November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1983 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, November 19, 1998 1:30 p.m. Date: 98/1 1/19 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, as we conclude for this week our work in the Assembly, we ask for Y our strength and encouragement in our service of Y ou through our service to others. We thank Y ou for Y our abundant blessings to our province. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you a member of the Manitoba Legislature and four members of his department. Seated in the Speaker’s gallery today is the Hon. Frank Pitura, Minister of Government Services for the province of Manitoba. The minister is also responsible for Manitoba’s Emergency Management Organization.

Seated in your gallery with the hon. minister are Don Potter, Manitoba’s recently a ppointed Deputy Minister of Government Services; Blake Lyall, special assistant to the minister; Hugh Swan, Manitoba’s assistant deputy minister of property management; and Rod Higgins, the deputy minister’s assistant. Accompanying our guests from Manitoba are my deputy minister, Dan Bader, and Judy Pope, his research assis- tant. The hon. Mr. Pitura and his staff are in our city to observe some of the restoration work which has taken place in the Legislature Building and to tour Alberta’s Emergency Operations Centre.

I’d like the members to extend to the hon. Mr. Pitura and his officials the warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions to present this afternoon.

The first one is signed by 538 Albertans urging the Legislative Assembly “not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.” The second petition is one signed by 69 constituents, sir, urging the Legislative Assembly “to recognize the disadvantaged position of renters in the current Calgary apartment market, and take steps to ensure that safe, affordable accommodation is available to every Albertan.” Thank you, sir. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the petition I presented on November 16 now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition presented on November 17 regarding the Disenfranchised Widows Action Group now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to examine and amend the Workers’ Compensation Board Act to provide appropriate benefits to those Albertans whose spouses died in work-related accidents, and who subsequently lost their benefits due to remarriage. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the petition I presented on November 16 now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also ask that the petition I tabled on November 16 be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS.

SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the two petitions I presented on Monday please be read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned citizens of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to consult extensively with Albertans on the ramifications of not properly fixing the CPP, including the option of an Alberta managed, Mandatory Retire- ment Savings Plan should the federal government not commit to properly fixing the CPP well in advance of the next

schedule review in 2001. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to examine and amend the Workers’ Compensation Board Act to provide appropriate benefits to those Albertans whose spouses died in work-related accidents, and who subsequently lost their benefits due to remarriage. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like the petition I tabled on November 16 to now be read.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

1984 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that those petitions that I’d introduced earlier in the week be now read and received, please. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and commit never to use the Notwithstanding Clause, or any other means, to override the fundamental human rights of Albertans. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, ask that the petitions I tabled earlier this week be read and received as well. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to examine and amend the Workers’ Compensation Board Act to provide appro- priate benefits to those Albert ans whose spouses died in work- related accidents, and who subsequently lost their benefits due to remarriage. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like the petitions that I submitted earlier th is week to be read and re- ceived. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Le gislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to examine and amend the Workers’ Compensation Board Act to provide appro- priate benefits to those Albert ans whose spouses died in work- related accidents, and who subsequently lost their benefits to due remarriage.

We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta not to pass Bill 37, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: I have been notified that there will be a very long list of tablings today. We’ll begin first of all with the hon. Provincial Treasurer. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of tablings today. First, pursuant to

section 10 of the Government Accountability Act I’m tabling the annual report of the govern- ment of Alberta. That’s for the fiscal year ’97-98, from April 1, ’97, to March 31, ’98. This contains all the consolidated financial statements, highlighting the fact that the net debt will be at $1.1 billion, that spending on programs was up by 7.6 percent, which may or may not make some people happy, that in fact the growth as we ended out the year ’97 was pegged at a 7.2 percent increase, unprecedented in the country. Also pursuant to

section 14 of the Government Accountability Act I will now table the annual report of the ministry of Treasury. Again pursuant to the requirements of

section 14 of the Government Accountability Act and on behalf of the Premier I wish to table the Executive Council annual report. Again as a requirement of

section 14 of the Government Accountability Act I’m tabling annual reports on behalf of the following ministers and ministries, and I understand that I’m also required to read out those mini stries: Advanced Education and Career Development, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Community Development, Economic Development, Education, Energy, Environmental Protection, Family and Social Services, Health, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, Justice, Labour, Municipal Affairs, Public Works, Supply and Services, Science, Research and Information Technology, and Transporta- tion and Utilities. 1:40 Mr.

Speaker, these annual reports, it should be noted, actually replace volumes 2, 3, and 4 formerly of the public accounts, and together with the annual report of the government of Alberta, the ministry annual reports comprise the complete public accounts of the government of Alberta. This has never been duplicated anywhere in the country. We are the first province to do this, and that has been noted and congratulated by independent and outside auditing firms and agencies, and we feel very good about that. I’d also like to table, as required by our legislation, the report of the Audit Committee.

The Audit Committee is required by law to report on progress related to eliminating the net debt under the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act. They report that Crown debt as at March 31, 1998, is $1,089,000,000. The projected amount was $5,400,000,000. Their estimation is that we are 9 years ahead on the scheduled debt retirement plan. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I rise to table copies of 500 postcards from t eachers and principals across the province received by the Alberta Liberal caucus.

These teachers and principals are opposed to Bill 219. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table five copies of a document by the Alberta Power Pool. It’s entitled Voluntary Load Curtailment Program

Summary. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. They are all from the Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition. One is a letter to the Premier of the province, one is a letter to the Agricultural Lease Review Committee chair, and one is a copy of a petition signed by over 1,000 people in the area. All of these items are dealing with the concerns of Bragg Creek residents about the management of public land in the Bragg Creek area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1985 pleasure today to rise in the House and table the required number of copies of Vulnerable Children in Alberta: Advantaged or Abandoned? The report, compiled by the Official Opposition, offers an analysis not previously available of how the vulnerabili- ties of children in Alberta are increasing under the term of this government. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings to make today.

The first one is a news release by the student coalition to protest Bill 37, initiated by the University of Calgary New Democrats, and the second one is a news release made yesterday by a student coalition, initiated by University of Calgary New Democrats, a coalition in which campus Liberals and pre- med students have joined, and they have 600 students who are represented in the tabling that I’m making today. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, do you have a tabling today? MR. DICKSON: No, I don’t, sir. THE SPEAKER: Is that everyone?

Okay. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: Once again we have a very long list of members who have indicated to me their desire to do an introduction today. We’ll begin first of all with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through to members of the Assembly Mr. Gus Buziak, who is not only a resident of Calgary-Shaw, but he was my campaign chairman and happens also to be married to my constituency president. Mr.

Buziak is the good-looking, silver- haired gentleman who’s standing up there, and I’d ask that he receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a constituent of Highwood, Mr. Lou Callahan. He’s an award winning farmer who raises grai n and cattle, and he’s a former councillor of the MD of Foothills. I’d ask Lou to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education. MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much. In our galleries today are some very special young friends of mine that have come from a long way away. It’s my pleasure to introduce them to you and through you to members of the Assembly and to wish them a great welcome to the province of Alberta. Dobra dosli. These are six students from Bosnia-Herzegovina. The six students names are Srdjan Marinovic, Davor Mulic, Amra Telacevic, Samra Hadzialagic, Davor Majstorovic, and Monika Kresic. With them today is their chaperone, Tanja Cengic.

These students are attending Stratford Academic high school here in Edmonton for two weeks thanks to the vision and efforts of the Riverview Rotary Club, the Canadian army, the Edmonton public school board, Stratford Academic high school, and they are staying with families in the city. Mr. Speaker, we’re all too aware of the troubles in Bosnia. These students come from different sociopolitical and religious backgrounds, and making this visit together is a tremendous statement of their hope for peace and the future of their country. We again wish them a very warm welcome to Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Transportation and Utilities. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce an outstanding constituent from the city of Grande Prairie, a planner, a consultant, chairman of the Mistahia regional health authority. It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House today, Mr. John Simpson. THE SPEAKER: I was going to recognize the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Y ou have an introduction? MRS. MacBETH: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

I am delighted today to introduce four adults and 53 students from the Ormsby elementary school who are visiting the Legislature today. The group leaders are Mrs. Nyitrai, Mrs. John, Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Oikawa. I would ask them to please rise and receive a very warm welcome from the Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Professor Linda Trimble and members of her class from the Faculty of Political Science from the University of Alberta.

I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 25 grade 6 students from the John Wilson elementary school along with their t eacher, Linda Pedersen, and parents Stacie Wedell, Mr. McBride, and Deanna Peever. They’re in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly special guests in both the members’ and public galleries. With us today are members of the county of Lethbridge No. 25: Reeve David Oseen, county administrator, Layne Johnson, staff member Duane Climenhaga and his wife Dora, new councillor John Willms and his wife Esther, new councillor Mark Osaka, new councillor Lorne Hickey, and a returning longtime councillor Hans Rutz. Would they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. 1:50 MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two groups to introduce today. A little later we will be joined by students from Grandin school, so for the record I would like to introduce

1986 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 to you and through you to members of the Assembly 25 visitors from Grandin school, which is the only French immersion school in Edmonton-Centre. There are 23 students, and they are accom- panied by their instructors, Madame Déchaine-Gagné and Madame Arsenault, and by parent helper Ms Roxanne Miller. I don’t believe they’re in the gallery. So we can all wish them the best. The second group of people I would like to introduce -- and this is a great honour for me -- is three theatre artists.

Joining us in the public gallery are Don Bouzek of Ground Zero Produc- tions -- this is a theatre company that works with labour unions and social justice -- Ben Henderson, who’s the past artistic director of Theatre Network and the director of the smash hit by Marty Chan currently playing, and Mansel Robinson, who is a playwright from western Canada. Several of his plays have been produced here in Edmonton. He is currently working on a new play, Downsizing Democracy, which will be opening at Northern Light Theatre on December 3rd. I hope you’ll join us. They have risen.

Would you please accept the warm traditional welcome of the members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Joining us a little later will be a group from Bosco Homes accompanied by their instructors Miss Brochu, Mr. Hosler, and Miss Dunn. If we could offer them the warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I think I’ve recovered my powers of concentration after my first introduction. It’s a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise again to introduce some friends from far away.

Teresa Vega is the science curriculum specialist from the Puerto Rico department of education, and Dr. Y olanda Ramos is business development manager for the Oracle Corporation and Bernie Lambert and Janet Mayfield from Oz New Media. Oz New Media is an Edmonton-based publisher of educational multimedia materials and resources. They’ve been working with Oracle Corporation to develop on-line curriculum materials for use in the Puerto Rican department of education.

I certainly congratulate Oz New Media and the Oracle Corporation for this business alliance, and I wish for members to join me in welcoming these guests to the Legislative Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly, guests from the constituency of Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Seated in the members’ gallery is the council and administration of the MD of Bonnyville.

They are Reeve Romeo Lauzon, Deputy Reeve Yves Levasseur, Councillor Dan Sharun, Councillor Bob “Tieman” Engleder, Councillor John Zaboschuk, administrator, Roy Doonanco, and public works superintendent, Stan Baliant, and in the public gallery is Mrs. Irene Baliant. I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the parents of the Provincial Treasurer, who are sitting in the Speaker’s gallery.

I’d like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have notice that there will be two ministerial statements today, and of course according to our Standing Orders there’s an opportunity for a spokesman from the Official Opposition to participate if they so choose. We’ll begin first of all today with a statement by the hon. minister responsible for children’s services. National Child Day MS CALAHASEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow, November 20, 1998, marks National Child Day.

The government of Canada designated National Child Day in 1993, and the celebrations across the country are all b ecause of the efforts of Our Kids’ Foundation and Results Canada. I would like to commend all the communities, city halls, schools, and other groups who are organizing events this day to increase awareness and understanding of the factors that contribute to healthy child development. National Child Day is a day for children and about children. That’s why I’m really pleased to make my first ministerial statement to kick off this day.

Children are a high priority for this government, and today I’m very proud to announce and table The Alberta Children’s Initia- tive: An Agenda for Joint Action, the first of its kind in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, five ministries -- Community Development, Education, Family and Social Services, Justice, and Health -- were brought together by the Child and Family Services Secretar- iat under the able assistance of David Steeves, CEO and deputy clerk of Executive Council, with community representatives to create a new direction and partner in planning for children’s services.

Six ministers have signed off commitment and joint accountability for planning, collaboration, and co-ordination of service delivery for the successful achievement of the goals for Alberta’s children and families. This level of commitment and department involvement in delivering human services has not been seen in any part of Canada. The Premier asked for this kind of integration in his televised address. Over 13,000 Albertans, Mr. Speaker, have also been asking for it. We heard. We responded. This plan shows that we are serious about integration. We are working together at the government level.

Special thanks to community representatives, the deputy ministers, the Child and Family Services Secretariat, the minis- ters, and all my colleagues who believed it could be done. By allowing it to be released early, we want to be sure community groups and authorities can utilize it as they plan their budgets. This action plan takes us a step further in making sure that children and families in our province have access to well-planned, integrated services and programs tailored to meet their needs. Above all, it is designed to focus all partners on the needs of individual children and their families.

It builds on what’s already been done, and it sets us on a new path for the future. In the end, Mr. Speaker, strong, healthy children and families are what matters. That’s what the Alberta children’s initiative will help keep our sights focused on. To the 13,000 people, to your children, and to your families, I thank you for all your hard work to make this a reality so all children can have a bright future in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is also an honour today to rise and acknowledge National Child Day.

Tomorrow in Calgary a large rally is planned to acknowledge this event and

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1987 primarily to highlight Alberta’s continued refusal to sign the United Nations declaration on the rights of a child. The announcement today by the minister takes a step in the right direction, but it also raises perhaps more questions than it answers. The Child and Family Services Secretariat is not defined, nor is it indicated if it will have a budget, but it will have a CEO and some unnamed community representation. Most regrettably, the role that the Children’s Advocate will assume in this structure is not defined in this announcement.

In fact, the advocate’s office is not mentioned at all. Vulnerable Children in Alberta: Advantaged or Abandoned?, released and tabled today in this Assembly by the Official Opposition, provides evidence that the vulnerabilities of children under this government are increasing. This is compounded by the fact that for the last eight years this government has continually undermined the role and the scope of the Children’s Advocate. Making an announcement, to the minister, is a step to acknowl- edge the needs of children.

Making a statement about integrating services of government is also a step, but it will take political will and a stronger commitment than has been evidenced by this government in the last eight years to actually build a brighter future for children in this province. Thank you. 2:00 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there’s always a high expecta- tion that the chair would apply all the normal rules expected of decorum in the House, but for the next four or five or six minutes, as we proceed with the next ministerial statement and the response, be proud Albertans. 2001 World Track and Field Championships MRS.

McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride and excitement that I rise today to congratulate the city of Edmonton on its successful bid to host the 2001 World Track and Field Championships. What a tremendous achievement for the capital city, for our province, and for our country. The World Track and Field Championships are the third largest international sporting event in the world. It will attract over 3,000 athletes from over 200 countries. Winning the right to host these games is an absolutely tremendous achievement.

Edmonton was up against some very worthy competitors for this prestigious international sporting event, and the city’s success is even more satisfying because of the calibre of the competition. Participants in the World Track and Field Championships will learn what participants in many other international sporting events have learned, that Edmonton has world-class athletic facilities, great volunteers, and famous western warmth and hospitality. The benefits of this event will extend far beyond the playing field.

It will give us an opportunity to show the world Alberta’s spectacular natural beauty, our diverse cultural richness, our healthy economy and clean environment, our safe cities, and our high standard of life. It will create a permanent legacy of facilities, services, and volunteers. On behalf of all Albertans and this government I want to congratulate the bid committee co-chairs, Dr. Bob Steadward and Jack Agrios. Bob and Jack demonstrated extraordinary commit- ment, leadership, and hard work throughout the bid process. They couldn’t have done it without the support of their committee members, and, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to name them: Mayor Bill Smith, who is always a tremendous booster of Alberta’s capital city, Ron Barnhart, Margaret Bateman, Linda Cochrane, Dennis Erker, Ken Fiske, Jim Hole, Wendy Kinsella, Rich LeLacheur, Don Oiumet, Rolf Lund, Dale Schulha, Les Tutty, Susan Veres-Taylor, Gary Tomick, and Ed Zemrau. I also want to acknowledge the key role played by our Premier. The Premier worked very hard and very effectively to promote the Edmonton bid in Alberta. He worked very hard on that bid both in Alberta and while in Monaco. Mr.

Speaker, I’ve had a call from one of the chairs of that committee acknowledging that and indeed thanking all of us for our support. I will congratulate the Premier personally when he returns, but I do want to acknowl- edge publicly today the gratitude of this Assembly for his contributions. I note with pride that our government was able to assist the bid both with financial resources and human resources.

Financial assistance to the bid was provided through lottery revenues and by the Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, while human resource assistance was provided through the secondment of one of my ministry’s sport development officers to the bid team on a full-time basis. As well, Mr. Speaker, federal Justice minister and Edmonton MP, Anne McLellan, has contrib- uted dedication and resourcefulness to make this bid possible. She, too, deserves our thanks and congratulations.

I know that all members of this Assembly join me in thanking all of the outstanding Albertans who gave their time and their talents to give Edmonton yet another chance to shine on the world stage. I know that Edmontonians will do a wonderful job hosting this international event. This is a day in Alberta history that we will all remember with pride. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Alberta Official Opposition I would like to congratulate the World Track and Field Championships bid committee for their success in securing the 2001 games for the city of Edmonton. This is another success for Edmonton and for Alberta. Our thanks go to the members of the local bid committee for their tireless work and to the Premier for assisting them in the job. This province has a proud history of hosting world-class events.

We can now add the World Track and Field Championships to a list including the Swimming World Cup ’98, the World Figure Skating Championships, the Commonwealth Games, the Universiade Games, and the Winter Olympics. Edmonton was the overwhelming choice out of a distinguished group of cities. Paris, New Delhi, and Stanford, California, are bigger, but they could not match the quality of the Edmonton bid. This is a testament to the great facilities that we are blessed with and, more importantly, the unmatched volunteer spirit of Alber- tans.

Events like the World Track and Field Championships do not succeed without thousands of dedicated volunteers, and I am confident that once again Edmonton will rise to the occasion and stage a fabulous event. Our hopes are now with the Calgary bid committee to stage the Winter Olympics once again. Thank you. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Insured Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has made a point of trying to define and redefine insured health care services.

They appear to have an agenda to reduce the services provided to Albertans, having fought with the federal government on this issue. My questions are to the Minister of Health. How many more medical services will this government take off the Alberta health care insurance plan?

1988 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not aware of and I do not think there have been any debates with the federal government with respect to reducing the number of services that are covered, so I don’t think there should be that implication made.

The second thing is that there are no plans to reduce insured services that are covered, and in fact I think the really important thing is that if you go across this country and look at the scope of the coverage of our budget, our health programs in this province with respect to supporting programs for individuals, you would find that Alberta’s coverage is the most extensive or nearly the most extensive of any province in this country. MRS. MacBETH: Well, given that, Mr.

Speaker, can the minister confirm whether his department is planning a totally different and separate list of procedures to be done in private hospitals, including procedures that are currently covered under health care? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, there is no such initiative as the hon. member has described. Perhaps she should clarify what she’s referring to. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I will clarify is: will the minister now admit that by setting this list up by regulations under

an act, any medical service that is now covered can be deleted with absolutely no public consultation or notice to Albertans? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader would have gotten to the question, I could have answered it last time. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter actually that was alluded to in the debate last evening, the whole issue of regulations. Y es, as we parliamentarians in this Assembly all realize, you develop legislation and there are regulations which flow from that.

Y ou have to have your legislation in place and know precisely what it is before you can in fact develop and finalize those regulations. Perhaps the really basic question here, which I will ask myself and then answer it because I think it will help the members across the way, is that, yes, there will be regulations developed as provided for in Bill 37 when passed. I am certainly committed to make that process an open one where the proposed regulations will be circulated and reviewed. THE SPEAKER: The second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. 2:10 Fetal Alcohol Syndrome DR.

MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Family and Social Services is quoted as saying, “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is 100% preventable and we need to work together to prevent it.” My questions are to the Minister of Education. Why are children afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome explicitly excluded from receiving f unding under the early childhood services grants? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome is a serious one, and it is clear that an overall plan is required to make sure that the needs of these children as well as all children are met.

My department has been working in co-operation with other departments of government pursuant to the children’s initiative that was referred to earlier by the minister responsible for children’s services. It’s true that children will come to our schools with a great variety of different needs, and some of those needs can be addressed by schools, but frankly some of the needs that some of our children have go beyond the expertise or indeed beyond the responsibility of schools and teachers. But we are working, Mr. Speaker, in co-ordination with other agencies of government.

Regional child and family service plans are being co-ordinated to help schools meet the needs of all these children, including those with fetal alcohol syndrome. DR. MASSEY: Thank you. To the same minister: why, then, if they need that help, are these same children excluded under the severe disabilities grants? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, some of these issues are beyond the responsibilities and beyond the expertise of t eachers that are in our schools. Our teachers do an extraordinary job of teaching children, and they do an extraordinary job of meeting many needs of children.

But to co-ordinate these efforts makes a great deal of sense. The education system alone cannot deal with all of these issues, so resources must come from a variety of different areas, and if it is not included in the description, as indicated by the hon. member, that help will come from other areas. DR. MASSEY: Well, thanks, and again to the same minister. Given that 1,200 children in government care alone are afflicted with this syndrome, what’s going to be done? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question has been asked and answered.

The hon. minister responsible for children’s services perhaps would like to supplement the answer, but it really focuses on the initiative that she tabled in the House today. MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, may I supplement, please? The Alberta Children’s Initiative: An Agenda for Joint Action identifies one of the issues of co-ordination. When we’re talking about children with FAS, it means that we have to involve Health; we have to involve Education; we have to involve AADAC. There are a number of ministries that have to come together to be able to address this. It’s a joint effort.

In fact, when you’re talking about that, the key initiatives include such things as the FAS co-ordinating action committees, and they’re within the boundaries of RHAs, which would deal with that specific. It’s a very important one in terms of co- ordination. I think it’s an important part to be able to bring forward to people to understand what it is that we’re trying to do with this initiative. THE SPEAKER: The third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Children’s Advocate MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An intensive consulta- tion in ’97 confirmed widespread support for an independent Children’s Advocate. My questions are for the minister without portfolio. Is it this governme nt’s intention to use the new children’s services action plan to subvert or eliminate the role of the Children’s Advocate? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, that’s an excellent question. As a matter of fact, the Alberta children’s initiative is to talk about how we can co-ordinate all our efforts at a community level as well as the government level.

In fact, as we were working with the 13,000 people who have come forward to ask for this initiative, it was they who drove this and asked us to be able to see what we can do at a government level to ensure that co-

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1989 ordination occurs. Not once was it mentioned to be able to ensure that the Children’s Advocate would be separate, but we were looking at how we can better co-ordinate services for children, and I think that’s the very important primary outcome we’re expecting from the families and children of this province. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Madam Minister. If that’s true, why have the quarterly reports of the Children’s Advocate been discontinued? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, in fact we have been looking at how the Children’s Advocate could play a

part in what we’ve been doing. I think that the Minister of Family and Social Services has made some diligent reviews as to what we can do to carry out what his role will be. I see his role as being part and parcel of all the co-ordinated and integrated efforts that we’re trying to carry on in the children’s initiative, and I continue to encourage that we work with th at same concept with the Chil- dren’s Advocate and the same idea of an integrated approach. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is it that when it comes to money, your government has the resources and com- pletes quarterly reports for budget updates, but when it comes to children, you’re moving in the opposite direction by abandoning quarterly reports of the Children’s Advocate’s office? MS CALAHASEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest issue is the fact that we’re looking at vulnerable children and what it is that we have to do for those vulnerable children. When we talk about vulnerable children, it means that we have to involve the community and the departments who have been involved with these children.

What we have to do and what we’ve heard from the 13,000 Albertans who’ve come to the table is look at what we call an integrated initiative which would make sure that we have joint planning, joint co-ordina tion, and joint collaboration in everything that has to come forward. I think that’s the key in terms of making sure that we address the issue of what people have been asking for. I think that’s the direction we are going to go in, because, in fact, government goals are people’s goals. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the NDP opposition, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.

Treasury Branches MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, less than two years ago the Minister of Energy spoke to a group of people in Toronto and bragged about how when he was Municipal Affairs minister, he oversaw the loss of more than $2 billion because the government wanted a hasty sell-off of our public assets. Just yesterday the Provincial Treasurer waffled on the question of the future of the Treasury Branches.

My question to him today is this: why does this government want to imperil the financial security of a $9 billion asset that has finally tu rned the corner despite political interventions and not just announce that the Treasury Branches will be able to maintain their role as a publicly owned entity to fulfill their current three-year business plan? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been quite consistent about the fact that the Treasury Branches have a great future. There’s no doubt about that, and their performance shows it very clearly. MS BARRETT: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if you’ve got banks hanging around licking their chops at the thought of getting at that public asset, without the government’s commitment to maintaining it as a public entity the value of that asset is inevitably going to drop. Why doesn’t the government take the measures necessary to keep the value of the asset up? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the record is very clear. That asset continues to increase in value. I don’t know why the member opposite would suggest that anything but that is happening.

That’s the type of language that can put some kind of doubt into the hearts and minds of the people who deal there. This asset is increasing in value, and it is because of direct government action in 1995, after close to 60 years, establishing a board of directors, requiring quarterly reports and annual reports and audited statements and then further to that in the legislation in 1997 putting that institution on, in relative terms, equal grounds with other financial institutions. Since doing that and only since doing that has that asset increased in value. And I believe it will continue to do so. MS BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, to allay the concerns of people in smaller communities where the Treasury Branch is the only financial institution, will the Provincial Treasurer conduct himself in this open and transparent fashion that the government says it always does and provide all members of the Assembly with documents that were in front of the government caucus yesterday, so all Albertans will know what’s really under consideration? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted the only people who are calling for a quick fire sale without public consultation of ATB are the Liberals. They’re the only ones on record doing that.

Now here comes a point of order. 2:20 MR. SAPERS: Point of order. MR. DA Y: Okay. Pictures of Pavlov’s dog come to mind. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I wanted to make clear: in terms of openness and in terms of this government and this caucus being open, I’ll tell you how open we are. We had a caucus discussion yesterday on this with documents; the very next day the media reported it all in its entirety. Now that’s openness. THE SPEAKER: And to Mom and Dad Day: that’s your boy. Look; if I’ve violated anything by that comment, I apologize to all. Okay? The hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Electric Power Supply MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y esterday the Minister of Energy announced measures to increase the winter power supply. Could the minister tell me: who all is involved in these arrangements, and what’s the government’s role? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I think there’s been some confusion as to whether these are government initiatives or initiatives outside of government, and I want to clarify that here today.

All the arrangements that were co-ordinated through a task force headed by the EUB are outside of government. One of the arrangements was with the transmission administrator, who is responsible for the co-ordination of our system to ensure that power runs to each and every home every day. They made the arrangements with the B.C. government, who owns the power system in British Colum- bia, to ensure that we could get increased power from British

1990 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 Columbia. They also made the arrangements with the Saskatche- wan government to ensure that our tie with Saskatchewan would give us more power. The other misconception was that we are buying power from Montana. That wasn’t true. Montana is part of the western co- ordinating council. We’re tied into the northwestern United States on the power grid, and they allowed us to use our reserve, some 200 megawatts, and they would cover it off in the northwestern part of the United States because they have surpluses there.

So, indeed, that arrangement was made through the transmission administrator and the Power Pool here. The others involved are the utilities, the people who generate on a daily basis. Within their system they have more flexibility than we had found before, and they have assured us that they can use, especially one, TransAlta, another 100 megawatts out of their system. The last people who are involved are what we call the industrial people, who at any given call, on any given day could shut down certain parts of their operations and let the power they use go into the pool. That’s called curtailable load.

Of course they have agreed through agreements that we put that they would get paid for doing that, that they would shed certain amounts of power, and they gave us another 1 1 1 megawatts in that type of system. Overall, as we looked at all of the players in this, they added what will in the end look at about an 18 percent surplus within the grid that wasn’t identified before. MR. MARZ: My first supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: could the minister tell me how my constituents are going to be impacted by this in terms of increased costs? DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, this is another question that comes up all the time: am I a residential homeowner in the province of Alberta going to pay higher rates because of the i ndustrials who are getting paid to shed these loads, this curtailable load I talked about? They’re getting paid, so I’m going to pay more while they make money off us? We’ve been buying power shed by indus- trials for many years.

It equated to about 1 percent of the cost of your power bill on average over a year’s basis, and with the proposals that have come forward and the cost of those, you will not see a significant rise in your electrical bill because of this. It is over a year’s period, and it doesn’t mean that because we’ve made these agreements, we’ll necessarily have to use it. There- fore it’s on demand, and it will add no more than the 1 percent that’s traditionally been on your power bill for many, many years. MR. MARZ: Could the minister further explain, then, what the next steps will be in this process? DR.

WEST: Following the events of October 25, Mr. Speaker, we put in certain task groups to look at the problems with the grid in the province of Alberta, and of course, yesterday was the first report of how we had dealt with the groups that I talked about. Going forward now, there’s no doubt we want new power production in the province of Alberta. So the next step that I’ve challenged the task groups with is to find a way to break down the artificial barriers that the new power generators say they’ve had.

One of the individuals, the head of it, Guido Bachmann, has pointed out that there are certain fees and standby charges that have caused it to be uneconomical for new power producers to enter the grid. It’s one of the task force’s next tasks to do that. Within 10 days I have charged all of the players involved in this to come back with the regulations and change in policy that will allow as many of the new gas-fired generators, whether they be wind power producers or any other independent power producers of any kind, to access our grid within a short time frame.

The other thing we’re doing is commissioning as many new power producers as we can. Tomorrow, for example, we’re doing the Primrose cogeneration project at Cold Lake, and it will now put 65 megawatts into the system as of tomorrow. Coming onstream by the first of the year are 187 megawatts, which will certainly enhance the security of supply further. The other thing we’re going to do is engage Albertans in a full discussion.

I think coming out of this, the media and others have tried to say: “Well, is it okay now that we can just use power indiscriminately, we can put our Christmas lights back on, and we can plug our car in at 3 in the afternoon and let it run forever, and let the air conditioner run while I go to the lake on the weekend so my house is cool when I get home? Can we do all these sloppy things that we’ve always done? ” T h a t ’ s a mismessage to send to Albertans.

Even though we’ve got security of supply and we can manage the power in the province of Alberta, wouldn’t it be better if Albertans talked to one another, with their power companies, with the distributors and got a better practice and use of the power in the province? So I say: leave your Christmas lights on, but don’t leave them on all night. THE SPEAKER: Let’s go on to the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora, followed by the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. West Edmonton Mall Refinancing MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Mr. and Mrs. Day.

The Provincial Treasurer has said that the $350 million increase in the liabilities of the Alberta Treasury Branches reported back in 1995 didn’t raise any alarm bells for him. Now, that’s hard to believe, given that the Treasurer must have known about the Premier’s February 22, 1994, memo, which he says was well known and well publicized, which called for the Alberta Treasury Branches’ involvement in the refinancing of West Edmonton Mall.

So my question for the Provincial Treasurer this afternoon is: was the $350 million increase in Alberta Treasury Branches’ loan guarantees the Alberta solution outlined in the Premier’s February 22, 1994, memo? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, all elements to do with that particular arrangement are being looked at in a number of ways, specifically upon request by myself to the Auditor General, related to all circumstances to do with this loan. We look forward to all of that information coming out. MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Treasurer, just when did the cabinet, of which you have been a part since 1992, approve the loan guaran- tee issued by the Alberta Treasury Branches to refinance West Edmonton Mall? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, again as I said on the first question, all of the elements regarding this particular deal are coming out. I’m wondering with the questions that I’m hearing: is the member suggesting that he has changed his position since his August 10 letter to me? MR. SAPERS: I thought we asked the questions, Mr. Speaker. No answer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1991 Poplar Ridge School MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Poplar Ridge school is in my constituency, and currently it operates at 120 percent of capacity. The school board has applied for four additional portable units to provide that extra space. However, the request has been turned down by the School Buildings Board. Instead, the School Buildings Board suggests that the students be bused to Penhold, where there is school sp ace available. I have received a number of calls and letters from parents requesting that I urge the Minister of Education to provide these portables.

To the Minister of Education: why won’t the School Buildings Board approve the four additional portables to this crowded school? 2:30 MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in one of my responses I believe in this House yesterday, the School Buildings Board is an arm’s-length group that makes decisions about new school construction and modernization. Before the School Buildings Board approves new space, the local school jurisdiction must consider all of the possible alternatives, which includes the possibility of using available space in nearby schools.

In this case the school in Penhold, where there was sp ace available, is 19 kilometres away, and this is a reasonable distance to bus students. The school board does have a responsibility to use existing school space before adding space onto Poplar Ridge school. MR. SEVERTSON: Supplementary to the same minister: does the minister have any idea if the government is going to change this policy of busing kids out of their communities to an entirely different community? MR. MAR: Well, Mr.

Speaker, busing is an issue and the hon. member has received correspondence from many of his constitu- ents, and many of them, I think, have taken the opportunity to write me as well. On the subject of busing, where busing is a reasonable distance, then it is appropriate for existing facilities to be used. We’ll continue to allow schools to r eceive funds for rural transportation, and that will continue to be the process. It’s not a reasonable expectation that each and every community where numbers do not warrant should have their own school, and busing in certain circumstances is most appropriate.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-East. Pine Shake Roofing MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The authorization and promotion of the untreated pine shake as a roofing material by this government is one of the largest cases of marketplace negligence in the history of this province. My questions today are to the Minister of Economic Development. When your depart- ment found out in fiscal year 1993-94 that untreated pine shakes were a nondurable, inferior roofing pr oduct, why was this information not shared with the Department of Labour? MR.

HA VELOCK: Mr. Speaker, today I am acting in place of the hon. Minister of Labour, so I will certainly take that question under notice. THE SPEAKER: The question was directed to the Minister of Economic Development, who is in the House. MR. HA VELOCK: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. However, isn’t it within the discretion of government that whoever wishes to answer a question may? THE SPEAKER: That’s true. That’s true. Y ou got your answer. MR. MacDONALD: The question is to the Minister of Justice.

Do you find it unusual -- the acting Minister of Justice, excuse me -- that the Department of Labour has to get from your department authorization for press releases regarding pine shakes as a roofing material because they’re afraid of the liability from the province’s homeowners? MR. HA VELOCK: Well, despite his assertion, Mr. Speaker, I actually am the Minister of Justice. I’m not the acting Minister of Justice. In any event, departments quite often seek legal advice from the Justice department regarding issues where they feel there may or may not be some liability or exposure.

I can’t tell the hon. member whether that particular advice was sought with respect to a particular press release. However, we give advice to all government departments on a continuous basis. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My third question is to the Minister of Economic Development. How much money did the Department of Economic Development spend to test and promote pine shakes between 1993-94 and the present time? MRS. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I think that’s better suited under a motion for a return for specific information, but let me give some information on Economic Development’s involve- ment in the question on pine shakes. Economic Development does not get involved in warrantying or guaranteeing products. What I want to make abundantly clear is that there was financial assistance given by Alberta Economic Development to help the industry access U.S. markets and l ook for acceptance by U.S. markets of products that were developed within the province of Alberta.

Insofar as acceptance of the pr oduct through building codes, that does not fall under the Ministry of Economic Development. In fact, it falls under the Ministry of Labour. There is a co- operative relationship between the two ministries, and they do work together. But insofar as Economic Development getting involved, we did participate with some background information and some testing and some Building Code acceptance in other markets and in the Canadian market. Aside from that, we do not issue warranties, and we do not issue guarantees through Eco- nomic Development. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Children’s Services MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the hon. minister responsible for children’s services. The Calgary Rockyview child and family services authority took responsibility for delivering services in April of this year. They have been working hard at integrating services at the local level, and they have asked the government to live up to its commitment and integrate at all levels.

To the minister: how will this document that you have tabled today called The Alberta Chil- dren’s Initiative: An Agenda for Joint Action enable integration? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I guess we all know that putting together a plan doesn’t necessarily change anything. I think it’s really important that you have to make the plans a

1992 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 reality. I think we have to look at how this will help lead to integrating services and integrating planning. I believe that first it puts into place the four common goals for everyone, and those four goals are on page 6 of the Alberta Children’s Initiative: that children will be cared for, that children will be safe, that children will be successful at learning, and they’ll be healthy. I think that secondly it lays out a number of detailed strategies and actions that will help integrate planning both at the provincial and the community level. Third, Mr.

Speaker, a very important point: community representatives worked with us to be able to create this document, and it’s very important when we’re talking about what it means for integrated planning at the community level. So that’s the way I see some of this happening in terms of making this a reality. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: given that there aren’t any dollar figures in this framework, how much will the strategies listed in this document cost, and who will cover those costs? MS CALAHASEN: Mr.

Speaker, there are no dollar figures listed in this plan that will be associated with those strategies. There are key ministries that will be championing the various initiatives to go through the budgeting process, and I think that’s a very important part. That’s where we’ll need all the colleagues to be able to support this plan as we move through it. I think all the costs will then be absorbed by those ministers who will champion those initiatives. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does this plan duplicate the planning that has been done and is being done by the new child and family services authorities?

MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, this plan actually builds on the planning that’s already been done. It’s very important that child and family services authorities continue to build their plans at the local level so that they can continue to serve the people and the children of their area. What we’re trying to do is make sure that this is an overarching umbrella which will look at the various initiatives within the various departments to come together in an integrated way so that we can see even further integration at all levels within government and community.

This is a very impor- tant part when we’re talking about looking at a strategic frame- work. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. 2:40 Video Lottery Terminals MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the recent VLT plebiscites the Premier acknowledged the need for a review of VLT operations throughout the province. Recently the minister responsible for lotteries met in Calgary with various groups that are pro VLT and also representatives from those groups that were promoting plebiscites on the VLT issue. My questions are to the minister responsible for lotteries.

Was the meeting in Calgary called at the direction of the Premier as part of his commitment to review the status of VLTs? MRS. NELSON: Thank you for the question, hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to be able to report that as a follow-up to the plebiscite questions that were asked concurrent with the municipal elections, I was able to make contact with the people from the yes side and from the no side.

I asked them to come and meet with me to talk about messages, et cetera, that they had heard during the process and to ask them to come and work with me on the next steps, to talk about some of the issues or common themes that they had identified. I’m able to report that I had meetings in Calgary and in Edmonton and that both sides have agreed to come to the table and not only work with me but work together. I think that’s a quantum step forward as we look at reviewing gaming policy not only in the short term but in the long term. In addition to that, the hon.

Minister of Community Develop- ment and I have accepted one of the key recommendations from the gaming summit on the establishment of further research for gaming, and we have built into our business plans the concept of a research institute on gaming. That would be contracted out and work in co-operation with AADAC, the community lottery boards, Community Development, and AGLC. The research, we believe, in the longer term is fundamentally important so that we always have an idea of where we’re going.

These groups are very supportive of that concept and have agreed to come to the table to work with us, and I’m very pleased with that move. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my second question is again to the minister responsible for lotteries. In view of the fact that over a quarter million people, Albertans, voted to remove machines from hotels and bars in Alberta, what immediate steps might we expect the minister to take to modify the VLT operations, whatever, to reduce the impact they have on these people and to try and realize that over a quarter million people do have a problem with the VLTs in the bars? MRS.

NELSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most important steps that has occurred following the vote was to call the players together and sit down and dialogue with them and get their ideas. They are coming back. Actually, both sides worked very hard through their campaigns and identified issues that they felt were common themes.

Clearly, with the vote going the way it did, there are some issues that are going to have to be dealt with, but I will not promote an ad hoc position of moving without the support and the consultation of the groups I mentioned earlier: AADAC, Community Development, the community lottery boards, my own group of AGLC, plus the people from the yes and no sides. I think they can be a very valuable factor in how we move forward. I’ve asked them to come back. We’re trying to orchestrate a meeting within the next two weeks with the two sides meeting together.

We’ve met separately, and now they’ve both agreed to work together. They are coming to the table, and I’m looking forward to their suggestions. I’ve heard some of them, but I’d like to hear them come from both sides. So once I have that meeting, I’ll be able to report to you on those findings. In the meantime, the Minister of Community Development and I are moving forward with one of the recommendations from the gaming summit to set up the research program. Again, that will involve very much the people from AADAC and Community Development and AGLC. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, my final question to the minister responsible for lotteries: in view of the fact that the council of Wood Buffalo requested the removal of VLTs 18 months ago, will the minister now make a commitment to remove those machines and abide by the wishes of that municipality? MRS. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I’m not able to make that commitment today for the fact that the municipality of Wood Buffalo, as the hon. member knows, applied to the Supreme Court for a ruling, and the Supreme Court would not hear the ruling. That was in October, I believe. Subsequent to that, the operators

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1993 in the municipal district of Wood Buffalo applied to the court for an injunction to stop the removal of the machines, and the court heard their request for an injunction and in fact granted that injunction but postponed their hearing -- it was supposed to be heard on November 10 -- until the end of January or the first part of February. Furthermore, the judge said that the status quo had to stay in place, so the Liquor and Gaming Commission are unable to take action on those VLTs because they must follow the ruling from the court.

Speaker’s Ruling Recognizing Members in Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the list of questions that I have before me, we have some rules. In most parliaments members gain the attention of the Speaker to have their places put on the question list.

In ours we have an agreement that was made several years ago by the House leaders, and it says that “the Speaker shall allocate questions between Government and Opposition Members.” We now come to the point in the alloca- tions that I have where the next person that one might be able to ordinarily recognize is a person who has already raised a question today on the government side.

The leaders’ agreement further states: Members not recognized one day shall not be given priority for a subsequent day, except that the Speaker, in his discretion, will try to recognize Members who have not asked a question for some time. So I look at my list of all the people who have not asked a question for some time, and I now recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury-Three Hills. Senate Reform MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to get up here this afternoon.

Given that this government has spent a fair amount of time and a fair amount of taxpayers’ money promoting Senate reform, I’d like the minister of intergovernmen- tal affairs to please tell the Assembly what the government’s plans are now for Senate reform. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure whether your remarks related to people asking questions or people getting to answer questions in this House on an infrequent basis. THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, this is called question period, not answer period, so you be the judge. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. With that admonition, then, I will respond.

Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very important question. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this government puts a high priority on Canadian federalism and this country working as well as it possibly can, and one of the things that we’ve strived for is to attain a triple E Senate in this country. We have few mechanisms to get that topic on the national agenda, and one of those mechanisms was indeed having a Senate election this fall to elect Senators-in-waiting.

In fact, we now have through that process two fine people, Ted Morton and Bert Brown, who are in the process of watching what the Senate is doing and making comment on what the Senate is doing and raising the profile of Senate reform.

We will continue with our strate gy of raising the issue at the national level, encouraging other provinces to consider the issue of Senate reform an important one, and talking with the national government to keep the Prime Minister’s commitment which he made as a result of us having a Senate nominee election this fall, the commitment that was made by the Prime Minister that he believes in a triple E Senate and wants to get on with Senate reform. So we’ll be asking the Prime Minister to keep that commitment and to do it soon.

MS LEIBOVICI: Can the minister then explain why this govern- ment is relying on Senator Roche’s efforts to push forward Senate reform as opposed to the Premier himself pushing that agenda forward? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, that would not be an accurate representation of the situation as it exists. Senator Roche has indeed agreed to carry forward the Senate reform process.

As a result of his appointment to the Senate, I believe that he received significant input from Albertans indicating to him that they wanted an elected Senate and that he, as a result of that input from Albertans to him regarding his appointment, has taken it upon himself to get involved in the Senate reform process. We certainly appreciate him realizing that that is an important objective of Albertans and getting on that bandwagon. He’s not replacing the efforts of the Alberta government or of our Premier.

Our Premier wrote to the Prime Minister immedi- ately following the Senate nominee election on October 19, asked that he appoint the two Senate nominees elected as soon as possible, as soon as there’s a vacancy available, and we will be continuing our process of keeping this on the national agenda. 2:50 MS LEIBOVICI: Can the minister then explain: besides writing a letter, what else is the Premier planning to do? What’s the point-by-point plan that the Premier has for the next year in terms of pushing the agenda of Senate reform forward? Can you be more specific, please? MR.

HANCOCK: The process of reform of national institutions in this country isn’t something that happens on a day-to-day basis. It does happen over a much longer term period than that. Unfortunately, while I would like to have the opportunity, as the hon. member opposite would like obviously the opportunity, to get Senate reform on a day-to-day agenda over the next six months, that’s unlikely to happen. However, we have ongoing discus- sions.

I talk with my counterpart nationally, the federal Intergov- ernmental Affairs minister, Stéphane Dion, and encourage him to take into account the issue of Senate reform and the importance it has for Albertans. We are developing a strategy to keep this on the table and as a high profile item.

We will be continually reminding the national government at every opportunity and at every meeting that Senate reform is a high priority for Albertans, and until we get our Senate nominees appointed to the Senate or until there is meaning- ful reform to bring in a true triple E Senate, this will remain at the top of Alberta’s agenda. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Medical Savings Accounts MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, allowing me a second question.

We in the province of Alberta are fortunate to have a surplus budget, which has enabled us to reinvest $750 million in the last three years into our health care system, a 20 percent increase. Currently the federal Liberal government is also boasting a

1994 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 surplus, but it’s cut health care transfer payments to Alberta from $761 million to $440 million in that same time frame. A recent study of health care in the province of British Columbia by the Fraser Institute has pointed out that problems in that province’s health care system are also compounded by the federal Liberal government spending cuts, despite a 40 percent increase in the health care system by that province. Their report also recom- mended the implementation of medical savings accounts.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is a question, not a ministe- rial statement, not anything else. So, please, proceed to the question. MR. MARZ: Okay. I’ll get to the question. The question is, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. Medical savings accounts have been recommended as a means of making the system more accountable and cost-effective. Pilot projects in the States have shown a 40 percent saving in one year. Would the minister commit to a voluntary three- to five-year pilot project involving the concept of MSAs, or medical savings accounts, in this province? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I am aware of the concept of medical savings accounts and also the

article referred to by the member done by the Fraser Institute. I think that we would be certainly willing to look at material that might be available of a factual nature and discuss that with our federal counterparts, because I think that given the overall tax structure and constitu- tional structure in Canada, it would be important to involve the federal government in any kind of assessment.

The one thing I would like to say in general answer to the question is that our priority in discussions with the federal government will be the representation we’ve made, which will continue, in terms of receiving the restoration of the traditional percentage of federal support for our overall health care system. I would not put that at a lower priority relative to the medical savings plans. The medical savings plans require an ability to provide a tax credit, and of course the federal government is the primary administrator and collector of income tax in this country. MR.

MARZ: My second question is to the same minister. Would such a program as medical savings accounts be compatible or in accordance with the Canada Health Act? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I think I should start out by saying that I don’t know for sure. To be able to answer the question, we would have to discern or define very, very clearly what it is that the medical savings accounts could be applied to when in fact they were spent, or used, by the individual. I would expect that at this particular point in time there might be certain treatments, perhaps costs for drugs beyond the approved plan.

There might be a range of services that might be applicable to medical savings accounts, but it would be something that would have to be very, very carefully examined so that we do not in any way undermine the overall public health care system. MR. MARZ: Thank you. My last question: could the minister tell me if you could implement the concept of medical savings accounts, utilizing or adapting the current Alberta health care premium system to that? MR.

JONSON: In the fairly brief or cursory review that we’ve done of medical savings plans, we have looked at the whole area of health care premiums to see whether some type of an incentive could be built in through different rates for people who practise certain preventative measures and have a lower utilization of the health care system. That always brings up, Mr. Speaker, the issue of those people who are ill through circumstances beyond their control or injured. It would not work in those particular cases.

Various people have brought forward the idea that there should be some incentive in the health care system to practise a healthy lifestyle and prevent accident and injury, and we’ve had, I guess I would say, some serious but not in-depth looks at that particular issue. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we’ll proceed with the mem- bers’ statements in 30 seconds from now, and we’ll pro ceed in this order: the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek, then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Might we just revert to Introduction of Guests? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, is your guest still here? MR. WHITE: Y es, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very kindly. There’s a gentleman in the gallery today, and when I was a young engineer starting out in the business, I came upon a site on which he was the general contractor. We had nothing but a good relationship from that day to this. He went on to become one of the presidents of the Chamber of Commerce of this fine city of Edmonton. He retired from his business practice.

He then was elected to the city of Edmonton’s council, where we sat as colleagues for a number of years, and he’s retired from that into a pleasant life of a new marriage. Oh, there is one thing that is not so good on his record. He is still a darn Tory. Bruce Campbell, would you please stand up and be welcomed by this fine Assembly. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. Standing Policy Committees MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, during my five and a half years of service as an MLA one of the most frequent issues I’ve been asked about is the process of governance.

Having experienced it now from both sides of the House, I want to comment on it. As I’ve come to know it, I must acknowledge at the outset that the overall process from the government side is different, but it is very thorough, comprehensive, forthright, and honest. There’s an enormous amount of work and effort that all MLAs undertake in arriving at the best decisions possible in creating and/or maintain- ing the direction of government as mandated by the citizens of this province and in presenting legislation that promotes, protects, and serves the interests of all Albertans.

This process is complex and ever evolving and constantly seeks input from the grassroots level. 3:00 One of the most important steps in this process is the SPC, or standing policy committee. There are seven SPC bodies -- I’m on one of them -- that hear submissions from individuals, groups, and organizations on any subject of their choice. These presentations are question-and-answer sessions that thoroughly explore every issue presented by Albertans and, in my view, constitute the most critical part of the new decision-making

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1995 process that was first introduced by the Premier back in 1992. I didn’t realize that until I did some of my own personal research, and in doing so, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this SPC process also downsized the number of government committees from 26 to seven. Good streamlining there. Albertans participate in this process through their local MLA and/or by simply phoning in or writing to us and requesting that their issue be heard.

Subcommittees, task forces, advisory bodies, and other ad hoc mechanisms are frequently created to delve even more deeply into those matters that require them. Thereafter, positions and recommendations are made to relevant departments, to the agenda and priorities committee, to the Treasury Board committee, to cabinet, and ultimately decided upon by the full government caucus. Opposition members are also an important part of the process and frequently attend SPC meetings to hear the presentations.

Of course, inasmuch as opposition caucuses require portions of their meetings to be private, so too are certain portions of SPC meetings held in private, typically after all public presentations have been made, because the presenters sometimes request confidentiality regarding certain aspects of their issue. The bottom line is that this process is thorough and rivals any other government process . . . [some applause] MR. WHITE: Y ou’re cutting into my time, folks. Y ou can start my time now. THE SPEAKER: I’ve already recognized you, hon. member. Electric Power Supply MR.

WHITE: Y esterday the Minister of Energy boldly pro- claimed that with his new 400-megawatt power arrangement no Albertan should be afraid to turn their Christmas lights on. Sir, this is giving the public a fals e sense of security, and you know it. Now, I cannot in this House accuse you of misleading the public, so I won’t, but I can suggest that you are wildly optimistic about the ability of the Alberta power supply to supply the demand. While the minister talks about 1 1 1 megawatts of new curtailable load, his own Power Pool Council says, and I quote: 21 megawatts of new curtailable load.

Just who is telling the truth here? This member prefers to believe the power pool experts, sir. The real problem here is not how much power can be taken away by shutting down industry; it is that this province simply needs more power generation. There has been no new power- generation capacity in this province since 1994, when this government started the deregulation of power sources. Y et with all the natural resources in this province, your government has allowed the power supply to remain dormant while the demand has increased to the point where you have to shut down industry in order to avoid blackouts.

In the eyes of the world, sir, every Albertan is embarrassed by this simple fact. The truth is that the electricity deregulation has been so mismanaged in this province that the minister’s only solution is to purchase power from that totally regulated market, from B.C. Sir, you have been beaten by a regulated socialist government. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Sturgeon Community Hospital and Health Centre MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak about the strength of health care servi ces available within the Capital health authority and, in particular, the expanded range of quality services offered at the Sturgeon community hospital and health centre in my constituency, as they have been put in place during the past year. Capital health serves not only St. Albert but all of northern Alberta for serious, acute care; i.e., trauma needs. Consequently, we who live in St. Albert have at our doorstep an excellent health care facility with recently expanded capabilities.

In August of this year Capital health signed a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian forces to provide health care services to military personnel. This military deal, as we call it, means enhanced services at the Sturgeon hospital, not only to meet the needs of the military but also to serve the needs of the community at large. Our Sturgeon community hospital and health centre with this agreement will provide a full range of inpatient and outpatient services including medicine, surgery, labour and delivery, and diagnostic services for military and community members.

In addition to that good news, I am pleased to report that the Sturgeon hospital is currently taking on more high-level surgery from the Royal Alexandra hospital to ease the pressure there and to bring more onsite services within St. Albert’s Sturgeon hospital. At this point I wish to pay tribute to those who administer the Sturgeon hospital. I have heard and I truly believe that it is one of the best run hospitals in our system, and my constituents who are both staff and patients have told me of the quality and range of services available there.

Our community is very pleased with what they see happening at the Sturgeon hospital, in spite of false political rumblings of disbelief visited on the shoulders of our local presses. They have expanded their services, enhanced their facilities, and are ever accommodating the growing demands and needs in health care, as they have done specifically over the past year. THE SPEAKER: Before proceeding with Orders of the Day, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on a point of order. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: I’m sorry. Okay; we’ll proceed with this and go to Projected Government Business. MR.

SAPERS: We could do it the other way. THE SPEAKER: Y eah, we’ll go with the hon. Government House Leader. Projected Government Business. MR. HA VELOCK: The business . . . MR. SAPERS: Well, could I ask him first? THE SPEAKER: Y es. MR. SAPERS: Good. Sit down. THE SPEAKER: Now, please. Come on. MR. SAPERS: Well, I just wanted to get clear what you wanted to do, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry. head: Projected Government Business MR. SAPERS: Pursuant to Standing Orders, would the Govern- ment House Leader please inform the Assembly as to what the intended government business is for next week.

1996 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 MR. HA VELOCK: Mr. Speaker, as has been our past practice, this side of the House will continue to consult with the opposition on a daily basis to identify what business will come before the Assembly. With that in mind, the business of the Assembly for the week of November 23 to November 26 will be: on Monday, November 23, we’ll deal with Government Bills and Orders, second reading of bills 48 and 42; then we’ll go into Committee of the Whole as per the Order Paper. In the evening, Committee of the Whole, Bill 2, and as per the Order Paper.

On November 24 at 4:30, the Provincial Treasurer’s supplemen- tary supply estimates will be tabled. Then we’ll deal with government motions 35, 36, 37, and 38 relating to supplementary supply; then if time permits, second reading and Committee of the Whole as per the Order Paper. That evening we will again deal in Committee of the Whole with Bill 2 and as per the Order Paper. On November 25, Mr. Speaker, 8 p.m., we will be in Commit- tee of Supply, day one of the general revenue fund and, time permitting, Committee of the Whole, third reading as per the Order Paper.

On November 26 in the afternoon: Committee of Supply, day one of the lottery fund. We will then revert to Introduction of Bills; Bill 49, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, will be presented by the Provincial Treasurer, and if time permits, third reading in Committee of the Whole as per the Order Paper. THE SPEAKER: Okay. Now, before proceeding to Orders of the Day, on a point of order, the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. Point of Order Clarification MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I really wasn’t sure before. Mr. Speaker, I do rise under Standing Order 23, two subsec- tions, (

h) and (l). The issue came up in a question put by the leader of the third party and answered by the Provincial Trea- surer. In a way, it’s a similar point of order to one that was raised yesterday in which the Provincial Treasurer made allega- tions and introduced a “matter in debate which offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly ”; that is, providing statements that simply have no basis in fact. He made some reference to a call for a fire sale on the Alberta Treasury Branches; I can’t think of anybody that’s ever done that.

However, I can inform the Assembly -- and would ask the Provincial Treasurer to consider this so that when he has an opportunity, he can withdraw his remarks -- that the Provincial Treasurer engaged the firm of CIBC Wood Gundy to, in his own words, evaluate the ATB, including privatization options. We have the president and CEO of the ATB on October 25 speculat- ing about the selling of the Alberta Treasury Branches. We have the Premier talking on April 30 about the sale of the Alberta Treasury Branches, and most significantly, Mr.

Speaker, and what really caught my attention: the Treasurer mentioned that it was really only the Official Opposition that were thinking about selling Alberta Treasury Branches. I would remind the Treasurer of a memo that he received from his very own deputy minister on May 7, 1997. The subject of the memo was: proposed legislation changes for Alberta Treasury Branches. The memo concludes by saying: the amendments would also provide a framework and a restructuring process that would prepare the ATB as a going concern for competition and regulation as a private-sector institution.

So a pretty impressive track record on the part of this government in speculating about the pending sale of the Alberta Treasury Branches, standing in stark contradiction to the answer of the Provincial Treasurer. So I hope the Provincial Treasurer will learn from the mistake that he’s now made twice, two days running, in this House, will get his story straight, and will continue to always provide only the most accurate information to the Assembly when he’s providing an answer in question period. 3:10 THE SPEAKER: I’m quite prepared to rule this out of order. Do you want to say something? MR. HA VELOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make one point, and I’m not clear whether you have the authority to do so. In the future during a point of order argument which is quite clearly not a point of order but rather clarification or simply trying to put forward a position, I’d encourage you to perhaps interrupt that point of order and rule, as opposed to having us listen to two, three, four minutes on something that clearly falls outside the Standing Orders and is quite clearly, again, an abuse of the process of trying to put a point across, which they could otherwise not do.

THE SPEAKER: Well, actually, the chair was proceeding to come to that conclusion, hon. Government House Leader, and could have said it two months ago. The difficulty one has with all of this is that one has to listen to the argument before one can find the final conclusion. I just want to cite two things, hon. members. First of all, Beauchesne 494 says: “On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident. ” That’s always the dilemma.

The second thing is under Standing Order 23(h): “makes allegations against another member. ” It is actually correct; the Provincial Treasurer in the response in question period today referred to the Liberals calling for the fire sale of ATB. He didn’t refer to a member calling for the fire sale of ATB, which would have really fit in under 23(h). He said: the Liberals. Fortunately we don’t seem to have too many of these, and I appreciate that in the last three days there’s been a great reduction in terms of what we saw happen on Monday in terms of points of order and the like.

Anyway, we’ve now made the point once again, and of course this is three days ahead of time for everybody to take Beauchesne home, to take Standing Orders home just to review. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 48 Election Amendment Act, 1998 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little-Bow. MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill 48, the Election Amendment Act.

On September 25 of this year the Minister of Justice asked the Member for Calgary-Cross, the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, and myself to consult with Albertans and to make recommendations regarding the issue of inmates voting in Alberta. I was pleased to chair this committee and to have the opportunity to work with my colleagues and a tremendous staff from the Justice department. If I could, I’d like to particularly point out Nolan Steed, Tanya Stewart, Andy Michaelson, and of course the staff from the minister’s office.

The Minister of Justice asked us to determine the views of Albertans on inmates voting in provincial elections and to recommend amendments to the inma te voting provisions in the Alberta Election Act. We were keenly aware that any proposal

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1997 which denies a person the right to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly engages the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee sought advice from legal counsel on the Canadian constitutional sta ndard and the constitutionality of the alternatives open to the committee. Albertans hold strong views on the wisdom of allowing inmates to vote. Mr. Speaker, the Angus Reid poll we commissioned showed that approximately 80 percent of Albertans are opposed to allowing inmates the right to vote.

I repeat: four out of five Albertans do not believe that inmate voting is in the public interest. I’m not surprised by the results of the poll. My constituents strongly object to inmates voting, and I know that I’m not the only Member of this Legislative Assembly who has heard the strong and clear voice of Albertans throughout their ridings. Albertans almost without exception believe that inmates should not be allowed to vote. This is not because they wish to show contempt for inmates or wish to impose further punishment on inmates.

Instead, they oppose inmate voting because they believe that a ban on inmate voting will increase respect for the law and highlight the significance of participating in the voting process. Albertans are not uninformed on this issue either. According to the same Angus Reid poll, 86 percent of Albertans know that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of Canadian citizens to vote in elections of federal Members of Parliament and provincial Members of the Legislative Assembly.

A Legislature alone cannot deprive a citizen of the right to vote in an election of a Member of this Legislative Assembly just because almost everyone in the co mmunity thinks that this is a good idea. The Constitution of Canada recognizes that the right to vote is one of the most important rights Canadian citizens have. The Charter insists that the right to vote be universal unless compelling reasons support taking away the right to vote of a citizen. Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta has decided to deny the vote to inmates serving sentences greater than 10 days’ imprisonment.

Most Albertans support this judgment call. We wish to promote responsible citizenship. This bill accomplishes that objective by promoting two fundamental principles which characterize free and democratic nations. The first principle the voting ban supports is the supremacy of the rule of law in a free and democratic nation. The rule of law is important to Albertans and Canadians because we prefer to live in a community where members may freely pursue personal happiness without fear that others will harm us or our families.

Unless almost all of us who reside in the community are prepared to abide by that code of conduct which respects the right of all residents to pursue happiness, the state of happiness will be unattainable. The government of Alberta also believes that the inmate disenfranchisement rule, which it has selected, promotes another fundamental principle alive in a democratic state. The rule tells citizens that it is important to participate in the electoral process.

The amendments incorporated in the Election Amendment Act unequivocally proclaim that citizens of a state governed by a parliamentary system have important obligations as well as rights. It is, in the opinion of this government, desirable to introduce legislative measures which inform citizens that it is important to participate in the electoral process and that the well-being of a democracy is in part a function of the continued interest on the part of the citizen in its electoral proceedings. The integrity of the electoral system, in other words, must be preserved.

This Election Amendment Act is designed to promote the supremacy of the rule of law, and along with it is recognition for Albertans of the importance of the electorate participating in the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta is proposing these amendments to the Alberta Election Act in the belief that they will promote an increased awareness of the importance of obedience to the law among Albertans and will encourage Albertans to participate in the electoral process.

Surely no member of this Assembly will contest the proposition that a society whose members respect the rule of law and participate in the electoral process is one in which citizens are most likely to attain personal fulfillment and happiness. Everyone recognizes that Alberta will be a better place if more citizens respect the rule of law and do participate in the electoral process. I do not need to cite crime statistics to support the first point; it is self-evident. The second point is also easily explainable. In the last four general elections voter turnout has fluctuated between 47 and 60 percent.

Measures designed to encourage eligible voters to vote are in the best interests of all. Before concluding my remarks on the legislative purpose, I want to state in unequivocal terms what objectives the government of Alberta is not pursuing in the Election Amendment Act. The decision to disenfranchise inmates serving sentences in excess of 10 days was not made for the purpose of punishing inmates. 3:20 Mr. Speaker, I now wish to explain the relationship between the legislative means the government of Alberta has selected and the legislative purposes, which I’ve already explained to you.

A declaration by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta that those who are serving a sentence of imprisonment on polling day, with a few exceptions, are ineligible to vote in elections under the Election Act sends an unequivocal message to the community that the rule of law is a primary principle by which all Albertans live and that in a parliamentary system of government an electorate aware of the importance of participating in the electoral process is an indispensable feature.

I agree, as do my colleagues, with the assessment of Justice Wetston, a federal court judge considering the constitutionality of the federal inmate voting ban, when he said in his 1995 case: I find the morally educative function of the law to be compelling. The government of Alberta is convinced that its decision to disenfranchise inmates serving sentences in excess of 10 days rationally promotes the attainment of its legislative purposes. During our work the committee was exposed to a variety of legislative solutions to the inmate voting controversy.

I can safely say without fear of contradiction that there is a great diversity in the legislative response to the wisdom of inmate voting throughout the world. Some jurisdictions deprive all inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment of the right to vote. This is the law in the United Kingdom, Japan, some American states, some Cana- dian provinces, and Tasmania. Some jurisdictions single out inmates by reference to the term of imprisonment, the nature of the offence, or both. Still others leave the decision to sentencing courts, and some do not disenfranchise inmates.

The government has decided to disenfranchise inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment of more than 10 days, other than those in jail solely on the account of failure to pay a fine. This puts Alberta in the middle part of the legislative spectrum of options that are in common-law jurisdictions throughout the world. In Australia, like Canada, it is the federal state. The federal voting rule is set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918. It denies federal franchise to those persons serving a sentence of five years or longer for an offence against the law of the Com- monwealth or of the state or territory.

The Northern Territory, Queensland, and Victoria utilize the current federal standard. The law in New South Wales, Tasmania, and Western Australia is more restrictive than the federal law. In New South Wales a person cannot vote if serving a sentence of 12 months or greater

1998 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 for commission of a crime. The rule is almost identical in Western Australia with one exception: a person who’s been convicted of treason cannot vote. Tasmania has the harshest rule. In Tasmania no person imprisoned under conviction may vote, period. South Australia allows inmates to vote. It is readily apparent that the public opinion in Australia is not uniform.

The commission in the Commonwealth of Australia had this in mind when they said: we’re not saying that such persons should be disqualified, merely that we think Legislatures should have the power to disqualify on this ground if they think fit. A bill introduced in the Australian Senate on May 14, 1998, proposed that the five-year cutoff be eliminated from federal law. The effect of this would be that all serving inmates would be unable to vote in future Australian federal elections.

This bill did not become law because it was not passed before the recent Australian general election took place, but I understand that it is the intention of the governing party to reintroduce a bill in substantially the same form as it was before. A review of the statistics published by Statistics Canada suggests that the 10-day cutoff would allow approximately 20 percent of inmates in Alberta correctional institutions the right to vote. A higher cutoff date will significantly increase the number of inmates who have the right.

If, for example, inmates sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 31 days were eligible to vote, this would give the vote to 48 percent of sentenced admis- sions to Alberta correctional in stitutions. Allowing half of provincial inmates the right to vote would make it impossible for us to say with a straight face that inmate disenfranchisement is intended to deliver an important message. A 10-year cutoff was recommended by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in its 1991 report entitled Reforming Electoral Democracy.

The royal commission was of the view that without minimizing the gravity of the offences committed by a number of prisoners, allowing some prisoners to vote would not undermine public confidence in the value of the vote or threaten the interest of other citizens. It was the opinion of the committee that a 10-year cutoff is a completely inappropriate measure by which to send a serious statement of the importance of the vote in a free and democratic society or the significance of voluntary compliance with the rule of law. I am pleased that the government of Alberta shares this committee’s view.

A negligible percentage of the annual admissions to federal and provincial correctional facilities would be affected by the model suggested by this royal commission. It would hardly be worth the effort. The committee was aware of the model which bestows on the sentencing court the jurisdiction to disenfranchise an offender as part of the sentence. This model has two flaws. First, it does not stipulate the standard that a sentencing court must utilize.

Will sentencing courts deny the vote only to inmates who are clearly indecent and immoral -- the test some judges have suggested -- or will some other more objective and comprehensive standard find favour with the courts? Second, the government of Alberta is satisfied that it and not a court should decide which offenders are denied the vote. This is an issue which affects the entire community and needs to be resolved by the elected representatives of the people. The role of legislators and judges, while complementary, is fundamentally different.

This is in part attributable to the different procedures each branch follows in discharging its duties. Legislators cannot discharge their duties as such unless they take time to maintain contact with their constituents. This means that if the resolution of an issue which confronts both the legislator and a judge involves an understanding of what the ordinary person is thinking, an elected representative is in a better position than a judge to make the call. Legislators are in a position to compile useful information to which judges may not have access.

I have found it comforting to know that my constituents think and know that my colleagues on the committee felt the same way. With respect to the 10-day cutoff, Mr. Speaker, the committee believes that two persons sentenced on the same day for the same short imprisonment should not have different voting opportunities just because one of them was uninformed and unaware of the existence of advance polls. The 10-day cutoff will ensure that this will not happen. Similar reasoning also justifies our decision to allow fine defaulters to vote.

An individual who has the resources or access to the resources of others or is able to participate in the fine-option program currently available will in most cases not be in jail on polling day and will be entitled to vote. The govern- ment of Alberta wishes to accord similar treatment to those who pay their fines and those who serve time in prison on account of fine default.

The Constitution of Canada does not allow legislators to pass laws which deprive citizens of the right to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly unless the beneficial effect of disenfran- chisement in the community is greater than the impact of disen- franchisement on inmates who are not allowed to vote. It has been brought to our attention that we must carefully consider the rights of those persons who are affected by our decision. In order to conduct this review, it is important to identify those whose interests are at stake.

The government does not see this as a contest between the government and inmates who are serving sentences in excess of 10 days’ imprisonment. Rather, the balance is between citizens who are not serving sentences of imprisonment in excess of 10 days on voting day and inmates who are serving sentences in excess of 10 days. 3:30 There are competing interests, because the decision to increase the number of eligible voters diminishes the impact of every other citizen’s vote.

The government does not underestimate the detriment that disenfranchisement represents to those inmates who will be deprived of the right under the Election Amendment Act. The committee and the government both accept that the right to vote is of great importance to Albertans. Some have argued that giving inmates the right to vote may encourage them to become more responsible citizens.

Even if those who support inmate voting could substantiate this claim, it would not cause the government of Alberta to change its mind. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] With respect to the last recommendation there are eight different considerations, Mr. Speaker. The first is that the decision we have made does not deprive all inmates who are serving sentences of more than 10 days of the right to vote. It only affects those who are in jail on polling day. Sec ond, the disqualification ends the day the prisoner stops sleeping in jail at night for any reason.

Third, the exclusion of fine defaulters means that a large number of inmates will be allowed to vote. Fourth, in 1996-97 the median sentence length on admissions to Alberta correctional institutions was 30 days. Fifth, unlike the law in many American states Bill 48 allows inmates to vote upon release without the need to secure a pardon. Sixth, 1 1 percent of sentenced admissions to Alberta correctional institutions in ’96-97 were for intermittent sentences. This segment of the inmate population will be able to vote.

Seventh, inmates in Alberta have not had the right to vote in any of the 24 previous provincial general elections since 1905. Finally, imprisonment is a sanction reserved for the worst offenders. Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues here to support second

November 19, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1999 reading of Bill 48, and I thank you for the opportunity for the lengthy time that I’ve taken here today. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands appeared to be a little faster on the draw, followed by Edmonton-Norwood. Edmonton-Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Member for Edmonton-Norwood: I assure her that on this occasion my comments will conform to my height.

Provisionally I need to speak agai nst this bill. [interjections] Oh, but I should tell members of the Assembly that I will be consulting New Democratic Party members this weekend at our annual convention to see how they feel about this bill. If the party says to support it, I will. However, right now I just have a couple of preliminary comments to make.

It just seems so very arbitrary to take away one right from people who may have done wrong out of circum- stances they didn’t control -- yes, they obviously knew the difference between right and wrong, or for the most part that is true -- with convictions that result in jail sentences. But I think one has to ask reasonably: how far does a government go? Do we, then, take away their social security cards? Do we start assuming that justice must be administered in the fashion that it is in some countries, in the Middle East for example, where stealing a loaf of bread can result in the chopping off of your hand?

Y ou knew where I was headed on that, Mr. Speaker. I think we must appreciate that we are a society; we are not just individuals existing by ourselves. We exist in groups b ecause throughout history we have discovered that it is much more efficient to do so. In so doing, we have discovered the merits of civility, those merits being ultimately that we respect one another and we are our brothers’ keepers. Being not an advocate of capital punishment, I can never assume that a conviction is 100 percent certain.

If I’m not mistaken, just in Chicago on Tuesday there was a convention being held in which a number of former death row prisoners congregated with a number of other activists and politicians to try to overturn the capital punishment provisions of several states because they can demonstrate so clearly that they were wrongfully convicted. That is just step number one in the argument for maintaining civility in our penal system. It is clear that once one is incarcerated, having a passport does one no good at all, unless you escape, I suppose.

One has to ask, you know: just how many people is the government prepared to take rights away from, and how impera- tive is that in 1998, particularly in Alberta, where this city, for example, is just beginning to recover from the worst economic smashing any government has ever imposed upon one city in Canada in modern years? Why wouldn’t we be diverting our attention instead to economic rebuilding, filling in the cracks that were left by massive and unthoughtful budgetary cuts to programs that serve people? That again brings me back to the purpose of society.

It is not just efficiency; it boils down to collective values. My sense of our collective values, not in this Legislature certainly but in my day-to-day lif e out in the real world, is that people generally respect people, respect each other, including strangers, and people generally have a pretty forgiving nature when it comes to having messed up and broken a serious law. Remember that some crimes are very serious and some are very minor, and there’s a whole range in between. This bill doesn’t discriminate between the nature of the crimes for which one is serving time in prison.

So with that, as I say, I will conclude my remarks by saying that at this point I believe I will be voting against the bill, but I’m going to do the democratic thing this weekend and consult our party members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I’m pleased -- or not pleased -- to speak to this bill today. I believe that there are many times when people in our province have stated that they do not support the inmates in any institution voting. There is some validity to the notion of restricting prisoners’ rights to vote.

However, I’m not sure that this bill addresses that in many ways in the appropriate manner. I would first like to look at the issue of some of the leaders in the world who have been imprisoned. For one, Nelson Mandela, who was a human rights activist who was promoting democracy, would not have had the right to vote. Louis Riel -- this is Métis Week -- who was promoting the rights of the Métis Nation in this country, ended up in jail. He’s since been given a pardon by the federal government.

Let’s also not forget Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, who were convicted offenders who were released because other evidence, DNA evidence in these instances, was able to show t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t i n f a c t responsible for the homicides they were convicted of. Now, I want to point that out in this argument because we do have to look at all citizens in this country, in this province as just that, as citizens.

Section 3 of the Charter states that all citizens should have the right to vote and can’t be denied that right. That has to be weighed against, in a reasonable way I suspect, the whole notion of the public’s demand to see justice done by denying some certain privileges and rights that law-abiding citizens have. Given that, I look at the notion of: how can we satisfy that, and how can we balance that? I’m not sure that looking at time in relation to the crime is the best way to do that. I think what we have to look at is the crime, the criminal activity, how severe it was.

If you look at the Criminal Code and you look in the back, you will see a grid for sentencing options. Where most offenders serving in our institutions are found guilty of offences under this particular act or, say, the Narcotic Control Act, the Y oung Offenders Act, all of those kinds of offences are outlined in here in this particular book. In here is a grid for types of sentencing. Y ou can get an automatic discharge.

Y ou can get a suspended sentence, a fine alone, fine and probation, prison, prison and probation, prison and fine, proba tion, intermittent sentences, victim fine surcharge, conditional sentencing. There is a horren- dous number of sentencing options that a judge has. 3:40 Now, in this piece of legislation we’re talking about provincial inmates. We are talking about inmates, then, that are put in an institution for two years less a day. Let’s talk about convictions and different crimes. An individual can be convicted of, let’s say, criminal harassment; okay?

That individual could be released on a conditional sentence, according to the sentencing guidelines in this Criminal Code. On the same day, however, another offender could be convicted of criminal harassment and be sentenced to an institution. They could both be given, say, 12 months. They’re both given 12 months. One is sentenced and is an inmate, but he’s serving his sentence in the community, which means he has a right to vote. The other person is sentenced to an institution, which means he doesn’t have the right to vote. Now, my position and the position of this caucus has been that

2000 Alberta Hansard November 19, 1998 we should be leaving that decision to a judge. Let’s focus on the crime and the type of crime because that’s what the citizens of this province look at. What kind of crime was it? There are many instances -- impaired driving is one of them -- where you can get intermittent sentencing. Y ou can get sentencing that you’re only serving on weekends. Y ou can get a fine and intermittent sentencing; again, you’re an inmate.

But for many, many people, unless the Crown second-offences an individual, it’s considered their first offence, so in the courts they often will proceed on, say, a basic impaired driving charge summarily. So the least particular sentencing option is what would come out of that. An indictable offence is considered more serious; a

summary conviction offence is considered less serious. Therefore, what happens is you have a lot of inequity with these different types of crimes and these different types of sentences. So why don’t we leave it to a judge? Why don’t we amend the provincial court procedures act and allow the judge, upon sentencing, to make that decision, focusing on the crime, because it really is the crime that they’re there for. With the inequities in sentencing, it doesn’t allow at all for any discretion. This province uses conditional sentencing. This province uses this system a lot, and most of it is for a cost-saving reason.

In fact, we have that house arrest program. In the house arrest program people are sentenced to their home. They get to vote. They’re not in Fort Saskatchewan; they’re not in Lethbridge; they’re not in Peace River. So that’s an inequity that concerns me to a great degree. I look at the 10-day option here. The report provided by the committee talks about Justice Côté suggesting that 10 days might be an appropriate limit.

Well, in Justice Côté’s decision and the rationale behind it, on page 653, paragraph 36, he states that “there is another reason to exempt prison under (say) 10 days, unlike the present s. 41(d).” Now, that indicates to me that that is a hypothetical number that was used by Justice Côté and that in fact to say that we’re adopting what he suggested is the appropri- ate limit was purely hypothetical in his discussion. He could have said 20 days. He could have said 15 days. He could have said three days.

But he said: “(say) 10 days.” That creates a little bit of a problem when you look at the whole issue of imprisonment. Y ou get very few offenders, and in fact I think in the report it said 27 percent maybe or 26 percent, only that many prisoners. I don’t know if the hon. member can maybe answer that for me at some point. In fact I think in September they had 51 prisoners in for 10 days or less, something like that.

That out of the whole number of inmates in an institu- tion is not that great, and I’m wondering if in fact that might almost not be considered an infringement by virtue of not having that many prisoners, by cutting so many people out of the ability to vote through these guidelines. Maybe in fact that’s almost tantamount to a ban in itself by using 10 days. I’m wondering if the minister or if the mover of this bill could table for us all the legal opinions that they have, provide for this Assembly the legal opinions that support this particular pi ece of legislation.

My concern in this Assembly is that the Department of Justice is an intervenor in a federal case right now, and that case has gone to the federal Court of Appeal. If they lose at the federal Court of Appeal, that case will likely be challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada. Sauvé II is the case. I’m just wondering if the Minister of Justice would table for us the opinions so we can feel more comfortable with the research done on supporting the fact that this in fact will not violate anybody’s rights and freedoms and that in fact it doesn’t violate the Charter or the Constitution.

That would be helpful for us in making a decision as to where we’re going to go here. Again, I guess I would just like to reiterate that I think it would improve the bill to see judges ma ke the decision and allow that latitude based on their knowledge of an offence and an offender at the time. I think that’s a more realistic way, because Albertans would then know what the offence is: 10 days or 20 days or even three months for an assault which could be serious in nature.

A judge may say, “This is such a serious assault, we don’t want you to vote for the next two elections,” or maybe “We just don’t want you to vote in the next one election,” or maybe “we’re just going to let you vote.” The other thing is that right now because of the federal Court of Appeal intervenor status that the Department of Justice has and because we don’t have an election for probably another two years, it would be great to see that decision settled.

I’m a little con- cerned that if this goes ahead, we’re going to end up with another court challenge on this, that this is going to open the doors, or that we’re going to find out it’s not valid law down the road when we get to when the provincial government has intervenor status at the federal level on the Sauvé matter. So I’m wondering if we’re not just jumping the gun here and if we might be making better law, equitable law, fairer law after that decision comes out. I will be submitting an amendment to this particular bill.

I am interested, however, in listening to the entire debate, and I hope it’s more than just the sponsor of the bill. I hope the Justice minister and other members across the way are going to speak, because I’d like the information that they have, and I’d like to be able to look at the debate in order to feel comfortable making a decision on this bill. Sometimes we only get little bits and pieces. 3:50 The other thing that concerns me is that the report refers to the U.K. and that the U.K. has a blanket voting ban, but the United Kingdom does not have a charter of rights and freedoms. So that’s the