April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 651 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 3, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/04/03 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Welcome back. Please join me in the prayer. Father, on this day of a new beginning we ask for Your guidance in the responsibility we have undertaken and Your help in fulfilling our duties. As Members of this Legislative Assembly may we faithfully serve all Albertans and, in serving them, serve You. Amen.

Hon. members, would you please remain standing so that we might now participate in the singing of our national anthem, and we’ll ask Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us. 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. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here signed by Edmontonians and surrounding area residents that is urging the government “to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition signed by 281 people in the Glendon, Ashmont, Bonnyville, Mallaig area. They are petitioning “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition supporting public health care in Alberta urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” This is on behalf of 221 Albertans from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Gibbons, Bon Accord, Gunn, and St. Albert. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition signed by 327 Edmontonians, and this petition urges the Legislative Assembly and the government “to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition signed by 244 residents of Edmonton and St. Albert, mostly from my constituency of Edmonton-Calder, and they “urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It’s a real pleasure for me today to stand and present a petition to the Legislature. This is a petition organized by Debbie Dore on behalf of her daughter Tara McDonald, and this petition asks that the Legislative Assembly require “a minimum of two people” for nighttime shifts in businesses in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition signed by another 359 Albertans from Westlock, Leduc, Stony Plain, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Sherwood Park, and Fort Saskatchewan.

This brings the total number of signatures on this petition to 8,409. The petition calls on the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table today in the House five copies of an information bulletin regarding Information Rights Week, which runs April 3 through 10.

This week is initiated by the Canadian Library Association to create awareness of any citizen’s rights to information as well as protection of their privacy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Gaming. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish today to table appropriate copies of letters to Mr. Les Pearson, principal of the William Aberhart high school and also to Mr. David Oakleaf, the school council chair for William Aberhart high school. It’s a letter expressing my personal condolences and sense of loss on the tragedy at William Aberhart high school and an offer of any assistance, should it be necessary.

Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two sets of tablings. The first one is an analysis of Shouldice Hospital Limited in Ontario. This is an analysis which points out that Shouldice is an anomaly, a throwback, grandparented before public medicare was brought in, and there are no private hospitals pe rmitted in this province by the Private Hospitals Act. That’s the first one. The second is several letters, Mr. Speaker, all opposed to Bill 11, one of them coming from the Premier’s own constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford.

652 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three sets of tablings today. The first one is a number of letters and e-mails from residents that are very, very unhappy with the government’s direction in terms of health care, and I’ll just read their names: Elizabeth Eddy, Mark Henderson, Wesley Eddy, Mike Hanna, Joan Leslie, Tanya Seh, Peter Stevenson, Fred Debre. Secondly, I have sufficient copies of a letter from residents of Sherwood Park who would be very delighted to have a public debate on Bill 11.

Thirdly, I have a letter from Abe Fehr, who is part of a new organization to hold representatives accountable, including their voting pattern on Bill 11. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one tabling this afternoon. It’s a letter to Elinor Caplan, the minister of immigration in support of Leticia Cables, the Filipino nanny that was recently deported. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have two sets of tablings.

The first is from Frances Jablonca of Calgary, and the second is from July Lenek, also of Calgary. Both of them are opposed to the proposed development in Kananaskis Country and would like to bring this matter to the attention of the Premier. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to rise and table five copies of the 1999-2000 annual report for Edmonton- Riverview.

This report was mailed to all of the 20,000 constituents that reside in Edmonton-Riverview over the last week, and it provides an accounting of the services and expenditures incurred by the constituency in the last fiscal year. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 1:40 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. Both of them are from constituents of Edmonton- Gold Bar. The first one is from Mr. Ivan Whitson, and it is a letter addressed to the Premier. Bill 11 does not fool Mr. Whitson.

The second tabling is from Phyllis La Fleur on 52nd Street, and this is also a letter to the Premier. She is very disappointed in Bill 11. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today, sir. Both reflect the concerns of themselves over the developments in Spray Valley and Kananaskis Country. The one from Ms Louise Ewadinger is in fact opposed mainly b ecause of the grizzly bear population in the transit zone there. The second is also concerning that same development, the Spray Lakes development. It is a letter to Mr.

Gobi Singh from two Calgary residents Kathryn Fisher and Gerry Stewart, both expressing the desire that the development be stopped. Thank you, sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of a document prepared by the condominium advocate association. This is a very thorough collection of recommendations for amendments to Bill 16 around the Condominium Property Amendment Act. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I would like to table the appropriate number of copies of a legal package which examines the WCB act, the duties and responsibilities of the board of directors. As well, this legal package also offers a number of recommendations. Thank you very much. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I’m pleased to introduce a group of 43 from Calgary. They are parents and children from the CCHEA home school. One of the families is from my constituency of Calgary-Lougheed.

This is in fact the first school group that I’ve had the privilege of introducing in the Legislature. The parents and children are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d like to introduce them and would request that they stand after they’ve been introduced and that we provide them with the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly upon doing so. They are Mrs. Sharon Cassley and family, Mrs. Tracy Good and family, Mrs. Cheryl Eadon and family, Mrs. Sandy Widmer and family, Mrs. Patti Boser and family, Mr. and Mrs. Brad Osborne and family, Mrs. Harriet Paul and family, Mrs. Shirley Ann Wensley and family, Mrs.

Dianne Conway and family, and finally Mrs. Carrol Zacher and family. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly some guests who are with us today from the town of Foremost in southeastern Alberta. They’re constituents of the Minister of Innovation and Science, so I’ll be introducing them on his behalf. I’d like to introduce to you Kelly Calhoun, who is the mother of Donnie and JamieMay Calhoun.

The Calhouns have been in Edmonton for the weekend and extended their stay so that they would have an opportunity to tour the Legislative Assembly. This morning I met briefly with them at lunch in the cafeteria, so they had the grand tour and even had a chance to sample our cuisine. They’re seated in the members’ gallery. I ask all members to give them a warm welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly 51 very special guests from Tofield high school accompa- nied by very dedicated teachers, Ms Trish Loner and of course Mr. Fred Yachimec, who has visited the Assembly before. They’re seated in both galleries. I would ask all of them to rise now and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly.

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 653 THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. Two introductions today. The first one: 28 grade 10 high school students from Concordia high school located in Edmonton-Highlands, and they’re accompanied by two adults, Mr. Lloyd Grosfield and Mrs. Barb Patricio. I think they are sitting on both sides of the Hous e. I’ll ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The second set of introductions, Mr. Speaker, are two y oung Albertans, Melissa Johnson and Kevin Flesher. Both of them are my constituents.

During the noon hour today Melissa MC’d the citizens vigil rally on the steps of the Legislature, and Kevin Flesher composed a song and sang it to the same rally. I would ask both of them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Private Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The evidence is clear. Petitions, town hall meetings, and poll after poll: Albertans do not want Bill 11 by odds of 3 to 1.

The Angus Reid poll just released over the weekend indicates that the more people know about Bill 11, the more they oppose it. My questions today are to the minister of health. Can the minister tell us whether he and the Premier are withholding any government-funded reports or studies that would strengthen public opposition to Bill 11? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the

preamble should not go uncommented upon. There are other polls and other reports; for instance, “Exclusive poll indicates opposition to Klein plan eroding.” So there are different perspectives in terms of the polling. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the overall budgetary commitment to publicizing the bill and providing supporting material, there has been an overall commitment to report on the costs of our overall commu- nication program, and that has been stated previously in this Assembly. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, the minister didn’t answer the question, which was whether there were any government-funded reports or studies, one of which I’m pleased to table today. The study was, in fact, sponsored by the government and obviously suppressed for reasons which will become apparent, because the March 2000 study says, “There is no published study of the effi- ciency (i.e. cost and quality) of the purchase of surgical services from private facilities by public funders.” Have the minister and the Premier suppressed this report to Albertans b ecause it leads to further opposition to Bill 11? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, we’ve had questions in the Assembly previously with respect to what has happened in the province with respect to contracting out. The examples we have right now are the surgical eye clinics in Calgary. We have indicated that the Calgary regional health authority reports that they are having more proce- dures done under the current contract arrangement for the same financial commitment from their budget as was previously the case. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, is this minister saying that he is unaware of a government-funded study by Dr.

Cam Donaldson and Gillian Currie commissioned by his department to look into the issue of private surgical facilities? 1:50 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the overall information that we have is that it’s very hard to quote any particular cases and evidence here in Alberta because at this point in time we do not, except for the exceptional case of the cataract clinics in Calgary, have these clinics that she’s referring to. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, the report says that the work presented in this report was funded by the Institute of Health Economics through a grant by Alberta Health and Wellness.

Is the minister aware or is he not aware of a report commissioned by his department? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Institute of Health Econom- ics is a

section of the University of Alberta. With respect to studies that are done in this particular area, I have portrayed the situation correctly, and that is that in terms of examples here in this province, we do not have private surgical clinics under contract except for the exceptions that I’ve mentioned. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province told this Legislature on March 8, “If we had something to hide, if we had something to be afraid of, we would have kept this from the public.” Was he referring to the government’s suppression of this report paid for by their own department? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member across the way indicated in her

preamble, she is saying that this is a government report. It’s done through the office of health economics over at the University of Alberta, as I recall. That is part of the research that they do. Yes, we do provide funding to the University of Alberta. I think everybody is well aware of that. MRS. MacBETH: So, Mr. Speaker, with 72 percent of Albertans saying that health is their top concern in Alberta and with the Bill 11 initiative under way, how could this minister not know about the report commissioned with taxpayers’ money? Who is running the show? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do have to admit that I agree with the hon. leader, and health care is a top concern of Albertans at 72 percent. That seems to be a commonly quoted statistic. I would also like to indicate to the hon. member in the Assembly that in polling responses as reported in our Alberta Health and Wellness documents, 80 percent feel that they’re getting a very good health care system provided to them in this province. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is quite an incredible revelation that the minister doesn’t know about his own report. But let’s go into the report, the one that was funded by his department.

Given that the Premier told Albertans in his November 1999 TV address that there would not be two-tiered, American style health care in our province, why does his own government-funded research paper say that “forms of two-tierism” are likely to arise? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, as I heard the hon. member’s state- ment, she is admitting that the report has not found any particular examples of two-tier services to Albertans and is making a state- ment, an opinion, which is not usually considered part of research; that is that in the opinion, I guess, of the author, it could arise, is likely to arise, if that’s a correct quote. But I think the actual implication of her having to go to that question is that the report does not indicate there is two-tiered service here.

654 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, how can Albertans believe a minister of health or a Premier that claims that Bill 11 is n’t about padding profit margins when his own paper funded by his depart- ment says that sources of revenue other than from RHAs may be needed for private hospitals to survive financially? What is the minister’s response to those kinds of issues in his own funded report? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that in her own reading of the report, she has indicated that the author chooses to speculate and to say: may this, may that.

Bill 11 has a very specific clause saying that there shall be no private hospitals in Alberta, and I think that is quite significant. Of course, that does not fit in with the tactics or the approach of the opposition, but the bill that we are going to be debating shortly in this Legisla- ture is a very protective piece of legislation. No private hospitals, a whole set of other prov isions in the bill designed, for instance, to deal with any possibility of excess charges and improper procedures for enhanced services and supplies: that is very much the theme of that legislation. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, Albertans know what this govern- ment is saying. What they don’t trust is what this government is doing in Bill 11. Mr. Speaker, I quote again from this government-funded review: our review has shown that “private facilities, generally, provide faster access to those who can pay and . . . do offer enhanced services.” How can this minister stand here and tell Albertans that his bill isn’t going to do enhanced services, two-tiered health care, and on and on? MR. HAVELOCK: Point of order. MR.

JONSON: Because Bill 11 has specific provisions in it to deal with the whole matter of preventing queue-jumping, preventing being able to get faster service by virtue of any ability to pay. That is a very important part of this legislation. As I’ve said before, it bans full-service private hospitals, Mr. Speaker. It has a number of other controls and recording procedures designed to provide for more openness with respect to any contracts that might be arrived at.

It has a set of criteria designed to protect the public interest with respect to what factors a regional health authority must consider in terms of approving any contract. It is, as it’s aptly named, the health protection act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite asking a leading question that didn’t even mention overnight patient stays, a solid majority of Albertans are found by a recent Calgary Herald Angus Reid poll to oppose Bill 11.

The poll also shows that what little support the government has is soft while the opposition to Bill 11 is rock solid. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Why hasn’t the minister sent an angry letter criticizing the Calgary Herald like he did last week with A-Channel when the spin-doctored question asked by the Herald was clearly designed to underestimate public opposition to Bill 11? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in terms of responding to surveys, I reserve the opportunity to comment on polls and their methodology if it is felt they are not appropriate, not accurate, not s ound.

If the Calgary Herald were to do a poll or use methodology which we questioned, I would certainly communicate with them. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the minister another question. Why won’t the minister admit that the more Albertans find out about Bill 11, the less they like it, as evidenced by this weekend’s poll which shows that Albertans who have read Bill 11 strongly oppose it by a margin of 3 to 1? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, we could certainly at some other time have a debate about the

interpretation of various polls that are taken. My

interpretation of recent polls over the weekend is something that, of course, is very good and in keeping with our intent as far as government is concerned, and that is that more people are indicating they feel fully informed with respect to the legislation. In terms of debating what the different trends may mean, that is illustrated by the

article that I quoted from previously. There are different

interpretations of the data that’s coming in, but certainly one that I don’t think is being argued with is that more Albertans are availing themselves of the information that’s available, and that is what the government’s intention is. 2:00 DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why is the government refusing to listen to the overwhelming majority of Albertans, including the president of the Capital Region Medical Staff Associa- tion, who last week described the government’s proposal to contract out overnight surgeries as dumb, disastrous, and a threat to patient safety? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I’m not aware of that particular comment by – was it the chair of the Edmonton medical staff association? But I am aware – and it has been recorded in this House – that there are a number of prominent physicians who feel that the legislation is appropriate and will be of advantage to the overall health care system in this province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Violent Crime MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents in Edmonton- Castle Downs are bolting down the hatches and ducking for cover.

It seems like the only thing to do as a result of the recent rash of shootings. This is not the only area in the city of Edmonton to have seen the escalation of violent acts either by gang-related or nongang- related individuals. People are afraid to move freely about the streets of our city as they don’t want to be an i nnocent bystander involved in one of these random drive-by shootings. Newspapers are filling pages detailing shootings, stabbings, robberies, and gang activities that are occurring in our city and across the province. My questions are to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Are you working to find solutions to resolve the gang or nongang violence that is occurring almost daily? If you are, Albertans want to know what steps you have taken. When are we going to see an end to this violence? MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That may be all three questions in one; I don’t know. Let me, first of all, deal with the

preamble to the question, because I wouldn’t want the public of Alberta or the citizens of Edmonton to believe what I believe to be a gross overexaggeration of the situation that has just been put forward. The streets in Edmonton are safe. Our communities are safe. There have been a few violent incidents. That happens in larger municipal centres, but let’s not overexaggerate it. The citizens of Edmonton are not bolting for cover, are not battening

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 655 down the hatches, and are not hiding from people in this city. This is a safe city. We have had a few incidents. Now, to get to the details of the question. In November of 1998 an organized crime strategy was announced, and the provincial government put, I believe, $8 million into that strategy. That strategy is working, Mr. Speaker. For example, there’s a trial to begin this fall in September with respect to one of the major actions that has been taken against gangs in this province.

The city of Edmonton police are working closely with the RCMP and other police jurisdictions around the province to deal with incidences of organized crime and gangs. There’s good co-operation happening, good information-sharing happening, but I want to end where I started by saying: let’s not exaggerate the situation and scare the citizens of Alberta. There are a few incidents that are happening, but our streets are still safe. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but in fact I’ve had more calls on this incident than on health care.

My first supplementary to the same minister: have you been communicating with the federal Justice minister to stop the availabil- ity of illegal firearms coming into the hands of our criminal element? MR. HANCOCK: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t spoken directly with the federal Minister of Justice on that issue. I know that our departments talk all the time on i ssues, but with respect to the question of importation of firearms, that’s clearly a federal jurisdic- tion. MS PAUL: My second supplementary to the same minister.

The Premier offered financial assistance to the former Edmonton chief of police in dealing with gang-related incidents, which you know was refused. Is this offer still on the table? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is speculat- ing from a news story that was printed early in January. I’m not sure that there was an incident of a specific offer of cash made. I think it was probably a response to questions relating to: if more resources were needed to combat organized crime in this province, would more resources be available? Of course, this government is very committed to combating organized crime.

It’s one of my depart- ment’s clear objectives. It’s a high priority area, and we will put forward the resources necessary to appropriately combat organized crime in this province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Seniors’ Benefit Program MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta is most defi- nitely benefiting from a very strong economy under the leadership of this government, I might note, and the majority of our seniors lead active, independent lives.

However, there are low-income seniors who are receiving help from our income s upport program who are having a difficult time covering rising costs, especially with rent, gas, and other services basic to shelter costs. My question is to the Minister of Community Development. What are you planning to do about this concern? MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s worthy to note that Alberta has the highest threshold of qualification dollarwise of any jurisdiction in Canada, meaning that we bring in and start to assist seniors at the highest income level anywhere in Canada.

That’s within the context of the advantages that you have in Alberta. In addition, this year we will have a minimum increase of 10 percent to every individual who is receiving Alberta seniors’ benefit payments at this point in time. That will be coming forward with the approvals very, very shortly. The other aspect, Mr. Speaker, that I think it’s worthy to note is that Alberta is the only province with a special-needs program that addresses the very issues that have been brought forward by the hon. member.

I would like to point out that we have increased the staff there, increased the budget to this program with the intention of having a much shorter wait time to have approvals for the program. I’d like to also note that the program this year has served some 6,000 people with an average payout of about $2,700, which is consider- ably less than the $5,000 maximum that would be available if they can show need. MS KRYCZKA: Mr. Speaker, my first supplemental is to the same minister.

Given that it is generally agreed that shelter costs are higher in some areas of the province than others – for example, in Calgary and Fort McMurray – are you considering a review of the Alberta seniors’ benefit program to accommodate higher shelter costs in some areas of the province? Thank you. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware that in places like Canmore, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, and to some degree Calgary – anywhere you have a high degree of economic activity, shelter costs go up across the board.

We’ve been looking at this program to see what we can do, but I think it’s worthy to note that currently the province provides some 23,000 government- funded housing units in the province. These range from lodges and cottages to self-contained apartments. Quite frankly, eligibility is based on need, but I might reiterate that if people are finding themselves in dire straits, they can apply to the special-needs program. MS KRYCZKA: Mr. Speaker, my second supplemental is again to the same minister.

Given that some middle-income seniors are just above the threshold cutoff between low- and middle-income levels and feel somewhat disadvantaged, are their concerns justified considering Alberta’s total benefit plan for seniors in relation to the plans of other provinces? MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite known that Alberta has the best programs for seniors of any jurisdiction. That can be shown statistically, comparatively, any way you want to look at it. I’d also like to point out that there were some 306,000 seniors in Alberta as of September of 1999.

If you take one aspect, simply the health care premium, of those, 130,000 have the premium totally paid for; another 50,000 have a partial payment towards it. Quite frankly, we will be looking further at what we can do to aid seniors. We’re constantly in a review process, making sure we stay ahead of the needs of the seniors to see that they live comfortably and securely in this province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. 2:10 Private Health Services (continued) DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no evidence to show any benefit from the contracting out of surgical operations to private

656 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 hospitals. The government claims that under Bill 11 regional health authorities will have to show thr ough a cost-benefit analysis that contracting out surgical procedures to approved surgical facilities will be more cost-effective. My questions are to the minister of health.

Why should Albertans trust anything this government says about the cost-effectiveness of private providers under Bill 11 when the report from the Institute of Health Economics done for his own department says that “it seems that in no country is there a system in place to monitor costs, quality of care or outcomes in private providers”? MR. JONSON: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is and should be, I think, quite clear to the hon. member, and that is that we are bringing under the auspices of provincial legislation and through a contracting process the provision of surgical facilities under contract.

In the legislation, as the hon. member has acknowledged through referring to one clause among many that deal with setting the rules and parameters and controls around contacts, we will have the ability to control through a contract and through the criteria through which that contract has to be arrived at the overall funds to be dedicated to that particular contract. It also, therefore, sets the situation whereby that contract will be able to be monitored. It will be able to be costed. It will able to be evaluated, Mr. Speaker, as the overall health care system is subject to accountability measures.

So the reference to countries or other places in the world where they have a freestanding, so to speak, private health care system is really not relevant to what is contem- plated in Bill 11. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the study points out on page 4 that people in rural areas tend to have lower access to health care than urban residents, the report then goes on to ask “whether the Alberta proposal would exacerbate this situation so that conditions and access would not be reasonable or uniform ar ound major urban centres,” why is the government proceeding with this privatization plan? MR.

JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am fairly familiar with the rural areas of this province, and it is certainly the case, as has been acknowledged, that the full range of services cannot practically be delivered in every rural part of this province. We take the overall strategy that in our regional hospitals and in the specialized hospitals in Edmonton and Calgary we planned and we fund a wide range of very difficult, needed services which just cannot be practically provided in every centre in the province.

Bill 11 is designed to provide an option whereby in a site or in an area where there is sufficient volume and need for a specialized surgical service, it can be done under contract if, in the terms of the overall assessment that’s done of a proposal, it is deemed to be an advantage for all Albertans in terms of reducing waiting lists or providing a service. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The same study on page 17 states that there are serious issues and questions raised regarding the Alberta experience with private provision of a publicly funded service, which should be investigated seriously by a government considering further extensions of private provision. Will the government withdraw Bill 11 until such investigations are complete? MR. JONSON: As I’ve indicated in this Assembly before and I think all members of the Assembly are well aware, in terms of the delivery of services in the overall health sector it has been for decades and is today, Mr.

Speaker, a mixture of totally publicly run facilities and services, the voluntary sector – our voluntary hospitals, for instance, operate across this province – and the private sector has been involved. There is high-quality service being provided by all of those sectors. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. National Infrastructure Program MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government has announced its intent to establish a new infrastructure program requiring funding participation from the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government. Since the federal budget announce- ment many questions have been raised about this program by municipalities in my constituency and others throughout the province. My first question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Should municipalities be budgeting now for this program, and if so, what information is available to both the province and municipalities to enable both levels to do so in a responsible manner? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: In the past the federal, provincial, and municipal infrastructure program has been a very, very successful program. Mr. Speaker, it might be wise for municipalities to consider their mid to longer range planning and priorize what their needs may be. Unfortunately, at the present time we have very little information regarding this partic ular program and absolutely less detail, so we’re not in a position to provide any advisement as to the nature of this program at the present time.

It remains a question as to just when this information will come forward and whether indeed that information will be here in time for this coming year’s budget. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. My second question is to the same minister. While you have said that there is very little information, I’m wondering if you might enlarge upon what the individual municipalities might be eligible to receive? MR. PASZKOWSKI: As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, there are very few details and very little information regarding this program.

What we do know is that the federal government has said that it will provide $100 million for the year 2000-2001 budget, $350 million for the year 2001-2002 budget and $550 million for the four years following that. These moneys would need to be matched by the province as well as the municipalities. However, I should point out that the details are certainly not there and are very, very sketchy at the present time. Mr. Speaker, it’s completely unknown as to what portion Alberta will receive as well.

We would be assuming that we would be receiving approximately 10 percent, which would be on a per capita basis, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be the case. If that were the case, if we received 10 percent of the overall on a per capita basis, that means that Alberta would qualify for something like $205 million over the six-year period of this program. There- fore, municipalities would be asked to contribute on an equal basis.

When you put it into the perspective that indeed the federal govern- ment collects well over $600 million a year in fuel tax alone, $205 million over six years certainly is not what we consider a fair share to be returned to this province: to the municipalities or to the province. Obviously there are some major anomalies in the overall program. Nevertheless, we’re still awaiting the details as they may come forward.

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 657 MR. JOHNSON: My final question is to the Minister of Infrastruc- ture. Can he advise as to what process will be used in finalizing details of the federal infrastructure program? In light of recent federal actions in the agriculture sector will Alberta be included? MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will do our very best to negotiate an amount of the expected dollars that were announced recently by the minister responsible for infrastructure. If it’s done on a population basis, it should be at least 10 percent.

However, there has been some talk now in circles in Ottawa that they would be looking at block funding for individual provinces and then do some part of the residual amount in a population grant. That would be grossly unfair. This is the province where we see a large increase in wealth, and it’s the wealth that’s being produced here in the province that’s taxed by the federal government and goes back to Ottawa. 2:20 So at the end of the day we hope that we see a fair share, at least 10 percent, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, 10 percent of the $100 million in the first year is $10 million.

We would hope that all of that goes directly in to very hard infrastructure: roads, water projects. No Zambonis this time; we’re out of that business. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Private Health Services (continued) MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans realize that the Premier and his Minister of Health and Wellness have been less than forthright about their plan to privatize our health care system. [interjections] That’s what’s happening.

Today we had yet another example from one of the government’s own reports which contra- dicts what the minister and the Premier have been trying to tell us. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Why should Albertans trust this minister’s claim that their private health care scheme will reduce costs and waiting lists when your own report says that “there were no comparative studies of effects on costs per day, cost per case, total hospital costs, quality of care or health outcome”? Where’s your evidence for Bill 11? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, they seem to quote selectively from the report.

For instance, reading from page 28, since that has evidently been the approach of the opposition, it indicates that the most common result of these studies is that no differences in efficiency were detected between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Keep in mind, of course, that we’re not talking about full service, private hospitals in Bill 11. This was the case for five of the studies reviewed. Two [other] studies found that for-profit hospitals are more efficient. One study found that not-for-profits performed worse. So, Mr.

Speaker, this is an overall analysis that’s been provided, and it does not have the overwhelming, consistent negative message that the opposition across the way is portraying. I think it is quite a balanced report of what does exist in some parts of North America and, for that matter, the world. It does provide useful information, but it doesn’t reach the conclusions that are being portrayed by those across the way.

MS LEIBOVICI: Right at the beginning it says that the main finding of this study is that “there is no published study of the efficiency . . . of the purchase of surgical services from private facilities by public funders.” My second question is again to the minister. This government- funded report states that extra costs will be involved in contracting out to private providers. How can the minister tell Albertans that this is in the best public interest? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be helpful, and we will certainly commend the report to all members of the Assembly to read for themselves, because the report is quite balanced, I think, in the information that they have provided. They indicate quite clearly in the report that they had no particular example to quote where you had a private surgical facility entering into a contract under the types of controls and protections which are imbedded in Bill 11. That is what is quite important with respect to the overall protective features of Bill 11.

Built right into the legislation that we’re proposing to the Assembly is the set of controls which address and provide for the determination of the various issues and advantages that are referred to in our overall presentation of the bill. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, before you proceed, please. A number of hon. members today have really violated the rule with respect to

preambles, so get to your question, please, hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why won’t the minister just stop the experiment and pull the bill? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the overall legislation, Bill 11, has a number of very important provisions in it, including the one the member is focusing on, and that is the very extensive

section which deals with the criteria that would have to be met through private firms or voluntary firms, nonprofit firms, bidding for and obtaining a contract to provide a select, narrow range of surgical services. There are a number of other features in the bill, which I will not try to go through in question period, such as the prohibition on queue- jumping, the openness of contracts, and so forth that, if their memories are not too short, the members across the way have from time to time indicated they’re in favour of. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Health Care System MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Reflecting questions from a number of my Calgary-Fort constituents, I would like to ask our Minister of Health and Wellness: given that our public health care insurance program is the foundation for our much-valued health care system in Alberta, is there any legislation to protect our public health care insurance program in terms of changes in premiums and coverage? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, we do raise about 12 to 13 percent of our overall health budget through the charging of premiums, and the authority for this charge is through the Health Insurance Premiums Act. It is a piece of legislation approved by this Assembly. The rationale for premiums was that there should be an obvious charge to Albertans to support the health care system. It’s a very important service, one that Albertans value very highly, and as I’ve noted, it is a small percentage of the overall health care budget. As far as the changing of rates in terms of the premiums, Mr.

Speaker, they’ve not been changed in this province since 1995, and

658 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 they are rapidly going down as a proportion of our overall spending on health care in the province. MR. CAO: Well, thank you, Mr. Minister. My first supplementary question is also to the Minister of Health and Wellness. How is our health care insurance coverage decided in terms of insured persons and insured services, and are there any insured services covered in Alberta and not covered in other provinces? MR. JONSON: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, we provide a wider range of coverage of individual health care services than, I think, pretty well any other province in Canada.

Some of the areas where we provide total or partial coverage that is not provided in all provinces would be in the whole area of chiropractic treatments, in the whole area of physiotherapy. Those would be two of the key examples. Also, the way that we limit charges that are provided to individuals in long-term care is not uniform across the province. Overall in our coverage we certainly comply totally with and, as I say, far beyond the provisions of the Canada Health Act.

In addition to that, I think it should be pointed out that for low- income seniors we have partial or total forgiveness or no charges for people in that category, also low-income Albertans that are on assistance programs. So it is a charge which is sensitive to the relative ability of Albertans to pay, and it is established on that basis. 2:30 MR. CAO: Thank you. My last supplementary question is also to the Minister of Health and Wellness. What is the revenue from our public health care insurance premium payments in comparison to our total public health care expense? MR.

JONSON: We collect in health care premiums, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the neighbourhood of $650 million, and as I indicated earlier, in terms of a percentage it is in that 15 percent range as far as its proportion of the health care budget. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. Private Health Services (continued) MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has promised time and time again that Bill 11 would not lead to queue- jumping, so let’s put that promise to a little test this afternoon.

I have three questions, all for the Minister of Health and Wellness, and each one of the questions is based on the study entitled The Public Purchase of Private Surgical Services: a Systematic Review of the Evidence on Efficiency and Equity. My question first to the minister would be this: how can Albertans trust this government when it promises to prevent queue-jumping when its own report says – and it’s right here on page 6 – that complications will arise however where surgeons are permitted to offer ‘enhanced medical services’ in private hospitals, as is currently the case in Alberta . . .

Thus, the package of enhanced medical services includes . . . faster acce ss to care (i.e. queue-jumping) for those willing and able to pay? MR. JONSON: Well, there are three or four things that need to be said in answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the provisions of Bill 11 provide for legislation which will put in law a set of provisions to prevent the whole issue of queue-jumping or being able to get faster service by virtue of your ability to pay, whether it’s your ability to pay for getting the service up front, so to speak, or whether it’s your ability to pay by purchasing something else that might be attractive or get you advanced in the line. So that is the purpose of the legislation. The other thing that should be acknowledged here is that the provision of uninsured services is part of our overall health care system.

We have the whole area of cosmetic surgery. That is one of the areas of service that is not insured under the Canada Health Act or under our own health care insurance provisions, but it does happen and is paid for in our system. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, since it may be that this Minister of Health and Wellness may be the only person in the province that doesn’t understand: enhanced services are enabled by Bill 11, not prohibited. Mr.

Speaker, how can Albertans trust this government when it promises to prevent queue-jumping when its own report says: The forms of two-tierism that will result from this are, firstly, receipt of different quality services according to ability to pay and, secondly, likely receipt of ‘enhanced’ services quicker (i.e. queue- jumping)? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think there is something, you know, with the comments across the way and the question, that should be pointed out, and that is that the position of the Liberal Party across the way and their leader is that doctors should be free to opt out of the health care system, operate entirely on their own, and also it would be fine for anybody who could qualify and I guess get the approval of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to set up a hospital and charge Albertans directly. I’m sure that they would charge and would be very appreciative of those that could pay more to get faster service.

In other words, the Liberals are on record, at least their leader is, as having a completely private system in this province outside of the public system with all the difficulties and so on that they seem to be concerned about with respect to queue-jumping and so on which are being addressed in a positive way in B ill 11. That is the Liberal position over there. So I’m really quite amazed that they’re concerned about these things since that is their overall policy and position. Now, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the legislation there is provi- sion in the bill, as the member across the way well knows, to deal with the whole issue of limiting the charges with respect to any kind of enhanced service, with respect to preventing queue-jumping for insured services by virtue of a person’s ability to pay. Those are provisions in the legislation, and we need that legislation to deal with those types of situations. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, given that Alberta’s record when it comes to cataract surgery and MRI treatment speaks for itself, I would ask this minister my final question.

How is it that we might expect Albertans to trust this go vernment with respect to Bill 11 when its own commissioned report says, “If patients start requesting such services, they will be offered, and, if surgeons start offering such services, they will be taken up.” MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about Albertans trusting the hon. member across the way, because he forgets to read, of course, all of the relevant sections of a particular report. For instance, when he was talking about queue-jumping and two-tierism, as I think he was referring to, the report goes on to say in the

section he was quoting from: this is a form for two-tierism and would, therefore, contravene the Alberta government policy. So it would be useful if they would report the whole.

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 659 Speaker’s Ruling Anticipation THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we conclude question period, I would just like to advise all hon. members that a review of Orders of the Day and the scheduled motion – in light of certain bills scheduled to be debated over the next several days, the chair would like to remind all hon. members about Standing Order 23(e), which provides that a member will be called to order by the Speaker if . . . that member . . . (

e) anticipates, contrary to good parliamentary practice, any matter already on the Order Paper or on notice for consideration on that day. The chair has commented numerous times that questions concern- ing the content of a bill will be out of order if the bill is scheduled to be debated that day. As the chair indicated in its March 3, 1998, ruling on this subject, found on page 649 of Hansard for that day, this Speaker “will give the greatest degree of flexibility to private members when they choose to rise in this . . .

Assembly.” Of course, this latitude is tempered by the rules which members themselves have chosen to be governed by. Accordingly, the chair simply wants to remind members about Standing Order 23(

e) so that no one is caught off guard in the next few days. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, a few seconds from now we’ll call upon the first of seven hon. members to participate in Recognitions, but prior to that will you all join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View on reaching another milestone in his life. Happy birthday. The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Provincial Midget B Hockey Championship MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

March 24 to 26 Three Hills and Trochu arenas were the sites of the 1999-2000 provincial midget B hockey championships. I extend congratulations to the towns of Three Hills and Trochu as well as all the sponsors, volunteers, fans, and players for making it such a successful event, drawing packed crowds to enjoy the display of top-notch hockey and sportsmanship provided by young hockey players from Whitecourt, Winfield, Lac La Biche, Sexsmith, Drumheller, Taber, Sedgewick, and the Three Hills area.

I extend a special congratulations to the Three Hills Chiefs, who are a young team with only six second-year players and a very young coaching staff, on their outstanding level of play and their success at winning the gold medal for provincial midget B hockey by winning it five games straight with no losses. An outstanding achievement in light of the good competition, and I’m sure the fans got to preview some of the stars of the future. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. 2:40 Val and Flora Matteotti DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the 17th of March the Member for Lethbridge-West and I had a chance to attend the 13th annual management scholarship fund-raising dinner. Each year the Faculty of Management honours businesspeople in our community. This year they chose to honour Val and Flora Matteotti, and I want to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Matteotti today for the fact that they support our community in such a broad-based way. They have given to numerous causes in our community, but they really favour sports, health, and education because, as they say, these require discipline and dedication to succeed.

The sports teams that have been supported in our community have been numerous, and Mrs. Matteotti is quite pr oud when she says, as she has on a number of occasions, that when she looks out on the community, she has more than 2,500 children. This family shows what it is to contribute to the community. They’ve put their money back into our community to make it strong, and everybody in our community thanks them for doing that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. Amy Fox MR. KLAPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very proud to rise today to pay tribute to one of my young constituents who has received one of the highest honours a high school student in Canada can receive. Amy Fox, a grade 12 student from Hay Lakes school, a small school of 70 students, has su cceeded in winning both the Canadian merit scholarship, valued at $45,000, and the Morehead scholarship, valued at $100,000. The Canadian merit scholarship must be applied to a Canadian university,

whereas the J.M. More- head scholarship must be applied to the University of North Carolina. Both scholarships pay for tuition and living expenses for four years of study. Amy first heard about these scholarships from her school guidance counselor, Mr. Lyseng. Although she was competing with students from large schools, the competition interviewers were amazed at her capabilities considering she came from such a small school. Amy herself believes that going to a small high school is a great advan- tage in that she knows the teachers and they know her.

She believes she has excellent teachers and appreciates how everything is personalized. Students who receive these scholarships are assessed on values beyond those visible on academic transcripts, though Amy’s marks are between 94 and 96 percent. Candidates must show good character, service to the community, and entrepreneurial energy, all of which Amy expresses through interest in 4-H, her school paper, her students’ union work, and the 15 hours of dance she takes per week in Wetaskiwin. I would like to commend Amy Fox for her achievement and wish her the best of luck in the future.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, notwithstanding the merit of the recognition comments, the time allocation is one minute. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. CIAU Hockey Championship MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my very great honour and privilege today to recognize the University of Alberta Golden Bears hockey team. The Bears won their second consecutive CIAU hockey championship last weekend. They defeated the University of New Brunswick Varsity Reds, and CIAU player of the year, Russ Hewson, scored the winning goal eight minutes into the second overtime.

This win ties the Bears with the University of Toronto for a record of 10 university cups. This championship also brings the U of A the prestige of winning a total of nine medals in the 1999-2000 season, the most won by the university in a single year. Special recognition goes to coach Rob Daum, U of A defenceman Mike Garrow, and forwards Kevin Marsh and Ryan Wade, who were named to the all-star team. Kevin Marsh also was named tourna- ment MVP. Russ Hewson was named CIAU player of the year, and goaltender Clayton Pool received CIAU rookie of the year honours.

The hardworking and dedicated men who form the Bears hockey

660 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 team deserve tremendous respect and admiration for their accom- plishments and for bringing the CIAU banner home again to the University of Alberta. Congratulations, Bears. THE SPEAKER: Once again, hon. members, notwithstanding the merits of the statement being in place, the time allocation is one minute. The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. California School Field Trip Deaths MR. MELCHIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Students at two Calgary high schools, William Aberhart and Bowness, returned to their classes this morning.

Today, as they have been since March 25, they will be mourning the loss of two fellow students and one parent, Barbara Clement, a 45-year-old mother of two, a wife and active member of the community and lover of the outdoors, fatally swept out to sea by a rogue wave. Brodie McDonald and David Elton lost their lives while trying to save her. Brodie McDonald was described as someone loved by all, a boy with a kind and giving nature. He enjoyed and was excited by the outdoors and saw a future career there.

David Elton, like Brodie, was participating in the Lost Coast hike in northern California because of his keen interest in the outdoors and his leadership skills. There’s no explaining why tragedies occur, why bad things sometimes happen to good people. What we do know is that three individuals, Calgarians and Albertans, lost their lives doing some- thing they enjoyed doing. One of them was giving her time and energy to assist a group of young Albertans to better understand and enjoy and appreciate the natural environment.

Two of them, young men with bright futures before them, were experiencing their love of the outdoors. On behalf of all of the Assembly we express our appreciation and sympathy to the families and the community. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Dominion Seniors Legion Curling MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past week Spruce Grove saw some of the finest curling in Canada. The Dominion Seniors Curling Championship took place at the Spruce Grove Agrena.

This grand event was hosted by the Spruce Grove Legion branch 281, and this event was organized by a strong team of volunteers chaired by Blaine Price. Along with excellent curling there was a spousal program which allowed the hosts to show off the many tourism highlights in our area. Tuesday night the Calmar Legion hosted a banquet and combined it with their mortgage- burning party. Thursday night the team from Newfoundland cooked a caribou for the teams, and Spruce Grove hosted the closing banquet, that recognized the winning team from Ontario.

Our thanks and recognition to the Spruce Grove Legion for their continued commitment to our community. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order

Preambles MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you did reference it earlier during your remarks. I’d like to refer to Standing Order 13(1), “the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order.” I kept a very close eye on the progres- sion of the questions through the House today, and I’d like to recap for you what occurred. The hon. Leader of the Opposition during her first question, first supplemental, tabled a report and gave a rather lengthy

preamble. During her second question, first supplemental, she gave another lengthy

preamble. During her third question, in both the first supplemental and second supplemental, she again provided us with a lengthy

preamble. It was at that point in time I believe I raised a point of order. I’m happy to say that the leader of the third party actually complied with the rules. We then went to the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, who came awfully close. However, in her second supplemental she also gave us a lengthy

preamble. The Member for Lethbridge-East: I’m quite pleased to say that he skillfully crafted his introduction so as not to actually offend the House rules. We then went to Edmonton-Meadowlark; in the first supplemental there was a lengthy

preamble and also a response to the minister’s response. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you interrupted, prior to the second supplemental being asked, and you indicated that a number of members had actually offended the rules of the House and directed the member to go straight to her question. Notwith- standing that advice, the Member for Calgary-Buffalo provided us with a

preamble in the form of an argumentative response with respect to his first supplemental and gave us another

preamble as part of his second supplemental. Mr. Speaker, the House leaders’ agreement was executed some years ago, and my simple point of order is to request, when there is any deviation from that House leader agreement, that you please intervene immediately regardless of the side of the House which happens to be offending the House leader agreement. Unfortunately, because these lengthy

preambles take up so much of question period, we did not get to as many questions today as I felt we could have. So again I ask that you enforce the terms of the House leader agreement and in particular, if the House leader agreement is being offended by a member very early in question period, that you intervene at that time. That will hopefully preclude any further such infractions with respect to such agreement. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader on this point. 2:50 MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, you know, sometimes when lawyers plead a weak case, you use what’s called a scattergun approach, which is that you absolutely throw everything in front of the judge and hope something sticks. What’s curious is that I saw him rise on a point of order, but much of what he has talked about are things that happened subsequent. If he’s going to offer us his colour commen- tary on 50 minutes of question period, one would hope he would have also addressed the numerous breaches that we witnessed on the part of those people responding to questions. So you intervened, Mr. Speaker.

We heard your admonitions, certainly in terms of anticipation, but I think there’s been no legitimate point of order raised other than a general lament that that particular minister, that particular government representative didn’t like the tone of question period today. But unless we’re going to go through and systematically deal with every breach of question period on both sides of the House, I’m not sure where his intervention takes us. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Several very interest- ing things occurred in the last 10 days. One had an opportunity to

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 661 review Hansard for the last 10, 15, 20 years, and one conclusion that this particular Speaker came to was the conclusion that whenever there have been House leaders in the House who were not trained in the law, there is a corresponding reduction in the number of points of order that are raised in question period. So I find it interesting today that in essence the two distinguished leaders, the Deputy Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, both do happen to be, coincidently, trained in matters of the law and both chose to participate in the point of order today.

Interestingly enough, I suspect if one then says that in a court of law we throw out information and then we ask for adjudication, one would hope, though, that one would provide all of the information rather than just perhaps pertinent points that might be beneficial to one particular cause. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader rose on a point of order that basically – and I quote from the Blues when the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition rose and said: Mr. Speaker, Albertans know what this government is saying. What they don’t trust is what this government is doing in Bill 11. Then she went on. Mr.

Speaker I quote again from this government-funded review: our review has shown that private facilities generally provide faster access to those who can pay and do offer enhanced services. Then the question. How can this minister stand here and tell Albertans that his bill isn’t going to do enhanced services, two-tiered health care, and on and on? So, in essence, there definitely was a supplemental with respect to this third question, and it definitely does violate clause 5(4) of the April 30, 1997, House leaders’ agreement. No doubt about that. So from that perspective there absolutely is a point of order.

I note, however, that no one rose on a point of order when the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs provided her question, but preceding her question she did say the following, which was clearly a

preamble, “I’ve had more calls on this” issue, meaning crime, “than on health care,” and then proceeded to go on to raise her question. It’s always of interest to see that again no one rose a point of order with respect to that particular

preamble. I might add that the hon. Member for Calgary-West in her third question was definitely seeking opinions and asking for an opinion with respect to that, yet some le verage was provided to that, she being an honourable hon. member. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, in the chair’s view, in his third question gave a very long

preamble prior to arriving at his third question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark on the second question gave a very long

preamble. There was an interjection following that. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark quickly came to the point. The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose was certainly on the edge – on the edge – in seeking opinions with respect to his question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo did, obviously, give a very long

preamble prior to arriving at his second question. So there’s been a bit of give-and-take, but the good point about all of this today was that there were 11 questions, allowing us to arrive at 33 questions in all, which is just slightly above average. How- ever, the chair last week did have an opportunity to go to an adjoining parliament and visit th e parliament of British Columbia. In British Columbia their daily question period is 15 minutes – I repeat, underline: 15 minutes – and in the parliament of British Columbia there were in that 15 minutes 12 questions and answers.

Twelve questions and answers in 15 minutes. We arrived today with 33 questions and answers. Th ey in British Columbia had 12 questions. I just say that as a bit of a comparative. The bottom line of this was very correctly provided for us by the Deputy Government House Leader, who did basically say that the conclusion to all of this is that fewer members have a chance to ask a question.

In today’s question period there were eight hon. members who still did not have an opportunity to ask a question, and when you recognize that there has been a brief adjournment of the House for a few days, one can conclude that those eight hon. members had matters of importance with respect to this. So thank you very much, Deputy Government House Leader, for raising the point of order. You win. Thank you very much, Official Opposition House Leader, for participating in this.

Thank you all very much for the joy of having this daily intervention. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 16 Condominium Property Amendment Act, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services on behalf of the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleague the Member for Calgary-Bow I’m pleased to move second reading of Bill 16, the Condominium Property Amendment Act, 2000. The hon.

Member for Calgary-Bow in 1996 sponsored a condo- minium property amendment act that actually received royal assent but was never proclaimed after stakeholders expressed strong concerns with some of the amendments. Therefore, a working group of condominium owners and developers was formed in August of last year to address these concerns. The amendments that are before you in Bill 16 have been unanimously recommended by a working group of people representing both condominium owners and developers.

The members of this group are to be congratulated for finding a common ground to resolve the often opposing views of condominium stakeholders. These amendments will also fine-tune and clarify the legislation and will allow for greater flexibility without eroding the consumer protection that it also affords. Going through Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, you’ll find that the first amendments add some

definitions to the act.

Section 3 of the 1996 act is then repealed. This se ction allowed for individuals to discharge blanket mortgages under certain conditions. Mortgagees have shown that this is not a workable practice, and the proposal to delete this

section is also supported by the consumer representatives.

Section 8 has been clarified following the new

definitions. One of the key amendments, Mr. Speaker, allows condominium developers access to more of the funds that are held in trust pending completion of a condominium development. In fact, instead of requiring 50 percent to be held back, an amount that developers complained was unrealistic and truly is,

section 11 now ties the amount to be held back in trust to the amount required to complete the project. This ensures developers have access to f unds as they complete their project. It still ensures that there is enough in trust to protect the purchaser. The next few amendments have been requested by condominium corporations. At present, Mr. Speaker, a corporation may not amend its legal condominium plan once the plan has been registered at the land titles office.

Section 14.1 will allow for suitable mechanisms to amend a plan as required.

Section 21 clarifies the voting rights of

662 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 owners and mortgagees at board meetings. The new

section 29 allows corporations to go to small claims court to recover damages and sanctions up to the limit in force under the Provincial Court Act.

Section 33 allows corporations to charge interest on the balance of any unpaid condominium fees, but the rate will be capped in the regulations. 3:00 Mr. Speaker, corporations in the insurance industry told us that the insurance requirements in

section 38 were unworkable. As a result, they have been moved to regulation to allow for flexibility as insurance instruments change from time to time. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 brings these amendments and those of the Condominium Property Amendment Act, 1996, into force on September 1, 2000. This will allow time to develop both the regulations required for this legislation and the information and educational materials that condominium stakeholders are asking for. Hopefully, this will bring a close to a long battle over having an amended Condominium Property Act.

I’d also like to say a special thanks on behalf of the Member for Calgary-Bow, Mr. Speaker, to the condominium stakeholder groups and the critics from the side opposite, who have sat down and reviewed this bill and are all in agreement with the process. I know she wanted me to thank you for your co-operation and diligence in being briefed on what the intentions were. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading on behalf of the Member for Calgary-Bow. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 16, the Condominium Property Amendment Act, which is amendments to the Condominium Property Amend- ment Act, 1996. Changes to the act are long overdue and are as a result of a legislative review process that has been under way in Alberta for at least 10 years. While Alberta legislation on condo- miniums was one of the first in the country, it has since lagged behind other jurisdictions and is no longer up to date, considering that we started in 1980 and up to 1996 and so on. Mr.

Speaker, in 1996 Bill 23 was introduced with proposed changes to the Condominium Property Act. Some of the changes included removal of the unanimous resolution, recognition of phased developments, coverage of all condominiums, and mandatory reserve funds. The Condominium Property Amendment Act, 1996, was passed and received royal assent but was never proclaimed because of the strong concern expressed by stakeholders. In 1999 under the present minister thankfully this was carried forward and the working group formed by the government pro ceeded with this process.

The passage of this legislation will allow not only the Condominium Property Amendment Act, 2000, to come into effect but also the amendments of the act in 1996. It should be noted that the bill is developer driven and caters more to their concerns. What we’re noticing in

section 11 is the focus that the bill panders more to the developer than was originally intended when they drafted regulations in 1996 in Bill 23. Many of the changes in

section 11 of the Condominium Property Act help to provide better consumer protection. First, it gives a much more extensive and detailed definition of common property. Secondly, it allows for money to be held in trust for those things promised in the purchase agreement. Thirdly, it puts into the act the right of a corporation or interested party to go to court if the developer has not met the requirements. The bill also clarifies the voting right of the insurance coverage. Passage of this bill will allow the Condominium Property Act, 1996, to be brought into force.

What I’m noticing and realizing is that what the group and the organization is looking forward to is September 1 for actually putting it into existence. When studying the bill, one of the concerns jumping out at us and from some of the stakeholders we have talked to is that it does not touch upon the condo fees. Is it pressure from the banks that condo fees were given such a low priority compared to the mortgages when recovering the fees? Self-regulation is a question we did ask in the meeting when we were briefed.

People contacted feel that the lack of enforcement is a severe problem and do not see the act as a self- regulation. We should note that there have been four prosecutions under the condominium act and only one actual conviction. The concern with the enforcement is th at it is left up to the consumer, who does not have the resources or the skills to enforce them. It’s a major item that was brought back to us from the information that has been e-mailed to us so far.

After perusing Bill 16 and believing that it’s a good compromise and may be a workable piece of legislation with some amendments coming forward in the later pro cess, the main thing we want to emphasize in this is that why the bill is a good, workable pi ece of legislation is that it defines, fine-tunes, and clarifies the existing condominium act, considering that, as mentioned before, we never did enact the 1996 bill and the original bill was in place since 1980 with very few changes in that time period. It brings the Alberta condominium laws up to date.

It improves the amendments first made in the condominium act of 1996 to tie the am ount of money held in trust to the costs of completion. Stakeholders are happy to see the many changes in regard to the developer and trust moneys and feel this will definitely protect the public in a more certain manner. This, in fact, was one of the stakeholders’ main items that was present from the Alberta Real Estate Association back in ’96. It allows condominiums to be built in phases.

With this process in this bill, it will protect the rights of the condominium owners while allowing the builders to finance their project more easily. As we’re looking through different items and getting e-mails in from different people, they’re talking about this new condominium amendment act, which was tabled and now is in second reading, and the processes to protect the rights of the condominium owners while allowing the builders to finance their projects more easily. Reserve fund requirements are now in the act, and there are now provisions for phasing condominiums with consumer protection built in.

I wish it were a little bit stricter and that the holdback was considerably more, but if we are going to have a condominium, the condomin- ium’s developer has to be able to proceed with the project. As the 1996 act stood, the builder had to hold back 50 percent of the sales proceeds until the project was completed. In a typical project the builder would not be able to discharge the project mortgage on the home and give title to the home buyer until the project was completed.

By and large, with a phased project this could mean that for three to five years all the money would be set up in trust, and nobody benefits in that period of time. It means that they couldn’t give title to the unit until the whole project was built. It also creates a cash flow problem for the whole development. This is a major concern that, from what I’m understanding in talking to different stakeholders, we have to bring out. I hope that during our discussion we will be talking more and more about the type of builders that are in this game.

Are we presenting a better product out there with condominiums than what we did see back in the 1970s and early ’80s? We’re looking at what was in the paper this past weekend on the condominium over in Mill Woods, that people were evacuated

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 663 because of fungus growing and so on. We’re also looking at a number of condominium projects in my constituency that were built back 30 years ago. With the condominium boards and the fighting that’s going on as they are trying to bring them into shape, they’re finding out it’s what isn’t behind the walls that is the main concern. The current act also mandates that every corporation must have a reasonable reserve fund and a chunk of money set aside for major nonannual repairs such as reshingling the roofs or fixing collapsed sewers.

Under the current legislation there is no requirement that condominium corporations keep a reserve fund. Other items dealt with in this new act include changes in voting rights of the condominium owners, mortgages that are more than 30 days in arrears, their fees, and clarification with respect to condo- minium insurance. As we read some of the concerns that were given to us, insurance is a major, major item. Many owners of condominiums are not properly insured.

Maybe there will be some enactments, some different things within this b ill and with the regulations coming forward so that people will start to understand what type of insur- ance they should have. As we read different articles, people honestly don’t know. A lot of people are still getting what they call a package that they think is the right one, and then condo owners often don’t know what their insurance is and what is covered under this. Mr. Speaker, this bill I hope will be talked about a lot.

I believe that there are a lot of members on our side who would like to speak to this and bring up different concerns that were brought forward to us by the discussion group recommendations that were tabled today. So as I sit down, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. 3:10 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad of the opportunity to enter into the debate in second reading of Bill 16, the Condominium Property Amendment Act, 2000.

As I was going over all the information around this bill and the background on it, I found that sometimes MLAs have to become instant experts when they’re deba ting a bill. I’ll admit that I’ve never been a condo owner, so I’ve had to do a fair amount of groundwork in understanding this. What I can say is that there are a large number of condominiums in my constituency of Edmonton- Centre. We have had a lot of rental apartments converted into condominiums. We’ve had warehouses and even office buildings converted into condominium residences.

I think in just one section, one district of Edmonton-Centre – and that’s the district of Oliver – in 1998 we had more than 12,000 units, and that is climbing every day. Obviously a lot of people have a great interest in condominium living. I know that for many people it is an economic decision, but for others it’s a lifestyle decision. The importance of having comprehensive legislation and I think strong consumer protection is very important. So to the question, “Do we need some legislation on condominium development and ownership?” yes, indeed we do. This bill, Bill 16, the amendment act for 2000 – is this it?

I’m going to reserve my opinion on that one. I will be listening very intently to the debate, but I have a number of questions. I’ll note that this seems to have been a struggle for the govern- ment. The ’96 legislation was amending the 1980 legislation, but it was never proclaimed, and that was a surprise to me as a starting MLA. One of the first calls I had from a constituent was: when is this bill going to be proclaimed? I phoned up and made my way through all the different employees and finally got somebody that said: well, we’re having trouble with the regulations; probably six months from now.

So I phoned back in six months. “Well, no. They’re still working on it. Maybe six months later.” I have phoned every six months for the three-plus years I’ve been elected, and every time I’m told that it might be coming. So I’m glad to see that there’s at least an amendment act that I can debate. One of the things I’ve noticed is that there do seem to be two distinct interest groups around this bill. One is the developers, the builders, the home warranty people, those folks, and the other is the owners.

Even amongst the owners there are some differences, because there seem to be owners who in fact own a c ondominium but don’t live in it and those who both own it and do live in it. That affects the way they make decisions about the condominium association. I do note that I had received a letter from the Canadian Condomin- ium Institute, which, according to who was listed, seemed to be representing a lot of the builders’ side and the builders’ interests. They were very keen on the bill and said: “Dear MLA. We’ve worked with the minister. We go t invited into the consultations. We’re gung ho on the bill.

It’s a great bill. Pass it quickly.” I said: “Okay. Fine.” Then I also received documentation from a gr oup called the Condominium Advocate Association, and they are representing owners. They’re pointing out that they have some reservations and some concerns, and they want some changes. Actually, earlier today during tablings I did table a copy of the document they prepared in which they were suggesting a number of amendments. But they didn’t mention that they had had a cozy working relationship with the minister and were invited into meetings. I thought: well, maybe they just didn’t mention it in the letter.

So I followed up and contacted the group and said: “Well, were you asked to the meet- ings? Were you invited? Were you included?” They said, “No, we weren’t.” I thought: oh, dear; that’s a concern. I’m sure the minister will be able to talk about why that group wasn’t included. I am very concerned that this be a bill that has balance in it and that is fair and is equitable. There are obviously two different parties, and I think it’s absolutely critical that both sides are well represented.

If anything, I will probably end up showing a bias in favour of the owners, because I find that those are the people that really end up with everything. The developers are gone, have moved on to other projects, but the owners are still there and are having to deal with whatever is left. So I do hope that if this bill does pass, we’re able to craft it into a bill th at is equitable for all interested parties. Now, plain English. I can think of a few other bills in which it’s more important, but boy, is it important in this bill.

This affects the most intimate part of people’s lives: where they live, their home, and how things go on around their home and the control they have over what happens in their home and just outside the door. Plain English is absolutely critical because individual Albertans out there will have to be sitting with this bill and going through it. It is going to guide them as to how they run their life, their home. I don’t think many of them are going to be able to have a lawyer sit down with them while they go through it.

I think part of the reason that we need very clear, plain English legislation on this is that we’ve had a very long history of home ownership, and I think that most people, even if they don’t own their home, have got a pretty good idea of what’s involved with it. There’s a lot of common knowledge about the obligations and responsibilities of home ownership, and by that I mean detached single-family dwellings, just to be clear about it.

I think much less is known about the ins and outs of condo ownership, and I started out by saying that indeed I had had to phone a number of people and say, “Okay; tell me how this works,” just so that I understood what was going on here.

664 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 Now, I have some reservations or concerns. It’s actually a puzzlement. I was listening carefully to what the minister was saying as she introduced the bill, and I think my concerns may have been alleviated, but I’ll put it on record nonetheless. We’re all aware that the Condominium Property Amendment Act, 1996, was indeed passed and received royal assent but was never proclaimed. This 2000 amendment act is amending the 1996 act, which has never been proclaimed.

I’m really hoping that in fact the ’96 act is going to be proclaimed because otherwise this gets really confusing, where we’re amending something that still isn’t going to be proclaimed. I see the minister nodding at me, I see others nodding at me, but I’d like to get her on the record with that one because it sure would be a mess if we didn’t. One of the other issues that I have run across while I’ve been researching this is how quickly this whole area of condo ownership has changed. When I spoke to my mom, she told me she bought her condo in 1980.

At that time the whole concept of condominium ownership was so new that she told me that a number of her good friends and advisers were cautioning her about whether she really wanted to get involved in this as yet unproven business, and boy, she really had to question whether she was making a wise move here. That’s a mere 20 years ago. This entire idea and everything around it has moved very quickly, and I would like to see something in the legislation that allows for updating on a more regular basis. I noted somewhere that the sponsoring member had suggested a sunset clause with a five-year review in it.

Now, I haven’t actually run across that in the legislation. If it’s not in there and it was going to be amended or put in there, may I suggest that it be a much faster review process, more like two years, just given how quickly everything is changing in this sector. 3:20 I think for me it’s very important that this condominium act should have very clear consumer protection. In fact, that’s what it should be. It should be a bill about consumer protection. If you do buy a single-family, detached home, you know what you’re getting into.

You know that you are responsible for everything: taxes, improvements, your good relationship with your neighbours. If you fail to maintain your property, well, you lose. You didn’t do the right things, and you will pay for it. The value w ill go down, and you’ll get less when you sell your home. But condos are different in that decision-making, for instance, is done by a board of directors. It can in some cases be hard for an individual to know whether all the paperwork is being done, whether the bills are being paid, whether the maintenance is being done properly, whether there’s enough money in a reserve fund.

Yet that individual, that condo owner, has to bear the conse- quences of this decision-making process, which they are not or may not necessarily be involved with. They are bearing these conse- quences through their home and through their pocketbook, so I think it’s very important that full disclosure is built into the clauses of this bill, that all the information is up front, and that there is a system that allows individual owners to be able to scrutinize the work of the board of the association without tying their hands. I’m not recom- mending miles and miles of red tape here.

I think it’s important that we be sensible and use common sense for this. Even in just chatting the last few days and saying that I was going to be debating this bill, I’ve had people say: “Oh, yeah. This is what happened with us. The board decided to do such and such, and we didn’t know about it until afterwards.” Well, I’m sure there are just as many complaints on the other side from the board associations going: “Why won’t this owner pay their condominium fees, for heaven’s sake? What are we supposed to run this thing on?

Buttons?” So it’s important that there be as much disclosure and sharing of information as possibl e so that all parties can make informed decisions. Under that same category, some people had talked to me about the ability of the owners to have th e board of the association call a general meeting. In some cases it’s not set down anywhere how often there has to be a meeting. It’s just never called, and in many cases they don’t have in their bylaws the ability to call the meeting. That’s something else that we should be looking at. There’s a large

section on special resolutions, and I have a concern about that. I’ve actually brought the same concern up in context of other legislation. It’s saying that special resolutions can be passed by 75 percent of the current owners that are “entitled to exercise the powers of voting.” Well, I’m assuming what that means is that it’s like saying: by a member in good standing. In other words, your dues have to be paid up. You can’t be owing any money. I think in many cases that could be a problem in this situation.

We can certainly have scenarios – and I’ve heard of some of them – where owners are precluded from voting on something that’s really critical to the condominium association because they owe money. But in some cases what I’ve heard is that they owed money because they were assessed t housands of dollars for their share of a reserve fund study. So we have to be really careful about that, because you could have quite a minority of people making decisions that affect everyone. You could have 20 percent of that 75 percent that are making very critical decisions.

This issue that I’m about to discuss is not limited to condomini- ums by any means, but I’m surprised to see it turn up here as well. It’s the issue about the developer setting aside moneys for costs for unsold units where owners are assessed or must contribute, but they’re being hit for the whole development, even when they don’t own those other parts or if they don’t own those other units. I had something similar happen in my home district, where there were only homes on one side of the street. The other side of the street was a city park.

Well, they decided to pave the road, and they wanted to assess the entire cost of the road to the people living on one side of it. You know, that wasn’t fair at all. There was enough protest, and finally it was done a different way, but I can easily see that happen- ing here, where you have only part of the unit sold and people being assessed for the entire costs of something. So that’s another thing to look for here. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] It’s acknowledged in the bill – and I think there’s still quite a bit of work to do – about the setting up of the condominium association.

Now, the builder is responsible to get that going and to convene the first association. They’re also responsible for developing the original set of bylaws, but I’m hearing concerns from people that in some cases the developer has put forward bylaws for the association which are very friendly to the developer and which cause the owners severe problems down the road. Long after the developer has ceased any obligations to the association, they’re stuck with these bylaws. I think we are in a position to be making sure that that sort of thing isn’t happening.

I think my time is close to running out here, but I do want to speak briefly about regulations. I had spoken earlier about the reassur- ances I kept getting from department staff that the 1996 amendment act was coming, that they were just working on the regulations, which they were struggling with. I think this is a perfect example of a bill that needs to have the regu lations go before the all-party legislative Committee on Law and Regulations. A lot of mistakes could be found if we were all putting our heads together on this one.

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 665 The government refuses to call that Law and Regulations Commit- tee. It should be, and it particularly should be in this instance. Who knows? There could be thousands of regulations that hold up this legislation, and it is virtually impossible for a person out there, an Albertan, an owner, a potential owner of a condominium to get their hands on the regulations and understand what’s really going on. What we often have with legislation is that the legislation is the what and the regulations are the how.

That’s where all the specifics of exactly what’s supposed to happen are embedded. They’re very difficult to get hold of, to even know that they exist, to find any kind of changes that have happened to them. I really urge the government to call that Law and Regulations Committee in this instance on this bill. Then, you see, once they find out that it’s a good process, I’m sure they’ll be doing it for every other bill, which is what should have happened in the first place.

One thing that I am really pleased to see is the regulations around the reserve fund, because that has been a cause of great heartache for a number of condominium associations. Some are very well managed, and they looked ahead and knew that they had to have a reserve fund and started setting it up, however they did it. One of them that I asked about had their condominium fees that everyone submitted, and at the end of the year if there was a surplus, well, that surplus went into the reserve fund. That’s how they built it up.

There is a common and joint responsibility to have money set aside to cover those large repairs and large maintenance bills. It has caused great unhappiness to some. I know that in some cases people didn’t do it because they weren’t required to do it. This legislation does enshrine that requirement, and I think that is a very good thing. 3:30 One of the hesitations that I have is that enforcement of any bylaws or rules or regulations is left up to the consumer/owner, and in many cases I think people don’t have the personal resources to pursue this.

So while there seems to be a raising of the fines that can be given to people for not following the regulations, the way it’s set up is that, yes, this is what you’re supposed to be doing, but then it’s the owner’s responsibility to chase this thr ough court. Even then, when they get into court, it looks like the judge can decide on what the final fine is anyway. So I think we might need to look at that and tighten it up or make it a little clearer.

I always have a concern where the actual enforcement of some- thing is left up to the individual, because many, many times people either don’t have the wherewithal, the knowledge, or the finances to pursue that through the courts. As a result, people just get away with things, and the entire setup becomes a big joke. Who really loses? Well, Albertans are the ones that rea lly lose there, so I think that’s something we need to be careful of. I notice that my time is gone, and I do look forward to continuing this debate in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a privilege and, quite frankly, it’s a duty to speak a certain amount on this bill in that it does affect a great deal of people living in the city of Edmonton and certainly in my constituency. It affects a great deal of who they define themselves to be, where they live, and how they function with their neighbours. Condominium associations are always difficult to deal with as an owner in that these are people that affect your daily life and are not always people of your choosing.

This particular piece of legislation had a great deal of discussion in the early ’80s and resulted in a great number of changes in the act. As an alderman at the time, in the early ’80s, I heard a great deal of the complaints and had to deal with them.

As a matter of fact, a large part of one session dealt with a great number of difficulties as it related to conversions of properties from rental accommodation to c ondominiums, the lack of reserve funds to properly maintain those structures, and a great many other concerns, many of which were simply the lack of rules for a condominium association to follow to manage their properties and to manage them in a manner which was sustainable, because hitherto it had never been done in legislation.

I would like to acknowledge, too, that there’s a great deal of regulation that falls from this act that the condominium associations must follow. In fact, a great deal of the regulations are more suggestive than anything else – and so they should be – to help condominium owners with the management of their collective properties. The difficulty I find myself in here in trying to rational- ize agreement with Bill 16 is that the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations of this House simply does not sit.

I would think that a great deal of these problems could be ironed out with some public hearings, some interest shown by the population in the law and regulations that relate to this act, and I think perhaps a good working group could be put together and the proper amendments brought to a place where they could be actually studied.

Of course, we know that the tendency of this government is to not hold meetings, particularly meetings that have any kind of represen- tation of opposition members, for, heaven forbid, they might move something that was of value, and then the government would be forced to defeat that just simply because it came from a nongovern- ment member, which happens, we know, in this House a great deal. It is unfortunate. Examination of this bill would not be reasonable without looking at the history. It was in a previous session of this Legislature that Bill 23 was passed, given royal assent, but it was never proclaimed.

That is a terrible, terrible indictment of a piece of legislation. It goes through all the readings, has all the comments of members elected to represent their part of this gr eat province, passes through all the supposed checks and balances, and is not proclaimed because there are some stakeholder issues. That is the worst possible legislation you could have in this province. It brings expectations up to a level that cannot be fulfilled and then dashes them. All kinds of lawsuits and interested parties were all left hanging for four years. This is ludicrous.

It takes four years for a govern- ment to decide it needs a new working group, that it needs some more input? This government should be roundly and s oundly ashamed of a piece of legislation that cannot be proclaimed for some interests. It doesn’t even identify what those interests are. Well, this member has had some experience at another level of government, where when you passed a piece of legislation, quite frankly it was enacted immediately. If you made a mistake, you were told. If you had to reverse, you had to do it immediately, and you knew why.

This piece of legislation, while well received now, is late, horribly late. This member feels that, hopefully, consultation with the interested parties has taken place to this point and that enough input has been sought so that there are some clear lines and

definitions set out so everyone knows what to expect. Yes, perhaps everyone is not satisfied, but at least they had a good airing with someone. It certainly wouldn’t be with Law and Regulations and certainly wouldn’t be with the opposition members, b ecause in the govern- ment’s eyes we are oh so unworthy to do so. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of changes that were intended to occur at that time, in the ’96 bill. The removal of unanimous resolutions has, in effect, taken place, but I gather it is not in law. The recognition of phased developments, which is the norm these days for a substantive development. It’s not likely that a developer

666 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 can risk the failure of a development by reason of being unable to market enough properties in a timely fashion, therefore putting a larger burden of finance on a project. So that was supposed to have been done. Insurance coverage of condominiums. I mean, it would be painfully obvious to anyone that studies anything of tenants’ rights and tenants’ responsibilities to try and superimpose those on a condominium and leave it at that. The changes in coverage for condominiums, for both common property and for individual property, were sorely needed in regulations.

Now, it has not been put in place. I’m told by most of those that are in c ondominium situations and in ownership of their property that they are very aware of the insurance responsibilities and their individual responsibilities to their own units and to those of their neighbours and co-owners of the property. This regulation may not have the effect that it could have had in earlier years when that kind of knowledge was not prevalent in the ownership of condominiums. The establishment of a mandatory reserve fund.

This member would think that there should be a fairly substantive body of work that has gone into this area, the development of a reserve fund, so as to truly plan for the maintenance and upkeep and the major work that must go on in a condominium, in the physical property, so that a new owner or an existing owner always knows where they stand with regard to the repair and maintenance of their property and therefore can easily discern whether in the next year it will need some major input of cash. This should be a moving target.

The fund should be maintained and reviewed on a regular basis so that all those that are selling and buying properties will know what they’re getting themselves into. 3:40 There’s a particular area that did concern me while I was an alderman and still does today, and it’s cited by a noted lawyer in Edmonton who deals with the condominium act and the difficulties that are related to holding property under the act. A gentleman by the name of Don Kramer, a lawyer here in town, is concerned that consumer protection is rather limited in the bill as it is drafted.

I’d like to hear from the government side to see how they feel that it is in fact protected and to further that debate. It’s

section 11, and when we get to the portion of debate in committee, I suspect that I’ll ask some of these questions and have them answered. There is some concern about proper consultation. I mentioned earlier that the ’96 act was a disastrous failure and that this govern- ment should apologize to all of those that hold property under the condominium act in the province of Alberta for that failure. I wonder why the organization called the CAA, the Condominium Advocate Association, was not consulted and given any credence at all for their position. We wonder why.

If it is going to be four or 10 years in the making, surely you could ask one more interested party, that does have some expertise in the matter, for their input. This obviously was not done. I would like to know why there would not be any of these members in the working group. I don’t understand why these people would not be included. Another area of some concern to a number of people that partici- pated in the consultations is: w ill the enforcement of the act be enhanced at all? It’s a sad record that in 20 years of history there have been four prosecutions and only one conviction on the matter.

Now, I don’t know of any industry that has players that are all that honourable and just that would not give rise to a number of prosecu- tions. Certainly the enforcement provisions appear to have been so, so weak that they would give cause to any claimant to back off for fear of spending a great deal of money chasing, in this case, a developer and coming up empty because of the provisions of the act or because of the major expense to get to a place where you could enforce an action.

Of course, the legislation should be and is, I suspect, under continual review, but every once in a while review has to stop and you say: okay; this is going to be debated. That being done in ’96, it showed it to be a failure. Here’s hoping that this same situation will not occur with this bill. There’s another

section that was tried in ’96, and we’re not sure whether it’s going to be fulfilled in this bill: the user-friendly language. It’s most important that this principle be applied as fully as possible to define those responsibilities of each party in contract so that the average soul out there that wants to sit on the condomin- ium association and help manage their own property can understand what the intent of the act is, understand all the provisions, and is not having to run off and seek legal counsel every time something of magnitude has to occur within the association.

This member would think that that would be a notable contribution to any act and particularly this act in that it has to be applied by so, so many people. The provisions under one particular section, amendments, have some interest to me, having been, in a former life, in construction and contracting. The definition of substantial completion will be better defined. That’s always a concern in the relationship between the developer and the owners of any property, that it is clear at the outset what that definition is so that when that point arrives, it is not a shock to either party.

It defines the amount of holdback, that which is held in reserve for some completions of the project.

We would hope that those provisions are seen to be fair both to the developer, because certainly the developer is not expected to finance a project to the extent that the bottom line of his or her operation would be affected in the negative to the extent that they could not further develop any of these properties, and to the condominium owner/consumer such that the provisions are adequate to protect them should the developer suddenly cease to be in business or pass away or any number of other events that could frustrate any contract and such that another could pick up from where that project left off and continue to completion to the satisfaction of all concerned.

There’s some calculation of interest on outstanding accounts that seems to be a bone of contention for a great number of condominium owners in that their fellow condominium owners at times do not contribute in a timely manner their portion of condominium fees. It puts the whole project in jeopardy, of course, and the interest on those funds oftentimes was so low that there was actually an incentive for one not to pay their condominium fees and to just set those funds aside collecting interest in an interest-bearing acc ount and be further ahead in the long run.

Well, of course that was most detrimental to the operation of any condominium association, and that is being addressed and repaired. Hopefully, there will be some regulations that’ll prevent the unscrupulous activities of some developers. I know of two such instances – one of them has been rectified, and the other one has yet to be – and that’s where a condominium owner has purchased the properties and then, while the developer is still in the process of completing the project, is dealing with the developer to buy another parking stall or buy another piece of property on the site.

It’s happened twice in my experience that this particular developer sold property that was not severable by title, such that that property was common property, and the developer attempted to sell that property and, in fact, received what would be fair value in the estimation of the purchaser. When the developer went to register that piece of property – and I’m speaking this time of parking stalls and surface parking pads – the developer found that it could not be registered, not just because

April 3, 2000 Alberta Hansard 667 the entire package of registration was not ready because the construction hadn’t been completed, but a year later they found that they couldn’t register it because the property was held in common. In the interim, of course, the developer held the funds all this time and then in one instance said, “Oh, sorry,” and returned the money. 3:50 In the second instance the older person, plus 82, I believe, just does not want to fight, just does not want to put up with all the consternation it takes to deal with lawyers and the like.

It is a sad situation and in fact puts a very, very bad taste in the mouth of those that do not want to have the responsibilities of the individual property, with land and the like. They’re older people, and they would just as soon have a condominium that has all of this taken care of, only to find that that is not the case because the regulations are such that it does allow these kinds of unscrupulous activities to go on unchecked and unprosecuted. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

I look forward to the clause-by-clause review of Bill 16 so as to be able to amend those portions. Thank you, sir. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much. You know, this is actually a pleasant surprise, because I had expected that this was going to be adjourned by the government, as we discussed before. Since arrangements change frequently, it’s always a useful idea to pack your bill file with you. The concerns I’ve got with respect to Bill 16 are numerous.

Let me start off by recognizing that this is a bill that has a number of different audiences, or constituencies, if you will. It has condomin- ium unit owners, who have a very obvious interest. Calgary- Buffalo, I suspect, has probably the largest concentration of condominiums certainly in the city of Calgary and, I suspect, because Edmonton’s downtown is more dispersed, maybe anywhere in the province. So I’ve got lots of constituents who own condomin- ium units who have been keenly interested in what has been happening with this legislation. The second group is developers.

One thing about condominium developers: they have been work ing hard to ensure that their interests are front and centre in any sort of legislation that’s going to affect condominium developments. We expect that; we understand it. They have a clear interest. The third group is a group that sometimes isn’t thought of so readily. These are the people who manage condominium develop- ments. What’s interesting is that each of these three gr oups – unit owners, developers, and condominium managers – has a different set of problems, issues, challenges, and so on to deal with.

Now, I know that after I sit down, assuming there are no govern- ment members that are going to participate, I’ll have at least some other colleagues that will also want to participate in the debate on Bill 16, but in the time that I’ve got, I want to say that there has been a great deal of frustration in the community. You know, the process of overhauling our condominium property legislation has taken a decade, a full decade, ten years, to try and fine-tune legislation that has been shown to be deficient in a host of different ways.

We thought government was finally going to be able to address some of those things. In 1996 many of us were in this Chamber and looked forward to that debate, participated in that debate, got feedback and so on. You may remember, members who were here in 1996, that the assurance we all received was: “Let’s pass the bill, the C ondo- minium Property Amendment Act, Bill 23. Then we’ll have some regulations that will look after the remaining outstanding items.” Well, Mr. Speaker, what did we find?

The Legislature passed Bill 23 in 1996, and then we saw one of those processes that many of us in the House marvel can happen in a province with as many smart people as Alberta. Something happened between royal assent to Bill 23 and proclamation. What we discovered was that when govern- ment sat down to make the regulations, as they’re wont to do, with their selected group of stakeholders, what they found was that there were major, substantial disagreements between some of those three communities that I’ve identified.

Condominium property managers had some issues that were different from condominium property developers, and unit owners in some respects had yet a third perspective. Many of the people who live in Calgary-Buffalo, who now we’ve got to know on a first-name basis, are tired of phoning my constitu- ency office saying: “Dickson, when are the rules going to change? When is this new law going into force?” Mr. Speaker, I don’t like making apologies for the government of the province of Alberta. I really don’t like having to make apologies for the government that I pay taxes to.

I want to be able to tell people that this government really gets it right most of the time. I’d like to be able to tell my constituents that the regulations really are just the minutia to make a well-thought-out piece of legislation effective. Mr. Speaker, I can’t do that because we see with this shades of – what was it? – the mobile home tenancies act. Now, this is

an act that was never proclaimed. My recollection is that it was passed about six years ago, and because the regulation-making process was a closed rather than a very inclusive, expansive one, what happened is that there were problems that had been sloughed over, glossed over in debate in this Assembly. Then when it came time to do the regulations, we found that there was not clear consensus, that people in fact were still battling key issues that should have been addressed in the debate in the Legislative Assembly. We’ve seen some other legislation like that.

We’re in such a darn rush to take that bill and tie the ribbon around it and package it up, gift wrap it, if you will, and send it out. We’ve got that $8 million budget in the Public Affairs Bureau just salivating at the prospect of telling Albertans how great this government is. Maybe if we spent a little less time worrying about how we’re going to gussy up the package, how we’re going to decorate the package, and a little more time worrying about what’s in it, regulations would be done more expeditiously. We’d have the major debate where it belongs, in this Assembly.

What’s happened around the Condominium Property Amendment Act of 1996 is that there have been some substantial protracted disagreements, debate, if you will, around what should happen with the bill, but it doesn’t happen here, Mr. Speaker. It doesn’t happen where there’s a Hansard record, and it doesn’t happen where members of the public can come in and view. Where is it happen- ing? It’s happening in backrooms of governments. It’s happening in the smoke-filled rooms where developers and government bureaucrats sit down and decide what the law is going to be. Does nobody else see something wrong with this picture?

Is it just perhaps this misguided member that thinks there’s something wrong with this process? In any event, I have some real concerns with the process that’s evident here, and I can only hope that we do a better job in terms of the process of dealing with legislation. 4:00 Now, I’ve got a number of concerns I’m going to share with the new Provincial Treasurer when we move to the next stage of this bill, but right now we’re talking in principle about the bill, and I wanted to highlight a couple of thoughts. The first one is that in Alberta what we’ve got is a process or a regime which is largely

668 Alberta Hansard April 3, 2000 self-regulating. Really what that means is that if you’re a unit owner or you’re on the board of a condominium corporation and there’s a problem, what your government says is: go down and hire a lawyer, pay the retainer, and go to the Court of Queen’s Bench, because that’s where you have to go to get your remedy. Now, a lot of those constituents that I represent and many of the people living in condominiums are seniors. They’re not all $2 million condominiums, like you find in the Eau Claire community. Some of them are very modestly priced.

People have little left by the time they’ve finished putting down the down payment and then making mortgage payments on their condominium. To tell these people, “If there’s a problem, you’re on your own,” to say to a condo corporation board in a small project, “If you don’t like what’s happening here, you go down and hire a lawyer to do it,”