April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1321 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 20, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/04/20 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in Calgary Sandy Moreland, one of the mothers of a child attending the Alberta Children's hospital, presented me with a petition signed by 5,600 people asking that the Alberta Children's hospital be left intact where it is. I wish to file the petition. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. MR. MITCHELL: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition signed by Albertans who are very, very concerned that this government not alter the level of support for all be nefits for Alberta's seniors [at least] until seniors have been consulted and have agreed to any revisions. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce a petition to the Assemb ly urging the government to maintain full funding for kindergarten and to make sure that every child in Alberta [has] the opportunity to receive 400 hours of . . . instruction, without placing undue financial stress on the families of Alberta. DR. PERCY: I beg leave to introduce a petition that urges the Government not to alter the level of support for all benefits for Alberta's seniors until seniors have been [fully] consulted and have agreed to any revisions. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce two petitions. The first is a petition begging the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government not to alter the level of support for . . . seniors until [all] seniors have been consulted and have agreed to any revisions. The second is a similar petition signed by petitioners in Slave Lake. Thank you very much. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, may I request that the petition I presented on the 29th of March regarding seniors' lodges be now read and received.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government not to alter funding arrangements for Alberta's Seniors Lodges and Seniors Subsidized Apartments until Seniors have been consulted and have agreed to any revisions to funding arrange- ments. head: Notices of Motions MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give notice that following question period today pursuant to Standing Order 40 I'll seek unanimous consent of this Assembly to move the following motion:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta urge the government of Canada to [immediately] significantly strengthen the Y oung Offenders Act to allow judges sentencing youths at either the youth or adult court level to impose lengthier sentences [where appropriate] and to allow, where warranted, a more expeditious transfer of young offenders to adult court. MR. RENNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that before Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders are called, I will seek the unanimous consent of the Assembly for the following motion:

Be it resolved that the Assembly waive Standing Order 8(3) in order to now allow the Committee of the Whole Assembly to give consideration to Private Bills 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 15. head: Introduction of Bills MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. Bill 27 Rural Gas Act MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 27, the Rural Gas Act. Mr. Speaker, this Bill updates legislation that has been in place for many years and has overseen the successful extension of natural gas service throughout rural Alberta.

The Bill puts in place provisions to handle urban annexations of areas served by rural gas co-operatives in a fair and equitable manner. It also eliminates outdated requirements affecting rural gas co-ops. Supporting this government's deregulatory objectives, Bill 27 is the result of extensive consultation with rural gas co-ops and their federation, the natural gas utility companies, and others such as the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. [Leave granted; Bill 27 read a first time] MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill 27, being the Rural Gas Act, be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table today 505 coupons from residents all over the province of Alberta. They're titled "Don't cut education, Ralph. Protect it!" They also say: Ralph, take our kid's future off your hit list. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that of the 500 that I'm presenting . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Enough introduction. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table with the Assembly copies of the 88th annual report of the Alberta Department of Education.

1322 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 head: Introduction of Guests MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to introduce to you and through you 64 students from the city of Fort Saskatchewan Win Ferguson school. Win Ferguson was a lady who contributed significantly to education. They're accompanied by two teachers and seven parents: teachers Mrs. Pat Sprague, Sandra Godue, and parents Patricia Galloway, Bob Stepc huk, Moanne and Guy Buchta, Margaret Lavrentiadis, Pat Jabusch, and Michael Delay. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. They're seated in the public gallery. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville-Viking. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to intro- duce to you and through you to Members of this Legislative Assembly 59 students from Lamont elementary school. They are accompanied today by teacher Miss Molly Tymchak, vice- principal Mr. Clarence Kitura, parents Mr. Melvin Starko, Mrs. Kathy Starko, and Mr. John Helton, who is our fire chief in Lamont as well, and bused here by the very famous Mr. John Danyluk from Lamont. Would you please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today it's my pleasure to introduce to the Assembly and to you a constituent of mine: Mr. Don Cheeseman. Mr. Cheeseman is in the communications industry, and he's managed projects nationally and internationally. For many years Don has championed the manufacture and use of special telephones for the deaf across Canada. He has consulted successfully in the fields of education and manufacturing through- out the years with CIDA and for various organizations in Japan, Korea, Zambia, Europe, Australia, and United States. It is very fitting that Mr.

Cheeseman vis its us today during Volunteer Week, because in addition to all of his professional duties Mr. Cheeseman for the last 14 years has been a director of the Alberta Easter Seal Ability Council. He is here today celebrating 35 years of service to the community while employed with AGT. I would ask Mr. Cheeseman to rise and urge the Assembly to give him the warm welcome that he deserves. 1:40 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly today Anne and Francis Hanson from Enchant, Alberta.

Anne and Francis are an active community couple and a business couple from a small community near the central part of our constituency. This is their first time in the Legislature Building and their first opportunity to take in question period. Would they please rise and receive the traditional welcome of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly three parents who have come to observe the debate today.

These are parents who are very committed to their children's education, and they're very interested in the debate that's going on in the Legislature about the future of our education system. They're in the public gallery. If I could ask Rhonda Ouimet, Mona Luth, and Sandra Moore to rise, I would ask the Assembly to give them the traditional warm welcome. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the very competent staff of the Edmonton-Mill Woods constituency office: Linda Jeffels and Pat Edmonds.

With your permission – they're in the members' gallery – I would ask that they stand 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 three guests from Thunder Bay, Ontario. Neil Maunula, who is owner of his own company, Shuniah Forest Products Limited, is a gentlemen that I went to elementary school with many, many years ago. He's accompanied today by his wife, Erna, and their daughter Krystal, who someday wants to be Prime Minister of Canada.

If they would stand in the public gallery and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period Children's Hospital MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, by now more than 30,000 Albertans, mostly in southern Alberta, have signed petitions supporting the continued operation of the Alberta Children's hospital. The cost of closing and relocating the Alberta Chil- dren's hospital has now been determined, has been I think better defined in terms of dollars and cents. A consultant's report says that it would cost as much as $193 million to duplicate the Alberta Children's hospital at the Foothills site. Mr.

Premier, what's the sense in spending up to $193 million to relocate a hospital that already exists and functions well? MR. KLEIN: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to the leader asserting or at least trying to imply that these decisions have indeed been made. They have not been made. As a matter of fact, as the hon. leader of the Liberal Party was familiarizing himself with the Children's hospital and the General in Calgary, the hon. minister was meeting with the chairmen and the administrators of all the hospitals in Calgary.

The agreement coming out of that meeting – and this is the only thing that has been decided, to my knowledge – is that, number one, there would be one board for Calgary, one CEO and one management board, that there would be four working groups formed, as I understand it, to look at the form and structure of the new single administration and the medical staff, and a working group would be established on how the Children's hospital might fit into programs at Foothills hospital, and working groups on the responsibilities of the new Calgary community health care centre, which is now the Bow Valley centre, the General hospital, and a working group on the future of the Holy Cross hospital as a long- term care centre.

Those are the only decisions that have been made, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier agree to stop the anguish, anguish amongst doctors and nurses and technical people and mothers and fathers that are leaving the hospital daily and getting petitions signed to leave this hospital as it is? Will you do that?

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1323 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who knows the need for rationalization of health care, it is the hon. Leader of the Liberal opposition. MRS. SOETAERT: Answer the question. MR. KLEIN: I am answering the question.

The answer is that there is a process, an ongoing process to achieve that rationaliza- tion and to achieve within the Calgary hospital system, the Edmonton hospital system, and the hospital systems throughout this province new and better and more effective ways of deliver- ing services, delivering services at less cost but at the same time maintaining a high level and a high quality of service. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Premier, will you tell Albertans that this isn't part of some Machiavellian scheme on your part to get people all riled up and then walk in like a hero and look like you're saving the Alberta Children's hospital? Will you say that? [interjections] MR. KLEIN: All I can say to Albertans . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair is also interested in hearing the answer to the question. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to Albertans is that that is probably the silliest assertion that I've ever heard. I've heard some very silly assertions from the opposition, but that one takes the cake. Mr.

Speaker, if you want to talk about Machiavellian attitudes, then I would throw it right back to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, who said on May 21, 1993, in the Edmonton Journal: let me make it clear; the government could save tens of millions of dollars by shutting down hospitals; let me make that clear. MR. DECORE: I guess it means, Mr. Premier, that the anguish continues. Calgary Trauma Centre MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, the Hyndman report calls for the closure of one of Calgary's inner-city hospitals, the General, and the relocation of shock trauma to one of the suburban hospitals in Calgary.

If you look at the traffic patterns and you look at the incidence of shock trauma in Calgary, the trauma centre at the General makes good health sense. Doctors in Calgary say that if the trauma centre is shut down in the centre of the city, lives will be at risk. Lives will be at risk. Mr. Premier, tell us how you're going to solve this problem when Calgarians will be at greater risk if the trauma centre is moved into the suburbs. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, all of these recommendations and these solutions have been not brought about by government.

These solutions, these recommendations, these thoughts, and these ideas are the result of the people directly involved in delivering health care services in the city of Calgary getting together and doing the planning. These are the recommendations of the people in Calgary who are closest to the situation. They are not our recommendations. 1:50 MR. DECORE: It's as foolish as saying that bureaucrats made us do . . . MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Premier, what sense is there in moving a trauma centre that because of its central location handles 75 percent of the most seriously injured people in the Calgary area? What sense? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again, that decision has not been made. It's only been made in his mind. I don't know where he gets this information that that decision has been made. Certainly I sit in caucus, this caucus anyway, and I know the decisions that have been made, and I can assure you that that decision has not been made, and it hasn't been made by Executive Council.

So the only one out there falsely leading people to believe that these decisions have been made is the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition, the same person who only a year ago was running around the province saying: let's close hospitals. MR. DECORE: Is the Premier prepared to put people at risk in Calgary by forcing ambulances to take trauma patients a greater distance to a suburban hospital? Doctors say that there is that risk, Mr. Premier. Y es or no? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, what this government is intent on doing is doing what is right based on what the health caregivers in the city of Calgary tell us is best for them. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Hospital Services in Calgary MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Health department's own business plan says that Albertans can get by with 2.4 hospital beds for every 1,000 people. The four Calgary hospital closures being threaten ed by this Premier will leave Calgary with fewer beds even than that objective. My first question is to the Premier.

How can the Premier even begin to justify cutting Calgarians closer to the bone than his own business plan calls for? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have the hon. minister supplement. I can only repeat: this is all part of a planning process that is now taking place. Let it sort itself out. The people who are directly involved, the closest to the situation will ultimately be the people who will come up with recommendations as to what is right for the city of Calgary, certainly not the Liberals. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to clarify for the hon. member – and I really did think that after four hours of committee and some more time in the House that he understood this – that 2.4 beds per thousand is a provincial average. It is a goal. I think the hon. member if he were being thoughtful would realize that that will vary considerably. In fact, Edmonton may have a higher or a lower number, Calgary may have, Drumheller may have, and Medicine Hat may have, and the reason is because they have different programs. Calgary offers different programs in high tertiary than perhaps Edmonton does or other areas.

So if the hon. member would put it in his mind that 2.4 is a provin- cial average goal consistent with a national average goal, I think it would help this conversation. MR. MITCHELL: Could the Minister of Health please tell us how the average works when in her constituency there are 10.2 beds per thousand and in Calgary they will be left with 2.1 beds per thousand? How does that average work? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to further enlighten that urban group. First of all, there is no place,

1324 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 nowhere in my constituency that you're within six minutes of a tertiary care centre. The hospitals there are 65 miles apart for the most part. That's an average in my constituency. The other thing is that the urban statistics that are used are different than they are in the rural, and they have used rated beds, which is available beds not open beds. Now, that was clarified for hon. members. Obviously, if you are 65 miles from an institution, you may have to be detained,

whereas if you're six minutes from the closest one, you may be able to go home and come back. MR. MITCHELL: Let's talk national averages. Let's talk national averages. Why is it that when the Premier finishes closing four Calgary hospitals, Calgary's bed ratio will be lower than any other provincial bed ratio in the country? MR. KLEIN: Well, first of all, that simply is not true, and secondly, I can guarantee the hon. member that the Premier will not be going down to Calgary to say: you're closed, you're closed, you're closed, and you're closed. No, the Premier won't be saying that.

I know that this gentlemen over here is down there saying that, and that is astounding coming from the man who only three months ago sent an open letter to Albertans saying: our health care system is more expensive than it needs to be and more expensive than we can afford, and these costs must be reduced through rationalization and regionalization and finding more effective and new and better ways of doing things. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Y oung Offenders Act MRS. FORSYTH: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has become very clear to myself and many Albertans that the federal Y oung Offenders Act is simply not effective in dealing with serious youth crime. I am not speaking here about the kid who steals a candy bar or breaks a window. What is disturbing to me is how it fails to adequately deal with those who commit acts of extreme violence or who are chronic offenders. My question is to the Minister of Justice. What has the Alberta government done to strengthen a law which to many young offenders is simply a joke? MR. ROSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, there's no doubt that the Y oung Offenders Act has become the lightning rod for crime and violence that's happening in our society, especially by youth. This Act came into place in 1984. It's nothing to crow about, but Alberta was one of the last to even agree to the Act because at that time we thought there was an imbalance between the two objectives, which are protection of the rights of the youth and the protection of the rights of society. I think society has evolved in those 10 years such that perhaps we were right and there is an imbalance, more pronounced now than it was then.

That's why my predecessor has and I have in the last month talked with the federal minister about doing a complete review of the Act, to get all the input from all the stakeholders, the largest stakeholder being the public, from the experts and even from the youth, as to what they think a young offender Act should do and from that develop either a brand-new Act or make substantive changes to the Act we have and not try to piecemeal fix, because when we do fix in one place, another problem pops up at another. That is our initiative, and I do think that with the federal minister we have in place now, the Hon.

Allan Rock, that procedure will commence shortly. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. FORSYTH: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Y oung Offenders Act seems to be weighted in favour of the offender. What changes would you make to correct this? 2:00 MR. ROSTAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Act is under federal jurisdiction, but from the Alberta perspective we can do as attorneys general from across Canada are doing: coming to the table with responses from their experiences and responses that they're hearing to try and effect some changes.

But, as I said, in the last meeting in Ottawa I think the consensus, although I'm sure the federal minister will be bringing forth some amendments, was that what needs to be done is that we have to back up, look at the entire Act, and come forward with some substantive changes. I think that's what will be coming. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FORSYTH: Y es. Thank you. Will the minister consider imposing tougher sentences on first-time offenders and scrapping the alternative measures program? MR. ROSTAD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the sentences that are imposed are done by the independent constitutional body being the judiciary, and we have no influence as to what sentence would be meted out other than how we prosecute a case on the facts of the case. However, in the Act, also, there are provisions for alternative measures.

Alternative measures are used where the police in consultation with the Crown determine that the offence the young offender has committed and admit that they've commit- ted is such that if that person were taken outside of the judicial system and given community work or assistance – youth justice committees do quite often administer these alternative measures – the young offender then does not have a record and is helped through peers or community groups to come back into society and not repeat.

In fact, 96 to 98 percent of the young offenders that go through the alternative measures do not re-enter the system at all. I think that is a positive adjunct to the Act. Although there is some frustration that the sentences aren't high, I think the debate that's going on, and I think an informed debate, not just a reactive debate, can send signals to the judiciary and certainly to the legislators that changes should be made or at least a thorough analysis should be made of the Act b ecause there is a serious problem. Rural Hospitals MR. GERMAIN: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier tells us today that no decisions have been made on hospital closures and to let the planning process unravel. Well, in rural Alberta, Mr. Premier, they know that they can't march 15,000 strong to keep their hospital; they can't get 30,000 signatures to keep their hospital. Y et they know . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. member. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you. Y et they know in rural Alberta that as sure as a crocus follows spring, hospital cuts are coming. My question is to the Minister of Health this afternoon.

Madam Minister, are there secretive reports even now in the works like the Hyndman and the Atkinson studies dealing with rural hospital closures?

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1325 MRS. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. MR. GERMAIN: Would the minister agree that her budgetary goals in health cannot be met without hospital closures? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring this discussion to something that is a bit more, I think, productive and useful. That is why we are changing the roles of many of our institutions in this province, changing the roles, and that is really what's being discussed, not closures. If hon. members have the opportunity to read a letter from Dr.

Tyrrell that's in the Journal, I think a very respected member of the medical community, he lays it out very succinctly, a number of the medical changes that have occurred that require us . . . MR. HENRY: How much did that cost you out of your research budget? MRS. McCLELLAN: That is an insulting thing to say, sir, and I think you should retract it. The reason for changing roles, Mr. Speaker, is because of changing technologies, and these are positive. These are positive to people's health.

Today you do not have to stay in an acute care facility for days for procedures that very short years ago, even months ago you did. This is positive. The changes in acute care, downsizing, are positive. The changes to community care and people being able to access treatment in their homes near their families are positive. If the hon. members want to use in a political way positive advances in medical technology, in which Alberta can take a great deal of pride through our research, I feel very sorry for them, because this is an exciting time in health. MR.

GERMAIN: What's the final day, Madam Minister, by which you must have hospital closures to make your budget targets this year? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speak er, I think the hon. member knows – and he should, b ecause he represents an area that has been very progressive in changing roles, despite those attitudes. He might want to refer to a news release that was given by Fort McMurray on some changes there. Regional health authorities will be in place in this province, announced on June 1, and they will do the decision-making as to the roles of the facilities in their areas.

Certainly there is nothing in my budget that suggests openings or closures or any date thereof for either of the two. MR. KLEIN: I'd like to supplement just for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I'm somewhat surprised at the hon. member's great concern for hospitals in rural areas, because it seems to me that it was the leader of the Liberal Party who said that we should be closing down these hospitals in rinky-dinky little . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjection] Order. The hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. Job Creation MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier indicated in last year's election campaign that this government would create 1 10,000 new jobs over a four-year period of time. Could the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism please explain how we will reach this goal if we have, as the media states, rising unemployment? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do not have rising unemployment in the province of Alberta. All members will recall about a month ago there were a few questions raised in the Legislative Assembly about labour force statistics on a month- to-month basis that were provided by Stats Canada.

The most recent statistics are now out for March 1994, and they show the following. In March 1994 there were 1,274,000 people employed in the province of Alberta. One year ago at this same time there were 1,232,000 people employed. In other words, there have been 42,000 new jobs created in the province of Alberta over the past 12 months. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on this very point, the number of unemployed has reduced itself pretty dramatically over the last 12 months in the province of Alberta, with 14,000 fewer people unemployed today than there were a year ago.

Accordingly our unemployment rate has decreased itself rather dramatically from 10.1 percent to 8.9 percent in March of 1994. This government will only be happy when every citizen in the province of Alberta is employed and will only be happy when in fact we've met the commitment, the Premier's commitment for 1 10,000 new jobs in Alberta. To this point in time we've added 42,000, and we're on the way. MS HALEY: Could the minister of economic development alleviate the concerns of Alberta women with regard to job creation on a full-time versus part-time basis? MR.

KOW ALSKI: These statistics again are also rather impres- sive in terms of what's happened with respect to full-time female employment in the province of Alberta. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, there has been a move in the right direction in this regard as well. In March of 1994 there were 407,100 women employed full-time in the province of Alberta. As a percentage of the total number of people in the work force, Alberta has the highest percentage of female participation. That's the result really, I think, of the changes in the Alberta economy. As well, the number of part- time women has increased.

So there's good progress being made in terms of employment opportunities for women in the province of Alberta. 2:10 MS HALEY: My final supplemental is to the Deputy Premier. What initiatives will the government take to create the jobs that Albertans are striving to get? MR. KOW ALSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing that we can do is follow through on the plan outlined by the Premier of the province of Alberta in terms of our fiscal responsi- bility in balancing the budget. What is very, very clear is that if we look back over the last number of months, in essence several things are very important.

We've had 42,000 new jobs created in the province of Alberta. Investment in the province of Alberta in 1993 on a per capita basis was $6,135. That's the highest level of investment in Canada. It's some 35 percent above the national average, and we consistently rank ahead in that regard. As well, if people are employed and if they have the lowest taxes in the country, that means they have the highest disposable income.

If we lead the country in terms of investment, that allows Albertans again to have the highest retail involvement per capita, and we're 15 percent above the national average in terms of what people in this province spend in small business. So you get a momentum being built that is very progressive, is very aggressive. I think the Premier should be very proud and all members of this Assembly should be proud, regardless of what the Liberals

1326 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 say, who are the depressive kind of people who want to go with doom and gloom. We're encouraged, Mr. Speaker. Tolko Industries Ltd. MR. N. TA YLOR: Back to the Deputy Premier. I hate to go back to the same fertilizer pit, but I'll try it. Although there are concerns about the adequacy of timber supply, many people welcome Tolko Industries' proposal to build an oriented strand- board mill in High Prairie and the 240 mill and woodland jobs they'll create. There are plans, Mr.

Speaker, to contract with the Metis and maybe Indian bands for the timber, but these people need jobs just as much as a market for the trees. Now, does the government have a written commitment requiring Tolko to hire a certain proportion of their staff from the aboriginal people in the area? [some applause] MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, again I have no idea why the thumping goes on in one corner of the Liberal Party. Obviously they've forgotten the question and the answer. I've already responded to that question in this Legislature. It is in Hansard. I've done it publicly here.

I'm sorry some of them were asleep at the time. The answer to the question one more time is yes. Again, yes, yes, yes. I'll say it four times so they don't have to come back and repeat it again. Two million bucks a year for research, and they ask the question repetitively. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend some of the money so he could learn English. The fact of the matter is that you've got a promise that they would hire. I'm talking about a written contract. If there is a written contract, will you file it in this Legislature? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the news conference that was held with Tolko Industries was held in High Prairie, Alberta. All of the media were invited. In fact even the Liberals were invited. Some of them received personal invitations from me to come and hear firsthand. What they would have heard are statements by the president of Tolko Industries on this subject matter. They would have heard representatives from all of the native communities in the area, thanking and applauding the progressive aspects taken with respect to this. This is an arrangement among the native bands in the area and Tolko Industries. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr.

Speaker, all I want him to do is file the written agreement in the Legislature. By the way, I was invited, but it was delivered by the Depart- ment of Health. It came in a day late. Will he not only file that agreement, Mr. Speaker, but will the Deputy Premier tell us what programs he has in place to train the aboriginal people so they can take jobs in this area? MR. KOW ALSKI: I'm going to ask my colleague the Minister of Family and Social Services to supplement this answer, because no one is more empathetic to the needs of native people in this province, Mr. Speaker.

No one has worked harder to ensure job opportunities than himself and the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake, both of whom are natives. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Y eah. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Of course, our whole plan with my department – and part of it involves aboriginal affairs – is to move forward and make sure we provide every opportunity for aboriginal people to become self- sufficient and independent again. In the past one year alone in my department we have moved 1 1,000 individuals off welfare into training programs.

I don't like it when the opposition members come into the House to try and use it as a political advantage. Just recently in Hansard they said that we dumped the students, and I'm not proud of that. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. McGregor Reservoir MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. N. TA YLOR: Go get 'em, tiger. MR. McFARLAND: I'll do a grass survey. Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Environ- mental Protection.

Nearly every lake south of Calgary is an artificial, man-made irrigation reservoir that benefits and was originally designed and built for irrigation users downstream. I understand that this summer there'll be some reconstructive rehabilitative work done on the north McGregor dam. I would like the minister to explain to th is Assembly the extent of the work that will be proceeded with, I understand, this summer. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed there will be quite a substantial amount of work done on the McGregor dam this summer.

The dam was actually built between 1909 and 1917, and as a result of that, there's a need for some maintenance work both on the existing slope protection and as well on some problems of seepage in the west arm of the dam. What we are going to be doing during the summer is reducing the lake level by about 15 feet. That's necessary to be able to do this rehabilitative work. That is about two feet lower than the last time the dam was lowered, back in 1977, and we are very conscious, of course, of maintaining the activities that occur around and about the dam.

It was built for irrigation purposes in the first place, and we are concerned that there not be any adverse effects on the environ- ment in that area. We've done a number of studies on that. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. Spruce Grove . . . MRS. SOETAERT: It wasn't me. MS LEIBOVICI: It was me. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Well, then Edmonton . . . MR. MITCHELL: Point of order. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. Member for Little Bow is concerned about his communities around and about McGregor reservoir.

In particular, Milo and Lamond are going to have to examine their water supply and their intake to ensure that water levels are sufficient to meet their needs, but I think that can be done. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question.

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1327 MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate what steps are being taken with the private irrigators who are licensed to withdraw water from the shoreline of McGregor reservoir as the summer approaches and the water is required during the growing season? MR. EV ANS: There, again, Mr. Speaker, we did a water balance study on the area to ensure that the needs of the irrigation farmers as well as the recreation users, as well as the industrial use from TransAlta in that area are all going to be met.

We have had focus groups with them, and they are aware of the repairs. They are onside with the need to do the repairs. I'm confident in working with the Bow River irrigation district that they will continue to monitor the levels and that we will have a successful project which will raise the lake levels as we continue through the review and the repair process. 2:20 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate . . . MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. McFARLAND: Right.

Will the minister be able to indicate to this Assembly if the domestic water supply for the v illage of Milo will be put behind the importance of the fish habitat? MR. EV ANS: That is a very good question. That's what being comprehensive in the way that we deal with our natural resources is all about. That's why we have a Department of Environmental Protection. We have to look at the local needs as well as the needs of those who use the reservoir for recreation purposes and for commercial fishing purposes.

We feel that we are involving all of the stakeholders, through news releases, through focus groups, and that we have found a balance, hon. member, so that the needs of those who are using the fish resource in the reservoir will not impair the needs of the water users directly and vice versa, that the water users will not have a negative impact on the people who are using the dam both for recreation fishing and for commercial fishing. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Tire Disposal MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Minister of Environmental Protection continues to fiddle with the Tire Recycling Management Board another 10,000 tires are burning out of control. The irony is that the tire fire this time is in the town of Trochu, Alberta, and that was the town that was given the hollow promise of a tire recycling industry. While tires burn in dumps in Alberta, Albertans are getting nothing for the tire tax that they continue to pay. My first question to the Premier: how many more tire fires have to occur before the Premier puts some heat on the minister to do something about tire recycling in this province? MR.

KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the tire board has been set up. It's an industry-run board in accordance with government policy to really make those who cause the problem be responsible for the problem. Relative to the so-called tire fire in Trochu, I'm not aware of the fire. Perhaps the hon. minister can supplement as to what caused that fire and whether it had anything to do with the program. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EV ANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member opposite has addressed specifically the reason why we have set up a Tire Recycling Management Board and why we are taking this issue so seriously in the province of Alberta. We have between 6 million and 7 million tires that are landfilled around this province, and we are generating about 2 million tires as used tires, adding to that number each and every year.

That's why we have set up the Tire Recycling Management Board: to give us high end recycling, to deal with the cottage industry that's developed in this province, to do research, development, to use tires in the processing, as we ha ve with the tire derived fuel at Inland Cement in this city and as well with the Lafarge plant that is now approved. I met today, this morning, Mr. Speaker, with the Tire Recy- cling Management Board in Red Deer at one of their meetings to discuss these issues and to come forward as quickly as possible with comprehensive solutions.

The hon. member opposite who made a snide comment about who is on this board – I want to describe for the people of Alberta the representation on this board. This board is made up of people from the rural and improvement districts of Alberta. It is made up of people from the Western Canadian Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, from the Alberta . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order please. Hon. minister, perhaps it can be supplemented further at the supplementaries. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Environmental Protection: will the minister fire the Tire Recycling Management Board and replace it with some people who can take action and who support small business? MR. EV ANS: We have membership, Mr. Speaker, from far and wide in this province: the Alberta environmental network represented on this board, the Recycling Council of Alberta represented on this board.

What we talked about this morning was the need for tangibles, and the board said to me: you know, we have got to move quickly on this, because people in this province are not understanding the complexity of dealing with this situation. Notwithstanding that they represent small municipali- ties, large municipalities, the environmental community in this province, the board has not been able to get their message out. I'm glad to have this opportunity to again confirm how dedicated they are to getting this message out and dealing with this problem. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I suppose in geologic time we are moving quickly. My final supplemental to the Minister of Environmental Protection: will the Tire Recycling Management Board use some of the $10 million that's sitting there doing nothing to get the tires out of the landfills and to tire recyclers? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement in Edmonton with Inland Cement to deal with 625,000 passenger tires. We have a contract with Alberta Environmental Rubber Products in Edmonton for high-end recycling, 600,000 passenger tire equiva- lents.

We have the process ongoing to sign an agreement in southern Alberta with Lafarge for at least 800,000 passenger tire equivalents. We have a cottage industry in this province dealing with small quantities of these wastes. This is under control, hon.

1328 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 member. Less than 20 percent of the tires that are generated in this province are not covered by existing or ongoing contractual negotiations for disposal of tires. We are not satisfied with that either. The board is working to make sure that that's 100 percent and that in turn we enter into agreements to deal with the accumulated tires that are . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's enough. The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Advanced Education Access MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. I understand that the Alberta Council on Admis- sions and Transfers has recently produced a report on their project to determine the number of duplicate student applications that exist in the postsecondary education system. We have an access problem in this province. My question to the minister is: is this report helpful in determining the number of qualified students not getting into our postsecondary education system? MR. ADY: Mr.

Speaker, all members of this Assembly are interested in knowing the actual numbers of qualified students who are not obtaining access to our postsec ondary education system. Even the Liberals are interested in that, but when they do their calculations, they count up every application that was ever made in the province at every institution, and they call that the total number of students that don't get access to our institutions. That's typical Liberal research.

Many students do, in fact, submit more than one application to various institutions, and for the past two years the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfers has been conducting a duplicate application detection project to determine the actual number of applications in our system. The project is highly beneficial, and institutions find the information of identifying the extent of dup licate applications within the system very useful. 2:30 MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the report, what is the level of students that are filling out and entering more than one application to the public postsecondary education system? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, that's the very thing that the committee is trying to do. I won't take much time to explain that, but I should tell you that in 1993 there were 101,643 applications reported. Approximately 4,350 were duplicate applications within one institution. That left a total of 97,288 applications that were actually bona fide to be processed.

It was determined that 65,740 of those applications were single applications and were in fact bona fide applications for one program, but 13,449 applications were seen to have generated numerous applications in addition to them. In other words, some students put in three or four to make a total of 31,000 applications out of 13,000. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplemental question to the minister is: with all these numbers and data that you've received, is this report going to help the minister deter- mine what the actual waiting list to access postsec ondary educa- tion is, not the artificial one? MR. ADY: Well, I assume that by "artificial" he means the number that the hon. Leader of the Opposition uses so often when he is stumping around the province. It's clear that all institutions have some common applications with other institutions. On average, about 32 percent of each institution's applicant pool is duplicated elsewhere. So, Mr.

Speaker, duplication of applications is the thing that is leading us astray in determining this number. This ranged from a high of 85 percent in one institution's applicant pool duplicated elsewhere to as low as 9 and a half percent. This kind of information is useful to us. The data will help with our cohort study of university transfer program students and hopefully build on progress to make and improve application processing within our system. When I have the final report from the committee, I look forward to tabling it in the House. Point of Order Anticipation MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to speak on my earlier point of order, and in doing so I'd also like to register another point of order, which I'll proceed with after this one. I rise in the first case under Beauchesne 409(12) with respect to a question asked earlier by the Member for Little Bow of the minister responsible for the environment. It was clearly, Mr. Speaker, a case of anticipation, because the heritage savings trust fund, capital projects division, is up for debate tonight. That's been clearly scheduled. We know it is. We don't deny that this is a very, very important issue. Of course it is.

Irrigation and water projects in Alberta are very important to all Albertans, to agricultural Albertans in particular, but the fact is that we are trying to adhere to that question of anticipation when something has clearly been scheduled for debate later in the day. I think there would be no question but that this particular incident would fall into that category. MR.

SPEAKER: Well, with respect to the question of anticipa- tion in regard to estimates under the Alberta heritage savings trust fund, the Chair, before making a final ruling on this, would like to review the situation as to the authorities in this regard, because the Chair is of the view that traditions that have developed and have been reported in Beauchesne and also in our own Standing Orders are based on the thoughts of main estimates.

Hon. members will realize that under the heritage fund's estimates, there are estimates concerning programs under many departments of government, and I suppose the Chair believes there could be estimates relating to health, also education under these estimates. So the Chair is of the present view that the Chair can't be as restrictive on anticipation under matters arising under the heritage fund as it has to be under main estimates, where it's quite clear that it's a single department. Otherwise, question period could be severely restricted during the times that the heritage fund estimates are reviewed.

That's the view now, but the Chair would like to spend a little more time on this before making a definitive ruling on anticipation. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that you revert to introductions. I have a group ready to leave.

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1329 MR. SPEAKER: Well, because of the time frame, would the Assembly agree to reverting? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly 35 students from St. Augustine elementary school. They're in the public gallery today, and they're accompanied by their teacher Charles Stuart as well as three parents: Mrs. Marian Kowalchuk, Mrs.

Nancy Omoe, and Mr. Ken Johnstone. If they would please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Point of Order Brevity MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. MR. MITCHELL: I have a second point of order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Beauchesne 410(7), which refers to brevity in both questions and answers. I'm sure you're as concerned as every member of the House that again today we had relatively fewer questions than we would have had on better days. We certainly are trying to streamline our questions. The fact is that I would like to make two observations today.

On at least one occasion it was clear that there was a prepared question by a private member of the Conservative caucus eliciting an obviously anticipated answer by the minister. That answer appeared to have been read and overly lengthy. Secondly, we're noticing a trend . . . DR. L. TA YLOR: Oh, and you don't prepare your questions. MR. MITCHELL: We would expect that he wouldn't have to read an answer. We are noticing a trend to supplemental answers.

Many of us are aware that often we are only able to get half an answer from the Premier, but it's becoming a disturbing trend that he continu- ously has to ask for supplemental answers, and that of course is eating up time for all members of the House who have legitimate questions to ask of this government. MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite continues to be annoyingly selective in his non points of order. The fact of the matter is that Hansard will reveal, as the Blues . . . [interjec- tion] Y ou know this little yappy thing over here, she asked earlier if we noticed she was gone.

We said no, but we sure know she's back. Mr. Speaker, it's very selective. The Blues will show very clearly today that in fact supplementaries by members opposite still have

preambles to them. As far as prepared questions, they can hardly look up to catch a breath from reading their scripts every single day. So I think they should ignore this sort of selective finger pointing, and all sides should work together to make this an effective question period under your guidance. 2:40 MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair is going to take this point of order as a complaint and urge all hon. members to get back to the traditions of this Assembly. There is plenty of blame to spread around to both sides in the last week or so.

The Chair would again remind hon. members of the place where they're sitting and standing when they're speaking, as they should be, not speaking while they're sitting. There's just too much of this on both sides of the Assembly. The hon. Member for Fort McMurray had a point of order? MR. GERMAIN: No. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 40, an application on the basis of urgency. The hon. Government House Leader. Y oung Offenders Act MR. DA Y: In terms of urgency, Mr.

Speaker, there's no question that there's motivation for this, and I'm just amazed to see the Member for Edmonton-Centre making mockery of a very serious incident that has happened here, making a hanging motion, mocking what's going on. This is a very serious situation that we are faced with, and the urgency does revolve around the fact that a serious incident, as a matter of fact a fatal incident, happened right here in Edmonton, and the urgency is – there is emotion. Of course, there is.

Sometimes people would say that because an incident like this has happened and therefore there is emotion, nothing should be done. We should wait for emotion to subside. I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the family themselves are so overwhelmed with emotion and grief at this particular time that they don't know specifically where to turn or how to see this situation resolved. That's where we as legislators need to step in and recognize that when justice does not appear to be happening, two very dangerous trends begin to emerge.

One is that people have a tendency then to take the law into their own hands. In casual conversations on the street and at social functions over the last two days I heard people saying that they were going to tell their families, everybody, to get handguns and put them in their house b ecause the government refuses to do anything about people bursting into people's homes and in many cases killing them, let alone robbing them or beating them. That's what we're hearing from responsible citizens just at social functions, people talking.

That's one of the urgent problems we're facing: people want to take the law into their own hands. The second is that people who would have a tendency to break the law see no apparent sanctions, and therefore even with this very serious incident that has just happened, all the media reflect and citizens in general reflect that nothing is going to happen. So I believe that at this moment we have young people – and I'm not talking about minor first offences where we need a program or kids need a good talking to or something to sort of bring to attention the error of their ways.

We're talking about serious offences of robbery, of people being beaten. We see this trend increasing even here in Edmonton and in other cities, where young people seem to have no fear whatsoever about breaking into homes, beating up older people and taking their possessions. This is something that is increasing, and because this incident has happened, Mr.

Speaker, these two trends are at a very crucial danger point where people are either going to take the law into their own hands, or right now, even as we speak, to younger people who would be tending to move in this direction, this just confirms that nothing happens, nobody says anything, and the situation can go on. So that is the issue of urgency, Mr. Speaker, that this message needs to be communicated to the federal government now to get

1330 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 them to act now, not only to hopefully get some action but to send the message to society that we want to see these matters dealt with. It is a very urgent problem. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus agrees that this issue is a matter of urgency and agrees that debate take place on the issue of the Y oung Offenders Act. The Liberal caucus notes the anguish in Edmonton at this particular moment because of the horrible crime that just took place. We note the fear that exists in the minds of many Albertans, particularly in the Edmonton area at this time.

We note the anger that is being expressed by Albertans. But we also note some of the outrageous, absurd comments that are being made even by people in positions of responsible office. It's important to deal with all of those issues, including the provincial government's responsibility in dealing with young people, the need for an education system at the earliest levels, a Head Start program, a childhood kindergarten program, programs for adults that don't allow adults to fear that they may have to go off and steal to keep their children going. Mr. Speaker, we welcome the debate on this issue.

This isn't simply an issue of lengthier sentences. This is a much bigger issue involving the provincial government. Let's get on with it. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the application for the presenta- tion of this motion and the arguments made on the basis of urgency, all those in favour of it proceeding, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Carried. The hon. Government House Leader. Moved by Mr. Day:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta urge the government of Canada to significantly strengthen the Y oung Offenders Act to allow judges sentencing youths at either the youth or adult court level to impose lengthier sentences and to allow, where warranted, a more expeditious transfer of young offenders to adult court. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. As I've already indicated, I won't prolong this, though there may be others who want to speak. Certainly, that'll be their prerogative. Mr.

Speaker, again I need to mention the fact that I've been alarmed over the last couple of days at conversations that I've either heard directly or that I've overheard. People are frustrated, they're exasperated, and they feel that our legal system overall is not working. When an incident like this takes place, even though this is just dealing with youn g offenders, it reconfirms in the public's mind that the system has failed and it isn't working.

We can sit here and look at our papers and look at the wonderful programs that we have and talk about the types of things that are in place to care for people and that we s hould have. But in fact it's not just justice being done; it is the appearance of justice being done that is absolutely cr itical to this issue and to where people are today. We have to also recognize that simply making this adjustment to the Y oung Offenders Act, as we requested, doesn't solve all problems.

We're not suggesting that it does, but it would very clearly send a signal that we as legislators here listen and that indeed we agree that in the area of violent crime and in the area of young offenders perpetrating these offences there has to be a message go out that it will not be tolerated. Y es, we love our young people. Y es, we care for our young people. Y es, we will look at what we can do to make sure that young people who have gone astray can get onto the right path.

But there has to be with that the very clear message: it will not be tolerated and severe sanctions will move quickly into place when these types of activities happen. That's why I'm asking for that urgency, and that's why I would ask that we would vote and agree that this motion be sent to our federal counterparts. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is not one amongst us in this Assembly who doesn't share the sense of loss recently suffered in Mill Woods.

The tragedy that has beset that family is one that thankfully not too many of us have had to endure personally. The extent of violence in our city, in our province, in our country is thankfully not out of control. The level of violent crime in this country is not to be tolerated, is not to be accepted, and is not to be ignored. But it doesn't do any good at all for decision-makers, politicians, to be adding fuel to the flames of a smouldering fire. What Albertans need so that they can feel safe is some certainty in their system of justice.

They have to believe that when a crime is committed, the police will be in a position to respond, that the courts will be in a position to adjudicate fairly, and that the correctional system will be able to respond in a way that will be helpful and corrective. 2:50 Currently, Mr. Speaker, many Albertans don't have that faith in their system, and their anger manifests itself into calls for harsher penalties and rough justice.

It is the responsib ility, I believe, of legislators, of decision-makers, of lawmakers to respond to that outrage that Albertans feel but to do it in a responsible way, to let people know that there are alternatives, that there are other things that can be done, that should be done, that need to be done.

That starts with putting our re sources into preventative pro- grams, into interventions with at-risk youth and at-risk families so that we're not simply waiting for violence to happen, we're not simply standing by idle becoming worried and frightened and then reacting to crime, but instead we're taking a hard look at our- selves, at our society, at our relationships, at our institutions and making them more responsive to the needs of our families and our children, of putting resources to work where they'll pay off the highest dividends; and that is in preventing violence from happening in the first instance instead of just reacting to it once a tragedy has beset us.

Mr. Speaker, transfer to adult court was just made easier under the last round of amendments under the Y oung Offenders Act. Sentence length available to youth court judges and adult court judges for youths convicted of serious crime, violent crime, has just been extended. In fact, Alberta has the distinction, I believe, of transferring amongst the highest number of youths to ordinary court, to adult court. Alberta also has the distinction of having amongst the highest length of incarceration for sentenced young offenders in the country.

It also has amongst the highest police charging rate of youth crime in the country. There are more young offenders on a proportionate level in secure custody in this province than in open custody and in a higher proportion than anywhere else in this country. We have the second highest rate of pretrial custody; in other words, young people simply accused of crime but not sentenced sitting in correctional institutions waiting to go to court.

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1331 Mr. Speaker, the Y oung Offenders Act is currently considered to be one of the most onerous documents and laws of its kind in the western world. It is a due process, rights and responsibility law, that is held out by many to be an overly onerous document, not one that is weak. The tragedy is that we haven't fully implemented it, and we haven't set up our other services and interventions to go along with it.

We haven't gotten serious in our education system and in our social service system and in our mental health system in dealing with the needs of children and the needs of family before those needs get out of control and manifest themselves in a way that none of us are happy with. Mr.

Speaker, those people who believe the answer is to transfer more young offenders to adult court and then have those young offenders endure harsher and harsher sentences are often the same people that point their finger at the adult system and say, "That system isn't working either." It 's an irony to me that people would think that one system that they think isn't working can be fixed by simply transferring the problem to another system that they have no faith in either.

What we have to do is take a look at our system of corrections and our system of laws and our judicial actions and make sure that they are consistent with the tenor of our times. They have to make sure that we have the programs in place so that we can deal with the problem when and where it begins, and that's in our homes, in our communities, in our schools. It doesn't make any sense to try to pass the buck.

In fact, I'm quite dismayed at my colleagues on the other side of the House who feel that the best thing they can do is to try to shove this off onto the federal government and say it's their fault because it's a bad law. Mr. Speaker, nobody believes that an amendment to the Criminal Code or the Y oung Offenders Act is going to make our streets safer; nobody believes that. What we have to do, Mr.

Speaker, is pay attention to violence in the homes, to the attitudes that we bring to children, that we bring to women, to the respect that we must show to children and to parents, and to the supports that families and communities need. That's where changes need to be brought to bear. It is far too simplistic to pass this off as something to be dealt with with a law amendment at another level of government. It's about time that members of this Assembly accepted res ponsibility for what they can do to make our community safer. Mr. Speaker, sentence length alone is not going to deter violent crime.

Transferring to ordinary court alone is not going to deter violent crime. Pretending that it's somebody else's problem is not going to deter violent crime. When I hear members opposite talking about the abolition of alternative measures programs, when I hear members opposite talking about hanging 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds and then incarcerating their parents for the crimes of their children, I am shocked and dismayed and deeply disap- pointed in the simplistic, knee-jerk, and totally unacceptable level of response to this very serious, very complex, and very, very vexing problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. DR. L. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to get up and address this issue, but after hearing the Liberal pap from the other side, I just have to get up and address this issue. He talks about un acceptable; his views are the ones that are unacceptable. I for one am not afraid to stand here in this House and ask, request, the federal government to require tougher sentences. I'm not afraid, to use his term, to stand here and beg the federal government for rougher justice, because that's what we need in this society.

It's quite apparent that rehabilitation is not working. These are repeat offenders we're talking about. Rehabilitation is not working. It's time to get back to a punishment model for some of these young offenders. For some reason in our society, in our prison system, in our Y oung Offenders Act punishment isn't seen as acceptable. Well, I see nothing wrong with punishment. MR. HENRY: Hanging? DR. L. TA YLOR: If necessary, yes. Once again it is typical of Liberals to blame society and call on society to cure the ills.

It is time to call on parents and make parents responsible, to call on parents to take the responsibility for their children. Perhaps there should be some way to even charge parents and hold parents legally responsible for the actions of their children. We need to call on the federal government to investigate that possibility. Repeat young offenders know the law.

In fact, just the other day on CBC radio there was a policeman speaking, an expert on young offenders and the Y oung Offenders Act, and this is exactly what he said: repeat young offenders know the law, and they know that there are no serious consequences of them breaking the law. It's time to change that. I call on all sensible thinking members opposite, if there are any, to join us in this motion and call on the Liberal federal government to change this law and bring some rough justice back into the Y oung Offenders Act. Point of Order Relevance MR. COLLINGWOOD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park is rising on a point of order. MR. COLLINGWOOD: The motion says nothing about repeat young offenders, so we've gone off the debate on the motion. If we could stay to the motion. 3:00 Debate Continued MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon. House leader's motion from the other side, and I want to make a few comments in this regard. My comments stem largely from the feelings that were addressed to me by the bereaved husband and father and his family in this instance. In the words of Mr.

Danelesko, in spite of the tremendous grief and tragedy and horror that he and all of us feel over this incident, he does not want to see this untimely and brutal death of his wife become a senseless one. Therefore, he has asked this House through me to do whatever we can to focus more attention on this issue, as I believe we are now doing, and also to do something about it insofar as our own powers and capabilities at the provincial level are concerned. Some of those items I brought forward yesterday in question period on his behalf and on behalf of the larger community, Mr.

Speaker, but there were a number of other things that formed part of our discussion which I would like at this point, since it is more appropriate, to share with you. Part of the things that I think we should be focusing on would deal with some early intervention strategies such as we might see available to neglected children, to

1332 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 children who have problems managing their own anger, children who come from abusive situations. Clearly, we have that opportunity available through some of the many programs that exist or perhaps once did exist in the social services area. So there's a sincere request for a re-evaluation of those programs to take place. Similarly, there's a strong urgency for the government to perhaps reconsider some of the effects of the municipal grants and more specifically some of the cutbacks that have occurred in the area of police grants and how they are being now applied.

I spoke with the foot patrol officer, or what they call the turf patrol officer, in that area, and he certainly supports that view. No one is suggesting that cuts don't have to be made, but in this particular case safer neighbourhoods should be evaluated perhaps through a different microscope, and I would on behalf of everyone here request that that be done. There is little that comes from closing down some of the group homes that try to wrestle with these early intervention problems, such as has been the case in the closure, I think, of the Strathmore group home. Neither, Mr.

Speaker, is there anything to be gained from terminating some of the programs which have been already alluded to by previous speakers that might support young offenders and get them back into society to be meaningful contributors to our global good.

I think earlier the Minister of Justice indicated that something like 98 percent of the programs for young offenders do in fact work, so what we're dealing with here is the need for a revamping perhaps of the 2 percent that don't and in particular a look at young offenders who are becoming repeat offenders, or what the police department would say, young offenders who have a list of priors. I would agree that there must be some way of handing out a stiffer penalty or a stiffer deterrence in those instances. The other point I would make is that Mr.

Danelesko in our discussions, as his family has also been, is very rational in spite of the tremendous frustration, anger, hurt, and pain that they and all of us feel. In requesting the government to do something on this, that rational approach still must be somehow maintained. I know that it's not going to be easy, and all members here know that it's not going to be easy, but we do need to look at this through the eyes of some rational, cool, calm approach.

We need to look at some of the statistics that are available thr ough the judiciary as well as through groups like Legal Aid Society of Alberta and see where it is that the problems in fact are occurring. Let's take a good in-depth look at it. We know that in other provinces, Mr. Speaker, such as Manitoba and B.C., they have set up something like 60 and 35 I believe they're called commu- nity sentencing panels, which take the caseload off the provincial judges dealing with youth crime and allow the community to deal with some of the lesser serious crimes.

There are a number of problems in the provincial courts as a result of this backlog, where provincial court judges dealing with young offenders are handling everything from parking tickets to speeding tickets to liquor infractions to trespassing and so on. I understand that those are also important transgressions of the law. However, I would think that if the models in other provinces are working, we should perhaps be adopting some of them here, and that way our youth court judges' time can be more appropriately applied to the much more serious matters.

It is again our responsibility as a provincial body to bring in programs, and this particular government has a responsibility for building the institutions, also for appointing those judges, as I said yesterday, and for running those programs and accounting for those programs back to us as to how they are or aren't working. Here we see an instance clearly where programs perhaps have failed. In fact, I can take "perhaps" out of that sentence, because clearly in the example of the weekend in the murder of Barb Danelesko we know that the program hasn't worked.

The community, as the family, as all of us here are wondering: what is a 14 or 15 or 16 year old doing out at that hour of the night? So we have a chance to impact this from many different levels. I would urge members to consider that in their deliberation as they're looking at this particular motion. On behalf of the family I will remain rational and I will remain in support of any actions that can curtail further horrendous crimes like this taking place in this province, and I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. DR. WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me first start by saying the sense of shame, almost fear or anxiety, that I feel as I start to talk about this, and also let me say that my heart goes out to this family. It's not that I feel directly responsible, but as a society and as a previous solicitor general of this province I have to ask: could I have done more? Could the people that were lobbying in Ottawa over the last couple of years to have the Y oung Offenders Act done more? And perhaps, just perhaps, could we have prevented this tragedy happening this time?

With the present set of circumstances that we have in our criminal justice system, I'm not assured at all that this won't be happening again, even this afternoon as I talk. We have abrogated as a society our responsibility to a complete generation of youth that are developing in this society. In 1984 we brought in the Y oung Offenders Act after a tremendous amount of deliberation and study on the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Indeed, there hadn't been major changes done to that Act for years.

The work up to 1984 was done during a time when civil libertarians were beginning to evolve and socially engineer the social policy of Canada. In 1982 we had just brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on the purest of philoso- phy.

I bring that point up, because the first crack that was seen in the abrogation of complete responsibility to a society was the Charter of Rights, because from that day on when you applied all legislation that previously had been formed, including the Y oung Offenders Act, to an absolute right of citizens under the Charter of Rights, all of those pieces of legislation fell short of their intent and thus the problems with the Y oung Offenders Act. It was built on great principles. Fairness, give the youth of this country a fair chance. Don't brand them for life by naming them.

Bring them through the growth of their problems by counseling. Give them legal aid and a fair chance. Set up correctional institutions that would rehabilitate them, educate them, and give them counseling for their problems in society. But under the whole system thus came the problem. 3:10 I'm going to go back first before I get to that biggest problem. I go to the Member for Edmonton-Glenora, who said that the Y oung Offenders Act in essence was a good Act but that we have to go back to society, we have to go back to all of the problems we have, because the blame lies there.

Well, I came out of a different generation and not that long ago, and there are people here older than I am and many younger. There's one thing I was taught when I was brought up: there were consequences for your actions in a society. I soon under- stood that in the normal society as you grew up, you had a wide corridor that you could go down trying it, trying the trials and tribulations of life, but over there was the wall, the wall of

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1333 consequence, and if you went too far, you had a response immediately. That consequence for your actions started very young by discipline in your home, by bringing you up with the principles of what violence would bring, what stealing from your brothers and sisters or within the family would bring, what abusive language meant, how you acted in front of seniors, the fact that you never touched private property or other people's property without consequence, respect, the fact that education was a privilege, and it goes on and on.

The fact of killing somebody or maiming them for their rest of their life was absolute. At that point in time there was still a death penalty. That was taught to us day in, day out in our schools, in our homes, in our churches, by our grandparents, by our peers, by the community. I was raised under that, but in the meantime I was allowed to grow up. I was allowed to make mistakes. I was allowed to go close enough to that wall, and sometimes I hit it and I bounced back off it.

I had parameters, because I knew that if I went any further in my weaknesses, the frailties of mankind and its growing up, I would be in a lot of trouble. I remember as solicitor general that I couldn't believe you could steal cars 10 times and go into the Y oung Offender Centre of Edmonton and come back out each time. When I was a child, touching a vehicle was grand theft, larceny. Y ou didn't touch anybody's vehicle. That was taught to us. We never tested the wall. I wouldn't go and steal some- body's car.

Y ou'll say, "Well, maybe you were afraid of your father or afraid of this." Something in society told me that. And, yes, I didn't want the teachers to tell my parents that I'd been bad at school. I wasn't very afraid of the teachers, but I knew the consequence of my father, and I certainly didn't want the rest of my family to know some of the things that I was up to. So the peer group, the circle, justice, was fair enough too. Well, now we're in 1984. During that period I was relating, the Juvenile Delinquents Act worked on many of those principles.

But the civil libertarians and social engineers said: "We're going to make a pure society; we're further advanced than this draconian-style discipline, consequence for your actions." My gosh, they strapped people with a black strap in the class. Can you believe they would do that to a child? Corporal punishment, what a terrible thing. Consequence for your action? No, no. Find out where it's wrong someplace else. In 1984 the hell starts. The generations of children that make their first mistake are not taught in the schools or any place else the consequence for their actions. Go first to the big house. MRS.

HEWES: Did you make any submission in 1984? DR. WEST: Y es, and I'll get to that. I did to Ms Campbell, and she didn't take it either. Go to the big house. "Oh, it's not so bad in there. Y ou know, they gave me 10 days. I got out in three. The ink wasn't dry. The first time, well, the poor policeman, he stayed up all night writing up the reports, but he missed a technical detail that my lawyer from legal aid found and got me off. The second time I went in there the ink wasn't even dry as I entered, and I was out in three days. Now, it's the seventh time in. I've taken seven cars.

I've been in break and enters six times." Point of Order Relevance MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is rising on a point of order. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rising on Beauchesne 459 and Standing Order 23(b). I know that the hon. minister has a great deal of experience and he has a great deal to say about the issue, but I know that there are lots of other members who also have points they want to make that relate specifically to the motion before us. Y ou'll appreciate we have a great deal of business to attend to. This could be a very long debate, and perhaps we should stick to the motion.

I think the point of order is in order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair would say that the Chair been able to follow the relevance of the minister's remarks, because the motion concerns sentencing and treatment of people who are in breach of the Y oung Offenders Act. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Debate Continued DR. WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to do is tell you some of the exactness of what's going on in our young offenders centres. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. SPEAKER: Another point of order. The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

Beauchesne 482. Would the member entertain a question? He's lost me. DR. WEST: Y es, Mr. Speaker. MR. BRACKO: Is the member in his comments speaking about himself, or is this someone else he's talking about? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, a question like that in this Assembly on what I'm discussing is one of the most irresponsible uses of his time that I've ever seen. Debate Continued DR. WEST: I was getting back to when I as solicitor general looked inside some of the cases that were there and the length they'd been there and the largess of their performances, the stealing of cars and break and enters.

Every report that I looked at after they had been there six or seven times – they learned the system very well. Pretty soon what was showing up was that they learned fast: I can blame society, my parents; I don't want to go back and live with them; they abused me. Every case had the same thing, and they learned that if they used the system well enough and accused somebody else, they would spend most of their time in all types of programs for young offenders. They wouldn't have to have any consequences for their actions, and very shortly they'd be out doing it again.

They learned to manipulate the system so well because they hadn't met conse- quences for their actions the first time. These young offenders should be identified quickly after they start repeating their problems. There should be incorrigible sentencing in these to put people away for a long time, because they're incorrigibles influencing other children. They should start at 16, and it should have no limit below. The parents should be directly involved right at the beginning, and the sentences should be hard and absolute and directed.

And, yes, it should have more punishment than this bit about going in and re-educating them and all that, because they don't get the picture if you leave them in there six or seven times through six or seven crimes. Y ou know all the things that were said by the Member for Edmonton-Glenora about the Act being recently changed? Those are placebos done by a government that won't admit that what

1334 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 they created is a monster. What we have in Ottawa – and it doesn't matter which political party it is. They will not address this, because they do not want the orchestrators of the Y oung Offenders Act and all the dangerous offenders Acts, the parole system and everything else, to admit that all that work through the '60s and '70s and the Charter of Rights was a mistake, that they applied principles against utopia and not a real society.

The sooner we get in and disembowel this legislation once and for all and bring out some absolute measures that make consequences for the action, punishment, a reality back in the system, we can get on without abrogating our responsibility to these kids. 3:20 Y ou know, it may be true that the mass of children out there are good. And that's true: there are a lot of tremendously good young people in our society. Tremendously good. They're raised by families that do know what I was just talking about.

But the group that we keep rotating slowly start to affect more and more of our youth in our society, and the violent crimes become more hideous. In Edmonton and Calgary the police chiefs told me that if they could round up some 125 repeat offenders in both cities and put them away for a long period of time without parole, without letting them back through the swinging doors of the young offenders centre, they could control a lot of the problem, because they're the ringleaders and they have peer pressure on a tremen- dous amount of other youths. I started out by saying that my heart goes out to this family.

That sense of shame is a shame that I have because all of us have a gut feeling in our stomach when we hear one of these, and it says to us: what have we done wrong? Why that family? What did they do to deserve this? There isn't one of us in here that if somebody breaks in and enters our home – maybe they don't end up brutalizing us and killing us, like those individuals did – we feel violated forever.

If any of you have ever had a place broken into where they took something or maybe vandalized, it's never the same, because we have pride of ownership and respect, and we've been taught in this country that our home, our freedom, is our protected zone. When we go home at night with our families, it's a place of respect and protection. When somebody can come into it and offend it, maybe not personally, physically, that has been violated forever. I know people that never get over that, never get over the fact that somebody broke in. They fear what's down in the basement at night.

I know older people are very sensitive to that. Very sensitive to that. So if there's one thing we can do, we can hammer the heck out of our legislators to put legislation in place that brings this whole society back to focus on who we are and what social normalities are in our society. I don't mean to chide anybody here politically. It's not an issue that we should do that with. Somebody says: you believe in the death penalty? And you said: would you start at 16 or 17? I'm afraid so.

The respect of justice, it may not be a deterrent, but you have to start in some way to focus on society that there are reasonable limits on what we will tolerate, no matter what you say the reason that was for. Y ou can blame anybody any day. So I leave with the Assembly today: please think and support this, and support all the efforts of all citizens to change what's going on in Ottawa and help us refocus our criminal justice system. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My heart also goes out to the family, not only this family but families across this province, across this land that suffer injustices. I know it's a heart wrenching and a very emotional time for these families and for our society as a whole. I will support any measures to protect our constituents, our Albertans, and our fellow Canadians. I really have some concerns, concerns that we're looking at the Y oung Offenders Act only. We should be looking at the old offenders Act too. I've sat in this House for almost a year now, and we have a $35 billion debt, a great deficit.

Y ou know, I've listened to garbage speeches from ministers on that side who take no res ponsibility for that debt. Their role modeling isn't there. They're saying: blame it on someone else; it was that dictator Don Getty that did it; he forced us to. They have done things. The role modeling is there. Listen up and take responsibility even today. It has to start here with each of us, both sides of the House. So we need to take a look at this. What role model are we presenting to the young people? We have school groups after school groups and other groups coming to this House for a question-and-answer period.

A question is answered. Point of Order Relevance MR. JACQUES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti is rising on a point of order. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to cite Beauchesne, specifically 459 on relevance. How dare this individual in terms of a serious matter that is before this Legisla- ture come in here and start using a political soapbox in terms of, using his expression, the "dictator," of the previous Premier, of the ministers not doing that, of schoolchildren coming in here. I mean, that's an insult to this Assembly.

It 's an insult to his members. It's an insult to everyone across this House. It's an insult to this total Legislative Assembly, and it adds no relevance whatsoever to this debate. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Chair always gives the hon. members some introductory latitude, and the Chair was doing that in this opportunity, but the hon. member will realize that we're dealing with the Y oung Offenders Act this afternoon. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate your words of wisdom here. Debate Continued MR. BRACKO: I know that this is a very serious matter.

Y ou look at any of the radio stations, news media. Everyone is concerned. Our lives are at stake. I've had people break into my house, and I know what it means to have my privacy invaded not just once but twice. I know what it's like to have to put a security system in, to put bars on the windows, when a few years ago I'd leave the door unlocked. So anyone saying that I don't take this seriously is out to lunch. I take this very seriously. I did a survey in St. Albert on the Y oung Offenders Act, and they wanted things to change for repeat offenders for the major crimes.

Ladies and gentlemen, as we look at the young offenders, where did they get their actions from? The older generation. We are responsible for what's happening. Let's take this responsibil- ity and make the changes that we need. I was mentioning that in question period in the House here young people come in. I had a class in here, and one of the

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1335 assignments was to see how many questions were answered. There was one question directly answered in the whole session. So what they have learned from this is: evade the truth or don't give the answer. If they would at least say, "No, I refuse to answer it," or if they say that . . . [interjections] Listen up. This is a serious matter. This is what we're role modeling to our young people.

As educators we were responsible completely, and we watched every action we did so we could set that role model, so we could give leadership, so they couldn't come back and say, "This is not appropriate." As we look at it, we also look at our freedom of information Act. We have asked for information on these Acts. What do we get? Zero. Cover your butt. So the young people learn from us that this is the appropriate thing to do.

I want to mention this, because it's important that the leadership comes from here, that the young people take their role modeling from adults, and we are not taking that responsibility very seriously. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have to start here in the Legislative Assembly, look at our own selves, both sides of the House, and make appropriate changes so we can give the role modeling, the leadership that is needed and lacking in many parts of our society. With that, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to say in conclusion that it's only appropriate that we look at this carefully.

I will be supporting the motion because I feel that it's in the best interests of my constituents, of Albertans. This is just a small part of what has to change in society. It's not just the law; it's the whole attitude in society, responsibility with consequences. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Energy. MRS. BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot let the opportunity to speak in favour of this motion pass. It's a motion that I feel is long overdue, and it is irrelevant to me as to which government is in power in Ottawa.

There has been no action on the amendments to this law that are consequential to protect the population of this country 3:30 I will go back to a comment that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated: part of our problem goes back to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was brought into this country. It is going to be the absolute abomination and ruination of this country if that in fact is not changed. Mr.

Speaker, I read a Supreme Court ruling recently that dealt with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I'll never forget the comment by the Supreme Court judge that said that this Charter of Rights and Freedoms was there to protect the minority from the wilful destruction of the majority. I thought, "What a recognition to send out to this country, that the majority of the people could not be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." That told me right there that that Charter was wrong, and it would be the ruination of this country. I think it needs to be addressed as well as the Y oung Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, the events of last weekend in Edmonton are tragic. They're unforgivable. They're unforgettable. We must as government send a message to Ottawa and stand together to have these changes made. We have experienced similar incidents in Calgary, as they have in every other community in this province. We've sat back. We've analyzed them. We've double analyzed them. We've studied them. We've looked at them. We keep coming back to the same Caspar Milquetoast approach to dealing with this: it's society's problem to re-educate, to train.

I even heard on a show in Calgary the other day that it was the government's responsibility to provide parenting programs so that people would learn how to be a parent, to raise their child. I practically put my car into a light standard when I heard it, in an absolute rage, and thought, "Well, this is another psychologist or sociologist coming up with some flako idea of what was required to bring our youth to tack in this country." That's just not the answer.

We've got too many psychologists and sociologists running around psychoanalyzing society and forgetting that, as my colleague from Municipal Affairs said, there have to be conse- quences to your actions. That's the bottom line, and the time has come to say: "Stop. No more. We will not accept this in our society, and if in fact you're going to act in a certain fashion, you will pay the price.– The end of the debate at that point. "And these are the consequences that will happen to you if you pursue these actions, and there will be no leniency." It's called tough love. It has to come into society.

It has to enter into the home. It must be the parents' responsib ility to put in responsibility to their children and respect. We've said that it has to be in the schools. Well, that is absolute bunk. Y ou go into a school. Y ou've asked the teacher to be the teacher, the social worker, the psychologist, the nutritionist: everything else but teach. That is absolute nonsense. It's not fair, and it's high time that we accepted responsibilities as parents and dealt with the disciplining of our children at home. Mr.

Speaker, when I go into a school, whether it be an elemen- tary school where my son goes to school, and I hear children saying, "I can do what I want because I have rights," I explain to them in no uncertain terms that they have no rights. This nonsense of six- and seven-year-old children saying, "I have rights, and I will phone 91 1 if I don't get my own way": I have said to my own son, "Pick up the phone and make the call, and when the policeman comes to the door and I explain I've asked you to clean your room, you tell him what's going to happen." I agree with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

When I went to school – and I'm not as old as he is, but I'm also not the youngest in here, Mr. Speaker – I, too, learned respect for school. School is a privilege. It's a privilege that we have in this country, to go to school. It's not a right; it's a privilege that they don't have worldwide. We have it here in Alberta and in this country, and we must honour that privilege. Y ou also must have respect for that institution. I also knew and was taught the same lesson: that if I got into trouble in school, I knew I was going to get it double at home, so I'd better smarten up.

I also had the threat of a strap in the school, and I can tell you that when that was brought out and waved around, you thought twice about what you were going to do. That has to come back in. MR. WOLOSHYN: Was I your principal? MRS. BLACK: No, you weren't my principal. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a society that has gone to a point where there is no respect. There's no respect at home. There's no respect in the school. There's no respect in the community. There's no respect in the churches. As a result, we show very little respect in this House.

The hon. member just a few moments ago talked about when he brings students to this Assembly. Well, I'm ashamed to bring students to this Assembly, quite frankly. I don't want them to see how full-grown adults sit and are rude and disrespectful of this wonderful institution that we have the privilege of being elected to. I'm ashamed to say that I don't encourage any students to come to this institution because it's embarrassing for me to see how full-grown adults behave, chirping away and yelling and screaming like banshees in this

1336 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 place, and you having to get up and discipline them as if they were in kindergarten. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Both sides of the House. MRS. BLACK: We just had another example, Mr. Speaker. I was talking. That's another rule we were taught: that you do not interrupt someone when they are speaking, that that's absolutely rude, thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get on to this motion. I look at the constituents in my riding. I've heard people say that the people that are involved as young offenders come from single moms, depressed socioeconomic situations, and bad families.

Well, that's absolute nonsense, because my riding is probably one of the more affluent ridings in the city of Calgary. We have one of the highest educational levels, we have one of the highest professional contents, we have an upper middle-class socioeconomic area, and we have just as many children in trouble with the law in my constituency as we do in any other constituency in the city of Calgary. So that is just nonsense. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for us to take a stand and to take it now, because if we don't, God help us.

These young offenders are going to grow into adults, and how will they pass on any moral teachings to their children? MR. MITCHELL: Y ou don't want them to grow into adults? MRS. BLACK: We're having rudeness from the Member for Edmonton-McClung again. It's usually his finger waving, but now it's his mouth. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we be examples of . . . MR. MITCHELL: Shot through the heart, Pat. That's very quick. MR. SPEAKER: Order. MRS. BLACK: Here we go, again, Mr. Speaker, where you're having to intrude to calm down hon. members opposite. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say that if we don't take control today and build respect back into this system, we will be in utter chaos with this next generation coming up, because I can tell you, with a son that's 10 years old and watching his friends – some of them already have said to me: "It doesn't matter. I have until I'm 18. I can do whatever I want, and you can't stop me. So come and try it." Because nothing will happen until they're 18. Well, it's pretty tough to rope in children when they know that they have that much leeway and nothing will happen to them if they show disrespect within our community. Mr.

Speaker, I think the time has come when we take down the political lines and we say: let's deal with the protection of this society, bring it back in tow. End this utter nonsense of trying to rehabilitate, psychoanalyze, go through a sociological discussion and try and make everything better and make it all go away and make them all happy, because it's not going to happen. Deal with reality. We've got some kids that are out of control. They're going to have to be reined in, and there are going to have to be strong disciplinary actions taken against these children.

Either you lock them up or you can bring back corporal discipline into the school systems. Y ou put pressure on parents to assume responsibility. Someone said to me yesterday, "How do you do that?" Well, it's very easy. If your child goes and trashes a car on my street, you're going to pay for it because you are responsi- ble for your child until the age of 16. If your child goes down the street and breaks windows and damages cars, well, it's coming out of your pocketbook. That puts people into a mode of responsibility. Unless we change this Act, Mr. Speaker, people just walk because they have rights. MR.

SAPERS: That's a lie. MRS. BLA CK: They have rights. W e have to strengthen this. [interjections] We have to show that there are consequences, so I support this motion. AN HON. MEMBER: Say that outside the House, hon. member. MR. SAPERS: It's a lie. Sure I will. MRS. BLACK: Well, I gather there's some debate going back and forth again, Mr. Speaker. I say let's support this. Let's take down the political lines and get on with the job and say: "No more. We will tolerate no more in this province or in this country." Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:40 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR.

COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with respect to the motion. I rise this afternoon to in fact speak against the motion for a number of reasons. Some preliminary comments. The mover of the motion, the hon. Government House Leader, made reference in his opening remarks to the fact that there's a tremendous amount of emotion that is being felt right now in our communities because of the horrendous crime that befell the family in Mill Woods, the Danelesko family. Nothing other than shocking can describe exactly what happened this weekend to that family in this terrible tragedy.

Whenever those things happen, whenever a situation like that occurs, we are always filled with emotion. We grieve for the family. We're filled with ange r. As the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs said, we wonder: "Where did we go wrong? What could we have done to prevent this from happening?" So we do have a tremendous amount of emotion. Certainly other people who are talking to him, talking to me, talking to other members of this Assembly are going to in fact express their emotion, express their concern, and ask for and look for some action.

But I think it's important that we have to, whenever these situations occur – and they're not frequent, but they're not isolated. We have many other situations where murders occur in this city and in this province that do not receive the same level of exposure that this particular incident did. We had a situation that occurred in Edmonton virtually days earlier than the Danelesko murder where a woman was kicked to death in the streets of Edmonton, but no publicity. She didn't come from a two-parent, two-kid, middle-class home, and it didn't get the same publicity. It was a murder nonetheless.

These things are not isolated. Hopefully, thankfully, they're not frequent. We can't, I don't think, in the circumstances react the way we are reacting in the form of this particular motion. Mr. Speaker, I went back and read the Blues on the question that was asked earlier today in question period of the Minister of Justice. He quite clearly indicat ed to the Assembly that in fact what was necessary was a complete review of the Y oung Offenders Act.

I don't think any member of this Assembly would disagree with the fact that 10 years after that legislation came in at the federal level, we need a complete and comprehensive

April 20, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1337 review of the Y oung Offenders Act. I also believe that the Minister of Justice indicated that attorneys general across this country are working collectively and working with the federal Minister of Justice to bring this about and to take concerns from each of those jurisdictions to Ottawa, to the federal level, to receive and get this complete, comprehensive review of that legislation. Now, that in fact may include a review and an overhaul of sentencing and of transfers to adult court. What we do in the motion is isolate a particular aspect of the legislation.

We come forward and it is abundantly clear and apparent that it is a knee-jerk reaction. We are, I believe, undermining the work that the Minister of Justice is doing in his efforts as the Minister of Justice of this province in taking the concerns of our constituents to Ottawa to lobby for and to receive the full review of the Y oung Offenders Act. It goes beyond, certainly, to other aspects of the Criminal Code as well.

So I don't want us to get into a situation where we as the Legislative Assembly respond in this way to our federal counterparts, which would then in fact detract and take away from the energy that's being expended to look towards this full review of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Government House Leader, who moved the motion, indicated in his opening remarks that this particular motion was not necessarily in respect to first-time offenders; it was not necessarily with respect to less heinous crimes; it was not necessarily dealing with mischief.

There's nothing in the motion itself that makes any distinction between a review of this legisla- tion from the perspective of a violent crime or the perspective of a crime against property or some other crimes such as break and enter, crime against property. The motion doesn't deal with that. The motion says by what's not in there that this is a knee-jerk reaction.

We haven't t hought very carefully about this, and I think we need to allow the Minister of Justice to get on with doing the job that he is charged to do in moving forward to lobby the federal government on the concerns that have been raised in this debate and will continue to be raised by ourselves, by our constituents, by us on behalf of our constituents. All of those emotions, all of those statements, all of those pleas for action should be taken by the minister to his federal counterpart. Mr.

Speaker, I would be concerned that in the consequences of this in fact we don't have our constituents lobbying their Members of Parliament and urging them to pass a motion of the House of Commons urging this government to take responsibility for its area of jurisdiction in dealing with the root of crime. Because if the other were to occur, I don't think that we as an Assembly would take that and say, "Well, this is our call to arms," so that we would get on with doing the job that we have to do. We know the job that we have to do.

The federal minister, the federal government, regardless of party politics know the job they have to do, understand the feeling of society in 1994, different from 1984, and know that changes must be brought about. So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the effort of the hon. Government House Leader in bringing the matter forward. I appreciate the debate that we're having this afternoon.

But ultimately I accept the word of the Minister of Justice that there is a process in place, and I would encourage all hon. members to allow that process to occur, a levelheaded, straightforward, rational approach to this, and to not support this motion. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier on in this debate I was encouraged and challenged to get up and express my point of view, and I don't hesitate for one minute. I've never met the Mill Woods family who have just lost a mom, a wife.

However, my sincere condolences and those of the residents of Little Bow go out to them. I don't hesitate for one minute to rise in support of this standing order. Repeat offenders and murderers have had it easy for far too long. People in our constituency have asked the federal government time and again to change the length of sentences and the consequences for serious crimes, for far too long. Our society does not condone brutality and senseless murder, nor does it condone bleeding-heart attitudes towards rehabilitation of murder- ers and repeat offenders.

This debate isn't about group homes or budget reductions. This has to do with morality and ethics. This has to do with the consequences for serious criminal actions. People today, Mr. Speaker, at least in our riding, are sick and tired of the attitude that has developed among many people, and in this case, on this particular subject, a younger generation that has adopted the attitude: "If it feels good, do it. If you want it, take it. Everything is up for grabs. There are no consequences." This standing order brings about the real issues that we see happening around us.

The cowardice of two or three or more people who confront individuals, young or old, the cowardice and the disrespect these perpetrators demonstrate when they viciously assault, rob, beat, or murder innocent victims on the streets or within the confines of their own private property is abhorrent. 3:50 Mr. Speaker, some can forgive, and I admire those that can. Many can't, and I have to admit that I'm one of them. I can't imagine the feelings that any one of us would have if it was our wife or our little girl or our little boy. I have to be far more honest than that.

If I were the perpetrator, I think I'd take far greater solace knowing that I was confined to jail for the rest of my life than to be looking over my shoulder, looking for this mad gentleman hunting me down. I would make that a promise. I know many of my constituents who take that same attitude, and I make no apology for it. Many of our residents in Little Bow respect laws and legisla- tion, and they've conveyed to me for the past two years the sincere and demanding wish that the time has come for substantive change. Mr.

Speaker, I don't have to go on for a great length of time, and I'm not going to, but yesterday – it's quite coincidental – I read a quote that is attributed to Justice Robert Bork, an American constitutionalist. He's made the comment that in a constitutional democracy the moral content of the law must be given by the morality of the legislator, never by the morality of the judge. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I woke up this morning and grabbed my cup of coffee along with a couple of the newspapers, in particular the Edmonton Sun with the blazing headline "Hang 'Em High." It was ironic that this afternoon I introduced visitors in the galleries from Ontario that had come out to western Canada, and one of them remarked to me: I didn't realize I was coming back out to the old western days. Mr. Speaker, there is no question, absolutely no question in the mind of almost every Albertan that the Y oung Offenders Act has to be reviewed, and there have to be changes done to it, and there has to be some toughening up.

We have all heard instances where there have been young offenders that have flaunted the law simply because they knew that they could get away with it one time, two times, a dozen times, sometimes two dozen times. But there

1338 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1994 comes a time when there has to be a bit of reason, there has to be a bit of rationale to the arguments that are presented. It was in this very House a couple of years ago, and the current Minister of Justice was then the Attorney General, when I raised the question of the two young offenders that had been sentenced to the time they had already served plus community service and probation for their participation in the brutal three-day torture of a mentally retarded individual that led to that individual's death.

There was an outcry in Alberta at that time, and there was an appeal on the particular case. Those two individuals did end up going to jail, and they ended up getting a two-year sentence, which was, possibly, not even sufficiently appropriate. When I hear the comments that are coming forward: hang 'em high; put the parents in prison; hold the parents accountable – how many of us can sit back and say that we don't know good, decent parents that have tried their very, very best, but for whatever reason their children have gone astray? I've been fortunate.

I have one son, and we've never had a problem with him, but I know many others. I cannot fault those parents in any way, but for some reason some outside influence had a greater hold on those children than the parents did. To hold those parents accountable and to say that those parents should go to prison has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard, Mr. Speaker. But that's what we're hearing, and that's what we're reading in the paper. That is just totally irrational. It just totally lacks logic. I'm shocked and I'm saddened when I hear some of the comments that are coming.

It's almost like there's a certain pride in being a so-called redneck, right-wing, vigilante, hang 'em high cowboy, shooting- type dude out here in western Canada and being proud of it. I cannot believe it. Stop and think. Stop and think of the com- ments made by the Premier to the press. We're talking about individuals that may be as young as 12. To suggest a possibility of executing them. Twelve years old. Even Third World countries I doubt have that type of harsh punishment. Like, who's the one that's going to tie this noose and so-called hang 'em? Or who's the one that's going to inject the lethal drug?

Or who's the one that's going to pull the switch? Stop and think. I think one of the most appropriate, one of the most logical, one of the most reasoned approaches is coming from the Minister of Justice when he states: a reasonable approach to it. I would think that the members of that particular caucus should be respecting what that minister is saying. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker – and I'm not saying this as criticism of the Premier; I'm saying it because that's the way it appears to me – it's almost like this government at times is being led by polls.

If the polls are saying, "Hang 'em high," then the statements are "Hang 'em high." Then the next day if the polls suddenly change, the winds shift, then there's a change in supposed philosophy over there. The decisions, the statements don't seem to be based on principle. I don't know how one can just lightly, casually make a statement: execute them. I know and nobody has to tell me – I know – that a life was taken here. I can feel the hurt that the survivors must be going through, those close to that person.

But to compound the violence in this society by advocating that type of violence to counteract it simply doesn't make any sense. Mr. Speaker, fortunately and possibly with some surprise the motion that has been brought forward by the Government House Leader really is a rational motion. There is no difficulty with the motion. The difficulty I have is with the statements that are made in conjunction with the motion. Let's just read the motion.

That the Legislative Assembly . . . urge the government of Canada to . . . strengthen the Y oung Offenders Act to allow judges sentenc- ing youths at either the youth or adult court level to impose lengthier sentences . . . I think we agree with that. . . . and to allow, where warranted . . . That's important: where warranted – of course to be determined by a judge. . . . transfer of young offenders to adult court so that they can be treated; they can be dealt with; they can be penalized in accordance. Now, that's a whole lot different.

That motion is a whole lot different than the statements that are being made by some members on the government side. I must say I really don't think we're reflecting, let's say, brilliantly in the eyes of the rest of Canada when they read what our political leaders are saying, how they're reacting. I think it's time for members to kind of just pause a bit, do a bit of soul-searching, and take these statements that are being made just a little more cautiously, with a little more heart. There is a very, very emotional situation out there as it is, and to add to it the way that it's being added to is just wrong.

It is wrong. On the basis that the Member for Red Deer-North, the Govern- ment House Leader, has presented this motion, yes, I can support it. I would expect that each Member of the Legislative Assembly would do their part to ensure that the federal government does do the appropriate review of the Y oung Offenders Act, as has been promised in the red book, and that's the way to do it, Mr. Speaker.

I would plead with members on the government side of the House: hold your tongue somewhat when it comes to some of these rather, I believe, vicious statements that are being made, statements that I feel can be very, very harmful. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude, because many other members want their say on this particular motion. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in support of this motion, and I would also like to pass my condolences to the family from Mill Woods, keeping in mind that we have other families that deserve equal condolences: Constable Sonnenberg, who was killed in Calgary, and Margaret and Stu Garrioch. This isn't a one-family issue. This is something that has been happening for a long time. 4:00 I've been involved with the young offenders and changes to the young offenders for about three years now. I am involved with a group called the Parent Support Association of Calgary, where I'm currently serving as a director.

That's an association that helps parents deal with children who are acting out. People have a perception that a lot of these young offenders come from single- parent families or social or economically bad homes, and that's not true. The stats have changed on that. Most of the parents that I dealt with in the Parent Support Association and in the crisis team were parents from middle-, upper-class families, and they're generally concerned about what's happening with their children.

What we have to understand here, under the Y oung Offenders Act and what has to be done, is that at this particular time the children have too many rights. They have too many rights in the system under the young offenders, and before anything can be changed, we have to start giving the rights back to the parents, to the teachers, and to the police. Until that's done, nothin