Alberta Hansard — 15 April 1987, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 2)

19870415

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 799 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Wednesday, April 15, 1987 2:30 p.m. Date: 87/04/15 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRAYERS MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. We give thanks to God for the rich heritage of this province as found in our people. We pray that native-bom Albertans and those who have come from other places may continue to work together to pre serve and enlarge the precious heritage called Alberta. Amen. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the Assembly, a very good friend and colleague of the Legislature of Sas katchewan, Mr. Sherwin Peterson. He's the MLA for Kelvington-Wadena in Saskatchewan and, as well, the Legisla tive secretary to Premier Devine. He's now standing in your gallery, and I'd ask the Assembly to give him their warm welcome. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: Member for Calgary Mountain View. Bill 222

An Act to Amend the Remembrance Day Act MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 222, being

An Act to Amend the Remembrance Day Act. Mr. Speaker, this Bill would require almost all public and private enterprises in Alberta to close down between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 noon on Remembrance Day. It exempts from its provisions certain public and industrially essential activities and allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to set further exemptions. [Leave granted; Bill 222 read a first time] Bill 256

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 256, being

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act. This Bill would require that any tax expenditures proposed by the government be budgeted and approved by the Legislative Assembly as supply votes of expenditure. As well the Bill will require tax expenditures to be shown in the public accounts as normal expenditures of public money as recommended by the Auditor General. [Leave granted; Bill 256 read a first time] Bill Pr. 21 The William Roper Hull Home Amendment Act, 1987 MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill Pr. 21, The William Roper Hull Home Amendment Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to expand the objectives of the William Roper Hull Home to promote the emotional and psychological well-being of children and families through the provision of education, preventative and treatment services. The change in the objects of the corporation by these amendments was made to reflect the changes in the needs and circumstances of children involved. [Leave granted; Bill Pr. 21 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased this after noon to table for hon. members an announcement made earlier today jointly by myself and the federal Secretary of State, the Hon. David Crombie, which announces Canada's first multicul tural resource development institute. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 6 of the Den tal Profession Act, I wish to file with the Assembly copies of the association's annual report for the year ended June 30, 1986. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to all members of the Legislature, a grade 6 class from Holy Cross school. I had the pleasure on Sunday last to share with those students the serving of their parents in the annual tea that they provide for fund-raising for the school.

They are accompanied by Miss Manuela Ninassi, and I would ask that they rise and be recognized and be given the warm wel come of this Legislature. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased this after noon to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly, six individuals who have assisted a great deal in the development of the multicultural institute which has been announced. They're seated in the members' gallery, and I will ask them to stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly once I've read their names.

They are: Rowena Massey-Hicks, principal consultant, Tabi Training Implementations; David Bai, member of the insti tute's advisory committee and chairman of the prairie and north west region, Canadian Multiculturalism Council; Ted Van Eeken, former chairman, Alberta Cultural Heritage Council and Alberta Cultural Heritage Foundation; Shelley Maerov, vice- chairman of The Jewish Federation of Edmonton; Richard Shel ford, president of the Council of Black Organizations; and Dick Wong, business consultant, Gracefield Investments.

I'd ask them to receive the very warm welcome and thanks of the As sembly for their assistance. MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to

800 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 you and through you to the members of the Assembly, Mrs. Margaret Lounds, who is the chairman of the Calgary recreation and parks committee as well as being a member of the Alberta Water Resources Commission and, indeed, also the mother of one of our pages. I would ask the Assembly to give her the usual warm welcome. MR. SPEAKER: Attorney General. MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce . . . AN HON. MEMBER: A general is a general. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes to both individuals. MR. ROSTAD: We could change places but . . .

Mr. Speaker, I would wish to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly, 27 delightful students, grades 5 and 6, from the Rosebrier school, which is a community school located in the Camrose constituency. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mrs. Jenell Pluim and Mrs. Brenda Rehmann; and three parents, Mr. Don Graff, Mr. Charles Ingles, and Mrs. Kathy Friesen. They are seated in the members' gallery, and I'd ask that they stand and receive the traditional welcome of the House. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Career Development and Employment MR. ORMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to ad vise hon. members of the appointment of a six-member appren ticeship and industry training review committee which will con duct a public review into apprenticeship and industry training in Alberta. As hon. members may recall, the government indicated in the Speech from the Throne on March 5 its intention to carry out such a review.

In choosing from among the many names put forward, a de cision was taken to utilize the considerable experience and ex pertise of the Alberta Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Board, keeping in mind the desirability and necessity of also including other individuals whose backgrounds are not repre sented on the board. As hon. members may be aware, the Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Board advises the Minister of Career Devel opment and Employment on all matters pertaining to appren ticeship training and certification.

The board is comprised of a chairman, an equal number of employee and employer repre sentatives, two people representing the general public, and the executive director of the apprenticeship and trade certification branch of my department. The six-member review committee that I have announced today includes four members of the Alberta Apprenticeship and Trade Certification board: its chairman, Mr. John Ritter, who will also be chairman of the review committee; Mr. Peter Con- boy, employer representative; Mr. Bill Marlowe, employee rep resentative; Muriel Stanley-Venne, a public representative.

The remaining two members of the review committee are Brian McClelland, who is head of labour relations and employee de velopment with Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited, and Mr. Ek kehard Kolesch, who is general manager of the Edmonton Con vention Centre. Time does not permit me to list the excellent qualifications of these six individuals. However, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling biographical profiles on each member.

It is clear from these profiles that collectively they bring to the review committee in- depth knowledge and understanding of industrial, vocational, and apprenticeship training, a broad awareness and sensitivity to community needs, and extensive work experience. One of our primary objectives is to examine existing prac tices and programs in light of rapidly occurring changes that are overtaking the workplace.

An important objective of the review is to help highlight some of these changes, with a view to iden tifying modifications to existing apprenticeship and industry training systems to upgrade the skills of journeymen, upgrade industrial training generally, and ensure that Albertans possess the skills needed in the future. In carrying out its work, the review committee will pay par ticular attention to the immediate and longer term training needs in new or emerging industries where training requirements have not yet been identified or fully identified.

Among the more important matters the review committee will examine and report on are: current apprenticeship and industry-based training and certification practices; monitoring and enforcement of legislation; on-the-job and institutional training for tradespeople; capacity of small business to train employees, as compared with larger corporations; nontraditional industrial training; employee training needs in new and emerg ing occupations; and the role of government, labour, and man agement in training employees to meet future needs. I wish to note as well, Mr.

Speaker, that a 15-member advi sory panel comprising a chairman, the seven remaining mem bers of the Alberta Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Board, three members representing labour, three persons repre senting business, and one person representing postsecondary education will be established to assist the review committee. Details of the advisory panel and the names of its members will be announced within the next short while. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that the review com mittee will actively solicit public input.

Within the next week or so the general public will be invited to submit, their written com ments to the committee. In the fall the review committee will conduct a series of public meetings in various locations through out the province. Both are in keeping with this government's commitment to actively consult with the public on important matters of policy. MR. SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition. MR. MARTIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Quickly looking through the ministerial announcement, I certainly have no objection to a public review.

I would just suggest to the minister and members of the government that in the time before the recession we prob ably had some of the best tradesmen not only in Canada but in North America. And what has happened, of course, has a lot to do with the economy and the government's policies, because as we've dismantled the labour movement -- they were actively involved at the time, the Minister is well aware, in upgrading skills and lowering wages. Then we've had an exodus of some of our top people; many of them that I know are in Ontario right now and other parts of North America.

It may be hard to get these people back. So a lot of the review has to do with the economy itself. But in saying this, I look forward to the review. Specifically, number one, "upgrade the skills of journeymen": obviously,

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 801 that should always be a high priority. Number two, "update in dustrial training generally": I hope this doesn't mean a blending of all construction trades to effect downgrading of trades ap prenticeship altogether, and I just pass that out; I hope that's not what it means.

Number three, "ensure that Albertans possess the skills needed in the future": again, I come back; to make sure that we have the skills in the future will have everything to do with wages, frankly, because people are not going to get those skills if the wages are not competitive and better than they are at this particular time. So I certainly say, Mr.

Speaker, that we welcome the review, and if we ever get this economy turned around, we'd better be looking at how we're going to bring back journeymen, qualified people, into the province to do the things that need to be done in this province. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Taxation Policy MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the Provincial Treasurer, the tax man. Along with a lot of what I would call other sneaky tax hikes, the Treasurer slipped a new flat rate tax on Albertans.

My question is to the minister: is he aware of the regressive nature of flat rate taxation, and if he is, will he explain why he went ahead with implementation of this particular tax at this particular time? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the impact of various tax proposals which were included in this budget. I might note that in contrast to some other flat rate tax, this flat rate tax is applied at the taxable income as opposed to the net income level, and therefore is less regressive than some flat tax which has been experienced in other provinces. MR. MARTIN: Well, thank you. Mr.

Speaker, at least he ad mits it's regressive; it's just less regressive than other places. But my question to follow up on this to the Treasurer: is the Treasurer specifically aware than an average Alberta family with gross pretax earnings of $30,000 a year will lose $55 per month from the July paycheque and subsequent paycheques? Now, that's not including the $35 per month they lose if they are renters. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, of course you can cast about for any calculation, and of course you can enter the tax tables at any income level, and you can make any assumption you want with respect to the family size, the age of the individuals who are involved. But no matter how you cut it, you must look at the bottom line in this province, and that bottom line clearly shows, no matter who does the analysis, whether it's done by us or whether it's done by the Canadian Tax Foundation, that Al bertans are the lowest taxed citizens in Canada. We said we'd maintain that as a priority.

We did it, and now the doctrinaire socialists are looking for ways to pick holes in it. MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, to the Treasurer, is that real people are being hurt and gouged with this particular budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, the average family income in Alberta is around $41,000 according to Statistics Canada. Their monthly bite goes up to $80 per month for the year. And I ask this ques tion: how can this minister justify this type of increase on fami lies who are struggling already to live on a tight budget? Many of them will receive no increases at all this year on their paycheque. MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I will fully admit that the increasing taxes are a matter of judgment, and they're a matter of calculations as to where the impact of that tax will hit. Yet there are certain fundamental feelings which are clear to all Albertans, and amongst those feelings and sense of pride which tends to be ignored by the member across the way is that in fact the people of Alberta receive the highest level of services of any citizens in Canada.

Now, the people of Alberta have come to expect that we will maintain, as we have in this government, the highest level of educational services, the best health care facilities, high priority on new job generation, and amazing as sistance to those people who are in need. That's the priority of this government, and that's what this budget reflects. Quite clearly, I could get into the narrow kind of com parison, talk about the socialists in Manitoba whom he talks about, where in fact their 2 percent flat tax comes in at the very highest level.

If you want to talk about yells and cries about a tax regime, you should see that one, Mr. Speaker. He tends to forget about that. But I won't do that. I'll simply talk about the good policies which . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister [inaudible] MR. MARTIN: If he wants to talk about Manitoba, we'll talk about their economy compared to his mistake. Mr. Speaker, to the Treasurer. He says Albertans have a sense of pride. Yes, they do, but they don't have a sense of pride of being gouged by this government, I can assure him of that.

My question is: we're getting a double whammy, double taxa tion come July 1st; what assurance will the Treasurer offer that this government, as they fight the deficit, will not make these new tax tables permanent? Can we get absolute assurance from this minister? MR. JOHNSTON: Oh. I'd like to be that confident about the future, Mr. Speaker, but some of us here have to deal in the area of reality not the area of dreams. We have to face the major challenge before Albertans. We're intending to do that.

We have set forth a fiscal plan which still provides the highest level of services, which provides for the lowest level of taxes, and still deals with the deficit. Now, if the socialists had anything to do with this, they'd have us with the highest level of taxes, the highest level of deficit, and the lowest level of services. That's the kind of management you would get from the socialists across the way, Mr. Speaker. What we intend to do here is to meet the commitment of maintaining the highest level of services and working to a four- year plan to deal with that deficit problem. Mr.

Speaker, I know it's contrary to the socialist thinking across the way, but it is fundamental to what is the intention and the desire and the hopes of the citizens of Alberta, and we're going to respond to it. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recognize the Member for Ed monton Meadowlark when it hears a little bit more silence. Member for Edmonton Meadowlark, followed by the Mem ber for Little Bow.

802 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point concerning the regressive nature of this new tax regime, can the Treasurer please confirm that the new gasoline tax is also a highly regressive tax, a sales tax in fact, which takes a greater portion of a low-income earner's income, than it does of a higher income earner's income? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the calcu lation about where you are on various curves or talking about the functional relationship, I can say, of course, that any tax at some point is regressive.

I mean, none of us likes to pay any kind of tax, and it's true that some forms of taxation are more regressive than others. Yet in comparison in the case of the cost of gasoline in Alberta relative to other provinces, it is safe to say, however, that the fuel tax which has been applied in this budget is the lowest in Canada. Now, there are some economists who argue that the tax on gasoline should in fact be higher than it is right here to ensure that conservation takes place. Mr. Speaker, I can only report the facts.

Yes, if you are a very low-income person this tax does tend to become more regressive; yes, it is the lowest fuel tax in Canada; and yes, it will generate revenues to help us balance the budget. And that's the intention of this plan. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Treasurer. The Treasurer indicated in an earlier question period that there may be reconsideration of the 5 percent hotel tax in terms of either timing or date of application. Could the minister indicate whether there is any firm recommendation or announcement at this time on that matter? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, again, Mr.

Speaker, to the Member for Little Bow. Of course we have had under consideration both -- extensive debate. My colleague the Member for Banff- Cochrane raised this first during a variety of estimates; my col league the Minister of Tourism and even the Member for Ed monton Meadowlark, in fact, have raised this question. But we are in the process of reviewing. We are consulting with the tourist sector to see what kind of recommendations they would entertain. But I can say that it is under consideration right now. MR. OLDRING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Provin cial Treasurer.

I know that the Provincial Treasurer went to great lengths to shelter and protect low-income Albertans. Could he advise this House how many additional low-income Albertans will be taken off the tax roll this year over last year? [interjections] MR. JOHNSTON: That's right. There's no question I may have omitted some important facts, Mr. Speaker, when I . . . [interjections] And I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to make sure that the full record was on the table here.

I appreciate the very clear point made by the Member for Red Deer South, wherein he does reinforce what is the clear in tention of this budget to do several things which deal with the low-income side of the income distribution. First of all, prop erly noted, the Alberta selective tax credit will in fact be applied to more Albertans this year than ever before. Those who have done their income tax recently will see that. I think under the current regime it's about $370.

We intend to raise that to some thing higher than that -- the numbers escape me; I think it's $440 -- which will allow another 235,000 Albertans to either pay no tax or to pay less tax than they would normally under the tax schedule, recognizing fully the impact of the tax on low- income people. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, as a second element, the two other kinds of temporary taxes which were applied in this budget: one, which is the so-called flat tax I have described, applies to the taxable income.

Everyone knows that taxable income is ar rived at by deducting most of those calculations such as exemp tions, a variety of those items, and therefore very few people are impacted at the low income by any kind of taxable income, and therefore the flat tax would apply there and will be not as regressive as some taxation. In fact, it will apply more on the higher incomes. Thirdly. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the surtax: that tax will apply to those people with provincial income taxes above the $3,700 level, ensuring again that the impact of the tax is on the higher income Albertan. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the adjustments on the medicare premiums, my colleague the minister of hospitals has always laid before the House the fact that there is a new tier with respect to the way in which the premiums impact on lower income. Once again, we have assisted the lower income Al bertan in many ways: in the tax regime, in the medical care sys tem, and in a variety of other programs, Mr. Speaker, which I know you don't want me to recount right now. MR. SPEAKER: Such perception. Second main question, Leader of the Opposition. Natural Gas Deregulation MR. MARTIN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the minister came to an interesting conclusion; it seems that even he has to admit that deregulation of energy is not working in the best interests of Albertans. It should have been rather obvious even to Conservatives that we have a $3.3 billion deficit, higher taxes, and a cutback in people services. But my question simply is this to this minister: will the govern ment now bring back an Alberta border price for gas to protect Alberta's interests? DR. WEBBER: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: That's a good answer, Mr. Speaker, one that we expected.

Now, my question simply to the minister. He said that this government does not want residential and commercial gas users buying gas on the open market, not only in Ontario but right here in this province. Now, most people thought this was what deregulation was all about, and it shows to me that the right wing knows that their policies have become a disaster. I want to say simply to this minister: when is this government . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: This is the question. Don't get excited, Jimmy. Don't get excited.

My question to the minister is: when is the minister going to admit the failure of its energy policies and get on with the job of seeking fair prices for Alberta's resources? DR. WEBBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's been no failure with respect to energy policies. We've been working with industry and other governments, going through a difficult process of

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 803 deregulation when world oil prices fell a year ago. There are a number of obstacles in the road that we believe, by co-operative discussions, we can remove. MR. MARTIN: Well, most people would consider a $3.3 bil lion deficit in one year a failure, but the government has a new record. It seems that the deregulation policy brought in by the government has given Ontario cheaper energy, and it's given them more control over our energy resources. My question: if the government believes so much in deregulation -- they seem to indicate this and they want to continue it.

A simple question to this minister: why won't the minister then give average Al bertans a break in this so-called deregulated market and let the core users negotiate new, short-term, low-cost contracts, so Al bertans can benefit? DR. WEBBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a number of comments prior to his question that really one has to look at. First of all, does he not realize that world oil prices fell last year, resulting in a significant decline in revenues to the province? Knowing his socialist desires, he may wish to try to control what OPEC can do around the world. I don't know.

But obviously world oil prices are a significant factor on revenues to this province. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he makes the comment that Ontario has more control than it had previously in determining prices. That is not the case. The purpose of deregulation was to have buyers and sellers enter into freely negotiated contracts but that there be respect for existing long-term contracts that are in place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations that took place be tween producers in this province and utilities in central Canada did result in a discount into the core market.

And also in this province negotiations are under way between utilities and producers. Albertans have paid lower prices than anywhere else in the country, and I expect that will continue into the future. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Al bertans are in the worst of all worlds: higher taxes, high deficit, lower people services, and high gas prices. Is the minister not prepared to admit that this has been an absolute disaster, and when is the government going to give up its ideology and start doing what's right for Albertans? DR. WEBBER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what the pol icy of the hon. member would be in terms of going through with the gas deregulation process, other than to re-establish an Al berta border price, where we would lose the markets that we had gained over a number of years in the industrial markets of Canada and the United States because of the lower costs of fuel oils. Mr. Speaker, we are determined to work with other prov inces and the industry to see that natural gas deregulation pro ceeds the way as it was originally intended.

This is one step, the announcement we made yesterday, which simply says that the core market for Alberta natural gas must be protected by long- term contracts. What's more reasonable than that? The Energy Resources Conservation Board recently came out with a ruling which indicated that there should be in place an umbrella of a surplus test that would protect Alberta consumers to a 15-year supply of gas, but that in the industrial markets, the contractual route would be the one that should take place. In other words, there would be no surplus tests on the industrial side.

So if in dustries want to go out for short-term, spot market sales, they can, but they don't have the protection that's on the backs of the producers in this province for that protection. Mr. Speaker, the protection is there for Alberta consumers. MR. OLDRING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Energy advise this House if he intends to restrict or curtail the sales of natural gas to eastern Canada? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that was a notion that arose out of yesterday. There is no intention to cut off sup plies of gas at all.

We are suggesting that the core market con sumers, the residential and the commercial consumers, should be contracting for long-term supplies rather than having that protection on the backs of the producers in this province, that there are long-term contracts in place right now between pro ducers here and utilities in Ontario, and that if we do not want to see those long-term contracts undermined -- and one way of preventing that undermining is to make sure that anyone that wants a long-term supply of gas in the core market actually con tracts for it. MR. R. SPEAKER: A question of clarification.

I believe the minister has answered this question. In terms of allowing the low-cost, short-term contracts, is the minister considering in terms of that contract that there should be a waiver of the 15- year guaranteed natural gas supply which certainly guarantees supply to consumers in central Canada? DR. WEBBER: I'm not sure I caught the significance of the question, Mr. Speaker. The National Energy Board are currently having hearings related to what they think the protection should be for con sumers in the rest of Canada. Our ERCB hearings, of course, came out with a decision which relates to Albertans.

We think that the ERCB decision was a fair one and one that the National Energy Board in their hearings will look towards as a guide, hopefully. Also, it is a decision whereby producers in this prov ince and the Alberta government will be making their case be fore the National Energy Board, and that case will primarily be that there should not be an umbrella protection on the backs of our producers for the industrial market but that in the core mar ket there very well may be a surplus test to provide protection. But even with that, there should be long-term contract protection as well. MR.

SPEAKER: Member for Calgary Buffalo, final supple mentary on this issue. MR. CHUMIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're now seeing the greatest retreat since Stalingrad but only after the govern ment's deregulation policies have brought this province to its knees economically. The hon. Member for Little Bow hit it right on the head.

How is it that the minister thinks his argu ments will maintain any credibility when the province is in consistently asking on the one hand for Ontario consumers to protect themselves by contract, and on the other hand it is sup porting the National Energy Board policy of maintaining a 15- year surplus for core consumers? It's inconsistent. How can you argue both sides at the same time? DR. WEBBER: I'm not sure there was a question there, Mr. Speaker. But if the hon. member wants to debate. I gather that he's suggesting there is an inconsistency, and there isn't at all.

804 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 In fact the ERCB in their decision indicated that there should be a 15-year supply in place for our consumers in the residential and the commercial markets here in Alberta, and we agree with that. They also suggested that the contractual route would be the route to go. In fact. utilities in this province for many years have been contracting supplies almost exactly the same length of time period that the surplus test was in place.

So. if you like, we have a double protection for our consumers in this province: one, the umbrella of the surplus test, and the other one being the long-term contracted supplies. Grazing Leases MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed towards the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Govern ment has been a bit slow to react to the public sentiment regard ing the conversion of grazing leases, although the government has appointed a seven-man task force with a number of back benchers -- no opposition members on it at all.

The Liberal op position does join most Albertans in welcoming the recent provincewide moratorium on conversions and wishes it was im posed much sooner. But why did the minister wait until last March to impose the provincewide moratorium when he had already imposed a moratorium last June for all of central and southern Alberta? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, this province is a very vast province and very rich in its natural resources. We have differ ent problems in southern and central Alberta than we have in northern Alberta.

In central zones and in the southern zone there was concern showed a year ago, and that's why the freeze was originally put on. The task force recommendations came in and they recommended a temporary freeze on the balance of the province. And that's why it was done at a later date. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister then. If it is in deed the case, why didn't the task force hold public hearings rather than the private hearings, as this is an issue where the public has a great investment now that summer is here to get out into the country where there's fishing, hiking, or anything else?

This is not a private matter. Why did they not hold and why are they not going to hold public hearings on this matter? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, public meetings were held by that committee that traveled throughout the province. It was well advertised, and the public did show up and made many, many presentations to that committee. I'm presently waiting for their recommendations. MR. TAYLOR: Meetings out in the country are not public hearings. A public hearing is, as the name implies, a formally constituted hearing with a solicitation of briefs and the whole amount, not a bunch of backbenchers wandering around, Mr.

Speaker, at $75 a day, trying to get a free tour of the province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask whether the minister can tell the House how many applications for conversion of land under policy are now being held in abeyance or being held in your coffers, waiting for the result of the freeze to come off the conversion of grazing leases? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the number of leases at my fingertips, but I can give them to the hon. member if he comes to my office. We'll do it after and not take up the House's time. They are available. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, I can understand why he does not want to take up House time. I'd hide under his seat if I were him. Mr. Speaker, will the government at least accept the basic principle that no sale of any grazing lease or public lands or conversion will take place without public hearings, and even then, after the public hearings, if he decides to go ahead, it will not be done without open competitive bidding? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I'm waiting for the recommen dations of the committee and the report from that committee.

I know that the public has submitted many, many written submis sions, along with the verbal submissions that were given to the committee. Our office has assisted in giving that committee all the information they requested, and we hope that their recom mendations will take the considerations made by the public of Alberta during those meetings throughout the province. MR. TAYLOR: A puffball committee. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Glengarry. MR. YOUNIE: It won't be a puffball, Nick.

There was something publicly advertised by government tender recently in the newspaper concerning grazing leases, and I'm wondering on what basis does the minister believe that spraying these leases with 2,4-D, a soon to be deregistered chemical, at taxpayers' expense . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member. That's in no way related to the original question. The Chair recognizes the Member for Cypress-Redcliff. MR. HYLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question as well is to the minister of forestry.

Will the minister assure this As sembly that those applications that are being held now in abeyance, that when it's part of the economic operation of a farm, it will be sold to the lessee rather than put up for public auction, as the Liberals suggested, so only the rich can apply? MR. SPARROW: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am going to wait for the recommendations of the committee to come forward. I will be taking those to forestry caucus committee for discussion prior to any changes in the policy. I'm sure you'll have some input into any changes in the future policy. MR.

SPEAKER: Member for Clover Bar on behalf of the Rep resentative Party, followed by the Member for Calgary North Hill. Cancer Rate in County of Strathcona DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Community and Occupational Health, and this has to do with the follow-up of the discussions we had on the estimates Mon day night on the apparent abnormally high rate of cancer in the Fort Saskatchewan and county of Strathcona areas.

Can the minister indicate what further studies the department is consid ering following up at this time in light of the fact that some of these statistics did appear to be apparently high?

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 805 MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the concern expressed by the hon. member, and that's why we've taken some action on this. This week I have asked the occupational health program at the University of Alberta and the Alberta Can cer Board, along with the public health division of my depart ment, to come together to assess the facts that we have now and come back to me with a report within six weeks as to what fur ther steps need to be taken, what further information needs to be found, and a recommended course of action. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the min ister. Does the minister have any indication if there is a differ ential at this time between a higher incidence at the jobsite than there is outside the jobsite? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, we don't have that information. What we've been able to find in the cancer registry that the province has and which we monitor and watch on a very careful basis -- it detects, it tells us what the cancer is; it tells us about the cancer patient, where he lives and where he may work. We're taking that information and trying to perhaps draw some conclusions.

I want to caution, as I'm sure the hon. member would want me to, drawing any conclusions at this point, be cause we simply don't have those facts. The cancer may be linked to any number of factors, including life-style, including geography, location, where someone has grown up, where they've lived, how long they've lived there. It also may relate to occupational and environmental hazards. That's the kind of information we want to pull together before we draw those conclusions. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Is the minister con sidering also a close examination of the people who live downwind from the petrochemical complexes in the county of Strathcona and the city of Fort Saskatchewan? How wide a range is that study going to cover downwind? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the statistics that were pre pared and put forward in a report by the Alberta Cancer Board focus and address themselves primarily to cancer statistics within county 20. That's where the concern has arisen, and that's the concern we want to address.

We've not found sig nificantly abnormal cancer statistics in other regions, in other census areas, and this one is the one we're wanting to come to grips with and come to a conclusion on. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Can the min ister indicate if he has established a deadline for this study so that the completion date can be relatively short? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker. I've asked for that report from the university, from the Cancer Board, and from my officials jointly by the end of May, the report on the action that must be taken.

And I want, while I have the opportunity, just to caution anybody who may be concerned about these cancer statistics that if there is any concern, they have an opportunity -- and I would encourage them -- to consult with their physician, to con sult with the local health unit, and to consult with the Alberta Cancer Board. Because we recognize the concern, and that's why we're taking this action. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Can the minister tell the House whether there are any other stud ies going on in Alberta to indicate whether there are other areas or incidences of cancer or health problems? And if so, would he undertake to inform the public as soon as studies are complete and give the assurance that no studies of unusual cancer or other incidences will be concealed? In other words, will you release it to the public as soon as possible? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't conceal anything of that kind, because we don't believe in playing with Albertans' lives. Where there is a problem, we take action.

And I want to confirm for the hon. member that we in this prov ince are fortunate enough to have an excellent cancer registry, such that any Albertan who is found to have cancer is monitored, is helped and watched through the progression of that Albertan's disease. Where we have identified a problem, we will go to work on it. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Glengarry. MR. YOUNIE: Thank you. One aspect of this problem would be its cost factor for the medicare system.

So for the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care: has his department calculated or will they be calculating what it will cost the taxpayers for the government not to get to the bottom of this and alleviate this problem of significantly higher cancer rates in the county of Strathcona? In other words, how much is their higher rate of cancer costing us in treatment? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, that's a question that I would certainly be unable to answer. Supreme Court Ruling on Labour Legislation MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General.

On Thursday of last week the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in a case which determined constitutional questions concerning the validity of compulsory arbitration in three public service statutes of this Legislature and indeed upheld those provisions. Because of the significance of this decision to potential questions of conflict in the future be tween provisions of the Charter of Rights and provincial legisla tion, my question is whether the Attorney General has had an opportunity to review the decision particularly with respect to the judicial review and the legislation of this province? MR.

HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made ref erence to a case which was put before the Supreme Court of Canada as the result of a reference, first of all, to the Court of Appeal of Alberta and then, following a successful -- from the government's perspective -- decision in that court, to the Su preme Court of Canada. Of significance in the judgment was the fact that the court, by a 4 to 2 decision, declined to replace the legislative review that is necessary for labour legislation.

It has appeared that many of those concerns that many people had that courts might be placing themselves in legislative positions have not been met. I would say that that is a significant con stitutional development, and the judgment, which just arrived yesterday, and its full impact -- I've had an opportunity of re viewing -- appears to be quite supportive of the government of Alberta's position. MR. STEWART: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General again. In view of the court's refusal to answer the ques

806 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 tion on the reference dealing with the right of the Crown to ex clude certain classes of employees from collective bargaining units, would it be the intention of the Attorney General to in clude such a question in a more specific and acceptable form in a future reference to the Supreme Court? MR. HORSMAN: That's not the present intention of the government. That question, as the hon. member has indicated, was not answered in the Supreme Court of Canada and therefore remains unanswered. I would think that it would not be our in tention now to try and take the matter further, and it may await judicial

interpretation at a future date when and if legislation is brought to the courts by other parties rather than the government. MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Labour. While it is recognized that the decision relates to public service matters rather than labour relations in the private sector, I wonder if the minister can advise us as to whether or not this decision will in any way impact upon the recommenda tions of the labour review committee concerning the right to strike? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would have any impact whatsoever on those recommendations.

To review the matter briefly, the committee did not recommend any expansion of limitation upon the right to strike or the corresponding ability of the employer to lock out. What it was doing more was trying to find a system of fairness and equity for all negotiations where that permission continues in legislation. The difficulty is that the committee was not addressing the Public Service Employee Relations Act or the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act. It was addressing essentially the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act and, in view of that, was not related to those decisions.

The committee was, however, looking at the Labour Relations Act, and of course there are some restrictions in the Labour Relations Act for some employees in the public sector. There was no concept of expanding that restriction. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Beverly, followed by the Member for Calgary Buffalo. Municipal Taxation MR. EWASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As a result of the recent gen eral assessment, the city of Edmonton is proceeding with a pro gram to rebate taxes to homeowners facing an increase of 13 percent in property taxes.

Inasmuch as this proposal has no re strictions based on property value or the ability to pay and, as a result, the taxes collected from people who are having difficulty paying their mortgages and feeding their families will be sub sidizing the property taxes of many upper-income homeowners, will the minister inform this Assembly if he will intervene and suggest to the mayor of the city of Edmonton that the city taxes should be made more equitable? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I think the plan is the plan of the city of Edmonton, and there may be some small question as to the wisdom of their plans since the hon. member and I have left city council. MR. EWASIUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, we know of course that municipal councils do have the power under

section 106 of the Municipal Taxation Act to refund part or all the tax levies on specific properties if it is deemed equitable. Now, if the minis ter obviously is not going to intervene with the city, will the minister at least suggest to the city that it put a cap on the actual rebate -- that is. the actual dollar amount that individuals receive -- so that the bulk of money does not flow simply to the wealthy property owners? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first answer is basically the second answer. The city has the responsibility to attend to this matter in whatever way they choose.

It's as the hon. member has said; it's pursuant to municipal taxation legis lation. So long as they operate within the scope of that, I think they should be undisturbed. I wouldn't make representation to any municipality about things which are within the scope of the municipality. I think the hon. member should maybe make his case more specifically, and any representation that he specifi cally made to me, I would be prepared to consider. But that is subject to the overall policy that municipalities have to take the responsibility for their own acts. MR. EWASIUK: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, I agree with the minister that certainly he and I wouldn't have voted for this par ticular proposition. However. I think there is more respon sibility, that there needs to be some intervention, because I think the proposition is wrong. Another question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In 1985 the former Minister of Municipal Affairs promised the Alberta Ur ban Municipalities Association that he was going to close the loophole that permitted property owners to farm urban land ba sically to escape the necessary taxes.

Will the minister assure this Assembly that he will take action to close that loophole dur ing this sitting of the session? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I can't give that assurance today, because the Municipal Taxation Act is one of the Bills I hope to have before the Assembly during this session, so I should not deal with the proposed amendments now. I should wait until the Bill is before the House and introduced. The as surance given the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association: I'm not sure of the terms of that given by the former minister, but I would review that and consider it. MR.

SPEAKER: Final supplementary. Municipal Planning MR. EWASIUK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Minister. I hope that that provision is in your amendments. Just last week, Mr. Minister, the Edmonton municipal re gional planning commission approved a revision to the regional plan relative to a more equitable and a more equally understood policy to guide the subdivision of better agricultural land. Can the minister inform this Legislature if he plans to ratify that amendment? MR.

CRAWFORD: The question of the one occasion of a re gional plan amendment, that particular one hasn't come to me yet through the officials, and I would consider that. Actually, the policy is that if it's a minor amendment that is not totally supported, the minister would consider the minor nature of it and perhaps approve it. But the real test is that basically the

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 807 regional planning commission should have strong reasons and a measure of across-the-board support from the municipalities. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. Might we have unanimous consent of the House to do two things: first, to finish this series of questions and then, secondly, the opportunity for the Associate Minister of Agricul ture to supplement information of a previous question period. Agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Further supplementaries with re gard to this series of questions as raised by the Member for Ed monton Beverly?

The Associate Minister of Agriculture, please. Farm Loans -- Interest Charges MRS. CRIPPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 8 the Mem ber for Vegreville asked about interest rates on ADC guaranteed loans. The staff at ADC have checked the loans that they have had called on guarantee and have found no evidence of over charging, but they're doing further checking and if there is evi dence found would follow up on the problem. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I understood I had the consent of the House to raise a point of order on a government motion standing on the Order Paper today, and . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Hon. member, please give way. I think the member has incorrectly stated "consent of the House," but nev ertheless notice was given to the Chair, and we're now at that stage with regard to Orders of the Day, once Motion 9 is moved. But it would depend on the nature of which part of the -- whether the Member for Edmonton Strathcona wants to deal with a general issue or deal with a specific of Motion 9. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it is Motion 9, and I'm quite con tent to wait until that is called. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 9. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing: (1) whether or not a question of privilege arises when the proceedings of the Assembly are conducted solely in English; (2) whether or not the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche has breached the privileges of the Assembly in remarks while speaking to a question of privilege at pages 636 and 637 in Alberta Hansard on April 7, 1987, or in his letter to the hon.

Speaker of the Assem bly on April 8, 1987, or in remarks in the Assembly on April 10, 1987, or in respect of any other matter in con nection therewith; (3) should a breach of privilege be determined by the com mittee to have occurred, to make such recommendations to the Assembly as necessary to provide for reparation or to supply a remedy; and (4) any other question that the committee deems is related to the matters of privilege arising under questions 1 and 2 of this motion and the Speaker's statement to the House as contained in pages 697 to 701 of Alberta Han sard on April 9, 1987. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Ed monton Strathcona. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Government Motion 9 was put on the Order Paper last Friday in response to an in vitation by you, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday to make a substantive motion following last Thursday's ruling by you. My point of order, which is a manifold point of order, is taken under Stand ing Order 15. The ruling that you made on Thursday last, Mr. Speaker, was a ruling on a question of privilege. You ruled in connection of course with the matter of the use of French in this Assembly by the hon.

Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche, and in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you found that a question of privilege had been raised. If I can refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the actual ruling made by you -- and I'm reading from Votes and Proceedings for last Thursday -- the passage I'm talking about is at the end, where you say: "Honourable Members, the Chair rules that a question of privilege has been raised." That, in terms, Mr. Speaker, is not a finding of a breach of privilege, on the face of things; i.e., a finding of a prima facie breach of privilege, which is what is necessary to be found by you, Mr.

Speaker, in order to remit the matter to the House for consideration. Nonetheless, we take it that that was what was meant, having regard to your earlier opinion that the use of French had been abolished as a matter of right in the House and your immediate subsequent invitation of a substantive motion; otherwise, that invitation would have been out of order or at least premature. If I'm wrong in that supposition and you never did intend to make a ruling that the hon.

Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche had breached the privileges of this House on the face of it, then of course this motion stops right here, because unless that finding is made, neither the member who proposed the motion had jurisdiction to propose it, nor the committee that it is to be referred to has jurisdiction to entertain it. However, Mr. Speaker, presuming we get over that hurdle, may we look at the several parts of the motion itself to see which, if any of them, is in order as conforming to Standing Or der 15. I believe I am correct in saying, Mr.

Speaker, that un less the motion conforms to Standing Order 15, it is in fact out of order. Members will find the wording of Standing Order 15 of essential relevance to the points I am making. Paragraph (1) of the motion, Mr. Speaker, which is on page 2 of the Orders of the Day, is as follows: whether or not a question of privilege arises when the proceedings of the Assembly are conducted solely in English. Mr. Speaker, this is not for the committee to decide, with the greatest respect to the draftsman of it.

Whether a question of privilege arises is for you to decide under suborder (6) of Stand ing Order 15, and I've just spoken on the question of whether you really did decide that or not. In order to make the first paragraph of the motion speak in the sense required by Standing Order 15(6) it must be amended,

808 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 otherwise it is not the question that the committee must answer. Just to make sure we understand, the question that the commit tee must answer is: was there in fact a breach of privilege, not whether a breach of privilege arises. You've already decided that, Mr. Speaker. So that is the problem with the first para graph of the motion standing on the Order Paper. As to paragraphs (2) and (4), which, to refresh people's memory, I will quickly read: (2) whether or not the Hon.

Member for Athabasca- Lac La Biche has breached the privileges of the Assembly in remarks while speaking to a question of privilege at pages 636 and 637 in Alberta Han sard on April 7, 1987, or in his letter to the Honourable Speaker of the Assembly on April 8, 1987, or in remarks in the Assembly on April 10, 1987, or in respect of any other matter in connec tion therewith; and, Mr.

Speaker, (4) any other question that the Committee deems is related to the matters of privilege arising under Question 1 and 2 of this motion and the Speaker's statement to the House as contained in pages 697-701 of Alberta Hansard on April 9, 1987. As to these paragraphs, the reason why they are out of order, of course, is that a motion under suborder (6), which is the substan tive motion that we're supposed to send, if the House so desires, to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, must have been preceded by all the other steps in Standing Order 15.

And the key word there, of course, is the word "so" in the expression "if he" -- meaning the Speaker -- "so rules." Now, I'm afraid that none at all of the steps that are condi tions precedent to this motion in respect of anything in para graphs (2) or (4) of the motion before us were carried out. And those missing steps, if I can notice them, Mr. Speaker, are as follows. First, under suborder (2) -- I won't read the elements in the rule; the members are free to read suborder (2) of Standing Order 15, if they wish.

But under suborder (2), a statement in writing of the charge, so to speak, is required -- and was re quired of you, Mr. Speaker -- of the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche on the French question, and complied with by him. But this did not happen in respect of any of the other things that are thrown into this motion. Secondly, notice of these things was not given to the member in the way required by the rules, or at all. If you remember, you made certain findings and rulings off the bat, as it were, without any prior notice or opportunity to debate and so on.

And that also is a requirement -- the notice, that is -- beforehand of subor der (2), and this didn't happen. The third point on this element, Mr. Speaker: referral of the written statement to the Assembly before the Orders of the Day -- I'm quoting from the order -- and the opportunity for debate on the question of the prima facie case, which is suborders (2), (3), and (6). This didn't happen. And fourthly, Mr. Speaker: a finding of prima facie breach of privilege thereon by you. This didn't happen either. None of these tilings happened, Mr. Speaker. I'm not merely raising a technicality.

This is a substantial protection, Mr. Speaker, of the rights of members of the House to understand what's being alleged against them when a ques tion of privilege is raised. It has happened, substantially speak ing, although I submit not in form, with respect to the one ques tion of the use of French in the House, because that was raised by the hon. member -- first verbally, Mr. Speaker; you asked him to put it in writing; he did; you made a ruling on it, Mr. Speaker -- but all the other things with which he and others, it seems, are impeached by this motion, did not happen.

They did not go through the hoops at all of Standing Order 15, and we are talking something substantial here, not merely technical. The whole purpose of Standing Order 15 and many other of the Standing Orders is to provide a code of fairness to the mem ber whose conduct is impugned, and I've noticed the particular breaches just now, but starting with particularity in the charges. And, Mr.

Speaker, here we really come to what I can only characterize as a gross abuse of the rule, because in paragraphs (2) and (4) it is sought to try -- if I can use that word; I think it's correct in the colloquial sense -- the hon. member for breaches of privilege without stating what they are. The whole purpose of the standing order is to require -- and I'm quoting from it: a brief statement of the question of privilege, and that the complainant -- I quote again: shall call attention to the alleged breach of privilege and give a brief statement of the nature of the matter which founds the complaint.

And that is there to provide that particularity so that the member will know beforehand what he or she has to answer. The way paragraphs (2) and (4) are worded in this motion, Mr. Speaker, permits the committee to roam through all the ma terial referred to there, looking to see whether this part or that part might possibly amount to a breach of privilege on the part of the hon. member or anybody else -- the way it's worded -- including, amongst others, the Edmonton Journal, and the New Democrat Official Opposition caucus.

And if I can make a comparison, it would be as if a Crown prosecutor brought in an indictment to court and asked the judge and jury, after hearing evidence, then to decide whether they would like to convict any one of any crime on the basis of it. I think you would have to agree, Mr. Speaker, that that would be irregular. Mr. Speaker, I've stated my point at some length, and I be lieve it is because of the number of irregularities that are im plicit or entailed in this motion and not because of any redun dancy in the statement.

And I must respectfully submit that the importance of the matter is sufficient reason to go into it with great care. Apart from the actual importance that we are dealing with a matter of privilege is the importance procedurally in that. I most earnestly submit, unless the steps that are laid down in Standing Order 15 have been complied with, then the committee is robbed of its jurisdiction to consider them. I say that in re spect of the one question where the hoops in substance have been gone through, it has that jurisdiction. But in respect of all the others, it does not.

And equally it robs the mover of this motion of his or her jurisdiction to move this substantive mo tion, because you haven't got to suborder (6) in Standing Order 15. It sounds technical, but really it is a substantial protection of members whenever they are charged with a breach of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be constructive about this and not obstructive. I do not try to prevent the committee consider ing what is properly before them or ought to be properly before them if the thing is worded right, and that is the question of French or not in the Assembly.

In order to do this, I'm quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to move or consent to a moving of an amendment to the motion before us to do just that. Such an amendment would be along the lines of: paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of the motion be deleted; that paragraph (3) be renum bered with paragraph (2) -- paragraph (3) is okay, because that asked for the remedy, Mr. Speaker . . .

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 809 MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with respect to any proposed amendment, that would have to be dealt with in due course, un less the member is about to make that amendment to the motion right at this point in time. But there's a procedural difficulty there because we are still on the point of order. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I anticipated that objection, and of course the reason I'm pointing out the possible amend ment very shortly is so that you can understand that I am trying to forward the process of the House and simply not being nega tive, that I do see an easy way of making it conform to Standing Order 15. I close making the point that in the wording that I propose, I am adopting the very wording of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, where you say -- and this is the sole ruling that you make that is recorded in Votes and Proceedings, and in which the proceeding parts . . . Yes, I see you looking at Han sard, Mr.

Speaker, but Votes and Proceedings are the record of the House. Hansard is what is said; Votes and Proceedings is the only place we go to for what is done, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker. Even I understand that and I haven't been here very long. I continue. What you said, Mr. Speaker, was that it "refers back to this House." The Chair is what you were speaking of. The Chair refers back to this House the question of whether the privileges of the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche have been abrogated or [those] of the House itself . . . by the hon.

Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche." The second half of that did not go through the hoops; the first did. That is the sole question which, according to the Standing Orders and your actual ruling on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, should be before the House. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I'd like first of all to begin by reminding the hon. Member for Ed monton Strathcona that we're indeed addressing, and all of us are aware of that I'm sure, a most serious matter this afternoon with Motion 9 before us. The hon. member in addressing his point of order seems to be making two arguments.

The first seems to be an attempt to raise doubts as to whether there was a question of privilege raised. I do not think there is any doubt at all. Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely clear. As a matter of fact, to quote, "the Chair rules that indeed a question of privilege has been raised." To go on: The Chair refers back to this House the question of whether the privileges of the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche have been abrogated or whether the privileges of the House itself have been abrogated by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche. Mr.

Speaker, in addressing those questions, Motion 9 very carefully addresses those in subpart (1) and subpart (2) and is quite specific in wording, addressing it as "whether or not a question." "Whether or not a question": if not one then the other. Mr. Speaker, that flows very clearly from your ruling that a question of privilege has been raised. So I submit to the House that there is no doubt as to whether there is a question of privilege. Now, to address the second part of a very convoluted argu ment about whether all of the rules have been observed. Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that the only question that has any va lidity at all in the hon. member's comments is whether the rules were followed. The hon. member agreed that in fact the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche did in fact submit in writ ing his letter to you and therefore his complaint. He did that, I believe, on April 8, 1987. From that, Mr. Speaker, there is a question raised as to whether there was sufficient opportunity for hon. members of this House to make comment at the various points when there was consideration either of points of order or question of privilege.

There was clearly -- and I think Hansard will show it clearly -- opportunity, exhaustive opportunity, for those who wish to make use of that opportunity. Therefore, I submit that there was no problem in respect of that point that is attempted to be raised. With respect to the other points, they all flow; they're all part of one issue. The hon. member is making an eloquent debate with us today to ask us to treat them severally rather than jointly. They are all one, and that is why Motion 9 is stated as it is. Mr. Speaker, I submit that, with respect, the hon. member's point of order is unfounded. MR. CHUMIR: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to support the comments of the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona with respect to para graphs (2), (3), and (4) of the motion. With respect to paragraph (1), differing considerations apply and the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon will have something to say on that later if the matter proceeds. But the rules of the House very, very clearly state in rule 15(2) that if a member wishes "to raise a question of privilege," there shall be "written notice containing a brief statement of the question" to the Speaker.

Regardless of the form of the notice, the issue of notice to the House, to the Speaker and to, in fact, the member's conduct in issue is very clearly commanded by the particular rule. That matter of notice has very clearly been com plied with in respect of the notice of privilege given by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche but is very, very clearly absent in respect of the other matters raised. With respect to those matters, (2) clearly relates to the conduct of the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche.

Paragraph (3) of the mo tion refers to "a breach of privilege," which in itself clearly ap pears to relate to the terminology of the preceding paragraph (2), as opposed to (1) which merely relates to whether a question of privilege arises. And, of course, as has been noted by the Mem ber for Edmonton Strathcona, paragraph (4) referring to both questions (1) and (2) follows upon the validity of at least para graph (2). So, Mr.

Speaker, unless we are to depart very significantly from the hardened core of paragraph (2) of rule 15 -- which is not merely a procedural rule without meaning but has sense be hind it from the point of view of requiring appropriate notice to be given to an individual so that they are aware of what breach of privilege has arisen -- that rule has not been complied with. I would support the suggestion of the hon.

Member for Edmonton Strathcona that paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) are definitely out of order, leaving in abeyance any comment with respect to para graph (1), which will be commented later on by the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the point of or der, I understand the Minister of Technology, Research and

810 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 Telecommunications to have argued that the point of order is invalid on the basis that one can extrapolate from your com ments in Hansard the ruling which has been interpreted by the government in its Motion 9 to legitimately refer to all of the points contained in that motion. I think what we have to keep in mind is truly what appears in the official document, the official publication of the Assembly which records what in fact was or dered for consideration to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing.

And I think that the minister, in arguing against the validity of the point of order, inadvertently explained what it is that we're trying to get at here. That is, whether or not it is in the minds of members of this Assembly that several issues are bound together. The fact of the matter is that those several issues, whether or not they are related to each other, are not specified in the ruling of the Speaker of last Thursday and recorded in Votes and Proceedings. It may appear to be a minor technical issue that we are argu ing here. It is not.

It would establish a parliamentary precedent which I believe could lead to other similar errors being con ducted, perhaps in the name of goodwill and good faith, but I don't believe should be established or struck in the first place, Mr. Speaker. I therefore ask that the point of order be upheld so we can move to dealing with the substantive issue itself. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of or der, I just want to keep my attention on paragraph (1) of the government's motion. It may well be -- and of course, Mr.

Speaker, you have much more experience than I -- that we will have to take this apart (1), (2), (3), (4), but . . . The question of (

l) is: whether or not a question of privilege arises when the proceedings of the Assembly are conducted solely in English. Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of April 9, you were quite clear and you're quoted as: If the right to use French in the Chamber is a matter of law, then clearly it is not a matter of privilege and be yond the jurisdiction of the Speaker. Your comments are very clear in this matter, but in the ruling on page 700 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that the matter of the usage of the French language in the House is not a matter of law . . . I would submit, however, Mr.

Speaker, that it is a matter of law. We have before us a number of statutes: the Alberta Act, the North-West Territories Act, the Constitution Acts of 1867 and '84. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with due respect, perhaps the comments could be framed to the point of order, which relate much more to Standing Orders being conformed to or not at this moment, before we get on to that other section. MR. TAYLOR: I think, Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make on the point of order is that (1) should not be included in the motion, and that in the current

interpretation of various statutes, there is no right, indirect or implied, to use the French language in the Legislature. Now while the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche contends that these rights were never extinguished, until such time as the court decides that right, whether or not it exists, there is no decided case of law to sup port him or refute him. In other words, there is no standing. So I think we are dealing with a point of law, Mr. Speaker, and not a point of privilege.

And since Alberta, as the Attorney General has already pointed out, has joined with Saskatchewan on a case that bears directly on this province and we are eagerly awaiting the decision on this, I would submit that it is a constitutional matter, that number (1) is a constitutional matter to be dealt with by the courts and not by this House. Your statement to the House on April 9, Mr. Speaker, where you discussed the

interpretation of the Constitution and case law in 20 minutes -- which the courts, in all respect, Mr. Speaker, have been deliberating for two years -- you did this despite Beauchesne's ruling 240. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on what is now being stated. MR. TAYLOR: Well, I'm giving . . . MR. SPEAKER: [Inaudible] on a point of order on a point of order. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. What I understand now being argued is a challenge to the ruling of the Speaker that was received.

And with due respect to all mem bers, if I may have the opportunity, I would like to quote what I think is of fundamental importance to the conduct of this House today and the conduct of this House in the future. I quote from Beauchesne,

section 117(2), the last sentence. This is with ref erence to the Speaker as a presiding officer. He is selected and appointed to the trust of Presiding Officer in the confidence and upon the supposition of the conformity of his will to that of the House. I go further, to

section 119(1), and read as follows: Speakers' rulings, once given, belong to the House which, under S.O. 12, must accept them without appeal or debate. Mr. Speaker, I submit on the point of order I am now making that you have rendered a ruling and therefore this applies, and the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon is out of order in the line of debate in which he has recently been engaged. MR. TAYLOR: I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that he raised a point of order because I was just getting to it. He moved with alacrity and speed that I've seldom seen on that side.

Nevertheless, Beauchesne, 117(6), the very paragraph he quotes, and a later one, 240, say quite clearly: The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitu tional question nor decide a question of law. And this is our whole issue: that you did give a statement on a constitutional question. You did decide a question of law, and that's the point of order. We're saying that paragraph (1), maybe for different reasons, should be removed from the point of order, that you did not have the authority to do that because of Beauchesne 240 and 117(6). If I may take a

summary just for a moment then, I would like again to quote your own statement: If the right to use French in the Chamber is a matter of law, then clearly it is not a matter of privilege and be yond the jurisdiction of the Speaker. I would quote that in my opinion if the courts are considering this matter, then it must be a matter of law. If it were not a mat ter of law, the courts would not be considering it. The Attorney General himself earlier in this session said that it was a matter under consideration by the courts. So if the Attorney General

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 811 says it's under consideration by the courts, if the government has joined it and if it's in the courts, then it is a matter of law and not a matter of Constitution, on which you, Mr. Speaker, do not have the right to rule. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm disturbed by a practice and a pattern that we've seen developing during this sitting of the Legislature.

Your honourable office was elected with confi dence by the members in all quarters of the House, and you give rulings and we abide by them just as athletes abide by the rules of the referee or people abide by the rules of officers of the law in conditions of traffic. Although we may not like your ruling, we are bound as parliamentarians to either accept it and follow the practices of parliament or challenge it. But this halfway debating and arguing and weaseling after you have made your ruling I believe is an indirect attack upon your office.

We've got the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, April 9, and under the heading "Speaker's Ruling" follows a very com prehensive dissertation and record of your ruling, and the sum mary found on page 8 ties in directly with the motion that the government has put forward to deal with that. But the point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that in purporting to address a point of order, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party is in fact challeng ing your ruling, which is history. If he wishes to challenge it, there is a procedure to be followed. MR.

SPEAKER: We almost have here a point of order within a point of order as raised by the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon, and the Chair must deal with that rather quickly. The contention of the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon was under citation 117(6): The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitu tional question nor decide a question of law. Indeed, with regard to selective reading of what transpired that day, the member should realize that the Chair, while referring to constitutional issues and legal issues, did indeed order with re spect to privilege.

Now, with respect to continuing, there are other individuals who wish to speak. [interjection] That's an order. We have a difference of opinion, hon. member, on that particular issue. Does any other member wish to speak to the original point of order? MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Strathcona. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, to reply to the hon. minister of technology, telecommunications, et cetera, the matter is not all bound up together. It may have been dis cussed altogether by you, but they are very distinctly different points of privilege because they flow in the opposite direction.

The point of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche was a single point, that he had suffered a breach of his privileges by being refused the right to ask a question in French. All the others set out in paragraphs (2) and (4) are allegations of breach of privilege by that member or by others unnamed, with the possible exception of the caucus of the New Democratic Party, so they flow in different directions. They are very distinctly different, and I hope I have made that plain now. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the comments from all quarters of the House, as well as the input of the letter which was delivered to my office by the Member for Edmonton Strath cona earlier today. The Chair also goes on to point out that while the Chair majored in Canadian history in one of the degrees, one is now going to have to go back and develop even more of an ongoing interest in present history.

The Chair would also like to point out a number of issues that all members of the House, including the Chair, have to real ize: that when the Chair finally does rule on a point of order, then that is indeed the decision of the Chair and it does take other remedial action for the House to deal with that issue. Many of the points which have been raised in the discussion this afternoon really have dealt with points of order and with differences of opinion.

The Chair is very much of the mind that Alberta Hansard and the recording of every word which has been uttered in the Chamber is indeed the real statement of the House's business but, as pointed out by the Minister of Ad vanced Education in his role as Deputy House Leader, that in deed it was printed in Votes and Proceedings as being indeed a ruling of the Chair. [interjection] This is not a matter for dialogue, hon. member. Now, I have indeed referred the matter of privilege to the committee to make a permanent ruling for the House one way or the other.

With respect to the usage of French in this Chamber, the ruling was that it would be English as the usage of the Chamber, following the customs, conventions, and usages of this Chamber, until such time as the committee reports back to this Chamber as a whole and has the concurrence of the House. Again, the Chair was very explicit in the matters referred to the committee. First was whether or not the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche's privileges had been abrogated by the House by not allowing him to speak in French.

Secondly, be cause it was a two-sided case that was put to the House, whether or not the House's privileges have been abrogated by the Mem ber for Athabasca-Lac La Biche by being bound to communi cate in a language which was not specifically approved by the House. In addition, whether or not the Member for Athabasca- Lac La Biche and the New Democratic caucus breached the privileges of the House by releasing the hon. member's letter to the media before releasing same to the Chamber. The fourth one was the issue whether the Edmonton Journal, through its editorial, was in contempt of the House.

As for the specific words that dealt with the issue, they are indeed there in Hansard. The Chair can only make a prima facie determination of privilege, and the committee is the only body empowered to make a permanent and binding determination. So it is that the Chair ruled that a prima facie case of privilege exists. There is nothing irregular about handing the further examination of any of the issues on to that standing committee, and the Chair is of the opinion that no doubt a fair number of issues will be raised in terms of the committee.

And so it is, with due respect to the House, taking things into consideration, that the Chair believes that we have not a point of order but a difference of opinion. With respect to the motion before the Chamber, Motion 9 . . . MR. WRIGHT: I move an amendment to that motion, Mr. Speaker. The amendment is being handed around. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, please. Do all members now have copies? The hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona, speaking to the amendment.

812 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've finished with your ruling now, and we're dealing with the motion before the House, to which I propose an amendment. And it's up to the House now to decide what should go before the committee on elections, privileges, et cetera. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing that ought to go is the question of French or not, for the various reasons that I've already advanced as a matter of a point of order.

They are sub stantively standing on their own feet, however; namely, an ab sence of notice, an absence of any chance to debate the matter before a ruling was made by the Speaker and, generally, the complete want of particularity as to what is being charged against anybody. It's elementary, I submit, that on the basis of natural justice that particularity must exist before so serious a matter as this goes before the committee. What is the committee to talk about?

Is it to roam through Hansard -- and not just one day's Hansard but two or three days' Hansard -- to see if there was something that could be interpreted as a breach of privilege? You see, paragraph (1) is fine. Adaptation of that, to put it in proper form, so that the ac tual question that has to be decided -- was there in fact a breach of privilege by the hon. member? -- can be answered.

All the rest has not been dealt with at all pursuant to Standing Order 15, and the wording of the motion as it stands in paragraph (1) is not what the committee should decide, because it simply asks whether or not a question of privilege arises when the proceedings of the Assembly are conducted solely in English. Now, it's already been ruled upon. Why do we need to deal with it again? The question surely should be whether an hon. member breached privilege in attempting to speak a language other than English. And that is the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker. The rest opens up a genuine fishing expedition.

The purpose of the Standing Order -- which the Speaker's rule has in fact been complied with; I guess that's the ruling -- is to make clear what it is that's being charged, and yet it is not clear in fact. So paragraphs (2) and (4) ought to be deleted. Paragraph (3), which acts for the remedy, is fine; that can stand. But let us get the committee squarely charged with the respon sibility to answer the one question that is important and the only question on which there was written notice of an alleged breach of privilege handed in, in accordance with the Standing Order.

Yes, I say that -- before the committee and nothing else. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona is persisting in debating a matter on which there has been a ruling in this House within the last 10 minutes. The hon. member is out of order since that question has been decided. He has proposed an amendment to this motion, and if he chooses to debate the amendment on other grounds and advance his reasons for it on other grounds, fine, but a ruling has been given on all the questions of technicality and order which are now being raised in support of his amendment.

MS BARRETT: What's the point of order, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Under which citation are we hearing . . . MS BARRETT: The same one the Minister of Technology, Re search and Telecommunications was, I imagine, referring to. Well, if he can raise this . . . MR. YOUNG: Beauchesne 119. MS BARRETT: Citation 119, Beauchesne. Thank you very much to the minister. [some laughter] Well, it is very difficult, let's face it, if the minister doesn't make his reference, for me to make the same reference with my book closed and when I'm on my feet. Mr. Speaker, on the minister's point of order.

First of all, it is true that the Speaker has ruled that the point of order failed. There was no point of order, in the Speaker's estimation. That ruling is not being challenged. Let us make it very clear: we are not attempting to be partisan; we are not attempting to do anything but require that under the provisions of Standing Order 15 those provisions be upheld, in the technical sense, in the passing of responsibility and the charging of responsibility to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, according to what Standing Order 15 says.

I believe that the minister's point of order is actually itself perpetrated by a decision to try to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. With respect to all the comments, the Chair would invite all quarters of the House to read carefully the amendment. The Chair has some hesitancy to have to jump up and try to rule an amendment out of order, but some care should be taken and some examination by all members that if indeed this amendment were to be allowed to go forward, then in actual fact it almost totally negates what the original motion is.

So this is another issue that needs to be addressed in the remarks. Member for Edmonton Strathcona to continue please, but with relevance to the amendment. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I was not challenging your ruling at all; I was simply talking about matters of fact. And the facts are that the only paper setting out the charge as required by the Standing Order was the paper delivered by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche, and that is therefore the sole founda tion for what follows.

Now, it is said and it has been ruled that the other things are bound up in it, but that doesn't alter the ne cessity of the House, if they're to be fair and reasonable and possessing common sense, to set out what those other things are that are allegedly bound up. It hasn't been done, and I submit that it cannot be done, because they are inchoate. And conse quently, all we are left with that has in any sense complied with what common sense would require is the original statement by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche and the ruling thereon of the Speaker.

And just so there is no misapprehension in the House as to what is or what is not in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, it should be noted that what is printed there in the Votes and Proceedings for the day in question, which was Thursday last, starts with the discussion by the Speaker of the question of French or no French. The other matters before that are not in the official record of the House. I remind members that before 1972 there was no Hansard. There was only Votes and Proceedings; they were the official record.

And in other jurisdictions the similar facts exist, that at some point there was at first an unofficial record of the debates, and it became official later. But still, the record is what is set out in Votes and Proceedings. Otherwise, what's the point of having it? You might as well just refer back to Hansard and try and deduce the things that were done. There is some point to that document, and that's it. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in order to deal with what

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 813 really should be before the House from several points of view, we should be dealing with the single question of French or no French and not wander off into an excursion into all sorts of other matters which are not germane to that question. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the amend ment, I would respectfully submit that the amendment is not in order because indeed it does purport to negate the whole of the motion -- or not entirely, but to only deal with one aspect of the matters put before this House by Your Honour on April 9. In your opening statement, Mr.

Speaker, you said, and I quote from Hansard: In the opinion of the Chair, there is not one purported privilege to be dealt with; there are four. You have already stated that today. What the hon. member's amendment would do would be to deal with only one of the four. You also went on to say that the customs and usages of this Assembly provide that the business and proceedings of the Assembly should be conducted in English until such time as the House further determines the situation with regard to language.

And that is why the questions were framed in the way they were and will permit the Committee on Privileges and Elections in due course, with its report back to this House, to deal with the matter as Your Honour directed in your concluding remarks, wherein you said that: The Chair refers back to this House the question of whether the privileges of the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche have been abrogated or whether the privileges of the House itself have been abrogated by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche. If we were to accept the amendment put forward by the hon.

Member for Strathcona, we would be restricted solely to dealing with the first of those questions that Your Honour referred to. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is out of order. If it is not -- if it is in order because it restricts the motion to only one aspect of the matters which arose in the Assembly on April 7 and have been referred to subsequently, then I would urge hon. members to defeat the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair with great reluctance invokes cita tion 436, all three parts, of Beauchesne:

(1) An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.

(2) An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.

(3) An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order. And the Chair regards the proposed amendment as being out of order. Speaking to the main motion, Motion 9, Member for Ed monton Highlands. MS BARRETT: I'd like to speak to the motion. Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move an amendment, as a matter of fact. Following the ruling that's just come down on the basis of Beauchesne, citation 436, it occurs to me that it might be difficult to rule this one out of order. Shall I wait while this is distributed? MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. member, order please. The perusal of this, hon.

Member for Edmonton Highlands, the Chair would regard this as being an amendment that would be in order to be discussed. Speaking to your amendment. MS BARRETT: Small victories, one at a time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to explain what this amendment calls for and why I'm asking for support. What it calls for is essen tially the committee to deal with those issues specifically re ferred to it in the Speaker's ruling of April 9, 1987, and exclude other territories basically over which the committee may ar bitrarily decide to select, interpret, and proceed.

The effect of this is to ask the Assembly to approve that the committee now be charged with dealing with the essential issues which are, as has been said many times today, quoted in Votes and Proceed ings from April 9, the words of the Speaker: Honourable Members, the Chair rules that a question of privilege has been raised. It refers back to this House the question of whether the privileges of the Honourable Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche have been abrogated or those of the House itself by the Honourable Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche.

And the Chair then asked that the "substantive motion" be "put forward by some quarter" so that the House would have the ve hicle by which it could deal with that substantial matter. Now, Motion 9, that's on the Order Paper, allows for the committee itself to deem what is related to the matters of privi lege arising under questions (1) and (2). which are currently in tact, our prior amendment having been defeated. This

section 4 would permit the committee to consider matters as expressed on pages 697 to 701 of Alberta Hansard of April 9, 1987. It seems to me that if we strike those words and in fact substitute that the committee stick only to the issues as reflected and published in Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly of Alberta, No. 26, Thursday, April 9, 1987, we will have stayed with the substan tive issue. The concern is that the committee, being dominated as it is by one political party, can arbitrarily determine just about any thing that it wants out of the rest of Hansard.

Not only that, but the rest of Hansard is not contained in the Speaker's ruling as stated in the Votes and Proceedings, which I still am convinced is the official document about what was done and what was or dered. It is not a document of

interpretation. It is not a docu ment of argument leading up to what happened. It is a docu ment about what happened. Therefore, I encourage all members to support this amendment so that the committee, instead of hav ing to travel or perhaps wanting to travel all over the place on matters it deems related, stick to the substantive issue as ordered by the Speaker. MR. HORSMAN: This amendment is ridiculous. I mean, what it purports to do is to negate the publishing of Hansard, which is provided for in Standing Orders. Standing Order 107 says:

(1) For each sitting day, there shall be a printed record of the deliberations and proceedings of each sitting day of the Assembly and committees of the whole As sembly, to be known as the "Alberta Hansard", which shall be compiled, edited, printed, distributed and ad ministered under the direction and authority of Mr. Speaker . . . [et cetera, et cetera] And it goes on. Hansard is the official record of this Assembly, and to fall back to relying on Votes and Proceedings to deter mine what took place in the Assembly is the height of absurdity. This government introduced Hansard when it came into office in '71, and to now fall back to the ancient practices of the previ

814 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 ous governments and not rely upon Hansard for the official re cord of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is just the height of ab surdity. And the hon. member for moving the motion should really hang her head in shame. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what started out, as far as I was concerned, as an attempt to come to grips with a very important subject in an orderly way has deteriorated into name-calling. With respect to the question of the place of Votes and Proceedings, Beauchesne,

section 149, Votes and Proceedings:

(1) This is a record of the proceedings of the House. The entries are compiled under the responsibility of the Clerk of the House by the Journals Branches, mainly from the entries in the Scroll of the Clerks-at-the-Table. The Votes and Proceedings record all that is, or is deemed to be, done by the House, but they ignore eve rything that is said unless it is especially ordered to be entered. That's Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker.

I'll repeat that for members: The Votes and Proceedings record all that is, or is deemed to be, done by the House . . . they ignore every thing that is said unless it is especially ordered to be entered. That's why it was not necessary and never is necessary to have Hansard, and why there was a sufficient record before 1972. The coming of Hansard merely made it possible for members and anyone interested to see what was said during de bates and so on. And, of course, it would be a very sad state of affairs to return to a condition in which Hansard did not exist, of course.

I'm not arguing that; I'm not arguing the importance of Hansard. But when we look to see what has been done, it is only to the Votes and Proceedings. Now, there are ways of amending Votes and Proceedings, it seems, in the books. We've come to the limit of my knowledge of how it works there. But the fact is that you look at the Votes and Proceedings to see what is done. And for the Attorney Gen eral of this province to say we can ignore that and deem as ac tions of this House things not recorded in Votes and Proceedings really bewilders me.

But I'm afraid that I've fallen into the very thing I deplored, which is name-calling, albeit politely. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we can only look at the Votes and Proceedings of what was ordered by you on Thursday last. I happen to have it here; probably other members don't. I'll just repeat that the part that has been referred to by various members of the Assembly concerning the involvement of the people and issues other than French and the French question have been left out of Votes and Proceedings. It starts with the

part in which the Speaker comes to the main ruling of the day. It starts as fol lows: Honourable Members, on April 7, several issues were brought to the attention of this House with regard to the use of the French language in the proceedings of the Assembly. Now, it may even be that perhaps someone could look up in Hansard and see how that squares with the pages, but we are not dealing with anything in Hansard prior to that point where the Speaker made the ruling concerning the French question. Mr. Speaker, the ruling that you made as to the abrogation of the privileges of the House itself by the hon.

Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche as being a matter that should be looked into is, we have been told, properly before us, and it is necessary, to be fair, to have some particularity of what we are talking about there, much more than exists in paragraph 4 and part of paragraph 2 of the motion before us. And that is the pur pose of this amendment. Again, we are not trying to be obstruc tive. We're simply trying to produce an agenda for the Commit tee on Privileges and Elections which makes sense and is fair to those concerned. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate to stick my head in be tween two learned members of the bench. AN HON. MEMBER: The Bar. MR. TAYLOR: Okay, the Bar. I'm sorry. That, I'm sure, is more familiar anyhow. Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to the amendment, and I'd prob ably even enlist the Premier, who, although he hasn't got as much gray hair as I have, shows by the sparsity of its placing about the same amount of time around the House as I have. As he was part of the government that introduced Hansard, cer tainly he recalls this very debate taking place possibly, as to what was going to take precedence.

Some people argued that if Hansard got on, it would take precedence over the ancient re cording of Votes and Proceedings that had moved from quill to fountain pen to ball point to laser printing. And I think it was clearly brought out that the Votes and Proceedings were to lake precedence and that Hansard was indeed just to help give a background as to how the Votes and Proceedings were arrived at. As the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona has said, it might even give some help in case the Votes and Proceedings had to be changed; in other words, if they weren't correctly reported.

So Hansard was certainly thought of as being secondary, but also you might see a great deal of information to be had to be used. Now, I think this is why I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, if the government hadn't been so jumpy -- and maybe this is because I'm sticking my nose between two old ad versaries -- that they could have accepted it as a friendly amend ment. I really think to give the . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly. MR. TAYLOR: Yes, friendly. It does occur occasionally.

I really think to give the committee a number of pages of Hansard to wander around in is not a very fair thing to the com mittee, and I would really have hoped that this amendment could have been accepted as a friendly amendment in the nature of what this government originally designed back in '71-72. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I find that we have to support the amendment and hope that it doesn't come to a vote, that some body will leap up over there -- the minister of telecommunica tions who, once he's finished eating his pencil, might want to get up and assure us that it's all right to include. MR.

SPEAKER: On the amendment. MR. YOUNG: On the amendment, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I just again for the information of the hon. member, the leader of the Liberal Party, would like to cite again

section 107 of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, which are very clear, and they would govern us more than would Beauchesne, since they are so very specific in this instance: For each sitting day, there shall be a printed record of the deliberations and proceedings of each sitting day of the Assembly and committees of the whole Assembly,

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 815 to be known as the "Alberta Hansard", which shall be compiled, edited, printed, distributed and administered under the direction and authority of Mr. Speaker . . . [et cetera] With due respect to the comments that were made about the significance of Votes and Proceedings -- and I've no quarrel with their value to the Assembly -- it is quite clear, based on Standing Orders, the significance of Hansard. My problem in chewing on my pencil was that I had to do something useful while I was listening to the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR.

SPEAKER: There's a call for the question on the amend ment. May the . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Summation. MR. SPEAKER: No, there's no summation on an amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please signify by say ing aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: The amendment fails. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is an amend ment to Motion 9, an amendment as moved by the Member for Edmonton Highlands.

For the motion: Barrett Hawkesworth Pashak Buck Hewes Piquette Chumir Laing Roberts Ewasiuk Martin Taylor Fox McEachern Wright Gibeault Mitchell Younie Against the motion: Ady Getty Orman Alger Gogo Osterman Betkowski Heron Payne Bogle Horsman Pengelly Bradley Hyland Reid Brassard Isley Rostad Campbell Johnston Russell Cherry Jonson Schumacher Crawford Koper Shrake Cripps Kowalski Stevens Dinning McCoy Stewart Downey Mirosh Weiss Drobot Moore, M. West Elliott Moore, R. Young Elzinga Musgrove Zarusky Totals Ayes - 18 Noes - 45 MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the main motion, the Member for Edmonton Highlands.

MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I attempted, through proposing that amendment, or in speaking to that amendment -- I will stay very careful about this -- not to provoke debate on a partisan level despite the provocations from certain government members who chose to use adjectives which are certainly inflammatory and decidedly used to provoke partisan debate. I think that's a real shame. It doesn't surprise me, but it's a shame. In speaking against the motion, I have three points to make.

One, if Votes and Proceedings are not considered the paramount recording vehicle of this Assembly, why is it we have to vote annually to approve their printing? We do not vote annually to approve the printing of Hansard. [interjection] I will get to it. Two, in parliamentary tradition it is Votes and Proceedings, not Hansard, which go the Crown as an official record of what goes on.

Three, I do not understand, and I'm not convinced I shall ever understand, because there have been no explanations to enlighten any member in this Assembly or any Albertan as to why, suspiciously, the first seven paragraphs of the Speaker's ruling of Thursday last were omitted from Votes and Proceed ings. I believe that this government motion amounts to no more than deliberate gerrymandering of the determinations of this Assembly. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as nonpartisan as the House leader of the Official Opposition.

I would like to speak against the motion, and I must admit I can share some of her anxiety, because Standing Orders do say that to the Queen each day, or her representative, the Lieutenant Governor, is delivered a certified copy of the Votes and Proceedings, not a certified copy of Hansard. But be that as it may -- and I couldn't get a friendly amendment through -- I will try to speak a bit more on the motion. Mr.

Speaker, I feel that -- and I've addressed all four por tions of the motion -- I've already covered some ground in the original part, in that I do not think the committee or the House has the right to consider question one. I think that indeed we are saddling a committee with an impossible task. The committee may well just come back -- and I'm sure that if I were on it, I would suggest that they tell them that we'll wait until the court decides whether or not the House has the right to decide whether there is a right to speak French or not in the House.

I believe there should be a right to speak French in the House. I very strongly believe that, and everyone in this party believes that. But in the absence, why get a fight going? Why ask a committee to come up with a decision when the courts themselves have the issue under question? In other words, I think it's very questionable that (1) should be in there, Mr. Speaker.

Questions two, three, and four: I did agree with the Member for Strathcona on the technicality that it was not framed right, in effect that the Speaker had put together the charge rather than, as I read the Orders of the Day, that the charge should come from the member itself. It was a technical point and it was over ruled in this House, so therefore they stand and are going to have to be debated.

816 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1987 Now on those questions. Mr. Speaker. I would look at it -- you might almost say that when you look at section (2) of the motion, you look at three or perhaps four separate questions of privilege: the reference to the remarks on April 7 on pages 636 and 637 of Hansard, the letter of April 8, and the remarks in Hansard on April 10. At the end of the motion it says, "any other matter in connection therewith." By reasoning in the first

section of this motion that although it pertains to the first and third questions of privilege raised in the second motion, we are dealing with a matter of law when the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche comments on dates 7 and 10 and also the matters of law, since he addressed his constitu tional right to speak French. So there again we're back to what the law says. However, in the case of the letter, three separate matters were raised.

First, the hon. member's comments on the con stitutionality of the issue: there again, a very valid comment when the Attorney General, the government of Saskatchewan, the Speaker himself -- everybody is talking about the con stitutionality of the issue. I feel it is not a matter of privilege but one of law. Second, the hon. member questioned the competence of the Speaker in noting that "You exceeded your authority." I agree, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of privilege and one which should be considered by the committee.

But having said that, I want to make it clear that although I may not agree with his wording, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche in this matter -- there again speaking on the Constitution. The third point to make on the letter is the question of a re lease of a paper belonging to the House. I agree that this too is a question of privilege and should be considered by the com mittee, but I'd like to comment a bit on that.

Beauchesne 41 pro vides the House absolute control over its publications, but the reference is, I believe, to publications of the House, Hansard, and the Votes and Proceedings, which we have just been argu ing about quite a lot here. There is no reference in Beauchesne to a letter to the Speaker being a publication of the House, and if such precedents exist. I would welcome the Speaker or some member to bring them to our attention. I would add that even we in the opposition have been in er ror, Mr. Speaker.

The House leader of the Liberal opposition, the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar, recently released to the press a copy of her letter to the Government House Leader, with a copy to the Speaker, referring to our recommendations for al terations of procedures. And I hope that we're not going to be taken to task on that. I could preach some clarification on that one when the time comes, of course.

Now, the final aspect of the motion which I wish to comment on was the catchall phrase, "any other question that the Commit tee [may deem to be] related to the matters of privilege." I'm wondering if this is meant to include anything in particular which was not referred to in the first or second stages of the mo tion -- such as a possible censure of the Edmonton Journal -- because the details were not spelled out and apparently left to the imagination of the committee. A catchall like this I feel is a dangerous position. Now, I know the language in the Edmonton Journal was very -- well, shall we say -- extreme.

Mr. Speaker, as a politi cian that has hardly ever had a favourable editorial in the last 11 years out of the Edmonton Journal, I really did, although I've never even considered trying to burn the place down or cancel my subscription -- it has been one of the necessary parts of Al berta. It comes with the blizzards in winter, the mud in the spring, and many other undesirable features, but it's still one of the things that makes Alberta as a whole.

And if I may borrow from that great American, Patrick Henry: I will not agree with the words that he might say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it -- if I may be allowed to use an American in this great Legislature up here. In summarizing my points then, I believe we're dealing with a matter of law, number one, and not one of privilege, and there fore this first approach should not succeed. Secondly, if there are questions of privileges, they're confined to (2), (3), and (4). Consequently, Mr.

Speaker, although I have not got it written out, but it's very short and complete, I move an amendment: that we delete paragraph (1). Can't be much shorter than that. MR. SPEAKER: Well. hon. member, we now have an amend ment as proposed, but it's out of order. DR. BUCK: You have ruled . . . MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry; do we have a point of order? MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has serious misgivings about it, so let us hear -- this is with respect to this proposed amend ment -- the Member for Clover Bar. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, if you have ruled the amendment out of order, I want to speak to the motion. MR.

TAYLOR: Oh, I take it we've got a point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'll just ask you -- I don't understand how deleting a paragraph out of a motion can be considered out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The difficulty, hon. member, is that it negates what the Chair declared to be a prima facie case of privilege, so therefore one cannot delete that part of this particular motion, and therefore the Chair has ruled it out of order. I'm now on the main motion. Member for Clover Bar. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. TAYLOR: It just says "whether or not." It doesn't say . . . MR.

WRIGHT: Well, have you made a final ruling on this point. Mr. Speaker? It would be of help, I believe -- and I say this with the greatest respect to the members of this Assembly -- if on points of order, particularly on so important a matter, you gave some opportunity for members who are interested in dis cussing that point of order to discuss it. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the direction and the concern, but again the matter refers back to Beauchesne 436, which had to be read to the House earlier this afternoon in all three of its component parts. Member for Clover Bar, the main motion. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the motion. First of all, I supported the amendment because I thought they did have a point, but I would like to say that I take some excep tion to the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition, because I really feel that the government brought this motion forward believing that this is the way it should be handled. I've sat on

April 15, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 817 both sides of this Assembly. I believe that the government in good faith brought forward this resolution to try and put it where I think it should be put. and that is in the committee on elections and privileges. I feel for you, Mr. Speaker, when you had to make a deci sion, but you had to make a decision the same as a judge has to make a decision: only on the law that is written. And he must interpret. You made that decision. Mr. Speaker, and the deci sion was such, and it was moved by the government that it be sent to committee. I think that's the way it should be held.

That's the way it should be done. And I think that because there are members of both sides of the House, that committee is charged to make a recommendation that's going to serve the interests of this Assembly and the people of this province. Now, I know that we could go on for days, because politicians, especially those who are learned in the law, can ex tend a simple layman's debate that should take no more than 10 minutes to 10 days. Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this province think that we have better things to do with our time.

I believe that the resolution that's before us to be voted on is a resolution that the committee has sufficient latitude to make a decision and make a recommendation to this Assembly, and this Assembly will ultimately decide if that decision we agree with or we do not agree with. So as a person who tries to respect the fact that we should not be wasting the House's time and the committee's time, I support the resolution, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: There is a call for the question, but Member for Edmonton Strathcona. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we now come to the resolution as printed.

It's really a shame that a lawyer didn't draft this resolu tion, because lawyers do have their use sometimes. On an occa sion such as this, when it's necessary to be precise about the matter, it would have been useful. But the various parts of it, with the exception of (3) which is empty unless the other parts work, are, as I would call it, a load of cobblers. I've checked, and that's a parliamentary expres sion, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] Yes, a load of cobblers.

Paragraph (1) of it has already been decided and is not for the Committee on Privileges and Elections to decide anyway; they have to decide whether privilege has in fact been breached, not whether it arises. So the main question is removed from the jurisdiction or the consideration of the committee by that form of words. We tried to fix it up. and you haven't fixed it up. so we're going to get into committee and it's going to be obvious that question (1) has been answered. It's very obvious anyway, of course, a question of privilege arises. And that's the end of it. So we won't be getting to the real question.

How often do we have to make that point? Yet it falls on deaf ears. You think we're being obstructive or something like that, that we're just talking for the sake of talking, instead of getting to the real point, which is French or not. That is the point. Where is that here? Where is it? It isn't here. Instead, there is a ragbag of possible allegations against the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche and others, to which there is no precision at all, which can roam over the whole field, delineated in page 636 and 637 of Hansard and between 697 and 701 of Hansard . . . MR.

YOUNG: With great regret, once more I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the hon. member, having moved an amendment, has already spoken to the motion. MR. WRIGHT: If I may reply, I did not speak to the main mo tion ever. MR. SPEAKER: That's the understanding of the Chair. Con tinue with regard to the amendment. MR. WRIGHT: On the second paragraph of the motion: whether or not the Hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche has breached the privileges of the Assembly in remarks while speaking to a question of privilege at pages 636 and 637 in . . .

Hansard, Again, we are not concerned with points of order at this point; we're concerned with making sure that the question we are sending to the committee is one that is reasonable to send there.

How it could ever be believed that there might have been a breach of privilege by the member stating what his point of privilege was, in reasonable terms in which he said that he be lieved that the Speaker had exceeded his authority in stopping him speaking French, or words to that effect -- how we can seri ously put that before this committee as an example of a breach of privilege by the member is really standing the whole question on its head and is extremely unfair and, besides, a waste of time on the part of the committee. The point of the H

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19870415
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S2 19870415 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	12f78e2714aa3e8a8bec7e099e67a49f52a3b516

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