Alberta Hansard — 16 April 2003, Evening sitting (20:00) (Legislature 25, Session 3)

20030416

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1069 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/04/16 hea d: C omm ittee o f Sup ply [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deputy Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 Solicitor General The Deputy Chair: The hon. Solicitor General. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to present the Alberta Solicitor General business plan for 2003 to 2006. Before I begin, I would like to intro duce some of my gr eat staf f that a re seated in th e gallery.

With me t oday I ha ve Jim Nichols, D eputy Solicitor General; Bob Dunste r, ADM for public sec urity; Arnold Galet, ADM for corrections services, better known as Big Guy; Dan Mercer, ADM for strategic services; Sh awkat Sabur, executive director, financial services; Bronwyn Shoush, director of aboriginal initiatives; Jean Oly nyk, m y com munications director; Maureen Geres, who everybody knows, my executive assistant; and Debbie Malloy, who’s a s pecial adviser to the minister. [some applause] See, Mr. Chairman, I told you I had good staff.

The 2003-2006 busine ss plan makes changes to the m inistry’s vision and mission statements. These have been rewritten to more clearly recogniz e the m inister’s role in ensur ing safe and secure communities for Albertans “to live, work and raise their families.” Our new m ission stat ement also highlights the mini stry’s role in policing, security, and correctional services and in assisting victims of crime. These changes ar e also re flected in an expa nded list of core businesses. Our past business plan outline d three cor e businesses: policing and crime prevention, victi ms ser vices, a nd correcti ons.

In this year’s business plan we have separated policing and crime preven- tion so that each is a stand-alone core business. Over the past year we have taken on a larger role in provincial security and now include security operations as a core business. In fact, in the p ast yea r security and information management, or SIM, as it is known, was created to ensure t hat the appropr iate mechanisms are in plac e to identify and mitigate potential terrorist threats.

The core goal related to corrections has also be en expanded to better r eflect our role in providing custody, supervis ion, and rehabi litation prog rams f or offenders. The financia l content of our busine ss plan re flects Treas ury Board’s approval over the past year as w ell as f ederally funded programs and funds for continuing core programs and services. The Alberta Solicitor General’s budget for 2003-2004 is 277 and a half million dollars. This is an increase of $10.1 million over last year’s comparable forecast and $11.1 million over last year’s comparable budget.

This is still a hold-the-line budget, reflecting increases for ongoing program costs and improved security operations. Most of the increase is dedicated to salary adjustments for our full-time and contract employees in corrections and policing. Overall spending on policing and crime prevention will increase by $4 million over the 2 002-03 budget. Despi te this increase we continue to be pressed by communities right across this province to address the issue of policing costs that are outreaching local budgets.

Funding for custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of offenders has increased by $5 million and continues to account for just under 50 percent of the total budg et. There is also increased f unding of $1.2 million for protection services and counterterrorism operations. This year I ho pe to conclude the reviews of Alberta’s policing, corrections, and victim program s that w ere begun last y ear and previous. I will be taking our recom mendations through the government appr oval proce ss.

I beli eve it is imperative that the challenges facing policing and our corrections and victim programs be dealt with and brought to resolution. In closing, I would like to highlight some key accomplishments of the past fiscal year, accomplishments we will be building on this year and into the future. Last year my ministry and Alberta Municipal Affairs introduced Alberta’s co unterterrorism crisis m anagement process. As a r esult of t he intellig ence-led process, we are well positioned to identif y and re spond to any c hanges in A lberta’s security.

We’ve continued our partnership in Criminal Intelligence Service Alberta, or CISA. Funding to CISA is in the form of an annual $2.4 million grant. T his funds joi nt police oper ations int o organized crime across A lberta. Som e of the funding is p rovided by CISA directly to police services to help them target local organized crime, and earlier this ye ar CISA establis hed a new web sit e where Albertans can go for m ore information about org anized crime in Alberta and its impact on the communities. We believe that this type of public awareness is critical to fighting organized crime in Alberta.

Last year Alberta b ecame the firs t jurisdicti on in Canada t o introduce the Am ber Alert. In the Unit ed States the Amber Alert program has helped police successfully find about 30 children and teens that were abducted. While I hope that the Amber Alert is never needed, having the Amber Alert in place offers the police a new tool that we hope will hel p them find kidnap victims and return them safely to their families.

Lastly, over the past three years w e have prepa red for the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, that came into force on the 1st of April, by providing training and briefing opportunities to the police, the courts, and our corrections staff and by creating the new programs that the act requires. But I’m ver y concerned about the new federal act. Not only does it no t provid e stiff penalties for young offenders who c ommit serious a nd violent cr imes, but the federal government has not acknowledged its previous commitment to fund 50 percent of the ongoing costs of administering the youth justice legislation.

Once a gain the f ederal government has intro- duced a new pr ogram and left us holding the bag. The lack of commitment means that onc e feder al transit ion funding e nds in 2005, the Alb erta g overnment will ha ve to fi nd a way to sustain funding for these new programs. Mr. Chairman, tha t concludes my comments on the 2003-2006 Solicitor General business plan . I’d be plea sed to addre ss any questions regarding the plan and will provide a written answer to any questions not fully covered today.

The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, before I recognize the Member for Edmonton-Ce ntre, ma y we briefly revert to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. head : Introduction of G uests Mr. Masyk: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairm an. I’d lik e to introduce a friend of mine f rom up nort h, my home town of High Prairie, Mr. Kevin Cox. He’s here on some business, and I invited

1070 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 him to the Legislature to observe for a few minutes. I would ask Kevin to rise a nd receiv e the tradi tional w arm w elcome of the Assembly. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 Solicitor General (continued) The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the Solicitor General for her opening remarks. My memory is that she’s pretty good about an swering the questions here during the debate, and those she doesn’t I’m sure will be answered by her and her staff following this debate .

I would jus t ask to g et, if pos sible, the responses prior to having to vote on the appropriation bill. That way I have all the information in front of me before I have to vote on that bill, and I appreciate that. The first hour tonight is dedicated to opposition quest ions, and I’ve already spoken to the minister about doing some back and forth. So what I’d like to do is just run over the areas that I have here, and maybe we’ll take a couple of them at a time and then go back and forth with questions and answers.

I did want to comment a bit on the information that’s in the report and the change in the vision and mission. I’d like to talk about the reports on victim services, on policing, and on corrections. I have some general sort of stakeholder ques tions, s ort of a g rab bag of different issues that have come up. I’d like to also spend some time on the issue of police funding, which is overall as an issue certainly rising to the top and s tarting to bubble over a bit, and maybe an update on the diversification project, something I know we’re both interested in.

From the beginning I noticed right off that the government is no longer offer ing a high lights section, and I think this a general observation. This is the seco nd ministry that I’m critic for that’s been debated thus far, and that highlights

section seems to have been pulled overall. That’s too bad because I found it a useful section. It doesn’t seem to have been replaced in any particular area, but if you put together both the introduct ion and the pla nning environ- ment, sometimes you can glean what’s going on. So I’m going to go through some of the issues that have been raised there. The MLA reviews of the victims’ fund, policing, and corrections are mentioned here in the introduction. As I said, I’ll come back to that.

Then there’s, “We will continue to inform Albertans about serious and violent of fenders, . . . partic ipate in the dev elopment o f a National Sex Offender Registry” – that’s the federal one – the Amber Alert, which the minister just mentioned, the changes to the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act. Now, it also talks about “developing a proposal to address gang activity in Alberta,” so I’m interested in what the minister is anticipating there. 8:10 The Solicitor General is also working with others on a provincial impaired driving enforcement strategy. If I could get some d etail, please, on who all i s involved.

What are the o ther ministries and stakeholders who are involved in this, a list of those, plus what actions are being an ticipated that are dif ferent from what’s being offered now? Is this an enhancement? Are you changin g some things? Are you looking at bringing in legislation? Are you going to have another MLA review? What’s being anticipated under that?

It talks about “rehabilitation of offenders” and a contin uation of “work service to Albe rta communities.” Now, I’m assuming that that’s the old pick up the garba ge along the highw ay and c ut firewood for the pr ovincial campgrounds and prune trees and cut grass and th at sort of thing. It’s also being mentioned here along with the youth justice committees again: “rehabilitation of first and second-time young offenders.” So I’m curious, first of all, with the adult offenders where the rest of the rehabilitation is. Or is that what the minister accepts as rehabilitation, these work camps?

Have we totally abandoned the idea of trai ning for occupations other than crime obviously? Have we abandoned all of that programming, and the rehabilitation part of it is pick ing up litter in the ditch? What happened to the reha bilitation par t of ou r programming? There certainly seems to be an e mphasis here: “work service” is how it’s phrased. Also, therefore, that trickles down to the rehabilitat ion for the first- and second-time youth offenders. Is their rehabilitation really about this com munity servic e? Do they do some s ort of junior version of litter picking and pruning and wood chopping?

What’s being anticipated there? One sentence about supporting initiatives for domestic violence. I’d like to know what’s anticipated there. It seems to indicate that it’s supporting ex isting prog ramming but doesn’t seem to be considering any ex pansion o f this, a nd since w e’re looking at a three-year period here – the minister has introduced her budget as 2003 to 2006 – do I take it, then, that we’re not anticipating any new initiatives around domestic violence? I t l ooks like we’re just keeping the status quo.

There’s some information here about the victims financial benefits program, making it “m ore resp onsive to the needs of victims of crime.” Perhaps that’s connected to the vict ims of crime MLA review and report that’s still outstanding. I see a little nod from the minister, so I’ll leave that and come back to it when I talk about the reports. The minister also spoke a little about the counterterrorism efforts. This is kind of a difficult one, because it’s not as though the minister can stand up and s ay, “Here are all the init iatives we’re taking for counterterrorism,” and sort of let the cat out of bag.

On the other hand, the minister is spending taxpayer dollars here to follow some kind of plan on counterterrorism. So how are we supposed to know what the minister is doing? W e’re in a bit of a catch-22 here, and it’s not acceptable to just say: “Trust us. We can’t tell you this is counterterrorism, but give us a bunch of money to do it.” You have to give some kind of indication as to what’s being anticipated here or what’s being followed. It’s not enough to just say: trust us on this one. The new

section called Planning Environment is very interesting. It says that the following environmental factors have been considered when you’re looking at the plans t hat you’re going to set f orward over this three-year period. It talks about things like demographics, aboriginal justice, v ictims, implic ations of ne w legi slation, policing . . . [interjections] The Deputy Chair : I’m sor ry to inte rject, hon. Me mber f or Edmonton-Centre, but the noise level is getting pretty high . The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre has some very interesting and important points to make, so can you please respect her recognition to speak and allow her to continue. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don’t care if they listen or not, but it would be helpful if the minister could hear me. In some context these environmental factors seem to be delivered as though these are things that are sort of holding us back or reasons why we can’t accomplish what we’d like to accomplish. Overall, since this is a new area, if she can talk about the choices that she has

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1071 made in setting these particular areas down. Is she seeing these as barriers or so me sort of rest riction to what sh e’s trying to accom- plish? I think the answer will probably be: some areas are and some areas aren’t. If that’s the case, which are and which aren’t? A little expansion on that, please. In particular, I notice that the aboriginal justice

section is listed under the enviro nmental factors. I’m interested in this because I don’t see the aboriginal factors being discussed at length in any other

section except for this one. So could I ask her to expand, please, on what’s being anticipated here? It does note that the Aboriginal population is young and the fastest growing segment of the A lberta popul ation. A large proportion of the Aborig inal population in Canada experiences socioeconomic disadvantages in comparison to non-Aboriginal Canadians. Okay. So what’s the minister trying to tell us here? Does that mean that she’s going to have lots of programs, no programs, or that this is a difficulty she’s trying to overcome in some way?

It’s one of the few places where I actually see aboriginals mentioned in the whole context of the prog rams and services that the Solicitor G eneral is offering. The minister has already talked about the new legislation that’s coming through federally that will be affecting what she is attempt- ing to offer provincially, and that includes the Young Offenders Act, the Sex Offender Inform ation Registration Act, and the Criminal Code changes. Then she talk s about prov incial policing pr ograms, which I’ ll come back to, and I’ve already talked about terrorism.

Organized crime I’d like to com e back t o in the conte xt of gambling, because during the debate with the minister of gambling the Solicitor General was referre d to, so I’ve made a notation to come back and ask her some of the questions under that. Under goals and strategies, goal 1, to “ensure safe communities in Alberta,” a couple of questions have arisen out of that.

I’m referring to 1.5 on page 351 : “Enhance the partnership with t he RCMP in monitoring the Provincial Police Service Agreement.” Now , the Member for Wainwright had a private member’s motion before the House that was talking about – well, actually I gave him a bit of a hard time. [interjection] W ell, I’m sure that if the Me mber for Edmonton-Castle Downs is so interested in the debate, he’s going to get up when he has his opp ortunity to do it rather tha n just con- stantly commenting and heckling from the back row there.

The Member for Wa inwright was com menting on a need to develop or get in place plans for a regional policing service. He was also talking about a re gional polic e commission. But m ostly he seemed to be frus trated and a ll those tha t spoke on his moti on seemed to be frustrated about somehow being prepared and ready, as the minister goes into negotiat ions with the R CMP in 2007 to 2012, to break away and go into it saying: we can do this on our own, so better negotiate with us the way we want, or we’ll just strike out on our own.

So I’m wondering what the minister is anticipating when she puts down as a strategy: enhance the partnership with the RCMP. 8:20 I also note in the next one, 1.6: “Reinstate Restorative Justice Grant fundin g.” Could the minister talk about that, please? How much money is going t o be put into thes e grants ? How i s the program going to be administered? What’s the criteria for applica- tion? Is this done in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, or is she running the program herself? What’s the level of grants that is anticipated? How often is the granting cycle? Once a year? Twice a year?

The other th ing that the minister mentioned. She’s made some very definitive choices, and I’m wondering if she can talk about her philosophy in moving forward on this. The previous vision was “a democratic and p rosperous Alberta based on respect for t he law, where all Albertans are safe in their homes and communities.” The new version is: “Ensure Albertans have safe and secure communities in which to live, work and raise thei r fam ilies.” So s ome quite deliberate choices ha ve been m ade there, and can she please t alk about what her philosophy is that allowed her or had her make those choices? The mission.

T he previ ous mission : “Our missio n is to serve Albertans by prom oting safe communities and by communicating with Albertans about the a dministration of justi ce.” Now , that’s likely heavily tainted by the pr evious posit ion where both the Solicitor General and the Justice minister we re the same ministry. The new mission: Our mission is to serve Albertans by ensuring s afe and secure communities through effective policing, security and correctional services and when crime is committed to assist victims of crime.

So that one’s a bit more obvious, but I’ll get her to talk about her personal ideology in leading this department forward and the choices she’s made to establish that mission. I note that the department’s budget is up by a little over 4 percent but not by a lot, and I’m questioning the minister’s confidence, backed up by some detail, about the sustainability of service delivery.

We know that wit h the sim ple cost of livin g, with i n- creased volume for deliv ery of service to more Alb ertans – I’ve heard a number of times the comment that with the in-migration into the province they didn’t bring their police service and their roads and their schools with them, so that’s affecting the minister’s ability to deliver these services. There are a number of factors to be consid- ered here, and I’m questioning how she’s confident that a 4.2 percent increase is enough to maintain or sustain s ervice delivery. We’ve got likely increased labour costs.

The number I heard tossed around a lot until about a month ago was 4 percent. We’ve got inflation, the normal cost-of-living increase, and we’ve got this volume increase from the in-migration. Now, in the studies that I’ve read, they were talking between 7 and 10 percent to sustain program delivery. This minister is putting in 4.2, so I’d like to hear some of her detail in her confidence in that number. Now just some general and stakeholder questions that have arisen, if I may.

The Solicitor General had introduced a Victims of Crime Amendment Act, and this changed guidelines with respect to th e financial benefits program for those p eople who w ere victims of crime. But when I looked at the victi ms of crime funding, it ’s bounced around a bit r ecently, and I’m questioning if the minister could expand on why that has var ied so much. For ex ample, the victims of crime funding is $10 million in this budge t, up a sm all amount from $9.8 million last year, but that in fact was a decrease of almost $3 million from the year before. So we’ve gone down by $3 million and up by $200,000.

What’s the sense in this? What’s the minister anticipating here? In the business plan it’s also mentioning that there are going to be the regulator y and le gislative change s to the vi ctims’ financial benefits program. Could the minister expand on that? Is she talking about bringing in legislation? Is she talking about doing that in the spring session or in the fa ll session? Is this going to be done by regulation? What is she anticipating precisely? The next short segment I want to talk a bout is illegal gambling.

During the Gam ing estim ates the Gaming ministe r refe rred this particular item over to the Soli citor General. When I was asking about his department’s monitoring of illegal activities or anticipation or planning for or investigation of, he didn’t want to touch that one and punted it. It was punted to this parti cular minister. S o what sorts of activity has the Solicitor General taken to anticipate amounts

1072 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 of illegal gambling, to measure it or count it, to look into the future on it? This is a three-year plan. What’s the minister anticipating by way of increases in illegal gambling? There’s also some concern over the increase in illegal VLTs or what a re called gray machine s. Now, Alberta had attem pted to counteract that by putting in their own machines. Wher e is the Solicitor General on monitoring this activity? I think that’s close to the end of my first 20 minutes, Mr.

Chair- person, so I will take my seat and allow the minister some opportu- nity to answer the questions I’ve put before her. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. The hon. member in 20 minutes has asked a whack of questions, so hopefully I’ve got a few of them. One of the que stions th at she star ted off with w as about the highlight section, that it was gone, and she was wondering why we think that our busine ss plan is put together well. T he highli ght section, if that’s a concern, is something certainly that we can look at next year.

It has not been one of the things that we’ve been told has been a problem quite frankly. Then she went on to talk about the serious and violent offenders, and I would as sume she’s referring to our high-risk offender web site. I can tell the member that the Alberta high-risk offender web site has been e xtremely successful and extremely popular. At the beginning we were getting about 3,400 hits a week.

We started to do a bit of research and found that a lot of it was parents accessing the high-risk offender web site and saying to their children when they saw this: if you see this particular individual, he’s not a very nice man. So we’ve been very , very pleased. In fact , from what I understand, Manitoba has launched a high-risk of fender web site very similar to ours, and Ontario has already got one. In regard to the national sex offender registry Alberta along with Ontario has been key in pushing the national sex offender registry.

In fact, we buddied up at the federal/provincial/territorial meeting in bringing that to the attention of the federal government and finally managed to get them to m ove on that. One o f the th ings that we aren’t in agreement with and are pushing the federal government on is retroactivity, and they’ve been a little obstinate and stubborn about that particula r issue.

We think it’s i mportant t hat some of the offenders – for example, Paul Bernardo, Karl Toft – should be part and parcel of the national sex offender registry because they have committed horrific crimes in this country and done a lot of damage to a lot of people. She talked about the gang proposal. Several weeks ago I went to Ottawa and made a proposal to the federal Solici tor Gen eral, who was quite key in regard to our gang proposal, which would be on a provincial level.

Similar to how we set up G-8, which was very, very successful, we will have the federal Solicitor General, the provincial Solicitor General, and then all of the players across, whether it’s the RCMP, the municipal polic e, aborigi nal policing , and people involved in the gang proposal. We’re currently just sort of finishing that up, and then we’ll be s ending the proposal to the federal Solicitor General. Again, I’d like to emphasize that he was quite key on that, and I think that’s something that’s very important.

I think Albertans have to realize that we have a serious gang problem in this province and an organized gang problem in this particular province. One just needs to look at w hat’s happening in your own city of Edmonton and some of the incidents that have hap pened in Mill Woods, et cetera. The police have done a wonderful job in trying to attack it.

We’ve had two very, very successful takedowns in regard to the gang strategies that were co-ordinated with the city police and the RCMP, one being operation Kachou, and the second one is – the name’s escaped me, but it was out of Calgary. 8:30 The Amber Alert, as you’re well aware, hon. member, is the first in Canada. I got that idea when I was doing some research over a year ago now. I found it very interesting and pursued that to see how it worked, and when I was invited to the Presi dent’s conference in Washington, I talked to a lot more people.

So we were very, very pleased to be able to announce the Amber Alert in Alberta. We now have several provinces that are particularly interested in the Amber Alert, and my staff are diligently helping the other provinces that have shown keen interest in the Amber Alert. She touched briefly on the provincial strategy, and I believe the one you’re referring to is when we’re partnering with Transportation on I think y ou mentioned drinking and driving. I, too, like you, found it was a little bit noisy trying to hear what you were saying to me.

It’s something that we’re looking at, working on some strategies with Alberta Transportation on how to address the high percentage of accidents that are occurring in rural Alberta mainly from a couple of things: running stop signs, speed, and things like that. I want to emphasize the fac t that it doe sn’t necessarily me an it’s rural Albertans that are causing these accidents. It could be city pumpkins like me going down a dirt road, not familiar with the roads, speeding through a stop sign, and then wham.

So we’ re working with Transportation o n a couple of i ssues: the drinking a nd driving strategy of course, which is my department, which includes o bvi- ously working with them and the polic e on try ing to curta il the drinking and driving, and then on some other transportation issues on accidents that are occurring on rural roads. You asked a bout the rehabi litation of offenders. Key thing. I really believe it’s important that offenders are rehabilitated and how we can work on rehabilitation with the offenders. It’s an interesting question you asked.

I did a tour yesterday at some of our probation offices because I wanted to talk to some of the probation of ficers, and I was talking to one of the probation officers on the huge success they’re having partnering with AADAC. AADAC is coming into the office and workin g with of fenders because a lot of our offenders obviously have drink ing and drug problems. So I found tha t is extremely beneficial.

The probation officers in this province do a wonderful job once our people get out of our correctional facilities, trying to match them up with appropriate rehabilitation, whether it’s anger manag ement, alcohol and drug counseling , a numbe r of different things that they’re working on then. W e try a nd do the same thing when they’re in our facilities, but you have to keep in mind that the m ajority of our of fenders are ther e for suc h a short period of time when they go into our correctional facilities, but we try an d address t heir issue s while they’re there and t hen work through on probation.

You asked about the work service for our offenders, and, yes, we like to keep our offenders busy. We have some very, very successful programs within our facilities that have been hugely successful, and I would invite the member to come to my office and see some of the woodworking toys. I think you did see them when you were in to see my office in regar d to some of the w oodworking that our offenders are doing particularly in Fort Saskatchewan. All of those toys that those offenders are making are being utilized by S antas Anonymous, and they do a really good job.

Another good exam ple of w hat our off enders ar e doing is t he eyeglasses program in the Fort Saskatchewan jail. All of the glasses are dropped off at LensCrafters. They’re taken to our Fort Saskatch- ewan correcti onal fac ility. T he offe nders have been traine d by optometrists to cl ean t hem, so t hey ca n tell the s trength of the

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1073 eyeglasses. Then they ’re all shipped overseas, and i t’s extremely beneficial. The number of times I’ve actually visited the correctional facilities, the offenders that are working on the eyeglasses and have the ability are so proud of what they’re doing, and quite frankly they’re bragging about where the glasses are going. It’s nice to see because they feel that they’re contributing back to th e community. We just celebrated in December our one millionth pair of eyeglasses that have been shipped overseas. So it’s very exciting.

Our youth justi ce com mittee is hugely success ful. Hug ely successful. In fact, we were honoured to receive a gold award down east in recogni tion of our y outh justice committees a nd then b e watched right across the country on our youth justice committees. We have even had interest over in – I hate to name som e place because I may be wrong, but I believe it was Af rica or Australia, somewhere over there. I’m sorry; it’s gone.

You spoke about domestic violence, and we’re partnering with Children’s Services and the Minister of Children’s Services and have been very proud to be part and parcel of th at, working wi th our police on how to deal with situations when they’re called to the home. It’s been proving very successful. We have some more work that we have to obviously get done. You talked about the victims of crime fund and the surplus: why hasn’t the mone y been s pent? [interj ection] Yes ? No? I c an’t remember. Anyway, the victims of crime fund does have a surplus.

The surplus has been set aside to allow the implementation of the recommendations that are from the victims of crime consultation. As the victims of crime is a regulatory fund, any surplus at fiscal year- end remains in the fund for future use and spending of the money to benefit victims, and I think that’s the intent of it. You talked a bout the counter terrorism plan, and you’re right. There’s so very, very little information that I can give you because of all of the very high-sec urity inf ormation t hat we’re recei ving about terrorism.

We have been very, very fortunate in the fact that we’ve got a very good working relationship with CSIS, which is out of Ottaw a, with C ISA, and w ith some of our part ners, that we’re gathering intelligence information all the time. It’s been extremely beneficial, and we’re extremely proud of what we’ve been able to achieve on counterterrorism. Not only that; the SIM unit – we had a conference. I believe it was in October or N ovember. We were fortunate e nough to have the fede ral Solicitor General come and bring us greetings on that.

He was very, very impressed with our counterterrorism plan, our security management SIM unit. In fact, he wanted information from all of the speakers that were presenting and said: Minister, why would I reinvent the wheel when you guys have gone wa y past? So Alber ta is leading the country i n counterterrorism and our SIM unit. You talked abo ut abori ginal initiatives. We have a wonderful person, that I introduced earlier, in my department by the name of Bronwyn Shoush, who even just recently got back from speaking in Thailand because she’s so good at what she does.

We’re working on a lot of abor iginal issues, and w e’re well aware of the aboriginal population in our correctional facilities and how we deal with those particular aboriginals in our correctional facilities. Should they be there, or wh ere s hould t hey be? It’s an op en door , and a high percentage of aboriginal people are in our correctional facilities. We have been doing a lot with First Nation policing, trying to deal with the issue of First Nation police taking care of aboriginal people within the community. It’s something we need to work on, we’re going to continue to work on.

I have a soft spot for the abori ginal people in this province. I don’t know if it’ll be my term or whose term it’ll ever be if you can ever try and address all of the aboriginal issues, but we’ll continue to plug away. We’re currently working on another proposal on drugs on the reserve, which surprised me when I was doing tours. I knew that drinking was a problem with the First Nation people, but what surprised me more t han a nything a nd something I’ve been working on diligent ly is t he drugs tha t are coming onto the reserve now.

It’s becoming absolutely uncontrolla- ble, and they’re something that we have to deal with. 8:40 You briefly asked m e a questi on about my philosophy i n the business plan. I think my philosophy is to make sure that Albertans are safe and they’re secure and they’re well taken care of and they feel safe in their homes and they feel safe in their communities and they feel safe in their jobs. You asked me about the budget. I briefly talked about the budget and the increase we got and the challenges that we have within the budget, and I ac knowledged the challenges we have in the budget when I spoke.

We have comm unities across this province that are feeling the challenges of policing, and they’re f eeling those c hal- lenges of policing for several reasons. What used to be urban crime is now moving into rural, and crime is different. We’re seeing a lot of challenges. Again, I go back to the crop-up of meth labs that are appearing in our province and in our rural areas, the green operations that are growing. I thought B.C. had a problem, but we’re starting to see a problem with the marijuana growth in our province.

That is what I wrote down, as much as I could write down, so I’m prepared to sit down and listen, and we can tackle it again. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much. Where we were not able to hear each other because of the ambience in the Chamber, I can clarify a couple of those. I was asking about the provincial impaired driving enforcement strategy, which appears on page 348 of your r eport under Introduction. I think you did pick up on it and said that you were working with Transportation, particularly around rural areas is what I hear d you s ay.

It’s stated here that the “Alberta Solicitor General wil l . . . wor k with ot her gove rnment m inistries and stakeholders to develop a Provincial Impaired Driving Enforcement Strategy,” and I was a sking: please give us details on what you’re anticipating here. Who are the stakeholders? What are you looking to do? It’s a three-year plan, et cetera, et cetera. I’m looking for the details and to roll that one out a bit. There was one in ther e around the v ictims of crim e fund. I’m sorry; we just didn’t hear e ach other. So we’ll have to w ait for Hansard for clarification on that.

She did pick up on the questions about the programs for aboriginal populations, and if she can give me some details and flesh that out a bit. She said that she had a particular staff person working on it. Maybe I could get a list of the projects and initiatives that are there and perhaps w hat the vis ion for the f uture is or t he vision f or the three years is anticipated to be. Now, there are some issues around First Nations policing.

I may come back to tha t one because I’m trying to remember something I’ve been told very specifically about First N ations police officers and it’s not coming forward in my brain. So I’ll come back to that at the end, and maybe my memory will have come forward. I was asking quite specifically about the c hanges and why the changes in the vision and the mission, and I was talking about what the Solicitor General’s philosophy is around this because she is the leader of this department. She is setting the pace here; she’s setting the p hilosophy.

So it’s either her philosophy personally or her philosophy for the department developed in conjunction with staff and stakeholders, et c etera, et cetera. But I w anted to ha ve some detail, fleshing out, some explanation on why the changes and what

1074 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 was being anticipated, what’s going to fall unde r that. You don’t just make changes because you thought you would or because it’s a new three-year plan. I expect that the minister will have made these with some deliberation, so I’m looking for the background on what was behind the deliberations in making the changes. Those are the sort of catch-up comments. Now, on we go. Okay. The last thing we talked about, then, was gambling. I’d like to talk a bit about the three reports.

The victims of crime review tha t was done was actually com pleted, as far as I know, more than a year ago. It’s still never been released. So out of the three reports – the re view of the victims legislation and pro- grams, the MLA review of the Police Act, and the MLA review of corrections – only one of them has been relea sed, actually in two forms, and that was the MLA review of the Police Act. The other two s eem to be on the she lf. So I’m not sure if the mini ster is looking to age them like a fine wine or a cheese, or what’s the deal. It is more than a year past when she r eceived one of them.

The other one, the Corrections Act – I’m trying to remember now. It’s six months, I think, since she received it. So when do we anticipate the public release of these two reports? The taxpayers put money forward for these believing that they’re going to lead to something. They like to see what they got. They like to get it in their hands and to know what actuall y came out of it, something concrete, if y ou will. So when specifically is the minister anticipating releasing the review that was done on the victim services, and w hen will we be seeing the public release of the corrections review?

We’ve had, as I’ve said, two versions o f the MLA review of the Police Act, one that was released last mid-July, and the second one was a sort of update that was in response to a further feedback loop in the community. In fact, a number of recommendations that were made in the first version were pulled back or withdrawn or stopped in the second version. So I’d like an update on what the minister is seeing there, where she anticipates that to go. Is that the end of it now? Is there another f eedback loop? Will there be a final final version of that, or have we had it? When will this be rolled out?

Now, with the corrections rev iew the review set out to look at sentencing, staff and funding resources, offender security and staff safety, capacity requirements in the facilities, and offender rehabilita- tion programs. So, as I said, w e haven’t seen the repor t. We do have proposed legislation in front of us which seems to come out of the corrections review, but we don’t have the corrections review. So we don’t know from what sprang the legislation that’s in front of us. Also, can I get an update on the cost of the committee?

I did write to the minister about three or four months ago and was given a figure of $40,000 that had been spent on the review of the Corrections Act. Has there bee n any additional re source ex pended on this? The minister is shaking her head no. Okay. One of the areas that was m uch antici pated but in fact not addressed or that we haven’t seen anything further of was the private prisons. An Hon. Member: Prisons for profits. Ms Blakeman: Prisons for profits, yeah.

Can I get the Solicitor General on the record, please, to tell us if she is expecting in this three-year period between 2003 and 2006 to look into pr ivate pris ons? Is she e xpecting to implement th em? How is she expecting to do that? Are we o nly going to hear about that when we get a report fr om the review of the Corrections Act MLA committee? If so, then w e need to s ee the re port from the government MLA committee. This starts to become a never-ending circle from which the public gets no information.

So I’m probing the minister to please get us some information about that and to put on the record whether she is planning to implement private prisons or any version of privatization of our prison system or our correc- tions system in the next three years. 8:50 She’s responded a little bit to my questions about rehabilitation. I think the average stay in provincial prisons that I’ve heard before is 32 days. I agre e: not a lo t of tim e to g et a university degree underneath an inmate’s belt. Certainly, that’s not a possibility.

She has to my memory only ever ta lked about r ehabilitation and pro- grams by talking about drug and alc ohol addiction c ounseling. Is there any othe r kind of pr ogram, rehabilita tion in the se nse of literacy assis tance or num eracy assista nce or any kind of s kill upgrading, anything else at all that the minister is currently offering or is anticipating offering over the span of the three-year plan that we have in front o f us? With that, of course , is: wil l there be the funding that supports that?

Now, the second MLA review was of the Police A ct, and again when I contacted the minister several months ago, the cost of that committee was a little above $10,000. Could I get an update on the cost of that committee as well? Mrs. Forsyth: Hasn’t changed. Ms Blakeman: Hasn’t changed at all. Still $10,000. Okay. Again, the goals of that r eview were to engage the stakeholders with their thoughts on changes to the Police Act, looking at strategic policing issues, legislative issues governing police, accountability, special constables, alternative measures on policing.

Som e of the more controversial issues that were brought forward around that were photoradar, im plementing the de puty constables, the use of private security guards and private policing services, the unmanned aerial surveillance, and the provincial police force. So we have had the original release in June and a supplement. I ’d already asked if we were getting a final report on this. Further to that, are we anticipating changes to the Police Act? I don’t see any indication of expected legislation in the spring session.

Are we expecting to see something later that would then be debated in the fal l, or are we now lo oking at next year? Wh at is her time line: (

a) is she expecting to change the Police Act, and (

b) what’s the time line on it? I’m also interested in, especially in light of the episode that has been raised a couple of times in the Assembly actually around the special constable w ho . . . [A cell phone rang] A phone is ringing again, and perhaps the person could answer it outside. Perha ps if they could go outside to have their discussion, that would be helpful. The special constable got caught in that very unfortunate circum- stance with someone that had a gun in their vehicle, and the special constable approached them. Aft er that, the re was a call t o allow special constables to arm.

So I’m going back and looking again at the recommendations for deputy constables compared to special constables. Could I get some from the minister what her thoughts are, what the department’s thoughts are, what they anticipate actions are on allowing those deputy constables to have firearms, side arms, or any kind of weapon that they would be using and also a clarifica- tion of what’s being anticipated for them. There’s a certain sector of jobs that are set aside for the special constables to be doing. How does the minister anticipate the deputy constables would be different from them?

What different list of job activities would they have? So if we can get the list of job activities for the special constables and then the l ist of activit ies that t he minister anticipates the deputy constables would be involved in and the discussion of the carrying of the side arms. I’m interested to see whether the Solicitor General is pursuing that.

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1075 Also, could I hear the minister’s thoughts and any plans, expendi- tures of mone y on a prov incial police f orce and w hether she is pursuing this through planning or thr ough additional research or whether she’s not interested in pursuing this at all. Whe re is the minister on this one? I know that we’ve got some private members that are very keen, but I don’t know where the minister is standing on this particular issue. Now, flowing from the MLA review of the Police Act, we have the issues around police funding, and that’s been in the paper a great deal.

I’ve g ot a mit tful of v arious arti cles that have turne d up recently: Mayor Presses for Police Funding in the Edmonton Journal in January; Action Plan in the Works for World Cop Funding from the Calgary Herald; Cash-strapped Police Balk at Pr oviding Free Services for the Province, again in the Edmonton Journal; Gibbons Feeling Robbed over $200,000 Policing Fee ; and it goe s on. So there is increasing agitation around the funding of police services.

The minister and I have an ongoing disagreement about who funds how much of this, and I’d like to get some clarification, please, from the minister, then, with facts and figures. According to AUMA the province pays 14 percent of policing costs, the municipalities pay 49, and the feds pay 37. When I use those figures, the minister jumps up and says: no, no, that’s not including the grants from the municipali- ties. But when you look at the grants from the municipalities, in a lot of cases, particularly in the case of Edmonton and Calgary, that doesn’t include any money for policing services.

So there’s a great deal of disagreement about who’s paying how much. Now, we do hav e under t he Poli ce Ac t comm unities w ith a population under 2,500 receiving their policing services free of cost, but communities with 2,500 to 15,000 people must pay 70 percent of the cost, and communities of over 15,000 pay 90 pe rcent of the costs. So is there anticipation of changes in the funding formula for policing services? Specific to Edmonton an d Calgar y, wi ll the province now start paying for policing services again? That money was completely cut out of thei r budgets in 1995.

If the minister wants to explain how she thinks that money wasn’t cut out of it, I’m sure the chief would be interested in hearing it. I’m also interested in what concrete plans the minister has in place to sit down with the chief of police for the Edmonton Police Service around the payment of serv ices that the police service is o ffering: jurisdictional, operational, regulatory, and regional. It’s performing these services on behalf of the province and not recouping its cost outlay on this. What discussions, what plans?

You know, concrete dates when the Solicitor General is sitting down with the chief o f police for the Edmonton Police Service to start to work this out. I have a great deal of concern that this is only going to esca late. Looking across the province a number of groups seem to be unhappy with the amount of money that they’re receiving from the province or the amount of money that they’re having to pay out or specifically about what a number of smaller communities feel is an inequity.

If they have 2,501 pe ople, then al l of a sudd en they’re payi ng 70 percent of the cost; if they have 2,499, they’re not paying anything. So this is causing increasing stress in the community, and where is the minister going to go with this? I’m looking for a plan complete with time l ines on how she’s anticipating meeting with different groups over this. 9:00 Again, just clarification on whether she’s anticipating a regional police force, which may well work in Alberta given some clusterings in particular areas.

I’m thinking of southern Alberta, for example, where you’ve got Lethbridge and Coaldale and some of those areas that cluster very closely together. That may well work, but is there money being set aside to study this? Is there money being set aside to enhance this or to assist the groups to go in that direction if they so choose? What’s the plan here? Could I also probe a bit more on the antiterrorism equipment and training, on the status of the negotiations with the feds for money to cover this? That had been a response that the minister had given to me some time ago in response to my questions.

What is the status of negotiations on this? I know that there had been particular concerns expressed by the larger police services saying, “We need money for,” and then there was a long shopping list of things that they felt they needed: the biochem ical suits and certa in other protec tive equip- ment. Where are we with that shopping list? Is there going to be money coming from the feds for it? Has the minister been negotiat- ing? I mean, I know she’s met recently with her federal counterpart. I appear to have reached the second of my opportunities to raise questions, and I look forward to another opportunity.

Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, the first hour that’s allocated between the mini ster a nd m embers of the opposi tion has now elapsed. Any other member who wishes to participate will be able to do so. The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The me mber has indicated that we both had a bit of a difficult time hearing earlier. The development of a provincial impaired driving e nforcement strategy is in conjunction with Justice, Transportation, and ot her police services.

There is presently a steering committee composed of Alberta Just ice, Alberta Tra nsportation, a senior rep resentative from police services, as well as the Solicitor General who have been developing a three-year strategy. As well, there’s a 10-year business plan to comba t impair ed driv ing in Albert a.

The c ommittee is focused on Check St op i nitiatives, utilizing multi-a gencies in regional settings to specif ically enforce the impaired laws i n both urban and rural s ettings, a nd the Provincia l Impair ed Driving Committee has recommended a tripartite initiative between Justice and Alberta Transportation and my department. So we’re working with various agenci es on this issue . We bel ieve tha t it’s vitally important to the sa fety of Albertans. W e believe that w e need to bring a higher level of awareness to the high societal costs that result from impaired drivers, and we continue to work on it.

You asked about First Nation policing. You said that you’d heard something recently, but it had escaped you, and you’d come back to it. You again asked me a bout my changes to the visions and mis- sions. Quite frankly, hon. member, I like the vision, and I like the mission. We worked very hard putting together the vision, and we worked very hard on the mission. My background is advertising and marketing, and I spent m any, man y years in the adve rtising a nd marketing field. One of the things that they say that’s important is the KISS philosophy and keeping it simple. You know, the vision is clear.

It’s articulate. “ Ensure Albe rtans have safe and secure communities in which to live, work and raise their families.” That’s a vision. It’s a vision Albertans understand. It’s clear. It’s concise. There’s just no question about what our vision is for Albertans, and people are comfortable with that. They want to be safe. They want a secure community where they work, where they live, and where they raise their families.

The mission statement: Our mission is to se rve A lbertans by ensuring safe and secure communities through effective policing, security and correctional services and when crime is committed to assist victims of crime. Well, we’re including the victims in regard to the mission . We’re talking about our police. We’re making sure that people are secure.

1076 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 The department and the minister responsible spent an awful lot of time coming up with this vision. We have great people in our communications department, and we wanted to make sure that the message was a message that was done well and sent out to Albertans and things that they would understand. You asked a lot about the reviews that we have going on. One of the things that I thought was important when I took over the ministry was to look over the reviews.

You made some criticism on some of the time and the length of time, and I fully will accept criticism and responsibility for that. I think that when you’re dealing with a sector of people, for example, the vict ims, which I think is a portion of society where crime has been s uffered, that has los t out tre men- dously, the pendulum has swung so far to the side of the criminal that I think we’ve had to take the opportunity and bring the pendu- lum back t o include how the v ictim feels. T he hon. Mem ber for Calgary-Shaw went out and did a review for me, and she did a very good review. We’re studying that review.

We’re studying it very intently and looking at the financial implications of that review to make sure that we do it we ll a nd that we do it on behalf of the victims of this province w ho have suf fered c rime. We wi ll be releasing that very shortly. So it’s important. You talke d about the policing review. I kno w I let you know, because you wrote me and asked me, that the cost was $10,000. It hasn’t ch anged.

As y ou’re well aware, the com mittee went out, tabled their review of policing in July of 2002, and there was quite a bit of controversy in regard to some of the recommendations that the committee made, and you alluded to it. You ta lked abou t the photoradar, and you talked about the deputy constables and several other things. So the committee asked me for the opportunity to go out and clarif y their recommendations to the stak eholders, which they did. They worked very hard to do that and came back with their report. It’s called Li stening to Stakeholders, and it was a supple- mental to the policing report.

It was released probably about three or four weeks ago – I’m not exactly sure – to give the stakeholders the opportunity to look at the supplemental, and we’re working on it right now. We’re working in the department, and we’re assessing the o riginal re port from July, the suppleme ntal, the 200-pl us responses we’ve heard from stakeholders on top of that, and putting together a minis ter’s report, to take it t hrough the proc ess of government, which we do. It will be released once it’s gone through the government process.

I know that’s probably not the answer that the member wants to hear, but unfortunately on the government side we have a process that has to be followed. I have met with stakeholders. The stakeholders are well aware of it. I have talked to the mayors. I had a meeting yesterday with the AAMD and C. I’m meeting with t he AUMA next w eek. So the stakeholders are aware of the process. They understand that policing in this province is a very, very complicated, complex issue, and we need to make sure that we’re doing it right.

You indicated and I’ve indicated – and I’m no t embarrassed – that pol icing funding is a problem and how we addr ess the ne eds of the community. Cur - rently, right now, 2,500 don’t pay, an d we’ve heard m any, many complaints about that in particular: why only 2,500? It goes on to the fact that the counties around it are not paying, but the counties are getting the revenues from fines. Then you say that all policing pays, and we he ard that in t he original report, and t hen you hear from the communities that say that they can’t afford to pay. So it’s a very, very complicated issue.

You then alluded to the provincial police force. Obviously, you’re well aware of the motion that was brought to the floor by one of my colleagues, and you asked if we were moving in that direction. No, we’re not moving in that direction at this par ticular tim e. The RCMP contract is done in I think it’s 2012, and we will be doing some consultin g. I can te ll you, thoug h, that I had a three-hour meeting with the RCMP. They’re not afraid of a review. They’re not opposed to a review. They would like Albertans to understand what they bring to th e community, their cost and the benefits of RCMP in this province.

Quite frankly, we have a survey, and I think the RCMP in this province are at 85 percent, which is huge support for the RCMP in this province. 9:10 The member asked about the regionalized police model. Well, the Police Act allows for the ag reements b etween m unicipalities to amalgamate their police services, to develop a regional model. We are not opposed to it, are watching very carefully and are in several discussions with Chief Middleton-Hope in Lethbridge in regard to their regionalized police model in Coaldale.

It’s not for the minister to dictate down to the communities if they want to go ahead with the regional police model. It is up to the mi nister, though, to provide them sup port if t hey n eed i t. We indic ated to both the chief i n Lethbridge and t he chi ef in Co aldale that we w ould provide a facilitator, if so needed, to help them with a regional model. I spoke to the chief I guess it was a week ago Wednesday, and he indicated to me that things are moving along, and he hopes to keep us posted and would let us know by mid-May how he felt that model would be going. The correctional review.

Where is it in the proposed legislation? You alluded to a correctional review at a cost of $40,000, which I think is really relatively inexpensive to review how we are dealing with corrections in this province. Quite frankly, I encourage you as a member to call y our federal Liberal gove rnment and encourage them to do the same thing as we’ve done w ith our correctional facilities. Mr. Lukaszuk: They could hire our committee. Mrs. Forsyth: Edmonton-Castle Downs has offered his ability to be hired.

The committee traveled right across this province and visited the correctional facilities, all of the work camps, probation offices, even made a trip to Ontario to look at the privatized model of prisons and wanted to see how that was working, whether it was successful or not. I am in receipt of the report and looking at it very carefully. Again, we have a process that w e have to go through in reg ard to government, how we’re going to deal with it. The other thing you ref erred to w as about the Corrections Amendment Act.

W hy are we brin ging f orward the Corrections Amendment Act when the corrections comm ittee hasn’t reported yet? Well, I had actually been working on the piece o f legislation probably for three years prior to being the minister and had been working in consultat ion with som e of the correction officers, et cetera, let it sit on my desk, and a year ago w e as m inister and department decided to look at the act again to see if it was still worth while to brin g it f orward.

I actually asked the com mittee if they would comment on the act and if they felt that I should hold off or I shouldn’t hold off or if I was interfering in their process. They felt that, no, it wasn’t interfering in their process whatsoever. So that is what you see in front of us. You talked about the rehabilitation of offenders in the correctional facilities. You know, all of our offenders in our adult facilities either have to be working, in upgrading, or they are ill. I really would like to get back to y ou, because you mentioned two and I only caught one. You mentioned literacy and one other.

Ms Blakeman: Numeracy.

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1077 Mrs. Forsyth: Okay. I’m not sure, and I’m sorry, but we will get back to yo u on that parti cular question. I can te ll you that we do spend a lot of time with our offenders, and I alluded to that before. You asked about the special constables, a huge issue obviously. One only has to read in the paper an incident, a very tragic and sad and very misfortunate incident, that happened recently to a special constable in Grande Prairie. We have since written to that special constable.

We feel that he was way out of his authority in what he was particularly doing and have suspended him with pay until we review all the things and questions that we’ve asked him in regard to acting outside his a uthority. I have no pr oblem te lling the hon. member the number of complaints we get about special constables. That doesn’t take away from the special const ables that are doi ng goods job s in this province, because we have over 3,000 special constables and ab out 140-some with m ore authorization than the majority of them. Their capacity is bylaw enforcement and a bunch of things.

So we sat down with the new president and the old pre sident of the Alberta Special C onstables’ Association a fe w weeks ago and talked to them. They’re keen o n allowing a whole bunch of new things for their special constables: carrying side arms, carrying Taser guns. I’ve indicated to them: no, I’m not prepared to do that. I think the first thing that we have to do is start looking at standards, getting their association up and running, somewhere where we can deal with roles and responsibilities.

I have assigned one of my staff members who’s a former RCMP fellow working very closely with them, and we will try and help t hem as much as w e can on this special constables issue. You asked me about t he chief of p olice of Edmonton. I’ m continually meeting with Chief W asylyshen quite frankly . I was trying to flip bac k in my Day-Timer, but probably within the last month I sat down with the chief, and prior to that it was regularly. Chief Wasylyshen knows that I have an open-door policy. He also has my private home number, and he has my cell number if he would like to talk.

I am not going to g et into a spi tting match with t he chief, and I am not going to get into a spitting match with the mayor in regard to policing issues. I encourage them to come to my office. The functions that they are currently doing that they were alluding to in that

article – and the chief has not spoken to me personally; just what is involved in that particular

article – are all part and parcel of the Police Act a nd their responsibilities. If they feel that they shouldn’t be doing that or they want to withhold their services, well, I guess we have to s it down and frankly talk about it.

But as I explained to the hon. m ember, we provide $16 million in an unconditional gran t, and the ci ty of Edmonton received approxi- mately $23 to $25 m illion in fines, but we must keep in mind that it’s very clear in the Police Act that the funding for the police , for the municipality, is done in conjunction with the police commission, the chief of police, and council, and they determine t heir budgets. If Chief Wa sylyshen has a p roblem wi th fun ding, he should be talking to the commissioner and he should be talking to the mayor in regard to fu nding.

The municipal funding, the uncondition al grant, comes under Municipal Affairs, but I have and will continue to advocate on behalf of all police in this province and try and get more money. The last question you asked was again on antiterrorism. We have given the city of Calgary – and I don’t have the funding in front of me – X amount of dollars after the G-8. The number has escaped me.

I have i ndicated in a letter to Chief B eaton on the 17t h of January, I believe, that if the city feels that they need more funding for terrorism, then by all means they should present before the task force that the Premier established, and I reiterat ed it aga in when I met wit h Chief Beaton and David Mitchell, who is the commis- sioner, and have not heard fr om them since the n. So they know, again, that the door is open.

I explained to Chief Beaton that if you got X amount of dollars before and you feel you need more, I’d be pleased to have them present in front of the ministerial task force that the Premier set up. So I think I covered most of the questions. I may have missed a few, but if so, we’ve got people in the gallery taking notes and said that we would certainly get back to you on those. 9:20 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a last couple of categories to cover and a few clarifications.

According to what the Soli citor Ge neral just said, then, s ervices such as serving documents, providing witness management and protection, conduct- ing bail hearings, check stops, and commercial vehicle inspections are all duties that are to be assumed and paid for by the civic police force. Those are not provincial duties. They’re not performing that on behalf of the province. Did I hear the minister correctly say that under the legislation they’re supposed to be doing it, that it’s not the province’s duty or obligation to pay for it in any way, shape, or form, that this is under the legislation?

So just clarification there. One other thing. With the offenders I was talking about numeracy and literacy programs. The other one that’s obvious is English as a Second Language. Even in 32 days on an average stay there’s some work that cou ld be offered there that would be of great benefit for offenders who are trying to rehabilitate and move into a constructive community life. Now, just a few other areas to cover. Again, this is coming out of a lack of information with no corrections review forthcoming. There had been some discussion a year ago a bout closing correct ional facilities.

I’m wondering if we are expecting or if it’s reflected in this budget. Is the minister antici pating any correctional facilities closing in the next year or in the following two y ears, to make the full three-year period this budget is anticipating, and which ones are being anticipated? If they’re closing, then is there a consolidation that’s expected, and would people be transferred? Where? Could I get some information on that? I’m just going back over the questions th at I asked last year and looking for answers. Just a f ew of them w ere questions t hat I couldn’t find an answer for.

Around the G-8 summit there was some outstanding money that wa s owed ba ck to the province. Did we receive the full amount of funding that the province provided services for and was anticipating being reimbursed for? Did we get all of that money from the feds, or is there still money outstanding there? Also, last year I asked about sharing information and enforcement with the aboriginal casinos, and I didn’t get a clear response on that from last year’s debate, so I’m reasking the question.

This also came up in my debate with the Gaming minister this year where there was a question about e nforcement and working around possible white- collar crime fraud is sues around g ambling, that the Mi nister of Gaming refer red to the Soli citor Ge neral, sa ying: t hat kind of enforcement is not my problem; it goes to the Solicitor General. So I’m putting it to the Solicitor General. The issue of caseload for probation officers. Could the minister please supply me with the numbers that tell us what is the previous year’s average caseload and what is this year’s average caseload for probation off icers?

What is an ticipated for next year’s aver age caseload for probation office rs? I don’t see increased funding to support or to lessen that workload. I’m wondering what the minister is anticipating for the future. I s there a sort of br eakpoint that the

1078 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 minister will start to take action as we approach that? Is it 500 cases per or 700 cases per? What plan does the minister have? Perhaps it’s not wri tten down, but surely the staf f have anticipated, as the workload continues to increase, that at a certain point it’s going to be approaching a crisis. At what point does the pla n kick in, and what’s the plan? The minister’s office shows an increase of 7 percent. Now, that may not add up t o actually very many dollars, but it is 7 percent. What is that 7 percent covering?

Is that additional staff, or is i t renovations of the minister’s office or a lot more photocopying that’s being anticipated? What’s that 7 percent covering? Now, I di d reme mber w hat the nati ve policing issue w as. A couple of issues there. It’s been pointed out to me that officers are often seconded from the RCMP to work in Justice or in the Solicitor General’s area, but they believe that no First Nations police officers were ever seconded to the department.

Could the minister check and see if that i nformation can be backed up, and in fact if no First Nations officer has ev er been seconded t o th e dep artment, why? Would there be something that could be put in place in the future? Secondly, the mini ster was talking about a Special Constables’ Association. At first she talked about it like it existed, and then she talked about helping them set one up. I’m wondering if there is a First Nation s po lice off icers’ association, and if not, why not ?

Would the minister consider assisting them to set one up, or is there a reas on why t hey don’t belong to the othe r regular one? Tha t’s probably obvious: it will be a geographical restriction there. But if I could get some answer s around that. Also, has the minister consulted with any of the Fi rst Nations or aboriginal poli ce forces around the discussions for either a p rovincial polic e force or a regional police force? Have they been brought into a discussion, or have they been consulted at all on either of those two issues? The fine revenues. Aren’t these fine revenues collected by First Nations p olice?

Are they a llowed to k eep it, or c ould they be allowed to keep this fine revenue? That wa s something that was being discussed as part of that police review and different possibili- ties of colle cting fine revenue: pu tting it into a spe cial fund, not putting it into a special fund. Where are we at with the fine revenue? What’s actually being considered here now? If I can get a specific

section answered, then, on the First Nations. The last of my questions is a round the dive rsion projec t. The minister and I have spoken about that I thi nk for two years now. Certainly, I’m supportive of it. I know the minister is supportive of it. Can w e get an update, plea se, on wha t’s happening with this project? When I met with the m inister last summer, she indicated that this was really a multiministry committee and that it was being chaired by her deputy minister, I think, but there were a number of others that were involved.

Most recently I think in the news we’ve heard a b it of a difference of opinion, shall I say, be tween t he Solicitor General and I think it was the health minister over this very diversion project. We know that there was the pilot project in Calgary. I believ e there w as also a smaller one that happened in Edmonton. Can we get an update on what’s happening with that and whether the minister thinks she can move forward with this project, or whether it needs more buy-in or more time? What’s needed in order to expand this program and make it available to more centres and to make it a permanent program?

Those are the questions I have so far, and I will allow others to get on the record with their issues for the Solicitor General. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a few questions of the Solicitor General on the departmental estimates today. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to do so. I was looking at the business plan, and I f ind that under C ore Perfo rmance Measures the first set of me asures deals with victim financial benefits, victim services, and victim service initiatives.

I heard the Solicitor General speak about how the pendulum had swung over the last several years away from the prot ection of victims and services they needed provided to them and that she had made a determination to correct that imbalance and bring the pendulum back to where the situation would be more friendly towards victims. 9:30 Now, when I look at page 353 of the business plan and look at the number of victims’ services initiatives, I notice that the minister is planning to increas e these i nitiatives from where they were in the years 2001-2002 from 213 to 220.

I wonder if she could shed some light on what these additional initiatives would look like. What are they? On the same page “access to victim service units” is planned to go up by a few percentage points. These are ambitious new targets, and I find not hing wrong with t hose as such except that I need more inf ormation on the nature of the initiat ives tha t’ll be added to the existing ones from the year that’s just passed. When I look at the budget line items under expenses, the victims of crime fund will decline by about 7 percent. So I find it difficult to square the circle.

That is, on the one hand the Solicitor General is planning and ma king com mitments to incr ease se rvices and initiatives in favour of the victims of crime, and at the same time the only item und er ex penses w here this m oney will go dow n from $10,813,000 to $10,045,000 is in the area of the victims of crime fund. So there’s a reduction of abou t $768 ,000.

I’m s ure the Solicitor General will try to address this apparent anomaly between the amount of dollars that she is allocating to that category and her plan to increase the services to the victims in addition to, of course, telling me what these new initiatives will be. My second question has to do again with listening very carefully when the minister was respo nding to som e questions f rom the Member for Edmonton-Centre with res pect to some ongoing exchanges that have been going on between the minister on the one hand and Edmonton police services, both the chief of police and the police association.

In addition, I understand that the police associa- tion may not have been in dire ct exchange with the mini ster, but certainly the chief has been. I notice that at least according to the recent Edmonton Sun story of April 10, which is just a few days ago, the mayor seems to be sharing the serious concerns of the chief of police of Edmonton when the chief says that his police service is and has been providing unfunded provincial services that are not really within the funded mandate of t he Edmonton c ity police.

He puts about a $13 million price on the services that the province receives and seems to continue to expect to receive from the Edmonton Police Service. So I want a quite specific and clear answer from the minister as to what she thinks of the claims, which are outlined in detai l on th e piece of paper that I have here by the Edmonton Police Service.

The amount is $13,020,000, and they’ve outlined in quite a bit of detail, item by item, why they think that the province owes the Edmonton Police Service at least $13 million for the services that the province is receiving directly and which are over and above the work that the Edmonton Police Service does under the authority of the Police Commission for the city of E dmonton. So if the minister would address that question. My one other question.

I heard the Solicitor General commenting on the radio perhaps a few days ago on her support for the Edmonton city police’s consideration of installing some c ameras on Why te Avenue. The Solicitor General said quite categorically as I heard her

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1079 on the radio that privacy concerns as expressed by some people may be there, but security comes first. Public safety comes first. Okay. Now, I happen to represent that area of the city. With the exception of one major brea kdown in public order two years ago on Cana da Day I think the issue of public safety is not that critical. If it is there, it’s related to there being too many bars and some people getting too drunk after midnight.

The communities around Whyte Avenue have not been asking for surveillance cameras but for a reduction of the number of places where people go and drink, and they think that would be the appropriate answer rather than breaching the privacy of tens of t housands of A lbertans, i ncluding Edm ontonians and people who live in and around Edmonton-Strathcona, who want to spend time on that avenue. I think their privacy is an iss ue, and to s imply say that public safety comes first I think fails to address the question of where the threats to public safety come from.

They don’t come from people just being on Whyte Avenue. The sources of those potential threats may reside not in lack of surveillance but in the overabundance of bars and the licences that are issued, and part of the responsibility for that happening must be accepted by the Alberta liquor board, which is the responsibility of the government and not of either the business owners or the city police or the city of Edmonton. So that’s my third question. Would the Solicitor General clarify as to why she thinks that privacy considerations must give way to public safety consider- ations?

Why does she think that public safety will be better served by installing surveillan ce ca meras rather tha n by tak ing serious action to reduce the incidence of heavy drinking which results from the excess capacity and the excess existe nce of watering holes around the area? 9:40 So these are three questions that I would raise at the moment. To conclude, I just w ant to ma ke a general statement about the com- plaints that I hear from city of Edmonton representatives, including council members, about the withdrawal in the mid-90s, I guess, of grants th at the cit y used t o receive for polic ing.

Those grants in today’s dollars are est imated to come c lose to $30 m illion. The province at that time removed those grants in order to respond to the pressing concern with deficit reduction and debt repayment. Those concerns now, according to the Minister of Finance, are not pressing. Why is it that cities like Edmonton are still waiting to hear from this government, including this minister, that those grants will now be restored? I’ll stop there so you can answer those questions for me. I’d really appreciate it, Minister. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m going to go third to first if I may. I find of interest the video camera comments that the hon. member has alluded to. Yes, I was on CBC, and yes – I mean, you heard me. I was very, very clear. I think public safety is paramount. You referred to the fact that, well, we only had one major incident. You know, I don’t know if this is a fai r analogy or not, but some- times major i ncidents make you wake up and r ealize some of the things you have to do.

I don’t think, hon. member, that an ybody ever, ever in a million years w ould have forecast the incident that happened on September 11 and what we face with the terrorists’ act and what has happened since that terrorist attack of September 11 in North America as far as preparing for security and what’s going on. You know, I’ve talked to some young people about video cameras. In fact, I’ve talked to some young people – and w e face a sim ilar situation in Calga ry. I f orget w hat it is; it used t o be Electr ic Avenue, and now I think it’s 1st Street where they’ve decided to do their drinking.

The kids that are on those streets or the people that are visiting those bars that are purely innocent – they’re going there to drink, and they’re going there to have a good time – don’t have a problem with the cameras. But I have to te ll you tha t I was on a ride-along program last May for crime prevention, and every third call that we were getting on that police scanner was for fights, was for brawls, stuff coming from the bars, a nd it tied up the polic e incredibly.

Of course, you get a bunch of drunk kids or drunk adults – I don’t want to just pinpoint t his on kids, obviously, but you get drunk, inebriated adults and trouble breaks out. So, I mean , I h onestly – and I can tell you this quite frankly – think that the number one priority that is paramount is the safety of Edmontonians, Calgarians, Alber tans. You know , I don’t think we’re invading anybody’s privacy. Why wo uld you i nvade any- body’s privacy if they’re just quietly walking down the stre et and they’re not doing any thing?

W e have v ideo cameras a round this Legislature for the protect ion of the pe ople that w ork in this Legislature and for people like yourself to make sure that you’re safe and secure. You may or may not agree with that particular incident, but as the Solicitor General it clearly says in my mission statement: safety and security of Albertans and a safe place for people to raise their families.

Hon. member, you have to appreciate the fact that we are in a new time, and as much as we don’t want to or we don’t like it, we have problems in the cities with gangs – and I know you’re well aware of that – and we have difficult crime situations that our police have to deal with on a daily basis.

I honestly thank God eve ry day for the police in this province, the cops that take car e of us every day, our CAPS officers that do a good job, my correction officers, and my probation officers for the stuff that they have to put up with on a daily basis and how well they deal with it in protecting the people of this province. You talked about the chief and the mayor again, and I answered that question to the Member for Edmonton-Centre. I’m not going to get in a spitting match with the mayor, and I’m not going to get in a spitting match with the chief of police.

But let me tell you, it clearly spells out under the Police Act that in consultation with the chief of police and the commissioner and council they decide on the budget and the priorities and how that budget is aligned, and if they say this million of dollars goes to the police, that’s e xactly what goes t o them. When I hear y ou allude to the fact that the po lice threat en that they’re not going to provide their duties within the courts, let’s work on a bit of a scenario here. A police officer is in a high-speed chase. You can say a B and E, you can say whatever you want.

He catches the guy, he cuffs the guy, and he takes him and he charges him. If the police in this province for a minute think that they are going to stop that particular duty at that particular time, then you can say bye- bye to the offender because those police have to be used and they are needed at court when they go before a judge. That is part and parcel of their particular duty. You referred to the victims. First of all, there are several things, you know, in reg ard to t he pendulum. I t hink we ha ve to really, really talk about the victi ms in this province.

As the result of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada in December ’99 the victims of a crime are given an opportunity to read the ir victim impact statements aloud in court for consideration prior to sentenc- ing so that the judge could hear it. As well, the judges are now all obliged to inquire whether the victim has been advised about the opportunity for a v ictim s tatement, so I think that’s one of the positive things that we’re moving forward. I mentioned earlier, when I was speak ing to the Member for

1080 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 Edmonton-Centre, about the vi ctims’ review, apologize d for the length of time that it’s taken for this victims’ review to get to this point, where it still hasn’t been released, and I’ll take full criticism for that. I think that what we have to do on this pa rticular thing i s make sure that we’re doing it right, make su re tha t we can follow through with some of the recom mendations. We al so have to consider the financial implications that are involved in that particular victims’ r eview.

There’ s no sense getting a nybody’s hopes up, especially when it’s the victi ms’, if I cannot prov ide them the funding under that review. Dr. Pannu: Funding is reduced. That’s what my question was, why funding is down. Mrs. Forsyth: You’re not supposed to be talking now. It’s my turn. You’re supposed to be sitting listening. But I’ll sit down and let you ask again. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Ch airman. I’ve listened with interest for quite some time to the ex change between the hon. minister and various members of this Assembly.

I look at the Alberta Solicitor General annual report and I look at the Minister of Justice, and certainly the first thing that comes to my mind is that perhaps all this is unnecessary. We l ook at the e xpansion of the cabinet after the last e lection, and maybe we w ould be better off speaking to the hon. Minister of Justice. We could do all this under one department and sav e a fe w dollars in the process, save a few administrative dollars. T hey could be better spent fighting crime, educating the public about crime and the effects of criminal activity.

I just think that the former member of this Assembly, I believe from Ponoka, a member of t he Pro gressive Conservative Party, w as absolutely right when that individual talked in an open letter to the province about the ex pansion of the cabinet f rom 16 to 24 hon. members of this Assembly and how that money could be better spent, and this is a case of it. 9:50 Now, I’m look ing at pag e 344 of the budget docum ent, the government and lottery fund estimates, and I see victims programs and the expe nse item estim ates f or this y ear of $2. 3 milli on. Previously there was $1.8 million spent.

If one is to look back and go back on this, the actual expense, true enough, is $1.8 million, but the actual budget that was allocated for that was – and we’d have to go back to an annual report from a previous year to confirm this. We would see that there was a budget of $3.5 million, and this is fo r victims programs again. This year we are going to budget, as I said, $2.3 million. What programs is this money being spent on?

Why do we have the actual expense in the previous fiscal year of roughly half of what the act ual budget was, and is that going to reoccur in this budget when we’re talking about victims programs here? Also, in financial benefits the actual expense is indicated at – and this is on the line above, again for the hon. minister, on page 344 – $10.6 million in the fiscal year 2001-02. In this year’s estimates it’s $7 million. But financial benefits – and this is i n the victi ms of crime fund – was overexpended by $3 million, yet w e’re going to spend in this y ear $3 m illion less.

Now, how is all t his g oing to work out? If the minister could explain these discrepancies, I would be very grateful. Certainly as I understand it, the victims of crime fund in these documents has an administrative staff of nine, which doesn’t seem out of the ordina ry when yo u have a tota l full-time equivalent employment in the ministry of over 2,000 souls. What exactly is going on to cause t hese di screpancies in the v ictims of crime fund? If the minister could explain all that to me, I would be grateful.

With the victims of crime fund itself, on page 341, I believe it was overexpended – and I’m just calculating this – by 10 percent. If the minister could expla in to me w hy, I w ould be grat eful f or that explanation too. Now, getting further on here, Mr. Chairman, to the crime statistics. Whether it was in the Department of Justice or in the department as we know it now – you know that we reinvented the Alberta Solicitor General, that department. In teresting. Peop le would n ot believe this. The crime rates are actually decreasing if you look from 1991 onwards and particularly per thousand population.

That’s a noble effort, and that’s a good goal. Regardless of whether I feel it should be in Justice or independent, it’s a good goal to strive to reduce our crime rate when you compare us with the rest of Canada. I notice in the performance measures that we just talk a bout the western Canadian provinces, and I don’t know why that would be. Is there sort of an equal amount of population that resides in urban areas, that resides in rural areas, in small towns?

I don’t know why in the annual report from last year we’re talking about Canada, yet here I see tha t we’re compar ing ourselv es to th e fou r west ern provinces. When we look at th e public perception of safety in the home, in the last five years there has been significant progress made, and those r esponsible – well, if I had a hat, I would tip it. Public perception of safety in the neighbourhood: certainly there has been significant work done there. Also, with the victimization rate there has been a slight improvement.

We look at the crime rate, violent crime and property crime, and to have the lowes t v iolent and property crime rates of the four western provinces is the target. Now, when we compare ourselves to the rest of Canada, we seem to b e go ing down pa rallel w ith the country in total, and that is progress. Certainly there is more progress to be made. There are certain people who almost make the publicizing of crime a cottage industry. They put a l ot of fear into individuals. We live in a big city.

We live in a city where there is violent crime, unfortunately, occurring on a daily basis, and these crimes are being committed against innocent vic tims in a ll age g roups, all g enders; it doesn’t matter. When you talk to some of the victims of those crimes, they would n ot believe that crim e rates in this provinc e and in this country are dropping, but the statistics are here. I would like the hon. minist er’s view of this. Are we changing how we’re reporting crime? Do we hav e less police? Are they overworked? Well, we all know they’re overworked.

The popula- tion of Edmonton has grown in t he last 10 y ears. The number of police officers to police it certainly has not grown at the same rate. It’s starting to grow a bit now. 10:00 The Deput y Chair : I hesitate to in terrupt the hon.

Me mber for Edmonton-Gold Bar, but pursuant to Standing Order 58(4), which provides for not less than two hours of co nsideratio n for a depart- ment’s proposed estimates unless there are no members who wish to speak prior to the co nclusion of the two hours, I must now put the question on the proposed estimates for the Department of Solicitor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. Agreed to: Operating Expense and Equipment/Inventory Purchases $267,357,000 The Deputy Chair: Shall the vote be reported? Are you agreed?

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1081 Some Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Chair: Opposed? Some Hon. Members: No. The Deputy Chair: Carried. The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hanc ock: Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an. I’d m ove that the Committee of Supply rise and report and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Committee of Supply has had under consideration certain resolutions, reports as follows, and requests leave to sit again.

Resolved that a sum not exceeding the following be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending march 31, 2004, for the following department. Solicitor Genera l: operating expense and equipm ent/inventory purchases, $267,357,000. The Acting Speaker: Does the Assembly concur with the report? Some Hon. Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker: Opposed? Some Hon. Members: No. The Acting Speaker: So ordered. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 25 Class Proceedings Act [Adjourned debate March 12: Mr. Rathgeber] The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to take this opportunity to respond as critic to Bill 25, the Class Proceedings Act. I think this is

an act that has been long sought in Alberta. Class action legislation allows two or m ore people w ith an identif iable similar case to sue over a common issue to go forward to the courts as one, and this allows for a consolidated process instead of having several individual cases or in some cases hundreds of individual cases come forward on the same issue. Examples that cou ld have been used in A lberta would be around thing s like the sterilization issue, pine shake s, and we ’ve already seen is sues l ike the breast implants. Albertans had to go to other provinces to be involved in class action suit s.

The othe r one would be WCB w idows. They went to B.C. to get involved in the B .C. class action. So I thin k a number of people applaud this proposal to bring the l egislation forward. I’d lik e to recogniz e my colleag ue, the f ormer Me mber f or Calgary-Buffalo, wh o raised thi s issue I don’t know how many times, dozens, hundre ds, during his tenure her e in the Legislative Assembly, and I have certainly been asking the government to bring it up since I’ve been the critic for this a rea. I would really like to support this legisl ation seeing as I was so keen on having seen it brought forward.

My one hesitation with it is the dec ision to put into the bill the clause around costs, and that is that costs are awarded under the rules of court, so st rictly speak ing, costs could be rec overed only in a meritorious outcome. That can be se en as fri ghtening o ff some groups who a re not educa ted lega l participa nts or not used to working inside the legal system. I had real concerns about this. This was enough to make me say: ah, darn, the process got tainted here and I c an’t support the le gislation anymore.

But I’ve spent some time consulting with a number of different lawyers that are coming from different backgrounds, and while they all say that it’s wise to note it and to express a concern about it and that we need to be alive to people not being turned away from or discouraged from launching class action suits, the advice I’m getting from the lawyers is it is not enough to not support the legislation. In fact, a number of lawyers had said that they felt it ju st wasn’t an issue, that in fact the courts can decide how the costs are awarded themselves.

So even if a class action suit didn’t win, the courts could still say: well, you didn’t win because of a rule o f law, but certainly, y ou know, your case had merit, and therefore we’re going to split the costs. They can make a number of other decisions, and that’s entirely up to the judge. So it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the costs would all come back on the members who brought forward the class action suit. It’s particularly scary because out of all the individuals who gather together to form that class, one person’s name usually appears at the head of this and is listed as the plaintiff.

So it’s kind of scary for that individual person to contemplate being held responsible for the costs of the entire trial. T hat’s enough to scare a number of people. I think that we need to be encouraging people to use the legislation the way it was intended, not to be sca red off by the costs prohibition, and to trust that the courts will deal with this in a fair and equitable manner. There have certainly been some lawyers that did come forward to me and to the media saying that without a fund to assist the costs of class action, it w ould preclu de pe ople coming forward.

They certainly argued vehement ly and vigoro usly, but ac cording to t he Uniform Law Conference of Canada: Normal costs rules pose barriers to bringing a c lass a ction. Although the whole class may benefit from the action, the represen- tative plaintif f s houlders the burden o f paying lawyers’ fees and disbursements and will receive only a portion of the total costs back if he or she is successful. The representative plaintiff is also liable for any costs ordered by the court if the action is unsuccessful.

So it does sound l ike a hard line, and it can be enoug h to scare people off, but I have be en reassured enough th at people nee d to stand by their actio n and believe in it and, of course, not br ing forward frivolous actions, which I don’t think many people do in the court system. We’re happily in Canada still not a litigious society. We don’t go forwar d to court unless we really believe there’s a genuine case there, and we certainly don’t have a culture that encourages people to go to court at the drop of a hat, and that I think is a good thing.

I do note that in B.C., who has a no-cost scheme, they’re actually looking at moving away from that and looking more at what Alberta is proposing here. 10:10 Boy, I hope I’m not wrong on this, but I’ve been reassured enough by a number of people I respect in the leg al community that this

1082 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 clause should not preclude people from getting involved in this and it should not be enough to stop me from supporting the legislation. I mean, we’re in second re ading with this. Thi s is a deba te about supporting the bill or not in principle at this stage, and I’ve certainly put the concern about the costs and the lack of a fund on the record. I’m satisfied enough with that that I can support the bill in principle. The bill goes through a number of other sections that are needed. It talks about the cl ass of pl aintiffs, that they ’re all bound by the outcome.

There can be subclasses. If there are certain people that share even closer issues than some of the others, then they can form themselves into a subclass. So they share a common cause, but there are some elements that are different from the other group. Peopl e that fall under a class can opt out of the process if they choose to do so, and that prevents people from being trapped that don’t want to be covered by a c lass action. It does allow the class to solicit fun ds from organizations and people who are not part of the class action.

So without going into a sectional analysis, I’m satisfied enough by the lon g lobby to get this legisl ation in place and b y putting t he concerns on record around the costs section. I’m looking forward to hearing the sponsor of the bill or perhaps the Minister of Justice give justification for why that choice w as made in Alber ta. Was i t because they’d looked at B.C. and felt that it wasn’t successful there, or is this just following through on the government’s philosophy of a user-pay system? Obviously, they considered it, and they deliber- ately included it in this legislation.

So my question bac k to the proposer of th e legislation and to the Minister of Ju stice is: why? Tell us what your reasoning is for having included that particular

section which puts the costs back onto the plaintiffs. I think we’d all like to hear that. I’d be ve ry interested as to whethe r or not the government has a reassurance that they’d like to offer to people. It would be particularly interesting if they were silent on that issue. It’s always interesting how much talk there is from the government side about opposition dragging out bills, but I don’t believe in doing that if we’re willing to support legislation, so I don’t even need to take up my entire amount of allotted time tonight.

I’ve said what I need to do, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill. I’m willing to go on record as being in favour in principle of Bill 25, the Class Proceedings Act, with the reservations that I’ve noted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to speak on Bill 25, Class Proceedings Act, in its second reading.

Looking at the title of the bill, I like most others who look at just the title would be tempted to speak in favour of and to support this bill because it would fill a big hole that’s been present in the justice system for a long tim e. Many other provinc es, six of them in fact, have already enacted legislation which would permit citizens to collectively launch class proceedings against a company or a government or another party.

So if the bill were straightforward and an attempt to catch up with the other six provin ces which had alre ady learned from each other’s experience and developed legislation, I think I would be supporting it. I was looking at the news release from the government of Alberta that was released in March of this year.

The intention as stated there is that this bill “will help ensure that class action lawsuits in Alberta proceed in a fair and efficient manner.” Now, the efficiency side of it perhaps is something that we can say that this claim h as some substance to because the certification process that sets out criteria to define the type of case that m ay be pursued as a cl ass proceed ing would be a help, I think, for potential plaintiffs to determine whether or not they should proceed with such an action in the first place. So the outlining of criteria is useful.

I think that will be helpful and will I suppose contribute to increasing the efficiency in the dispensation of justice. The issue o f fai rness is the one where I think this bill is most seriously flawed.

Ag ain, the new s releas e from the gove rnment claims that the b ill is “base d on the Uniform Law Confe rence of Canada’s model class proceedings act” and further say s that therefore “it wil l ensure tha t Albert a courts a re opera ting under similar guidelines currently operating in other provinces.” Well, I am afraid that this claim that it follows the model that’s in place in other provinces I think is questionable, to put it mildly. In the other provinces to my knowled ge the repres entative p laintiff isn ’t left legally holding the bag in case the plaintiffs lose the case.

Ordinary citizens don’t have the time and don’t engage as a matter of course in playing legal games and launching class lawsuits in the hope of see king aw ards whi ch may be $2 ,000, $5,000, may be $10,000. They u ndertake legal action because they fe el that they have been seriously wronged. The typical defenders in class action cases are powerful parties, usually, who are not willing to sit down and negotiate a settlement, so they have to be taken to court.

They happen to be e ither gov ernments, who don’t ha ve to and don’ t normally worry too much about how much it is going to co st fo r them to take a matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary as we all know, or big corporations, who have the capacity to outspend ordinary citizens as plaintiffs. So this bill doesn’t make the processes and the system of justice fair in a way that would ensure that in case ordinary citizens lose a case, they won’t face bankruptcy; they won’t face financial ruin.

All the costs associated with the suit i n such a ca se would have to be then borne by the representative plaintiff. 10:20 So I guess the concern that I have is this.

If the province of Quebec can protect a representative plaintiff from this financial jeopardy in the cas e that the plaintiffs lose the case, if British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and I think even Ontario don’t have this partic ular provis ion in their le gislation, which imposes such heavy costs on a representative plaintiff, why is it that in this province there is no evidence in this act that we have learned from the experience of other provinces? Why this excessive caution, if it is a caution, by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who I guess is the sponsor of this bill?

It just doesn’t make sense. The Alberta Law Reform Institute makes clear recommendations that for this bi ll to wor k, for Albertans to feel secure w hen they consider and in fact undertake to launch a class action suit, they have to be assured by provincial law that they will not face financial ruin in case the court determines that they have no case except in cases where there is clear evidence that can be provided that the suit was either

an act of sort of f rivolous conduc t or that unnec essary applications were made deliberately to delay the proceedings or other such exceptional circumstances. So the Alberta Law Reform Institute must be disappointed, must feel that the work that they have done over the years has come to naught. This bill will not make matters more fair.

If anything, it will act as a deterrent for aggrieved Albertans who think th at they have justification for ge tting together to launc h a class action suit but won’t do so because of the financial costs that are potentially built into this act that will be imposed on them in case they lose the case. The concern that to enact in Alberta legislation that is similar to the other six provinces would engender a society where we encourage more lawsuits I think is simply not a persuasive argument to make in defence of this very serious flaw that this bill suffers from.

I have known some people in the Alberta Law Reform Institute,

April 16, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1083 and they are very, very serious scholars of law and practitioners of law. When they say that they’re disappointed, they feel let down by these provisions of this proposed bi ll, and that t he purpose of the reforms that they were seeking will be defeated if this bill proceeds and be comes a la w I think is a warning that needs to be taken seriously, that needs to be heede d. So I woul d hope t hat the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney Ge neral of the pr ovince w ould reconsider the flaws in the bill and, if necessary, not proceed with it.

Having heard from Albertans, having heard from representatives of the legal community, hav ing hear d f rom A lberta L aw Ref orm Institute spokespersons, and having heard from the members of this Legislature with respect to the serious concerns that they have with this bill, I would hope he would take it back to the drawing board and bring back a more improved bill. I think there’s no need to rush this bill through the legislation this session.

If we have waited this long that we are the seventh province to make a move in this direction, I think a few months’ delay, if the delay is to b e used to imp rove this bi ll in bringing it back t o the House in the fall, would be a worthwhile delay, and Albertans won’t be disappointed if the Minister of Justice does in fact take that kind of action. So I would strongly urge him to consider this suggestion that I’m making, and I hope that he will respond positively to it. With this, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my second reading comments on the bill. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Yes. I’m wondering if the hon. Member f or Edmonton-Strathcona would entertain a question in regards to his remarks on Bill 25. The Acting Speaker: Okay. Mr. MacDona ld: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona felt very similarly to what the Alberta Law Reform Institute feels in regard to having a no-cost process: because it would operate more fairly.

You described this bill, hon. member, as having “heavy costs.” Do you think this bill will deny access to the natural flow of justice for Albertans, and how do you feel this would work in regards to protecting and enhancing our public health care system? The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that it’s an important question, a significant question. I just want to draw the attention of the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar and my colleagues in the House to the recommendation that the Alberta Law Reform Institute made with respect to the design of such a bill. The institute was of the view that such a bill must be designed so it makes the process a no-cost process. Quebec a nd some ot her pro vinces have a f und which they use to take ca re of the cost s the plaintiffs may have to bear in case they lose the case so that the money doesn’t come from their own pocke ts.

But if they ha ve followed the advic e and the norms and procedures set out in legislation in their determination of whether or not they need to proceed and if they have followed those procedures seriously, then the costs are to be deferred in some other way. I think that’s a good way of dealing with it. Now, it’s clear that this government or any government could be subjected to a class lawsuit if it fails to provide health care services, for example. The patients could as a c lass take action against the government.

I wonder if the g overnment feels so sensiti ve about such possibilities that it wants to prevent such patients who may feel that they have received injuries while they’re under treatment in the public health ca re system from proceeding that t his deterrence is built into the act. If that’s the case, then I think that’s not the way to go. That’s the wrong thing to do. That’s why this bill, I think, needs to be changed , and I ur ge again the m inister to t hink about the suggestion seriously. 10:30 The Acting Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, are you rising to question? Dr. Massey: No.

To speak on the bill. The Acting Speaker: Does any other member have a question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments about Bill 25 and the class action lawsuits that it will bring to the province. I think that when we’re in second re ading, w e’re considering the principles of the bill . There are three principles in this bill that I think are very im portant, two o f them very positive a nd the third controversial, as already has been mentioned.

I think that one of the princi ples that the bill is built on is that it increases access to justice for citizens in the province , and I think that’s a principle that we can all support, Mr. Speaker. Any bill that widens the power s of citi zens to ta ke action on their o wn or o n behalf of others I think is one that dese rves close scrutiny and in most cases should deserve our support. So the principle of increas- ing justice f or citize ns that this bill embodi es is a n important principle that I really support.

I think that another important principle the bill is built on is that it does allow citizens who may not have the individual resources to take action. It allows those citizens to join with others to sue a defendant, and often those defendants have enormous legal re- sources. If you think of some of the class action suits south of the border that have become quite famous – the class action suits against tobacco companies, the class action suits against manufacturers of breast implants – there have been some very high-profile class action suits south of the border.

I think that this is an important principle in that it allows people to come together who may not individually have the resources but who collectively then can take on some giants who would escape prosecution just by the mere fact that they have such huge resources to draw upon. In many cases the complainant would be someone with limited resour ces and wouldn’t be able to take action. So a second sound principle that the bill is built on, Mr. Speaker.

The third principle that the bill embodies, that citizens should be personally liable for costs of actions that t hey initiate, is one that I think is go ing to c ause the most controversy. We’ve heard argu- ments on both sides of that principle, from those who say that this is going to be a deterrent and that people won’t undertake class action suits because of the pote ntial liability that it opens them to, while others say that that really isn’t a problem, that the courts are able to award costs.

If citizens really do belie ve that they have been wronged, then they should have the courage of their convictions and be willing to stand behind them , and tha t means standing be hind them financially. I worry about this princ iple, Mr. Speaker, and I guess that when we get into looking at the details of the bill, I’d like to hear of more cases and the implications of class actions for those who filed them, and I’ll look forward to that debate at that time. I’m pleased that the class action bill is here, Mr. Speaker.

There are certainly a number of circumstances in this province where class action would have been a very, very useful tool for citizens to have

1084 Alberta Hansard April 16, 2003 at their disposal, and Bill 25 does just that. I think it’s progress in terms of citizens being able to defend and to right wrongs. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have been looking at this bill rather close ly, the Class Proceedings Act. Certainly, if we w ere to make t his bill int o a law, I wonder w ho would be the first to be in court by the citizens.

When one looks at the newspapers and follows political commentary in this province, it would probably be the provincial government class action lawsuit. Certainly, we need this legislation. There is no doubt that we need this legislation. We have the who le issue of faul ty fixtures being sold in this province. Some consumers that have been at a disadvan- tage regarding that matter have had to travel to B.C. a nd hook up with a group of cit izens ther e who were making c lass ac tion proceedings in regard to this. The pine shakes issue is another one.

I believe it was rule 42 of Alberta Rules of Court, which are mentioned in here, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it is Alberta rule of court 42, and that has to do with representa- tive action. Now, if we were to have Bill 25, the Class Proceedings Act, as law, rule 42 in that case would not be applicable. Unfortu- nately, when this whole sordid affair of the promotion and authoriza- tion of the pine shake as a suitable roofing material – a nd this was before electricity deregulation.

I actually had a call this week, as a matter of fact, from a consumer in Claresholm, Alberta, who was so frustrated about the high cost of electricity that he wanted to know if he could get together with his neighbours and file a class action lawsuit against the provincial government. I told him that, unfortu- nately, he would have to go the representative action route but that if he had patience and waited – and I could say that with confidence because I knew th at hi s electricity bill wasn’t going to go down anytime soon – Bill 25 would be law, and away we w ould go.

He would have the choice of hav ing t he opportunity or the option of pursuing the government, who he blamed. He didn’t blame Aquila. He didn’t blame Enmax. He didn’t bl ame me. He did n’t blame EPCOR. He blamed the government for the high electricity costs. This gentleman is frustrated, he’s confused, and I think he’s going to follow the proceedi ngs in regard to Bill 25 w ith a great deal of interest. Now, when w e get b ack to the pine shake s case – and that is slowly proceeding through the courts. That’s why I would urge hon. members of this Assembly to have a very close look at this bill and what the hon .

Member for Ed monton-Calder is tr ying to achieve with this legislation. There certainly are some flaws in this bill, as was outlined in the Assembly by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona, but I would c lassify the bil l as a g ood start aft er the experience th at I’ve had with f rustrated homeowners in the pine shake fiasco. Now, there’s another word I would like to use, but it’s unparliamentary, and I will not use it at this time.

But the pine shake case is a classic example of why we should have legislation of this nature in this province at this time. 10:40 I have some reserva tions about this legisl ation. Certainly, they were outlined earlier by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona in regard to the recommendations that were made by the Alberta Law Reform Institute, and we need to ensure that we have the right law in place at the right time for the right reasons.

When we debate this, and we think of the public meetings that the citizens of this province with the rotting pine shake s on their roof s had to conduc t in Edmonton and i n Calg ary, in Camr ose, in Weta skiwin, in Cochrane . . . An Hon. Member: How many seats did you have there? Mr. MacDonald: Now, the hon. member opposite is talking about how many seats we do have now. Well, we’re going to have a great deal more seats after people discover that it’s the governm ent that caused the rotting pine shakes. I’ve been in the neighbourhoods that the hon.

Minister of Finance proudly represents in this Legislative Assembly, and there are a lot of pine shakes, untreated pine shakes, in that constituency. I was in awe. I would say that there are more pine shakes in the constituency that the hon. M inister of Finance represents than there are even in Edmonton-Whitemud, that the hon. Minister of Justice represents. I thought Edm onton-Whitemud was the capital of rotting roo fs in this province, but I say give Calgary-Foothills a chance to catch up.

A couple of wet springs there and there are going to be an awful lot of little dark spots appearing on the roofs of the homes. Some of the pine shake homeowners call them jack-o’-lantern roofs because of the gaps. But when we t hink of how t hose homeowner s would have benefited from legislation such as this in the flawed form that it is and the lack of interest in all the recommendations from the Alberta Law Reform Institute, I would have to say that I would give serious consideration to supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I think of the citizens of St.

Albert, and I w ould feel very guilty because the citizens of St. Albert are also a victim of this pine shake fiasco and how it was promoted and authorized by this current government, and look what we have. It’s taken so long to get through the courts. We used to talk at mee tings about how all this would work and what effect it would have, and I thought the court system would proceed and we would be finished working it through the court system by 2001. Mr. Smith: We are. Mr. MacDonald: No. I can assure the hon.

Member for Calgary- Varsity that it will be next year at the earliest before it is heard in the courts. Now, what’s going to happen? It’ll be before the courts and the courts will determine who was at fault and who was to blame, but this could have been settled so much faster if we had legislation such as this. Now, I h

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20030416
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S3 20030416 2000 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	08752e817d5d7667d413783e2a65430feddd5d65

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