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a real privilege today to present two petitions to the House. The first is from 1,173 people from Lethbridge, Nanton, High River, Fort Macleod, Pincher Creek, Cardston, Taber, Coaldale, Medicine Hat, Coalhurst, and Raymond. They are petitioning the Legislative Assembly to make sure that the government of Alberta has two people on duty after hours to protect employees. The second petition is in a similar vein. It’s 377 from Lethbridge, Coaldale, Calgary, Fort Macleod, Cardston, and Stand Off. This is a petition also asking for two people to be working after hours. I submit those on behalf of them. Mr.

Speaker, that makes 12,605 total submitted to date. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly today. It reads: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to present to the Assembly opposing Bill 11 and the privatization of health care, 24 signatures.

This brings the total number of signatures on this petition to 22,591. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I tabled yesterday now be read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta pet ition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. DR. NICOL: Mr.

Speaker, I’d request that the petition standing on the Order Paper under my name from yesterday now be read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce legisla- tion requiring a minimum of two people on shifts from dark to daylight. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request

1754 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 that the petition I presented to the Assembly on Tuesday, May 23 regarding the dismantling of our precious health care system be now read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta:

(1) To immediately disallow any further development of the Spray Valley of Kananaskis Country, including those proposals currently under consideration;

(2) To maintain Kananaskis Country in natural state that provides high quality wildlife habitat and nature-based recreational activities;

(3) To create a Wildland Provincial Park which protects the whole of the undeveloped parts of the Kananaskis and Spray Valleys. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m giving oral notice today of the following motion: “Be it resolved that debate on third reading of Bill 18, Alberta Personal Income Tax Act, shall not be further adjourned.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the daily Routine today I will move the following Standing Order 30 motion standing in my name on the Order Paper:

Be it resolved that this Assembly adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike of over 10,000 health care providers. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Provincial Treasurer. DR. WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to table five copies of an

article that ran in the Edmonton Journal today called Nobel Economist Supports Flat Tax. Robert Mundell is a 1999 Nobel laureate, and he is a world-recognized economist. He said that the single-rate income tax is a very good idea that makes the economy more efficient. I would like to also table with this five copies of his bio. This will show that he is an extraordinary Canadian, and his work is very, very impressive. 1:40 I’d like to table six copies of the 1999 annual report for the provincial judges and masters in chambers pension plan as required by

section 5 of the provincial judges and masters in chambers pension plan regulation. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table with the House today six copies of my response to the MLA for Edmonton-Mill Woods regarding his question raised during the Committee of Supply meeting dealing with the 2000-2001 estimates for Alberta Economic Development. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to table five copies of the annual report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Alberta, April 1999 to March 2000. This is the first annual report published by the CISA. It has some very interesting informa- tion, statistics, and data about organized crime and serious crime in the province of Alberta and what the government is doing about it with the co-operation of police services in the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve had opportunity to review Hansard and review the questions asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, and I table five copies of my response to the questions related to timber auctions that were taken under advice yesterday. The two members opposite insinuated that my department staff were somehow involved in unlawful activity, and the record will show that those allegations are unfounded. If I were them, I’d feel like a schlemiel. MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, today it is my privilege to table a letter being sent to Ronald Joyce, chair of the Tim Horton Children’s Foundation, with special thanks to Tony Mardel of the Tim Horton store in Sherwood Park. Six thousand underprivileged, economi- cally disadvantaged children went to the Tim Horton camp last year as a result of $2.75 million worth of contributions by Canadians to this most worthwhile cause. I’m sure colleagues on both sides of the House are participating today as we honour their efforts. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the Acting Provincial Treasurer and in keeping with your ruling I won’t be tabling any newspaper articles, but I will be tabling an

article written by Mr. Bill Daly, BCom, MBA. It’s an analysis of Alberta’s flat tax for the year 2001. Of course, it’s saying that Alberta’s flat tax doesn’t start until 2001 and big savings will only come to those who earn over $70,000 a year. I’ll stack up that Albertan’s credentials against yours anytime. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other tablings. First, letters from Mr. Gordon Inglis and Mr. E. Faszer, both of my constituency. They’re writing the Prime Minister of Canada imploring him to please assist in the fight of Albertans to save public health care in this province.

Finally, I just had the opportunity to attend the annual general meeting of the Edmonton Community Foundation. I table the appropriate copies of their report. They are celebrating this year the disbursement after 10 years of $20 million in community funding. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a single tabling. This is a letter from the Alberta Historical Preservation & Re-

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1755 building Society to all Calgary MLAs urging us to push the govern- ment to reconsider its decision regarding the Lougheed Build- ing/Grand Theatre and designate it as an historic site under the provincial Historical Resources Act. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the appropriate number of copies of two tablings today. The first is from Aileen Pelzer of Calgary. The second is from Donna Brunsdale of Calgary.

Both of these people are opposed to the proposed Genesis land corporation development in the Spray Valley in Kananaskis. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Alberta, May being MS awareness month.

Seated in your gallery I would like to introduce Howard Riddel, executive director, Edmonton chapter; Jane Styles, board member, Edmonton chapter; Pam Seto, vice-president of development, Alberta division; Glen Lavold, board member, Alberta division; Josee Pinsonneault, special projects co-ordinator, Alberta division; and David Kravinchuk, events co-ordinator, Alberta division. I would ask them to rise so that we can give them the traditional warm welcome of this Chamber and thank them for the carnations that we’re wearing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my esteemed pleasure to introduce to you and through you this afternoon to the members of this Assembly Kim Hoang, vivacious wife of our colleague representing Calgary-Fort – she’s able to be here today because now she’s embarking on a new phase in her life, I under- stand, which is retirement – and Marie Martin, the very capable and gracious Edmonton leg. assistant to both the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort and myself. Would these honourable guests please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the privilege of having two introductions today. My first is an individual who is seated in your gallery, Representative Max Black of the great state of Idaho. Representative Black is also the president of an organiza- tion that this Assembly really knows a tremendous amount about, and that’s the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. He is the president and is doing a tremendous job of continuing cross-border relations and regional collaboration. We appreciate Representative Black for everything he’s doing for that organization and for trade in the Pacific northwest.

I ask him to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. My second introduction. I’d like to introduce Deborah Daoust. She’s a deputy program manager and political and economic relations and public affairs officer for the Canadian consulate general’s office in Seattle. She is seated in the members’ gallery. I ask her to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today it is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all of my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly two guests that are joining us, I believe, for the first time. First I would like to introduce friend and neigh- bour Sabine MacLeod, who is visiting to see why it is that I’m away from home so much so she can report to my wife, Shannon. Accompanying Sabine is Tina Vogt. Now, Tina is completing a year of studies at Jasper Place high school. She is doing a year of studies and visiting from Germany.

She decided that the best way to learn English was to come and immerse herself in it, and she’s doing an outstanding job. Unfortunately, we’ll be bidding her farewell all too soon. I would invite all members to welcome them in the Chamber. I’d ask them to stand and receive that welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly some more good friends.

They’ve all been coming in from the United States on different airplanes, and the different airplanes have been arriving at different times. We’re certainly glad that they’re here to be introduced in the Legislature today. I’d like to introduce Represen- tative Jeff Morris from the United States, from Washington. Jeff is an executive member of the Pacific Northwest Region and vice- president of the organization. He has been involved with that organization since 1993, and b ecause of PNWER he has ended up being a good friend to Alberta. They’re here for some meetings today.

I would ask Jeff to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:50 Also seated in your gallery today is the executive director of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Mr. Matt Morrison, who is no stranger to Alberta and to this Assembly. Matt, I wonder if you would please rise and receive that same welcome. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Debra Lozinski from Lac La Biche. Debra is the reeve of Lakeland county.

She’s seated in the visitors’ gallery today. I’d like to ask Debra to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Health Workforce Labour Dispute MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the upheaval and uncertainty in our health care system is never-ending. First Bill 11 was rammed through th is Legislature, and now over 10,000 health care workers have walked off the job across Alberta. According to recent reports licensed practical nurses in Alberta are amongst the lowest paid in Canada.

My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Given the sacrifices made by health care workers over the past eight years, how does this govern- ment justify paying them the seventh lowest wages in the country?

1756 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 MR. JONSON: With respect to the question, as the hon. leader across the way knows, we are at a very critical point in ongoing negotiations. We have a strike occurring currently. The regional health authorities and the provincial Mental Health Board have been bargaining diligently, Mr. Speaker. We hope that the parties will come together to bargain further. There are, as published, very significant dollars being offered by the employers. This question is really not appropr iate at this time, Mr. Speaker, when we want the two sides to come back together and negotiate a settlement.

MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that the inflation rate in Alberta is expected to be over 3 percent a year, how does this minister justify offering wage increases that can’t even keep pace with inflation? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, my mathematics in terms of what is reported as being the last offer of the employer does go somewhat higher than the rate of inflation. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that this government has recently rewarded pay raises of 8 percent to executive assistants of ministers, how can this minister justify offering raises of only 3 percent to auxiliary care nurses? MR.

JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m personally not aware of any raises that are 8 percent, and that is a process not handled by the Minister of Health and Wellness. THE SPEAKER: Second main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just one year ago a massive strike by nurses in this province was narrowly averted. At that time the Official Opposition calculated that the cost to the taxpayer of airlifting patients would have been at least $2.4 million per day, or about $35 million for a two week strike. My questions are again to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Can the minister tell us which provinces or states the government plans to airlift patients to for medical care? MR. JONSON: When one has a labour dispute, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of Alberta Health and Wellness and the minister, along with the regional health authorities and in this case the provincial Mental Health Board, to make sure that every possible effort is provided for the care and safety and treatment of people in the care of the health care system. There has been contingency planning done.

In terms of this particular situation there are no plans to fly people to the United States or out of province, but if it comes to a situation where an individual’s life and health is in danger, we will do it. MRS. MacBETH: Well, fine, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister please provide us with an estimate on how much the government’s contingency plan for the strike might cost Albertans? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, we have no way of knowing how long this labour dispute, this strike, will continue. We have no solid indication as to what workers will or will not cross picket lines.

We have organized ourselves so that we are monitoring the situation very, very carefully. Our top priority is the health and safety of patients in the care of the system. We will take appropriate action in terms of the cost, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously no way of quoting an exact figure at this particular point in time. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that licensed practical nurses in Alberta rank seventh in the country in wages, wouldn’t that money and human energy be better spent at the negotiating table bringing an end to this strike? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think there are a couple of things to point out. First of all, the labour dispute certainly has two sides to it. There’s some responsibility with respect to the leadership of the unions involved. In terms of the process we as Alberta Health and Wellness are certainly wanting, and I’m sure more directly the Department of Human Resources and Employment, to bring the parties back together to arrive at a settlement. That is what we have as our overall goal.

I do not quite gather what the position of the members across the way is, but it seems to me that they do not really respect the bargaining process, the fact that there are two sides that have to come together here, Mr. Speaker. They want to come down on one side. THE SPEAKER: Third main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. Calgary Laboratory Services MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The University of Calgary recently a nnounced plans to build a research transition facility on their education reserve land.

Although the university is calling it a research transition facility, almost 85 percent of the building is being leased to a commercial venture, Calgary Lab Services. While upgraded laboratory facilities are long overdue, residents in the area such as those from the University Heights Community Association are concerned that public land intended for the University of Calgary expansion is being used for a commercial facility. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Can the minister explain why a facility, 85 percent of which is going to be used for commercial purposes, is being built with public money? MR. JONSON: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker – and I can only speak generally of the specific plans of the Calgary regional health authority – it is on public land held by the regional health authority. It is a building that will be owned by the regional health authority. It may have a tenant that is the lab services which operate under the publicly funded, publicly administered system of the Calgary health authority under contract.

The proximity to what is probably the largest facility in Calgary which provides service to Calgarians would seem to be a logical advantage of locating the lab there. I understand that they w ill be negotiating as part of their contract reasonable income to the regional health authority for the use of that property. Also, it should not be missed that the regional health authority is in conjunction with the university going to be develop- ing quite a bit of needed research space. 2:00 MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, given the very vigorous opposition to this proposal within the community, is the government going to deal with those serious concerns or ignore them and push ahead? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any vigorous opposition. I will certainly look into it, but I don’t just automatically

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1757 accept the contention in the leader’s question. They have been misleading before, and I would want to check on it. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that according to the Univer- sity Heights Community Association web site, and I quote, a multinational medical services company, MDS, has expressed interest in buying out the CRHA, end quote, what assurances can this minister give that once the laboratory has been set up, it won’t simply be turned over to private companies for pennies on the dollar as happened with the Holy Cross hospital? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, once again it appears that with respect to this particular question one individual with a concern is being quoted; so be it. The disposal of land which is the property of the regional health authority requires government approval. Certainly we would want that property to stay as part of the overall holdings of the Calgary regional health authority. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Health Workforce Labour Dispute (continued) DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Calgary Herald, then Brewers’ Distributor, and now health care workers.

Alberta’s unfair labour laws are the political equivalent of a loaded gun pointed at the heads of Alberta workers. So is Bill 11, which is a framework for contracting out and privatizing our public health care system. My question is to the minister of human resources, who is responsible for labour relations as well. When is the government going to realize that its own unfair labour laws are directly responsible for the growing crisis in labour relations in this province? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think we probably need to bring this into perspective just a little bit in th e sense that even the other night at a standing policy committee we had a presentation from the Alberta Federation of Labour, and even they talked about the excellent record of labour relations in this particular province. Now, we can show the member the numbers if we want, but in Alberta we have an excellent, excellent record. We have an environment where employers and representatives of employees can sit at a table and can negotiate agreements. We have a playing field that we believe is level.

Yes, at various times we have pressures from employer groups and employee groups for changes to the particular labour legislation, but to me, as we talk in this Assembly time after time, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and the fact is that the statistics are very, very good. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is it going to take for this government to recognize that legislating away the collective bargaining rights of health care workers does nothing, solves nothing, and instead contributes to a bitter and acrimonious labour relations atmosphere within the health care sector? MR. DUNFORD: You know, we just went through a session both inside this Assembly and outside of this building with some folks called the Friends of Medicare, and I believe that the party that the hon. member represents had something to do with that particular issue.

Now to raise a question lik e that in this Assembly today, entirely forgetting about the innocent third party in all of this situation – Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of who the innocent . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: The floor has been given to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Continue. MR. DUNFORD: And let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, who the innocent third party is: the patients that are in care and of course their families that are trying to provide for them.

Here we have a situation where these people require essential services, and I believe that it was proper for the government of the day to establish, then, that those services were in fact essential and thus remove the legal right to strike. Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of the people here today that this is an illegal strike that is under way. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary is to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Why doesn’t the govern- ment abandon contracting out our public health care system through reckless legislation like Bill 11 and instead focus on improving working conditions and job security in public hospitals and facili- ties? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, contractual relationships have been a part of the health care system of this province and other provinces throughout history, certainly since the time that we have as governments across Canada taken over the provision of public health care services.

I’m sure that the member across the way, if he would move from his doctrinaire philosophy to reality – I don’t think he would want to suggest that we should cancel the contracts with the Bethany Group, that we should cancel the contracts for long-term care with the Good Samaritans.

I don’t think he would suggest that we should cancel the contracts, eliminate them with respect to the laboratory services across this province, which are in a good part provided very well by the private sector, unless he really, really is tied to an absolute doctrine that says that nothing in the health care system can be owned or operated under contract by the private sector. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Fort McMurray. Domestic Abuse in the Military MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 9 a study entitled Report on the Canadian Forces’ Response to Woman Abuse in Military Families was released to the public. The study does not claim that domestic violence is more prevalent in the military than in the civilian communities but does state that it is a serious problem handled in a manner unique to the military way of life. There is little doubt that the military culture as well as factors such as posttraumatic stress play a significant role in domestic abuse in the military.

According to the report, victims are reluctant to seek assistance from military support services and may not be aware of resources available within their immediate communities. Further, domestic abuse is processed by the civilian court. The report indicates that if charges are laid through the civil police, the military may not be informed and that if the military police respond, the civilian police may not be called in . My first question is to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister encourage the police depart- ments in areas adjacent to military bases to develop a policy of

1758 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 communication regarding incidents of domestic abuse so that all relevant authorities, civilian and military, are informed when charges are laid? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. 2:10 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we do have a policy of encouraging police forces to work together in this prov- ince. I tabled today the annual report of the CISA, which is one area in which police forces across the province have been co-operating and sharing information on a very effective basis.

It’s certainly the policy of this government that police forces combating crime, whether it’s organized crime or domestic violence, should be sharing information when it’s appropriate to do so. MS PAUL: My first supplementary is to the Minister of Children’s Services. In view of the chronic shortage of funds in women’s shelters will the minister make immediate funding available earmarked specifically to advertise shelters in the vicinity of Canadian forces bases so that victims of abuse can be aware that help is available? MS EVANS: Clearly, Mr.

Speaker, the need for women’s shelters that the hon. member opposite has identified is an important one. In light of the comments I will take a very careful look at how one advertises shelters. For the protection of those involved, those who have been recipients of abuse, there are some real questions about how you promote that service, but we will make sure that if there are services available, the law enforcement authorities and others who would provide guidance to women to seek that type of shelter with their children would be aware of those opportunities.

MS PAUL: My second supplementary is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Would the minister advise us of any specialized support services that are available to members of the Canadian forces reserves and their families to deal with posttraumatic stress following extended peacekeeping deployments in war zones once these reservists are released from active duty? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in the Capital region I am pleased to say that there is a good working relationship between the Namao base personnel and their medical staff and the Capital regional health authority.

In fact, we’re fortunate enough to have doctors, for instance, that work at the St. Albert hospital and keep up their skills, and they’re providing a co-operative arrangement or service to the Capital region. That, as I understand it, would apply with respect to other services such as situations which involve a stressful situation that has been reported. However, Mr.

Speaker, I do think there’s one point to be empha- sized here, and that is that given the nature of the armed forces, the mandate under which they operate, and their necessary independence or separation governancewise from the province, I think we do have to keep in mind that the initiative and leadership to make sure these types of co-operative arrangements are arrived at and the services are available to their personnel does have to come from the armed forces themselves. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Diabetes Research MR.

BOUTILIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was reported this week across Canada, the United States, and for that matter the world that the University of Alberta research team made a major breakthrough in the fight against diabetes. Dr. James Shapiro and his team of researchers are to be commended when they injected insulin-producing cells from donor pancreases into eight patients and put them on this immune suppressing drug. These eight Canadians with chronic type 1 diabetes are now reported to be living free of having to use insulin. My question is to the Minister of Innovation and Science.

What does this medical research break- through mean for Albertans who have this chronic disease and use our health care system? DR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, it means that these scientists are doing some of the best research in the world in diabetes. It also means that we will go down in history not just for our fiscal agenda in Alberta but also for our excellent scientific research. Alberta is the place to do science. It also points out the importance of partnerships, Mr. Speaker, between universities, the private sector, and the government.

It also means that we have eight individuals in Alberta, some of whom were taking up to 15 shots of insulin a day, who no longer have to do that. This gives hope to the 200,000 diabetics in Canada alone, plus there are over 15 million diabetics in the world. If I could just say a personal note, Mr. Speaker, we have a person in our family who we consider our daughter and who lived with us for a number of years. In her late teenage years she came down with type 1 diabetes, and this provides hope for Jennifer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister advise members of this Assembly as to whether any research dollars were provided by this government to support this medical break- through at the University of Alberta? DR. TAYLOR: Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and the Assembly knows, we have a fund, the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, which is now over a billion dollars. It supports research off the interest from the trust fund. In this area alone over the last number of years it has provided over $18 million for diabetic research.

We have to recognize that when we do that, the $18 million, that brings in at least $2 and up to $4 for every dollar that’s invested from Alberta. If you take even the minimum figure, that means that over the last number of years over $30 million has been invested in Alberta based on our investment in the HFMR. It shows again, Mr. Speaker, that if the government takes the lead and steps up to the table, exciting things can happen. MR. BOUTILIER: Mr.

Speaker, my final supplemental to the same minister: are there any other government programs and research funds available for science and research of this important initiative to help expedite this type of brilliant science that’s going on in Alberta? DR. TAYLOR: Well, there are a number of programs. In fact, we announced this weekend a combination of two programs inside my department that will result in a $30 million investment in a c ouple of areas: in research infrastructure, in technology transfer, and in science and technology promotion and awareness. Also, Mr.

Speaker, as you are aware, we’ve announced a $500 million trust fund that is available. We expect the interest from that could be up to $25 million this year alone to invest in science and

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1759 research. That fund will grow to a billion dollars by 2005 and perhaps, if I’m lucky with my budget, even earlier. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Health Workforce Labour Dispute (continued) MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Due to this govern- ment’s cutbacks, mismanagement, and lack of planning in health care, we now have the largest strike of health care workers in this province. Two of the issues on the bargaining table are inappropri- ate staffing levels and contracting out.

Yet in 1999 an Alberta Health report indicated that workforce issues were serious and that there were serious problems with regards to training, recruitment, and retention of health care professionals in this province. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. My first question is: given that health workforce shortages are both a national issue as well as a key issue in this strike, can the minister tell us whether the Premier has put the issue of workforce shortages in health care on the table at the Premiers’ Conference? [interjections] MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think the members across the way are just jealous because on this side of the House we have a very strong leader who represents the interests of the province. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the pro ceedings at the Premiers’ Conference, there are a number of topics to be covered. Certainly the matter of health care is one of the major ones. I understand that the Premier and I expect other Premiers will be putting forward a very strong case for the restoration of Canada health and social transfer moneys to the provinces across this country.

That is certainly going to be one of the major priorities. 2:20 Within that context I know that the Premiers have discussed prior to this, quite frankly, the needs within the health care system, the need for hiring additional frontline staff, which we have done in this province with the significant dolla rs we’ve reinvested, the need to look at adding to the overall health workforce, be we talking about nurses or radiation technologists, as examples. This is certainly a priority, and we have already acted in that area, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Learning may want to supplement, but we have added to our capacity in that particular area. Under the leadership of our Premier, Mr. Speaker, we have already taken major steps to address this issue, and I’m sure that the Premier is sharing our experiences with other Premiers. MS LEIBOVICI: Well, Mr. Speaker, strong leaders take responsibil- ity, so can the minister or anyone on the front benches indicate why the Premier isn’t here to deal with the issue at hand, a real crisis in health care in this province today? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I know members on this side of the House know and I can assure the members on the other side that the Premier is very much concerned by the situation here. He is in regular contact with his office. He has a very important task, as I’ve said, to represent this province at that conference, particularly as it applies to health, particularly as it applies to their Liberal cousins in Ottawa coming through with their proper share of funding for health care in this country. MS LEIBOVICI: Nothing like an absentee Premier.

Given that Bill 11 w ill encourage greater contracting out in our health care system, what assurances . . . Speaker’s Ruling Referring to the Absence of a Member THE SPEAKER: Hon. members and hon. Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark, I mean, it’s nationally known that there’s a conference of the leaders of government in another place. To refer to members absent from the House is inappropriate under our rules. I don’t know why you’d do that. Why don’t you just get on with the question?

Health Workforce Labour Dispute (continued) MS LEIBOVICI: Given that Bill 11 will encourage greater contract- ing out in our health care system, what assurances will the minister give health care workers with respect to job security? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, as I have . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I don’t know about you, but I always found it rather interesting to listen to the Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, due to the strength of the economy and due to, I think, the sound financial management of the government, we do have increased funds available.

Health has been given a priority by this government, and within that overall health funding the training and engagement of health care workers is a priority. That’s demonstrated in the increased number of physicians, the increased number of nurses, the increased number of LPNs, the increased number of other frontline workers, support workers in this province. It’s through having the resources, managing them well, directing them to the front line that job security is assured to individuals. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Tax Policy for Seniors MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my work with seniors some of the most frequently asked questions are around our tax policy for seniors. My first question is to the Minister of Commu- nity Development. Why do seniors, most of whom live on fixed incomes, even though the majority are at the middle and higher income levels, have to pay taxes, especially education tax? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to education tax it’s historically been the case in this province that property taxes do support education, and I think that’s the proper way to go. Whether or not you have children in the schools at a particular time that you’re paying tax is not relevant. With respect to the overall picture of senior support I might point out that in 1994 this government took the initiative to streamline seniors’ benefits and to focus them on the people in need.

So to be quite specific, seniors who are needy do get a cash allowance under Alberta’s seniors’ benefit program that is directed to help them with their overall expenses. To give you an example of how this works, Alberta has the highest threshold for this support, which means that

1760 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 seniors in this province get the support quicker than anywhere else. We have a variety of categories to ensure that their needs are met. For example, with respect to a homeowner senior who is under the threshold or a senior couple who are under the threshold of the $26,000, depending on where they are, they could r eceive a maximum benefit of some $3,200 annually. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that although it’s not earmarked as a specific program, their needs are taken into consideration.

Also, we do have something called a special needs program, which people who are in dire straits could apply for, and this could help. That program goes to a maximum of some $5,000 per year in addition to anything that the ASB would provide to the seniors. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the hon. Acting Treasurer. Can you explain this government’s new tax policy with regard to low- and middle-income seniors? DR. WEST: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They will benefit from this new tax plan, the single-rate plan.

For example, an individual senior that makes $12,000 from a private pension plan and also receives the old age security would have paid in 1999 roughly $335 in tax. With the new plan, the single-rate tax, that senior will not pay any tax in the year 2001 and also will still r eceive the seniors’ benefit package from Alberta. They’re also going to benefit from sharing in the elimination of bracket creep. They will benefit from indexing the basic and spousal exemptions to the Alberta consumer price index, and they will also benefit from indexing the age amount and the pension amount.

Finally, they are going to benefit from the increase to the age and pension credits, which will take the amount multiplied by 10.5 percent instead of 7.5 percent, and they will be indexed for inflation. So provincial participation in both these credits will increase by 30 percent. I might also add that a great deal of the seniors will be in those 190,000-plus Albertans that won’t be paying any provincial income tax. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, a significant portion of a senior’s income can come through dividends on investments.

The dividend tax credit is therefore important to seniors. My last question is again to the Acting Treasurer. Will this credit disappear under the new system? DR. WEST: The simple answer is no. The province will continue to provide a dividend tax credit. In fact, the value of the credit will increase slightly under this new policy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Timber Permit Bidding Process MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we revealed that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had found one of this government’s business partners guilty of bid-rigging and collusion, with timber permits worth up to $30 per cubic metre being sold for 63 cents per cubic metre. This government as a matter of policy has propped up and subsidized the pine shake industry and specific firms like Shake Masters Manufacturing Inc.

In fact, our freedom of information request contained a January 1994 Economic Development and Tourism, forest industry development branch memo discussing Shake Masters that reads, “When we provide financial assistance, we should perhaps have a basic criteria that the mill have a sustainable wood supply.” My first question is to the minister of environmental protection. Did the government turn a blind eye to timber permit bid-rigging to ensure a sustainable wood supply? 2:30 MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, first, by way of correction the proper name of the department is the Ministry of Environment, not environmental protection, and the short answer to his question is no. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question, then, is to the Minister of Economic Development.

Given that Shake Masters had received $59,000 in Department of Economic Develop- ment grants and at least $630,000 in Alberta Opportunity Company loans and loan guarantees, did the government turn a blind eye to timber permit bid-rigging so that Shake Masters could keep servicing its taxpayer backed loans? MR. HAVELOCK: Mr. Speaker, the department did not turn a blind eye to anything, and I’d like to clarify for the House that any loan or grant coming from AOC is made independent of this government and after a thorough examination of the application. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR.

MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, finally to the Minister of Justice. Given that this document tabled earlier in the Assembly said that, quote, land and forest service was the victim of a crime, has the minister attempted to recover any of the money owed to taxpayers of this province because of this bid-rigging, and has he ordered an investigation into other possible cases of collusion in the forest permit auctions? Does he have any idea how far this rot has spread? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it’s absolutely ludicrous for that member to suggest that any department in this government or any member of this government would turn a blind eye to any criminal activity, and I can categorically say that this government does not turn a blind eye to criminal activity of any sort in this province. MR. CARDINAL: As the Associate Minister of Forestry, I’d like to – the three questions impact the forest industry in Alberta, and we wouldn’t want to leave a negativeness toward that industry, because it is a major industry.

It’s over $8.3 billion and has over 50,000 jobs, and a lot of them are in your riding, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the dues, there are a number of ways timber is allocated. There is the forest management agreement process. There is the quota process. There is the miscellaneous timber use program, which handles commercial timber permits, local timber permits, and farmers’ permits. So there are a number of ways of allocating the timber, and all the processes are above board. In relation to the province receiving income from timber dues, et cetera, Mr.

Speaker, $3.4 billion of the $8.4 billion is included in, for example, stumpage charges at $92 million, property taxes to

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1761 municipalities of $81 million, provide provincial income tax of $224 million and provincial corporate income tax at $166 million. So the province is recovering the dollars that are required. We have one of the best forest industry programs in North America, and it’s something to be proud of, not run down. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Maintenance Enforcement Program MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In June of 1998 the MLA review of the maintenance enforcement program presented its report to the Minister of Justice. The report contained 41 recommendations to improve all aspects of the maintenance enforcement program. I chaired that review along with the members from Bonnyville-Cold Lake and Red Deer-South. We were very pleased that the govern- ment accepted all of our recommendations and that many of those were implemented early on. In fact, legislation was passed last spring giving the program many more enforcement options.

However, not all of the recommendations required legislation, and I am hoping that there is a will in Justice to continue implementing the recommendations of the report. My questions this afternoon are to the Minister of Justice. Mr. Minister, what, if any, recent changes have been made to the maintenance enforcement program to increase the effectiveness of the program as called for by our report? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very good question, because of course maintenance enforcement remains a priority for Justice.

Improving the program in terms of both its ability to collect on behalf of Albertans who need that assistance as well as providing customer service to both the debtors and those who are entitled to receive the collection is an important priority. Recent additions to the program have been the new Justice web site, which became available in April of this year. As part of the site, clients and employees have access to program forms and information on various topics including collection forms and various collection actions on the web site.

Other changes recently made include amendments that allow the program to request debtor locations, asset and employment from employers, trade unions, and financial institutions. Advertising for debtors is now possible. The program can cancel drivers’ licences. There’s more power to get collections when debtors hide assets in third party locations. Debtors can be reported to the credit bureau. All of this is very important, Mr. Speaker. I should mention that a member of the opposition recently asked for a response on the mainframe program.

When I indicated that the new mainframe for the computer system for the program was in the process of development, the suggestion was made in this House that the program isn’t working. I want to assure all members of this House that the program is working very well. The improvements that have been put in place as a result of the MLA task force have been very effective. For example, there were 43,250 active files last year. This year there are 42,000 clients on file. Collections last year were in the amount of $122 million. This year they’re up to $126 million. The program is working.

It’s working for Albertans, and it’s getting money into the hands of people who are taking care of children in this province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that both customer service and customer satisfaction were a major focus of the report recommendations, I’m wondering what changes from a customer service perspective are being planned, if any, and when can we expect to see them? THE SPEAKER: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we’re seeing those changes as we speak.

It’s certainly been one of our priorities to make the program more customer service oriented, to make sure that there’s good interaction between those who need to have service and those who are giving the service. They’ve been asked to be a lot more customer friendly and are being a lot more customer friendly. It’s a difficult job, Mr. Speaker, that the people involved in maintenance enforcement have, because they’re dealing always with either people who don’t want to pay or people who are not getting the money they’re entitled to.

In both cases, the people that they’re dealing with can have a great deal of anxiety, and that can be a great problem. So we have improved staff training. We’ve increased staff for customer service. We have new and revamped information registra- tion application forms and educational material. We have a new 24- hour interactive voice response phone system. We have dedicated complaint and troubleshooting specialists. We have increased staff training. [interjections] The one thing we don’t have is brevity.

We take as much time as is necessary to deal with customer complaints and customer service in maintenance enforcement. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. Another focus of the report recommendations was the need to deal with chronic defaulters and others that are difficult to collect from. I’m wondering what the department is doing to solve these cases. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we did form a special investigation unit within the maintenance enforcement program, and that unit is starting to produce results. In fact, in a recent story in the Edmonton Sun a lady was profiled who just received a cheque from her ex-husband for over $20,000. This chronic defaulter had evaded the collection process for over 12 years. Thanks to Bill 16 of last year, the recommendations of the MLA committee, and dedicated staff, we were able to help this family with financial help. The special investigations unit, Mr.

Speaker, is currently working on 224 out of 480 cases that have been red-flagged for their review, and I hope to be able to report significant results in the near future. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Sleep Apnea Treatment in Lethbridge DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The administration and staff at the Lethbridge sleep disorder clinic truly believe that they have a level 1 clinic. Their technicians are trained to the level of all other clinics in Alberta. The administrators and staff have the background and training.

The physicians have the residency requirements. Their communication with Alberta Health and Wellness has indicated that

1762 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 they’ve met all the criteria for level 1 clinic status. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. What is it that’s holding up the funding for this clinic so southern Alberta residents can get access to sleep disorder diagnosis? 2:40 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must give a brief history with respect to sleep apnea treatment in the province. It is certainly not a new condition, but it’s fairly new in terms of our ability to diagnose it and to treat it and to categorize the different levels, as they refer to them, of people suffering from sleep apnea.

Up to this point in time the overall approach of the province in terms of evaluation and categorization of cases and determination of what treatment should be provided, through our discussions with the medical fraternity and to some degree with our provincewide services committee, has been at the centre in Calgary. With respect to the manner in which other centres might be approved, Mr. Speaker, we want to consult with that clinic and we want to consult with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We do not accredit these types of clinics wit hout the leadership and involvement of the college.

This is something, I know, that is being pursued by the Lethbridge regional health authority and the physicians there. I know it is being given consideration, but I do not have a specific date or time that I can give the hon. member as to that being done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The pilot project that the minister talked about began in Edmonton and Calgary. It’s ex- panded now to the point where there are three centres in Calgary, the Children’s hospital and also in a pr ivate clinic.

Why is it that this private clinic is being funded when the Lethbridge publicly funded, publicly administered system cannot get authorization? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member is quite aware, the development of the team of sleep apnea professionals in Lethbridge is quite a new development as far as Lethbridge is concerned. It does mean that it has to go through a review process. It has to be accredited. With respect to funding, the Lethbridge regional health authority has received a significant increase in f unding this year. They will have to make decisions about how they allocate the resources.

But, quite frankly, if it is deemed to be in the interests of the people in the area and if it’s viable and accredited to the proper standards, certainly it is something that should be considered for approval. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, when the people in Lethbridge or southern Alberta go to this clinic and get their diagnosis, they have to pay for their machine themselves. The people going to the clinics in Calgary or Edmonton get it paid for by the government through Alberta Aids to Daily Living.

Why is it that we don’t have the same treatment for southern Alberta residents that the rest of Albertans get when they go to a clinic that has all of the same standards, the same technicians, the same physicians, the same qualifications. They’re not treated the same. Why is it? MR. JONSON: Well, on that particular point, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the clinics across this province that are accredited and approved as sleep apnea clinics do provide what are referred to as level 1 machines. Coverage, however, is not provided should a patient be using these machines for the other degrees of sleep apnea.

That is the way that I understand the system operates in the province. head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in a few seconds from now I’ll call upon the first of seven hon. members to participate in Recognitions today. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Multiple Sclerosis Society MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canada has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world. Alberta has the highest prevalence in all of Canada. This debilitating, chronic disorder attacks the central nervous system.

MS causes a range of symptoms: from speech impairment, vision loss, numbness, loss of balance to extreme fatigue and sometimes paralysis. The cause is unknown, its course unpredictable, and its cure is as yet undiscov- ered, although great strides have been made r ecently in regards to some exciting new drug therapies. The MS Society of Alberta is strong. Many individuals willingly volunteer their time and energy towards service programs, fund- raising events, and public awareness campaigns.

Many such events have been held across the province this month: bike tours, walking tours, and of course the annual MS Carnation Campaign, where dollars raised could well blossom into a cure. I encourage members of this Assembly and indeed, Mr. Speaker, all Albertans to support the good work and activities of the MS Society of Alberta. Only by working together can needed research continue and a cause and cure be found. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Oliver School Centre for Children MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to recognize the 20th anniversary of the Oliver School Centre for Children in my constituency of Edmonton-Centre. Currently serving children from 13 months to six years of age, OSCC also offers a Head Start program for 64 families free of charge and also offers the same program to others for a reasonable fee.

Early intervention services for an additional 16 at-risk children and their families in a satellite program is offered in Calder, and the classroom on wheels, the COW, goes into four low-income housing areas to set up a class- room and reaches out to those families traditionally more difficult to draw out. We’ve often heard in this House how important schools and children are to the community, and Oliver school and the Centre for Children is located in the centre of the constituency of Edmonton- Centre.

This is entirely apt given the centre’s long and very active advocacy role and their work to embrace the ethnic, physical, and economic diversity of the families they serve. I first heard of the centre when I was with the Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, and I’d like to thank Avril Pike and the centre staff for information, explanation, and insight into services for children. Twenty years. Very well done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. Northeast Calgary Culture of Co-operation MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased today to recognize our northeast Calgary communities which have commem- orated the International Year for the Culture of Peace by sponsoring a culture of co-operation event. Students from 12 northeast Calgary

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1763 schools and a number of youth groups showed their pride in our communities by submitting posters and commercials that highlight what co-operation means to them. The awards and prizes will be presented this Saturday, May 27, during a community festival at Sunridge Mall, and the poster winners will have their work displayed in a 2001 calendar with proceeds from sales going toward student f und-raising. Other community participation will also be recognized, including a community day of co-operation which promoted environmental cleanup in our area. Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity as well to thank the city of Calgary’s community and neighbourhood services branch and our northeast businesses and community groups that made the culture of co-operation event possible. It is their goodwill that has recognized and promoted the spirit and pride of our young people living and working in northeast Calgary. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. 2:50 Edmonton-Meadowlark Education Issues MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize the teachers, administrators, and parents of schools in my constituency.

Over the past eight months I surveyed 11 schools, spoke with administrators, teachers, and parents, and learned a great deal. I took note of their dedication and tenacity as they strived to do their best and their frustration by the lack of resources to make it happen. They all expressed concern about a wide range of issues, including class size, funding, special-needs children, sc hool resources, professional development for teachers, sc hool facilities, and teaching. We all know that education is the key to the future of our children and that this key should never be lost or misplaced.

The report I presented in the Legislative Assembly highlights those concerns and presents some of the observations and conclusions that were made during the process. I hope that this report is informative and helps to address some of the issues with regards to education in Alberta. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Mary Selby MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize Calgary philanthropist Mary Selby, who passed away March 24 at the age of 62.

Mary, who described herself as a professional volunteer, served as a member of the University of Calgary senate for six years, as representative from the senate to the board of governors since 1997, and r ecently as vice-chair of the senate’s executive committee. I knew Mary as a senate colleague prior to my becoming an MLA and heartily agree that she had many special qualities, as expressed recently by Chancellor Jack Perraton and the university president, Terry White. Mary was truly a very special person who was a great friend to the University of Calgary.

For Terry White, Mary Selby made a difference for many on campus, and she will be missed. Mary was exceptionally active in the Calgary community, such as with the Junior League, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Avenue 15 society, the Alberta Children’s hospital aid society, the Fort Calgary Preservation Society, and Christ Church in Elbow Park. Although Mary left this life and her loving family much too early, she has left them, her friends at the University of Calgary, and the Calgary community a remarkable legacy of great achievements and memories. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

Shane and Evan Chrapko DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to recognize today two brothers from Two Hills, Alberta, who have recently received international recognition for their development of the software known as DocSpace. The software is a unique technology that permits movement of gigantic files with ultratight security. Shane and Evan Chrapko developed DocSpace using basic skills learned from their parents, working with them on the farm they grew up on.

Their parents, Elizabeth and Victor Chrapko, who farm in the Two Hills area, are to be recognized as well for providing their children with those skills. Evan, Shane, and their parents will be celebrating their remarkable accomplishments in a Chrapko homecoming event in Two Hills this June. I’m honoured to recognize Evan and Shane for their hard work, commitment, enterprise, and success and their parents, Elizabeth and Victor, for raising them with the particular strengths which have made their achievements possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Leonard Blumenthal MRS.

LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure today to recognize Leonard Blumenthal on the awarding of his honorary degree, doctor of laws, by the University of Lethbridge this Satur- day. Leonard Blumenthal is the former CEO of AADAC. He worked in the addiction field for 32 years with AADAC, and his innovative leadership brought many changes in treatment of addiction throughout Canada. Under Leonard’s leadership AADAC won 25 national and international awards of excellence. Leonard was instrumental in the formation of aboriginal-staffed addiction counseling, training, and programming.

Leonard represented Alberta and Canada on many international bodies and also at the United Nations. Retired now, he is a member of the Capital health authority, once again lending his expertise to the improvement of community health. On behalf of the present chair for AADAC, the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, myself, and the members of this Assembly congratulations to Leonard Blumenthal for this well-deserved honour and recognition of the significant contribution he has made to all Albertans. Thank you. head: Emergency Debate Health Workforce Labour Dispute THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition on an application for a Standing Order 30 request. Hon. members, just please refer to your Standing Orders 30(1) and 30(2). 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. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your office was given

1764 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 notice pursuant to Standing Order 30(1) of my intention to “request leave to move to adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.” Earlier this afternoon I gave notice of my intention to move the following motion standing in my name:

Be it resolved that this Assembly adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike of 10,000 health care providers. Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly state the arguments in favour of my request for leave. I know that several of my colleagues have a couple of minutes of discussion as well that they wish to put forward to speak to this matter of urgent public importance. This morning at 7 Albertans awoke to the reality of an illegal strike in our province. Mr.

Speaker, we have been very clear in our position on this matter, that we don’t condone an illegal strike. However, we believe that government as the employer has to accept some responsibility for having pushed these people to the breaking point and the urgency which that creates within our public health care system. The labour action that we are seeing today is the result of a very poisoned environment, a work atmosphere that has been created by the government certainly over the last eight years but most specifi- cally in the last four, which I wish to speak to on the urgency issue.

First of all, this is the fourth time in four years that the government has brought the health care system to the brink. At each point in the last four years it seems to have become a spring ritual in this province. We have our health care providers, either our nurses or our auxiliary health care providers, at the point of a stressful work environment for which this government must take the majority of the responsibility. It is indeed urgent, Mr. Speaker.

After years of unplanned cuts to budget and staff, the majority of whom or at least a fair component of which are women; avoidance of the real issues that plague the workplace in our health care system, issues which were identified last March in Alberta Health’s Current and Emerging Health Workforce Issues, an Alberta questionnaire findings final report, issues that identified the three top issues overall affecting the health workforce and overall . . . Speaker’s Ruling Speaking to Urgency THE SPEAKER: Please, hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Some suggestions provided by the chair with respect to this.

We’re talking about urgency, the need for urgency. It’s not a time to debate, pending a resolution of this question, but why? What’s the urgency? That’s the key. Debate Continued MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of the matter is that government has not acted and has led us to the point where we are today facing an illegal strike and walkout by 10,000 health care workers in this province. The government talks a good story, but they don’t act even on their own words and recommendations of their own reports.

In terms of their own words, words which workers took to heart and thought there may well be some action from this government, if we look to Strengthening the Alberta Advantage, it said, “In Alberta and across Canada, some of our best and brightest young talents are moving out of the country for better jobs and better advantages.” Mr. Speaker, that includes our health care workers.

Promises like the one contained in the throne speech, where it says, “Developing a well-trained and highly educated workforce,” and the government will continue to create a positive and stable labour climate that fosters one of the highest productivity rates and most impressive workplace safety records in Canada. Here we are with 10,000 of our health care workers out on strike illegally, but with reason, because of the level of frustration that they have been led to by the government. 3:00 Mr.

Speaker, the urgency of the question and the one that is on Albertans’ minds today is: what is this government going to do in order to resolve the issues that ar e at the bargaining table in this strike and the issues that this government has ignored that have led to workers in this province walking off the job? It is not a time for the flexing of muscles and entrenching of positions. It is not about threats of back-to-work legislation and compulsory arbitration, both of which incite argument and anger.

What is needed, what is urgent is a signal from this government, as the employer, of what they are going to do to get resolution to the issues that are on that table. It’s not just words. It’s not just making promises and fancy government documents. It is in fact action that we seek. Enough is enough is the message of this strike, and Albertans need to know what this government’s plan is to get the system under control, to get the issues before the bargaining table resolved, and to get our health care workers paid and working at a level that respects their competence in the workplace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment on the Standing Order 30 application. MR. DUNFORD: Yes, and briefly to urgency. As the hon. member herself indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, the strike is illegal. Therefore, there are a couple of fields, then, that come into play. One, of course, is from the labour relations side, and the other of course is then on the legal side.

I would want to have the Speaker know and understand prior to making a decision on this, as to the matter of urgency, that from the labour relations side as we speak this afternoon, mediators are in place and are continuing to try to get the parties back together at the table to get them into collective bargaining negotiations once again with the hope that what we will have at the end of the day is a signed memorandum of agreement between the two parties.

As far as the other matters are concerned, in respect to the illegality of the strike, it is my understanding, again as we speak and as has been continuing through the day, that the employer groups that are represented in this particular dispute have been exercising their particular rights under current legislation and regulation in the courts to deal with the matter of the illegality. So my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that on the matter of urgency those things that can be done and should be done during the time of an illegal strike are in fact being done. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar on this Standing Order 30 application. Urgency is the key. MR. MacDONALD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise this afternoon to impress upon you the validity of the Standing Order 30 under the name of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. I’m asking that you rule that the matter is indeed urgent and that it is consistent with the requirements of the Standing Order rules. For the record I would like to read this into the debate of the Assembly at this time: “Be it resolved that the Assembly adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss . . .”

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1765 THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, please sit down. All hon. members have the Standing Orders. It’s not required to read them into the record. They’re public. MR. MacDONALD: Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I’m guided today in my remarks about the urgency of this motion by two very important authorities that govern the proceedings of this House. I’m referring in my arguments to Beauchesne 387, 389, and 390 and, of course, our own Standing Order 30.

Beauchesne 390 states: “Urgency” within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means “urgency of debate”, when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules . . . do not permit the subject to be brought on [earlier]. Of course, Standing Order 30 spends a great deal of time dealing with the issue. Now, when we think of urgency, we think of an emergency debate, but does an emergency debate not entail any or all decisions that have occurred in any number of years with the Assembly? The question itself is specific, but this question requires urgent debate.

There are two issues that come out whenever we think about and talk about the question of urgency. The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung spoke earlier that we have over 10,000 health care workers in this province in at least 159 facilities all across this province. There is not a constituency in this Assembly. Every MLA should be concerned about this, b ecause this job action affects everyone in this province. These 10,000 workers are licensed practical nurses, nursing attendants, personal caregivers, psychiatric nurses, support staff. This is a matter of great urgency. We look at the Labour Relations Code.

There are questions outstanding to the whole job action that has occurred. This needs to be discussed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to exercise particular remedies that are available under Alberta’s Labour Relations Code? If so, what remedies and when? THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. MacDONALD: Yes? Speaker’s Ruling Relevance THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw your attention again to the motion put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It says: “What steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike of 10,000 health care provid- ers?” The operative words are “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system.” It’s nothing to do with any other administrative body, legislative body, tribunal, or anything else. That’s the motion. Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is going to be considerable harm done when we consider what’s going on at the Ponoka hospital, for instance.

Plans are to make room for 45 of the patients in Edmonton, here in the city, but this will not work. This will not work because there is no room in the city. How are we going to be able to safely discharge these individuals? All of these matters relate to the urgency of this motion. Not only does it affect, for instance, the constituency of Edmonton-Manning; it also affects the constituency of the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Sure, some hon. members of this House can shrug their shoulders and say that this is not an urgent debate. It certainly is, Mr. Speaker.

We think of what’s happened since 7 o’clock this morning, how this job action has progressed, how this job action has progressed since 1:30, whenever we resumed sitting this afternoon. We think of Calgary. Emergency wards are screening admissions and having to turn away 25 percent of the people. This is a crisis. It is a crisis. In Calgary the re gional health authority is already planning to move patients to facilities outside the province.

Families and patients that have planned with their health care providers for months to access the specialized services that are only available in Calgary and Edmonton are now throwing months of planning out the window. These families come from L ittle Bow. They come from Peace River. They come from Cold Lake. They come from Whitecourt. They come from Sangudo. They come from Medicine Hat. They come from Bonnyville and Barrhead. All of these families are affected by this job action. Now, whenever we are talking about urgency, we must deal within the administrative compet ence of this government.

The government appoints the regional health authorities and the mental health boards. The government provides the funds. The government shapes labour climate and codes . . . 3:10 THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. [interjection] Please. That’s enough. I’ll recognize one additional hon. member from the opposition side on this point after I hear from the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness on this point. MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to briefly comment with respect to this particular motion. I think it is essential that the bargaining process be re-established and proceed.

I do not think it is necessary to comment on what is an established process, one which the employers and the Department of Human Resources and Employment are working very hard to resolve. I would like to just indicate that there are a number of important initiatives related to the concerns that have been raised across the way, Mr. Speaker, already under way and already showing results.

First of all, the government has reinvested significant dollars in health, but specifically we have targeted with those dollars the hiring of additional frontline staff, which complements the needs of the system and particularly the working situation as far as employees are concerned. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have worked with Professions and Occupations through our overall health workforce planning activity to make sure that they are involved, that they are consulted in terms of planning for the needs and the numbers in our health workforce.

Thirdly, I think very important to this issue, a great deal of work, Mr. Speaker, has gone on with respect to the development and the passage in this House of the health professions legislation, which has been a tremendous accomplishment in terms of bringing into one legislative framework on a more or less equal basis the different professions and occupations and defining their professional responsi- bilities. That has been, I think, a great achievement in terms of recognizing the talents and the capabilities of the various occupa- tions and professions.

The health workforce is increasingly involved in our planning activities, our consultative activities in this province. So that recognition of our health workforce and its valuing is something that is being attended to, Mr. Speaker, and I think we need to recognize that, and we have a bargaining situation in which there is the mechanism in place to settle it and to deal with it. THE SPEAKER: I’m going to consult with the House leader of the Official Opposition. We’ve heard two members from the Official

1766 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 Opposition with respect to this. It is a motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I said that I would only recognize one more. I take it the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo is c hoosing not to participate in this? MR. DICKSON: That’s quite correct, sir. I’d ask if my colleague would be able to participate. She’s prepared to do so. THE SPEAKER: Okay. I’ll recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark with the condition already provided by the chair in terms of the brevity and urgency. It’s not a debate. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, believe that the matter before us is in fact a matter of clear urgency and meets all the requirements set out in the sections which have been outlined by the leader and by the labour critic. In accordance with Beauchesne 387, the question of what steps must be taken to prevent further harm to the citizens of this province by the government’s mismanagement of the public health care system is specific, requires . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, please sit down. You know, this is driving me nuts. That’s not what your hon. leader’s motion says. [interjection] No, it doesn’t.

MS LEIBOVICI: It’s specific and requires urgent consideration. It is within the administrative competence of the government and is needed because there’s been no other reasonable opportunity for debate in this Legislative Assembly. What we are saying is that there’s a requirement for debate in this Assembly because there have been no other opportunities to deal with the substance of the problem; that is, “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system.” What we have not heard, even in the responses from either the minister of human resources or the minister of health . . .

THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. You’re dealing with the chair. Nobody else is responding. This is a decision of the chair. That’s who will make the decision. So stay on brevity and urgency. MS LEIBOVICI: In fact, what is required is a debate around the issues of “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system,” steps such as looking at a fair, level playing field with regards to negotiations, issues of fair compensation, issues of contracting out, issues of training and retention.

These are steps that must be taken with regards to the strike that is now occurring by the 10,000 health care providers within this province. We need to adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss this matter. The reason that it is of urgent public importance should be obvious to all Members of this Legislative Assembly. We have numerous patients and prospective patients who have been either discharged early from health care facilities or not admitted for planned operations that were to occur.

We have in fact numerous cases of individuals who have been affected by the impending strike as well as now by the strike. The issue of urgent public importance should be self-evident to everyone within this Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion is neither urgent nor appropriate at this point in time. It’s not appropriate because we’re in the middle of some very significant and te nuous negotiations. When I say we, I’m not talking about the government.

I’m talking about the employers, and the employers are the 17 health regions across the province. They’re at the table. The mediators are . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. Government House Leader, please. The purpose of a Standing Order 30 recognition is to convince the chair of the merit of the vote. [interjection] Hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Yes. THE SPEAKER: You’re recognized. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. THE SPEAKER: For what? MR. MacDONALD: I can continue with . . . THE SPEAKER: No. Please sit down.

You know, what is really amazing about this place is that it’s easier to talk your way out of it than ever talk your way into it. Standing Order 30 deals with urgency and brevity, and the chair will do the right thing according to the rules. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, you can talk your way right out of this place with no great difficulty. The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question of the illegal strike which is in place is no doubt important to Albertans. The question is: is it urgent that we have a debate about it in the House today?

Is it an urgent issue which would suggest that we adjourn the business of the House to deal with that issue? I would suggest to you that it’s not urgent for these reasons. We’ve spent the last six months talking about health care policy, which is within the administrative competence of the provincial government. We have talked about health over the course of the month of April almost to the exclusion of all other topics. We’ve talked about health care and health care policy in question period for the last two months that this House has been in session.

What’s happened today is that there has been an illegal strike. Others may want to call it a job action or try and ride the fence, but it is an illegal strike. The reason why it’s inappropriate for us to discuss that in the House this afternoon is because it’s important that the employers and the employees get together and come together to a reasonable conclusion of this, a reasonable settlement of the issue, and get back to work. That’s not the government of Alberta. The employers are the 17 health regions.

There are court actions in place both by the unions and by the employers to deal with various aspects of this issue. Those are in front of the courts today. 3:20 On the whole question of whether we should be discussing the possible resolution of the strike, we should not be engaging in collective bargaining in this House. We should be leaving the collective bargaining to the people at the table. We should be dealing with and trying to resolve this matter rather than trying to make political statements out of an unfortunate situation.

The health authorities across the province have contingency plans in place to deal with the innocent third parties who are suffering because of this illegal job action, and it needs to be dealt with in that context. Mr. Speaker, is it urgent for us to have a debate in this House today? No, it’s not urgent for us to have a debate in this House

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1767 today. It’s not because the issue isn’t important and not because it isn’t of public interest but because it would have the possibility of disrupting the normal conclusion and the immediate and speedy conclusion of collective bargaining so that we can get this issue dealt with in an appropriate manner. THE SPEAKER: The Standing Order 30 application is a very serious application in the sense that it basically says that the ordinary business of the House, which is announced days before, should now be abandoned.

It means that in its pl ace a certain other order of business should take place. In the case of the agenda for Wednesday afternoon, there’s considerable private members’ business that has been scheduled, announced. It is not taken lightly by this chairper- son. Under 30(3) it says, “Shall the debate on the urgent matter proceed?” If in essence the chair basically suggests that the debate will go forward, it means that a number of private members who’ve worked very, very hard in putting business before this Assembly will find that their efforts will be postponed. That’s why it is not taken lightly.

The chair has indicated time and time again that he would always, always fall back in support of the private member and ensure that his or her motivations and desires and objectives are met. Now, the chair has listened very carefully to the arguments put forward with respect to this issue of urgency of debate on this application, which basically says to adjourn the ordinary business of the House, brought forward by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Firstly, I would like to indicate that the chair did receive notice that this application was made earlier this morning, received in the Speaker’s office at 10 a.m. In essence, notice was given, and it certainly has met the requirements of Standing Order 30(1). A particular version arrived at 11 o’clock.

Consultation was then provided with the House leader of the Official Opposition with respect to certain wordings, and when the Routine was addressed this afternoon, the motion that was actually addressed in the House by the Leader of the Official Opposition was significantly different from the proposed motion earlier this morning, but that still meets the requirements and meets the conditions that the chair had asked with respect to this matter. On the issue of the urgency of debate. Very simply, there is only one argument: is there another opportunity to debate this issue?

Quite frankly, according to the Order Paper there is no other opportunity for this matter to be debated. The chair indicated a little earlier that it’s easier to talk your way out of this place than to talk your way into it. In essence, if one would look at the rules and look at the precedents and come up with a one-line argument, that’s all that’s really required. It’s not a debate with respect to this matter. In the chair’s view the criteria for the matter constituting “a genuine emergency,” as required under

section 30(7)(a), are met. While the chair is not bound by previous decisions on these applications, it is worth noting that on April 30, 1990, the former Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, Mrs. Hewes, brought an applica- tion under the Standing Order with respect to a threatened strike by social workers. It was ruled out of order on that day as being hypothetical. The next day, after the strike had started, she brought a similar application, which was found to be in order, and the question was put to the Assembly.

The chair would also note that there may be comments that will be made, subject to the ruling that will come up within a minute or two, that some of these matters are sub judice. There are some aspects of this issue that may be subject to this rule, but the wording of the motion is “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike of 10,000 health care providers,” which would not necessarily violate the sub judice rule.

I want to reiterate that while the chair is not bound by previous rulings with respect to these applications, in the brief time available the chair did come across a 1980 ruling by Speaker Amerongen on an application under what was then Standing Order 29 on a request by the late Mr. Notley on April 23 of that year relating to a strike involving the United Nurses of Alberta.

In ruling that the request for leave was in order, Speaker Amerongen cautioned members that certain aspects of the issue were before the courts, and he stated at page 534 of Alberta Hansard for that day: I would respectfully ask all hon. members to try to keep in mind the question which is before the courts and to stay away from that question completely in discussing the topic under debate. He also said: There is one other aspect to it which I think is also not generally understood. It applies not only to this resolution but to other motions for emergency debate.

It’s this: in discussing the motion, I hear hon. members – especially the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview – saying there should be some initiative taken in this Assembly; that it should accept fully its responsibility. I’m sure all members agree those are two desirable things. I’m going to give a ruling on this . The ruling is that the request for leave to adjourn the ordinary business of this Assembly to discuss a matter of public importance is in order.

Before putting it to a vote pursuant to subsection (3), the chair would remind members that the debate under Standing Order 30 “does not entail any decision of the Assembly.” The chair now puts the question. Shall the debate on the urgent matter proceed? All those in favour, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. [Several members rose] THE SPEAKER: Please remain standing.

Hon. members, Standing Order 30(4) says: If objection is taken to the question, “shall the debate on the urgent matter proceed?” the Speaker shall request those members who support the motion to rise in their places, and (

a) if 15 or more members rise accordingly, the Speaker shall call upon the member who asked for leave. More than 15 did rise, and the Speaker will very shortly call on the Leader of the Official Opposition, who will abide by Standing Order 30(5): If the Assembly determines to set aside the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss the matter of urgent public importance, each member who wishes to speak in the discussion shall be limited to 10 minutes . . . Ten minutes. That applies to all members. . . . and the debate will conclude (

a) when all members who wish to take part have spoken, or (

b) at the normal hour of ad journment in the afternoon on that day, whichever is first. The normal hour of adjournment this afternoon is 5:30.

(6) An emergency debate does not entail any decision of the Assembly. The motion, again, is the following:

Be it resolved that this Assembly adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike of 10,000 health care providers. The operative words for this debate are “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting.” The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

1768 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance and your decision here today. I would like to address the issue of what steps must be taken to prevent harm. I come to this debate with some experience in the area of strikes in the public health care sector.

While I was never a minister of health while a strike took place in the public health care system in this province, for which I am very grateful, I was a minister who followed up on a strike, one of the most crippling public hea lth care strikes in the province, which took place in 1988 with respect to nurses in the province. Mr. Speaker, when I took over as minister of health, it was clear that the atmosphere was poisoned in the province with respect to issues which nurses felt were essential to be addressed, issues which flowed from the government’s decision in 1982 to remove the right of nurses to strike.

It was exceedingly important to set up an environment in which the issues could be addressed and where nurses would feel that their value and their important role, in fact their essential role in protecting public health care were addressed. There were some very concrete steps taken at that time, and I think it’s important to put some of those on the record, because it is some of those steps, which were later dropped, which have led us to this environment here today on May 24, 2000, in this province. 3:30 First of all, one of the biggest issues on the table was the issue of stress within the workplace.

What was undertaken first and foremost as part of a plan was to create what was called the nursing initiative, which was to bring together representatives of the professional body of nurses in our province, the AARN, and other professional bodies as well as the labour and union representatives of nurses, UNA and SNA, which existed at that time, together with people from the public health care sector to look at what were the things that needed to be done to address the issues confronting nurses in their daily workplace. It was an unprecedented step, Mr.

Speaker, and a very important combining of both the labour and the professional representation of nurses to address issues of public policy, a model which has been lost in this province over the last several years. Another very concrete step that was taken was to have a nursing consultant brought in as a new position within the department of health. There had always been a medical consultant in the depart- ment of health; however, there had never been a nursing consultant.

That, too, was one of the recommendations arising out of the strike and consultations with nurses subsequent to that strike. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Thirdly, one of the major factors of stress within the workplace for nurses was the lack of opportunity to upgrade their educational knowledge, their educational support for new technologies that were coming onstream, new treatments, new clarification for procedures, something which is a reality in h ealth care. There needs to be an opportunity for nurses and other health care professionals to stay current.

So educational leave days were clearly part of that. Those were just some of the opportunities, Mr. Speaker, that were built into this poisoned poststrike atmosphere which led to some very constructive suggestions as the nursing initiative got under way. I can tell members that really for the first two years of the nursing initiative it was about people beginning to trust that there would in fact be some positive results if recommendations were made. It took two years to establish that trust, and the subsequent two years were an opportunity to put some of those recommendations into action.

The process was as important as any response or action that came subsequent to that process. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, many of those initiatives, in fact I believe all of the three that I have now spoken to, were removed during the cuts of both budget and staff in the early 1990s under this government when it took over. So when we talk about the germ of today’s action being seeded or being put in place early in the ’90s as the cuts took hold, it is in fact a very real example of what did happen. As we come to today, what are the concrete steps that need to be taking place?

In the meantime, the government appointed regional health authorities, their own agents within the health care system. So for the Government House Leader to stand and say: we’re not talking about the government here; we’re talking about the employer – the two are in fact the same when we have regional health authorities appointed by this government.

They cannot, as they appear to be trying to do, distance themselves from the strike as if it’s taking place on some outside planet rather than accept the responsibility for having drawn workers, pushed workers to the point where they will leave the most important thing they have to do, and that is to provide care for the very patients that they have trained for and worked for all their lives. The issues here are what steps need to be taken by this govern- ment to get a resolution to this strike, which is in fact in the greatest public interest and the most urgent public interest in the province.

I would say that the first step that needs to be taken is that the government needs to assume th e leadership role, assume the responsibility which they have been given, having been elected as the government in this province, but also the re sponsibility for having made themselves the employer in this case. I think there are many issues on the wage side, some of which were raised today in question period. I won’t repeat them, but there are issues far beyond simply the issue of wages which need to be addressed.

The first is: what steps has the government taken to address the quality of the workplace issues which they identified in their own report last spring? Last spring there was a threatened job action by our nurses. Last spring there was a report outlining all of the issues, which I referred to in making the motion this afternoon. Here we are one spring later, the fourth spring in a row where these alternating years of job actions have come up. I think workers are finally saying: “We’ve had it.

We need to have this government listen to the issues that we have been trying to express for so long, and we continue to be ignored.” No one condones an illegal strike. That’s why this is such an urgent issue, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we in the Official Opposition do not condone an illegal strike, but what’s missing is the govern- ment taking some responsibility for the strike having come to this point and for the issues behind the reasons that it’s become so heated.

In addition to addressing quality of workplace issues, the second issue is to address the question of concrete steps that are being taken on the recruitment and the retention and supply of nursing personnel: RNs, LPNs, auxiliary help workers, and others. What steps are being taken to address those shortages? We asked a question today in question period, because of the Premier being in attendance at the Western Premiers’ Conference, whether or not these issues of workplace retention and recruitment were being addressed by other western Premiers, who are obviously facing the same issues.

We didn’t get an answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. We asked it as a very responsible one and one that we think Albertans need some answers on. Mr. Speaker, what step needs to be taken is that this government needs to signal that they are prepared to start addressing some of the issues that have been identified by nurses. Those are the key issues within this strike, and we will look forward to hearing what steps government intends to take.

May 24, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1769 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the motion and particularly to the steps that “must be taken to prevent harm,” which is part of the motion, I think it’s imperative that again we all understand and acknowledge that the strike of the 10,000 health care providers is an illegal strike.

Now, 24 hours ago there was a table, as we refer to it, an employer, and a group of employees that actually did have the right to strike, but it was the view of the government and of this minister that it was prudent and necessary to establish a disputes inquiry board so that we could try to effect a settlement at that particular table, which, for the benefit of the members, was the mental health group. 3:40 Now, unfortunately for the situation, the disputes inquiry board never had an opportunity to engage with either the employer or the employees group.

Under the particular rules, even though the employees involved had an opportunity to go on a legal strike and actually had given notice, once a disputes inquiry board is put into place, a strike or lockout cannot occur. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what happened this morning at 7 o’clock was that when that group decided to participate in this job action, they in fact no longer had a legal basis. They were now out on strike on an illegal basis.

So there should be no confusion here in this Assembly or amongst the citizens of Alberta that all workers that are currently out on strike are participating in an illegal strike. So it would seem to me that the most important step we could take, then, in trying to prevent harm to the public health care system is of course to get the people back to work. What is being forgotten here, it seems, in the debate that I’ve heard this afternoon from opposition members – not once has there been any indication of concern raised about the innocent third party to this particular situation. Mr.

Speaker, the innocent third parties here are those people and of course their families who in fact need the care and attention of the health care providers in this province. In any discussion of the steps, opposition members can go on and on and on about what should have been or could have been, but the key here is: what is best right now, today, for that health care system? That, of course, is for the union to cease and desist immediately their participation in an illegal strike. It’s now just before 4 o’clock.

I don’t know the particular shift schedules that are involved, but if the afternoon shift would show up for work, then the urgency and a lot of the concern about harm to the public health care system of course would be taken care of. Now, this would not remove the responsibility of the employer or the union to arrive at a negotiated settlement. To that end it is the hope of this govern- ment that that will be the final result, that there will be a negotiated settlement between the parties involved in these disputes at these four particular tables. I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, as a person that has spent some 25 years involved, quite intimately at times, in the field of labour relations, that the best settlements are the ones that are arrived at by the parties negotiating with each other at the particular table.

Settlements imposed by an outside force – and in this case, of course, it would have to be the government through its implementa- tion of arbitration proceedings – are satisfactory in the sense that it resolves the particular situation, that there is now a contract in place, but people have to live with that particular contract, then, for the period of whatever that agreement is. The particular one we’re talking about here today is two years, so for two years people would have to live with an imposed settlement.

Now, one of the steps, if we have to somewhere down the line through the means that we have in current legislation and regula- tions, would be to have an imposed settlement. But my wish today, Mr. Speaker – and I’m speaking, I believe, on behalf of all the government members – is that it is our desire that the parties take the step of returning to the bargaining table, with the support of mediators provided by this government, and that we in fact arrive at a settlement.

If it is too naive to think that the aftern oon shift can show up for work, certainly the coming night shift would be able to, and we would have this situation behind us. Again, I want to use what portion of time I have and say that the innocent third party here has to be taken into consideration. It is and should be the first priority of this government. It should be the first priority of the employers involved in this dispute, and it should be the first priority of the union that’s involved in this dispute.

It has to be the first priority of those wonderful health care providers that provide for the care and attention of our loved ones that happen to be in a situation where they do need our support and our care. Mr. Speaker, there’s one step that resolves that immediately, and that is of course the return to work. The employer, of course, is doing what they can, given the tools that they have in their tool kit, through current legislation and regulation. They have gone to the Labour Relations Board, as required. They’ve asked for, applied for a cease and desist order.

They received approval on that cease and desist order. They have taken that order, and they’ve gone to the courts. The courts have approved that cease and desist order to the point of even serving notice on the president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employ- ees, who of course is the bargaining agent involved in all four tables that are currently under way. So the employer in this particular case, given the illegal strike that is currently taking place, is taking the steps that they have to in order to bring resolution and an end to this illegal strike. Mr.

Speaker, when we talk to the motion, when we talk about steps to prevent harm to the public health care system, just once today – just once – I would like to hear a member of the opposition stand up, rather than saying mealymouthed and wishy-washy, “We don’t condone an illegal strike, however, but, whatever,” and in clear terms just have the courage to say that your number one concern is the innocent third parties that are involved here and that you along with the government call upon this union to immediately cease and desist this illegal work action. Do you have the courage to do that? I hope so. MRS.

SLOAN: I’m more than happy this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to rise and assume the challenge that the minister of human resources has put out. Let me clearly state for the record that I am in this House because as a registered nurse in the system between 1993 and 1997 I saw the degree to which this government was prepared to sacrifice public safety in waging their war on reducing the deficit. That is what drove me to be in this Assembly. Now, let’s also be clear this afternoon that LPNs and other health workforce employees do not want to strike, nor do they as a profession defy the law lightly.

But nurses, technicians, aides, and support staff are committed first and foremost to their patients, Mr. Speaker, to the public that they se rve on a daily basis. The reality that they have lived with since at least 1993 is that they cannot provide safe care that is in co mpliance with their standards of practice and their code of ethics. We need a plan in this province, a comprehensive plan, and we need steps to achieve that. That has been dramatically and starkly absent in this government’s agenda as long as I’ve been in this Assembly.

1770 Alberta Hansard May 24, 2000 3:50 These employees work every day in an understaffed environment where the acuity of patients has risen dramatically. They have more responsibilities with less supports, and most of all, Mr. Speaker, they work in an environment where they are undervalued and not respected. And this government, by ignoring and ducking these issues not only at this table with AUPE but at previous tables with registered nurses and with laundry workers in this province in the health care system, have compounded the problem that we face today.

The public will ask: what is the government’s plan, what is their agenda, and why do we seem to have this repetitive cycle of strikes? Speaker’s Ruling Relevance THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thought you were setting up for getting to the steps. The Speaker has indicated on a number of occasions and I will repeat that what we’re talking about is the motion of the hon. member’s own leader: “what steps must be taken to prevent harm to the public health care system resulting from the strike.” That’s what we’re on, if we could remember that. Edmonton-Riverview. Debate Continued MRS. SLOAN: Well, let’s start, Mr.

Speaker, by stopping posturing. Let’s stop posturing on the government side of the House. Let’s stop posturing with the appointed regional health authorities. The posturing is absolutely intolerable. In response the union postures, and meanwhile the public is not receiving care. They are not receiving care because we do not have an overall comprehensive plan for the delivery of safe health care in this province. We do not.

As referenced by the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon, in 1999 the minister of health, his department, commis- sioned a report conducted by regional health authorities on what the issues were in the health workforce. They came back with a comprehensive report containing recommendations and summaries of what needed to be addressed, and we have not seen a stitch of action on that report in over a year’s time, despite the fact that in repetitive government documents and the Speech from the Throne we hear again and again how committed this government is to the health workforce.

Well, these employees and the public are looking for concrete action, Mr. Speaker, and not at a time of crisis. They’re looking for a government that’s prepared to take on this challenge and put out a plan, commit themselves to it, and get it working. We need strategies in the workforce in the healthcare system that will rebuild relationships that have been damaged over the last eight years, strategies that will instill value and respect for these professionals and the job that they do on a daily basis.

The public unquestionably values these employees, yet when it comes time to negotiate their collective agreement, they come to a table where they are scorned and ridiculed, and their proposals are dismissed by the government’s appointed authorities. That is just not acceptable. What it is is a misstep. As I indicated earlier, the time for posturing and the old traditional confrontational collective bargaining is long since past. The public recognizes that we have issues in the public health care system.

The last thing we need is job action, yet the government seems to want to resort to letting that happen every time, and the public keep asking: why is that the case? Well, what I have seen, what has been demonstrated to me is that this government has a desire to de-skill, to ratchet down the health workforce, and in essence what they have done over the course of the last eight years has stimulated that happening. The health workforce rebalancing project and the health profes- sions legislation were all constructed to create a melting pot, if you will, to remove the

definitions of work. What does that achieve? Well, it achieves a reason for the government to collapse bargaining units under the Labour Relations Code. And what does that achieve, Mr. Speaker? It allows, then, a collapsing of the collective agree- ments and a collapsing of the gap and a reducing of the salaries paid. It’s common knowledge that there is a variance between the hourly wage of a registered nurse and a licensed practical nurse of some- where around $8 to $10. If the bargaining units are collapsed, what does that allow the government or its appointed authorities to do?

It allows them to try and amalgamate those collective agreements and achieve savings. We know that the Department of Learning has been in discussions with previously the provincial Council of Licensed Practical Nurses, now called the College of Licensed Practical Nurses, and they have been discussing increasing the curriculum seats for licensed practical nurses at a rate of approximately 400 new seats. This is in contrast with the request made by the faculties of nursing for approximately a 60-seat increase in their curriculums, which to this point in time has been refused by government.

So on one hand we have the government all the while acknowledging that LPNs are a cheaper form of classification. They’re willing to contemplate increasing their seats in the colleges and training facilities across the province by about 400 and thereby reshift, if you will, the provision of nursing care in this province to a classification which at this point in time is less costly. That, Mr. Speaker, really speaks to what the agenda in fact is, a way of de-skilling and reducing costs in the health care system.

To summarize, we need a comprehensive plan in this province to address the critical and growing nursing shortage, addressing both licensed practical nurses and registered nurses and psychiatric nurses, something that has been raised multiple times, but we have yet to see any concrete action to address it. Most certainly, this strike that the province is now facing is another symptom of problems that riddle the system, and the only way in which we’re going to get on with addressing them is for the government to assume their leadership role.

The other step that the government might contemplate taking sooner rather than later is instituting accountable and responsible governance in the health care system. We’ve seen reports this spring where some regional health authorities are now spending up to 40 percent of their budgets on administrative costs, and there is nothing, Mr. Speaker, that outrages frontlin e employees more than to see exorbitant amounts of money spent on bureaucracy while they’re existing at the front line on a shoest ring.

If this government truly values the delivery of safe patient care in this province, they would re-examine where they’re putting their mo

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20000524
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20000524 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dece4b1bf3c216d083f88f9e7591fb82a8c71ba7

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