Alberta Hansard — 21 May 1996, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 4)

19960521

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1957 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 21, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/05/21 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. Our Father, we thank Y ou for Y our abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. We ask Y ou to ensure to us Y our guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Notices of Motions MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I'm giving notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions stand and retain their places. I also give notice that I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of 195, 196, 197, 198, and 202. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Bill 45 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996 MR. EV ANS: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I request leave to introduce Bill 45, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. [Leave granted; Bill 45 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR. JACQUES: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to file four copies of a letter dated May 17 from the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo to myself. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table a letter to JoAnne James, producer of the Calgary International Children's Festival, on the occasion of their 10th anniversary.

This educa- tional festival enriches the lives of our children through the performing arts of many different countries and cultures. On behalf of the government of Alberta a very happy 10th anniver- sary and best wishes for a successful year. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table four copies of a form called form 27, which is required when a company makes material changes under the Securities Commission regulations in Ontario.

It is a form that 's been submitted on November 30, 1995, by Trac Industries, which is the major owner of Hotel de Health, and outlines that Trac Industries in fact is establishing a two-tiered, Americanized health care system in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I have a fifth copy where I've highlighted the sections which reveal very clearly what in fact Hotel de Health is about. I'm asking the page to take that copy directly to the Minister of Health so that perhaps for the first time she'll actually admit that she's seen a proposal from Hotel de Health. head: Introduction of Guests MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 20 students from the Ermineskin elementary and junior high school located in my constituency. They are accompanied by teachers and group leaders Mrs. Shirley Mikalson, Mr. Scott Shimp, and Mr. Gerald Paskemin. They're seated in the members' gallery. I would like to welcome them to the Assembly and ask them to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. MR. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I introduce to you and to members of the Assembly a group of physicians from Ukraine participating in a medical project, Osvita, a postgraduate training program. This is the sixth group of Ukrainian physicians who have studied in Canada under the auspices of Osvita, bringing the total number of participants to 58. The mission of the project is to enhance the training of Ukrainian physicians in order to improve health care for mothers and children in Ukraine. Osvita is an extension of Chernobyl's children's project, which was initiated in 1992.

The medical education program operates under the Faculty of Medicine and Oral Health Sciences at the University of Alberta and is funded by the government of Canada. I would ask these physicians to please stand as I call their names: Dr. Galina Guivan, Dr. Svitlana Komar, Dr. Olga Kostyuk, Dr. Ihor Livshuts, Dr. Volodymyr Podilski, Dr. Tatyana Vihovska. Also accompanying these physicians are Dr. Ehor Gauk, chairman of the medical project Osvita and director of Osvita's pediatric program, and Ms Larissa Talpash, executive administrator of the medical project Osvita.

I'd ask all those I've named to please stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Frank and Wilma Mole from Cheltenham, Ontario. They're in the province to experience firsthand the Alberta advantage. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly on behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona visitors from the Cross Cancer Institute. There are 13 adults that are here today. The information that I've been provided is that as part of their Legislature tour they are in the facility or in this Assembly, although I'm not certain. Whether they are here or not, I certainly do welcome them and ask all members to give them a warm welcome.

1958 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 head: Oral Question Period Hotel de Health Inc. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has created a spawning ground for two-tiered, Americanized health care here in Alberta. It's called Hotel de Health.

It's clear from documents filed with the Ontario Securities Commission that Hotel de Health plans on marketing complete medical services to Canadians, and I quote from that document: “Hotel de Health facilities will offer individuals complete medical services without having to go through the current referral system.” To the Minister of Health: what does she think this statement, this policy will lead to in Alberta if it isn't two-tiered, Americanized health care? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can reiterate to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition is that the Premier and the Minister of Health have made it very clear – and I will say it one more time – that there will be nothing offered here that is in contravention of the Canada Health Act. I believe that selective readings out of this document may be putting a wrong impression out. As I read it, I read a sentence that said “elective” services, and that is not clear at all. They could be noninsured services, other services, which is quite within the Canada Health Act. No one will set up an operation here that is in contravention of the Canada Health Act. MR.

MITCHELL: How can the Minister of Health continually plead ignorance of this Hotel de Health plan when she could easily pick up that document, form 27, from the Ontario Securities Commission and look at what they are planning to do, and that's two-tiered, Americanized health care in this province? 1:40 MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, as I've pointed out to the hon. member and to this House before, the regional health authorities are reviewing these things and I am sure this document as well.

What is different is that I believe the regional health authorities have capable boards, have capable management who have legal advice, and they are quite capable and competent to review these. I would remind the hon. member that not one regional health authority has submitted a proposal from this group to the minister for approval. Not one. MR.

MITCHELL: How can this minister de facto fire the Capital health authority when it asked for some more money to do its job and then turn around here and say that it's business as usual when the Leduc regional health authority wants to get us into Hotel de Health two-tiered, Americanized health care, Mr. Speaker? MRS. McCLELLAN: I have not received any proposal from the Crossroads regional health authority on the use of the Leduc hospital. Mr. Speaker, what they are doing is responsible.

They are reviewing this proposal that they have, and they will decide there whether it should be forwarded to the Minister of Health. Saying that somebody is going to do something is quite different than doing it. That is something that they haven't caught onto over there. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister of Health allowed health regions in this province to become so underfunded that they become vulnerable to the two-tiered scheme such as has been proposed by Hotel de Health? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would debate and have debated with those of the opposition caucus who came during estimates the funding of the health system in Alberta. I would point out to them that this year we are committing 3.7 billion – billion – dollars to the health sy stem. Three point seven billion dollars. What the Minister of H ealth is asking is that we use those dollars effectively, responsibly, and ensure that people are receiving the services. I believe that is happening. Again I have to say that ther e's been a lot of saying that somebody is going to do something.

I have yet to r eceive from any health authority in this province a proposal to utilize the services of Hotel de Health. Until I receive that pr oposal, Mr. Speaker, frankly I don't think it would be responsible for a minister to rule on it. MR. MITCHELL: Is the Minister of Health going to sustain the lowest per capita funding for health care in this province, in the entire country, by allowing Hotel de Health and schemes like that to take over our health care system, Mr. Speaker? MRS.

McCLELLAN: What the Minister of Health and this government will do is ensure that we are utilizing the dollars that Albertans entrust to us in the best way, not simply throwing money at problems: spend, spend, spend. We've heard a lot of wonderful thoughts or musings coming from the opposition, but never, never, Mr. Speaker, have I seen them have the courage to put a price tag on it. MR.

MITCHELL: Is the Minister of Health refusing to stop the funding of private clinics in this province for eight months and $3 million worth of penalties because she wants to keep the door open so that Hotel de Health can come in and broaden private clinics in this province? MRS. McCLELLAN: Alberta has been a partner in the Canada Health Act for about as many years as it's been in existence. The

interpretation of that Act was changed in January of 1995. We made a commitment to Health Canada that we would review our delivery. I have to remind the hon. members opposite that many of these clinics were in operation in this province, provided valuable services under rules they clearly understood, that we understood, that the federal government seemed to understand because they were there for a lot of years. But they were changed, Mr. Speaker.

We have said that we will comply with the Canada Health Act, but we have also said that we have to ensure that as we change how we deliver those services, we do it in a responsible way. I have said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I've had two meetings with the Minister of Health for Canada. We are both, he and I, optimistic that we will have this resolved to mutual satisfaction in the very near future. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Health for Canada is interested in ensuring that Canadians have a good health system, and he is interested in working productively and proactively with the provinces. I wish the Liberal opposition in this province would act in a similar manner. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Hospital Fatality Investigation MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Jennifer Fortier was a 16-year-old girl who required specialized physiotherapy, and she

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1959 could only breathe with the help of a respirator. While she was a resident of the Edmonton Good Samaritan hospital this past February, she was left unattended for over 40 minutes, and tragically she suffocated to death. My questions are to the Minister of Health. Will the minister commit to a full and open disclosure of the circumstances surrounding this tragedy and order a public inquiry into this event? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is an unfortu- nate occurrence, and there is an investigation under way.

Until that investigation is concluded, I don't think that it would be appropriate for me to have any further comment on it. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question, hon. member. MR. SAPERS: Y es, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. The question is regarding the independence of that investigation. What independ- ent evaluation will in fact be made of the claims by Jennifer's family that her death is linked to government funding cutbacks in health care? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that is under way now.

One investigation involves the medical examiner, one involves the operator of the facility, and one involves the managers of the system. Until we receive the findings of those investigations, I think it would be premature to guess what process might follow that. MR. SAPERS: Will the minister's investigation, which won't be independent, determine why Jennifer was at the Good Samaritan centre and not at the Glenrose hospital as originally planned? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to the hon. member the processes under way now.

I can assure the hon. member that I will review the findings of those investigations and determine what action if any needs to be carried out. Until those reviews are completed, I don't think it's appropriate to judge what process we might follow. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Child Welfare MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Family and Social Services.

The children's services initiative is very importa nt to the constituents of Leth- bridge-West, and I know that 300 or 400 Albertans in that particular city have worked with 7,000 Albertans over the past few years to try to bring forward positive changes to the Child and Family Services Authorities Act. Now, this legislation was introduced months ago and has not been passed. Why has the minister not pushed hard to ensure that this legislation is com- pleted? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That's a good question.

Of course children's services is one part of the welfare reforms we introduced back in '92-93. It is a very important part of the overall restructuring of my department. It's a most sensitive area. As part of the process of restructuring children's services, of course, in good faith and in a consultative process I believe I brought forward some initiatives through the proposed legislation. As you're aware, the Liberal opposition has made it very clear that they are not going to allow some of this legislation to go through.

Regardless of how important the legislation is, how sensitive the legislation is, it seems that they want to filibuster the whole process, which is very unfortunate. MR. GERMAIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister given a commitment to Albertans being hurt by these Liberal delay tactics that this legislation will be passed this session? MR. CARDINAL: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the member question- ing is right.

There are a lot of delays that go on in this House that are not necessary, and a lot more work can be done. I guess that is the role of the opposition: to delay the process. I guess that is their role. Certainly I would hope that this legislation will go through. However, you know, if the opposition continues their strategy of delaying the process, no doubt if the House has to adjourn – and it will have to adjourn – of course we will not be able to move forward with some of the legislation that's on the floor. Children's services of course are very, very important.

In fact, hundreds of volunteers out there are already in place. Over 7,000 volunteers are participating to assist in moving forward with this very, very, very important process, Mr. Speaker. Of course this issue could be delayed over a year if this process continues. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister taken the time to discuss this legislation with the oppos ition critic? [interjections] MR. CARDINAL: Of course that's a very important question. The Liberals may not think it's important, but most ministers have the opportunity to consult with the opposition critics.

I know I've done that in a number of areas. As we move forward in redesigning the Department of Family and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, all phases of it allow us to consult with the opposition members, and we do that. In this particular case not only did I do that with the members opposite that are my critics, but the Member for Calgary-McCall also consulted with the member. They did agree on a number of amendments, and we accepted those amendments. Credit should go to the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly because she did make some good recommendations.

We accepted those recommendations, but there are other members in her caucus that are still delaying the process, and that is very, very unfortunate. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. Alberta Research Council MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite opposition from private firms in the seismic industry, three and a half years ago the cabinet approved $10 million in funding for the High Performance Computing Centre to purchase a Fujitsu super-

1960 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 computer. In the words of one of the seismic operators: in the world of supercomputers, it wasn't much of one. An American company has now got that computer for scrap for a few thousand dollars, so our $10 million is gone and so is the Fujitsu. My questions are to the minister responsible for science and technol- ogy. Madam Minister, why did cabinet proceed with the funding for this supercomputer given the expert predictions of obsoles- cence and private-sector objections over having to face competi- tion with subsidized tax dollars yet again? MRS. MIROSH: Mr.

Speaker, this is under the auspices of the Alberta Research Council. We did not spend $10 million to purchase this equipment. In fact, we are looking at doing a business deal with these computers. It was not money that was spent through this portfolio. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, then, if it's not through that portfolio, to whomever is responsible my supplementary question is: if the project was viable from a business perspective, why didn't the other partners, like Bull HN Information Systems, Motorola, and Fujitsu Canada, pay for it themselves? MRS. MIROSH: Mr.

Speaker, this is a question that the member would have to ask those companies. It's a business deal that is currently being examined as we sit. MR. BRUSEKER: My final supplemental to the same minister: how much additional public money was funneled into this project through ACTC Technologies, that was overseeing this, which has on its board of directors Fred Stewart, the former minister of technology, research, and telecommunications? MRS. MIROSH: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been no govern- ment money that has been funneled through this portfolio since I've been the minister. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Medicine Hat. Loans and Loan Guarantees MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Treasurer is constantly uttering the phrase that this government is out of the business of being in business. Y et despite the Provin- cial Treasurer's reassurances I continue to receive calls from constituents concerned that the government could resume unwise loans and loan guarantees within this province. I have assured my constituents that legislation that we have would prohibit such loans and loan guarantees from taking place.

Can the minister – this is the Provincial Treasurer – tell us, since he has not yet proclaimed this legislation, how the taxpayers are being protected from this practice being resumed? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, members know that there is legislation that is in place. It has unfortunately not gotten through all of the stages of the Legislative Assembly process. Tragically enough it's held up.

It's been held up after lengthy debate – I think the Government House Leader could probably tell me – upwards of five hours of debate on a very straightforward, simple Bill that effectively ties the hands of the government, doesn't allow them to do any more backroom loan guarantees or loans in private. They would be stopped from doing that, but in fact we're not stopped from doing it b ecause the members across the way, the opposition Liberals, want to stop this B ill, implicitly saying that they think government should be in this kind of a business. We're trying to get out.

We want it to become law to make sure that we stay out. It's the Liberals across the way who are filibustering the debate on this Bill and will not allow it to become the law of this province. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Provincial Treasurer give his commitment to Albertans who are concerned about government loans and loan guarantees that despite the Liberal delay tactics this legislation will pass this session? MR. DINNING: It clearly is our intention, Mr.

Speaker, to put this legislation before the Assembly, to ask the Committee of the Whole Assembly to adopt this legislation, to allow the debate to unfold at third reading, and to then have His Honour come in and give his seal of approval, that it gets Royal Assent. Y ou know, my colleague from Medicine Hat is effectively asking: how do you spell the word Liberal? Y ou spell it f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r. MR. RENNER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Treasurer: has the Treasurer taken the time to consult with his opposition critic on this legislation? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, have I?

I sat with the opposition critic, and he was one who made some very good suggestions as we prepared this legislation. I know that some members across the way want to see this legislation become law, but no, there are members like those from Fort McMurray or from Calgary-Buffalo or from Sherwood Park, who want to talk, and talk expensively, so that this legislation is delayed. Albertans have said to us: get out of that business.

We want to get out of that business, but the members across the way are stopping the government from getting out of that business, and I think it's shameful. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. [interjections] Hon. members, please. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East would like to ask a question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. 2:00 Métis Settlements DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Metis Settlements Act has a provision in it to allow for appeal when disputes arise between members or members in the council. Unfortunately some of the powers of this appeal process are limited.

When a person wants to have a dispute heard, it has to have the approval of both sides of the dispute before it can be referred to the appeal tribunal. My question is to the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs. Mr. Minister, what course is open to ordinary settlement members when they want to appeal a decision to this tribunal? MR. CARDINAL: The Métis settlement process itself I think, just to clarify for Albertans, is a complicated process, and no doubt the government will be involved in the process for a long period of time.

Alberta is the only province in Canada in fact that recognized the Métis people and provided legislation back I believe in 1989, 1990 and a transfer of over 1.25 million acres of land along with the processes to be able to administer and eventually become self-sufficient and independent. Mr. Speaker, one of the processes, of course, that is a concern at times of members and also of some of the leadership is: how do

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1961 you determine Métis membership? The process was set up for all Métis people in Alberta, and since then of course there have been changes take place in the process where some Métis have become Bill C-31 members now under the federal legislation, which gives them full treaty entitlement w ithout land base. That process is creating some difficulties out there for the members, but there are processes in place. In fact, the tribunal itself reports to me, and I've delegated the authority for the tribunal to make certain decisions.

In the case where there is concern that the process is not working as well as the membership expects it to work, of course they have an opportunity to write to the minister also personally and appeal the process, and I will look into the matter. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, thank you. With the reference that the minister made to the status of different members on the Métis councils, one of the big questions is: can regular members of the settlement obtain that same information in terms of who consti- tutes legal membership and get a copy of the membership list? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, I don't see a problem in it. All the people would have to do is write to me and request the information, and no doubt it would be made available. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the same minister. What would the minister propose to do to make sure that those people who feel disadvantaged in this appeal process have a fair chance to have their case heard before the tribunal when it has to have approval of both parties before it can advance to the tribunal? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, along with of course the eight Métis settlements and their 5,000 members we do have ongoing involvement and ongoing review not only of the policies but also an ongoing financial review. In fact, we're doing that right now. Along with that of course there's always a continued review of policies of this nature, and this ministry of course is open to make sure that we assist or facilitate the process of the Métis people becoming self-sufficient and independent eventually without too much government involvement and interference. On the other hand, Mr.

Speaker, as we move forward, as we propose new amendments possibly to some of the legislation and the regulations that are in place, we have to be fair also to the membership to make sure the membership's issues are addressed along with the overall plan of the Métis settlement process. So we are open to any good recommendation that may work better than what we have out there now. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. Employment Standards Code MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Labour.

I've had a number of calls from workers in Calgary-Egmont who continue to face confusion regarding such basic elements as what constitutes a statutory holiday, when overtime should be paid, and how v acation pay should be calculated. What is the minister doing to address the confusion surrounding these issues? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the issues just articulated by the member indeed are accurate. Albertans for some period of time now have asked that these particular

definitions be cleared up. They want the confusion taken care of on these areas that are vital to their working life. In fact after considerable consultation around the province and an in-depth analysis, legislation has been tabled in this Legislature that will clearly deal with those areas of confusion so that every working woman, every working man in this province and their employers would clearly know what's expected of both sides. Unfortunately, that legislation is being delayed in the Legislature by the Liberals at this time. [interjec- tions] MR.

HERARD: Y eah, I guess your responsibility catches up sooner or later. Has the minister given a commitment to Albertans being affected by these unfortunate Liberal delay tactics that this legislation will pass this session? [interjections] MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Liberals are shrieking so loudly I couldn't hear the question. Could I have it repeated, please? THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order, hon. members. Supplemental question. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister given a commitment to Albertans being affected by these unfortunate Liberal delay tactics that this legislation will pass in this session? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I can't give an ironclad guarantee to people who want this legislation through that it will go through. Legitimate debate is one thing, but constant babbling as we're hearing from the members opposite where there are delays – it's costing the taxpayer about $15,000 a day. We have to weigh these out. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, we have already heard, if they would listen for a minute, the Liberals say that they're going to delay things so that we're here until the middle of the summer. So I cannot say to Albertans who want to see this le gislation dealt with that I will hold hostage the taxpayers of this province until the middle of the summer. I can't give the guarantee to Albertans wanting these areas cleared up by legislation that we would sit here at a cost of $15,000 a day until the middle of the summer. MR.

HERARD: What has the mi nister done to involve the opposition in doing their job and working on this legislation? [interjections] MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'm really not trying to drag this out. The opposition are shouting so loudly that I couldn't hear the question. Could I get it repeated? THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What has the minister done to involve the opposition in doing their job and working on passing this legislation? 2:10 MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, not only on this legislation but with other legislation I try to work closely with the Labour critic.

This particular legislation was made available to the Labour critic. Also, an official from my department sat down with the Labour

1962 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 critic to go over it thoroughly. The Labour critic then shared certain areas of disagreement and certain amendments, which obviously is appropriate. Since that, other members of her caucus have tabled amendments that go into the dozens, as I recall, which would again signify not only the justifiable amendments of the critic but of other members who have sort of hijacked the process and taken it on. So I have no idea how long the delay will be. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. School Superintendents MR. HENRY: Thank you very much.

Enough of the justification for the government bringing in closure. Let's get on with some real issues that affect Albertans here. The government's yelling about filibuster; they haven't seen one yet in this House. [interjections] They're testy today, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to raise an issue today that I've been asked to raise in this Legislature.

Section 94.1 of . . . [interjection] Not in your lifetime. Mr. Speaker, the School Act,

section 94.1(1), as amended in 1994 with Bill 19, requires that the superintendent of school contract renewals, that happen every three years, be approved by the Minister of Education. Now, some superintendents are concerned that this might leave the appointment of superintendents open to partisan political interf erence, so I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions. First, to allay these fears, would the minister outline the criteria used to determine whether a contract will be approved or not by the minister, and would he table those criteria in the Legislature? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, there are basically three criteria. First of all, we expect the school board to have in place an evaluation policy with respect to their superintendent of schools, it being a very important position. We expect that that is being followed by the school boards. They will judge, of course, the performance in that particular area. I apologize that I cannot quote the exact clause of the School Act, Mr. Speaker, but we do check – and this is more to do with the initial hiring of the superintendent – that they meet the qualifications that are outlined in the School Act.

The other requirement which is outlined in the School Act is that certain requirements with respect to reporting on the specific activities of the school jurisdiction be complied with. Mr. Speaker, this is a very neutral process in my view. There is no partisan politics involved, and I know of no case where there has been. MR. HENRY: I thank the minister for that answer. I'd like to further ask the minister if he would outline a situation which would lead him to not approve the renewal of a contract that has been recommended to him by a local school board. THE SPEAKER: That's sort of hypothetical. MR.

JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, one example might be – this is actually really not an appropriate question because it's kind of hypothetical. In general terms, it would be a situation where there was no evidence that there was a process in place for the evaluation of the performance of the superintendent. As we would be expecting with respect to teachers, there s hould be an evaluation process in place, and that should be followed. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental? The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Iraqi Oil Sales MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last few days a deal has been announced involving Iraq and the United Nations that will allow an exchange of Iraqi oil for humanitarian supplies. I understand from this report that the Iraqi will be able to sell up to a billion dollars in oil every 90 days. Can the Provincial Treasurer tell this Assembly what impact this development will have on Alberta's oil and gas sector, the engine of growth for our economy of course? MR. DINNING: Well, I know the hon. Minister of Energy would want to supplement my answer, and I'm sure she will when she has an opportunity.

I think that the energy industry in this province has shown its resilience over the last number of years, especially thr ough any number of ups and downs, including the Liberal government imposed national energy program. I think they should be able to handle whatever fallout comes from the introduction of Iraqi oil back onto the market. It's funny. I was looking in the budget where we listed about 18 forecasters' expectations with respect to oil price for 1996, and it ranges anywhere from $16.75 to as high as $19.50. So here we are today with Iraqi possibly coming back onto the market, and oil went up $2.

At lunch time today it was at $22.48 U.S. It's hard to know exactly how the market is going to respond. Clearly, if it's in the $20, $22 region, our budget is protected in that we forecasted an $18.50 oil price, but in fact, as members know, because of the formula that's spelled out in the legislation, our budget will come true if oil in fact averages $16.65 U.S. for the year. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Treasurer plan to revise Budget '96 oil and gas assumptions, and what effect will there be on the government debt retirement plan? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr.

Speaker, no, we do not plan to revise the revenue estimate in the short term. We'll have a chance to look at that in the summertime, when we review the first quarter, which of course ends June 30, 1996. I have to tell the hon. member and all members that during my 40-odd months serving as Provincial Treasurer, we've seen oil go as low as under $14 and as high as $25. I was looking at some charts over lunch. Y ou can see the up and down nature of oil prices, indeed gas prices as well: as high as $2.20 Canadian per mcf down to as low as almost $1 per mcf. That has a significant impact on our oil and gas revenues.

We realize that it has become virtually a fool's game to predict oil and gas prices, so we've stuck with our conservative revenue assumptions. How we may estimate and forecast the price of oil for fiscal purposes is actually spelled out in legislation. We're locked in; we're fixed. I think that what we're able to do is meet our debt repayment plan by any amount that comes in over and above our forecasted price. We're not going to plan to spend that money because we don't know for sure that it's going to be there. We don't have it in the bank.

So anything that comes in over and above our forecasted price will go to the bottom line, and all of those dollars will go to pay down debt.

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1963 THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Provincial Treasurer tell this Assembly wh at the government does specifi- cally to protect Albertans from changes in oil prices? MR. DINNING: It's an opportunity for me to again reiterate that in fact today oil prices on international markets are about $22.48. In the last few days they've ranged anywhere from $20 to as high as $25.

In fact, our budget estimates that oil will be $18.50 this year, but because we've said that we're going to accept 90 percent of that forecast and assume revenue only from 90 percent of that oil price, that means our oil price effectively for fiscal purposes is $16.65. We're only planning to spend as much money as $16.65 will generate. Any amount over and above that will be surplus to our needs, in fact will go to th e bottom line. As the member's constituents and many, many Albertans have told us: don't spend more than you can count on, and any amount that comes in over and above that should go to pay down debt.

That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. We haven't got a plan from the Liberals. They won't tell us what their fiscal plan is other than they've shown us how they would spend a billion and a half more dollars than they're planning to take in. Their debt repayment plan contemplates deficits. It contemplates selling off the heritage fund. It contem- plates a billion and a half dollars of spending that we in this province simply could not afford. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. 2:20 Sikome Lake MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Economic Development and Tourism has been complaining about the increased park fees for national parks. Well, this government's solution is to just shut the parks down. It's a well- known fact that many Calgarians enjoy a visit to Sikome Lake, especially those who can't afford or don't have the time to go farther afield for their recreation, and they are very disappointed that due to provincial budget cutbacks the lake will be closed for an additional five weeks. My first question is to the Minister of Environmental Protection.

Does the minister consider all those who benefit from a facility or park when deciding where to make budget cuts or close facilities? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it's not an easy decision to make, where to cut, but I can tell the hon. member that in fact those areas that have a very high use have seen less cuts than areas with low use. We've priorized in order to try to accommodate as many people as possible. The fact is that this particular park requires a lot of dollars to operate.

In fact, the water that's used in this lake is treated water. The plant to supply that water is a plant that would supply a city of 15,000 people. So of course the costs are very high. We also require lifeguards on staff when the park is being used, once again a very high cost. Mr. Speaker, it's regrettable that we've found that we're unable to open the park as early as usual, but the fact is that the costs of operating are very, very high for this particular facility. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, will the minister then investigate other ways to finance the park, perhaps in association with the city of Calgary? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we're open to any suggestions, but I think we have to remember that there is only one taxpayer. Whether they're paying the dollars to the city of Calgary or to the province of Alberta, it's still only one taxpayer. So we're certainly open to any suggestion from the city of Calgary, and we are pursuing those kinds of options. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental? The hon. Member for Little Bow. [interjections] The hon.

Member for Bow Valley. DR. OBERG: That's the bigger side of the Bow, Mr. Speaker. Special Education DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I met with two parents of handicapped children concerned about their respective children's inability to access enough funds to supply a full-time aide in school. They are allocated $7,000, which would supply about a .4 full-time-equivalent aide. They stated, and rightfully so, that an investment in an autistic child early leads to greater cost savings down the road.

To the Minister of Education: is there an appeal mechanism in place to change the allocated $7,000 in exceptional circumstances? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, there is an appeal mechanism with respect to high special needs students whereby a parent can appeal the program if they feel it is not satisfactory in terms of what is offered in the local school jurisdiction. There is not an appeal with respect to the particular area of funding. In terms of funding for high special needs students, school boards are provided with a grant designated for that pupil of $8,910.

In addition, every student in the province has $3,686 allocated to him or her as a student. So with that amount of money available to a jurisdiction, they design the best program possible with respect to individual students. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Grasslands school division have the flexibility to move special-needs funding from one student to another when economies of scale occur? MR. JONSON: Well, the very succinct answer is yes. I would like to also point out, Mr.

Speaker, that there is a grant which is now rolled in with the overall instructional grant which was designated for students in the general mild to moderate handi- capped area. It's my understanding that that amount would probably be $800,000 or $900,000 that is provided to the Grasslands school division, which is there for their allocation in a flexible manner for the overall special needs of their students. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What other avenues are

1964 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 open to these parents to obtain a full-time aide for their children if the school division doesn't come through? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any additional avenues with respect to providing for a full-time aide. There may be some assistance for out-of-school support and care, and although we are working among the departments involved, Family and Social Services and Health, on a more co-ordinated effort in this area, I regret that I'm not able to identify any additional sources of funding. Gambling Addiction MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the minister responsible for lotteries continues to promote what he calls the positive, economic impacts of gambling, as witnessed in his latest response to me. However, he totally ignores the social cost of increasing addic- tions: 125,000 problem gamblers and no idea at what cost to the taxpayer. To the minister responsible for lotteries: why does this government continue to promote slot machines when it has no idea how much taxpayers are forced to pay in order to deal with the 125,000 problem gamblers? DR.

WEST: Well, the lead-in to that question is quite amazing, because I do not stand and promote gambling in this province. In the response to his questions I tried to point out that gambling revenues over the years in this province have done a lot of good in our communities. Y ou have to understand that the Wild Rose Foundation, the Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, medical equipment, some of the dollars that went into our schools – are you going to put those off to the side and say that they haven't been positive, that they definitely haven't done some good?

Now, on the other hand, we do have addictions, and that is a problem. We are putting several millions of dollars into gambling addictions, and we have pointed out to AADAC that if there's a need for more dollars in the future and they can identify programs that will address people with addictions, we will fund them. We made that indication when the Judy Gordon report came down and have stood behind that. I don't accept the negative innuendoes put out by this member on the floor of this Assembly, and it would be nice if he would retract those. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, again to the same minister: then will the minister commit to conducting a comprehensive study on the negative impacts and the costs associated with the lax gam- bling policy? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, there have been hundreds of studies done in areas that have a lot more gambling than the province of Alberta. One has to understand that in the province of Alberta we have a unique model where a vast majority of the gambling is sponsored and done by charities and nonprofit volunteer organiza- tions. On the other side, there have been studies done. Would I sponsor yet another st udy at this time?

No, but AADAC is constantly reviewing along with others that are working in this field the need for treatment of addiction. The other night the Slim Thorpe association in Lloydminster had their annual meeting, and they are looking at extensive programs for treatment of gambling addictions. So in response once again to this member's question, no, I am not going to go out and sponsor one more st udy on gambling addiction. We know very well that there's a percentage of our society that does become addicted.

We see the same relationship with gambling as we do with alcohol or with some other things in life, and we don't need to study it to death in order to get on to treating it. 2:30 MR. WICKMAN: My final question to the minister: well, then, will the minister do what's right by Albertans and rid the province of these money-grabbing machines? THE SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. Workers' Compensation Board MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two sides to every story.

I've listened to the Labour minister speak at length about the good things the WCB is achieving. I along with all my colleagues deal with the other side of the issue: the things the WCB is not dealing with satisfactorily. When my office is besieged by unsatisfied injured workers and constituency offices such as Edmonton-Avonmore or Edmonton-Ellerslie or Edmonton- Mill Woods are overwhelmed with injured workers that have not received fair treatment from the WCB, this is clear indication the WCB is not meeting the needs of the injured workers, more often than not the chronically injured.

When workers are denied WCB benefits due to degenerative disk disease or pre-existing injury, conditions covered by the Act, clearly all is not as it should be at the WCB. When I encounter previously injured workers that are required to sign a waiver foregoing their right to be covered by the WCB Act before they will be employed, clearly all is not as it should be at the WCB. When the WCB rehabilitation program consists of job hunting clubs, work hardening, and physical assessment capabilities, you know they have forgotten an integral aspect of returning injured workers to productive lives.

When I request the names of companies that received ref unds under the VIP program and am denied that information, one can only assume that they are not as proud of their highly touted program as they claim to be. When I encounter workers that are intimidated by employers into not filling out an accident report and the WCB ignores such tactics, clearly the WCB is not fulfilling its mandate. When I encounter workers that protest loudly and suddenly find themselves under the WCB investigative team, delaying a timely appeal, then we know bullying tactics are still employed by the WCB.

When the Alberta Court of Appeal admonishes the WCB medical department and the general legal counsel for intruding into the Appeals Commission, it is obvious the autonomy of the commission is being challenged. These examples are but the tip of the iceberg. Contrary to the Labour minister's often repeated claims, all is not well at the WCB, and it's time to have an independent public review. Aga Khan Partnership Walk MR. SHARIFF: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 26, 1996, the Aga Khan Foundation will host its 12th annual partnership walk in Edmonton, Calgary, and many other cities in Canada. The

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1965 partnership walk is Canada's largest event in support of people in developing countries. Hundreds of committed volunteers from coast to coast help to organize this event, and in 1995 some 60,000 Canadians took part either as walkers or sponsors. Aga Khan Foundation Canada is a nonprofit international development agency that supports projects designed to assist the poor in Africa and Asia without regard to race, religion, or political persuasion.

The foundation seeks practical and inexpen- sive ways to improve the quality of health care and education, protect the environment, increase incomes, and create new opportunities for women. Aga Khan Foundation Canada is an affiliate of the Aga Khan Foundation, established by His Highness the Aga Khan, 49th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, and it has evolved into a unique and dynamic north/south partnership with affiliated foundations on four continents.

The foundation works closely with other members of Aga Khan development network, particularly the Aga Khan University and the Aga Khan health and education services, both of which are nonprofit institutions that operate hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics in Africa and Asia. Aga Khan Foundation Canada also collaborates with CIDA and the Wild Rose Foundation in Alberta on many of its projects. I encourage all Albertans to participate in this noble cause, and on behalf of my colleagues I congratulate the organizing commit- tees in Calgary and Edmonton headed by Dr.

Kherani and Mubarak Alidina respectively for a truly Albertan pioneering spirit of generosity and concern for the welfare of the less fortunate. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. National Access Awareness Week MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. National Access Awareness Week comes shortly. In 1965, when I left the hospital to re-enter the community, it was a very unwelcome community at the time for somebody like myself. But we have come a long way. There is no question about that.

One of the successful mechanisms we had when we chose to take our lifestyles in our own hands and push for change was the establishment of a joint committee which consisted of five Members of the Legislative Assembly and five persons with disabilities. The five Members of the Legislative Assembly included the deputy Premier, two other cabinet ministers, and the leader of the Social Credit Party and the leader of the New Democratic Party of that day. We were successful in presenting proposals for the assured income, for Aids to Daily Living, for a building code, and on and on.

Most of them were warmly received, and we now see those programs in place. However, in recent times we seem to have stalled out some- what; AISH, for example. I've pressed the minister on a number of occasions. It's time to look at AISH. It has not increased for a period of time. The home adaptation program fortunately has been given another three years of life. We need more employ- ment opportunities within the provincial service. I've talked to the minister or written the minister about handicapped parking.

There are 10,000 placards throughout the province, but I swear I find them all at Superstore in one morn- ing. I don't know if there are illegal pl acards being handed out or what. The availability of housing with barrier-free design is not as sufficient as it should be. So there are other things that can be done. The private sector can do a great deal, and in many instances they have. I visited the new Cinemark over the weekend in the northeast part of the city, an ideal facility, designed for persons with disabilities, plenty of parking, buttons, and plenty of good seating.

My message today is that as National Access Awareness Week arrives upon us, each of us has to be aware of improvements that are needed and work towards those improvements. Thank you. Privilege Freedom of Speech THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti gave notice to the Chair earlier today that he wished to raise a question of privilege. It relates to the documents tabled by the hon. member earlier this afternoon.

Perhaps the hon. member could briefly state his point in order to meet the requirements of our rules, and then the matter could be properly deferred for him to put his complete case until the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo is able to respond. The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your direction, I'm rising pursuant to

section 15 of Standing Orders, particularly

section 15(1), where it says: “A breach of the rights of the Assembly or of the parliamentary rights of any member constitutes a question of privilege.” Very briefly, the background, Mr. Speaker, is that on Thursday last, May 16, I raised a question to the Minister of Justice during question period. In fact, there were three questions, and follow- ing the conclusion of question period the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo rose on a point of order, which you subsequently ruled on and indicated that it was an issue of debate and not a point of order.

At approximately 10:30 this morning, after I traveled from Grande Prairie to my Edmonton office, there was a copy of a letter which has been distributed to members of the Assembly dated May 17, which was last Friday. According to the code on the top, it was transmitted on or about 5:40 p.m. on Friday. As a result of that, nobody was, I guess, basically aware of it until this morning because of the long weekend.

So when I got the letter at 10:30 or thereabouts when I came in, I read it very carefully and took the liberty of discussing it with some of my colleagues as I was somewhat taken aback by some of the language that was used in the letter. Following that, I filed a written notice with the Speaker at approximately 1 1:45, and at about 12:15 I faxed a copy of that written notice to the hon. member. 2:40 In essence, Mr.

Speaker, if I can go to the quick of the entire issue, which is one of freedom of speech, specifically referring to paragraph 5 in his letter, if I may quote, he said: I respect your right of free speech but I cannot ignore your outrageous comments. I request that you forthwith apologize for the defamatory statements you made on May 16, 1996. Then he goes on to say, which is perhaps the heart of the matter, “Failure to do so will result in further action without notice to you.

Please govern yourself accordingly.” With regard to the latter issue, I believe I am governing myself accordingly by raising it as a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I could go on at some length – and I will not – but that is in essence the point. Thank you.

1966 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 Point of Order Oral Question Period Rules THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark have given notice that they wish to pursue a point of order. The Chair assumes it's pretty well the same point of order with regard to three different questions. Perhaps they could both make their positions and wrap these things up into one point of order. Is that possible, hon. Member for Fort McMurray? MR.

GERMAIN: I believe so, si r, with the exception of some specifics, so if the Chair will allow me latitude to develop the point of order thoroughly, then I will compromise and restrict it to one point of order rather than three points of order. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. If we can deal with this as one point of order, the Chair would like it. MR. GERMAIN: Y es. Thank you, sir. First of all, from a technical point, the point of order is under our Standing Orders 23(h), (i), and (j).

Also, there are numerous comparable sections in Beauchesne, and in addition there are several of your own Speaker's rulings that you have made over the last few months, Mr. Speaker, that I want to use likewise in developing my points of order. One of your very standard Speaker's rulings is that a question should not be asked that is outside the expertise of the minister. I think you would agree that you've made that ruling in various nuances and various forms in the past.

A second of your own Speaker's rulings, sir, is that you have indicated that there should be no questions in anticipation of debate that is then before the Legislative Assembly. Y ou've made that ruling and its various nuances from time to time. Thirdly, you have from time to time made the ruling and in fact made a ruling adverse to myself last week, Mr. Speaker, that questions should deal only with facts and not start with inflammatory opinion because of the attendant discord that flows in this Legislative Assembly.

So both on those three Standing Orders and your own Speaker's rulings I suggest that three of the questions today, Mr. Speaker, necessitated that I rise three times on three points of order and on one question on two points of order and breached all of those citations that I have referred you to – that is, 23(h), (i), and (j) – and those Speaker's rulings that I have previously referred to you today. Some of the members may forget what 23(h), (i), and (

j) stand for, so I will simply point out that (

h) is making false allegations against the members, (

i) is “imputes false or unavowed motives to another member,” and (

j) is “uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.” Now, the first quick answer that you might have to deal with is: do general reflections on an opposition itself, as opposed to singling out or fingering a single member, fall within those imputing false motives? That's an interesting debate, but you don't have to answer it in this particular question because the hon.

Provincial Treasurer in one of the questions even identified the Member for Fort McMurray in some fashion, I believe, trying to allege that time was being wasted or that delays were occurring in the Legislative Assembly in advancing good amendments. Now, let me talk about the substance of the three points of order. Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be fair to assess and I think the three people who asked the questions would clearly have to admit and Hansard will clearly show that there was a routine timing and methodology to three of the questions asked in that with the exception of changing the name of the Bill and an appropriate few words to make sense of that change and directing them to a different minister, they in fact asked the same question and they asked the same question three times. Now, what was the essence of the three questions? First of all, my point of order raised against the hon.

Member for Lethbridge- West was the first point of order. He spoke of Bill 26, and he asked about delays in this Legislative Assembly. Well, Bill 26 is before the Assembly on third reading. It has already passed committee. It has already passed second reading, and it is before this Assembly on third reading.

Since we do not control as an Official Opposition the order with which these Bills come forward, it hardly seems to me how a question which suggests delay through Liberal opposition filibustering or, to use his words, “Liberal delay tactics” could hardly be anything other than language that would incite and offend this particular Legislative Assembly. DR. TA YLOR: It's just the truth, Adam. The truth. MR. GERMAIN: My point of order is further reinforced, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat hollering out during my point of order that it is the truth.

I do not know how, when we do not control the agenda, we can refer to “Liberal delay tactics” in relation to Bill 26. Now, I also want to comment on the minister's response there that the purpose of the opposition was “to delay” or “to filibus- ter.” Well, with respect to the minister, the purpose of the opposition is in fact to focus on weaknesses or perceived weak- nesses in the legislation.

When you have legislation that is debated in such a hurry-up fashion, thrown before the Assembly in such a haphazard fashion, and in fact subject to many weak- nesses, holes, and missing observations, you cannot help but raise quality debate, and quality debate often, unfortunately, takes time. I want to also comment on the questions from the hon. Member for Medicine Hat. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat raised questions on Bill 31, the Business Financial Assistance Limitation Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. Now, this is in fact a Bill, Mr.

Speaker, that allows the govern ment the ability to make loan guarantees and loans to businesses. It is legitimate for the opposition in this province to oppose that Bill, a Bill that in fact enshrines this government's ability to make loans and loan guarantees. So for us to be accused of delaying that Bill, Mr.

Speaker, which is also at third reading, is in fact an inappropriate use of the question period and in fact does offend that particular rule, 23(j), which is basically: “uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.” Now, on the points raised by Calgary-Egmont I have another issue that I want to pursue in addition to these. The hon.

Member for Calgary-Egmont takes his position in the Chair as Chairman of Committees, and it would be my respectful request that the hon. member now declare himself in conflict, because if he has prejudged debate at committee stage as being, in his words, wasteful and hijacking the process, then it's my respectful estimation that that particular member ought not to sit any further as Chairman of Committees, because that type of inflammatory action coming from a chairman who fills the role as Chairman of Committees is in fact indeed specifically using “abusive or insulting language.” So for all of those reasons, those three Standing Orders plus your previous Speaker's rulings, I would ask that you rule that

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1967 each of the questions asked today were in fact out of order for any one of the six citations that I have given you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. Government House Leader, in order to get the full case to meet, perhaps you could hear the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, which is related to this. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't repeat the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Fort McMur- ray, but I would like to speak specifically to the answers that were made by the hon.

Minister of Labour in response to the questions that were put forward as justification. When we look at 23(h), (i), and (j), even the answers from the particular minister I think were designed to create a disturbance in the House. The Minister of Labour indicated that Bill 29 had considerable consultation with many groups. That was one of the questions that we had in fact asked, and to this date we are still waiting for the list of people that have been consulted with regards to Bill 29.

It is true that there was a representative that did meet with myself and the researcher from the Liberal opposition around Bill 29, but we had asked for the concordance agreement, as I understand other individuals have as well, and that's still to be forthcoming from the minister. So when the minister says that in fact there has been consultation, that in fact there have been numerous attempts made, there is a stretching of the facts that unfortunately goes on in this House. We have in fact provided the amendments to the Minister of Labour.

There has been no hijacking by this caucus with regards to any of the amendments. In fact, I have not received any response from the minister with regards to the amendments that were provided probably somewhere between a month to two weeks ago. I am not a mind reader.

It is this minister as House leader who actually sets the agenda, so for there to be an implica- tion that it is the Liberal opposition that is delaying and using delaying tactics when in fact Bill 29 has not been on the agenda for at least a week to two weeks I think is an erroneous point of view that's been put forward by the minister, and I am requesting that that be corrected. There are two further points with regard to the fact that there have been numerous phone calls on Bill 29.

If in fact that Bill was in plain language, if in fact that Bill did have changes to the legislation such as minimum wage reviews on an annual basis, I could well see a majority of Albertans saying, “This is something that we desperately want.” The reality is that there have been very minor changes in language being done to the Bill and there has not been an outcry from the public on this particular Bill. The third issue that I have is the figure that the Minister of Labour in his House leader capacity throws around on a daily basis, it seems, the $15,000 a day that it costs to run this Legisla- tive Assembly.

I would like to see the breakdown of those costs, because my guess is that other than the pages who are in the Legislative Assembly and the security guards that are on, there are no additional costs to keeping this Assembly running. Thank you. MR. DA Y: I'll try in the order in which they were raised, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest, as far as the Member for Fort McMurray, that the illegitimacy of his points is only exceeded by your good gr aces in listening to them, and I will try to be somewhat briefer in replying.

As far as the issues related to administrative competence, as I vaguely recall the questions coming forward, one had to do with regionalization. None of the questions, by the way, specifically in the main questions, dealt with legislation; they dealt with issues facing Albertans. The first one dealt with regionalization. That went to the minister of social services; I would suggest that's within his competence. Another went to me regarding . . . [interjections] Y ou know, we listened quietly; we didn't interrupt. They just can't hack the truth. It makes them hurt and squirm. Mr.

Speaker, the other question related to calls and complaints about employment standards. That main question did not talk about the legislation. It talked about complaints about confusion around employment standards directed to me in my position as Minister of Labour, within my area of administrative competence. I know members opposite and maybe even on this side would argue about the competence issue; however, technically it falls within that. There was another question from Medicine Hat related to Albertans being protected from loan guarantees being made by the government to businesses.

Again he did not make any reference to legislation. Now, in the responses, as we look to Hansard, there was probably some oblique references to legislation, but the questions certainly did not have them. Then there's the question of fals e allegations related to delay tactics. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is recorded in this House, outside of the House, and in the media that members opposite have said they will make this House sit at least until the middle of Septem- ber. The Member for Edmonton-Centre went beyond that. He said that we haven't even yet begun to understand what filibuster is all about.

That's what he said. The Member for Edmonton- Glenora said we'd be here till Labour Day. These aren't false allegations; these are enunciations coming from their own mouths saying that we'll be here that long.

To suggest that we'd be here until the middle of summer just on Bill 24 alone, which wasn't even raised today, and now add these other ones that they're talking about, his supposed point about false allegations, in effect then the Member for Fort McMurray is saying that his own colleagues are lying, because they are the ones saying that we'll be here till Labour Day, till the middle of summer, that we haven't even understood what filibuster is yet. He needs to talk to his own colleagues and please ask them to stop lying, because they are the ones who are making those statements.

Y ou know, we're not talking about hurrying up legislation. The Member for Fort McMurray raised the issue of legislation regarding protection of Albertans from indiscriminate business loans made by the government. That is something that is so resoundingly, overwhelmingly demanded by the people of Alberta that in fact it was one of the key election platforms in 1993.

Virtually 100 percent – rarely do you see a specific item going out to the people of Alberta that is so emphatically and resoundingly supported in such an overwhelming way, yet we have sat here on different days accumulating just short of five hours of debate on that particular item alone.

We're not talking and nobody here has ever talked about limiting debate, but when the members opposite themselves, the opposition, are saying that it's a filibuster, when the opposition are saying they're going to drag it out till mid- September or till Labour Day, that's then when we reflect and say: I guess they're beyond legitimate debate; they themselves are talking about filibustering. So it goes on. Just in closing and trying to be briefer than the members opposite, the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark said that my answers were designed to create disorder.

All I did in my answers was to compliment the member on being a tough critic. Y es, that's right; some of my own members, when they heard me

1968 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 articulate that, became rather disorderly. They were quite upset to hear me congratulating an opposition member for their good work. So I'll try and watch that in the future. But those were my comments related to the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

I can go on to say that she herself said that the Employment Standards Code has very minor changes to it – very minor changes – yet after some debate, some good debate, I might add, at second reading, I'm informed not by the critic but in fact again by the Member for Fort McMurray, who, for reasons we can all speculate on, loves to be on his feet as often as possible, said: never mind just the amendments from Edmonton-Meadowlark; we've got so many more on that one you wouldn't believe it. So I have to say: where is the solid debate coming from on these particular issues?

The same with the Member for Calgary-McCall, who just presented an excellent member's statement, a good example of co- operation between opposition members: the Member for Calgary- McCall working with the Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. A good example of cooperation, somewhat rare. The Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly did not agree with most of the amendments. As a matter of fact, only two were agreed upon. But let's give credit where credit is due.

B ecause of the involvement and discussion from the Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly, the critic, at least two amendments that she brought forward were accepted and in fact will become part of law. Now, how they conduct themselves is totally up to them as a caucus. At that point she was informed by other members in the caucus supposedly more expert than she, even though she's the critic: oh no; there would be a lot more amendments coming on this one.

So again and again we question and we wonder whether we're seeing legitimate debate or whether in fact we are just seeing a fulfillment of their threat to keep us here until the middle of summer, to keep us here until Labour Day. As the Member for Edmonton-Centre said, we haven't even seen real filibustering yet. So they're just kind of getting warmed up, I guess. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most of what I've said is not related to a point of order because I don't believe there is a point of order.

It's just in response to the points raised mainly by the Member for Fort McMurray and somewhat by the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. 3:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. MR. HERARD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important that I respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Fort McMurray with respect to the fact that this member periodically takes the Chair in proceedings in this Legislature.

I consider the times that I do sit in the Chair to be an honour, and I do so very seriously in an effort to promote debate within the rules in a fair and unbiased way, and I think the record will show that I do it in a fair and unbiased way. It's interesting, though, that when you look at all the times there are points of order and so on raised in the House, they always seem to deal with relevance and staying within the rules of whatever we are in, second reading or third reading. The rules are a little bit different in terms of latitude.

Every time there is a comment made by the Chairman or the Speaker, whoever it is, it always seems to be in that area. Mr. Speaker, I've looked through all of the Standing Orders, I've looked through Beauchesne, I've looked through Erskine May, and I haven't found any yet that deal with telling the truth. So there's nothing in the rules that says that you can't stand here as a member and tell the truth. There is one little-known rule, perhaps, that the hon. Member for Fort McMurray should learn, and that is: when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair has listened with interest to the presentations this afternoon with regard to what boils down to the business of the Assembly and how it's going to be dealt with in the ensuing period of time. The Chair does not feel that the questions complained about were out of order on the basis of the subject matter, particularly with regard to anticipation, because two of them, for sure the questions with regard to the matters at third reading, are not anticipated to be dealt with today, as far as the Chair was advised or informed.

The other question with regard to Bill 29 was not directed towards that Bill being debated later today; it had to do with the final disposition or the govern- ment's agenda. As far as making false or unavowed motives to members, there were no individuals mentioned. There may have been two or three mentioned, but the Chair does not feel that the tone of the questions or the answers were out of order, and . . . MR. WHITE: Competence? THE SPEAKER: Well, certainly the questions were directed to the ministers who had the . . . [interjection] MS LEIBOVICI: The impartiality of the Chair. THE SPEAKER: No.

The Chair does not believe that the hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont by his occasional occupation of the Chair in committee or the Chair in the Assembly compromised his ability to do that by the questions that he asked today. All in all, the Chair does not feel that those questions referred to were out of order. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 215 Crown Grazing Lease Statutes Amendment Act, 1996 [Adjourned debate May 15: Mr. Severtson] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. First off I must say that this Bill is very difficu lt because it deals with an issue that has merits on both sides of the argument, but there are a few misconceptions to clear up before we debate the merits of this Bill in the House. I must say first of all that it is wrong for anyone to assume that agricultural inte rests are adverse to conservation interests. Agriculture must also rely on a healthy environment if it is to remain sustainable. We must also remember that the Alberta government has a mandate to protect Alberta's ecosystem.

We have emphasized sustainable development, which ensures a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We also have a comprehensive system working right now to protect endangered places in this province called Special Places 2000. We just got Canada's most improved grade from the World Wildlife Fund as a direct result of that program. We also must remember that it is in our best interests

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1969 to ensure the ecological integrity of the land rented out under grazing lease statutes. The land is not good to anyone if it is overutilized or improperly managed. That is a loss to the agricultural community and the environment and the economy. In Alberta we have 5 million acres rented out under various grazing leases. Those 5 million acres represent only 3 percent of Alberta's over 163 million acres of land. Of the 163 million acres of land a total of 10 million acres are considered public land under the jurisdiction of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

Another 100 million acres are Crown land under the jurisdiction of the federal government and other provincial departments like Environmental Protection. It would be foolish to say that 3 percent represents a serious threat to Alberta's environment. Even if you do subscribe to this theory that the land under grazing leases is in danger of destruction from overgrazing, I have to say that I don't feel that that is true. Grazing is a good part of land management. Grazing animals are vital to the health of the ecosystem, and Ducks Unlimited can tell you that. It's not just the ranchers.

DU found that they had to bring in grazing animals to ensure that their protected wetlands survived to house the waterfowl and other animals they attempt to protect. It is not that I don't feel that the issue of grazing leases needs to be addressed; I think it does. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is committed to a review of its policies and programs on public land management.

I feel that the best way to deal with this issue is as a package that includes a variety of issues related to leased land and also includes getting out and hearing what Albertans have to say to this very important issue of access. I have faith that the agriculture department can come to a wise and equitable solution on this contentious issue because they have shown in the past that they are serious about meeting a spectrum of different needs, not just the cattle industry but hunters and hikers and others.

They have the Use Respect program in place right now, which encourages landowners and leaseholders to allow public access. The program also urges the public to follow the rules because they are generally set for a reason. 3:10 How do we meet the needs of the public who feel that they should be allowed access to Alberta's public land with the needs of the leaseholder who has made an investment in the grass and other improvements, like fencing, to the leased land? That is a good question. I would like to hear from a lot of people through- out Alberta before I make my decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 215, the Crown Grazing Lease Statutes Amendment Act, clearly a mouthful, that was introduced by my colleague from Sherwood Park, tries to grapple with the subject of public access to public lands under grazing leas e disposition. That is specifically the topic. I was listening intently to th e Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, who mentioned various things that I have not found in the Bill.

I don't think it speaks at all about the problem of overgraz- ing, nor does it really refer to any adverse effect of agriculture on the environment, specifically. The member I think also said that he's calling for yet again another task force or something to ask Albertans what they think of that particular problem. Y ou see, the difficulty is that this problem has been looked at now for quite a few years, as the Minister of Environmental Protection well knows. I think it was in 1987 that a task force was established by one of his predecessors, a minister of the department which then went by a different name.

I'm not sure what the name was. Anyway that task force was specifically charged with traveling around the province and canvassing opinions as to how the topic of public access to Crown land under grazing leases should be dealt with. On that task force were about seven members: five government MLAs and two members of the public. They came out with recommendations that are more or less holus-bolus embodied in Bill 215. So what my colleague from Sherwood Park is trying to do is speed up this lengthy process, that has been in place for about 10 years I guess to find out what people think.

This is, I think, a very modest attempt at least at providing an initial solution to this problem. It's no more than that. I hope my colleague doesn't mind me saying that. Bill 215 embodies those central recommendations that that task force came out with; namely, that pedestrians should have unlimited access to grazing leases and that vehicles should have restricted access only, restricted to established roads and designated trails, unless they have permission from the leaseholder.

The definition of those roads and trails was to be established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council because of course that could lead to problems other- wise. So the Bill seems to attempt to at least arrive at a compro- mise between the extreme positions of grazing lease holders – probably the extreme position would be that they don't want any access or at least access only after asking permission – and on the other side, the extreme public position, which is to have access without any restrictions. It seemed to sort of arrive at a happy medium, and in that sense I thought it was a good beginning.

Hence I'm firmly in favour of this Bill, and I hope that members on the other side will see their way clear to at least allow this beginning to take place in terms of attempting to establish a solution. Now, the Bill also deals with the subject of liability of the leaseholder, and it attempts to really put that fairly clearly, I think, under the aegis of gross negligence in discharging the common duty of care.

In other words, only if that happens, if the leaseholder is grossly negligent in discharging the common duty of care, would he or she be liable, and under normal circum- stances that would certainly not be the case. The Bill attempts to deal further with the complex issue of recognition that leaseholders need security of tenure. That is the element that I think is clearly recognized in the Bill, that the leaseholder does have tremendous interest in security of tenure and he or she should be able to practise his or her business there. The public, though, must have the right of a ccess.

I think that must be accepted, and the solution that is embodied in Bill 215 more or less is a multi-use solution of grazing lands. Mr. Speaker, I really don't have much further to say about this Bill, but I'd just like to urge all members to recognize that this issue has been simmering for almost 10 years, if not longer, and has been looked at by various task forces and studies. If we do not want to waste much time – and I'm very cognizant of that, having heard today many arguments that time is being wasted.

In the arguments the onus was clearly placed on the opposition, but I tend to think that the government, too, could take a major step here in curtailing studies, task forces, arguments, and debate and just find themselves in favour and in support of this Bill. Thank you very much.

1970 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. DR. TA YLOR: Excuse me. THE SPEAKER: Oh, the hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. DR. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and speak regarding this Bill. I'll just give the Member for Little Bow a little more time to get his thoughts together. [interjections] Well, it will only take him a second or two, hon. members. Just a bit of background, Mr. Speaker. Grazing leases, as we all know, fall under the Public Lands Act, which is administered by Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

An individual or a company can negotiate a lease agreement with the government, and there are presently about 5 million acres under such agreements. The leaseholder – and this is important to point out – is then responsible for the management, and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development goes as lease inspec- tors, which are out there making sure that the lease is managed in an appropriate way. It's not like Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is not paying attention to what's happened. These leaseholders are monitored very, very closely.

They are moni- tored very closely as to how they manage the grass, quite frankly. Anybody that suggests differently simply has no idea what's happening out there. I would suggest that most of these urban members opposite have no idea what's happening with leased land out there. That is why this member, who is so concerned about his Bill that he's not even here today, brought this Bill forward. It's brought forward by a largely urban caucus that doesn't understand the issues. So what I intend to do is try and educate the members of the caucus opposite as to some of the implications of this Bill.

I'm sure that once they understand the implications of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, they will not vote in favour of this Bill. I mean, simply, it wouldn't be logical to vote in favour of this Bill. However, I suppose one might argue that they've done some illogical things in the past, but I wouldn't be one that would make that argument. 3:20 The issue of access is contentious, Mr. Speaker. What's happening with this is that th e public is demanding they have unlimited access to public lands. They feel that these lands are public and they should have unlimited access, and this is what this Bill in fact provides.

It provides unlimited foot access to all public lands; it gives the public just the ability to wander onto those lands. I would compare this, to help the urban members understand it a little better, to the idea of public housing. Certainly across this province we have a number of public housing units. Now, I'm sure these urban members from Edmonton, Edmonton-Centre, would not argue that I can drive my four-wheel drive vehicle across these lawns in these public housing units, tear up their lawns with my four-wheel drive, three-quarter tonne truck. MR. DINNING: That's what Laurence Decore does. Laurence did it. DR.

TA YLOR: I know the ex-Leader of the Opposition drove his four-wheel drive vehicle and tore up some public lands. MS LEIBOVICI: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark is rising on a point of order. Point of Order Inflammatory Language MS LEIBOVICI: Standing Order 23(h), (i), and (j), definitely insulting and inflammatory language. To set the record straight, the former Leader of the Opposition was not driving, it was not his vehicle, and at least he didn't park in handicapped parking, as the Premier does. DR. TA YLOR: I'll make the ruling myself, Mr. Speaker.

There's no point of order, hon. member. Debate Continued DR. TA YLOR: To go on further, Mr. Speaker, I would not drive my four-wheel drive vehicle across these public housing lands. I would not try and enter this public housing project without first knocking on the door and saying: “May I see your public housing project here? Can I come and inspect your project? Can I come and inspect your house?” That's exactly what these members opposite are asking. They're asking that people be allowed to go on public lands, tear up the property without asking any kind of permission.

Now, these members certainly do not recognize what our grassland is like in the far southeast corner of Alberta. The natural prairie wool, as it's called – prairie wool – if you haven't heard that term, is a very sensitive grassland. MR. DALLA-LONGA: Prairie oysters. DR. TA YLOR: Y es, I've heard of prairie oysters too, hon. member, and they're quite tasty to eat on occasion. In fact, I could tell you a story about prairie oysters and eating them. It was an urban member just like himself that I took out on a bit of a tour through my constituency. We were out in the country, and we stopped at a ranch.

We had this barbecue right there at branding time. It was on the Q ranch, down in the far southeast corner, just before you cross the border. As we were leaving, this fellow, the urbanite, said to me: “My those were good. What were we eating there?” I informed him that we were eating prairie oysters, not quite in those terms, but that was the general message, Mr. Speaker. MS LEIBOVICI: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark is rising on the question of relevance? Point of Order Relevance MS LEIBOVICI: Y es, definitely, as the Speaker has astutely thought, 459.

Though the story is more than entertaining, it has very little relevance to Crown grazing leases. DR. TA YLOR: Actually the Q ranch is a huge area of leased land in southeastern Alberta, so it certainly is relevant. Debate Continued DR. TA YLOR: It'll be just very short. As we were leaving, Mr. Speaker, this urbanite asked me what we were eating and I told

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1971 him prairie oysters. Y ou know, we were riding in a vehicle and I was in the backseat. He suddenly felt upset to his stomach although he'd enjoyed them and had to ride in the front seat with the windows open for the next hour or hour and a half while we were out there. So that's a little bit of a story there for the member from Calgary-Dalla Longa in regards to prairie oysters. Anyway back to my comments on the Bill, Mr. Speaker, if the members of the opposition will allow me to proceed.

Just as we wouldn't expect in an urban area to be allowed free access to public housing, nor do I think these members want this free access in a rural area as well. The land is very sensitive. The ecology is very sensitive, and the person renting that, the leaseholder, needs to control that access to protect his land, to protect this sensitive grassland ecology. Not only does he need to protect his land, but he needs to protect the improvements on his land. For instance, we have dugouts in southern Alberta, which are manmade holes that hold water for us because water is in very short supply.

B ecause they're made with Euclids, the sides of these dugouts are very sensitive. Once again they need to be protected in terms of access and not allowing people to run up and down the sides. What happens is that it pushes the dirt into the water. It fouls the water, and then the cattle will not drink the water. So we're dealing with a very sensitive environment here, and the land leaseholder must be allowed to control access.

So I'm concerned about that aspect of the Bill, and I think that members that have familiarity with southern Alberta and perhaps have family in southern Alberta will be voting against this Bill as well on just simply that basis. As well, we have environmental groups demanding access to these public lands, but they're doing so on a very different issue. They feel that the grazing leases are being overgrazed. They feel that ecologically the land is endangered, Mr. Speaker. I can't think of anything further from the truth.

It's really just hysteria and typical paranoia fueled by these groups, b ecause the best stewards of the land are the people that utilize the land. If they don't look after the land, they won't make a living off it next year. They have to look after the land this year so their children will be able to make a living. I can show you ranches all over southern Alberta – mention one ranch, the Hargrave ranch. It's a huge ranch in southern Alberta.

That same family has been on that ranch for a hundred years, and the grass is in better shape now than it probably was a hundred years ago because they rec ognize the fact that they want their grandchildren to be there. I can tell you about another ranch, the Norman Bauer ranch, in southeastern Alberta. Now, it's not as old as the Hargrave ranch, but Norman's father started the ranch. Norman is on the ranch now, and he's got two sons, both highly educated, both with master's degrees, Mr. Speaker, living and working that ranch with him. They want that ranch to be there, and they're the best stewards of the ranch.

That's the way it is. Farmers and ranchers across this province are the best stewards of the land. They take pride in their property, they take pride in their land, and they quite frankly do not need these environmental groups running around telling them . . . THE SPEAKER: I sincerely regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but pursuant to Standing Order 8(2)(

b) we are required to move to the next order of business. head: Motions Other than Government Motions Health Care System 512. Mr. Doerksen moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to implement strategies aimed at reducing the overutilization of and therefore the demand on the health care system, giving consideration to the following: increasing public awareness of the costs of the system, providing incentives through the health insurance plan to encourage responsible utilization of the system, using the health care premium as a deductible, and allowing for the rebate of any portion of the health insurance premium that is not used through access to the health care system. [Debate adjourned May 14: Mr. Dunford speaking] MR.

DUNFORD: I was raising some points last week on the motion, on how comfortable I felt with the initiative being raised by my colleague from Red Deer-South, and I got so comfortable with it, Mr. Speaker, that it seems I tucked it under my pillow, and I'm having a little bit of . . . MR. DINNING: Is that with your teddy bear? 3:30 MR. DUNFORD: Y eah, along with my Huggy Bear. I noticed though – didn't you? – that the Liberal opposition today wasn't too happy with that title, but I hope that they will excuse that for just a second here. Mr.

Speaker, we were looking at some of the impacts that it would have on reducing overutilization by some of these methods that were put forward by the member, and we really, I think, need to start focusing on how we'd increase the public awareness of the costs of this system. I've started to use in some of the speeches that I make in public – I don't often speak at very much length, but when it gets into health, we need to be vigilant about health costs and we need to find some way in which to get that informa- tion over to the public.

When we look at the situation, and if we want to start to try to identify the problems in the area, we only really need to look at the mirror, b ecause every Albertan when looking at the mirror, with the possible exception of the Member for Edmonton-Glenora, understands that it really is us that are causing the overutilization. Most of us have e nough common sense to know, when we're being asked to come back either to a doctor or a chiropractor or some other practising physician, if it at all happens, when we're being asked to come in for perhaps some frivolous thing. I think it's more the other way.

We get a pain in our foot, in our finger, in our head, and what do we do? We head, then, for the physician. So how would we try and do this? Well, there was a fantastic device, as far as I'm concerned, that was in place sometime ago, and that was that we received a yearly billing. Actually it wasn't a billing. It wasn't really an invoice, but it was a summarization of how myself and my family had used the health care system that previous year.

We were then able to take a look at some of those numbers, and I can recall being quite shocked at how I felt a relatively healthy family had actually cost the taxpayers of Alberta a rather significant sum. It happened really, you know, almost unobtrusively, but it did bring home the point that there are significant dollars every time one visits a medical facility. The experience, though, does provide other opportunities as well. I remember being in the office of the then Member for Lethbridge-West, the hon. John Gogo.

I happened to be there when the phone rang, and it was an irate person from Coaldale, as a matter of fact, who had opened this information invoice and had noticed a couple of procedures that were charged against his wife. I hope I have this story correct because I don't want to cast any aspersions on anybody. I don't know the doctors' names in

1972 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 particular, nor do I recall the family from Coaldale, but the story goes like this. The wife happened to be a nurse at the hospital in Coaldale. She was putting away some information, sheets of paper anyway, into a desk and managed to pinch her finger. So she's sucking on her finger to relieve the pain. She's seen by a doctor who comes along and he says, “Oh, gee, I think you should have a band-aid on that.” So he put a band-aid on the finger.

Later in the afternoon she's working away, and another doctor sees her, sees the bandage and says, “Oh, what happened to you?” She said, “Oh, I caught my finger in my desk, and Doctor Such-and-such put a band-aid on it.” He said, “Well, let's have a look at that.” So he undid the bandage, took a look at it, and said: “Oh, no, I don't think you need a band-aid. I think we need the air to get at that.” Well, what happened of course was that there were two procedures that were billed through Alberta health care for this activity during this day.

Y ou can just imagine what the nurse felt like, and of course her husband, he's gone up 10 feet and turned left. He's really irate. Even though he was from Coaldale at the time, the only MLA's name that he could remember was Gogo's. He wanted to phone the guy he could first think of and raise some stink about this, and he certainly did. So this is anecdotal in that sense. It comes from a time when it just seemed like all you had to do was make some sort of artificial budget for Health.

Then you just spent the money, and at the end of the year whoever the Minister of Health would happen to be – maybe it was the Member for Calgary-Shaw. I don't know whether he was ever Minister of Health. Maybe it was the representative from Calgary-Lougheed. I don't know if he was ever the Minister of Health. But all that would happen, the situation at the time, was th at you'd just simply write a cheque. Y ou'd write a cheque to cover the costs. It was perfectly acceptable at the time. Hey, we're here now in 1996. We were elected in 1993 to put a cap on some of this business.

We put a cap on the budget itself, and really if one wants to take a minute for thought about major reforms in health care, Mr. Speaker, probably the most major reform that anyone has made, whether it be in Alberta or any other province in this nation – we did an amazing thing. What a concept. We put a cap on a budget. My goodness. Hey, this is reform stuff. This is the last decade in any kind of century, and this is when all the revolutions take place, Mr. Speaker. This is where all this upheaval is. This is when the sky starts to fall. Well, give me a break, please. To put a cap on a budget.

Anyway that leads us then to the point where we have done that, but what we're still seeing, Mr. Speaker, is a tremendous pressure on individuals such as physicians and other health care people to try to preserve, you know, some limitation to this budget. MR. SAPERS: Can you spell supplementary estimates? MR. DUNFORD: I hear the hon. colleague from Edmonton- Glenora ask me if I can spell supplementary estimates. Y es, I can. To me a supplementary estimate is a lot better than a warrant. Y ou can face it; you can do whatever you want.

At least a supplementary estimate gets talked about in this House, and that is something that the class of '93 has brought to this Legisla- ture, and it's a good point, I have to indicate. [interjections] Well, we're getting folks a little nervous over there. We've already found out today through points of order how they can dish it out, but they can't take it. We particularly like that aspect. THE SPEAKER: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has elapsed. For the information of other hon. members there's one minute left before the question must be called.

Would the Assembly like the question called now? Is the Assembly ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. [Motion carried] Y oung Offenders 513. Mr. Sapers moved on behalf of Mr. Dickson:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to implement the suggestions contained in reports tabled in the House by the government and by the Official Opposition concerning improvements to the handling of young offenders in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on behalf of the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a motion that I think has a tremendous amount of importance attached to it.

The Premier himself decided that the young offenders situation in Alberta was so important that back in April of 1994, the 28th of April in fact, the Premier commissioned a committee, a task force, to study young offenders, but that committee had some limitations. Given that it was an important issue, it still had some limitations. It was, first of all, a committee that was staffed entirely of Conservative members.

The Premier refused to make it an all-party committee in spite of the success of the all-party committee which studied the freedom of information legislation. 3:40 The second major limitation at that time, again given the context that it was an issue of tremendous importance to all Albertans, was that the mandate of the committee unfortunately focused on matters primarily to do with federal jurisdiction. The committee looked almost specifically at means in which the Y oung Offenders Act itself could be changed, which was the federal Y oung Offenders Act, not the Alberta Y oung Offenders Act.

If you'll look at any of the 43 recommendations that were eventually tabled by the government, many of them, the majority of them actually, have to do with the Act. Notwithstanding, the report did canvass Albertans around the province. I believe there were 16 public forums over the months of June and July of 1994.

Albertans from right across the province did have a chance to speak on the young offenders issue, and it's a little unfortunate that the government of the day added to the confusion in the minds of many Albertans about what could and should be done about young offenders by not making careful distinction between what was provincial and what was federal jurisdiction. In any case, Albertans did have an opportunity to tell government MLAs what it was they were concerned about regarding young offenders.

Well, to deal with some of those limitations, after being refused participation on the government-initiated panel, after that being refused by the Premier, the Official Opposition decided that a consultation that focused on provincial matters should be under- taken, that Albertans should have an opportunity to talk about those areas over which the province had specific mandate and authority. So the Liberal opposition formed a panel headed by my

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1973 colleague from Calgary-Buffalo and assisted by both myself and the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan which began its work in May and concluded its work in September and also met with Albertans and, I should add, Mr. Speaker, at consider- ably less cost than the government's panel. We managed to advertise through community networks and get around the province and get our work done and hold meetings in 12 commu- nities.

Given, it wasn't the 16 that the government went to, but the government seemed to pick their communities by which ones had airports big enough take the government plane. We drove into some rather small ones. We had 12 public consultations. We met with literally thousands of Albertans and heard from them. The Liberal opposition developed 49 recommendations, and that report was also tabled in this Legislative Assembly in October.

So in October of 1994 all Members of this Legislative Assem- bly had the ability to review nearly 100 recommendations dealing with the administration of justice as it relates to young offenders: 49 recommendations brought forward by the Liberal opposition – and those recommendations almost exclusively focused on matters of provincial jurisdiction – and some 43 recommendations brought forward by the government. Unfortunately most of those recommendations focused on the Y oung Offenders Act. In any case, nearly 100 recommendations. The recommendations brought forward by the Liberal opposition, Mr.

Speaker, included recommendations that brought an emphasis on crime prevention programming that could be implemented by government depart- ments within matters of provincial jurisdiction: the departments of Education, social services, of course Justice, and others as well. Certainly the Department of Health has a role to play. We urged stronger consequences for serious and habitual offenders, and within that context a more careful differentiation between habitual offenders and those more casual offenders who perhaps could be dealt with in a different way other than the full court process.

That led us to our next set of recommendations which involved the better use of alternative measures programming and the establishment of youth justice committees. Mr. Speaker, youth justice committees are permissible under the Y oung Offenders Act under

section 69. Alternative measures are permissible under the Y oung Offenders Act under

section 4. One of the unfortunate legacies of this government in its response to youth crime has been a real hesitancy to embrace alternative measures to their full extent under

section 4 and youth justice committees to their full extent under

section 69. In fact, I can remember dealing with a previous Minister of Justice who dismissed the notion of youth justice committees by saying: “Why in the world would we want to not go to court? Why would we want to deal with these problems in the community?” as though that minister didn't trust communities. It certainly has taken some time for this govern- ment to understand the power and the importance of the commu- nity being responsible for finding resolutions to some of these youth justice problems through the venue of youth justice committees.

Now that the government has been brought kicking and screaming to the realization that youth justice committees can indeed be a powerful deterrent and agent when it comes to dealing with youth crime, we are seeing, luckily, some movement, most of it in aboriginal communities and most of it actually, Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, led by those aboriginal communi- ties.

We have much to learn from many of the bands who have taken it upon themselves in spite of the government's roadblocks to establish youth court committees and sentencing circles and really force the government to pay attention to an alternative means of administering justice when it comes to young offenders within their own communities. Other recommendations went on to include a flexible youth court schedule. We heard from parents that felt that their children who were brought before the court were often treated very harshly as a result of the parents not being able to participate fully in the court process.

We had parents explain to us that if they had to travel considerable distances and if they had to in fact put their own employment in jeopardy, then it made it very difficult for them to always attend in youth court, particularly in youth court proceedings that may be adjourned – it may not go ahead as scheduled – and were somewhat unpredictable. So we heard many calls for more flexibility and sensitivity in terms of youth court scheduling.

Recommendations put forward by the Liberal opposition included a greater use of victim impact statements in sentencing and a greater recognition of the impact of youth crime on victims. So, Mr. Speaker, this should not be confused with what you will see sort of threaded through the government report, which is that there seems to be two classes of victims: those victims who deserve government support and those victims who don't deserve government support. It is our belief in the Liberal caucus that you shouldn't rank victims as more deserving or less deserving.

By the same token, you shouldn't pit victim services and victim needs against those programs and services which will be beneficial to the whole of the community by providing supports or treatment or programming for offenders. It's not a matter of either/or. Y ou should never be in a situation where you're simply dealing with one group of needs at the expense of another.

Certainly what justice is all about is balance, and what we see and what we recommended is that there needs to be a balance involved in terms of meeting victim needs and providing victim services but not to the exclusion of those necessary programs for offenders, particu- larly young offenders and specifically first-time young offenders. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition recommendations also dealt with the need for more co-ordination for children and youth services from the provincial government. The former Children's Advocate I think recommended that there should be a super- ministry created for children.

We heard from many frontline service providers and many families of young offenders and many young offenders themselves that they felt that there was no one place that had res ponsibility, that they were being buffeted around, that they went from resource to resource, from group home to jail to school to group home to foster parent, back to jail, and that there didn't seem to be any co-ordination or any con- certed effort to understand what the interaction effect was between all of these government departments that had a piece of their lives. So certainly there was a call for more co-ordination.

Another highlight of the Liberal report included effective performance measures to ensure that safer communities and rehabilitation are the ultimate goals of the youth justice budget. If you take a look at A Better Way – I believe that's the euphe- mistic title of the budget – and you look at the business plan for the Department of Justice, what you'll see is that there are in fact some performance indicators, but none of those performance indicators are really hard-and-fast performance indicators.

They don't really tell us that if we spend this amount of money on this kind of program, we will get a certain quantity of result. 3:50 I think for far too long that when it's come to youth justice, what this government has been content to do is to simply find

1974 Alberta Hansard May 21, 1996 somebody to blame, and once they find somebody to blame, the government would have us all believe that it's the problem solved. We know that's not the case in justice. We know that simply finding somebody to blame or having a young person found guilty in court nowhere near addresses the problem. It doesn't address the problem in terms of the loss, the victimization, the community that may have been impacted, or the circumstances that contrib- uted to that young person's delinquency to begin with.

So what we need to do is to make sure that performance measures are built in to determine whether or not we have the right kind of outcome – I suppose the vernacular would be the bang for the buck – to make sure that we have the right kind of consequence for the young person, the right kind of benefit for society, and the right kind of return on investment in terms of tax dollars spent for correctional services. Now, none of these recommendations, particularly in the Liberal opposition report, are novel in the sense that they have not been brought to the government's attention before.

Several of the recommendations in the government's own report are also not novel in the sense that they are original. In fact, the govern- ment's report actually looks like about a d ecade old, the federal report that I'm familiar with and that I'm sure you are too, Mr. Speaker, from your previous history. The reason why I mention the fact that these reports and these recommendations are not entirely unique or brand-new is because what this motion specifi- cally urges the government to do is to take action “to implement” these recommendations. It's about time.

Let's take a look at what we've learned, let's take a look at what we know, and let's implement these recommendations. Let's go through the recommendations carefully, and let's have a full accounting for them. If the Minister of Justice says that his department has in fact dealt with these recommendations, then let's take a look at them one by one. Let's take a look at the nearly 100 recommendations, let's put them on some kind of a chart, and let's take a look at what the recommendation says, what it would hope to accomplish, and what the government says they've done about it.

Then this Assembly can make the determi- nation whether we can take the Minister of Justice at his word and his department at their word in their business plan for accomplish- ing what they said they've accomplished. I've heard the Minister of Justice say that they've made tremendous progress when it comes to young offenders. Well, I would like to see the evidence of it. I would like to know with just what degree of diligence the minister has instructed his department to review these recommendations. Where is the report?

Where is the analysis that these recommendations would or would not have a net positive benefit? On what basis can we assess what the minister says unless we have that kind of report and that kind of an analysis? So the motion is really a very straightforward motion. It's not a partisan motion in the sense that we're saying simply implement the Official Opposition's recommendations, even though they are of course those recommendations which most pertain to provincial jurisdiction, but the motion also says: let's implement the recommendations in the government's own report.

Y ou'd have to question why this government wouldn't want to do that. Of course, we've seen the government turn its back on its own reports from its handpicked committees before, so it wouldn't be the first time in this government's mandate that they've asked for a committee to do a study they've paid for, spent tens of thou- sands of dollars on, and then ignored it because it doesn't fit with their agenda. In fact, we're on the eve of seeing that happen again, much to the Provincial Treasurer's consternation.

When Albertans were asked if they wanted a tax cut and they over- whelmingly said no, we still hear the Provincial Treasurer talking about the fact that that's his preference. And by Jiminy, Mr. Speaker, I guess we're probably going to see a tax cut in spite of what it is that Albertans have told the Treasurer. I think it would not be the first time that the government has ignored its own studies and its own reports and committees, but in this case they should at least go through the report.

They should pick out those few recommendations from the govern- ment's own work that are truly within their mandate and control to do something about, and they should implement them or they should at least tell us why not. I think the Albertans who participated in those consultations, both the government's and the opposition's consultations, deserve that. I think that all the taxpayers, who paid for the government members to fly around the province and collect their input, deserve that kind of an accounting.

I think that all Members of the Legislative Assembly, since these reports are really the property of the Assembly now – they were tabled in this Chamber, and all members had an opportunity to review them and to discuss them with their own constituents, as I know I did – deserve that degree of accounting for what has happened to these recommendations, many of which, I sincerely believe, would streamline the administration of justice, would make young people more accountable for their behaviours, and would involve communities in a way that they felt they had more control.

Ultimately, that would result in safer communities and I suppose a higher regard for the state of the youth justice system in this province. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage all members of the Assembly to recognize the importance of this motion, to under- stand from whence it came, the motivation on the part of my colleague for bringing this motion forward, and the genuine desire to have the recommendations finally be given their due by the government and by the Minister of Justice. In closing, I'll simply ask that my colleagues on both sides of the House support this motion. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In April 1994 the Premier asked me to chair a task force to look into Albertan's concerns about the Y oung Offenders Act. Along with my colleagues the Member for Vegreville-Viking, the Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod, the Member for Calgary-Montrose, and the Member for Red Deer-South we toured the province hearing Albertans' concerns about the federal legislation called the Y oung Offenders Act. What we heard from Albertans made up the recommendations we sent to the federal government regarding changes to the Act.

We also found Albertans had some very good ideas on the provincial administration of the Y oung Offenders Act. We focused on these recommendations in a separate report, which went to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. We tabled two reports, one for the feds and one for the provincial. After all the hearings and the wonderful cross

section of Albertans we talked to, we believe the recommendations to be a very good representation of the views of this province. We also feel they represent very forward and fresh thinking, but these issues are not simple. Dealing with youth crime is as much a matter of prevention as it is correction, and that idea is repre- sented in the recommendations we presented to the Justice minister. That also means that the recommendations cannot simply be implemented right away.

May 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1975 Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate this. I've kept up with this and I've talked to people, people who have had children in a young offenders centre, people who are concerned about where we're going with youth, and they keep saying to me, “Don't rush it; make sure it's right.” They need careful consideration of the impact and their role in the Alberta youth justice system as a whole, but it would be wrong to suggest the government has forgotten about these recommendations and has done nothing regarding the recommendations we made.

On May 1 of this year the Justice minister tabled a report outlining his department's progress with the recommendations. Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll emphasize the word “progress.” Let's get it right the first time. The report detailed the department's response to the recommendations and showed just how committed the government is to improving the youth justice system in Alberta. For example, the recommendation that the young offenders legal aid pilot project be evaluated and be expanded when feasible has been accepted.

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19960521
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S4 19960521 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	23496b8ffcb8b21cf8753b619f0e3d6154bce9c2

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