Laurie in Debate
Bill 41: Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007
Alberta Hansard – November 14, 2007
Bill 41: Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 Second Reading debate in the 26th Legislature of Alberta, 3rd Session by Ms. Laurie Blakeman, MLA Edmonton-Centre
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, this is one of these interesting bills that you see occasionally coming from the government which has something good in it, and then that is balanced by bad things in it. We were willing to support the government in the amendments that they are proposing in Bill 41, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, in providing clarity and certainty around the situation that arose specifically with the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Vegreville in which there was uncertainty about who was supposed to report to whom or even if there was a requirement to do that. I am a fan of certainty, particularly where public health is involved, so those amendments and the section that contains those amendments I’m certainly willing to support as the shadow minister for Health and Wellness.
I have not heard any complaints from any section of the health professions or members of the public who weren’t supportive of this. I think it helps everybody to know exactly what the expectations are and that they’re laid out clearly: what are the lines of communication, what is the timing around it, and who’s supposed to do it to whom? That kind of clarity is very helpful.
We certainly had a scare around infection control both in Lloydminster and Vegreville earlier this year. It scared a lot of us and really brought into high relief the need to have those lines of clarity and authority. Certainly, the Health Quality Council report, from which flows much of the legislation that the minister has referred to, was pointing that out. In addition, when we look at some things like a pandemic preparation, as the minister alluded to at the end of his remarks, that is one of the key ingredients. It is around clear lines of communication and clarity of roles and responsibilities. So the first section that appears in Bill 41 under Public Health Threat and the changes that flow through the Health Professions Act and others I think: we have no problem with that. That’s the good. Now the bad. A number of members of the health profession took advantage of the policy field committee public consultations to come and present, and I’m glad that they did. They were able to get their concerns well on the record. I may repeat some of those concerns, but I think it’s important to have them laid out in this House. I think the second part of this, specifically what’s included in section 135 that’s being amended, is pernicious, the part that’s under Part 8.1, Direction, Support and Variation, specifically the minister’s direction under 135.1 and everything that follows after that. I know that the College of Physicians and Surgeons really objects to this, and frankly so do I. This I think is an excessive reaction to the situations that arose. This is granting the minister an unwarranted extension of powers, and it is unwarranted.
Further, it fundamentally challenges the concept of self-regulation, and that is what we were trying to set up under the Health Professions Act. We have these professions. They’re experts in their field. We recognize their right, essentially, to self-regulate and that they are the best people to be doing it. Then what we have is this overlay from the minister that says: well, yeah, all of that’s true except if I decide that it isn’t. So I would argue that this sort of thing fundamentally challenges that whole concept of self-regulation and all the other things that fall under that new Health Professions Act. It’s all about self-regulation. They’ve made every possible health profession conform to that by setting up a college, an association, a series of criteria for meeting standards in the profession, for self-regulating on discipline procedures, on training, on ongoing, lifelong evaluation of professional qualifications and practice. We’ve done all of this work to set this up. We’ve been operating under that assumption. It’s worked pretty well for us so far, and now we have this overlay where the minister can basically interject himself into any component and for no good reason. The reasons that the minister has laid out are not good enough, not to make that kind of a change in what we have in a system that’s working pretty well for us, not perfectly but, you know, pretty well.
I think there are a number of possibilities that arise out of a change like that. For example, how keen will the pressure be to capitulate on a negotiation in another area to avoid having the minister decide that this is such an enormous case that they’re going to have to invoke these powers and come in? Pretty strong. I can speak from experience on that one. The not-for-profit sector in this province has been under enormous pressure to be careful, not to make too much noise, not to distress the government by pushing too hard on certain advocacy things because they held all the money strings in a lot of cases.
[The Deputy Speaker in the chair]
I think we can look not too far in the province for other examples where the government has not played ball on this kind of thing and where there is a coercion factor that comes into play. You know what? Sometimes that’s our own fault, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we self-censor. Sometimes we make choices about our organizations or our companies in fear of some sort of interference from the government because they have the power to do it. Okay. That’s our fault. We shouldn’t have self-censored ourselves or made decisions based on that. But you know what? We do it because of fear. We do it because the government has already given itself the power to interfere with us. That’s what’s wrong with the whole second section of what’s anticipated in this act, in Bill 41.
The minister says: oh, we’re not really going to use these powers; you know, this is just really for an unanticipated extreme emergency.
Well, you know what? If the powers are not to be used, they should not be legislated. The government surely has another way to deal with this problem. If this extreme, far-reaching, highly unlikely situation is ever going to arise, then they have a number of other tools at their disposal. This makes it too easy, and it’s too darn tempting.
I think we’ve seen a couple of other examples where we have major conceptual legislation that gets adjusted a bit by this government and as a result other things happen that, I hope, were not anticipated, but perhaps they were. You know, the idea of collective bargaining that got tinkered with when the government in negotiating with CNRL changed the division 8 labour code. That has now allowed for changes in master agreements. So there’s an example of where they gave themselves the power. They changed something that was conceptual legislation, and then they’ve gone back and used it not for good but for evil, I would argue, if I may paraphrase, Mr. Speaker.
Where is another example? Well, that would be around the confined feedlot operators, where they tinkered with it and allowed those to be closer to things like schools and communities. You know, we can find examples of where this very same government, these very same people – not 25 years ago, Mr. Speaker, not 40 years ago or 70 years ago, but this group of people – have made changes in other substantial pieces of conceptual legislation, and that resulted in them then coming back and using it, again, I would say, not for good but for evil.
What underlying problem is being solved by the changes that the minister would like to see in this legislation? Again I’m not talking about the beginning part, about the public health, about that clarity. I’m talking about the other sections, where the minister is now able to go in and arbitrarily change regulation power and a number of other powers that are delegated now or are allowed to be evoked by self-regulatory organizations. What powers and what problem is being solved by this? I don’t think the minister was able to articulate exactly. It’s all sort of, “Well, maybe it’s this,” or “ Maybe it’s that,” or “ I could imagine possibly at some point in the future.” Uh- uh, uh-uh. That is not what legislation is for: some whimsical, magical, possible thing in the future. It has to be more concrete than that to be giving itself such enormous power.
If it’s not a problem that’s being solved, then what policy issue is being addressed through this? Again, I can’t see what policy issue is being addressed. What policy issue needed to be advocated that’s now being addressed by the minister giving himself powers to be able to go in and arbitrarily change self-regulatory groups? Again, that can’t be answered.
I heard the minister say: well, this was being done for what if or role of assurance. Well, again that brings up the issues of trust. This government continues to give itself very expansive powers, especially through regulations, which are not open to scrutiny by this Assembly. The discussions and reasons behind it do not appear in Hansard. They’re not streamed through live audio or through live video streaming on the Internet. The citizens and the members of the opposition have no ability to scrutinize the government on why they arrived at those particular decisions. It’s behind closed doors, and for the kind of changes that are being anticipated here, that is inappropriate.
There are a couple of things really wrong around those issues of trust. There are issues around transparency and accountability. What kind of report back do we get if the minister decides that he wants to come in and do this? What sort of accountability and transparency do we the public or members of the opposition in this House on behalf of the public get to have to scrutinize when the minister decides to do this? It’s not there, Mr. Speaker, and that is wrong.
There also need to be checks and balances on power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This government continues to give itself more and more intrusive powers into every aspect of our lives. That is inappropriate, and we the people have to curb that power. That’s part of the push back that citizens should have against a government. They should be able to advocate to keep the government in check, and so is it the role of the opposition to do that.
I will not support this legislation as it stands. As I said at the beginning, I’m more than willing to support the public health concerns that were being addressed because of the confusion that arose over those situations that started with St. Joe’s hospital and then moved beyond that last spring. But the second part of what’s anticipated in this legislation is inappropriate. It’s more than that. It is pernicious. I don’t trust this government with that kind of power. I’m not willing to give them that kind of power if I can’t trust them with it. I have enough examples in front of me of where that government took that kind of power before and then did things that were against the tenor of what was expected out of that, and I feel they misused and abused that. I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that.
An Hon. Member: Do you have some examples?
Ms Blakeman: I gave the two examples, if the member was listening. He’s welcome to check with Hansard.
I won’t support it because this is being made unilaterally. I don’t like it being made through regs, which this government tends to do. There are other opportunities for the government to react to pandemic situations. This kind of power should be used only as a last resort, and I don’t see anything on the horizon that would justify the minister giving himself and the government that kind of power at this point in time.
I will look at amendments for this, but I do not think what’s being anticipated here is appropriate in any way, shape, or form.
Thank you.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog