Alberta Hansard — 2 April 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20070402

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 321 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 2, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/04/02 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. In our mind’s eye let us see the awesome grandeur of the Rockies, the denseness of our forests, the fertility of our farmland, the splendour of our rivers, the richness of our resources, the energy of our people. Then let us rededicate ourselves as wise stewards of such bounty on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. Hon. members and ladies and gentlemen, kindly join in now in the singing of our national anthem.

We’ll be led today by Mr. Paul Lorieau. Please participate in the language of your choice. Hon. Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. The Speaker: Thank you, sir. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed an honour to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly the ambassador from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, His Excellency Nguyen Duc Hung. With Ambassador Nguyen is the first secretary of the Vietnamese embassy in Ottawa, Mr. Nguyen Viet Dzung. I had the opportunity to have lunch with these two gentlemen today. In one of life’s little coincidences I actually first met Ambassador Nguyen in Vietnam in a meeting I had with the Prime Minister of Vietnam a little over a year ago.

Ambassador Nguyen is here toda y to explore trade opportunities with the province of Alberta, which, by the way, have doubled in the last two years, as well as to look at labour relations with Alberta for the potential of supplying labour to Alberta for our workforce needs. I would ask Ambassador Nguyen and Mr. Nguyen Viet Dzung to please stand and receive the warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry. Ms Evans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud to introduce four people from my staff who are either brand new or relatively new policy analysts. The first is Chris Tyrkalo. He is the person that does our action requests in our branch. The second, Brandon Lunty, is newly appointed to our ministry, responsible for the building and educating tomorro w’s workforce strategy. The third, Sylvia Lepki, has been a policy analyst since November, and she’s also working on the 10-year labour force strategy.

Finally, Sheila Harrison, from the workforce development branch, has previously worked as an adviser and worked for contract service providers in career services. She is also working on many of the areas where we complement Children’s Services and Persons with Development Disabilities. I’d ask them to please stand and be acknowledged by this Assembly. Ms Tarchuk: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly some employees of Children’s Services who worked on a successful and award-winning campaign on the prevention of family violence.

The Advertising Club of Edmonton, or ACE, is a nonprofit organiza- tion that through networking, professional development, and competition assists Edmonton’s advertising community to strive for excellence. Each year ACE honours the best work by local agencies on regional, provincial, and national campaigns judged by a panel of senior advertising experts from across North America. The prevention of family violence campaign called End the Silence, Stop the Violence won a number of ACE awards on March 3.

Fight Circle won the public service broadcast ACE award, the television single award, and the people’s choice award. I want to add that the people’s choice award is selected based on a survey of Albertans. The one called Postcard won the public service print award of distinction. Finally, the entire campaign won the advertis- ing campaign award of distinction. Mr. Speaker, family violence is a dark mark on society, and we know that education is a key to bringing it to an end.

This campaign is a big step towards bringing the issue of family violence out in the open, where we can optimize opportunities to help victims and break the cycle of violence. I’d like to ask the people who helped develop this award-winning campaign to rise and accept the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly: Sheryl Fricke, Keltie MacPherson, Desiree Magnus, Lisa Nisbet, Tom Fowler, Deborah Hurford, Jackie Katan, and Shane Gauthier. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly four esteemed members of the Alberta pharmacy community who are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d ask that you join me in welcom- ing them when they’ve all been introduced. All of these guests are working hard on behalf of Alberta’s pharmacists to ensure that Albertans are provided with outstanding quality of care. They’re here today to commemorate the enactment of the pharmacists profession regulation, which came into effect yesterday, April 1.

This regulation widens the scope of practice for health care profes- sionals and is a key component of our workforce strategy. From the Alberta College of Pharmacists we have Greg Eberhart, registrar of the college, and Mr. Jeff Whissell, president of the college. From the Pharmacists Association of Alberta we have Mr. Cam Johnston, acting CEO, and Mr. Jeremy Slobodan, board president. I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have 31 students from the St.

Joseph school in Whitecourt. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Marilyn Wright and Mrs. Penny Bell as well as parent helpers Colleen Matvichuk, Michelle

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007322 Pederson, Kyla Rose, Ken Podulsky, Bryan Retzloff, Ken Westling, Tom Jackson, Sonya Lavallee, Kathy McIvor, Sheila Stuckless, Bea Samson. They are seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe my guests may not have arrived yet, but I would like to introduce them to you and through you to all members when they arrive later during question period.

They’re a group of 21 po litical science students from The King’s University College here in Edmonton. They’ll be accompa- nied by their political science professor, Dr. John Hiemstra, and they’ll be spending a couple of hours in the building here today studying how we do government in Alberta. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour today to introduce a family friend and dynamic young political science student from the University of Alberta, Ryan Fontaine. I’ll ask him to stand up and receive the welcome of the Legislature.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a trusted friend, a valued supporter, a fellow Rotarian, and the past president of the Edmonton Gateway Rotary Club, Mr. Patrick Slinn. I would ask Patrick to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly three guests today.

They are Janet Gibbens, Hellen Shiloff, and Don Crisall. Today is the 206th day of the strike at the Palace Casino. Janet has worked at the casino for 14 years as a dealer. She is one of the leaders of the strike and has been a powerful voice for workers. The union has just won a victory against the employer’s attempt to refuse the right of workers to wear union pins, and Janet’s testimony helped win this battle. 1:10 Hellen Shiloff has worked at the Palace Casino since the summer of 1991 and is a pit boss. Hellen grew up in Cambria, Alberta, and has lived in Edmonton since 1966.

She has been a very strong picketer on the line and since the strike began has been appointed to the union’s bargaining committee. Despite the length of the strike she remains as resilient as ever. Finally, Mr. Speaker, they are joined by one of UFCW local 401’s organizers, Mr. Don Crisall. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would now ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly Lexi and Brad Golinsky. Lexi and Brad are from Leduc, where Brad is a constable for the RCMP and Lexi is an elementary school teacher. They are also avid baseball and hockey players, and last but not least Lexi is my first cousin. I’d ask Lexi and Brad in the public gallery to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assem- bly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m especially delighted today to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly five guests seated in the public gallery. Akashya and Prabhat Sharma are visiting our wonderful country and province from my home town of Jalandhar in Punjab, India. Akashya Sharma is a physician specializing in Ayurvedic medicine, and both he and his wife are proud parents of two lovely children, Priya and Pavithar. Accompanying them are their hosts, three long-time Edmonton- ians, Kamni and Shakti Goutam and their son Nauneet.

Kamni Goutam is one of the pioneers in the Indo-Canadian community, having come to Edmonton in the late 1960s, and has been a long- time local businessman in Edmont on. His wife, Shakti, has been serving our community for the past 30 years through her work with seniors at Extendicare Holyrood. Nauneet, their son, is a student at NAIT studying business and marketing. I will now request my guests to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assem- bly. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my great pleasure and honour to introduce to you and through you to all the members of this great House of democracy three visitors to our Assembly today. They are Michael Janusz and his lovely wife, Irmie, as well as Catherine Obacz. Now, Michael is a former French foreign legionnaire, who distinguished himself in battle and was a 33-year engineer with CN Rail. Irmie was, of course, the executive director of the Whitecourt chamber of commerce in the past and was also the president of the executive directors across the province for chambers of commerce.

Please rise and receive the warm welcome of our Alberta Legislature, and please welcome them. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose. Opportunities for New Canadians Mr. Pham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta is the home of approximately 40,000 Vietnamese Canadians, many of whom came to Canada in the 1980s as political refugees. If you were to ask these individuals what they value the most in Alberta, the answer would resoundingly be the freedom that they enjoy, followed closely by the respect held for human rights in our province.

Vietnamese Canadi- ans are provided the same opportunities as every other Canadian to reach their full potential, and as a result many of the first and second generations are highly successful. They have become doctors, lawyers, CEOs, engineers, and scientists. They have made their dreams reality, and our society is richer because of their contribu- tion. These same people would have probably ended up on the street or in jail had they not left Vietnam. When people are not allowed to reach their full potential, all of society loses.

It is not a coincidence that poverty usually walks hand in hand with a poor record of human rights. Take North and South Korea as examples. North Korea has everything that South Korea

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 323 has, but their human capital is grossly underutilized and not allowed to fulfill its potential. As a result, North Korea is much poorer than South Korea. In the United States following the American Civil War, Robert E. Lee, the general-in-chief of the south, was treated with respect and dignity by the north. When asked why a general of a defeated army was treated with such respect, the reason provided was that they were all Americans, and if one was humiliated, they were all humiliated.

I believe that this is the correct way to rebuild a country, and I hope that all war-torn countries can learn from that lesson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Dr. Thaddeus Demong Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a great pleasure for me today to draw to the attention of all Albertans through the hon. members of this House the incr edible works of Dr. Thaddeus Demong, a hero of mine and a constituent of mine in Calgary- Lougheed. Thad was born and educated in Sarawak, Malaysia, on the island of Borneo.

He’s one of nine children of a tribal chief, and as a young man he was a top-tier Colombo plan student who fought hard to pursue studies in medicine at the University of Alberta. Afterward Thad returned to Sarawak, where as a medical officer he promoted development of a new rural hospital and public health policies in TB control and sanitation. Dr. Demong immigrated to Canada in 1974 and began an ophthalmology residency at the U of A. He went on to obtain a fellowship in corneal surgery and then established his extremely well-respected practice in Calgary.

Thad has worked extensively in establishing the Lion’s Eye Bank of southern Alberta for the procurement and timely distribution of corneal tissue and has been recognized for his work by the Lions Clubs International Foundation as a distinguished Melvin Jones fellow. In addition to all of this, Thad has participated in the Canadian vision care program, which operates in developing countries such as Jamaica and in Dr. Demong’s native Sarawak. Thad has also taught medical students and residents at the University of Kuala Lumpur. Mr. Speaker, in 2005 I was honoured to offer Dr.

Demong an Alberta centennial medallion, and last month he received the 2007 immigrant of distinction professional award from the Calgary Immigrant Aid Society. I have the utmost personal and professional respect for Dr. Demong and his wonderful wife, Carol, who have worked on so many organizations and have provided the priceless gift of sight to thousands around Alberta and around the world. I trust that members of this Assembly will join me now in expressing admira- tion and gratitude for the miracles that the Demongs work every day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Building Leadership for Action in Schools Today Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize an outstanding group of young women attending the Nellie McClung program at Oliver school in Edmonton-Centre. These young women formed a BLAST team, building leadership for action in schools today, in their school with the help of the Alberta Lung Association and AADAC. They have done an undercover investigation, a video, a media event and public presentation, a postcard campaign to the previous minister of health, and have worked with me as their MLA.

Last year I hosted this BLAST team here in the Assembly during the debate on the cancer legacy act, and this year I am bringing forward Motion 523 to support their cam- paign to ban power walls. These Nellie girls have been awarded a blue ribbon champion award by the Edmonton and Area Tobacco Reduction Network for their work in banning power walls.

Now they’re taking the next step in organizing a half-day conference for their peers at a rally on the steps of the Legislature tomorrow at noon, April 3, and we have asked again for a meeting with the minister in the hopes that we can convince him to join us and ban power walls. These power walls are the large tobacco displays that are a fixture in every gas station and convenience store showing the packages of most tobacco brands. This feature is why our kids know what the colour a package of du Maurier is and what the logo for a Camels pack of cigarettes looks like.

I’m very proud of the work that the Nellie girls have done over the past two years. Some members of the BLAST team have moved on but all have learned important lessons about working for the issues they believe in, how to conduct research, organize public and media events, including conferences, and how to lobby po liticians to influence policy change. Supported by their t eachers, parents, friends, and schoolmates, they’ve done a great job. My thanks to everyone involved. Please join us on the steps of the Legislature tomorrow. 1:20 Standards of Practice for Pharmacists Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to speak about the pharmacists profession regulation and new standards of practice which came into effect on April 1, 2007. Under these new regula- tions pharmacists, in accordance with their standards of practice, are permitted to continue or adapt a prescription written by another prescriber, prescribe drug treatments, and administer injections such as vaccines. To ensure the highest standards of patient safety, pharmacists who choose to prescribe must complete training established by the Alberta College of Pharmacists.

Pharmacists will only prescribe for those conditions that they are competent to assess. Community- and institution-based pharmacists will still need to maintain their continuing education requirements to keep up with new drugs and therapies. Expanding the scope of practice of pharmacists is an example of our health workforce strategy in action. By leveraging the expertise of pharmacists, we are enabling them to work better as part of the health care team, along with doctors and other health professionals, to provide a better level of service in the community. Pharmacists are drug experts.

We rely on them to answer our questions in order to maintain our health. After a minimum of five years of university training, four of which are in pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences, pharmacists are able to take on more responsibility in providing advice, assessing patients, and prescrib- ing and dispensing drugs. The Health Professions Act is enabling legislation that allows all health professionals to use their skills and training to their full extent. Pharmacists now have that opportunity. The pharmacists profession regulation came into force April 1.

Services offered depend on the expertise of the pharmacist. Each pharmacist will choose the expanded services they will add to their practice. Mr. Speaker, for generations pharmacists have been a trusted source of advice and knowledge about drug products, associated supplies, and complementary therapies. We are looking to pharma- cists and other health care professionals to take on a larger role in providing primary health care in our communities and neighbour- hoods.

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007324 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Federal Barley Plebiscite Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize the results of the federal barley plebiscite, that were announced on March 28. The federal barley plebiscite results show that a strong and clear majority of Albertan and western Canadian producers have chosen to have the option of selling their barley in an open market. Sixty-two per cent of western Canadian barley farmers and 78 per cent of Alberta barley farmers have voted for choice.

These results confirm what the Alberta government already knew, that a strong and clear majority of Alberta producers are ready for more competi- tive options to maximize their grain marketing opportunities. It is now time for action on this matter. We are pleased that the federal government will open the market by August 1 of this year. With the results in, it’s time for the government of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the industry to work together to strengthen the barley marketing system. The Canadian Wheat Board must now translate their extensive experience into success in an open market.

Alberta’s position has always been that there is a role for the Canadian Wheat Board in an open and competitive barley market. We are looking forward, as I know all Albertan producers are, to true marketing choice in the marketing of barley for all Canadian producers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Patient Safety in Hospitals Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Albertans deserve to know that their health care system is safe and that when they visit a hospital, they won’t come out sicker than when they went in.

Albertans were understandably concerned when the government announced serious problems with infection controls at St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville. The minister of health assured us at that time that this was an isolated incident, a claim that was brought into question by revelations about problems in Lloydminster and in Canmore. There’s clearly a need for an independent, system-wide, and public inquiry. The inquiry should start by getting a complete understanding of the impact of the drastic cuts to health care in the ’90s and the chronic underfunding that followed.

By consistently starving the health system, this government has forced many regions and facilities to simply make do. We know, for example, that St. Joseph’s hospital has been requesting a surgical washing machine for a number of years but has never been provided the funds to obtain one. The second issue is the failure of the Conservative government to support a province-wide system for monitoring and enforcing standards in hospitals. They have asked local hospitals to do more with less and then turned a blind eye to the pressures this approach brings.

The Health Quality Council is not the appropriate body to investigate this concern, and the self-evaluation the minister requested last week is just not good enough. The minister’s review will not be independent and will not be public. Neither review will seriously assess government responsibility for this crisis. In response to the numerous e-mails, letters, and phone calls received by my caucus, today I released a petition on behalf of the NDP opposition that we will be circulating among Albertans.

The petition urges the government to immediately establish a public inquiry into the failure of the health care system to protect the safety of patients in its care and provide recommendations to correct the situation. I invite all Albertans to visit www.ndpopposition.ab.ca for more details on this petition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. chair of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills, the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. head: Presenting Petitions Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Private Bills I beg leave to present the following petitions that have been received for private bills under Standing Order 98(2): (1) the petition of Ian Wilms for the CyberPol - The Global Centre for Securing Cyberspace Act, and (2) the petition of Dan Reinhardt for the CREST Leadership Centre Act. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am tabling a petition with the required number of copies from the residents of Monarch Place in Red Deer-North.

The petition respectfully requests a formal inquiry into the reasons for the demise of this affordable housing complex before the impending sale. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a letter from Leona Laddish, Olga Eliuk, and Emily Palynchuk, who are the nieces of the late Dr. Myron Shewchuk. Dr. Shewchuk was admitted to St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville and subsequently passed away, apparently because of complications arising from MRSA.

The authors of the letter, like the Alberta NDP opposition, are calling for a full public inquiry into our health system’s infection control programs. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two documents to table today. The first is the appropriate number of copies of British Columbia’s Bill 17. B.C. is debating and passing legislation regarding the trade, investment, and labour mobility agreement, unlike the Alberta government, which has virtually been silent on this important issue. My second document is an e-mail from Zelma Hardin.

Ms Hardin’s 83-year-old mother had a fall last year, and while she was in the Royal Alex hospital, she contracted a superbug. The letter vividly describes the agony she and her mother went through. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a letter sent to Dr. Erik Wasylenko, who is responsible for patient experience within the Calgary health region. In her letter regarding the changes to home care, Anne Lyon, on behalf of her husband, Richard Morris, notes that “whatever

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 325 problems the region was trying to solve . . . the implementation appears unplanned and uncompassionate.” My second tabling, entitled Turning the Key, celebrates the opening of the fabulous new Ronald McDonald House adjacent to the equally wonderful, new children’s hospital in Calgary-Varsity constituency. I would encourage the government to consider supporting Inn from the Cold in acquiring the old facility. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Two tablings today. The first is from constituent Rosalee Galper.

She is a woman with a progressive disability who lives independently with the assistance of caregivers using the self-managed care program. She notes that the dollar values that were satisfactory for this program in the ’90s are far behind what is needed to both attract and retain workers today. So that’s her letter. The second tabling. I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of correspondence from Betty Gamble, who was very concerned with the Premier’s comments on the old Holy Cross hospital.

She feels that it’s time the government cleaned up their act and put citizens first and feels that this is nothing except for entitlement by some very prominent Calgary businessmen and their slow pressure toward privatization. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: 1:30 Oral Question Period St. Joseph’s General Hospital Dr. Taft: To the Premier: when did the Premier first become aware that there were serious problems with health care delivery at St. Joe’s hospital? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of the issue with respect to sterilization Thursday, I believe, March 15. That was the day. Dr.

Taft: Very interesting, Mr. Speaker. Connie Marcinkoski, whose father died of MRSA-related pneumonia, has phone records proving that she contacted the Premier’s constituency office and had a 16-minute conversation in October 2003 relating her concerns about her father’s safety and care at the hospital. She never heard back. To the Premier. The Premier committed 11 days ago to look through his archive to find this information. Has the Premier followed through on his commitment to find these records? Mr.

Stelmach: This member got up in the House the first time he raised it and said it was a letter, so we were going through all of the records. You asked a question, so we’re checking to see if there was a letter written through the archives because this goes back to 2003. Subsequently that afternoon we heard one of the media interviewing the lady, and it was a phone call to my constituency assistant at that particular time. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: has the Premier returned that call yet? It’s three and a half years overdue. Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the lady had called. She had spoken to our constituency assistant at that particular time, raised what I believe was an issue with respect to a health service in the hospital. My constituency assistant thanked her for the call, and that com- pleted that particular issue. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds, actually, like the Premier knew about this problem years ago. The Premier previously questioned whether there was any documentation to support the claims of problems at St. Joseph’s hospital.

A November 2003 letter from East Central health region indicates that Robert Bruce “most likely [was] exposed to MRSA while in Acute Care at St. Joseph’s hospital in October 2003.” Further, a 2004 investigation under the Protection for Persons in Care Act recommended that St. Joe’s hospital in Vegreville “ensure all staff are trained and consistent in MRSA protocol.” Will the Premier admit that there was a serious breakdown in health care delivery at St. Joseph’s hospital? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, with resp ect to the follow-up the minister of health will answer. Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, this is no secret.

It’s been talked about before. In fact, I mentioned it when this issue with respect to the sterilization was first mentioned two weeks ago. St. Joe’s hospital has had a problem over the years with MRSA. It’s not an unusual problem. Other hospitals, other places not just in Alberta but right across North America have been dealing with a superbug issue. There is a level of superbug and other bacteria. People would not be surprised to know that there are bacteria and viruses in hospitals right across North America and around the world.

So this is not new, and the fact that there are incidents and that there were incidents at St. Joseph’s is not new. Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Vegreville and, indeed, Alberta have questions about the safety of their health facilities and the ability of this government to protect them, yet the Premier has still not made it a priority of his to meet with the residents of Vegreville on this issue. What was more important on the Premier’s agenda in the last 10 days than arranging a public meeting on this life-and-death issue? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, my agenda, where I’ve been in different corners of the province, is very public. I’ve been in very close contact with my constituents, and I can assure you I will always do a much better job of serving the constituents of Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville than that person will ever do. [interjec- tions] Dr. Taft: Prop him up, folks. Prop him up. Clearly, this Premier needs to be propped up by his backbenchers here, Mr. Speaker. Again I ask: what was more important on your agenda than meeting with your own constituents on this life-and-death issue? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, one of the other reasons why I’ll better serve the constituents of Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville is because I tell the truth. That’s very important to this House and to all other Albertans. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask you: where is the truth in the Premier saying he only learned about this issue 10 days ago

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007326 when there’s a strong paper trail indicating that his office knew about this three years ago? Where’s the truth? Mr. Stelmach: The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a phone call to the constituency. He’s talking about a paper trail, a strong paper trail. One phone call to the constituency, and that’s raised by the Official Opposition. But on the other hand, you know, with respect to being in Vegreville, because this seems to be a real issue for the Leader of the Opposition, the CBC had a program right out of Chin’s restaurant.

Our minister was there to take the calls with respect to a very specific issue with respect to health delivery. The people there were satisfied that we were doing a good job in terms of representing those constituents and the safety of health. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s not going to wash with the people of Alberta. They want a government that responds. It’s clear that cuts to the health care system have dismantled strict government oversight and left us with a patchwork of organizations trying to enforce and monitor events. Who, Mr.

Premier, is responsible for protecting Albertans? Each facility? Is it the regions? Is it the Health Fac ilities Review Committee, the Health Quality Council, or some other organization? Who is responsible for the health care system? Mr. Stelmach: The minister of health, who reports to me. Dr. Taft: So, again, Mr. Speaker, why won’t this Premier take responsibility, admit that this problem has been in pl ace for years? His office has been informed. There is correspondence from the East Central health region. There is correspondence from the Protection for Persons in Care Act. There’s a long set of records.

Will the Premier finally take responsibility, meet his residents, follow through, and protect the interests of Albertans? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this is more than just about meeting residents. This is critically looking at what had transpired in the hospital. Remember, there are two issues here. It’s the lack of protocol, or protocol was not followed with respect to the steriliza- tion of equipment, and of course the other issue was with respect to the superbug. With respect to the superbug, all we have to say: please wash your hands. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party.

Medical Safety Standards Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, the Premier would love to wash his hands of this issue, but I think that’s not going to solve it, Mr. Premier. Albertans are worried that the problems at St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville and the women’s health clinic in Lloydminster are just the tip of the iceberg. They’re worried that when they go into a hospital or their loved ones go into a hospital, they might come out sicker than when they went in, and the government still refuses to allow an independent, system-wide inquiry. My question is to the Premier.

How can the Premier reassure the people of Alberta that our health care is safe when he refuses to appoint an independent commission of inquiry to look into this matter? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have health professionals who have been in Vegreville for some time. These are people very respected in the profession. They are of course studying the situation and will bring recommendations forward to the minister. If there’s any requirement in terms of legislation or any other thing we could do as the government, we will move immediately on it. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, there’s no centralized enforcement of safety standards in medical fac ilities, including hospitals, in the province, and there hasn’t been one since the early 1990s, when this government saw fit to eviscerate the health care system by cutting funds, nurses, and doctors, led by the Deep Six, of which the current Premier was a member. Will the Premier finally admit that this is a province-wide issue and ensure that structures are put in place that will guarantee proper inspections and a follow-up of safety standards across the province reporting to the ministry of health? 1:40 Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the leader of the third party talks about massive cuts. In 1993 to ’94 the budget for health was about $3.2 billion, $3.3 billion, and I believe at that time the government took about $200 million out of the total budget. Most of that was of course reducing the number of hospital boards we had across the province. So most of the substantial amount came in the reduction of administration throughout the province of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Alberta New Democrat opposition is starting a petition calling for an independent public inquiry.

We invite all members of this House to visit www.ndpopposition.ab.ca to sign that. I’d like to ask the Premier why it was the province has failed to provide money to St. Joseph’s hospital for a surgical washing machine despite their request, which is outstanding for a number of years? Why has the government failed St. Joseph’s hospital in this matter? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the government has not failed anyone. With respect to the administrative matter the minister of health will respond. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, the piece of equipment in question is on back order, has been ordered and been approved a long time ago. This type of equipment is not something that’s approved at the level of the province but, rather, at the level of the regional health authority. The regional health authority has responsibility to make sure that appropriate sterilization processes are in place for their facilities, and if they don’t have it in that one fac ility, they can sterilize equipment at another facility, but they have dealt with this request. They’ve ordered the equipment in question.

That is not the issue with respect to the problem , the failure in following the protocols, which happened at St. Joe’s. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Teachers’ Unfunded Pension Liability Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The unfunded pension liability in the teachers’ pension plan has been a significant issue for a number of years now, and it’s becoming more of a detriment than ever before to teacher retention and teacher recruitment. I’m very aware of previous efforts and of the difficulties involved in resolving

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 327 this. Nonetheless, the time has come. I feel that a formal process ought to be put in place. So my questions are to the Minister of Education. Mr. Minister, will you implement a formal process to address, perhaps to recommence, or to renegotiate this matter as soon as possible? [interjections] Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be put on record that there is an existing agreement in place, that was signed in 1992 between the government of Alberta and the Alberta Teachers’ Association, to address the unfunded liability issue.

However, we also recognize that that liability now stands at some $6.4 billion, $2.1 billion of which, it should be noted, is the teachers’ responsibil- ity. We also recognize that this unfunded pension liability is a detriment to recruiting new teachers, so we will be addressing it. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Among all of the wrongful cries from opposition members, I would like, please, to have a little bit of silence for this next question. Perhaps we could get their attention to support this important issue and resolve this matter instead of just catcalling against it.

So my supplemental question is: what roles would the minister foresee being played by the ATA and by the Alberta School Boards Association in address- ing this complicated matter? Mr. Liepert: Well, it should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of the unfunded liability is between the government of Alberta and the Alberta Teachers’ Association. To that end, I had a meeting last week with the president of the ATA to start these discussions, so that will be continuing. We would be seeking input from school board trustees as we would with any citizens of Alberta.

However, this really is an issue between the ATA and the government of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think it bears mention- ing that there are other jurisdictions who have faced similar issues, and one of particular interest lately, in addition to several others, is the jurisdiction of Manitoba. I’m wondering if the minister has had a chance to look at that jurisdiction’s resolution to this issue, and if not, will he proceed post-haste to take a look at it? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Manitoba government last week decided to refinance their portion of the unfunded liability, and that’s something that we are considering looking at, but that really doesn’t address the unfunded issue that the teachers are facing, where 3 per cent of a teacher’s salary today goes to paying the portion that in many cases young teachers had absolutely nothing to do with. That’s the part that we’re going to try and address. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. St. Joseph’s General Hospital (continued) Dr. Taft: Mr.

Speaker, the situation at St. Joe’s hospital seems to have led to a number of deaths. It is requiring at least several hundred tests to be administered around the province. It has now spilled over into Saskatchewan, where they’re having to undertake tests as well. There have been problems in the East Central health region, particularly St. Joe’s hospital, for years. The Premier mentioned his schedule. On Monday, March 26, no scheduled engagements were listed. Why was he not able to meet with the residents of Vegreville, in his constituency, at a public meeting on this issue on March 26? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, I’ve said this before in this House. I’ve said it to the media. This is again being driven by the opposition in terms of why I’m not conducting some sort of a public meeting in Vegreville. This issue, of course, is a medical matter; it’s not a political one. This issue is very important to me as the MLA for Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville, and I’ve also said that we’ll do whatever we have to do to ensure that this does not happen again not only in Vegreville but in any other health facility in the province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People in Vegreville and people around this province are concerned when one of their hospitals is closed. This is an issue of accountability. This is an issue of leadership. Why was it more important for this Premier on Wednes- day, March 28, to go to Lac La Biche to address the Alberta Association of Colleges and Technical Institutes round-table than to meet with the constituents in Vegreville over the closure of their hospital? Mr. Stelmach: First of all, the hospital is not closed. So that’s wrong. Secondly, to me as Premier of this province the aboriginal and the Métis are very important.

We were there to see how we can include them further in job opportunities that are available in this province of Alberta. We had a joint conference with leaders from British Columbia sharing their experiences with our college leaders in the province of Alberta, trying to find, of course, new ways of providing opportunities for First Nations and Métis to be involved in not only job opportunities but to see how we can further include them in the education system. Dr. Taft: Again to the Premier. The Premier’s

schedule indicates that on Friday, March 30, no appointments were scheduled. Can the Premier indicate to the people of Vegreville and the people of Alberta why he couldn’t take the time to have a public meeting on the crisis in the hospital in his own constituency? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there wasn’t a crisis. Friday morning I was on my way to Fairview. I spent the whole day in Fairview meeting with NAIT. We met with a group of farmers with respect to the issue of transportation. We met with a whole myriad of different individuals.

With respect to the public meeting the minister himself was there. It was a CBC-sponsored – I forget what they called it. He gave a full explanation. You know, for something that’s been advertised and is supposed to be a crisis, like the leader says, the café was only about half full, and the people were wondering why the CBC was taking up so much room. They wanted to have their cup of coffee in peace. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Peace and Police Officer Training Centre Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The 2002 report of the MLA Policing Review Committee recommended a single-site centre for policing excellence for the training and ongoing profes-

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007328 sional development of police and peace officers in Alberta. In August of 2006 Fort Macleod, within the constituency of Livingstone-Macleod, was announced as the preferred site for the proposed Alberta police and peace officers training centre, but since then nothing has happened, and we have not heard of anything. My question is to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Security. Can he update the House on the current status of the project? 1:50 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let me thank the hon.

Member for Livingstone-Macleod for the opportunity to shed some light on this very much-needed project. This training centre is an important part of our commitment to provide safe and secure communities in which Albertans can live, work, and raise their families. I can assure the hon. member that in the time since Fort Macleod was selected as the preferred site last August, a lot of work has already been done to make this centre a reality. But there’s still a lot more to do before we can put a shovel in the ground.

At the moment they’re working with Alberta Infrastructure and the town of Fort Macleod to determine building requirements. Once this process is complete, we will release a request for expression of interest . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: in keeping with the Premier’s comment about safe communities, what are the advantages of a single-site facility such as this centre compared to the current training practices? Mr. Lindsay: Mr.

Speaker, training and professional development for law enforcement officers currently take place in a variety of locations across our province, and standards and practices are not always consistent. The new centre will help set and maintain a superior standard of training for all police and peace officers in Alberta. It will deliver basic training and professional development of police and peace officers, including special constables, correc- tions officers, private investigators, and security guards in Alberta.

It will offer regular, recertification, and specialized training for all Alberta police and peace officers. Mr. Coutts: My last supplemental to the same minister: w ill law enforcement stakeholders have an opportunity for input to the planning and to the curriculum developed for this centre? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me say that few people are as passionate and dedicated about what they do in our community as those of law enforcement and security communities.

Their feedback and input are critical as they move forward with this initiative and many others to ensure safe and secure communities. We will continue to seek their input on the design and development of the centre both on an individual basis and through these provincial bodies which represent policing. We have already received much valuable input. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all of this input is being very carefully considered. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Support for Low-income Albertans Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the leadership campaign the Premier publicly stated that it’s absolutely shameful that Canada’s most prosperous province cannot take better care of the people who are not able to care for themselves. Over the weekend my colleagues and I here in this Legislature were awarded an automatic salary increase of 4.9 per cent. Given that the Premier himself has stated that the government’s support for our most vulnerable citizens is absolutely shameful, will the Premier commit today to giving AISH recipients the same raise that we have received? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the amount of indemnity, the increase to all of us was done by the Members’ Services Committee. This is done based on a formula that was agreed to by all parties – all parties. Now, with respect to the other question on AISH and others in the province of Alberta, we are working through how we can best support those in great need. These are, of course, AISH, and our seniors in the province, that really are of great importance to this government. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seeing how the Premier has given me an inch, I’m going to go for the yard.

Increases in the cost of living are affecting all Albertans, and many have not been able to keep up. Now that the MLAs’ salaries have been increased, can the Premier tell us when the salaries of PDD workers, social workers, child care workers, and emergency shelter workers will receive similar salary increases? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there has been some movement recently by the minister res ponsible in terms of closing the gap. There is a gap between those that are working for volunteer organizations, not-for-profit, and also those working for the government. We’d like to close that.

The other is to ensure that we do support the not-for-profit organizations, and that’s why we have a consultation in place to see how we can increase the charitable tax credits, see how we can match out of nonrenewable resources the funding going to charitable organizations, that do such a good service in this province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are good words to hear. However, I’m really sort of a time-frame kind of person.

So I’m willing to donate half of my increased salary to a related charity in a show of support for having AISH benefits indexed and will table a letter to the House monthly with the details of that. Given the Premier’s statements of concern on the issue, would he join with me in that pledge? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I am of course quite happy, in fact privileged, that both my wife, Marie, and I have the ability to donate to so many charitable causes in the province of Alberta.

Whether it will increase by whatever the percentage was, probably much more than that because I do have great warmth in my heart for the not-for- profit and charitable organizations in this province. You know, everybody on that side, including now the Leader of the Official Opposition, got an increase. In fact, it says this morning that for the first time the Premier of Alberta has a bigger increase

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 329 than the Premier before. Well, I guess so has the Official Opposition leader. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Calgary Industrial Sites Cleanup Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that our Calgary-Fort constituency covers the largest industrial area in Calgary and our living environment is very important to my constituents, my question today is to the hon. Minister of Environment.

Given that the Lynnview Ridge contamination cleanup work in my constituency has been going since last summer, can the minister update us on this file as to when it will be done? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, this remediation agreement has been in place since 2005, and Imperial Oil is continuing to clean up residential properties to Alberta Environment’s very strict require- ments. We continue to oversee this cleanup operation and will ensure that ongoing soil samples meet our standards before approv- ing final remediation and issuing appropriate certificates.

I can’t give the member a specific date, but I can assure the member that the community involvement is and will continue to be a key component in any final plan for the future in this area. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. Given yet another situation in the northeast corner of my riding, an industrial park where a demolished oil recycling plant was located, can the minister update us on this cleanup as to when the remediation plan submitted by the property owner will be decided on so new development can take place? Mr.

Renner: Mr. Speaker, Hub Oil is not posing any significant threat as it stands today, but I understand the concern of the community in that they would like to use the site for alternate uses. The member is quite correct. The company has submitted a draft plan, and our staff are currently reviewing that plan. It’s the intention that that plan will be presented to a multistakeholder committee and the public for input. Once we’re all satisfied that Hub Oil’s plan meets our environmental standards, work can begin to remediate the site. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second supplemental question is to the same minister. Given another situation in the southeast corner of my riding, in Ogden, where the seepage of cleaning liquid from the railway shop was discovered three years ago flowing into underground water, can the minister update us on this file again? 2:00 Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, when we’re dealing with old industrial sites, these are the kinds of contamination issues that have to be dealt with. In this particular case there is ongoing monitoring. Again, CP Rail is responsible and will continue to be responsible to clean up the site in an appropriate manner.

Indoor air quality monitoring in homes and in the Ogden school is ongoing. Where necessary a vapour control unit is installed, and that has proven su ccessful in protecting indoor air quality. The committee that’s ensuring that the indoor air quality and all air quality in the area is handled appropri- ately is a joint committee of Alberta Environment, the Alberta health region, and the city of Calgary, and they continue monitoring on an ongoing basis. Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Mr. Bonko: Yesterday the trade, investment, and labour mobility agreement, TILMA, came into effect in this province.

There will now be no laws, measures passed in this House that may operate to restrict or impair trade or investment or labour mobility between this province and British Columbia. My questions are to the Premier. Will he publicly release all regulatory and legislative changes required to implement TILMA? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have till 2009 to work through various authorities, municipalities, academics, et cetera, as we work towards fulfilling the agreement.

You know, it’s 2007, and in this country we still have to bring about changes to trade rules that were put in place many, many years ago actually to impede the movement of goods and services. In fact, we had in this province two vehicle inspection stations to measure the weight of a truck, and to me, in this country I think a kilogram is a kilogram on this side of the border and on that side. Today we have one vehicle inspection station. The truck stops once. Mr. Bonko: Many Albertans are concerned with TILMA’s impact on the province.

Many support the agreement, and there are many that disagree with the agreement, yet even on its face the govern- ment refuses to bring this before the House, the democratic heart of Alberta. It prefers press releases and backroom deals to democracy and debate. When will this government bring this agreement to the House for open debate in front of the people of Alberta? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do have to give credit to the Premier of the province of Alberta – of B.C. . . . An Hon. Member: Well, sure. Mr.

Stelmach: Well, to me as well. . . . to the Premier of the province of B.C. for his vision in moving forward. This now makes us the second-largest market force in Canada. It’s of great importance to future generations in terms of future wealth creation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is already having to send a letter to municipalities trying to fill a hole in this agreement. They say it was not their intention for municipalities to lose their ability to set zoning bylaws. They even promise to speak up for municipalities when these problems appear.

Given that this letter holds absolutely no legal weight and TILMA now does, will this Premier commit to changing TILMA so that these problems do not arise? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’ve spent considerable time with municipal leaders. In fact, I had a good chat with the president of the AAMD and C, spent some time with the two city mayors. They have not raised a concern at all with respect to TILMA. If there are further issues that come forward – like I said, we have till 2009, and we’ll keep working on any issues that are raised by those authorities. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-North.

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007330 Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will continue the same discussion. The trade, investment, and labour mobility agreement came into force on April Fool’s Day, and Albertans have virtually been told nothing, absolutely nothing about this agreement. There’s been no debate, no consultation, yet this agreement could have huge ramifications not only for business but for school boards, municipali- ties, health regions, and even farmers. As I say, the government has been virtually silent on this. My question is a simple, straightfor- ward one.

To the Premier: why have there been no public hearings or consultations with all the people potentially affected by TILMA? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, this is a very good agreement for both provinces. It builds the second-largest trade relationship, between Alberta and B.C. As I said before, we have till 2009 to work out any kind of differences that there are. The member says, “no consultation.” We’ve had consultation with all of the groups, from engineers to – well, I’ll have the minister next time list all the groups that we met with over the last couple of years. Mr. Martin: Mr.

Speaker, frankly, if you would ask people what TILMA is, they wouldn’t understand or even know about it. They’ve never heard of it. My question to the Premier is simply this. The B.C. government brought this forward in legislation so that people would at least know about it. Why has the Alberta govern- ment not done the same thing? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have met with all those individuals, authorities, organizations that have anything to do with respect to the agreement. There were some issues in the beginning in terms of further dialogue. We worked through a lot of them.

If there are any from now until 2009, then we’ll continue to work with those groups, but this is a good agreement for Alberta. It’s actually, quite frankly, going to help farmers because it’s going to reduce the costs of transportation from Alberta down to the coast. Mr. Martin: That’s all you’ll say. Mr. Speaker, if it’s such a good agreement, why hasn’t it been brought forward in the Legislature here like they’ve done in B.C.? If it’s such a good agreement, then we’d all accept it. Why haven’t we done it? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to TILMA, the trade, investment, and labour mobility agreement that we have, it frees up organizations on both sides of the border to do good work. We’re going to continue to work with those organizations to ensure that it does improve not only today’s economy in the province but puts in place and secures a better economy for the next generation. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Standards of Practice for Pharmacists Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of my constituents have expressed concern over the new regulations that will give pharmacists prescribing power. They feel that this is potentially unsafe given that pharmacists are not trained as doctors. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Why are we moving the responsibility of prescribing drugs from doctors to pharmacists? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We value all health professionals: physicians, pharmacists, nurses, right across the board.

Changes to allow pharmacists to prescribe based on the outcome of their patient assessments is not intended to replace the physician’s role in diagnosing and prescribing drug treatment or to limit other health care providers’ expanded scope of practice. Pharmacists will only assess and prescribe based on their recognized competencies. They’ll provide prescriptions when needed based on the outcome of patient assessments completed by them.

This deals with one of the core values of the Health Professions Act; that is, to allow health care professionals to practise to the full extent of their experience, training, and expertise. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: how can we ensure that pharmacists have the clinical expertise needed to prescribe drug therapies? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The College of Pharma- cists sets the standard of practice that determines the level of practice which can be provided by all pharmacists and any given pharmacist.

Before assessing patients or prescribing drugs, pharmacists must meet the requirements established by the college. Pharmacists wishing to specialize will be required to demonstrate their compe- tence in that specific area of practice. The public of Alberta will be assured that pharmacists who are prescribing have the competency to do so. Mrs. Jablonski: My last question to the same minister: is it a conflict of interest to have pharmacists both prescribing and dispensing drugs? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, pharmacists prescribing drugs based on their patient assessment is similar to other medical services where health care professionals provide advice prior to providing medical treatment. We will rely on the College of Pharmacists to enforce the ethical standards under which pharmacists will practise. Pharmacists will be joining other professionals, such as registered dieticians and nurse practitioners, who have also had an expanded scope of practice, including prescribing and dispensing of drugs.

This will be well under control, and the College of Pharmacists will make sure that ethical practice is followed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. 2:10 Resource Development in Marie Lake Area Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Marie Lake, located just north of the city of Cold Lake, in the Alberta context is one of the few pristine lakes left with exceptional water quality.

I’ve heard strong concerns from many landowners in the area that the lake is being threatened by a new and experimental project, already seeing considerable seismic activity, a two-kilometre tunnel from a mine shaft, and potentially up to 100 SAGD directional wells under the lake. To the Minister of Environment: can the minister tell us what effects the intense seismic activity, let alone the SAGD extraction over the next few years, will have on the aquatic environment? Can he guarantee that there’ll be no adverse effects on the lake and the ecosystem? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, geophysical activity is really the

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 331 responsibility of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, so he may want to supplement my answer. What I can tell the member about my understanding here is that the discussion regarding seismic activity is something that will involve air guns and would not involve any dynamite or explosions. Any activity that would involve fish-bearing water from a geophysi- cal perspective would require application under the Water Act. No such application has come forward. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is still playing the same old tune when it comes to maximizing resource development at any cost. SAGD operations are notorious for causing hydrocarbon migration into both groundwater and surface water, in the Lloydminster area specifically. The EUB mandate is for responsible development in the public interest. To the Energy minister: is it in the public’s interest to proceed with such a project, with the potential to permanently damage this pristine water body? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most certainly, no project with respect to oil sands, heavy oil, conventional oil, shale oil, deep tight gas, or any other project that we would consider for develop- ment in the province of Alberta would go ahead without the very stringent requirements that we put in place and adhere to in the province of Alberta with respect to these developments. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Water for Life strategy clearly states that “healthy aquatic ecosystems are vital to a high quality of life for Albertans and must be preserved.” The govern- ment’s strategy then makes the guarantee that “the province’s aquatic ecosystems [will be] maintained and protected.” To the Environment minister: will the minister tell us whether the Water for Life strategy will take precedence over an approval by the Minister of Energy? Whose competing mandate is going to be respected here? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, clearly the responsib ility of the government and this minister is to ensure the well-being of our water systems. I indicated that no application to date has been made. No studies have taken place. No approvals have been made. So I would suggest that the question is somewhat hypothetical, to say the least. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Health Regions Board Governance Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Whitecourt-Ste. Anne constituency has been well served by the board members of Aspen health and Capital health.

Since these regional boards were designed, very little board renewal has occurred. My questions are all to the health minister. What are your plans to introduce new memberships to health boards across Alberta? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very important question. One of the mandates that I have is to look at the effectiveness and the efficiency of our health system, and part of that is looking at board governance and making sure that we are using the resources that are applied to the system very effectively.

I can tell the hon. member that I have met with board chairs on two occasions to talk about board governance, and one of the specific issues is: how do we do renewal of boards? How do we make sure that there’s appropri- ate succession planning? We’ll be coming forward with either three- year terms, perhaps two terms of three years each, or if not that, some other appropriate mechanism to make sure that there’s succession planning and orderly renewal. Mr.

VanderBurg: Well, again to the same minister: with the substantial growth here in Alberta are we planning to add any members, especially to the growth areas of this province? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The size of the boards is mandated. There is an opportunity for expansion to the size of the boards upon request. But I think it should be clearly stated that there’s an optimum size for board operation, and the optimum size of the board is not necessarily impacted by the size of the population that they serve. Mr.

VanderBurg: Well, given the first answer, that you’ve had meetings with regard to renewal, when will this renewal happen? When will we see a plan? Will it be weeks, months? Mr. Hancock: The process is unfolding, Mr. Speaker, over the course of the next few months. As members will know, there was a task force on board governance struck, which is meeting now and will be reporting I believe in June. We’re doing our board review with respect to the regional hea lth authorities on that same time track.

So I hope that by the time this House meets again in the fall, any legislation process that we mi ght need with respect to boards will be available for the House by then. That’s my anticipation. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Affordability of Postsecondary Education Mr. Tougas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In his 2005 taxpayer-funded fireside chat to the province the former Premier made a vow to the people of Alberta. He said, “Alberta will define a new tuition policy . . .

It will be the most innovative, entrepreneurial, and affordable tuition policy in the country.” With no signs of a downward trend in tuition, my questions are for the Premier. Will the Premier now reaffirm the previous Premier’s statement that Alberta will have the most affordable tuition policy in the country? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as we look forward the next 20, 30, 40 years, we know that education is going to play a very key role in terms of building a knowledge-based industry here in the province of Alberta.

There are many steps being taken today and into the future to ensure that we’re competitive and to attract many young Albertans into postsecondary – it’s not only university, but it’s colleges and technical schools – and, of course further, not only with the education but additional research and also commercializing that technology in Alberta. Mr. Tougas: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s a difference between being competitive and being the most affordable, so I’m going to ask the

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007332 question again. Will Alberta have the most affordable tuition rates in the country, as the previous Premier promised? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, approximately 70 per cent of university tuition is today paid for by the taxpayer. We’re looking at ways of reducing the cost to individual students by furthering use of technology, pushing out the education into smaller centres so that we can get, of course, at least the introductory courses online. That will further reduce costs. These are all proactive steps taken in terms of increasing the number of students involved in postsecondary.

Mr. Tougas: Well, still no promise from the Premier. Mr. Speaker, affordable means different things to different people. To the family of an oil executive with a high six-figure salary, tuition in Alberta would be considered affordable, but to a struggling wage earner in my constituency of Edmonton-Meadowlark, $5,000 a year tuition plus hundreds more for books may be anything but affordable. To the Premier: for the record how does the Premier define affordable tuition? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, I’ll have the minister respond in terms of the amounts of bursaries and remission policy that we have in this province because, quite frankly, it’s outstanding compared to other provinces. Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue of affordability really isn’t just about tuition. As the hon. member pointed out, there are different needs in different circumstances. Our program is among the most generous in the country as it is needs based. As we roll things out under the affordability framework, stay tuned. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Forest Protection in Kananaskis Country Mr.

Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was suggested at a meeting last week in Bragg Creek that Kananaskis Country is threatened by a clear-cutting plan which was approved by the minister of sustainable development. My question, obviously, is to that minister. What is the minister doing to protect the recreational and watershed functions of K Country? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to remind all members of the Assembly that clear-cutting hasn’t been allowed in this province for several decades.

The current practice of block cutting respects important structural features such as watersheds, riparian areas, trails, and sensitive biological areas. I’d also remind all members that block cutting is better than the alternative, which is beetles and wildfires, which respect none of the above. Mr. Speaker, 58 per cent of Kananaskis Country is already protected. Of what’s left, only a third is available. Less than one- quarter is subject to any logging . . . 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further comments from the meeting last week in Bragg Creek suggested that pine trees in Kananaskis Country are too small to be threatened by mountain pine beetles, that the beetles only attack large-diameter pines. I’m wondering if the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development can comment on how accurate that statement might be. Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, that’s half true. It is true that the beetles prefer the larger diameter trees that you find in British Columbia. But if they can’t find the wider diameter trees, they’re happy to take the smaller ones.

I want all members to know that our forestry models use 15 centimetre diameter for our predictions, the same statistic that is used by British Columbia, a province that’s lost 9 out of 10 of its pine trees. Following the B.C. model, we predict similar potential losses here. We’ve already found isolated incidents of smaller trees being infected. The eastern slopes are at risk, and we intend to manage that risk in a responsible manner. Mr. Rodney: To the same minister. Perhaps I’ll be just a little bit more direct.

The suggestion has been made that this government is using the threat of pine beetle s as an excuse to allow timber harvesting. What is the minister’s response to that accusation? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple question of risk manage- ment. You can look at what’s happened in British Columbia, where they’ve projected to lose 90 per cent of all their pine trees by 2010 or 2012, and you can see what doing nothing does. We believe that responsible logging, responsible forestry is the answer. This is trying to balance long-term environmental health versus short-term aesthetic values.

We will make the responsible choice, which is the long-term environmental health of our forests. Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) The Speaker: We were at the hon. Leader of the Official Opposi- tion. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to provide a sufficient number of copies of material relating to St. Joseph’s hospital for tabling: a report under the Protection for Persons in Care Act, a copy of a phone bill, and various other information on the St. Joseph’s hospital situation. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise to table 123 letters and the relevant copies to call upon this Assembly to “try the accused killer of Joshua John Hunt as an adult due to the nature of this crime, his past criminal history and that he is so close to the age of 18 years old.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Are there others on tablings? Hon. members, I have a tabling today with respect to a new brochure that we’ve put out called the Alberta Legislature Grounds: Self-guided Tour, which points out some 27 monuments on the grounds of this Legislature.

I invite all members to go out for a walk one of these days when it gets heated in the Assembly. Secondly, I provided to all members earlier today some informa- tion with respect to the changes as a result of a Members’ Services’ position on MLA remuneration that went into effect April 1, 2007. All citizens of the province of Alberta can access this information at www.assembly.ab.ca. The adjustment of 4.92 per cent follows the average weekly earnings index in the province of Alberta.

Thirdly, before we left, prior to the little break we had, I advised members of the Members’ Services Committee to be on standby for a possible Members’ Services meeting this week because the normal

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 333 practice is to give you 10 days’ notice. I’m giving you notice now that we’ll probably try to meet on Wednesday night at 6 o’clock. Now, I’m assuming that one thin g is going to happen: the three House leaders are going to have a motion in this Assembly to go forward because if we don’t move it, we won’t make the budget process. If we don’t make the budget process, well, then, what sense are the reforms? head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk. On behalf of the hon. Mr.

Liepert, Minister of Education, Alberta Education School Jurisdictions audited financial statements for the year ended August 31, 2005, sections 1, 2, and 3, and pursuant to the Teaching Profes- sion Act the Alberta Teachers’ Association 2005 annual report. The Speaker: There being no further ones, we’ll deal with Orders of the Day. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that written ques- tions stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns The Speaker: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that motions for returns stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 203 Service Dogs Act [Debate adjourned March 19: Mrs. Forsyth speaking] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek to continue. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may, because of the time last time, start again. The Speaker: Yes. Mrs. Forsyth: I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to join the discussion on the Service Dogs Act.

I fully support Bill 203 because it allows for a wider cross-section of citizens to be fully integrated within Alberta. Bill 203 would guarantee that people who use service dogs are legally and adequately protected from discrimi- nation. This bill would clarify a nd strengthen the rights of those with physical disabilities who need service dogs to assist them. Bill 203 calls on Albertans to move towards greater understanding of diversity within our province.

It eliminates the current confusion regarding people who use service dogs and makes them feel more comfortable about carrying out their daily routine, such as going for coffee, grocery shopping, picking things up from the ground. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, I recently read about a dog that can even put his owner’s ATM card in the ATM bank machine. A service dog can make all the difference in the world for someone with reduced mobility. Certain chores which are essential components to leading independent lives are not equally accessible to all Albertans.

While these things are essential, they are also taken for granted by most Albertans. Personal stories are always nice to share, and I would like to share one that affects one of my constituents. It’s called 4 Paws 4 Matthew. As a child with autism, Matthew is a little boy who many of my constituents in Parkland would recognize. He’s a fair-haired little boy who likes to run and who many will recognize at his visits to Park 96. Matthew has many safety issues which could put his life in danger as well as various communication and social difficulties.

Matthew’s family has recognized the need for a highly trained service dog and how these wonderful dogs have come to the aid of many children suffering from the same disability as Matthew. In January of 2006 the family asked for help from our community, their family, and their friends. The response, Mr. Speaker, has been overwhelming and helped raise a whopping $13,200. Since the training of service dogs is quite expensive and predicted to take as long as two years, they hope to r eceive their dog at the end of this year or early 2008.

Although the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act includes protection for those using service dogs, often the general public is unaware of it. Mr. Speaker, blind persons are no longer faced with speculation concerning their rights to use guide dogs in public places. With the help of legislation the use of guide dogs has become an accepted and comm onplace practice throug hout our society. We have come to understand and appreciate the need blind people have for their guide dogs.

Unfortunately, similar knowledge concerning service dogs is not as widespread due to the current ambiguities surrounding this issue. The Blind Persons’ Rights Act helped Alberta’s visually chal- lenged people gain access to the benefits of Alberta’s quality of life. The same allowance should be extended to those with other disabilities. There have been numerous instances when people with physical disabilities who depend on the aid of service dogs have been excluded from social settings due to the confusion the general public has regarding the admittance of their service dogs into these areas.

Bill 203 presents us with the opportunity to help all Albertans live happier and more fulfilling lives no matter what their disabili- ties. There is no doubt that people with physical disabilities stand to gain with the help of their service dogs. Mr. Speaker, for the Matthews of the world and many other Albertans who have or are waiting for a service dog, I urge members of the Assembly to support Bill 203. I will leave you with the story of Riley, who suffers from autism. A cute, precocious seven-year-old, Riley likes trucks, tractors, and any other kind of heavy equipment.

But he loves his best friend, Yogi, a golden retriever. Rile y had a history of bolting but not anymore. His family waited three years to get Yogi, but it didn’t take long for the dog to have a huge impact on their lives. When Yogi first came into the house, it was like ducks to water. It was just so unbelievable. The bond was instant, said his mother. Bill 203 will help fulfill an environment where many Albertans would be able to participate more fully in society. Bill 203 is a step towards making this vision a reality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, then the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning.

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007334 Mr. Chase: Thank you very much. I rise to support my colleague’s Bill 203 on service dogs. I have worked extensively at the Univer- sity of Calgary trying to improve the lot of disabled students. I have met with them with regard to examination rooms and accommodat- ing schedules to recognize the fact that depending on their disabili- ties, they may require extra time when taking an exam.

Disabled students have had quite a bit of difficulty over the years having their disabilities recognized, not to the point where they are singled out because of their disability but for the need for their disability to be supported. I worked with one young lady in particular over the past year who had a service dog because she had the misfortune of having been run into while driving, so her spine had suffered some damage. Then on top of that she suffered from an industrial accident while working for a lumber company that didn’t have proper saw guards.

She had injuries to her back, and she also had severe injuries to the tendons in her right hand. As a result, she had a service dog that basically did the lifting for her, that carried her books from class to class. Initially at the University of Calgary she was received in sort of a mixed way in certain areas. For example, she wasn’t allowed into Dinny’s Den. Some of her professors had a degree of discomfort with the dog, so her access was very much prevented.

With all the other difficulties that she had in terms of having her disability recognized and having tuition support and funding for books and so on, just paying the daily rent was extremely difficult for this young lady. Fortunately, because every body was willing to work in a collaborative fashion, the solution came through the recognition of the dog’s qualifications. I would like to thank a young lady that I worked with when my wife and I ran the Cataract Creek wilderness campground. Nokia, the young lady in question, trained dogs as well as being a conserva- tion officer.

While she loved working in the forest, she found that the salaries that were paid to conservation officers could not begin to compare with what the city of Calgary was offering with regard to their canine service work. In fact, her salary basically doubled that of the individual responsible for managing the Sheep River ranger station. He was sorry to lose her but realized that she had to be thinking about her financial future.

Anyway, this y oung lady intervened on behalf of the university student and assisted the university student in receiving recognition for the qualifications and the training of this particular dog to carry the load. Service animals basically are the links between people with disabilities and the world around them. We’re more used to the idea of a dog for the blind, but the reality is that there are a large number of dogs that are performing a great variety of functions. The member opposite noted one actually being able to access an ATM, and I noticed that same article. It’s amazing what animals can do.

The comradeship of an animal is also extremely important. I know that when my grandmother was in a seniors’ home, the Sarcee auxiliary, there were visits by dogs that were brought in. For a senior who, depending on their family situation, may not be subject to having that many visits, these dogs perform a valuable service just in terms of their friendship and their openness. Of course, all the seniors along the route would have special treats for the dogs, so I’m sure that by the time the dog got home, there was no need to feed it. There is no doubt that this is a wonderful bill.

Another example that happened this past fall with the Calgary board of education was a young man who required the support of a service dog. Initially there was quite a bit of fear and trepidation within the school from administration, from classmates as to this dog. You know: how well was it trained? Was it friendly? Was it thoroughly cleaned? And so on. There were a whole series of issues, but again due to collaborative effort, information, and education these initial concerns were overcome, and the young gentleman and his service dog have been allowed access.

He no longer had to stay at home, but he could receive the full s upport of the service dog. One thing that Bill 203 must have is a large portion of education and information support. There are a number of individuals – and I gather it runs sometimes with regard to ethnic backgrounds – that have a severe fear of dogs, and that fear might cause them discom- fort. What we need to do is provide the education and information for people to realize that these service dogs are not a personal threat and that they serve a very special function. There is another concern that we have too.

This young lady who I helped at the University of Calgary had a large poster draped over the saddlebags of her dog saying: “Please do not pet. This dog is a service dog.” I know the number of times I tried to drag a stray dog home and claim that it had followed me home. We have to treat people and their service dogs with respect and recognize that this isn’t your regular pet, that this animal has a specific function to perform.

Therefore, I hope that as part of making Bill 203, the Service Dogs Act, successful, there will be a great amount put aside to inform the public on the role of these dogs, not just taxi drivers who may question whether or not this dog can be admitted or individuals in apartment complexes who may not realize that this is no regular pet. This is the equivalent of a human companion and needs to be treated with and awarded the same degree of respect that we would provide to a person who is serving as an aide to an individual with disabilities.

I want to pass along my support for Bill 203, the Service Dogs Act, and to please ask that the education and information parts of this bill along with the follow-up in terms of allowing the access to occur take place. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, then the hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar, and then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to rise in strong support of Bill 203, the Service Dogs Act, 2007, and I would like to congratulate and commend the Member for Strathcona for bringing this bill forward. It’s a very timely and a necessary bill as the need for service dogs develops to a higher degree in our society. This bill does clarify and strengthen the rights of service dog owners and it does ensure that things like occupancy, accommodation, service for people with service dogs is properly recognized.

The need for service dogs is as clear as the need for guide dogs for the blind. 2:40 You know, the ways that we deal with problems that arise for people who are disabled are things that change over time. I remember when we started to change the nature of the corners of our sidewalks and make ramps. I talked to some folks who had vision problems. They found that their cane no longer was good for them to deal with coming to the corner because they couldn’t use it to find out where the road started anymore. Now, the fact was that they needed those guide dogs.

The same is very, very true for service dogs in many, many circumstances in our society. I’ve had many people in my constituency call me about this particular bill, and it’s very interesting that there is such support for legislation of this nature.

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 335 There are savings for the province in that there are not adequate numbers of people to work with the disabled right now because of shortages in our labour market. Service dogs – and a number of my constituents have brought this forward to me – provide an alternative to realistically helping the disabled operate within our society. The savings in not having people do that I think is clear. The need for this bill is important.

I commend the arguments of the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek and also the Member for Calgary-Varsity and what they have said in terms of the importance of the comradeship, the partnership that these animals provide. I support this bill, and I support it very strongly. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Foothills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Webber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 203, the Service Dogs Act, sponsored by the hon. Member for Strathcona.

The efforts the member has put forth in the sponsorship of this bill are commendable and should be applauded. I want to acknowledge that this act benefits all persons with disabilities who need to use service dogs. Persons with disabilities who need service dogs currently lack sufficient protection. The Service Dogs Act will enable service dogs’ users to lead lives free of discrimination. This act defines the use of a service dog for the betterment of every individual who relies on them throughout their daily lives.

I want to draw attention to other jurisdictions where similar legislation has been a success story. British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, and New Brunswick are provinces that have enacted legislation that permits service dogs, allowing persons with disabili- ties who need service dogs to have unrestricted access to public accommodations and facilities. These jurisdictions have recognized that persons with disabilities and their accompanying service dogs should not face intolerance.

It is imperative to outline that in the Service Dogs Act an accredited service dog will be used by individuals who are affected by a range of physical disabilities. It is important to provide persons with disabilities who need service dogs an opportunity to live and interact in their community free of bias. We should strive to recognize, as other jurisdictions have, that service dogs for persons with disabilities are an essential part of their lives. For many individuals service dogs become indispensable and are required to perform day-to-day errands and responsibilities. Service dogs are a necessity.

They assist the individual to reduce some of the compli- cations that a person with a disability faces. Service dogs provide these individuals with the capability to perform basic tasks that persons without disabilities take for granted. I’d like to take this opportunity to refer to the example of British Columbia and this province’s Guide Animal Act. This jurisdiction recognized the importance of service dogs and the useful purpose that they serve. Service dogs provide a necessary service to their dependants.

We need to ensure that a person requiring a service dog is not discriminated against when they attempt to access public accommodations and facilities. In Quebec they acknowledge that their dog guides are equivalent to a prosthetic device. Equating the service dog to a prosthetic device communicates their importance very effectively. This description makes it possible for fellow citizens to comprehend the legitimacy of service dogs and the purpose that they serve for those who use them.

The Manitoba Human Rights Code acknowledges that a person with a disability is someone who relies on the use of a guide dog or other animal assistant. I want to emphasize that Bill 203 does not reduce the legitimacy of a guide dog. It is intended to strengthen the understanding that both guide dogs and service dogs are relevant aides. This is an important distinction, and one that Bill 203 will further and sustain. New Brunswick has legislated the right for a person with a disability who needs a dog guide to have fair access to rental, residential, and commercial properties as well as the purchase of real estate.

Newfoundland and Labrador also recognize that persons with disabilities who need dog guides should have equal access to housing accommodations. Bill 203 provides an opportunity to demonstrate that we care about and acknowledge the complex life of a person with a disability. We have an obligation to acknowledge the personal challenges that persons with disabilities f ace. A service dog s hould not be perceived as a barrier. Those who can better their lives by using accredited service dogs should be allowed to do so.

Service dogs for persons with disabilities serve to benefit their wellness and improve their overall quality of life. Service dogs empower their compan- ions, providing them with the ab ility to actively participate in society. We have to realize, as other jurisdictions have, that persons with disabilities feel as though they have limited capabilities because they are not comfortable and need the assistance of a service dog to go anywhere. The public perception assumes that service dogs are not permitted into public areas.

For persons with disabilities, this restrictive atmosphere contributes to feelings of apprehension and isolation. We must recognize that service dogs provide a potential to alleviate these feelings, ensuring that persons with disabilities can live the best possible life. A problem that has been documented in Alberta and other jurisdictions is that people who need service dogs were being denied access to restaurants, businesses, and other public places. We need to address this issue so that Albertans, both those with and without disabilities, will understand the necessity and legitimacy of a service dog.

For most citizens it is common knowledge that the visually challenged are allowed to be accompanied by a guide dog into any public setting. The intention of this bill is to establish that persons with disabilities who need service dogs are permitted to access public places without discrimination. It is Alberta’s turn to recog- nize that the use of a service dog can only serve to better people’s lives. Bill 203 will communicate to businesses and other public venues that service dogs are equal in purpose to guide dogs. We need to allow the disabled the full advantages afforded to all Albertans.

It is in the best interest of everyone. This act will also ensure that a person with a disability and their accompanying service dog will have equal access to housing. Persons with disabilities should not be discriminated against when they attempt to purchase or rent an available housing accommoda- tion. Any potential vacancy that would be available to a person without a disability should be available to a person with a disability and their accompanying service dog. There should be no discrimina- tion.

If a person with a disability can meet the financial require- ments, they should be recognized as a qualified candidate for a housing vacancy. Bill 203 will clarify any discrepancies that are currently occurring with persons with disabilities and their accompanying service dogs. It is important to establish that the rights of persons with disabilities and their accompanying service dogs will be protected. This piece of legislation will allow a person with a disability who needs a service dog unrestricted access to all public facilities and accommo- dations.

A distinction is especially important because of the potential conflict that could arise if a person, with or without a disability, is not aware of their rights and how to treat the situation.

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007336 Not only will these individuals be allowed unrestricted access to public areas; they will also be able to fully participate in the workforce. It is a necessity that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against when they are seeking employment. If the person with a disability is employed, their need for a service dog must be respected. The employer must recognize the reliance on the service dog and in no way limit the potential opportunities of the individual.

This will allow a person with a disability to live a more fulfilling life, which cannot be achieved if they are restricted from working. The rights establishe d in this act will enable those individuals who need a service dog to be in a better position to contribute to our society. They’ll be able to improve their social status and advance their personal aspirations. 2:50 Other jurisdictions have concluded that service dogs have a minimal impact in day-to-day life.

The expectations are that the service dog will be kept obedient in a manner that would be solely, in a public area, for the assistance of the person with a disability. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the intent of Bill 203. It serves to improve the lives of individuals who need service dogs. This act offers the potential for persons with disabilities to gain the respect and dignity that they deserve. Those of us who are not familiar with the struggles of physical disabilities can surely realize the comfort and useful purpose that a service dog provides.

This act addresses a problem that has been well documented in the province of Alberta and several other jurisdictions. It’s time to offer those who face disadvantages a chance to improve their lives. It is in the interests of our province and will benefit many. Bill 203 will demonstrate that our government is continually trying to assist persons with disabilities by allowing them the right to be accompanied by an accredited service dog. I believe that this is a commendable piece of legislation, and it is in our best interest to pass Bill 203. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the next four speakers that have advised me of their desire to participate are the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, then the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, then the Member for Red Deer-North, then the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. If there are others, kindly advise. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be short because there are other people who want to participate in this debate. Again, like others I would congratulate the Member for Strathcona for bringing forward this bill.

It ’s certainly designed to eliminate discrimination based on the fact that a person is dependent on a service dog. We know this can be problematic for certain people. There are bylaws in condo associations and others where you can’t have pets. There are rental places – especially now, with the rent increases and lack of vacancies, this becomes an even more severe problem for people that need service dogs. So it’s a good bill.

I just want to say that ther e could be an unintended loophole, though, that I’d like the member to think about because it allows for the minister to issue identification cards as proof of a service dog’s qualification. My worry there is that, knowing how bureaucracies work sometimes, it may take a long time to get these service cards. People lose them. It seems to me that this could allow some leeway for those that might want to do it to discriminate in case the proof of a qualification isn’t immediately available, and I know that’s not the intention of the act.

I would say that this is a good bill, but maybe the member would take a look at what I’d call a friendly amendment stating something like this: at no point shall the lack of identification issued by the ministry abrogate the rights and responsibilities under

section 3. It seems to me that if we did that, even if they didn’t have the card – it was coming; with the bureaucracy they’d lost it, but it was still coming – that would still not stop the grounds for discrimination. I just throw that out to the member to consider. Other than that, we certainly will support the bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, then followed by the members for Red Deer-North, Cardston-Taber- Warner, Calgary-Hays, and Calgary-Fort. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that animals contribute tremendously to all of our lives. Our dogs, for example, aid us on our farms, help us retain our independence, offer us comfort in time of need, find missing people, and partner with the police in canine units. It’s time to reward the contributions of our animal population and give them the protection and recognition that they deserve, so I thank the Member for Strathcona for bringing Bill 203, Service Dogs Act, to us. I’d like to share a dog story that’s important to our history, not purely a Canadian dog story but one with a Canadian connection.

It took place in 1867, a year that has a certain significance for Canadians and a different significance for Brits. The British, as you probably know, have a reputation as dog lovers, and 1867 was the year a new dog tax and registration were introduced in Britain. In Canada, with our three plus levels of government, such a measure would come in the form of a municipal bylaw. In Britain, where there are no provincial governments except in Northern Ireland, and where dogs are really important, the new dog tax came in a bill introduced in the Mother of Par liaments, at Westminster.

Dog lovers all over the country had strong opinions on this proposed law. They were writing letters and lobbying their MPs, and many of them showed up in the visitors’ gallery the day the bill was to be debated. Now, the same day there was another bill on the Order Paper, for the passage of the British North America Act to join a number of colonies in the New World into a dominion called Canada. The terms of Confederation had been debated back and forth for a long time.

There had been arguments over the name of the new entity, arguments over the division of powers between the central govern- ment and the provinces, and arguments over the makeup of an upper House to be called the Senate. Does this sound familiar? With more than three rounds of bargaining behind them, the Canadian Fathers of Confederation who made it to London for the final reading of the bill were hoping that this would be the final reading.

With Canadians’ penchant for debating constitutional proposals, they were hoping that some backbench member would not throw a monkey wrench into the process by coming up with some new proposal or variation. The Canadians sat, worried, in the gallery with fingers crossed and bated breath. They needn’t have worried. With all of the spectators crowded in for the next bill, on the dog tax, the parliamentarians wouldn’t dare begin any new discussion that would come between British dog owners and their dogs. So Canadian Confederation passed in a matter of minutes.

The MPs yawned as the bill was read, shuffled as it was explained, gave it perfunctory agreement, and saved their speeches and energies for the real business of the day: the dog tax bill that followed. Mr.

April 2, 2007 Alberta Hansard 337 Speaker, we owe the existence of Canada to British dog lovers, and today I would like to return that favour. [Mr. Marz in the chair] In my earlier member’s statement on this topic I talked about the way dogs, working with humans, mirror and enhance our humanity. They draw our attention to moods we barely sense and accept us as their leaders with an unqualified loyalty. In providing finely tuned supports for persons with many kinds of disabilities, they have extended awareness to the ways we all are differently abled.

They show sensitivity to others’ needs in their gentleness to young children. We use the expression “dog eat dog.” It better describes the business world than the canine one. Dogs show greater loyalty than many employers do to their employees and suppliers. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for dogs who work with humans to be able to do their job more effectively, without hindrance, and so helps to limit discrimination toward people who depend on them. Our passing it puts us on the road to a more human society.

In my earlier member’s statement I referred to an Ode to a Dog by Albert Payson Terhune, author of the Lad of Sunnybank stories. Here I’m going to read a part of that poem about canine qualities. Staunch friendship, wanting neither thanks nor fee Safe privilege to worship and to guard: That is their creed. They know no shrewder way To travel through their hour of lifetime here. Would Man but deign to serve his god as they, [The Kingdom would] dawn within the year. Mr.

Speaker, by passing this bill, let us let service dogs do their jobs that they do so well, and let us do the job we need to do: the building of a human society that brings us closer to the kingdom. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very honoured to speak to this private member’s bill, and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strathcona for his efforts over the last five years. People have come to love their dogs so much that some of them have a hard time understanding why anyone would not be willing to welcome a dog in their homes.

As the old saying goes: love me, love my dog. Harry S. Truman also thought that dogs were very important. He said, “Children a nd dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as is Wall Street and the railroads.” Emily Dickinson ranked dogs right up there with human beings. She said, “They are better than human beings because they know but do not tell.” 3:00 As loving and as important as my dogs are to me, they do not serve in the same way that a service dog serves its master.

Whether the master be a young, autistic child, a person who is blind, or a person who is deaf, dogs joyously serve our needs in ways that are amazing. We have all heard the incredible stories of how dogs have saved the lives of family members who would have otherwise slept through a raging fire or a burglary, and we can see in our own communities guide dogs that safely lead those who are blind across busy streets and through crowded sidewalks. Dogs are amazing, and well-trained service dogs are essential to help meet the needs of their masters with disabilities.

I have a constituent in Red Deer-North who has been very active over the last few years working to help people in our community to understand why service dogs for those with hearing impairment require equal rights. Liz Craig often walks in downtown Red Deer with her beautiful, well-trained dog, whose name is Rain, by her side, protecting her and giving her warnings from sounds that he hears that Liz cannot hear. In one sense Liz asks that all service dogs be given the same rights as guide dogs.

I would like to sincerely thank Liz for all that she’s done to help bring legislation forward to recognize these service dogs. She asks that service dogs be given the respect and rights of guide dogs as recognized under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. Bill 203, the Service Dogs Act, will do just that. Bill 203 will enshrine the human right of mobility for those with disability into the laws of our province. Bill 203 is about ensuring that persons with disabilities can succeed and not be discriminated against.

This government has made a commitment to Albertans to consider the needs of the disability community when developing legislation and policy. Bill 203 upholds this government priority. Bill 203 will create legal recognition for service dogs and extend rights to those who rely on service dogs for assistance with everyday tasks. The Blind Persons’ Rights Act guarantees that those who rely on guide dogs are protected from discrimination. The vast majority of Albertans and Alberta businesses recognizes the value of service dogs to the disability community a nd are amenable to their use in public places.

Entrenching the right to use a service dog in law will ensure that this right is applied consistently and systematically. Bill 203 contains provisions to ensure that the use of service dogs in Alberta is effectively regulated, and the potential for abuse of the system is minimal. Also, very importantly, Bill 203 would allow the minister to regulate training schools for service dogs. The regulation of training schools would be bene ficial not only to the disability community but to the general public as well.

Regulating training schools would provide an assurance that the animal is properly trained to meet everyday needs. These regulated training schools could enhance public safety by ensuring that service dogs are prepared to meet the challenges of interacting with people in a variety of settings. They would assist in making sure that service dogs are trained to deal with issu es such as public transportation procedures and emergency scenarios. Bill 203 will help to clear up any confusion regarding the acceptable use of these animals. Some groups have raised concerns about this bill.

There is the possibility that this legislation could cause some confusion due to overlap with the current Human Rights, Citizenship and Multicultur- alism Act. These concerns are valid, but it would be a real tragedy if this legislation did not proceed for this reason. The beauty of legislation is that it is adaptable to changing conditions. If we see a need in the future to improve this legislation, we are able to do that through amendments and changes to regulations. An open, inclusive, and just society is something that we as Albertans highly value.

I urge all members of this Assembly to strongly consider giving their support to this bill. After all, dogs are a person’s best friend, and as my husband often says, they’re the best kind of people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber- Warner. Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to get up and to talk on Bill 203. I applaud the intent of this bill and the many accolades that have been given to dogs. I’m a dog lover. I’m a dog owner. I understand and really appreciate the value of dogs in our society. It helps in many ways.

For such things as the border there are many things where the dog is the most efficient and the best that we can use for finding drugs, firearms, money that’s being smuggled.

Alberta Hansard April 2, 2007338 Then there is the positive aspect in society. For many people that are sick, there’s nothing better than a loyal companion like a dog to help them to recover, and many seniors in their homes place great importance on their dog and the comfort that they give them and also the safety. The list goes on and on.

Many members here have spoken to the benefits of dogs, but due to time shortage and to try and be quick, I’ll make my remarks brief and talk about the other side, where I have a few concerns and think maybe we need some friendly amendments in order to protect the rights of all Canadians. Our freedom and rights as individuals generally end where they infringe on other people’s freedoms and rights. We always need to look at that and be careful when we want to entrench a so-called new right that we think someone has been neglected in having. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is for people with allergies.

There are many people that have allergies to dogs. I’ll use the example of a restaurant owner. Perhaps his whole family works in that restaurant, and they’re allergic to dogs. If we entrench this to where they cannot protect their own rights, what’s going to happen in a situation like that? If a dog comes into a restaurant like that, then all of a sudden the owners and the workers are put in a situation where they’re having a terrible attack, and they can do nothing about it because this law is written such that they have no rights.

So my concern is that there needs to be some sort of little amendment in here that would address the rights of owners, workers, and other areas that are allergic to dogs and could have perhaps even a life-threatening situation in the presence of one. Somehow there needs to be a balance where that courtesy, that respect, that under- standing is extended out, and people’s rights are protected. It’s not that we want to stop service dogs from going everywhere, but there are those rare occasions when there are circumstances.

If this law is passed and written in stone such that they now have the absolute right to go anywhere and everywhere they desire to go, we are infringing and perhaps putting other people in danger because of that. So I would like to see a little bit of softening of the wording on where they can go, like I say, for businesses and owners to be able to have a little bit of courtesy and respect for their rights for those things that are affecting their health. But on the whole, like I say, I love dogs. I’m a dog owner.

I think the intent of this bill is excellent, but we need to look at those who it maybe isn’t excellent for in the way the wording is and respect those people. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to join the discussion on the Service Dogs Act, 2007, introduced by the hon. Member for Strathcona. I support Bill 203 b ecause it clarifies the ambiguities concerning the rights and responsibilities involved in the utilization of service dogs.

No legislation specifically addresses the use of service dogs by physically disabled persons in need of assistance. Many people who use service dogs have been faced with uncomfortable and avoidable situations stemming from the vague- ness of the rights of these people. People with disabilities face additional, unnecessary burdens due to the general public’s lack of knowledge regarding the nature of service dogs. People seem to be less informed about the myriad of daily tasks service dogs help the physically disabled complete. Albertans are fully aware of the extent to which guide dogs assist blind persons.

There is a need to clarify the rights of those who use service dogs in order to allow the physically disabled to utilize service dogs so they, too, can receive help in completing essential tasks throughout their days. Since there is no clear legislation addressing service dogs, the public has not come to a consensus on which protocols to follow. Each situation appears to be dealt with on an individual basis with no set standards. Mr.

Speaker, if Bill 203 is enacted, it would no longer be unintentionally left in the hands of the general public to determine if persons accompanied by service dogs can enter certain establishments. Bill 203 would empower those of us who use these dogs as they would have clear and solid documents to present if their rights were being contested. 3:10 Clarification of the rights of persons with service dogs is impor- tant as it will strengthen their rights; for example, renting an apartment, entering grocery stores, or having equal access to public spaces.

The Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act is intended to provide protection for physically disabled individuals who need the use of service dogs. It is currently the only protective measure set in place to safeguard the rights of physically disabled persons who use service dogs. Provisions are often unclear regarding the recourse if the right to be accompanied by a service dog is denied. Protection under the act has proven to be insufficient. Local police currently lack a standard for enforcing the provision of the act, and more cases go to the human rights court because of the lack of clarity.

It often takes extended periods of time for the cour ts to rule on complaints filed under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Bill 203 would ensure that persons with disabilities have the legal right to be accompanied by an accredited service dog in all areas open to the general public, free of discrimination, no questions asked. Mr. Speaker, with the enactment of Bill 203 it would be clearly against the law to ask someone accompanied by a service dog to leave a public area. Confusion would be eliminated, and their rights could not be denied if they were explicitly outlined in legislation.

The Blind Persons’ Rights Act cl early establishes the rights of blind people and prohibits discriminatory practice against persons accompanied by guide dogs. Most people and organizations understand that guide dogs for the visually impaired are protected under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, but most do not necessarily understand that the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act does the same for persons with disabilities accompanied by service dogs. The Blind Persons’ Rights Act sets the precedent for explicit rights regarding use of service dogs for all the physically disabled community.

Provisions in Bill 203 include references to service dogs them- selves. This provision would make it illegal to ask someone to keep their service dog outside while in a public area. The bil

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20070402
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20070402 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fca413edbd1564ece3e954c61e9b936b432e8d9c

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