May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1681 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 10, 1995 1:30 p.m. Date: 95/05/10 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, we give thanks for the bounty of our province: our land, our resources, and our people. We pledge ourselves to act as good stewards on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. Please be seated. Presentation to the Assembly of Mr. Shiraz Shariff, Member for Calgary-McCall [Mr. Day and Mr. Dinning stood at the Bar with Mr.

Shariff] THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have received from the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta the report of the returning officer for the constituency of Calgary-McCall containing the results of the by-election conducted on April 20, 1995, which states that a by- election was conducted in the constituency of Calgary-McCall, and the said report further shows that Shiraz Shariff was duly elected as the Member for Calgary-McCall. [Mr. Day and Mr. Dinning escorted Mr. Shariff to the Mace] MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr.

Shiraz Shariff, the new Member for Calgary-McCall, who has taken the oath as a member of this House and has inscribed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat. THE SPEAKER: Let the hon. member take his seat. [applause] head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to have the petition I tabled yesterday now read and received. Thank you. CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to hold a plebiscite under the Local Authorities Election Act in Accordance with

Section 3 of the Alberta Hospitals Act, which provides for such a plebiscite to be held when the amalgamation of boards, construction of new facilities, disestablishment of existing facilities, or changes in the operation of existing facilities within a district or proposed district affected by such changes. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville. MR. V ASSEUR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permis- sion I'd like the two petitions I presented on Monday, May 8, to be now read and received, the first petition being on rural busing and the second petition being on water rights. Thank you.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that all school boards provide transportation for each eligible ch ild in rural Alberta without the use of transportation fees. We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to not sell the rights of water to any company, country or monopoly without first conducting a referendum for the people to decide on the issue. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request that the petition which I presented to the Assembly on Tuesday, April 25, now be read and received. CLERK: We the undersigned residents of the Province of Alberta do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to affirm its support for an enhanced volunteer-based, not-for-profit charitable gaming system in Alberta.

We further petition our Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to ensure that sufficient revenues from our "made in Alberta" gaming system can be earned by commu- nities and charities to enable these organizations to continue to provide their valued service to Albertans. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to table six copies of the 89th issue of Alberta Education's annual report, for 1993-94. MR. LUND: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to table six copies of the government's response to written questions 146, 147, 152, 154, 155, and 156 and motions for returns 160, 161, 170, and 171. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. MR. BRASSARD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table the Alberta Social Care Facilities Review Committee report for the year 1994. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. I'm tabling four copies of some preliminary results of a questionnaire on health care that we are distributing as part of our dialogue on health care.

It's interesting to note that 88 percent of the respondents feel that they have not had sufficient opportunity to provide meaningful input into the restructuring of health care, and 90 percent feel that physicians have not had sufficient opportunity to provide meaningful input into the restructuring of health care. Quite an indictment of this government, Mr. Speaker. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table four copies of my response to Question 158. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for Economic Development and Tourism. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am tabling today the return for Motion 165.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present four copies of the official program for the 16th annual Jazz City international festival, which will take place in Edmonton June 23

1682 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 to July 2. My reason for presenting it is because this will be the single largest collection of international jazz musicians ever assembled in our province in the history of the festival, which is the longest running continuous festival in Canada. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 24 visitors from Parkland Village school.

The students tell me that they're going to stay up late tonight to see themselves on TV. I'd like to introduce their teachers Ms Judy Humeniuk, Ms Joyce Liska, Mrs. Norma Webster. They're in the members' gallery, and I'd ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is a rare treat and a distinct pleasure for me to introduce to you some very important people to the newest member of the Legislative Assembly, the members of the family of our hon. colleague for Calgary-McCall.

Seated in the members' gallery today are Azmina Shariff, the wife of our hon. member, their two children, Fatima and Alysha, as well as Haniff Shariff, who is the brother of the hon. member, his sister Rozmin Premji, and her daughter Alysha Premji. I'd ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legislature 32 students from Spruce View school. They are accompanied today by their teacher Mrs.

McKinlay and parents Denise Sveinson, Ella Siedlitz, Virginia Morison, Debbie Layton, Sharon Johannson, Carol Szymanek, Myrna Stewart, Gail Sigurdson, and Shelley Nicholson. They're in the members' gallery, and I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SHARIFF: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my privilege and pleasure to introduce to you and through you some fine Calgarians who have been part of my life leading up to April 20, 1995.

Seated in the gallery are Kim Linkletter, Tony Koch, Witty Sidhu, Ann and Gerald Logue, Mohib Madhany, Leona Healy, Fatima Dhanani, Wayne Bill, and Fatima and Goldy Hyder. I request that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's with pleasure that I rise today to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly a woman who's been a good friend to all of us on this side of the House.

She's an active Liberal, she's an active member of the women's commission, and she's an active member of the Edmonton women's policy association. I would ask that Jean Hodgkinson rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to introduce to you and through you my friend and former colleague, who's known as the mother of social services in the city of Calgary, Alderman Barb Scott. When Alderman Scott made the decision to run for politics 24 years ago, she led the way for women in politics.

Alderman Scott is leaving politics this year to pursue other interests, and although we'll miss her dearly in the political arena, we wish her well in her future endeavours. Alderman Scott, I'd ask that you rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you 29 students and adults from Afton school. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Pauline McLarney and parents Mrs. Kathy Laird, Mrs. Doreen Gierent, and Mrs. Etta Fisher.

If they would please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville. MR. V ASSEUR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a lady from a neighbouring community, the community of St. Paul. Lise Holeton has been an active community worker in St. Paul, has been involved in the education process in that community and in cultural issues for a number of years. She is also a very active member and a strong supporter of our party.

I would like to ask Lise Holeton to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my privilege to introduce the director of social services for the city of Calgary. Ms Judy Bader is sitting in the members' gallery. She is accom- panying Alderman Scott. I'd ask Ms Bader to stand and receive the customary warm welcome of the Legislature. head: Oral Question Period Catholic School System MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, this government's changes to the School Act last year prevent non-Catholic parents whose children attend a Catholic school from sending their education property tax to the Catholic system and from voting for Catholic school trustees. We will have a situation in an interfaith marriage where a family's property taxes will be split between Catholic and public systems even if their children are attending a Catholic school. This is odd for a government that says that it stresses family cohesion and unity.

My question to the Minister of Education: why won't the minister allow parents whose children are going to the Catholic school system, regardless of their religion, to direct their property tax funds to that Catholic system? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, we have been very careful as a government and have always respected the constitutional rights which are provided to the separate Catholic school systems of this province as enunciated in the Northwest Ordinances and continued

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1683 in the Constitution of Canada. There never has been, never will be any intention to violate t hose constitutional provisions. We will have Catholic school boards attended by Catholic students. The whole system is very respectful of Catholic separate school rights. I would like to also emphasize that in the legislation in Bill 19 for the first time the Catholic separate school systems of this province were accorded full and equal f unding with the public school systems of this province.

Every student – and they are important – attending a Catholic separate school system has the same support in dollars as in the public school system, a very sound solution to the overall equity problem in this province. The whole system is very respectful of constitutional rights of Catholics. MR. MITCHELL: Try as he might to be a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Speaker, the result of this initiative is to undermine Catholic education in this province, period. How can the minister justify not allowing non-Catholic parents to vote for trustees that run the schools that their children attend?

How can he possibly allow that to occur, Mr. Speaker? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the people across the way on other occasions are very intere sted in constitutional provisions being provided for and respected and followed. It would appear that the viewpoint on this is somewhat different. In the overall plan for education with respect to Catholic separate schools the funding is there on an equal basis. We are assuring that Catholic school boards are being elected by Catholic electors and that Catholic students are being served.

They are provided for, and they have the opportunity to have their Catholic separate school system. I do not know what could be more fair than that. 1:50 MR. MITCHELL: What would be more fair, Mr. Speaker . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister clearly punishing Catholic school supporters and the Catholic school system? Is it because they made him back off trying to grab control of their schools last year, trying to erode their rights even further? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member across the way conveniently ignores the fact that the Catholic separate school systems of this province have never been more fairly treated in terms of a funding program for their schools, in terms of mone- tary support for their schools. In terms of Catholic rights being protected under the Constitution, that is being fully done. They have their school boards. They have their schools. They have a school system which is functioning. There are students in it. I do not see any disadvantage or any issue here. MR. MITCHELL: And they don't have their money . . . THE SPEAKER: Order.

Regulatory Reform MR. MITCHELL: Today the government created a brand new task force, more bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker, whose permanent members are all from the business sector and whose mandate is to review this government's glut of regulations to determine which ones should be eliminated. It's a good idea for a Premier who in two short years has created 3,370 pages of new regulations. Here it is. They did it. Two-sided.

An interesting idea also for a government who just two short months ago voted against our motion to have the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations of this Legislature get the process of reviewing regulations under way and who over the last year has denied 24 specific requests by my caucus to have regulations reviewed. To the Acting Premier: how can this government possibly justify creating a whole new task force when the Legislature already has a Standing Committee on Law and Regulations, which this government has never allowed to do its job? MR. DINNING: Some Iron Man, Mr. Speaker. More like a lightweight.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the step that the Premier has taken this past week in appointing the Member for Peace River as the special advisor to Treasury Board for deregulation purposes is in keeping with a commitment that the Premier made when he released Seizing Opportunity just 25 months ago, when he said that one of the focuses of our attention should be regulation, deregulation, and regulatory reform.

Following that commitment, the Premier then appointed the Member for Three Hills-Airdrie to do a review of the current state of regulations in the government, and what came out of that was an excellent report that gave a broad inventory of where we were in regulation. They've proposed a number of actions that are in place. Now this next step is more narrowly focused on the impedi- ments to small business and the obstacles to small business.

I believe that anything we can do in order to still maintain protec- tion of the public and protection of safety for the public, any way that we can get out of the way of small business to allow them to get on with doing the job that they know best is the best possible thing for the government to do. So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the opportunity to work with the Member for P eace River, as I know all of my colleagues do, to get out of that business of overregulation and get out of the way of small business, which is the number one job creator in this province. MR.

MITCHELL: Put the Member for Peace River on the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations if you want to work with him on this, Mr. Speaker. MR. N. TA YLOR: And you wouldn't have to give him a car either. MR. MITCHELL: Y eah, and you wouldn't have to give him a car. Extra money. Would the Acting Premier just pay attention a minute and clarify this question? Has the government decided against using the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations because that committee is open, its processes are public, it's all-party, and because his task force simply isn't? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, we've taken this approach because we think it is the one that will get the best possible results. [interjections] MR. MITCHELL: We agree. Calgary-Currie certainly hasn't produced much in the way of results here over the last . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. Final supplemental.

1684 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 MR. MITCHELL: My final question is to the chairman of the task force, the Member for Peace River. When the chairman of the task force says, "The bus iness community knows which regulations work, and which ones get in the way," just exactly who on his task force will be representing children, seniors, nonprofit charities, the unemployed, customers, patients, labour, students, and all those other people in this province who are affected by government regulation, Mr. Speaker? THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. The built-in

preamble indicated that this task force was interested primarily in small business, but the question went on in a much larger scope than small business. If the Chair understands the situation correctly, this task force is looking at regulations' impact on small business. If the hon. member can respond within the scope of his ability, he may do so. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es, Mr. Speaker. The regulations that are going to be reviewed are all regulations, not just those that affect small business. They will be looking at the effect on all Alber- tans. There's a copy here which has been distributed already.

They're available to anyone. It's a very open process and will involve not just small business but anyone who has an interest and who is affected by . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. MR. FRIEDEL: Mr. Speaker, if they take the opportunity to read it, they will find that there is going to be space available for input from people who are affected by regulations of the various departments, not just token input as in some cases. The other thing I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that the people working on this task force are unpaid. They will receive no benefits.

They will be receiving no expenses. These are volunteers who are interested only in improving the service of government to Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. 2:00 Franchises Act MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A great deal of time and effort with full consultation has gone into the develop- ment of the Franchises Act, Bill 33, yet it would appear that this government may allow Bill 33 to sit on the Order Paper until the fall. I'd like at this time to table four copies of two documents, the first being from the Motor Dealers' Association of Alberta.

They're asking the question: "Why is attention being paid to large Toronto-based corporations and not to the Albertan dealers who as a group employ 12,000 Albertans, pay over $375 million . . ." The other tabling is from the Motor . . . [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. members will recall that many times the

preamble includes a tabling to the question. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: The second tabling, Mr. Speaker, is from the Motor Village Group. "Simple justice and equal treatment under the law" are all they're asking for. My question is to the Provincial Treasurer. Is this delay due to the eleventh hour lobbying and pressure tactics of the big eastern automakers? MR. DINNING: No. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, by delaying this Bill, why are you ignoring the consensus of the stakeholders, the Davids of the business community, and appearing to support the Goliaths of big eastern automobile makers? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, that's absolute nonsense. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the franchisees and the franchisors will think . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. Final supple- mental without

preamble, hon. member. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Treasurer: will you make a commitment to the Alberta Motor Dealers' Association, who are calling this a life-and-death issue, that their members will be governed by this Act? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague for Red Deer-South is chomping at the bit to be able to respond to the question. Look; the Bill has been introduced. There is an opportunity between now and Stampede week, when the House will adjourn, to debate the Bill.

If there is time on the government's Order Paper and in government business, and, you know, God and the Government House Leader permitting, we may get to this Bill before Stampede week, and we may be able to pass it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Gun Control Legislation MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents continue to be infuriated by the prospect of a national gun registry in Bill C-68, which penalizes responsible owners of firearms and does little in the way of additional jail terms or penalties for criminals or stricter enforcement of existing legislation.

My question today is to the Minister of Justice. What did you, Mr. Minister, hope to accomplish in presenting Alberta's position to the House of Commons justice committee, which appears to have no mandate except to maintain the status quo for the pr oposed Bill C-68? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to do a few things when I went down to O ttawa to speak to the standing committee on justice matters.

The first was to point out that Alberta is very strongly supportive of the provisions of Bill C-68 that deal with increased penaltie s for serious offences involving firearms and, secondly, for those provisions that deal with smuggling of firearms into Canada. We wanted to point out as well that we had very serious concerns about whether there was a causal connection between the universal licensing and registra- tion provisions in that legislation and dealing with serious and violent crime and making our communities any safer.

Secondly, we wanted to point out that we had serious concerns about the dollar figures that would be allocated to that part of Bill C-68: $85 million originally by estimate of the federal Minister of Justice, $1 18 million recently in his own presentation to that standing committee, and by our estimates substantially more than that. We argued the point that those moneys could be more effectively spent if they were dedicated to the two positive aspects

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1685 of the Bill, and we made that point as strongly as we could in conjunction with representations that were made by Saskatchewan and Yukon. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Did this federal justice committee agree to make any recommendations to amend the proposed Bill C-68? MR. EV ANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an all-party committee. I was before the committee for about two hours, and there were questions back and forth.

I think there was a fair bit of under- standing of Alberta's position, not surprisingly, from the two Members of Parliament from Alberta who were on the committee. There seemed to be some mutual respect from the members of the Bloc Québécois, and in fact some of the Liberal members who were there also indicated in the tone of their questions that they had an understanding of the position that we in Alberta have and that other regions of Canada have as well. However, in terms of what will happen as a result of this, Mr. Speaker, I think it's too early to say.

I know that Manitoba is making a presentation today at that committee which I think will be similar to Alberta's, Yukon's, and Saskatchewan's, and I'm very hopeful that they will respond in a positive way to the recommendations that we've made. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What workable Alberta positions did you leave as an option or recommendation to this federal committee? MR. EV ANS: Well, we tried to leave a lot of options available.

First of all, we said that it's our preference that the provision dealing with universal registration be taken out of Bill C-68 and that the other important provisions in the Bill pass. We said that if that was not going to happen, then we would like the opportu- nity to opt out of those provisions dealing with universal registra- tion. We said that if that's not good enough, then we would appreciate a phasing in of these provisions in those areas of the country that feel that this is important. I've said very publicly, Mr.

Speaker, that if in a phase-in in those areas that have support for these provisions it's shown in any empirical way that crime is reduced, then we'd be more than prepared to accept that and to be very positive about the legislation. We also said that there should be a pause taken b ecause the federal Auditor General in his 1993 report to the House of Commons said that there should be a review of existing firearms legislation, particularly the legislation that was passed in 1991.

So we've said: pause a little, take a look at what you have, analyze what the impacts of this would be, and please don't pass that on at this point in time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 2:10 School Violence MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Over the last couple of years we've heard from members on both sides of this House about the concern and the need to do something to address the increasing incidence of violence in our schools. The Department of Education has also had forums and discussions on this.

The Minister of Education is on record as supporting zero tolerance when it comes to violence, but some of his actions are leaving us a little bit confused. Earlier this year when six students pleaded guilty in court and were convicted of beating up a young girl, the Medicine Hat school board decided that it was appropri- ate to expel those young girls. The minister, through an appeal, has altered that expulsion by forcing the Medicine Hat public school board to provide evening and distance learning courses for at least one of those girls, the one who was the instigator of the attack.

My question to the minister is simply: because there is some confusion out there, could the minister provide us with the rationale for his overturning the Medicine Hat school board decision? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member leaves out of his

preamble a very important fact, and that is that the students in question were expeditiously dealt with by the legal system, the court system of this province, and fairly stringent penalties by modern standards, I would say, were imposed with respect to the misbehaviour of these students. So the legal system, the law, the court system did deal quite correctly, I think, with this particular matter. Now, secondly, Mr. Speaker, the expulsion, yes, was appealed. A ministerial investigation was conducted.

The recommendation that I followed was that the student in particular involved should not be completely excluded from any opportunity to get an education but that the student should not be attending regular classes, should not have the privilege of that, or be part of the regular school functions and atmosphere. However, it did make a recommendation that education opportunities should still be there, and in light of the fact that this matter had been dealt with by the courts, in light of some other circumstances which are special to the case, I upheld the recommendations of my review team. MR.

HENRY: Well, then, my next question – we're just trying to get clarification of policy here. In a general policy sense . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Question. MR. HENRY: The question is: is the minister saying that if an incident happens and the legal system provides a consequence to that behaviour, then the school board should not get involved in disciplining those students? Is that what he's saying as a general policy? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think we've recognized with this very serious topic in terms of our young people and education that there has to be a joint effort among community, schools and school boards, and the justice system and other agencies that may be involved in dealing with these matters in cases of rehabilitation and so forth. There has to be that overall joint effort. As I've indicated, in this case the justice system certainly did its part. The policy is to deal firmly a nd expeditiously and fairly with these particular cases. Mr.

Speaker, I think that a thorough investigation was done, recommendations were made, and having looked through the extensive report, the recommendations were in my view justified. The perpetrators had been punished, yet there was an option for them to continue with their education in an isolated setting. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to the hon. member that a number of such cases come forward during the year, more than I would prefer to see, and in the majority of cases we deal

1686 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 firmly with these matters, and the board's decision is completely supported from day one. Finally I'd just like to say that saying that each individual case, whether it's before the courts of this province or a hearing before a school board or an appeal to the minister, should not be looked at as an individual case on its merits and should be covered by some blanket judgment right off the bat no matter what the circumstances are is in my view wrong. MR. HENRY: Dealing with the policy and not the specific case, Mr.

Speaker, because not knowing all the details, the minister may well have made the right decision. Given that the minister has just said that he's had more of these appeals than he would like to have, would he now undertake to provide in a time-limited fashion a clearer policy for school boards so school boards know what the rules are with regard to dealing with school violence and what their parameters are so they're not being second-guessed by the minister through appeals? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, at both of the conferences on school violence that the hon. member alluded to, I made that invitation.

I asked not only the school board representatives that were there but representatives from other agencies, students themselves, parents that were at those conferences to please relay to me improvements that might be made in policy or in legislation with respect to this particular matter. Now, there are a couple of proposals that did come forward. They have been acted upon.

The only proposal that I currently have on file which has not been decided on one way or another is a proposal with respect to lengthening the allowable time for the suspension of a student before a decision is made upon their continuance or expulsion. So, Mr. Speaker, this is always being looked at. We're always open to recommendations on this particular area, but many people have said that they can work with and find very satisfactory the current sequence of events. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Legal Aid MR. HA VELOCK: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May I start by saying how nice it is to be so close to the seat that recognizes. Mr. Speaker, while legal aid in Alberta ensures equal right to legal representation for all Albertans regardless of financial resources, it may inadvertently create a significant advantage in favour of one party to litigation. A qualifying spouse has access to significant legal expertise,

whereas the other spouse may be subjected to severe financial hardship through the payment of private legal fees. Further, unnecessary legal steps may be initiated due to there being little financial acc ountability on the part of a qualifying spouse. My question is to the Justice minister. What steps are you prepared to undertake to reduce the initiation of unnecessary legal steps and the adoption of unreason- able positions in legal aid cases? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, was that the Member for Calgary- Shaw? He's so far away, I'm not sure that I recognize him. Seriously, though, Mr.

Speaker, it's an important question. It's particularly an important question because we account for so much of the budget of the Legal Aid Society. Now, there are a number of rules and regulations that the Legal Aid Society operates under, and one of them of course is that there has to be a reasonable cause of action and a reasonable chance of success. I'm not, at the tip of my tongue, familiar with all of the rules, and I can't restate all of the rules, but I'll certainly review those rules and internal processes that are available.

I'll do that with the hon. member, and we can consider together whether there should be some additional criteria established. Certainly if anyone knows – I pose this to the hon. member as well – of any . . . [The lights in the Chamber flickered] I had nothing to do with that, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] 2:20 THE SPEAKER: Order. Order please. The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't trying to get people off track here.

If the hon. member knows of any specific instances where it is alleged that one party or other has had an unfair advantage and that there have been unreasonable positions taken, then I think we have to deal with those specifically, and I'm certainly pleased to take those pieces of information from him and carry out a more thorough investigation. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister recommend to legal aid that a spouse who falls slightly outside the eligibility requirements and who would be at a legal and financial disadvantage without funding be provided with such legal funding if the other spouse has qualified for such assistance? MR. EV ANS: Well, to give the hon. member some comfort, I think that there are now some opportunities for borderline cases where an individual might be just over the financial acceptability line to go into legal aid and to make some kind of an arrangement with them that would see some contribution by the party and some contribution by legal aid.

I think it's an important question, and I'm concerned about it in terms of how many examples legal aid may have that would be similar to this, because of course there's a financial implication to the budget of the Department of Justice and to the budget of the government of Alberta. But I'll check on that, hon. member and Mr. Speaker, to determine how many cases are similar in fact situation. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you.

Will the minister consider recommending that counsel who provides an opinion to legal aid as to whether an action should be pursued be precluded from acting on that file if it does proceed? MR. EV ANS: Well, I think the hon. member is identifying a potential conflict of interest in those kinds of circumstances. I'm not aware of a policy by legal aid on that matter, but it seems to me that in the back recesses of my mind I recall some incidents like that occurring while I was in practice, hon. member. I'll certainly review it with the Legal Aid Society, because I think it's a good point. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for West Y ellowhead. Kindergarten Programs MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again a poll, this time an Angus Reid poll, indicates that the vast majority of Albertans still disagree with this government's cuts to

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1687 kindergarten programs, and they want to see the funding restored to 400 hours. I know that the minister feels that he deserves a pat on the back for adding funding for another 40 hours, but Alber- tans are not fooled. They know that we're now at 240 hours rather than 400, which we had two years ago and which other provinces have at least. So my question is to the Minister of Education. Will the minister now agree to follow the wishes of the majority of Albertans and restore funding for a full 400 hours of ECS? MR.

JONSON: The funding framework is in pl ace for the coming year, and I would like to indicate to the hon. member that there is full funding for 240 hours and the cost thereof without there being any need for a tuition charge, the first time that there's been that guarantee of a basic 240-hour program in this province, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, there is the flexib ility at the school board level to charge tuition, yes – but tuitions certainly, if they're charged, would reasonably be down very significantly this year, Mr.

Speaker – and also to allocate funds from their instructional block towards the offering of 350 hours or 375 or 400. There is the very real ability there to have an increased number of hours should that be deemed to be advisable by the local school jurisdiction. On the other hand, for all students in this province access to a basic program is guaranteed without tuition fee. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, I think he said no.

Given the results of this poll and the fact that we've already heard from some 200,000 Albertans on this particular issue, what does it take for this government to listen and restore that funding? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, as I have certainly indicated, we recognize that there is the need for a preparation program for students for grade 1, and we have provided that, as I've just outlined, along with a program statement which provides for more specific direction and focus with respect to that overall program. We have always maintained the funding for the special-needs students of this province.

That funding has not been reduced. We have in place a good program overall for these students. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, this program has been severely diluted by this government. I want to ask this minister why he continues to discriminate against the kindergarten kids of Alberta compared to other provinces, where they fund at least 400 hours. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I reject this particular type of allegation. [interjections] I think really the hon. members across the way perhaps do not think this is important, but the government is interested in providing a sound education system in this province with high standards. Our education system, as shown on national tests and other comparative measures, is providing a good education for young people in this province and compares relatively very well to other provinces in this country. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Economic Outlook MR. SHARIFF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Calgary-McCall is a dynamic, hardworking, young community that takes pride in its contribution towards Alberta's growth. During the last by- election most of my constituents expressed concurrence with our direction of responsible fiscal and social governance. However, the issue of prosperity for the province and jobs for people was expressed at many doors. My question is to the hon. Treasurer and Acting Premier. What indicators should Albertans watch out for that would provide a yardstick to measure prosperity in our province? 2:30 MR. DINNING: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I couldn't help notice, as the Member for Calgary-McCall stood up after the Member for West Y ellowhead had commented on an Angus Reid poll, that we had a Calgary-McCall poll, and that is the ultimate poll. Well, Mr. Speaker, the member will know that in May of 1993 and prior to that we spelled out a plan, a future for this province, one of balanced budgets, the best possible education for all Albertans, a health care system that was there to meet the needs of Albertans.

In June of '93, some short 693 days ago, Albertans endorsed that plan, and then some short 20 days ago the people of Calgary-McCall endorsed that plan. The member asks an important question: what are some of the indicators? Clearly, as we look at economic growth in this province, we had estimated a growth this year of 2.7 percent. The industry now expects it's going to be in the order of 3 and a half percent. We've seen our unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, move in this province from 9 percent a year ago and over 10 and a half percent two years ago such that in April of 1995 it was 7.8 percent.

I see the number of new businesses created in this province, and I see that kind of confidence percolating up that gives Albertans the stamina and the courage to make those kinds of investments. That was reflected in the Calgary-McCall poll, and we're determined to live up to the confidence that Albertans placed in the Member for Calgary-McCall and that was placed in this government just two years ago. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SHARIFF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask: what is the status of new job creation in Alberta vis-à-vis jobs that are displaced or jobs that are lost? DR.

OBERG: Good question. MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a good question, and my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development may want to supplement my answer. I look at the number of jobs created or new employment: just in the last year, April '95 over April '94, some 55,000 jobs created in this province, and since December of 1992 some 95,000 jobs created, not by government – not by this government – jobs created because of the confidence of investors in Alberta to make those kinds of investments and create those jobs. Mr.

Speaker, when I look at where the jobs have been created since April of '94, they're in the area of agriculture, they're in education, they're in construction and mining and transportation, and where there have been job losses is in the area of public administration, in the area of real estate and insurance agents, and in communications. Clearly a record by Albertans of creating 95,000 jobs since D ecember of '92 is the very reason why the Member for Calgary-McCall is sitting in this Assembly today and a Liberal member is not. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

1688 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 Safety Code MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The delegation by the Department of Labour to the Safety Codes Council of the implementation of the Safety Codes Act was intended to produce a high-quality safety system that was cost-effective and less bureaucratic. This has not happened.

In order for the Safety Codes Council to operate, fees for inspections of buildings, elevators, fire protection equipment, plumbing and gas systems, pressure equipment will increase by 65 percent over the next three years, and there's still confusion over who is responsible for these inspections. My questions are to the Minister of Labour. Since municipalities, municipal districts, counties, and corporations have all been promised first right of accreditation, just who has this first right? MR.

DA Y: Well, to help the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark with her confusion, it's very, very clear that municipalities who want first right to be accredited can in fact do so, and that's why as we stand here some 16 municipalities have already made that request. There have already been applications for joint ownership of that, and we already have some 400 officers who are now qualified, trained, and certified to perform those services either for the municipalities or for the accredited agencies. I would like to underline that the cost has not gone up.

What has happened is that the government subsidy for the services provided is being removed, and the purchaser of the service, whether it's a contractor or a builder, will be shouldering more of the direct cost. Therefore, if it's a home or a particular business, the person then buying, not the overall tax base, will be shoulder- ing the cost. We are now seeing true costs where everybody can see it. Mr.

Speaker, as accredited agencies move out into the field, the competitive process will also begin to kick in so that you'll see a reduction of those costs and not a reduction in quality, because in fact you have to be a certified, qualified person to be able to deliver that service. MS LEIBOVICI: Can the minister explain the new requirement for mandatory site inspections , which will increase costs to municipal districts and counties? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I've just explained. I'll maybe say it a little bit slower this time. The costs now are realistic costs.

These are the real costs, and if somebody is purchasing that service, whatever entity they may be, either an individual or an agency or a business, they are going to be looking at what is the real cost, not a hidden cost, not a cost that is heaped onto the backs of all taxpayers. The people that are going to be getting the benefit of the service will be paying for it. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister might want to explain it a little slower to the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties.

I'd like to table a letter presented by that association to the government standing policy committee on agriculture and rural development last night. In light of the concerns of the municipal districts and counties, will the minister review and report on the implementation and operation of the Safety Codes Council? MR. DA Y: Well, that's a constant reporting process. It's a constant review process. It's happening all the time. It's interesting to note, Mr.

Speaker, that on the technical councils, which developed the code and put these things into place, for the first time ever we saw not just government people deciding what was going to be expected, what permits had to be out there, what the standards would be, in fact for the first time we had small business actually represented right there on those technical councils. If it was going to be an area of electrical inspection, there were electrical contractors on those councils. MR. MITCHELL: What about consumers? MR.

DA Y: If it was in the area of gas and plumbing, plumbing contractors, people there in the business had input directly into the process. That hasn't happened before. MR. MITCHELL: What about consumers? MR. DA Y: There's a little bit of piping going on from the chair of the opposition leader. He's now removed the books that he used to sit on, so I think it's him making the piping, and I would just ask him to continue to be quiet. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to say that the Association of Municipal Districts and Counties has also had representation on those particular technical councils, and we are in constant communication with them. Some of the MDs, notably Pincher Creek to talk about one, have asked some questions recently about their role. What's also exciting about this is that a municipality who wishes . . . [interjections] Y ou know, the rudeness, with the school children here, is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] MR. DA Y: Look at this.

I wish the cameras . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. MR. DA Y: I wish the cameras could pan the pandemonium that's going on over here. Mr. Speaker, what's also very interesting about this process is that a municipality that wants to be accredited gets to determine what level of service is going to be delivered, and they can answer for themselves the types of questions that are being asked even by their local constituents in terms of service delivery. THE SPEAKER: There appear to be some further guests to be introduced, if the Assembly would grant unanimous consent to reverting to Introduction of Guests.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? head: Introduction of Guests 2:40 (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to introduce to you today and through you to the members of the Assembly 55 visitors from around the province. They are students who are here for the week to learn about government, and they are in the Forum for Y oung Albertans. I'd like to also ask their group

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1689 leaders Miss Paula Dubyk and Mrs. Yvonne Corbeil to stand with the students and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the written questions appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of Question 223. [Motion carried] Public Affairs Bureau Q223. Mr.

Collingwood moved that the following question be accepted: What services did the Alberta Public Affairs Bureau audiovisual services contract from Tinsel Media Produc- tions Ltd. during the winter of 1994-95 on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, and what was the total cost? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Premier, the government will accept Question 223. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, I move motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper with the exception of motions 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, and 232. [Motion carried] Game Farms M227. Dr. Nicol moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing lists of all tests conducted on wild animals adjacent to game farms for diseases which could be communicated from or to those confined game animals since game farms were licensed in Alberta to March 30, 1995. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This motion will basically give us a chance to find out what opportunity there is and what contact comes between wild animals and domesticated game farm animals so that we can look at the kind of opportuni- ties there are for cross-contamination between the two herds. Thank you. MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, we find it necessary to reject this motion because there has been no testing. The reason that we don't do any testing outside the game farm is b ecause there's ongoing testing on the game farm, and therefore the testing outside would be completely redundant. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR.

COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to Motion for a Return 227 and the fact that the government is rejecting this particular motion, I recall that sometime ago – I do not recall specifically the date – the government in fact issued a press release that was warning Alberta hunters about the concerns the government had about infected deer during the hunting season of that particular year. I do not recall specifically what year that was, but I do recall that in fact the government saw fit to issue a press release that specifically related to the potential for tuberculo- sis in our wild game species.

Now, the source of that tuberculosis is certainly potentially, if not inevitably, from the game farm operations in the province of Alberta. There is sufficient evidence, Mr. Speaker, in my view that there is indeed cross-contamination into the wild population. There is indeed escape from game farms into the wild, and the spread of serious, serious diseases like tuberculosis can very easily then take place and impact and affect the wild populations. So for the minister, Mr.

Speaker, to stand and simply say, "Well, we don't conduct any tests" is probably irresponsible but certainly is something that the department has to take a much closer look at. What the minister is saying by standing in the House today and saying that is that the department is prepared to turn a blind eye to a potentially very serious problem of contami- nation, of disease in wild populations of deer and elk because of the operation of game farms. We know it's occurring. We know that the testing must take place. We know that the results must be made public.

What I hope we don't see in the future is the government in a situation where they have to once again release a press release that warns hunters about looking for signs of tuberculosis in wild game animals because of that contamination. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair and improper for the Minister of Environmental Protection to reject this motion. I have given the reasons why the motion ought to be accepted. We recognize that the potential exists.

We want to see the studies or the results of studies on the so-called ongoing tests that the minister talks about with no detail and no indication of what that so-called ongoing testing is. If the minister were prepared to provide that information, he could easily amend the motion for a return, or if indeed that information exists, the minister could simply offer it up gratuitously to myself or to my colleague from Lethbridge- East. We know there's a problem. We know the problem exists. We want to hear what the government is doing on the issue.

That is the essence of Motion for a Return 227, and I would ask members to support the motion. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to support the motion, and I'm rather puzzled that the minister turned it down. I've been one of the few in the opposition that's actually supported the government's view towards moving to game farming. Of course, one of the big criticisms of game farming is the cross-contamination. I'm just pointing out that I don't agree with everybody all the time.

Y ou might think that is difficult, that I just disagree with Tories. Sometimes I disagree with Liberals, Mr. Speaker. This case is that you do the cause of game farming a great deal of harm by not conducting these tests. MR. HLADY: That's not the question. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, the question is: "showing lists of all tests conducted on wild animals adj acent to game farms for diseases."

1690 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 AN HON. MEMBER: There aren't any. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, yes, there are, Mr. Speaker. I have a farm near Redwater. I have two moose and any number of deer that are wild, yet five miles away I have an elk and buffalo farm. Buffalo usually aren't considered, but there's an elk game farm within five miles. Another five miles the other way I have a red deer farm. That doesn't apply to the constituency; it's a New Zealand deer. So, in other words, game farming is very, very much . . . [interjection] No. The red deer you're thinking of, hon. member, is spelled d-e-a-r.

I'm talking about the ones you eat: d-e-e-r. The fact of the matter is that out through my constituency there is a lot of game farming going on, and I think quite reasonably. Y ou do not serve them any privileges when you say that you are not conducting tests or, if you have conducted, that you will not release tests for diseases of wild animals outside the game farm or, on the other hand, tests from the game farm for wild diseases that may have come in. I think one of the big points that game farmers try to argue is that th ey are successfully keeping them apart.

When you come up with an answer like this, you ill serve the game farmers of the community. All you do is provide fertile ground for the extremists, I think, in many of our cities that would much prefer no game farming whatsoever. Y ou give them a platform to go out and say that disease is spreading, and certainly tuberculosis and brucellosis are the two big ones that everybody worries about. I can't understand the minister. Now, if he says there's not ever been any tests done on wild animals adjacent to game farms, come out to my place. I'll point out where they are.

I assure you that I'm not going to hold a moose while you take a test, but if you want to put a little tranquillizer in and put him to sleep, with a needle of course – they won't stand still long. DR. L. TA YLOR: That's what you're doing to us, Nick, putting us to sleep. MR. N. TA YLOR: I could try feeding him fermented oats, which would work in the hon. member's case over there, but this would be a little difficult here. If you could come out there, we should be running tests on them. I'm really disappointed. If there are none being run, it's sloppiness in your department.

If there are some being run, tell us about it. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East to sum up. DR. NICOL: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just some final comments on this. I was kind of disappointed to hear that no tests have been done, and I think this maybe brings out a point of interest for the minister and the people of Alberta. In a number of other jurisdictions in North America where game farming has kind of established itself, specifically some of the U.S. states to the south of us, they have conducted some tests on animals adjacent to the game ranches that are there.

They have been able to track and indicate that there has been a movement of some of what we consider the domesticated diseases, or the diseases of the domesticated wild animals, being transferred to the wild popula- tions. There's good instances where this has been documented to have occurred, not necessarily through direct contact from elk to elk but by contact through carrier animals as well.

So I think what we need to do is take this kind of as an indication for the minister to look very seriously at possibly in next year's business plan putting in some opportunities or a program that would look at what the impact is, whether or not any disease contamination has been carried out into the wild popula- tions adjacent to some of the game farms. This is going to be important, because we want to maintain both the integrity of our game farming system and the disease-free status of the wild animal populations.

If we do notice through these tests that this kind of contamination or cross-carrying of these diseases is ongoing, then we'll have to start looking at mechanisms to provide different confinement for the animals, a different kind of fencing to prevent more direct contact, either the direct species contact or a carrier agent's contact, with the game farms. We want to make sure that game farming can still remain as a viable part of our growing agriculture community, and also we want to maintain the integrity of the wildlife that is there.

As I said to start with, I'm kind of disappointed that the minister didn't have this kind of test, and I would hope that he would take this as a serious indication that possibly he'll look at it for future years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion lost] Grain Marketing M228. Dr. Nicol moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all data compiled between January 1, 1992, and April 4, 1995, to justify the govern- ment's position that Alberta farmers support the right to access a continental market for wheat and barley. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR.

NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is basically a motion that's going to ask the minister to show information on the communications he's had with the community in agriculture that have given him the background so that he can justify his position to state that the farmers of Alberta would like to have a continen- tal market. I'd ask that he provide us with that information. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that Motion for a Return 228 be amended.

I would ask that it read as follows: that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all published data and materials compiled between January 1, 1992, and April 4, 1995, to justify the government's position that Alberta farmers support the right to access a continental market for wheat and barley. Mr. Speaker, the original wording of the motion would have required us to reject it, since there's a vast amount of correspon- dence, phone logs, and written and verbal notes that can't be released due to third-party confidentiality.

The amended motion will enable my department to gather all relevant information on the issue and then file it with the Assem- bly. We've contacted the sponsoring member of this motion, and I understand there is agreement for the amendment. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East on the proposed amendment.

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1691 DR. NICOL: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken with both the minister and some of his staff, and I agree that the amendment he is proposing is acceptable for the motion. Thank you. [Motion as amended carried] Agriculture Regional Specialists M229. Dr.

Nicol moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing all data from January 1, 1993, to April 5, 1995, which illustrates the level of credentials or participation in retraining by the Department of Agricul- ture, Food and Rural Development employees whose job descriptions have been reclassified to regional specialists. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion is going to provide us with some background information to kind of give us some information that'll show some of the changes that have occurred in the government's budget for the year.

We were trying to determine the dollars that are spent in terms of personnel retraining, the focus on the program development for staff. We wanted to be able to see how many of the regional specialists are actually taking advantage of the retraining programs that were put in place as they moved from their district agriculturalist-type classifications into the regional specialist classification. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion is accepted. [Motion carried] Game Farms M230. Dr.

Nicol moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing how many escapes of domesticated game animals to the wild and how many incidences of domesticated game animals and wild game animals mixing on game farms have occurred since the inception of game farming in Alberta to March 30, 1995. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is kind of a companion motion to the one we had just a minute ago.

What we're looking for here is information on the escapes of domesti- cated game animals from game farms and game ranches in the province to track down and get some concrete data to kind of clarify the rumours that we hear about how many times this happens. We'd like to get, you know, the official data that the government stands behind and have a look at whether or not this is really occurring at the frequency that some indications claim it is. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We accept this motion. [Motion carried] Economic Development Projects M231. Dr. Nicol moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all studies and data gath- ered which shows the level of cost-benefit ratios and/or internal rates of return used by the government in evaluat- ing economic development projects to be financed by public funds and administered by all departments or agencies of the government over the period January 1, 1980, to December 31, 1994. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This motion is going to give us an idea of what level of cost-benefit ratio the government is looking at in terms of providing public-dollar support for its economic development projects that are being used to support infrastructure development. Mr. Speaker, this is really important, because we have to be able to look at the change that has occurred in the role that public funding is now playing in projects that are being carried out across the province.

We want to know whether or not over the last number of years, as this change in philosophy of the govern- ment has occurred, there has been a realistic and more commer- cial level set for the cost-benefit ratios or for the internal rates of return. This is really going to be important for us to be able to look at and evaluate the kinds of decisions that the government's making as it looks at projects that will support the economic system in Alberta. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for Economic Development and Tourism. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the department will move to reject the motion. The hon. member I know has read in detail the three-year business plan for the Department of Economic Development and Tourism and realizes that there is a 38.2 percent reduction in staff and that the department is basically focusing on its strategic capabilities in the areas of trade and investment and in tourism over the next three-year period. It's simply that the resource required to examine the past is contrary to the forward perspective of the department. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, consistent with Beauchesne 446(2)(g), "papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare" would be considered for rejection. So on that basis we are rejecting the motion. 3:00 MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I think possibly the hon. minister should read the question again. Maybe even I misunder- stood it. Of course, I think we're talking about, first of all, cost- benefit ratios rather than rations. I think there's a misspelling in the thing. I believe that's a misspelling. The hon. mover could question it if that's right.

He's talking about cost-benefit ratios and internal rates of return. I don't think it is necessary to go to the projects that the department of economic development must have, as any company has. I know he's worked in the private sector. When somebody comes to your business and asks you to

1692 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 take over a new line, you want to know what your rate of return would be on it. Of course, in the private sector you have to factor in taxes, particularly income taxes, but you don't have to factor those in in government. So it seems to me there should be – and if there isn't, it's kind of disconcerting to think that we have all the investments and grants and partnerships that this government forms and we haven't set ourselves a target of what kind of a rate of return we want.

As the hon. member knows if he's been in business at some time, the general rule of thumb is that a business should return a rate of return at 6 to 8 percent over the prime rate of interest after tax. That's a good general rule of thumb. If I had followed that all my life, I might have owned Alberta by now, Mr. Speaker, but now and again I would get sold by some smooth-talking salesman like the hon. minister and I would invest in something that didn't do that and made it even worse. The point is that there is a line that I always went to. Even when I went to a banker, I had to show this rate of return.

Otherwise, he would hold his sides and laugh and laugh and fall off his chair and wonder why I was in asking for money. The fact is that there is a rate of return, and the one in government is of course going to be quite different because of tax. I'm surprised that the minister has not got some sort of – I know he's fairly new on the job.

I think he and the Treasurer should be putting out a letter, if hasn't already, saying, "Look, don't even ask; don't even come around to us if you're talking about a rate of return that's less than – oh, I don't know; I'll pull one out of the air – 5 percent over prime," or something like that. Hopefully, it'll be better. So I'm very surprised, or maybe not surprised, because this government has had so many boondoggles that apparently they do like I said before – a smooth-talking salesman can get them into any rate of return – rather than looking at what the rate of return is.

So I'm very puzzled, and I would hope that now, if they haven't got anything they can report, the minister will take my advice under advisement, I guess is the right word, and maybe put out an internal memo saying: don't even come near the Treasurer unless you've got X rate of return. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to make some comments w ith respect to the government's rejection of Motion for a Return 231.

I want to follow on the comments that were made by my colleague from Redwater, that it's hard to tell from the government's rejection whether or not the kinds of data that we're looking for actually exist from the earlier years, where we're looking to gather data on cost-benefit ratios – and I'll assume that that word is ratios as well – or internal rates of return in the evaluation of economic development projects.

Now, this does not suggest – and I don't think the sponsor of the motion nor my colleague from Redwater would suggest – that these are the only criteria that have to be considered in economic development projects, because there are many other facets and there are many other factors and many other components that also go into it. But certainly the cost-benefit analysis must be a significant and integral component of the decision-making process in economic development projects.

Now, as my colleague from Redwater indicated, maybe it's true that that kind of data doesn't exist for a period of time beyond this new government's so-called three-year business plan. We have seen in the province of Alberta over the last decade and a bit economic development strategies and policies that seem to have very little to do with economic analysis and seem to have a great deal to do with political machinations. We only have to look at the construction of rural hospitals.

Everywhere in the province it was the gift of the government at election time that every town, every region would be given special treats in the form of hospitals and highway construction, and the list goes on and on and on. Whether or not rates of return, cost-benefit analyses took place is of course highly suspect. It had nothing to do with whether or not it made good made business sense; it only had to do with whether or not it made good political sense. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, Albertans have seen that over and over and over again from Conservative governments that like to make those expenditures at election time. I think what we'll find in the next election is that it won't be goodies anymore; it'll be reinvestment. That'll be the new buzzword for economic development projects that come about on the eve of the next election. Whether or not there will be any cost-benefit analysis for those also remains to be seen, because the priority is political. It is not economic.

My colleague from Redwater did make reference to the fact that this government has so many boondoggles in its wake that it's pretty hard to see that there ever was any cost-benefit analysis done. It doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, whether you take the MagCan fiasco, whether you take the NovAtel fiasco, whether you take the Paddle River dam fiasco, or whether you take the Swan Hills boondoggle.

We found in our session on Motions for Returns just a couple of weeks ago that the Swan Hills waste treatment plant, which sucks up $23 million every year in taxpayers' money to keep it afloat, that joint venture doesn't even have a business plan – the government had to reject that motion for a return – so how could they possibly table it in the Legisla- tive Assembly?

So when we have that kind of evidence from this government that there is no planning, that there is no conventional business approach when the government is in business – and again I say to the minister responsible that the cost-benefit analysis or the internal rates of return are not the be-all and end-all of decisions to be made on economic development projects, but they are necessary and integral – there probably is not any of this cost- benefit analysis done on these kinds of projects.

We know there are many more projects that are on the books, that are on the shelf, that are ready to go, and the decision to be made should, Mr. Speaker, take into account cost-benefit analysis.

My fear, of course, is that it probably won't take into account that analysis, because the decisions will always be political and will never be made under commonsense rules of how to spend your money – I'll rephrase that: it's not their money; it's taxpayers' money – how to spend taxpayers' money and how to spend it effectively by setting the right priorities, by using and looking at the right criteria to set those priorities. Mr. Speaker, the motion for a return that has been asked for by my colleague from Lethbridge-East is a very responsible, a very cogent motion for a return.

The government's rejection of this motion is once again clear indication that they don't have it, that they don't use it, and that it's not at all a part of the minister responsible for economic development's criteria when he picks and chooses around the province what does and what doesn't go ahead as economic development projects. Mr. Speaker, I know that I will certainly be voting in favour of Motion for a Return 231. Thank you very much.

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1693 3:10 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East to sum up. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm kind of disap- pointed, to say the least, that the government couldn't provide us with the kind of cost-benefit data they were using as kind of cutoffs to justify different projects. What we're looking at is an issue here – public dollars are spent in a lot of different ways in Alberta.

We see a lot of different focus being put on trying to promote job creation, trying to promote economic development, and we have to be able to look at and justify the rate of return that the public can expect on those dollars that are being spent on their behalf. So it's kind of disappointing, I'd say, to find out that the government cannot even provide a set of data which will show the levels they use as their cutoffs. This is basically what we were looking for: a measure that would say that if the cost-benefit ratio or the internal rate of return fa lls below this level, that project will not go ahead.

That is why we concentrated on economic development projects in this motion. I recognize that as the government spends dollars in a lot of their other areas, you have to take into account things that don't include the economic return that can be generated by that investment. We have to look at things like education and health care and the services provided to our citizens.

But when we start dealing with evaluating projects specifically to promote an advancement in our economic development, I think if we as a government are going to become more responsible and more answerable to the people of Alberta, we've got to start dealing with the same kind of decision-making that they do as individuals or as businesspeople when they involve their own dollars in making investment decisions. All I can say is that from the rejection of this I don't see this as a large data collection problem.

When I say "all studies and data," what we're basically asking for is one or two numbers per year that reflect the minimum level that they would accept, that they set as "This we have to have or we're not investing." That's what we were looking for, Mr. Speaker, not the individual rate of return on every project that they developed. The idea was that we had to have this measure.

I would like to suggest that if the implication of this refusal of the motion is an indication that this kind of criteria is not estab- lished before they do investment decisions, then the government should be looking at the way they make these kinds of projects and put them into place. We have a lot of projects, a lot of programs in place now with the government. We've seen a lot of investment of public dollars being put in place through the infrastructure programs. We've seen a lot of dollars being put in place through our projects for agriculture, for the environment, for tourism promotion.

What we want to know is: what kind of rate of return can the people in Alberta expect on these public dollars? So I would like to suggest that if the government is rejecting this motion, they may want to look at making a commitment to the people of Alberta in terms of the responsibility they have as investment decision-makers for the people of Alberta, and they should be publishing this kind of information on an annual basis so that the people of Alberta know we can expect at least that level of return. Otherwise, we're not going to be involved in economic development projects. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. [Motion lost] Forest Management Improvement Program M232. Mr. N. Taylor moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of all agreements signed between January 1, 1994, and D ecember 31, 1994, between the government and forest companies for the implementation of the forest management improvement program, including a list of the major expenditures under each agreement. MR. N. TA YLOR: It is fairly important to our House now because the forest management improvement program takes up a great deal of money, maybe anywhere from $10 million to $20 million.

There's been an amendment passed to me that looks pretty good, so I'll let the Clerk continue. MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, we will be accepting this motion with an amendment.

The amendment would make the motion read that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a standard copy of the forest resource improvement program, FRIP, master agreements and subagreements for the implementation of the program and for approval of project funding and a list of all master agreements signed between January 1, 1994, and Decem- ber 31, 1994, between the government and forest companies for the implementation of the program, including a list of the major expenditures approved under each agreement. MR.

DICKSON: Just one query, I guess, with the amendment proposed by the Minister of Environmental Protection. What the government in effect is doing is saying: we will give you the master agreement, and then we're going to give you the list of people who are parties to a master agreement. What's missing from that is an undertaking from the government or an acknowl- edgment that there's no deviation, that all of the agreements executed have followed the master agreement right to the last word.

Now, my experience is that rarely do you ever have a master agreement that never, ever gets varied, revised, amended, changed, because one corporation says, "We have a particular requirement," or whatever. Now, if the minister in fact can say that never, never, that it's an absolute invariable practice with the Department of Environmental Protection that the master agree- ment is signed without any deviation, variation, modification, or revision, then that perhaps does the trick.

Without that sort of a commitment – it's nice to have the master agreement, but if you can't look at the hard copy that's been signed by each of those different corporations, there would still be some question. So I think that's the missing link, and I'm hopeful that the Minister of Environmental Protection would be able to deal with that specifi- cally, and then the same would go with the subagreements. What's interesting is that the minister offers the standard agreement and subagreements, which I take also to be in standard form, and then a list of the agreements; in other words, a list of the third parties.

But have any of the subagreements been modified in any fashion, or, once again, is that being a slavish adherence to the first-time model? So that's the query I'd have for the Minister of Environmental Protection, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister to wind up debate on the amendment. Oh . . . MR. N. TA YLOR: I would just speak to the amendment. Do I wind it up? He moved the amendment, but I haven't spoken to it.

1694 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 THE SPEAKER: Y es, the hon. minister has moved the amend- ment. He will be the last one to speak. MR. N. TA YLOR: So if he speaks, he would wind it up. THE SPEAKER: Well, the hon. member did have a chance to speak on the amendment, but he said he sort of thought the amendment looked pretty good. [interjection] After the hon. Minister of Environmental Protection spoke, introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Redwater did reply to that. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: No, not to the amendment. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Oh, I see. He referred to the amendment before it came. MRS.

ABDURAHMAN: That's right. THE SPEAKER: All right. The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Actually, it's not going to bring down the government anyhow. I did want to emphasize what the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo put out. I know the hon. minister will take it back and feed it into his gremlins anyhow, if one isn't up there listening. I do hope that when he lists the major expenditures approved under each agreement, which he has said in the amendment, he will split it a little bit, There's a 5 percent administration fee that I'd like to know they got.

Also , I'd like to know if the money went right to the area that the FRIP was intended to go, because I gather through the grapevine – I guess in this business you'd call it the poplar vine – that there may be some money being trans- ferred from one FMA to another, one agreement to another, that there's some transfer. I'd just hope that he would point that out. 3:20 The other thing I hope he will talk to his gremlins about is whether or not, when the FMA holder maybe made a deal with the timber cutter, they passed on the FRIP to the timber cutter in order to get a cheaper bid.

In other words, there could be some commercial comings and goings with the FRIP, as there used to be in the oil business. At one time you could make more money with the government bonuses they paid back to you than you could produce with oil. I think the same thing could happen here, because in some cases it gets up to a bout 40 percent of the stumpage charge. So if that's movable – and I'm just mentioning it because I know the hon. minister would never even think of sort of misleading me like that, but he might have some people back there that might want to.

I want to emphasize that I hope he takes his well-known spirit of making a good, honest, straightforward reporting through so that we can determine where the money went when these FRIP payments were made. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair apparently has . . . MR. N. TA YLOR: Unloosed a genie. THE SPEAKER: Well, no. The Chair had sort of indicated that the hon. minister could close debate on the amendment, but unfortunately 25(2) does not permit a person to close debate on the amendment. Therefore, the hon.

Minister of Environmental Protection will not be able to take the opportunity of replying to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. [Motion as amended carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 21 1 Protection for Persons in Care Act [Adjourned debate May 9: Mrs. Laing] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure again to rise and address the Assembly on this Bill.

We were talking yesterday about the fact that we need very special care for people who are in need and that we have to have supervision to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and in a good way. There is a change today as people move from larger institutions into smaller facilities. Sometimes they even have their own apartments, with a caregiver who comes to provide personal care, to attend to their personal needs such as feeding and bathing and dressing. So it's very important that the need for personal security becomes critical in these cases.

In some cases the only person who sees that person who has their own apartment might be a caregiver who belongs to an agency who comes to provide that care they need. With the proper kind of care these people can live a very, very fruitful and very exciting life. They can go out to work in many cases. They just need that little bit of extra care to help them get ready for the day. I know two young men who are paraplegics, and they are able to go to work full-time because they have the personal care that allows them to do that.

It certainly has made a difference in their lives because they feel very much part of the community. There should be a greater responsibility on the agencies or facilities to ensure that the staff is well trained, caring, treats the clients with compassion, and is of good character. A police check on a caregiver's background has been previously suggested, and this would be a very excellent idea and very important. It's very dangerous to have a senior fall from a wheelchair or a bathtub lift because an employee neglected to take the time to ensure that the safety belt was done up correctly. This is inexcusable.

In one case I know it actually caused the person's death. Many of those in care are difficult to care for. Persons with Alzheimer's disease can be very hard to work with because they don't understand what you're trying to do. The disabled person who suffers from frequent seizures is another case that requires very special care. The caregiver can become very frustrated, very impatient and perhaps physically abuses these people because they have lost their temper. So it becomes very important, then, that the staff is well trained and able to meet those frustrations, and of course training is the key to that.

It's very essential that the staff understand the c ondition of the person and how to treat them. They must also know the effects of medication on some of the people so they can ensure that they have the best care possible. There are many types of abuse besides physical and sexual and mental, such as leaving a senior in isolation in a closed room, where they are literally cut off from the world; not providing the stimulation to get them out and to get them doing things; not

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1695 ensuring that perhaps they receive proper nourishment. Some- times people can become very fussy and very, very stubborn and refuse to take the nourishment that's provided. To me, this is abuse: to not have some type of food that they will eat or ensure that they are provided for. Th is is a subtle form of abuse but nevertheless a very damaging one to the health and to the condition of the person in care.

Extra care must be taken to ensure that some of the people with dementia do not wander off and injure themselves in other ways because they really don't understand what they're doing. I remember an aunt who put the electric kettle on top of the hot plate and started a fire. I mean, these are conditions that people have to be very careful about. So there are many types of abuse, and it's very important that we look at all of them and ensure that people r eceive adequate care, that the conditions they live in are good, that they're safe and they're healthy.

I know an older fellow who lived in a basement suite by himself, and someone just sort of peeked in on him from time to time. If there had ever been a fire, he would never have survived. His door was right beside the furnace. I mean, there are people who should be coming out, who should be checking on that person and not just ignoring him, making sure that his conditions are safe. So again I would like to ask everyone to support this Bill.

I think it's very well meant, and it's certainly n ecessary at this time, as we change in society, when we have people out in more facilities, people with varying degrees of conditions out in the community as well, not only nursing homes but I think all facilities who have people in care.

Whether they be a handi- capped child or a senior, I think we have to ensure that they receive proper and compassionate care, that they are stimulated, that the abuse is certainly reported, that the employees are not punished for reporting any abuse that they come across, and that we can maintain these people in a healthy and safe home. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of Bill 21 1.

I would like to state at this time that it's somewhat disappointing – and I don't want to take away from the Member for Highwood – that it hasn't come forward as a government Bill. 3:30 THE SPEAKER: I'm sorry. The Chair had been asked to ask if there could be unanimous consent of the Assembly for reverting to Introduction of Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Member for Bonnyville. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. V ASSEUR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to reintroduce a guest that I previously introduced.

Unfortunately, she wasn't in the House at the time. I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly Lise Holeton. Lise has been very active in the community of St. Paul for many, many years, has been active in cultural and community issues not only at a local level but at the provincial level with the provincial government in the past years. I would like her to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House.

Thank you. head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 21 1 Protection for Persons in Care Act (continued) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, thank you very much for yielding. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: It's never a problem deferring to you, Mr. Speaker. As I had stated, Bill . . . [interjection] No. I will always defer to the Speaker in question period. That's in reply to a government member's comment. I would once again reiterate my support for Bill 21 1.

This is a very important Bill, but as I'd stated a few seconds ago, I would have been much more comfortable seeing the government bring forward a Bill to deal with this very important issue or concern. It's a societal concern that's been around for a long time. When I hear the concerns within my community with regards to quality of care and the treatment of the elderly, we have good cause for concern, not only from the point of view that we have to protect persons in care but also to ensure that staff and family members have a level of confidence that they indeed are pro- tected.

When it comes to staff, it clearly shows that we need whistle-blower legislation even beyond Bill 21 1. There's an element of that particularly in Bill 21 1, but it's not as all-encom- passing as what's needed out there to ensure that staff members are protected and that they can indeed fulfill the obligations of Bill 21 1 where we're being told: Every agency shall have a duty to protect the clients it serves from abuse and to maintain a reasonable level of safety for its clients. Quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I still have concerns when staff members do come forward, even with Bill 21 1, that there will be that level of security, that their careers will not be jeopardized. Likewise, family members have got to feel secure that they are going to meet this obligation within Bill 21 1, that it won't result in further abuse of that loved one. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that to some extent I'm confused or concerned about when the Health Facilities Review Committee kicks in when it comes to, say, a nursing home and when the Social Care Facilities Review Committee does.

For example, recently in my community we've had serious concerns, and my recommendation to citizens and staff members within the city of Fort Saskatchewan was to go to the Health Facilities Review Committee. Indeed, that's exactly what happened. So I need some clarification as to who makes that final decision. Certainly in Bill 21 1, we know it's the Social Care Facilities Review Committee that is identified here.

But looking at the responsibilities of the Health Facilities Review Committee, I would suggest that possibly someone in a local community would go to that committee, or, for example, the member representing that constituency can refer them there. The reason I'm raising that is that it would appear, when you look at the annual reports of these two committees, that there is a different way of dealing with the finding of the committee. Now, I have some grave concerns. It would appear that the

1696 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 Health Facilities Review Committee has a more closed-door approach. In fact, from what I can see, the minister is the only one that has the prerogative of really dealing with the findings of that investigation. I have a concern that because of the time line that takes place from the time the complaint comes in and then the resulting investigations, a lot of useful information that may have assisted if there were a criminal investigation resulting, if the minister recommends that, can be lost.

Likewise, I see the same problem within Bill 21 1, that the initial information isn't being shared with the law enforcement to see that at that point in time, without even waiting for the committee to do its investigations, there may indeed be actions that the law enforcement people can take right away. Like when I hear of an incident observed in a facility where, unfortunately, the resident had removed their cast and the cast results were thrown at that same client by a staff member, and I as the MLA have no idea what happened.

When I find out that the emergency lights in a specific room went out and an elderly client was sitting on the toilet, and what resulted was staff coming in and yelling at that elderly client, "What are you doing sitting on the toilet?" I could go on. It's quite frightening and scary that in my community we're hearing reports of this nature. Now, I want to feel secure when families come to me and staff come to me as their elected representative and say: "Can we feel secure in the knowledge that these complaints have been dealt with? Has the facility's name been cleared?

Has the staff member's name been cleared?" If they haven't been cleared and some abuse has actually taken place, what has happened? We have to know those answers. Now, Mr. Speaker, what's even more concerning: when you look at Scientific and Technical Activities Overview and read it, when you get to page 128, this leads me to be even more concerned for persons who should be looked after under Bill 21 1. It says: A Project to Reintegrate Elderly Hospital Patients Into Society. • This demonstration project aims to remove geriatric patients from an area hospital and place them with foster families.

This will help the elderly to reintegrate into society, de- crease cost for care and increase the quality of life for those individuals. Well, the last

part I question, quite frankly. If I the Member of the Legislative Assembly am having difficulty getting answers when it comes to long-term care facilities – for example, even in Alberta Hospital Edmonton when I was chairman – what are we going to find when we know that our elderly, the most vulnerable, are moving into foster homes? What regulations are in place? How are we going to ensure what goes on behind closed doors with these very vulnerable people? If there is abuse, how are we going to find that out? Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this Bill, while I'm supporting it, just doesn't go far enough.

That's why I'm saying that the government needed to bring in a Bill themselves. I look across the way and think of Bill 218 that was introduced. That was an even stronger Bill than this. I think it was certainly going in the right direction. [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] I want to have a level of confidence, whether it's in the city of Lethbridge, the city of Fort Saskatchewan, or the city of Edmonton, that where these elderly, vulnerable people have been put into foster homes, there can be spot checks being done on that home, that there's some way we can ensure that abuse is not taking place.

I don't just speak of physical abuse. I want to know that they're adequately being cared for foodwise, that their clothes are being cleaned for them, that their bedding is clean, and I could go on and on. 3:40 Mr. Speaker, I know that there are many of my colleagues who wish to speak to this very important area, but I want to share something else with you: what we're seeing happening in long- term care facilities with the funding cutbacks. I'll use an example. I had a manager of a facility referring to a long-term care facility as a hotel – I was appalled – right in my constituency office.

I see qualified staff being terminated and replaced by people who have come to me and said, "We're concerned; we don't have the skills to look after these very elderly, vulnerable people." They want to keep their jobs, but they're admitting that they don't have the skills. I know from past experience, when I worked in geriatrics for six months, I didn't have the skills as a registered nurse to look after those people. I didn't have the kind of patience it takes. Mr. Speaker, by the policies of this government we're putting vulnerable people in greater danger than ever.

I don't want to take away from the member's Bill 21 1, but that's a reality. Thank you. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the main intent: to see protec- tion not just for vulnerable people but for the people who would be reporting possible cases of abuse and possible cases of maltreatment. I commend the member for bringing this Bill forward. I'm also pleased as it is similar to a Bill which I had on the Order Paper a number of years ago. I congratulate the member for the improvements he has made to that and for the ongoing work he has done.

With Michener Centre being significantly fixed in the constitu- ency of Red Deer-North, I have considerable contact with people who work there. Also, visiting there on a regular basis, you do get to see the potential for abuse and also the potential for unreported abuse, not the least of which the reason for that would be that a person who is working there does not want to be seen as a troublemaker and does not want to be seen as I guess a snitch, if you want to use that word. They do want the sense that they would be protected if they had to report on one or more occasions abuse that they had seen.

One of the other important things about this B ill is that it doesn't just cover large institutions but in fact would cover people in care in different types of institutions other than ones like the Michener Centre. Listening to the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, I think what we have to do is recognize that this is a start. It's a good building block. A Bill like this I think needs time to be worked out and needs some time to pass so that we can see how in actual practice and application it in fact works or where the weaknesses may be.

In hearing the comments from the sponsor- ing member, I know that he's certainly open to that observation, to seeing those practices begin to come into play. It is a reality that people in care who are vulnerable do get abused. That is a substantiated fact. We know that. I don't know if it would be worthwhile, but you could argue about the rate or the percentages and how many. Y ou could also argue about the definition, but in fact we know that abuse does happen.

Professor Dick Sobsey, who I think has already been mentioned here in this House, has done a lot of work in this area and has been especially helpful in terms of some of the reporting processes

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1697 and in making me aware of some of the degree to which people are affected, and other individuals like Gary McPherson, who certainly represents a good part of the community that can find themselves in this unfortunate position: being vulnerable, being in care, and in fact experiencing abuse. I think it's worthwhile that a process has been laid out. Using the Social Care Facilities Review Committee is being suggested in the Bill and then giving that committee also the ability to refer to other committees or agencies and to refer to law enforcement agencies.

That shows that there can be immediate action. In fact, as the Bill points out, there even has to be a report to the Minister of Family and Social Services within 30 days by the person or the agency to whom the complaint gets referred. I know there are some questions surrounding the 30 days. That may or may not prove to be the best time line, but it's out there as a suggestion, and it's something that's workable and needs to be looked at. Certainly there can be cases where law enforcement agencies need to be involved.

I don't feel, however, that every reported case must immediately result in a first contact with a law enforce- ment agency. Because other individuals can be involved in the investigation of this, there can be some time to see in fact if something was done of criminal intent. It can be a case where an employee or a caregiver in a situation can observe another caregiver doing something maybe unintentionally which is in fact abusive. Maybe that person needs some instruction. Maybe they were trying to restrain a client in an inappropriate fashion.

If every single case and complaint got immediately referred to a law enforcement agency, I think they would see the task as impossible to follow up. There's a high degree of effectiveness that can be involved by allowing the Social Care Facilities Review Committee or other agencies to do the investigation. Then if it's deemed that certainly there's criminal activity , criminal intent, that type of thing, then by all means a law enforcement agency should be swiftly involved.

Using the example that the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan brought up of a person being either purposely or inadvertently left in a darkened room in a somewhat inappropriate and awkward position, I don't know that our law enforcement officers should be the first ones contacted in a case like that when there may be other means to address it. [interjection] The member is saying that she didn't actually mean that type of situation, so I take that at face value.

The important thing to realize is that with the passage of this Bill we do have in place some good starting points, and we would be sending a message out not only to the people in care but to caregivers that the government is serious about protecting a person in care and the caregiver who would bring forward a possible abusive situation that needs to be reported. It's clear that the purpose of this Bill is to deal with those reports that are brought forward in good faith and without malice.

We do know that it can happen that you have malicious reporting going on for reasons other than what is actually taking place. I think the purpose of the Bill is deemed to take care of that. I commend the member for the work done on this, and I look forward to its implementation and then to watching it carefully to see what other areas may need to be added to it to make it a better Bill than is before us, if that's needed. The important thing is that this sends the message out that the government is serious. People in care will be protected, and caregivers will be protected as they report possible cases of abuse.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just two initial comments before dealing with the principles of the Bill itself. The first one is that I appreciate the fact that the Member for Highwood has not lost any of his interest in advocating for people who need the protection that this kind of a Bill provides. I acknowledge that it was back in April of 1993 when I had a chance to speak in debate then on what was, I think, Bill 218 in that Legislature.

I appreciate that he stuck with it, and I appreci- ate that he's continuing to soldier on to address what I think is a very important and compelling need. My second comment, though, is that I experience some frustration, perhaps not uncommon for members on this side of the Legislature, that we're still at a point where we're dealing with another private member's Bill. While I want to acknowledge that the Member for Highwood has certainly addressed some of the concerns that I and others raised a couple of years ago, we're still dealing with a Bill that I think is entirely too modest.

When the sponsor of the Bill said on May 3 that he wanted to acknowl- edge and he wanted members to acknowledge – this is a quote – "a solid beginning to what would be an ongoing process," I guess my reaction in part was that the emphasis seems to be on "ongo- ing" instead of "process," which takes us to some culminating event, some culminating statute. So I'd like to see us move forward. The member quite correctly anticipates that I will have a number of amendments if this gets to committee. 3:50 I appreciate again the courtesy of the Member for Highwood, who approached me, Mr.

Speaker, before the commencement of this session. Recognizing I had raised issues back in 1993, he solicited my input in terms of this Bill, and I provided him with I think a larger volume of suggested amendments than he may have anticipated. I understand the fact that none of them are reflected in Bill 21 1, I think the member has indicated, may have less to do with the merit or lack of same in my amendments than the fact that it had already gone off to the printer. So I'm interested in seeing some of those amendments proceed.

In the city of Calgary it's estimated that we have conservatively – and I wouldn't use any other estimate in this Chamber – something in the order of 2,500 seniors who are at risk now as we speak. The typical victim has been identified in a report entitled Getting Together against Elder Abuse: Seniors Speaking Out as being somebody aged 75 or older, being frail and dependent, someone mentally or physically disabled, in poor health, unskilled at managing financial matters, lacking literacy or numeracy skills, suffering from multiple losses su ch as loss of family members, friends, mobility, that sort of thing. Mr.

Speaker, we have a wonderful wealth of experience in research right here in the province of Alberta that surprisingly has not yet been mentioned in the debate, and many good contribu- tions have been made to the debate. I'm referring to the Synergy 2 project under the auspices of the Kerby Centre in Calgary. This has effectively been a couple-year program. Synergy was a program with some federal and provincial government money which was to catalogue the need in terms of elder abuse and develop a comprehensive system of services and programs and resources to be able to address that.

For members that may not be aware, the Kerby Centre in Calgary has perhaps 5,000 formal members, but in terms of people that participate in programs at the Kerby Centre: over 20,000 Calgary seniors. So when the Kerby Centre undertakes a project, I think members can be

1698 Alberta Hansard May 10, 1995 assured that it's going to provide some very useful data for dealing with these kinds of issues. I want to acknowledge the work of three people in particular that are closely associated with the Synergy 2 program: Ina Freeman, Jinny Boyack, and David Flux. Each of those people has a master's in social work and did something which I think has provided us all with an incredibly useful resource. Those people put together a draft vulnerable persons protection Act.

So when the Member for Highwood said, "Calgary-Buffalo, how would you suggest some changes to this?" frankly I sent him the report that had been done, this draft Bill, because it's so good. I'm so impressed with it. This makes more sense than trying to change a clause here or a

section there. It's an excellent, excellent Bill. If I haven't tabled it yet in this Assembly, I'll undertake to do that so that the Member for Calgary-Bow, who also has a keen interest in these areas – I expect she probably already has a copy. But it's something every member should look at because it tells us a lot in terms of how we can do better. I think it's important to recognize that this is an issue that doesn't simply deal with institutions. The one study I referred to earlier talked about: in some 60 percent of cases the perpetrator is not a professional attendant, an institutional attendant.

In 60 percent of these cases it's been determined that it's the spouse or an intimate partner or a roommate who's the perpetrator. So what we have to start doing is focusing not just on smaller institutions. I want to acknowledge the work by the Member for Calgary-Bow, who said: let's look at group homes with smaller numbers. But I say we have to go much further than that and recognize that we have seniors at risk in their own apartments, in their own homes, and that's got to be dealt with, I respectfully submit. Mr.

Speaker, the kinds of things that I'm suggesting we have to look at in a Bill like this and the kinds of amendments I'm going to be introducing, not in any way to detract from what the Member for Highwood has done and the Member for Calgary- Bow has supported but simply to make this Bill more useful to more seniors – and that's I think what we should be about. I think what it needs is a definition of abuse that's expansive and liberal. I think what we have to recognize is self-neglect, and maybe it was the Member for Calgary-Bow who touched on this before.

We have to be able to deal with seniors who are legally adults. There may not have been a court order putting somebody responsible for their physical safety. These people are at risk, many of them, and that surely should be as big a concern as somebody who's being abused by a family member or a spouse or an institutional caregiver. So I think that's important. What this Act misses is a purpose clause.

I'd encourage every piece of legislation that comes in, private member or government Bill, to have a purpose clause against which we can measure the text and the terms of the Bill and see if it measures up and if we know where we're going with this thing. That's missing here. I think there are some specific things that are still a problem here. There's a question in terms of who you take the complaint to. I think it's problematic to refer to the Social Care Facilities Review Committee. It's ironic that the very day we're debating it, the 1994 annual report lands on our desks.

When I get these things, I like to leaf through them and see what sort of insight they give me on their work. I have to say that I'm tremendously disappointed when I l ook at this report b ecause it's such a skeletal, such a brief survey of a couple of points. It doesn't give us a really good sense at all in terms of the kinds of issues that this committee is dealing with , and that tends to, I guess, undermine my confidence that this is the appropriate vehicle to be able to do what we want done. Mr.

Speaker, there's a whole lot else that could be said about Bill 21 1, but I'm conscious of the fact that I think other people want to speak to it and we're soon going to run out of time. I want to say that I disagree strongly with the sponsor of the Bill when he said on May 9 that "Bill 21 1 goes a lot further than any legislation in the States or . . . in Canada." With respect, the sponsor may not have said it; it may have been another member. It is in Hansard, page 1641. I think this Bill does not go far enough. I think we have to focus on seniors living on their own, not in an institution.

I think we've got to find a better mechanism, like the Ombudsman, to do the investigation. I think it has to cover a whole lot more ground. I'm looking forward to all members s ponsoring this B ill. Let's get this into committee, and we can make this something that all Albertans can be proud of and all senior Albertans can look to for the protection they need. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. 4:00 MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill tries to provide clear protection to a person who essentially blows the whistle on abuse to persons in care.

I think that's a laudable objective. I'm not sure why Bill 21 1 is titled Protection for Persons in Care because it seems to be more protection for whistle-blowers on abuse of persons in care. Indirectly, of course, I can see that if the complainants are being safeguarded, ultimately more complaints will be laid, and obviously there will be less abuse. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start off by commending, too, the Member for Highwood for bringing this Bill forward and for clearly perceiving a need which unfortunately does not appear to be shared by his government.

Now, I'm saying this with some hesitation because obviously the government hasn't shown its hand. It has not seen fit so fa r to embrace this Bill as its own, and I think that's a pity. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we do need a Bill of this nature at all, because it indicates that as a society we have not come to grips with our treatment, with our dealings, with perhaps acceptance of persons in care, especially I'm referring to the physically and mentally handicapped. That is a constant problem in my view.

As members of our society we have to learn to accept these people as they are and try to get the most out of them in terms of productivity according to their talents. I'm pleased with something else this government has done, a few years back though, and that is: promote the integration of the physically and mentally handicapped in schools. At the time I remember being very skeptical about that move because very little information was given as to how we were to integrate these people.

Nevertheless, in the long run I think it has been a very good move, although unfortunately the necessary funding to make this a great success is not always there, especially in the last few years. I think that is the way to go, through the medium of education, so that ultimately all of us will be able to accept these people as complete and full citizens of our society. So, Mr. Speaker, I can go along with this Bill as a first step, but we must not pass this Bill and then consider the problem solved. I don't think the sponsor means that at all, but I think we have to be vigilant.

May 10, 1995 Alberta Hansard 1699 I'd like to state a few shortcomings of this Bill as perceived by one of my constituents who asked me to convey them. In fact, she kind of indicated that it might be better if I vote against this Bill, because perhaps having this Bill passed might make us believe that we have the problem solved. Her complaints were based very much on personal experience, because she had a relative who was in care at the Delvee Ranch in southern Alberta. That ranch was in the news some two years ago in the spring, very much in the news, and ended up being closed down by the minister at that time.

Before that happened, there were numerous allegations of abuse and numerous complaints against the social facilities committee, that apparently was not acting upon those complaints. My constituent was very much in the middle of this and just simply could not understand why that committee would not act and notify the police and make sure that these matters were dealt with. Therefore, she finds the purpose of this committee dubious, and in this Bill of course that comm ittee figures very prominently because that's who the first complaint would be launched with.

Another point that she brought up was that this committee was given far too much time before it would notify the police, I think 30 days in fact. According to her that should be brought back to maybe 24 hours, b ecause again speaking from experience, she knows about that kind of abuse that happened to her relative. I think that when we take stock of those kinds of complaints, we might be able to fill in some of the holes that are still in this particular Bill.

Generally, my constituent would like us to provide – and I totally concur with it – a greater focus on the safety of the person in care, perhaps by better definition of what would constitute abuse and so on, be a little bit more clear on that. I mentioned the misgivings about the committee and the shorter time for reporting to the RCMP. I think we could perhaps advance those particular concerns in the form of amendments at the next stage, and in order to get it there, I will gladly vote in favour of this Bill at this stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: To close debate on Bill 21 1, the hon.

Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have, first of all, the duty and privilege to thank all of the people who participated in the debate over the course of the three afternoons that it has been debated. The Bill, as I said at the outset, is a beginning, a few steps down the road. It's not the whole trail, and it certainly doesn't get us to the destination that perhaps Calgary-Buffalo was talking about. I also wanted to say to the Assembly that I appreciate the opportunity that private members have to put forward Bills and motions that they wish to.

Although sometimes from time to time we in the Assembly don't quite care for all of the things that are put forward, nevertheless it is our right as private members to do that, and I appreciate the opportunity. If members of the Assembly pass this Bill, we'll not likely get to the committee stage until the fall, which will give us plenty of time to reflect on the Bill and possibly give some thought for improvement in an amendment way. It has been mentioned by a number of speakers where the Bill is short.

It doesn't cover this, and it doesn't cover an adult in his/her own home or in a foster home, if there's only one or two. There are all kinds of shortcomings, and I will admit to that. But the object was to get a beginning and a track record, as it were, and the process going. Then at a later date, once we can see the benefits that we think are there, once we can see those and see some of the shortcomings in terms of process straightened out, we might expand at either this Asse mbly's or a future Assembly's wishes. Home care is one such thing.

A number of members have mentioned that, and that, I'm saying, can be addressed at a later date. I would say to the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, who had some concerns regarding delays in reporting of abuse, citing in particular a case that seems to me, although not of legal background myself, a clear case of assault, that that kind of thing should be reported to the appropriate police authority. Bill 21 1 does not, could not usurp the ability of law enforcement authorities from investigating and laying charges for assault.

A criminal charge would follow its own course, and this Bill in no way seeks to impair that nor could it. 4:10 A number of people have talked about maybe giving up the idea of

definitions of abuse. Some people have even said that they have sent me materials for this. Again confessing that I'm not of a legal background, some of the legal advice I was receiving was saying: "Let the court decide that. If you get tied up, then that becomes the opportunity for defence of the position to find ways