May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1639 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 7, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/05/07 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. Dear God, author of all wisdom, knowledge, and understand- ing, we ask Thy guidance in order that truth and justice may prevail in all our judgments. Amen. Please be seated. head: Notices of Motions MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I'm giving notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions and motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table five copies of a petition sent to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It's signed by 533 people of Nanton who would like their area moved back to the Highwood constituency. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table four copies of a letter that I have sent to Mr.

Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, underlining that Albertans must not be expected to subsidize in any way, shape, or form the harmonization of the GST and indicating that whatever rate is charged explicitly or de facto to some other part of this country, Albertans must be treated on an equal basis. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table a letter sent to the Health minister by the Friends of the Leduc Hospital asking her to hold a plebiscite under the Local Authori- ties Election Act.

This letter indicates that some 1,800 names on a petition have requested that that particular action be taken by the minister. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my honour today to introduce some 70 visitors to the Legislature from the Percy Baxter school in Whitecourt. There are some 38 sitting in the public gallery and some 32 sitting in the members' gallery. They're accompanied by their teachers Mr. Michel St. Louis and Mr. Jim Ferguson, parents Hilda Sheehan, Mrs. Jody Whitaker, Mrs. Jan Kallal, Mrs. Shona Layden, Mrs.

Debbie Gailey, Mr. Matt Gailey, Mrs. Tami Becker, Mr. Bernd Becker, and their school bus driver, Mr. Art Rowe. I would ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce to you and through you some 35 visitors from Rundle College. They are led by Mr. Gary Sylven and Mr. Rod Martens. Some of my colleagues are very impressed with their stature and the clothing that they're wearing here in the Legislature. Could they please stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Taber-Warner. MR. HIERATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 22 visitors from the Coaldale seniors' organization. Half of them are in the members' gallery and the other half in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legisla- tive Assembly a STEP student who will be working in my constituency office over the summer, Jocelyn Laing. She's accompanied by Dave Prenoslo, who's been intr oduced before, who we call the Super-STEP. If they could stand and receive the warm welcome of the House, please. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a constituent from Bowden, Nancy Hudson.

She's accompanied by visitors from Ontario: her mother, Jean Mark, and a cousin, Audrey Henry. They're in the members' gallery, and I'd ask them to rise to receive the warm welcome. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce to you today a resident of the Peace c ountry who is down in Edmonton furthering her education both academically and, of course, in the school of politics. I'm privileged to have her working in my office as a STEP student over the summer. I'd like to introduce Annemarie Wahl.

Would you please rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Health Workforce Adjustments MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, questions are mounting over the $7 million transition fund set up with taxpayers' money to help doctors who have been hurt by this government's cutbacks. My questions are to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with his Minister of Health, who defends this deal with the doctors? Right here: minister backs MDs' $7 million fund. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that nothing has been finalized relative to this situation.

The simple fact is that nothing has been finalized. Relative to the minister's personal thoughts on this matter, she's entitled to express those personal thoughts, and I will turn it over to the minister. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for the media in this province, but if I were to take at face value every headline and attribute it, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition

1640 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 does, I think there would be some interesting headlines. The Leader of the Opposition wasn't really thrilled when we held up a headline that said: too many hospitals in Alberta. That was a direct quote from that hon. leader, and there was a lot of but, but, but. Really, if he went on and read the article, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is referring to, it talks about my discussion of the $7 million and an explanation to the media, which I think they understood, that these are funds that are physician funds. MS LEIBOVICI: Taxpayer dollars. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't matter in health whether you are a nurse, a laundry worker, a person in dietary; you are paid with taxpayers' funds because health is funded by the taxpayers in this province. What is important is the point that this is part of a capped agreement, and as I pointed out yesterday, this has been very beneficial to Alberta. We have gone from $907 million in that agreement to the agreement this year of $737 million, and you cannot exceed that am ount. No matter how many services are used by the taxpayers in this province, that is the limit.

The reserve moneys that are there are moneys that have accumulated under that agreement, Mr. Speaker. So clearly they were determined that they would be turned over to physicians. The AMA in their negotiating said that they would rather that we held these funds in a reserve and that we looked at other opportunities for use of them. There's over $32 million in this fund. What those funds will be used for is a determination of a discussion between the AMA and of course the Minister of Health. No money will be transferred out of this fund or any other fund that I'm responsible for without agreement here.

That part of this discussion has not been concluded. The minister has not approved this document. I made that very clear yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I will be reviewing it with the AMA. I want to point out again that every health worker in this province is paid with taxpayers' funds. It may be the thing to do today to sort of take issue with physicians, but I would rather deal in fairness. 1:40 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken about four minutes to defend a plan the Premier says that he hasn't made a decision about.

Does the Premier, then, agree or disagree with the Conservative Member for Olds-Didsbury, who is describing this deal as obscene? MR. KLEIN: Y ou're right. Mr. Speaker, I neither agree nor disagree. MR. MITCHELL: What does the Premier say to the people of Lethbridge-West who have been calling their Conservative member disgusted with this deal and who have been told by that member that the Minister of Health should kill it? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had that discussion with the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. I don't know the extent to which his constituency office is receiving phone calls on this matter.

This matter has yet to come Treasury Board, it has yet to come to cabinet, and it has yet to come to the caucus of this government. Y es, it was part of a negotiating point in the settlement with doctors, but nothing from this side of the House has been settled in that regard. Health Restructuring MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has reassured Albertans that this is a year for monitoring and restructuring the health care system, and he has said very clearly on many occa- sions that the health care cuts are over. But last night in Bon Accord the Conservative candidate in the Redwater by-election, Mr.

Ross Quinn, said: there are more health care cuts to come. To the Premier: what does Ross Quinn know about the Premier's plan for health care cuts that the rest of Albertans haven't yet been told? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the health care plans for the constitu- ency of Redwater are as they are for every other regional health authority in the province. The business plans have been filed. Y es, the restructuring is taking place. The restructuring is taking place within existing budget guidelines, and I would assume it's to that particular question that Mr. Quinn alludes. MR. MITCHELL: He wasn't alluding.

He was very explicit, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we'll go on here and ask the Premier: why is it that the Conservative candidate, Ross Quinn, is saying that there will be more cuts to doctors' fees and to drug programs for seniors? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm probably getting this 10th-hand, you know. Was the leader of the Liberal opposition there to hear Mr. Quinn say that, or did someone hear Mr. Quinn say some- thing and then say it to someone else who said it to someone else who said it to the leader of the Liberal opposition? Is that how it came about? MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, this was a public forum.

Many people heard these statements. Is this how health policy is made in Alberta now: by throwing out ideas during a by-election and seeing what the fallout will be? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'll speak to our candidate in that riding, who I understand is doing a magnificent job and will win. I'll speak to him about exactly what he said, in what context, and get to the bottom of this. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Alberta Council on Aging MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Alberta Council on Aging is an umbrella organization for seniors' groups, and it serves seniors across the entire province. The council is a strong, vocal advocate for seniors' rights, has been constructive and vigilant in examining the effect s of the government's cuts of benefits and services to seniors. The government has now announced its intention to cut the $64,000 that this organization requires to function. So my question is to the Premier. Why have you done this? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a budgetary question to which the hon. Minister of Health can reasonably reply. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, as the minister that the

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1641 Seniors Advisory Council reports to – and I'm quite proud to have that group within my portfolio – I can tell the hon. member that through the discussion of business plans, as with every agency and department in government, the reductions asked have not been any greater than any other department's. Mr.

Speaker, what I would also tell the hon. member is that under the very able chairmanship of the Member for Calgary- Currie and her board members a discussion has been held as to how best to carry out the mandate of that Seniors Advisory Council to continue to ensure that they are a strong voice for seniors and to hear from seniors and to bring that information to government, which they've done very well. As you know, they table an annual report in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, what I have found through that board – and they are very capable, very fine members – is that they agree with fiscal responsibility.

They prefer that the dollars we have available go to programs that will directly affect seniors – and certainly we've been able to do that – and that we live on a few less dollars for the council. I think that when the hon. member sees the annual report, that will be tabled in the next instant, she will find that it's of every bit as fine a quality as the past ones have been. She will also find that the activities of that council will continue throughout this province as a voice for seniors and the listening role of seniors. MRS.

HEWES: The Premier and the minister both seem to mix up the Seniors Advisory Council with what I'm asking the question about, the Alberta Council on Aging. This is a commu- nity organization. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier then: how does this muzzling cut fit with your election promise of '93 to protect the people who built the province? How does this $64,000 cut fit with that? MR. KLEIN: Y ou know, one of the objectives of this government is to reduce the amount of overla p and duplication that exists in the delivery of service and to find ways to streamline delivery processes. Mr.

Speaker, I'll have the hon. minister supplement relative to the Council on Aging, and I'll have the Member for Calgary- Currie, who's the chairman of the Seniors Advisory Council, also supplement. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I think the Member for Calgary-Currie can speak to the definitive grant. I would apologize to the hon. member, but unfortunately with the amount of chatter that was occurring, I did not hear her correctly.

I will simply say that the Alberta Council on Aging is an organization that also advocates on behalf of seniors and has enjoyed a granting status from the Seniors Advisory Council. However, as I'm sure the chairman of that council will outline for the hon. member, that council is moving away from being a granting organization, so it is not specific to one agency. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to supplement and clarify the facts on this issue.

The Seniors Advisory Council has had granting dollars in the past which it allocated for a variety of purposes. Part of that grant went to the Alberta Council on Aging. Three years ago, when I became chairman, I met with their organization and identified the reductions in budget that we would be undertaking with respect to deficit elimination. Mr. Speaker, to simply clarify, the $64,000 was the grant that was issued to the council in the 1994-95 year. We had advised the ACA that we would be moving to a phaseout over a three-year period.

The year before I believe the grant was in the neighbour- hood of about $70,000. This year, rather than choose one seniors' organization to grant operating dollars to, in light of restrictions in our budget we kept the grant money in the Seniors Advisory Council for the use of seniors all across Alberta, and we have been utilizing those dollars in a number of ways, some of which have been meeting with regional authorities across the province in order to discuss the transitions in health care and home care.

So while it is true the ACA will not be receiving grant dollars for operations, it is not true that the seniors of Alberta are being shortchanged. The council is using that money on behalf of all Albertan seniors. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the ACA does. Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, will you now take the funds from the $228,000 budget of the Seniors Advisory Council and restore the money to the community-based Alberta Council on Aging, who desperately need it? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie answered that question.

She pointed out quite clearly that seniors in this province won't be shortchanged. All departments of government have budget guidelines to meet, and as I stated earlier, the objective is to break down the amount of overlap and duplication. If one council can do it and do it in an effective and efficient manner, so be it. That's exactly what the Member for Calgary-Currie indicated, and that's exactly what the minister indicated. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. Air Ambulance Services MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health.

On or about February 1, 1996, a Claresholm area physician whose patient was suffering from an intracranial hemorrhage contacted the air ambulance dispatch centre with a request for a helicopter ambulance. The dispatch centre's outmoded chart of call precluded helicopter dispatch for a distance of 126 kilometres. In the interest of saving the patient, both the sending and the receiving physicians agreed themselves to dispatch a helicopter ambulance.

To the Minister of Health: why does the chart of call continue to show 125 kilometres as the maximum range for the helicopter ambulance when in fact the range is well over 225 kilometres? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I did respond to this issue in

part I guess – I think it was on April 18 – by filing a sessional paper on this issue. However, the hon. member has brought up something very specific to this, and that is the distance, the range that an air ambulance helicopter is permitted to use. I should say that the 125-kilometre range was one that was decided and was put in at the request of the approved medical crews themselves. We should take the advice of the people who are manning those helicopters. They proposed three zones at that time with guide- lines for the type of transport within each of those zones, and the 125-kilometre limit arose from that.

1642 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Health: why doesn't the chart of call factor into account the number of patient transfer movements which would be required for a fixed-wing ambulance trip versus that of a helicopter trip, which the sending and receiving physicians in the Claresholm instance did, keeping the patient transfer movements down in that case to two instead of six for a fixed-wing aircraft? MRS.

McCLELLAN: I should say at the outset that the determi- nation to send an air ambulance and what type of air ambulance is made on one basis and one basis only, and that is patient care. The chart of call is based on the time from the receipt of the request of the air ambulance to the arrival of that ambulance at the patient's bedside. The experts that make those decisions take a number of factors into account, and certainly patient movement or the number of times a patient has to be moved is part of that determination. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not just one criteria, it is many, and that is part of the criteria.

THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Health: Madam Minister, why does your department, then, continue to refuse to pay the invoice for this time-dependent, lifesaving exercise when it was requested by the sending and the receiving physicians and when even after the fact Dr. Hal Canham, the dispatch medical director, gave his verbal okay? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I would think that this is probably not the best venue to delve into a specific of one particular issue.

However, it is my understanding that a meeting has been set up by the Ambulance Advisory and Appeal Board, which is in place to deal with these very issues and is chaired by the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. I am sure that the hon. chairman will call his committee to that meeting and deal with that issue very expeditiously. I have to remind the hon. member that our air ambulances are dispatched by experts, by people who do understand the medical need and distances to be covered in this province. So our main interest is that we move patie nts expeditiously and with patient care as the first priority.

I assure the hon. member – and I know he is raising this concern on behalf of a person who has raised it with him – that that meeting will be held and that that issue will be dealt with very soon. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Computers for Schools MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government's own technology integration in education paper recommended a computer ratio of 5 students to 1 computer in our school system. To accomplish this, the government has committed a grand total of zero dollars this year and then $40 million starting next year until the year 2000.

So my question to the Minister of Education is: given that his own government's figures say that we need a minimum of $165 million to get to the ratio of 5 to 1, where's the remaining $125 million going to come from? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, when we released the position paper that the hon. member is referring to, we clearly indicated that the paper laid out the ideal objectives as far as information technology is concerned. We were quite open and candid about indicating that we would not be able to meet those ideal targets as far as computer-to-student ratios are concerned within the current budget plan.

The current budget plan as proposed is $40 million, plus we intend to have matching dollars identified by school boards, and they are spending in that neighbourhood right now. So we are talking about in total, when all is said and done, a commitment of about $85 million over the three-year period. Now, that, I agree, is about half of what is identified as the ideal, but in the climate of other objectives of government, such as a sound fiscal plan and balancing our budget, this is still a very positive and very significant contribution in dollars. MR.

HENRY: Well, if the minister can't get the money, perhaps I can ask the Premier. In the context that many other provinces are planning to meet those targets and have committed tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, I would ask the Premier: why is he allowing his government to ignore the recommendations of the integration and technology committee and refusing to put in the money needed so that we can have comput- ers in our classrooms so our children can remain competitive with the rest of the country? 2:00 MR.

KLEIN: The minister will indicate that it's part of his business plan, and I will have him supplement. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I really think that question was answered in the first response. The point is that we are making a very significant contribution towards improving information technology access for students in this province. Candidly and openly we said from day one that in the three-year business plan that we currently have, they were not going to be able to meet that ideal which is outlined in the policy paper very capably prepared by our implementation team, chaired by the Member for Calgary-Egmont.

That is the situation. MR. HENRY: Well, then, perhaps I can ask the minister this question. Since the minister has indicated that school boards are going to come up with about $40 million, then can he tell me where they're going to get that money? Is he telling them to transfer money out of the instructional grant, out of the classroom, into computers, which are capita l expenditures? Is that what you're saying? MR. JONSON: Y es, that's a good point, hon. member. There has been considerable shifting of dollars from administration into instruction. Y ou know, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the hon. member across the way would want this conclusion to be drawn from his remarks, but possibly in there he is ignoring the fact that right now there are resources within the school budgets of school jurisdictions across this province which in a very significant way are currently going into the improvement of information technol- ogy services and equipment in this province. It's our view that in terms of the matching requirement, it will be identifying and putting together in a critical mass or in a sufficient amount a very significant contribution towards this objective.

The other thing is that one of the expectations that we will have is that school jurisdictions, if they do not already have one, have a logical plan to utilize both their dollars and our dollars in a very effective way within school jurisdictions for students.

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1643 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Worksite Safety Improvement Program MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the minister responsible for workers' compensation. My colleague from Lethbridge-East and I recently attended the day of mourning in Lethbridge in recognition of fatally injured workers, and it was a very sensitive and moving ceremony. Now we have the announcement of the distribution of more than $13.3 million to more than a thousand companies that participated in a voluntary incentive plan run by WCB and Alberta Labour.

Will the minister please tell the House th e involvement in this injury reduction program of those who participated? MR. DA Y: I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. It's an exciting day today in Calgary and again on Thursday in Edmonton when we will witness the distribution, as the member has indicated, of over $13 m illion in rebates to over a thousand companies who have participated in the voluntary incentive plan. For those companies to do that, they have to be part of a bigger partnership, which is called the partnership in injury reduction.

That partner- ship involves WCB, Alberta Labour, occupational health and safety, and, even more importantly, industry safety associations. Companies wanting to take

part in that have to have a health and safety program. They have to have also an external audit done on that program, and their actual costs have to be less than their projected costs. In those cases those companies will receive a refund of the money that they had invested in terms of their own injury reduction programs, so it does result in less injury. Certainly those who attended the day of mourning ceremonies can be comforted to know that those programs work to lessen the impact and in fact reduce workplace fatalities and injuries. MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm a results-oriented kind of guy. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Question. Question. MR. DUNFORD: We'll get to that, Shorty, in a minute. Aside from receiving cheques in the mail, what success have these companies had in actually reducing injuries to workers? MR. DA Y: Once again the opposition does not appear to be interested in programs that work. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the companies that took

part in the voluntary incentive plan didn't just receive dollars back. Incidentally, those are their own dollars that they had invested up front. They received the benefit of seeing less injuries in their own workplaces. That means less injury in the community. That means less impact on the families of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lethbridge-West said that he was results oriented. I can tell him that in 1995 the companies that participated in the voluntary incentive plan reduced their injury rate costs by an average of 1 1 percent.

Companies not participat- ing in the plan reduced their injury costs by about 1 percent. So those companies participating significantly reduced injury costs over those companies which did not. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the minister: how was it decided that excess money would be refunded to employers instead of put to other uses such as programs for getting injured workers back to work as early as possible? MR. DA Y: Well, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, it's important to remem- ber that the money that goes in at the front end of this program is employer money at the start, and when it is returned and rebated, most of those dollars in fact go back into enhancing their health and safety programs.

Those who are attending the ceremonies today will hear from managers and CEOs, as they will in the ceremonies on Thursday, how they directly take those funds, put them back into enhanced health and safety programming, in some cases even see that some of those dollars go back to the very employees who are involved very closely with management in establishing the health and safety programs. So the net benefit is to workers in these programs. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. WestView Regional Health Authority MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lately we've heard the Premier and the Minister of Health and even the Treasurer, I believe, state that the Capital health region was the only RHA that was unable to live within its means. Y et the WestView regional health authority has been asking for more money since 1994. I've personally repeatedly asked the minister and even the Premier to extend more funding on behalf of the people of the WestView region, yet the Premier and the minister have turned their backs on these people until recently, namely last week. All of a sudden $500,000 was made available.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a few questions to clear up this murky financial situation. First of all, did all regional health authorities other than the CHA come in on budget as of March 31? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, no, not all regions came in on budget. The Calgary region identified about a $1.6 million budget shortfall, which is about .4 of their total budget. They identified that they would make that budget shortfall up over the next months and how.

The WestView region, which the hon. member is referring to, has had some significant budget challenges over the two years, and I must commend them for working very hard to meet those challenges. Part of their challenge is a deficit that they took on from sites when they became the region, which all other regions did too.

Our department staff have been sitting down with them and working out a debt retirement plan, gave them some assis- tance in that area last year. 2:10 I would also like to point out to the hon. member – and he may not have picked up on this – that when the $40 million for community dollars were distributed this year, they were not distributed initially in the budge t lines in the budget, and we commented that we wanted to have some discussions with the regions before we made those allocations.

In the discussions with the regions I outlined to them that we would like to distribute those on a population basis, which the regions did agree to, and the WestView region did receive more dollars thro ugh that allocation because of their population. They also received half a million dollars, .5, out of the allocation just recently to further assist them in meeting their budget difficulties.

1644 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 One of the real difficulties that that region does face is that a very large number of their population does not receive or access their medical services or health services within that region, so they are therefore not funded for those. As high as 60 percent of their acute care services are accessed outside the region, and frankly in part of the region closest to the capital city, the number may be as high as 80 percent. That is something that the regional health authority is working very hard on, and I am sure we'll make progress.

In fact, I noticed some improvement in those figures just very recently, Mr. Speaker. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, since the minister brought up the leakage, if I can call it that, from WestView to the Capital health region, is she perhaps contemplating a change in the boundaries? That would severely affect the funding of course. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that we would contemplate a change in the boundaries would be if the citizens in those areas requested us to review that.

I would expect that over the next period of the term of office of the new board, as the Provincial Health Council reviews and audits our health system, they may have some opinions on how we might deliver services better. Certainly I am not contemplating any change to those boundaries unless a community or commun ities and the regional health authorities come to the minister and say: “We think the boundaries should be realigned for this reason. This is the consultation we've had. This is the agreement. We believe health services could be delivered better if we did this.” MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr.

Speaker, since WestView ended the last budget year with a shortfall of $1.3 million, has now received $500,000, a one-shot deal, doesn't that indicate to the minister that they're still short money and they need more money, or is she first going to send in the inquisition headed by the Member for Bow Valley? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't term it an inquisition. In fact, as I indicated in my first answer, they have already requested that help, and they have already received that help from people in my department. That board wants to live within its budget.

It wants to provide health services that are important to its region. I indicated in my earlier answer that they, as others did, inherited a deficit that they had to work through, as the other regions did too. When we determined that surpluses would continue to be held by regions, we also determined that deficits would be held by regions. We could have taken all of the surpluses in, I suppose, and then paid all of the deficits and just kept the balance, which would have been quite a positive plus position for us, but that was not determined to be the best way to go.

I have already indicated to the hon. member that out of the $40 million in community money, the WestView region did receive a higher amount, and I would be happy to show him in the budget document, if he just looks from last year, what their allotment was and what they got this year. He would see a significant increase. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's keen interest in the activities in his region, and I hope that this will help him understand it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Cattle Industry MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. As noted before in the House, the cattle industry in North America is in the full throes of a liquidation. Cattle prices have plummeted to producers on both sides of the border. Canada and the United States are suffering. Could the minister indicate if he's aware if any government programs in the United States have been an- nounced which may impact on Alberta's beef prices? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the cattle industry, both in Canada and the United States, is going through difficult times. Prices have dropped, and obviously it's very difficult in that particular aspect of the industry. President Clinton announced a program that's going to have some dramatic effects on the United States' cattle industry, and I think it's important that perhaps our industry recognize just what some of those effects may be. There's going to be an accelerated purchase of beef for the school lunch program. In June there's going to be $50 million spent on accelerating that program and in May $13 million dollars.

It's going to . . . AN HON. MEMBER: What's this have to do with Alberta? MR. PASZKOWSKI: What this has to do with Alberta is that we are the largest cattle producing province in all of Canada. We are the third largest cattle producing area in North America. The cattle industry is 50 percent of agriculture in Alberta. It's a very major and dynamic force in Alberta, and it's very critical that we understand the ramifications of what's happening in the country next to us. The subsidy basically is going to be within the confines of the WTO though.

I think it's important that we recognize that indeed the Americans are working within the confines of the World Trade Organization. They're going to open up an additional 36.4 million acres to the conservation reserve program that are going to be used in grazing. This is not going to affect the American problem that much, Mr. Speaker, because the Americans are also ca ught in one of the worst droughts that they have ever had as far as Texas, Okla- homa, and Kansas are concerned. In the short and medium term, export credit guarantees are going to be made to boost sales. That's very significant.

Indeed, it is very critical that there is an understanding of the effect that this is going to have on our Alberta industry. Program announce- ments have been well received by the American i ndustry. Nevertheless, it will have direct effect on the cattle industry in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: Alberta now has a farm income disaster program to ensure against farm income disaster. Is there any concern that this program will bring about trade sanctions? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Indeed this has been a major concern of the cattle industry and has been our concern as well. We've gone beyond limits to see that indeed the program that we have

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1645 developed, the farm income disaster program, is not countervail- able. As a matter of fact, we have taken the . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. MR. PASZKOWSKI: It's unfortunate that the hon. members . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order, hon. members. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Obviously agriculture, which is one of the pillars of strength in this pr ovince, is of no interest to our opposition. That's very unfortunate. It's tragic really, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECORE: It's because you're boring, Walter. THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. Hon. minister. MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Thank you. To the . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. Hon. minister, we'll try again. MR. PASZKOWSKI: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry may feel that agriculture is boring. That's not our position, Mr. Speaker. That is not our position. Indeed, we have taken the whole program, the farm income disaster program, to the WTO for a ruling. We've asked them for a ruling so that indeed our industry w ill not be damaged through any programs that we have initiated. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't realize this question would stir such a reaction from the opposition. Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is: what is the minister doing to gain access to the European Common Market? 2:20 MR. PASZKOWSKI: Access to the European Union has been withheld supposedly because of the use of hormones in North America. This is nothing more than a trade barrier in that many of the countries within the European Union actually use hormones as well.

So Canada initiated action supported by the United States, supported by Australia, and supported by New Zealand to challenge the process that the European Union is using as far as not allowing the access of Alberta or Canadian beef into the European Union. It's simply a trade barrier and nothing more. Consequently, as a result of this challenge, we hope to have some sort of ruling come forward within a month as to the process. I want to compliment the federal government on this particular initiative because indeed the federal government has taken a proactive position.

It's too bad we can't get the federal govern- ment to act on our grains industry the same way. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rents increase. Taxes increase. Utilities increase. Food costs increase. Virtually everything increases but not AISH, not the assured income for the severely handicapped. Frozen for years now. To the minister responsible for AISH: will you commit today, here and now, that AISH payments will increase? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, to start with, we spend over $430 million . . . SOME HON.

MEMBERS: How much? How much? MR. CARDINAL: Over $430 million. We have 9,000 clients. Of course, Mr. Speaker, part of the overall welfare reforms that we announced back in '92-93 deals with that particular issue. At the time, we found most of the dollars were being utilized by young, healthy Albertans that didn't require those supports that clientele on AISH do. Since the reforms, of course, we've increased the budget to persons with disabilities. In fact, it allowed us to move over $178 million to the most high-needs areas.

What it allows us also to do now is to develop not only a short- term plan as to how we deal with these particular sensitive issues, Mr. Speaker, but it also allows us to develop a long-range plan. Of course, along with a long-range plan we hope to reduce the costs administratively, which in turn will allow us to increase the benefits to those high-needs areas in the future. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, detours. Detours here. I want a straight answer, if I could, from the minister. Is the minister making a commitment that payments for persons with severe disabilities will increase? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, of course, I've said earlier in this House that there is an ongoing review of persons with disabilities. Y ou know, I've always said that it is a very high- needs area. The majority of the dollars that were being utilized by this department were going to people that were employable and trainable. We've changed that now.

We've reduced the welfare caseload below 50,000 from over 96,000 cases, which now allows us the time to plan and redirect dollars in the future, not only short term but in the long term, as to how we may increase the benefits for those most in need, and that is the direction of this ministry. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister continue to sentence those severely disabled persons to a life of poverty? MR. CARDINAL: To start with, Mr. Speaker, Alberta is, I believe, one of two provinces in Canada that has programs such as these.

Therefore I don't believe that we are picking on persons with disabilities. I indicated earlier that we spent over $430 million. For a population of two and a half million, I believe that is a pretty high amount of dollars. In relation to the issue of poverty – and of course it's tied in with the question – the National Council of Welfare just released their report, in fact the spring of 1996. It ties in with the issue of people living in poverty. Back in 1989 the poverty rate in Alberta was 15.5 percent. In 1992 it went up to 19.4, and in 1994 – it includes AISH recipients – it was down to 15.9.

Therefore, the issue of poverty is being dealt with in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, when you look at other provinces, you look at provinces where they are governed by Liberals – for an example, in Newfoundland

1646 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 their poverty rate is 19.1. It's a Liberal government. In Nova Scotia it's 17 percent. It's another Liberal government. So I think we are doing very well in Alberta, and you can be assured that with this plan we'll do better in the future. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Advanced Education Costs DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. University costs too much; I might go to college or not go to school at all: so claims Susan, a high school student from a less affluent Alberta family.

As university and college tuitions rise, the gap between her family's income and those costs widens. The assumptions by the adult education ministry that increasing the amount that students may borrow warrants higher tuition fees have been tested elsewhere and found wanting. Such a policy systematically discriminates against the poor. Common sense should have told the ministry that tuition sticker shock is most discouraging to these families.

Increased tu ition costs linked to larger loans, as the Susans of this province will attest, not only discourages students from lower income families but determines which institutions they will consider. A counselor serving a high school in a lower income Alberta area admits his students look for lower priced college programs in which to enroll. Discouraging students from less affluent families from accessing advanced education is undemocratic, unfair, and unethical.

That people from lower income families fear borrowing to finance educational expenses more than those from middle- or upper- income families should have been addressed before tuitions were allowed to rise. What should be done? The assumption that students can borrow funds to cover program costs and thus all students have equal access to advanced education must be abandoned. We must track the impact of increased education costs on enrollment decisions of our high school graduates. We need to set advanced education participation rate goals for all Alberta students.

The province needs a system of financial aid that is simple and predictable enough for lower income families to understand, to use and build plans around. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, we must abandon a course of action that systematically screens out low- income students. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose. 2:30 Workers' Compensation Board MR. PHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with great regret and sadness that I make this member's statement. Over the past two years I have met with many injured workers.

The way they were treated by WCB, the pain that they and their families suffered were all totally different than the rosy picture presented by WCB. At first I did not want to believe these workers. I conducted my own research, hoping that I could prove them wrong. My investigation confirmed my fear: these workers' concerns over WCB were real and valid. With my member's statement today I will try to set the context in which I will ask my questions in the next few question periods. First, Mr. Speaker, WCB claims that 80 percent of the injured workers surveyed were happy with WCB.

I will prove that WCB has no data at all to back up this claim. Second, I will show that over $2 million that should go to the injured workers of this province were divided up among WCB brass in the fiscal year '95-96, and moreover another 2 million plus dollars is going to be spent in the same way this year. Third, WCB claims that they are operating at arm's length from government, that they do not use any public money and therefore should not be subject to the scrutiny of this Legislature. I will prove beyond any doubt that WCB does use taxpayers' money to subsidize their operations.

Most important of all I will show that many injured workers are treated very poorly by WCB and that there is almost no meaning- ful recourse for them. Mr. Speaker, my job is to represent my constituents and go to bat for them when they are treated unfairly. Turning a blind eye on their problems is both irresponsible and immoral. I hope that members from both sides of the House will give me the co–opera- tion that I need to ask questions and have this issue addressed in the next few days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. Trans Canada Trail MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Volunteers across Canada continue to work on what has been called the new national dream, the Trans Canada Trail. This vision of a network of trails traversing our country from coast to coast is a legacy project selected during Canada's 125th birthday celebrations in 1992. The annual meeting of Alberta TrailNet, the group that is responsible for the Alberta

section of this national project, met in Edmonton just recently. They are working to complete not only the east-west link across Canada but also a linking set of trails for walking, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding across our province. From Cypress Hills interprovincial park in the south through Dinosaur provincial park in Drumheller, the route will link up with the already established trails in Calgary and area. Calgary is, after all, the place where 30 years ago a small gr oup of enthusiasts had a dream to create a citywide network of pathways.

From that initial dream not only did Calgary develop its own excellent trail system, but the vision grew into this wonderful national project that will unite our country in a very practical way. From Calgary the route goes west through Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff to link up with existing trails in B.C. However, a route will also go north from Drumheller to Red Deer, Edmonton, and beyond. In fact, at least 13 municipalities and eight associations have now confirmed their participation in the greater Edmonton area.

Trail development is one of the most cost-effective outdoor recreation facilities provided by municipal parks and recreation departments in Alberta. After all, walking and bicycling are respectively the first and third most popular recreational activities in our country. These are healthy activities that will remain popular even as our population ages. Moreover, with continued development of this network, not only will Albertans be able to go further afield; we will also extend our basis for a tourism industry along the routes in this province.

Therefore we hope the Alberta government is considering what other provinces have already successfully accomplished; that is, the conversion of aba ndoned railway lines to public trails. I would like to commend and thank all those who are donating

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1647 their time, energy, and money to this project, and I sincerely hope that many more will lend their support and enthusiasm to this national dream of a coast-to-coast trail-net by the year 2000 for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West gave the Chair notice earlier that he wished to raise a point of order. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. However, before I do that, I want to make an apology to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

During my question in question period I entered into an exchange and I characterized the leader, and I know better than to do that. So I want to apologize and retract that. Point of Order Allegations against Members MR. DUNFORD: As far as the point of order, it's under 23(h), “makes allegations against another member.” All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, you know, he's done it again. In this particular instance the opposition leader alleges that I told the minister to kill it, referring to the $7 million fund for the AMA, and this is just simply not true. Mr.

Speaker, I've only had to rise twice in the three years that I've been a member of this House, and in both cases it's been misrepresentations and allegations by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. If he would have bothered to learn anything about me at all, he would find that amongst my caucus colleagues my nickname is Huggy Bear, and it is quite foreign and uncharacteris- tic for me to use terms like “kill it.” In any event, I want to assure the members of the Legislature that I did not use the term “kill it” to the minister, and I would hope that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition would certainly, in terms of the honour and the character that he has, retract that statement. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Huggy Bear has mentioned that he did not use . . . [interjections] The hon. member has mentioned that he did not use the words “kill it,” the it of course referring to the pool of funds that doctors may be able to access.

I find it curious that in the hon. member's statements on his presumed point of order he didn't say what the particular words were that he did utter to the press and in public immediately before going into caucus. Of course, the spirit and the tone of his message to the public was his dissatisfaction with this deal and of course the fact that constituents have called his office to let their dissatisfaction be known to him as well and his commitment to communicate that. So I don't really see the point of order, obviously a choice of words but not a point of order.

THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair will thank the drafters of our Standing Orders for the latitude that they have allowed members to clarify their respective positions. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West has had the opportunity of putting on the record how he feels about this. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora has had that opportunity. I think the Chair feels that it is a disagreement amongst members. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 203 Family Dispute Resolution Act THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Belmont.

MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to move third reading of Bill 203, the Family Dispute Resolution Act. The principles of Bill 203 have r eceived widespread s upport from interested parties inside and outside this Assembly, and I want to express my sincere thanks for the support. Also, I would like to thank all those who agreed that a Bill such as this was necessary, those who worked to develop the framework, and those who put it into legal language. An awful lot of time and effort on the part of many individuals goes into producing a Bill.

Thanks again to everyone that had any involvement. Mr. Speaker, the focus of the Bill is to minimize the impact of divorce on children, because they suffer the most. This Act will be a start, a base that can be expanded on in the future. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all hon. members to vote yes to this third and final reading of Bill 203. On behalf of families I thank you, and I ask for the question to be called. THE SPEAKER: All those in favour of third reading of Bill 203, Family Dispute Resolution Act, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: No. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 2:40 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Amery Doerksen Stelmach Beniuk McFarland Trynchy Brassard Oberg Woloshyn Burgener Paszkowski Y ankowsky Day Severtson Against the motion: Abdurahman Henry Mirosh Ady Herard Mitchell Black Hewes Nicol Bruseker Hierath Renner Calahasen Hlady Rostad Carlson Jacques Sekulic Dalla-Longa Jonson Soetaert Decore Kirkland Tannas Dunford Kowalski Taylor Fischer Laing Thurber Friedel Leibovici V an Binsbergen Fritz Magnus Vasseur

1648 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 Haley Mar West Hanson Massey White Havelock McClellan Totals: For – 14 Against – 44 [Motion lost] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 212 Consumer Protection Act [Adjourned debate May 1: Mr. Friedel] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to . . . [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of Bill 212.

Sometime back, earlier this session, I introduced a Bill in this Assembly, Bill 204, which I was hoping I'd receive widespread support for. Unfortunately, a lot of the claims we hear now being tossed back and forth across the Assembly floor, “Free vote, free vote” – it didn't happen that day either, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that we have in fact continued or the appearance that it's been continued. But this time a bad idea was voted down. Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill 212, I believe that going into the next century the most valuable items in society will be water and information.

The way information is used or abused dramati- cally affects our home lives and our business lives. We see that when incorrect information is passed along, the ramifications are often significant. Even in this Assembly many times we've seen when incorrect information is put forward that many, many members of this Assembly in fact take exception to and argue a case very strongly that they've been wronged.

Well, I would expect that these same individuals who have so often spoken against incorrect data being used against them and their being wronged by the use of that data would be the first ones to rise in support of Bill 204 when the time comes, because they have been victims. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Bill 212. MR. SEKULIC: Bill 212. Pardon me. Bill 204 would have done much the same, but Bill 212 goes one step further in a different area. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, I hear some comments coming from over there saying: same speech; just a different number. In fact, I hadn't written a speech then; I spoke from my heart.

I haven't written a speech now. I'm speaking from my heart, and I know that's a new concept for some members in this Assembly. MRS. McCLELLAN: Head and heart. MR. SEKULIC: Head and heart. The hon. Minister of Health says that both my head and heart are in it. She's quite correct. I appreciate that observation. Quite accurate. Good insight.

When the previous speaker to this Bill rose and offered his opinion, which I noted were in fact written, he spoke that Albertans were in favour of smaller government, not bigger, and although I'd concede that that point is correct, I'd also suggest that perhaps it's partially insightful, partially correct. Albertans want a smarter government. Size is certainly an issue, but more important than size is cost, and those two do generally act independently of one another. Y ou can have a larger government costing less or a smaller government costing more, depending on whose friends you hire.

We've seen that sometimes some people have received significant amounts or some projects have received significant amounts of money. So I believe the basic premise that Albertans want a smarter and not necessarily a smaller govern- ment. The preference obviously would be to leaning towards a smaller government with the implication that that smaller govern- ment is a significantly less costly government and, most impor- tantly, that that government is delivering the services that are required. The idea or the principle which I think Bill 212 pursues is, as it states in this title, the Consumer Protection Act.

But how does it do that? Does it go after Alberta businesses as some form of watchdog? Well, I don't think so. I think the marketplace tends to correct a lot of the weaknesse s or the majority of the weak- nesses in the marketplace. For the most part, consumers in Alberta have been well served by quality businesses responding to consumer needs and consumer signals in correcting their weak- nesses. However, Mr. Speaker, just like in any other element of life, in business you'll also have the emergence of an unscrupu- lous few who, no matter what consumers send as signals, manage somehow to survive. Mr.

Speaker, if the story stopped there, that they were just in fact survivors, it wouldn't be as great of an effect, but the fact is that there are victims to these unscrupulous businesses that somehow manage to survive. Most often we see those victims to be seniors and people with lesser amounts in terms of monetary resources, and I guess the best way of describing them is that businesses are in fact very unscrupulous for preying upon that particular target group. But they wouldn't do that if that target group had some form of protection.

One would argue, “Well, perhaps that target group or that consumer group should become better aware and should exercise their rights as consumers in a different manner and try to protect themselves.” 3:00 Well, that's fine, Mr. Speaker, but I think we've been saying that, and in fact this government has tried in the past to offer consumer awareness information.

I believe one of the avenues that they've used in the past was consumer and corporate affairs, which provided buyer beware type information through its offices and then pinpointed particular areas of concern where there were specific unscrupulous businesses that would prey upon individuals. So in that manner the Alberta government in the past has tried to raise the level of awareness of some of the potentially difficult areas. Now, I think that program to some extent has worked, and it has helped numerous individuals.

I know even the Department of Family and Social Services would often refer clients who had been taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses to that consumer and corporate affairs branch which would deal in consumer protection. So we know that the need existed, and we know that to some extent there was government intervention to attempt to assist consumers in those areas. So we know that at least the previous Conservative administration had some interest in protecting Alberta consumers.

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1649 Now, the question is whether that same interest has continued. Once again, it's not the promotion of a bigger government or a new bureaucracy, because those are nice dark figures that we can paint in people's minds to justify voting against any piece of legislation in this Assembly. However, Mr. Speaker, putting that aside, we have to question: does this in fact have potential? Does this principle in fact have potential to translate into benefit for the majority of consumers in Alberta? I think it does. Does this in fact have a benefit for businesses in Alberta?

I'd hate to do anything to affect or distort the marketplace in any way. I would say that this Bill has the potential to benefit business. How, you would say, would it do that? Well, in the absence of an organiza- tion for small businesses or groupings of businesses to impose any kind of sanctions against businesses which were operating in a way that's inconsistent with appropriate and responsible business ethics, then we must look to some legislative format for imposing that criteria. Mr. Speaker, I think Bill 204 does that to some extent. Bill 212, Mr. Speaker.

I keep going to 204 b ecause it was such a good idea, flowing in the same vein in terms of ensuring that information was accurate and refl ected appropriately. Bill 212, I know, from my own constituents' point of view has some application. One of the most recent examples of a larger magni- tude was, I believe, last year when many of us – and I know my constituents weren't exempted. It was suggested to them that they may be receiving more channels or less channels for the same money or more money through their cable subscriptions. I know that the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan spoke to this.

It's the whole concept that you may not be requesting services or goods, but you may r eceive those services or g oods and somehow be liable for payment of those despite never having solicited or in fact needed those services or goods. I know that for the most part Albertans do not want to be bothered in their residences, in their private hours, which I would consider their family hours, by solicitation for products or services they didn't require. We do see this increasing in Alberta. MR. DA Y: Big Brother's going to protect them. MR. SEKULIC: I hear a comment coming across the floor.

It's in fact, I would consider, a valid criticism from someone who hasn't read the Bill thoroughly yet, that Big Brother somehow should be protecting everyone. Certainly that's not the aim of this Bill. If you want to use that same argument, then the whole structure of government becomes questionable. What is govern- ment? What purpose does it serve? Well, I think one of the purposes that it serves is to protect its citizens, to provide some formal structure by which its citizens can undertake business, participate in both business and social activities.

Now, one can argue that this may sound like I'm proposing some Big Brother defence, but in fact that's not . . . MR. DA Y: A Big Sibling defence. MR. SEKULIC: A Big Sibling defence. Well, whatever the case may be, we do have a purpose in this Assembly, and if one thinks quite honestly about what it is, it is in fact those few that I've mentioned; that is, to offer some form of legislative protection for Albertans.

Most importantly, it's so that Albertans know what to expect in their marketplace, so that they know that there's a consistency, so that tourists coming to th is province also know that Alberta has a business environment, like I said, 95 percent or 99 percent of which doesn't need any legislation to tell it what to do or where to go. But what do you do with that small percent- age? To date, Mr. Speaker, very little has been done with the exception of the consumer and corporate affairs department, which offered information.

This is simply an extension of what the previous Conservative administration believed in; that is, that the public should have a greater awareness of their rights in the marketplace. Mr.

Speaker, when we go into the marketplace and we offer any business with whom we're undertaking a transaction some information about ourselves and then in the time that we maintain the business relationship they maintain that information pertaining to our home lives, our address, our telephone number, perhaps even our credit card numbers, and maybe our credit ratings – that, for one, is very personal information – what do we expect that business would then do with that information?

Well, obviously we've offered it to them with the expectation that it would enable us to undertake this transaction or transactions or a business relationship that may last some years. However, we also expect that that business will maintain correct, up-to-date records on our personal information so that that information cannot be used in a negative way against us. So the Bill speaks insofar as it would allow individuals a right to access personal information about themselves that may be held.

I think that's a small request, a small requirement, and for the most part, most businesses are very forthright in providing any of their patrons with the information they hold on that individual. What then of those that don't? What if someone does have credit information on you which may be incorrect and which may be very detrimental to either your business or your personal life? Well, sometime back, when I was still in university, I was acting as a treasurer for a nonprofit society here in the city. As a result, I undertook a number of activities in terms of purchasing and paying the bills.

It so happens that one of the bills that was paid wasn't recorded accurately by that organization that we were doing business with, and that organization then took it upon themselves to link me personally, not the organization with which I was a director, with the financial liability. Well, about two years later, still in university, a struggling student, Mr. Speaker, I went and applied for a credit card and much to my dismay, not having had much in the way of need for loans or credit cards . . . [interjection] It's under

section 2. Much to my dismay, much to my surprise I found out that I had a bad credit rating. Never having had a debt in my life, I was beyond alarmed. So in trying to correct this wrong, I tried to investigate the matter. If you want to talk about bureaucracy – the government didn't have any intervention at that point – trying to get an accurate rating on my own credit at that point, a university student with not that many transactions or loans, I found it nearly impossible to trace the source of that information. Well, clearly there was something wrong.

Here this Bill will correct that type of dilemma for people in the future. Although it's a small example, I know it's not one that's infrequent. I know it happens quite often. I know that when I was working with the Ministry of Family and Social Services, many of the clients of the department would run into difficulties in that same area, and they'd express that same concern to the staff of the department, who once again would refer them to consumer and corporate affairs to try to correct some of these issues. 3:10 Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that in any way can a member argue that this is an intrusion into the lives of Albertans. Rather, I think

1650 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 it's a responsible reflection of what Albertans would expect from those elected to office. I think that whole issue of what the cost is of now introducing such a bureau, a consumer services bureau – well, if there is a need to in troduce such protection and if the Assembly is agreed upon that, then I think we can at that point look at perhaps even putting that bureau under a ministry through which it would report to this Assembly. The cost isn't one of $100 million or $200 million, as suggested by the Member for Peace River. No.

In fact, if that's his financial projection of this cost, then I daresay that Liberals can often do things at a much lesser cost. I would say that this would quite nicely fit under one of the ministries, perhaps economic development because it is in the interest of maintaining an Alberta advantage. Perhaps it could be done in partnership with many of the business organizations and through consultation with the chambers of commerce in Alberta because, I would suggest, they may be very much interested in this type of legislation, providing that they had some input into how we could manage this.

Once again, it would just bring a larger umbrella for all of the different business organiza- tions and groupings that this sort of legislation would provide some benefit to. Mr. Speaker, in coming to a closing on my remarks in favour of Bill 212, I do believe that information is one of the most valuable resources that we currently have in society. I think its value will only be enhanced in the future, and the management of such information is critical.

I believe to that extent that the government has a responsibility to legislate and to monitor the way that information is exchanged and used and, most impor- tantly, that each citizen should have a right to access and correct information about themselves wherever that information is, because abuse of such information will only be to the detriment of that individual and ultimately, if this is permitted to carry on, then to the detriment of all of us.

So in closing, I would encourage all members of this Assembly, particularly those members who felt sometime in the last three years that allegations or charges against them in this Assembly were inaccurate, incorrect and felt that they were wronged – well, if they feel that way, Mr. Speaker, then they'll feel very much in support of Bill 212, which would attempt to correct those types of situations in the public. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Edmonton-Manning was becoming so eloquent at the end, able to actually take current events and bring them into his speech, and I was saying to my bench partner here from Calgary-Egmont that he's actually becoming quite skilled. MR. HERARD: I didn't agree with him. MR. DUNFORD: That's true. The Member for Calgary-Egmont did not agree that he was either articulate or skilled. It's with some regret, however, that I find myself in a rather negative position, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that I have to speak against this Bill. But it is a negative day.

May 7 will be known now, similar to December 7, as a day of infamy, because this is the day that free votes died in the Legislature of Alberta, and the Liberal opposition can take clear credit for it. They have shown that they would allow an opportunity to take personal retribution against a former member rather than stand up for the principles that they believe in. It is a sad day. I have made statements in this House previously about free votes, and they have been proven true today. MRS. HEWES: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar on a point of order.

Point of Order Imputing Motives MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, 23(h), (i), and (

j) of our rules. The member is certainly suggesting that members of this caucus – I looked around and realized we all did vote the same way. That is because we often think the same way. We have a very clear set of values, so it's not difficult for us to do that. To suggest for an instant that there was another motive behind the members from this caucus voting against the previous Bill is simply untrue and unacceptable, and I would hope that the member would withdraw that remark. It is not the case, and it is not under any circum- stances the way members of this caucus behave in the House.

THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair feels there is only one way for this discussion to go, and that would be for the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West to stick to the Bill that's before the House and not be digressing on other matters. As far as allegations are concerned, our rules are directed to allegations against individual members and not to the corporate entity of a caucus. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West did stray from the matter before the Assembly, and he should return to that. MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, I strayed once again. I'm extremely sorry for that. Debate Continued MR.

DUNFORD: Well, all right. Let's deal with 212, and let's talk about it in this sort of context. Maybe we shouldn't talk about the corporate identify any further. Let's talk about a defining moment in somebody's life, and let's refer to the comments made in the non point of order in terms of shared values. I looked at this Bill. To see someone bring forward in the House an opportunity to create more bureaucracy – first of all, I would have expected to have seen Edmonton-Centre, for example, as the sponsor. I was shocked when I realized that it was actually Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, because I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that we have in that person, although I don't know her, someone who not only professed but published and seemed to be quite actually proud of the fact that she had been a Conser- vative and then decided to run for the Liberals. Well, now we see why. We see that she is a Liberal true to heart. I'm proud of her for leaving the Conservative Party to go to the Liberal Party, where she belongs. MR. HENRY: Don't you try to do it, Clint. MR. DUNFORD: Well, they'd never have me. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan on a point of order.

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1651 Point of Order Imputing Motives MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Y es. I would cite 23(i). He is imputing false motives, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as he should get his facts straight. I was a member of the Progressive – Progressive – Conservative Party, and I wish he would take note of that, a very different philosophy. The former Premier, Peter Lougheed, is beginning to identify the differences between a Progressive Conservative and a right-winged – and I won't say the word – Conservative.

I'm proud to be sitting on this side of the House, and I'm proud to bring Bill 212 forward on behalf of Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:20 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West on Bill 212. MR. DUNFORD: Oh, I don't get to respond about how proud she is. Okay. Well, you know, we had lots of red Tories, and it's nice to see them coming out of the closet finally. Debate Continued MR. DUNFORD: Now, what were we talking about? Oh, Bill 212. This Bill, you know, just flies in the face of everything that not only our government but Albertans have been telling people, including opposition members.

They are fed up with big govern- ment. They are fed up with Big Brother this, Big Brother that. We continue to see through the process of private members' Bills just more and more of this stuff coming from the Liberal opposi- tion. Of course, now that they've killed their free vote, I'm not sure just how many more of these we're going to have to contend with, but we'll see that I guess in the next session. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan? Point of Order Imputing Motives MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Y es. My citation would be 23(i). Once again I hear the member imputing false motives.

Indeed, today is private members' day. When I stand up as a private member of this Assembly on private members' day I vote the way I believe I should vote. I will not accept that member, Mr. Speaker, impugning my motives. If he had taken the time to read the very significant words that that incredible lady Marjorie Bowker conveyed to many of us with regards to the content of that Bill and listened to the legal community, I think any right-minded person would have stood up and voted against that. So I would ask that member not to impute thoughts into my mind. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-West on Bill 212 and not on free votes and other things. MR. DUNFORD: I won't talk about them killing free votes anymore. What I will say, however, is that I'm finding points of order really quite fun, and I learned that from the Leader of Opposition, who continued time after time to stand and give me credit for misleading statements. Debate Continued MR. DUNFORD: On 212. Again, I'm opposed to the develop- ment and the continued policies of Liberals that simply are to tax and spend.

Obviously, what would we have to do in this Bill but to increase taxes? [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. [interjections] Order please. The Chair was listening very carefully to the comments by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West, and his comments were perfectly in order for the debate that we're having today. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It once again indicates I think to all of us just one of the real values of democ- racy, and it's really great when you're on the winning side; isn't it? I actually feel really good about this. MRS.

SOETAERT: Democracy only works if you're on the winning side? MR. DUNFORD: Well, actually that's quite interesting. One of the problems an MLA has is that people just absolutely refuse to listen to what they say. I don't know how often we hear people from the other side trying to put different words in my mouth. We hear continually after an MLA has spoken – I'm sure it happens to opposition members as well.

They say, “Well, what you're really saying is,” or “what you really mean is,” and I say, “No, what I meant to say was what I said.” Now, one thing that is happening here today in the concern over some of the things I'm saying is that Liberal members are rising with points of order and they're talking about that it's what they said. Well, I think there's a place in the Bible somewhere, Mr. Speaker, that says that we should be judged not by what we say but by what we do, and these people killed free votes today. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: To the Bill. The Bill. MR. DUNFORD: Well, they did.

They stood up as a block and voted against their previous member. If that's not killing free votes, what is it? MS LEIBOVICI: Well, how many times did you vote against our Bills? MR. DUNFORD: I voted along with the Member for Lethbridge- East on the recall Bill, so I don't have to take any guff from any of you guys. If there's been one advocate for free votes in this Legislature, it's been this Member for Lethbridge-West. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. [interjections] Order.

We'd make much more progress on the debate on Bill 212 if members would address their remarks through the Chair and not across the room at each other and also if the debate was directed towards the Bill. MR. DUNFORD: Okay. One of the . . . MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, point of order. THE SPEAKER: Edmonton-Glengarry. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. DECORE: Under Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a question.

1652 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 MR. DUNFORD: Absolutely. Absolutely. Debate Continued MR. DECORE: The hon. member has been quick to point out that he voted for the Bill of the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, but I would like to know if he or his colleagues received instruc- tions on 210, the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Cypress- Medicine Hat. Was the Whip on your side on that one, hon. member? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I can tell the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry that the Whip did not tell me how to vote on that particular Bill.

I voted against his Bill because I feel very strongly that the two go together. I would be prepared on this point of order to make that argument. I support the Member for Lethbridge-East on recall. I don't know what it's like anywhere else in the province, but in the south we are very proud, both Ken Nicol and myself, of the way we're able to represent constituents. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order please. Also, hon. Member for Lethbridge-West, in this Chamber we refer to people by their constituencies and not by their names.

While the Chair is on its feet, it would regretfully interrupt the debate by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West because pursuant to Standing Order 8(2)(

b) we must now move to the next order of business. head: Motions Other than Government Motions Violence against Women 510. Mrs. Soetaert moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to help eradicate violence against Alberta women through the following initiatives: urging the federal government to implement stricter sentencing for abusers, establishing mandatory and continuing education programs for all provincial court judges on violence against women, providing 100 percent funding for Alberta women's shelters, providing comprehensive counseling for children and women who are victims of violence as well as the abusers, providing stricter enforcement of restrain- ing orders, undertaking a review of Alberta women's access to the legal system, urging the federal government to eliminate extreme drunkenness as a criminal defence, and legislating guidelines to protect the privacy of wom- en's counseling records.

Mrs. Burgener moved that Motion Other than Government Motion 510 be amended by striking out everything after “through” and substituting “education and prevention initiatives including the development of appropriate legal strategies, policies, and programs in co-operation with the federal government. [Debate adjourned April 30: Dr. Nicol speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to conclude my time on this Bill by commenting on the fact that it's so important that we recognize the impact of violence against women.

I'd like to relate a couple of events that happened in the last little while, where I went up to the door and on two different occasions women who were in the house reacted with absolute fear to the fact that there was a man standing outside the door. It says something about our society when we have women in Alberta who are afraid when a man comes to the door. I think this is a really good reason why we have to have a look at the process that we have in this province to deal with violence against women, the recognition of the kind of support that women need to overcome those kinds of fears.

I'd like to be able to say that I can go anywhere I want to in Alberta, go up to a door and not have a woman be afraid. I don't think I'm that fearful a person, Mr. Speaker. So in conclusion, I think we should look at this motion and vote in favour of it. Thank you. 3:30 THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time allotted for this motion has expired, and the Chair is required to put all questions required to dispose of this motion at this time. [Motion on amendment carried] THE SPEAKER: Now the question is on the motion as amended. All those in favour of Motion 510 as amended, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

THE SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. Carried unanimously. Forest Management 51 1. Mr. Van Binsbergen moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to authorize an independent audit of the management of provincial forest lands to examine the adequacy of current forest management, which would include a critical analysis of timber supplies and the effectiveness of current policies and practices in achieving sustainable development. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two parts to this motion. I think both are equally important.

The first one calls for an independent audit with a view of critically analyzing the timber supplies in the province. That stems from a concern, at least on this side of the aisle and I think shared by many Albertans, that the government has overallocated timber supplies, and even on the basis of past criteria, which only emphasized the timber value of our forests, they still have overallocated. I'd like to give a brief history here that sort of describes the concern about the inventory of timber supplies. First of all, the Forests Act sets out the forest policy in Alberta, and it is clearly rather outdated.

It focuses on the timber management and not on other forest values. The Act doesn't really have a purpose

section at all, but it states: “The minister shall administer and manage timber on public land under his administration.” Now, in 1991 the review of the Expert Panel on Forest Management in Alberta, which was chaired by Bruce Dancik and is often referred to as the Dancik report, recognized the need to improve these forest inventories. For instance, it said amongst its recommendations, number 14: “Priority should be given to

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1653 enhancing current inventories for purposes of management planning.” That is an important consideration. Then we have concern expressed by professional foresters in the early 1990s; in other words, as long as five or six years ago. In January 1991 the Alberta Forest Products Association wrote to the then minister of forestry, lands and wildlife, LeRoy Fjordbotten, expressing concern about the overallocation of timber.

In 1992 the professional foresters of Alberta – those were the foresters that belonged to the Alberta Forest Products Association – petitioned the government to express their desire to have a new timber inventory done primarily because they were concerned about any new allocations being made to Grande Alberta Paper. That still hasn't been done to this particular day, but the concern is there, needless to say.

In fact, they say that the proposal put forward by G.A.P. should not be approved until an up-to-date timber inventory is completed and the resulting [annual allowable cut], based on lo cal growth and yield data, is compared to existing commitments with allowances for the multitude of other non-fibre utilizing resources that Albertans feel should be protected in the area. So those are concerns expressed by people who are knowledge- able, by experts. Then I go on.

I'd like to express the point of view made by the then Liberal environment critic in 1992, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, who wrote to the minister of forestry in 1992 also with concerns about forest inventory. Shortages have been since identified in certain regions, and it is now quite well accepted; for instance, Alberta Newsprint found that its inventory showed a shortfall of about 30 percent in its FMA, and High Level Forest, another company, is concerned about the shortfalls. All that needs to be taken into account and acted upon.

The present situation in terms of timber supplies has become even more critical, and a critical analysis of those supplies is very much necessary. By now we have over 99 percent of coniferous forest on Crown lands allocated or committed or reserved or what have you but is sort of spoken for in one sense or another, and about 89 percent of deciduous forest on Crown lands has suffered the same fate. So it all the more underscores the need for a new inventory, to do a new audit. Professional foresters are still concerned about these supplies.

In 1995 the Alberta Forest Products Association came out with a statement through one of its spokesmen, and it was reported in the Edmonton Journal of December 7, 1995. I quote: a new study of Alberta's timber supplies is needed before further allocations for projects go ahead. So, once again, all that needs to be acted upon. Among forestry experts there is the fear that there will be a further reduction in the volume of timber that will be allocated for harvest in the future because they've discovered that regeneration is not as fast as was planned in some locations.

There could be, of course, the reason that the government has already adjusted its estimate of the total volume of wood available for the annual allowable cut from 25 million cubic metres to 22 m illion cubic metres, although there hasn't been an official reason given for that. The other cause of fear of reduction is that new values and new directions in forest management will affect the volume available for timber harvesting.

I think there is the notion there that if finally we start adopting that – and certainly the government forces forestry companies to adopt ecosystems management – that may have an adverse effect on the annual allowable cut to some extent. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm making a case there for an audit, an independent audit, so that it is clearly aboveboard and truly plausible and credible. That speaks to the timber supply. 3:40 I would like to devote a few remarks to the need for sustainable forest management.

I've also asked for an audit on those kinds of practices in the motion, and I think that if such an audit is done, it will show that these techniques, if I can call them that, are lacking in our forest management and there is a great need to bring about a change. Now, when we speak about sustainable forest management, we're really talking about a new approach to forest management which is based on the maintenance of a viable ecosystem on harvested land. We're not just talking, then, about the volume of timber, but we're talking about everything else that grows in the forest.

We also talk about the changing values that cause us to consider nontimber values such as setting aside lands in their natural state, for example, under Special Places 2000. Those are important considerations, needless to say. The Act as is, the Forests Act, has no objective or formally documented long-term direction for sustainable forest management on provincial lands, and that is obviously a lack that needs to be corrected.

The Dancik report, that I referred to earlier, that reviewed forest management in Alberta and was the result of the Expert Panel on Forest Management, came up with several recommendations in this regard. Their recommendation 17: The department's inventory and mapping process should be extended to include wildlife species-habitat relationships as quickly as possible. Recommendation 30: All forest management areas should be assessed for priority land use needs, and stratified accordingly. Within each stratum, management of the priority resource should also embody sound management of secondary resources.

The review noted as well that there was inadequate provision for the use of forest for purposes other than timber production. Another recommendation from the Dancik report was that the government immediately complete the Alberta conservation strategy, especially for the forest sector, and that is a good process that has been put into practice by the government that allows all kinds of stakeholders and the public at large to have input and participate in the production or the construction, if you wish, of a new strategy.

I think the draft report of that particular strategy group is just about complete, and it should be presented to the standing policy committee on natural resources and sustainable development this spring, if I'm not mistaken. Then if they approve, of course it will go to cabinet, and perhaps we'll get to deal with it here too. Now, Mr. Speaker, we're speaking about an all-encompassing vision for our Alberta forests, and that's far wider than the management of the forest for timber, and I'm stating that once again, which is the sole focus, really, of the Forests Act.

It's important – and here we get back to the audits of the timber supply again. That needs to be done first and foremost so that by the time we start applying sustainable forest management practices or ecosystems, there is still a forest left and we do know what the supplies are and we can also allocate certain areas for special consideration and special study.

Now, further along those lines, because of the need for an audit on timber supplies and because of the need for really an audit to see what practices we are using and to what extent we have fallen behind because we have not yet applied the ecosystems practices,

1654 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 it is particularly important that the government not commit any further forest lands for awhile. In the context of forest ecosystem management principles we need some unallocated forests as unlogged reserves and so on and as areas where existing forest harvest operations can expand, if need be, to provide the latitude needed to implement alternative silviculture practices: structured cut blocks and a mixed management model and variable rotational age. So there is a need for sustainable forest management practices, and I think the best way to define that – I suppose it's open to different

interpretations – is a combination of ensuring a sustain- able supply of timber while meeting society's changing demands for forest. Our focus consequently has moved from harvesting trees to sustaining forests. It means that we are managing the forest for long-term socioeconomic benefits as well as for ecological sustainability. These include activities such as tourism, wildlife, recreational use of forest, aesthetics, and wilderness values. It also includes the recognition of need for public involvement to ensure that other forest values are being recog- nized in management.

The ecosystem management is but one tool towards achieving sustainability. It really is a new approach to managing forest that aims to sustain all species as well as the relationships amongst them and the environmental systems upon which they depend. In other words, it recognizes the interdependence of nature and not just the protection of certain elements, such as certain plants. For instance, the growth and survival of an estimated 80 percent of seed plant species are dependent on fungi, which protect them from infection and enable them to absorb nutrients from the soil.

So these new practices associated with ecosystem management would include, for instance, increasing buffer zones along streams and lakes to protect water and wildlife; creating reserves to protect environmentally sensitive areas or maintain old forests; using alternative forest management methods to conserve biodiver- sity, for instance, random shape and size cut blocks to give a closer approximation to the pattern left by forest fires; and also leaving coarse woody debris on cut blocks to provide cover for wildlife and to retain plant species. 3:50 Now, the question that needs to be asked is: are we then at this time achieving sustainable forest management?

Surprisingly enough, we are in theory committed to that. The government is committed to it because, again, they signed in 1992 in the person of the minister of forestry, lands and wildlife, LeRoy Fjordbotten, the Canada forest accord, along with many other provinces and many organizations. Its goal, quoting from that accord, is to maintain and enhance the long-term health of our forest ecosys- tems for the benefit of all living things, both nationally and globally, while providing environmental, economic, social, and cultural opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations.

Now, this is very similar to the Alberta forest conservation strategy that I talked about earlier. So there is still a far distance to be traveled before the government of Alberta has even started to implement that particular commitment that the minister of forestry, lands and wildlife made in 1992. We need this audit very much to see to what extent we have fallen behind in that commitment. Therefore, I urge all members to vote for this motion. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak to Motion 51 1, calling for “an independent audit of the management of provincial forest lands,” as proposed by the hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. As you are well aware, our province is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. The oil and gas industry has been the mainstay of the Alberta economy for the last 50 years, and we can only hope that it continues to thrive. Our excellent pastureland and fertile soil are also a major cont ributor to the economy.

We are very fortunate to have as our minister of agriculture a man who recognizes the value of the agriculture industry and is taking steps to increase that value. [interjection] Right on. Our economy, like every other resource-based economy, is subject to the whims of the marketplace and the forces of nature. We have good seasons and bad, and relying on a few markets makes us very vulnerable indeed. Alberta's forests were consid- ered a vastly underutilized resource until the 1980s. Despite the abundance of timber in Alberta, our reliance on the oil and gas industry prosperity helped us to overl ook its value.

Today is a different story. With changes in technol ogy we as a province have been able to capitalize on our vast resources to the north, attracting hardwood pulp and paper mills. We have also been able to better utilize our Eastern Slopes forests as well. This means that today, Mr. Speaker, Alberta's economy is stronger, more diversified, and less likely to be ravaged by the economic shifts in one resource sector. Mr. Speaker, as a province it is our responsibility to wisely use the resources we have been blessed with.

We have also been very fortunate to be led by specialists in the land and forest service who recognize the importance of Alberta's forests and who continually try to balance harvest needs, recreation needs, and conservation needs. It is this department's mandate to ensure the health of Alberta's forests for the long term.

I'm not suggesting the forest industry need not be held account- able or that policy need never be checked and changed if neces- sary, but I do believe the department's role in balancing long-term needs against short-term gains is sufficient to protect our forests from the destruction the hon. member is hinting at with his motion. The accountability does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. The industry also polices itself to ensure it is following the rules set by our government, and the public scrutiny today is harsher than ever before.

There are enough checks and balances built into the system now to ensure the forests are being used in an appro- priate way. My objection to this motion also stems from a concern about the role of independent auditors. What does the Member for West Y ellowhead mean by “independent”? I would suggest it would be hard to find objective auditors, if that is what he means. Let's face it, Mr. Speaker; we have radical opinions on the forestry harvesting issue: a side that wants all the trees saved and a side that prefers they are all cut down in the name of profit.

How can the hon. member ensure an appropriate balance between the two on his independent audit team? I would suggest that the government is in the best position to provide the balance this issue needs. With three layers of checks in place for our timber harvesting practices, I believe the call for a fourth layer is expensive and impractical. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion, and I urge everyone in this House to vote against it. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased this afternoon to rise to speak on Motion 51 1, as introduced by

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1655 my colleague for West Y ellowhead. I rise this afternoon to support Motion 51 1. I was listening intently, Mr. Speaker, to the comments made by the Member for Calgary-East about Motion 51 1. I just want to reiterate that Motion 51 1 in terms of an action statement is asking “the government to authorize an independent audit of the manage- ment of provincial forest lands.” So that is the action statement, to do the independent audit.

The reason for the need for that independent audit is to look at the adequacy of current forest management . . . a critical analysis of timber supplies and the effec tiveness of current policies and practices in achieving sustainable development. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Calgary-East failed to address any of those in his comments. I heard the Member for Calgary-East talk about our extended utilization of our forests, that up until the 1980s we had under- utilized that particular natural resource in the province of Alberta. Well, how does the member define “utilize”?

The whole essence of utilization of our boreal and Eastern Slopes forests is to cut down the trees. That's been the essence of the forest policy in the province of Alberta since we moved in the direction of utilizing that natural resource. Well, that's passé. The member talks in terms of the present. He does not talk in terms of the future. Indeed, I'd go further and say that the member talks in the past. He talks about utilization of the forests, but what he really means is cutting down trees.

He says that the government will follow the rules in forest management practices and will ensure that those in the industry will follow the rules. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, of course they'll follow the rules, but the point of the motion is that those rules need a critical review. Part of the motion put forward by West Y ellowhead is “to examine the adequacy of current forest management” practices. So for the Member for Calgary-East to say “Well, we have the rules in place, the public will scrutinize, and there are good checks and balances” simply says to me, Mr.

Speaker, that that hon. member has absolutely no vision about the future of forest management in the province of Alberta. He's simply saying: let's maintain the status quo; let's not l ook to the future to ensure sustainability of our forests. The Member for Calgary-East – again, listening intently – talked about the two sides of the issue, with the government being in the middle to protect people from themselves. The member says: we're from the government; trust us; we're here to help. Well, Mr. Speaker, the member polarizes an issue that does not need to be polarized.

The member says that on the one hand we have the tree huggers, those who don't want any trees cut down at all, and on the other hand we want those in control of the feller bunchers to cut the wide swath, clear-cut absolutely everything, and exchange the logs for dollars. 4:00 That's not the way it is in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. That is simply not the way it is in the province of Alberta.

Groups have come together, and in the spirit of co-operation and harmony they have worked together collectively on the forest conservation strategy to find the middle ground, with a common goal: to ensure that there are sustainable forest practices in the province of Alberta. That has been the goal of the forest conservation strategy. The forest conservation strategy was created because of the need that was identified, in looking to the future, to begin the process of a better and more current and more contemporary approach to forest management than simply going in and cutting down the trees.

Sustainable forest management recognizes other values that the forests have. The old thinking – and indeed it still exists in the Forests Act – deals only with the timber value when we look at a forest. The new thinking on ecosystem management, on biodiversity recognizes that there are many other values that our forests have. That to me, Mr. Speaker, becomes the test of utilization of our forests. Have we, in looking at the other values, gone far enough in current forest management practices to say unequivocally that we are now doing sustainable forest management? I don't think we are.

We have to look at the value of habitat. We have to look at the value of wildlife species. We have to look at the value of recreation. We have to look at the value of watersheds, of rivers and streams. We've just had the northern river basin study dealing with the rivers of the nor th half of this province, the watersheds in the northern part of this province, that flow through our boreal forests. The northern river basin study has identified concerns with the quality and the health of our northern rivers. Where will that fit in with a sustainable forest management practice?

Well, I'm not going to give you the answer, Mr. Speaker, because that's the essence of the motion: c onduct “an independent audit of . . . provincial forest lands to examine the adequacy of current forest management” practices; do “a critical analysis of timber supplies”; look at the “effectiveness of current policies and practices in achieving sustainable development.” The questions are being asked, and the answer is in approving this motion to urge the government to move in that direction. I spoke of the forest conservation strategy.

The forest conser- vation strategy is one tool available to the government, at the government's disposal, to consider the future of forest manage- ment and the forestry industry in the province of Alberta, but it's not a single tool. The other tool that's necessary is the independ- ent audit of the management of provincial forest lands, because when the forest conservation strategy comes to the standing policy committee on natural resources and sustainable development and from there moves to cabinet, how will we in the province of Alberta know what has been said, what has been recommended? As we know, Mr.

Speaker, all of that will take place behind closed doors. The independent audit will mean that it is a public review of the issue so that we can identify where the issues are, where the concerns are, and the strategies to move in the direction of dealing with those problems. The concern, of course, is that the recom- mendations of the forest conservation strategy will sit on a shelf, will not be made public, and will not be acted upon. This becomes a secondary tool.

It is a tool that is worthwhile for both the conservation strategy and for the government so that those questions can be answered effectively and independently so we can move forward. The Member for Calgary-East talked about how, in utilizing the boreal forest and forests on the Eastern Slopes, we have created a significant industry in the province of Alberta.

I quite agree, but in the rush to utilize those forests for the sole value of timber supply, timber value, we have not adequately looked at the inventory of the forests that are there to determine whether or not all of the facilities and all of the plants in that region can be sustained. We've even had, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Forest Products Association express its concern to the government that the plants are moving ahead, the plants are being built, and the timber supply is not a certainty. The timber supply is not a certainty because the inventories are not accurate.

The former Minister of Environmental Protection, now the current Minister of Justice, has admitted that the inventory that is

1656 Alberta Hansard May 7, 1996 there now needs some work. It needs some work. This is the vehicle and this is the mechanism to do that.

Let's go back and re-evaluate the inventory we're using now for future planning and make sure that if there are any inadequacies or inaccuracies in the inventory, we correct that so we are planning for the future properly and not reaching a point where we say, “Gee, our information was incorrect, and now we have to take a different path so that we can resolve the issue.” That's the essence of what this motion is asking for: proper long-term planning for the future in the forestry industry in the province of Alberta and sustainable forestry management prac- tices.

That's exactly what it is that we're attempting to do. We can't simply sit back and say th at the rules we have in place currently are adequate and sufficient rules. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, then there would be no need to have members of this Assembly here on a daily basis working on ways to improve the province that we live in. The essence of us being here is to find ways to improve upon what we have built on in the past. Y es, we have rules that govern forestry practice. Y es, we've had problems with that.

We've had logs that have been taken off public land and pirated and said to be from private land. We have issues of clear-cut logging. We have initiated the Free to Grow standards in terms of reforestation. We are always moving ahead and finding ways to improve the sustainability of the forests of the province of Alberta. This is an attempt, hon. members, in a motion brought forward by my colleague from West Y ellowhead, to continue along the vein of finding ways to improve. W e can't simply say that we have the forestry rules in place.

We can't simply say that we will be hearing from the forest conservation strategy, which is a collection of stakeholders who have been working on the issue. That will be important, Mr. Speaker; that will not be the end of it. Indeed Motion 51 1 if passed and if acted upon by the govern- ment of Alberta will not be the end of it. My hope, my view is that this is, again, part of a beginning. We go back and we reassess the inventories of timber in the province of Alberta. We look at the extent of timber that has already been allocated in the province of Alberta.

We recognize that we've left very, very little in terms of a buffer, so if we're wrong, we will have created a situation of serious overallocation of timber which then, as members know, leads to competition and confrontation in getting their share of a scarce resource. The Member for Calgary-East talked in terms of Alberta's forests being a vast resource.

It would be incredible to believe that we would have to consider the boreal forest and the forests in the province of Alberta as being a scarce resource because we have so overallocated rights to those forests and that timber that industries we have promoted in the province of Alberta to harvest those find themselves in competition for the same tree or the same forest. That is not, Mr. Speaker, moving in a direction of clear, certain futures for those industries, and it will certainly not be in keeping with sustainable forest management practices. 4:10 I spoke briefly, Mr.

Speaker, and will speak again on the issue of the concept of sustainable forest management. The one definition of sustainable forest management comes from – and I'll see if I can find this – The State of Canada's Forests, Natural Resources Canada, 1995, page 44: ensuring a sustainable supply of timber, while meeting society's changing demands for forests, is an ongoing challenge. Our focus has moved from harvesting trees to sustaining forests. I speak again about the need for ecosystem management. I speak again about the need for habitat, for wildlife species.

I speak again about the need for recreation and the quality of water in rivers, lakes, and streams in our forested areas. The concept of sustainable forest management also has to recognize the need for some components, some aspects of our forested lands to be protected from encroachment and to be protected from industrial activity. That in my view, Mr. Speaker, would be part and parcel of a full and complementary program of sustainable forest management.

The Special Places 2000 program is an example of a direction to protect a tract of land, an area of land, from industrial encroachment, and that kind of industrial encroachment would include logging. Now, I won't go so far as to say all logging, b ecause I think selective l ogging can be sustained in a protected area. Nonetheless, we don't have that yet for areas of the boreal forest where we have a significant tract of land that's been set aside for that purpose. One of the issues that is gaining concern for the people of Alberta is endangered species.

We talked about the Special Places 2000 program as a program dealing with endangered spaces. We are now dealing with and there is a growing concern over Alberta's endangered species. How do you protect an endangered species? By protecting the habitat that sustains that species; that's how you do that. So you cannot simply separate the two. It becomes important to protect the habitat to allow for the ongoing sustainability of those species.

If they are currently vulnerable, you have to give recognition to the fact that habitat must be protected to allow those species to recover and not go the other direction, where they move from being vulnerable to being endangered species in the province of Alberta. We have specific areas of the province of Alberta that need attention in terms of protection, but I don't mean just building a fence around the area and saying: no encroachment whatsoever. One area that I am particularly interested in is the Caribou Mountains in the north of Alberta.

That area is a prime example, in my view, for an international biosphere designation. I would like to on record commit to the Minister of Environmental Protection that I will do whatever I can to work with him to try and move in the direction of maintaining and conserving that plateau and the slopes of that plateau in northern Alberta so that the Caribou Mountains are not simply left to ongoing and continuous encroachment by the forestry industry and by the oil and gas industry. If the land is made available by the province of Alberta, those who are in business will take up the cause.

They will simply move in and harvest and use those resources under the current rules that we have now, but my position is that the current rules we have now aren't good enough. They don't address the issue that Motion 51 1 addresses. We have to use the tools that Motion 51 1 speaks to, and we have to change the rules so we can establish unequivocally that we are undertaking sustainable forest management practice.

I would be very disheartened if in the Caribou Mountains region of northern Alberta something isn't done to protect that area from simple ongoing encroachment and if we don't look at that as a protected area. I would say in talking about the Caribou Mountains, Mr. Speaker, that one of the other values of boreal forests is recogniz- ing the needs and the traditional uses of forests by the aboriginal peoples of the province of Alberta.

The boreal forests are an integral component of their living off the land in the province of Alberta, and their needs and their values have to form an integral part of sustainable forest management practice. It's another of the values that we have not to this point in time included in certainly our legislation in the Forests Act and in our approach to forestry

May 7, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1657 harvesting. Again, for the area of the Caribou Mountains it is essential, in fact, that nothing should or could happen unless the aboriginal peoples who live in those communities in the Caribou Mountains are part of any decision to protect that land, whether by an international biosphere designation or some other designa- tion or by designation under Special Pl aces 2000. Nonetheless, they must be part and parcel of that. So those kinds of processes would have to take place, should take place as part of the independent audit being pr oposed by Motion 51 1.

These are the challenges, Mr. Speaker, that I think the government faces. I think it is looking to the future; it is not living in the past. I therefore encourage all members to vote in favour of Motion 51 1. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was interested in the opening comments from the Member for West Y ellowhead on the basis that when I was reviewing the motion and making my comments, I had made very specific note to myself that this member was expressing it because of his personal interest and his personal concern with regard to not only forest management policies but indeed his own constituency, which is very dependent upon the utilization of forests. I really believed that this motion reflected those genuine concerns and was certainly not an issue that was driven by his caucus.

However, his opening comments quickly set that aside in terms of my original observation. He referred to a lot of issues in his opening comments, including the Dancik report, which I think most of us are familiar with, particularly those who have had any exposure to the forest industry in particular, and in terms of the number of recommenda- tions that were accepted and implemented and indeed some of the controversy amongst professional foresters that surrounded the report.

I also noted with interest his point with regard to Grande Alberta Paper and when he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition today, who was then the forestry critic. I can r ecall very well, prior to being involved in government, back in those days coming down to Edmonton and meeting with members of the government caucus and the opposition caucus of the day with regards specifically to Grande Alberta Paper.

I think it's fair to say – and I would ask you to check with your hon. leader – that you will find that he in essence supported the project, and if there was a covenant at all, a covenant that was also shared by the government at that point in time, it was with regard to the issue of timber inventory. I want to use that as a little bit of an example in carrying through on this, because it's a very important issue and a very important subject to all Albertans and indeed to the industry.

Whether we're talking about the industry or we're talking about diversification in terms of the utilization of the forest, that's a key point. I would point out that as this process has moved through with Grande Alberta Paper, indeed there has been some independ- ent work done – in fact, not only work done but independent inventories done – that has been submitted to Grande Alberta Paper, to other parties, and to the government of Alberta. So I think the essence of the argument in suggesting that Grande Alberta Paper might be used as an example of a concern – and I agree with you.

I would agree with you on any proposal, but the fact of the matter then is: how do we react? How do we handle those particular proposals? It's one thing to deal with an overall policy for the province. It's something else to deal with policies that reflect the circumstances of that particular region and indeed in terms of the specie utilization. 4:20 It was also interesting listening to the Member for Sherwood Park's comments with regard to describing the essence of the motion.

This is where perhaps your motion was not clear, because quite clearly in your motion you use the term “sustainable development.” Sustainable development is not the same as “sustainable forest management practices,” and indeed we could even get into the argument of sustained yield. So the whole issue of sustainable forest practices is a different issue, albeit a complementary issue, to that of sustainable development. Also, the other issue, with regard to an independent audit and looking at it from that point of view. Historically – I shouldn't say