September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 35 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, September 2, 1993 2:30 p.m. Date: 93/09/02 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which Y ou have given us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legislature the Hon. Gerry Ducharme, Minister of Government Services for the province of Manitoba. I'd ask Gerry to please stand and be accorded the usual welcome of the House. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Bernie Gagosz, Consul General of Canada, Seattle office, who was appointed in January 1993. Mr. Gagosz is responsible for Canada's broad relationship with a territory of the United States that includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Two-way trade between Canada and these four states amounts to over $8 billion annually. Alberta exports to this area ex ceeded $2.1 billion in 1992. I would ask Mr. Gagosz to rise and receive the recognition and warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the Members of the Legislative Assembly I would like to extend congratulations to Dr. Elmer Ernest Roper, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly. On June 4, 1993, Dr. Roper celebrated his 100th birthday, and on June 17, 1993, he and his wife, Goldie, celebrated their 79th wedding anniversary.

Elmer Roper was born on June 4, 1893, in Ingonish, Nova Scotia, the son of Capt. George Franklin Roper and Nettie Edith MacDonald. In 1914 he married Goldie Bell, and they had four children. Dr. Roper was a member of the Co-operative Common- wealth Federation and was first elected to the Alberta Legislature in a by-election on September 22, 1942, representing the constitu- ency of Edmonton. He was re-elected in the general elections held in 1944, 1948, and 1952 and served until 1955. Dr. Roper's son Lyall and granddaughter Mrs.

Patricia McCoy are seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, and I ask that they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Introduction of Bills MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Bill 201 Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act MR. DECORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 201, a Bill entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act. Mr. Speaker, this is the same Bill that I've introduced since 1989, and hopefully this Legislative Assembly can soon have a freedom of information Bill.

Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 201 read a first time] Bill 202 Deficit Elimination Amendment Act, 1993 DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Deficit Elimination Amendment Act, 1993. This Bill would provide the much needed penalty clause in the government's Deficit Elimination Act for failure to meet the specified deficit targets. In the event the government fails to meet its first-year deficit target, all MLA salaries will be reduced by 5 percent.

In the event the second-year targets are not met, a general election must be called. [Leave granted; Bill 202 read a first time] Bill 203 Recall Act MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Recall Act. This Bill, sir, would provide Albertans with an effective means of control over their politicians by providing a method of recalling MLAs. The procedure that we've chosen would require a tough four-stage process to prevent misuse by interest groups. The four stages would be: firstly, an application; secondly, a petition; thirdly, a referendum; and finally, a by-election.

Thank you, sir. [Leave granted; Bill 203 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Bill 204 Stray Animals Amendment Act, 1993 MR. BRASSARD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 204, the Stray Animals Amendment Act, 1993. This is

an Act to put in place the ability to manage our wild horse population in Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill 204 read a first time] Bill 205 Agricultural Resources Conservation Board Act DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Agricultural Resources Conservation Board Act. Given that agricultural prime land is finite, this Bill establishes the agricultural resources conservation board. This will minimize the transfer of good land for other than agricultural purposes.

It will also stimulate the development of agricultural practices to maintain and protect land. [Leave granted; Bill 205 read a first time] Bill 206 Auditor General Amendment Act, 1993 DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Auditor General Amendment Act, 1993.

36 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 This Bill will provide the A uditor General with increased powers to safeguard the taxpayers' money. It includes providing the Auditor General with the important power to perform efficiency audits on government departments or agencies. [Leave granted; Bill 206 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Bill 207 Children's Rights Act MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 207, the Children's Rights Act.

This legislation would ensure that the United Nations conven- tion on the rights of the child is encompassed in our provincial statutes. [Leave granted; Bill 207 read a first time] 2:40 Bill 208 Child Welfare Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 3) MR. SEVERTSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 208, being the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 3). The purpose of this Bill is to open adoption records. [Leave granted; Bill 208 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Bill 209 Entrepreneurial Education Commission Act MR. HA VELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to introduce a Bill being the Entrepreneurial Education Commission Act. The purpose of this Bill is to advise, report, and make recom- mendations to the government on matters relating to entrepreneur- ial education of young Albertans. [Leave granted; Bill 209 read a first time] Bill 210 Individual Property Rights Protection Act MR. PHAM: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Individual Property Rights Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will recognize and protect the rights of Albertans to own and enjoy their properties. [Leave granted; Bill 210 read a first time] MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Bill 21 1 Conservation Easement Act MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Conservation Easement Act. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an important conservation strategy in that it will enable the owner of land to set up a covenant relating to the preservation of land or water for conservation or other purposes for a stated period or in perpetuity. [Leave granted; Bill 21 1 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Bill 212 Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993 MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 212, the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993. [Leave granted; Bill 212 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Bill 213 Employee Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Employee Relations Statutes Amend- ment Act, 1993. This Bill will amend two different Acts to allow both civil servants and nurses the right to strike. Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 213 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce the Telemarketing Act, Bill 267. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. In my material I have the constituency of Calgary-North West but the name Mrs. Burgener, so apparently there's been a mistake in this paper. I'm calling the sponsor of Bill 214, whoever that may be. Bill 214 Justice Reform Commission Act MRS. BURGENER: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Calgary- Currie I would like to have leave to introduce Bill 214, the Justice Reform Commission Act.

The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to review the system of justice of the province of Alberta and to make appropriate recommendations. [Leave granted; Bill 214 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Do you have Bill 215? We can pass. All right; we'll pass. The hon. Member for Stony Plain. Pass. The hon. Member for Redwater. Bill 217 Office of Treaty Commissioner Act MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y ou should be glad I bailed you out. Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 217, called the Office of Treaty Commissioner Act.

This Bill will set up an office of the treaty commissioner modeled on a similar office in Saskatchewan that has successfully brought together aboriginal people with provincial and federal governments thus facilitating the settlement of treaty claims. [Leave granted; Bill 217 read a first time]

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 37 Bill 218 Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1993 MR. FRIEDEL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 218, being the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1993. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will amend

chapter B-15 of the Statutes of Alberta 1981. The

section will give the official of the registrar of companies the power to demand an accounting from receivers and to apply to the court to have the receivership expedited in the interests of those affected. [Leave granted; Bill 218 read a first time] Bill 219 Members of the Legislative Assembly Salaries, Allowances and Expenses Review Act MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 219, a Bill entitled Members of the Legislative Assembly Salaries, Allowances and Expenses Review Act.

This Bill is intended to look at all perks and allowances and benefits that members of this Assembly receive, to be studied and to be determined by this co mmission and reported back to this Assembly. Thank you, sir. [Leave granted; Bill 219 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Bill 220 Students Finance Amendment Act, 1993 DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Students Finance Amendment Act, 1993. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will provide for postsecondary student representation on the Students Finance Board.

This will correct the oversight of lack of student representation on this board. [Leave granted; Bill 220 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. 2:50 Bill 221 Arts Council Act MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 221, the Arts Council Act. This Bill will create a very mu ch needed nonpartisan, arm's- length, peer-reviewed organization for arts funding in Alberta modeled largely after the Canada Council. [Leave granted; Bill 221 read a first time] Bill 222 Limitation of Actions Amendment Act, 1993 MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Limitation of Actions Amendment Act, 1993. Sir, this Bill would have the effect of allowing survivors of incest and sexual abuse to sue the wrongdoer notwithstanding the expiry of an arbitrary limitation period. It would effectively recognize, sir, that victims have rights too. [Leave granted; Bill 222 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Bill 215 Ethanol Strategy Act MR. FISCHER: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Ethanol Strategy Act.

This Bill shall develop a strategy for the use of ethanol in fuel. [Leave granted; Bill 215 read a first time] Bill 223 Liquor Control Amendment Act, 1993 MR. FISCHER: I request leave to introduce Bill 223, the Liquor Control Amendment Act, 1993. [Leave granted; Bill 223 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Bill 224 Child Welfare Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 2) MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 224, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 2).

This Bill, sir, will ensure complete adoption records are accessible for all affected parties who have reached the age of majority and will include the necessary contact veto registry. [Leave granted; Bill 224 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Bill 225 Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, 1993 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 225, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, 1993. Mr.

Speaker, this Bill would allow for certain clinics and agencies to bill the health care insurance plan for counseling and treatment services for family violence abusers and victims. [Leave granted; Bill 225 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Bill 226

An Act to Commit Government to a Three Y ear Funding Planning Framework MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 226,

An Act to Commit Government to a Three Y ear Funding Planning Framework. The intent of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to allow for a frame- work of funding for municipalities to eliminate some of the doubts and uncertainty that are currently created by government when it comes to their funding anticipation. [Leave granted; Bill 226 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper.

38 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 Bill 227 Interprovincial Lottery Amendment Act, 1993 MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 227, being the Interprovincial Lottery Amendment Act, 1993. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will require that all lottery moneys received by the government go thr ough the same legislative procedures that are required for all other money. It will place the lottery fund within the general revenue fund of Alberta as recommended by the Auditor General. [Leave granted; Bill 227 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East.

Bill 228 Water Transfer Control Act DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 228, being the Water Transfer Control Act. This Act will recognize that Alberta water is a precious and limited resource and set forth the procedure that will require a public hearing and approval by the Minister of Environmental Protection before any water is transferred out of Alberta. It will completely eliminate transfer of water outside of Canada. Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 228 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly.

Bill 229 Children's Advocate Act MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce Bill 229, the Children's Advocate Act. This Bill will expand the authority of the Children's Advocate making the office a more independent body, similar to the provincial Ombudsman's report. Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 229 read a first time] Bill 230 Planning Amendment Act, 1993 MRS. GORDON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Planning Amendment Act, 1993. This amendment will require adjoining municipalities to review their joint general municipal plans every five years.

This amendment will further require municipal councils which have designated land for certain public uses in a statutory plan to act within a certain time frame and will also address amendments to required reserve dedication. [Leave granted; Bill 230 read a first time] 3:00 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Bill 231 Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1993 DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1993.

This Bill requires the government to live up to its promise to table the public accounts of Alberta in a more prompt manner than has been the practice in the past. [Leave granted; Bill 231 read a first time] Bill 232 Ambulance Services Amendment Act, 1993 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 232, the Ambulance Services Amendment Act, 1993. The purpose of this Act, Mr.

Speaker, is to ensure that when a physician recommends that a nonadmitted patient be transferred to another facility because the originating hospital is unable to provide adequate medical treatment, the minister will bear the cost of such transfers. [Leave granted; Bill 232 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Bill 233 Farm Practices Protection Act MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 233, being the Farm Practices Protection Act. Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to establish a board with the powers to resolve a di spute involving an agricultural operation. Thank you, sir. [Leave granted; Bill 233 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Bill 234 Wildlife Amendment Act, 1993 MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 234, being the Wildlife Amendment Act, 1993. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, will amend the Wildlife Act to provide for protection of feral horses while at the same time making provision for range management. [Leave granted; Bill 234 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Bill 235 Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1993 DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1993. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will provide whistle-blowers with protection from punitive action of their employer if they make complaints under the Ombudsman Act. Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 235 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. Bill 237 Aboriginal Justice Act MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 237, named the Aboriginal Justice Act.

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 39 This Bill, Mr. Speaker, will establish a native justice system for Indian and Metis people. It will operate parallel to the traditional justice system for minor offences by setting up a native justice division of the government to which native justice cases can be referred, providing for the recruitment and training of aboriginal people to work in the justice system, and improving facilities for released offenders. Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 237 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Bill 238 Environmental Bill of Rights Act MR.

COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Environmental Bill of Rights Act. This Bill recognizes the right of the people of Alberta to a healthy and sustainable environment and provides Albertans with adequate remedies to protect and conserve that environment, including protection for whistle-blowers. [Leave granted; Bill 238 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Bill 239 Non-Smokers Health Act MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 239, the Non-Smokers Health Act. Mr.

Speaker, this Bill provides for smoke-free workplaces and the provision for designated, separately ventilated smoking areas. [Leave granted; Bill 239 read a first time] Bill 240 Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 1993 MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 1993. Sir, this effectively incorporates recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner.

It would prevent members of this Assembly from compromising the independence or the apparent independence of our judiciary, and subject to narrow exemptions MLAs would not be able to make representations to judges concerning particular cases before the court. [Leave granted; Bill 240 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod. Bill 242 Service Dogs Act MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 242, being the Service Dogs Act.

This piece of legislation would guarantee that handicapped persons accompanied by a service dog would not be discriminated against in public places. [Leave granted; Bill 242 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Bill 243 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1993 MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1993.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow for a reasonable return of profit from investments that are also environmentally friendly. [Leave granted; Bill 243 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Bill 244 Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 2) MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1993 (No. 2). This would provide for people riding on public highways to be wearing a helmet. [Leave granted; Bill 244 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw.

Bill 245 Small Business Support Act MR. HA VELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Small Business Support Act. The purpose of the Act is to find ways to reduce or eliminate unnecessary statutory and administrative requirements imposed upon small businesses. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw has moved first reading of Bill 245, Small Business Support Act. All those in favour of first reading, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Carried. CLERK: Tabling Returns and Reports. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR.

KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to file with the Assembly the report . . . Speaker's Ruling First Readings MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Has there been a change in procedure? I'd like to be advised of this. We were in the process, and the Chair still has notice of several private member's Bills to be introduced. We had concluded the moving of one without the final completion of that item of business when we seem to have come to a halt. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure at what point this would be, but the Government House Leader did not advise anyone in the Clerk's office as to what private member's Bills would be called today or not. Because these are private member's

40 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 Bills, it certainly is not the responsibility of the Government House Leader to deal with that. It seems that we've made very good progress today in coming to some 43 or 44 private member's Bills, and perhaps we might revert to them tomorrow or days following, sir. So with your indulgence perhaps we just might be able to move on. It's certainly not the prerogative of the Government House Leader to advise the Speaker or the Clerk how to deal with this matter. [interjections] 3:10 Bill 245 Small Business Support Act (continued) MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Well, the Chair will then ask for the conclusion of the proceedings with respect to the moving of Bill 245, which had been moved but the Clerk had not read it the first time. At least that is the Chair's recollection. For the clarification of the Chair would the hon. Member for Calgary- Shaw advise whether he had moved first reading of Bill 245? MR. HA VELOCK: Mr. Speaker, yes, I had. MR. SPEAKER: And the Chair had called for the vote on it, and the motion carried. Clerk. CLERK: Bill 245, Small Business Support Act, introduced by the hon. member Mr. Havelock, is now read a first time. MR.

SPEAKER: Now the Chair will ask if there is unanimous consent of the House to move on to the next order of business and carry the remaining Bills forward to another day. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table four copies of the 1991-92 annual report for the Department of Transportation and Utilities. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to file with the Assembly two reports today. The first is entitled Alberta Windows, a report on Alberta's foreign offices and their potential.

The second is the Alberta Global Business Plan for 1993-94. This plan outlines the Alberta Advantage in the area of tourism, trade and investment, and technology development. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table with the Legislative Assembly today the following annual reports: the Alberta Cancer Board for the year ended March 31, 1992; Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee for the year ended December 31, 1992; the College of Physical Therapists of Alberta for the year ended February 28, 1993; and the Alberta Registered Dieticians Association for the year ended March 31, 1993.

Copies will be distributed to all members. Additionally, I'm tabling the financial statements for the Alberta Cancer Board for the year ended March 31, 1993. head: Introduction of Special Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly today chiefs from Treaty 8. The chiefs we have today are sitting in the members' gallery: Grand Chief Tony Mercredi, Chief Gordon Auger, Chief George Desjarlais. I also notice that Senator Walter Twinn, chief of the Sawridge band, also joined us. Mr.

Speaker, I'd just like to indicate the recent signing, in fact in January, of the memorandum of understanding between Treaty 8 and the Alberta government to work on a number of major issues in relation to the bands and the province, and today we had a very interesting meeting with the Hon. Brian Evans and my colleague Pearl Calahasen to talk about co-management of wildlife, which is an immediate issue that we've got to deal with. They are seated in the members' gallery, and they are standing. I'd like you to give them the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Liquor Sales DR. WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to announce a new direction for the Alberta Liquor Control Board that is consistent with this government's mandate to provide economic opportunity and encourage free enterprise. This government is changing the way it does business. In July we launched a business proposal to involve the private sector in the direct service delivery of our major registry, licensing, and information services. Today the retailing of liquor products follows suit.

The existing 204 Alberta Liquor Control Board stores will be phased out over the coming months and replaced with a private-sector retail system based on a free enterprise concept and open to all Albertans. This new liquor retail system will allow the private sector to take full advantage of a business opportunity without government competition. Mr. Speaker, there have been many changes in Alberta over the years with respect to liquor pr oducts. We started a system of delivering liquor products to adult Albertans who chose to consume them after Prohibition ended in 1924.

Now it is time to move into the 21st century, understanding that it is not necessary for the Alberta Liquor Control Board to be in the retail business and that the private sector has demonstrated its ability as a reliable and competent retailer of liquor products. This is evidenced by the growth of the number of retail outlets in the province of Alberta since 1990 from 225 government-owned stores to over 800 outlets, 600 operated by the private sector.

Amazingly enough, with this increase in outlets, according to statistics compiled by the Association of Canadian Distillers, the total consumption of alcohol has declined approximately 26 percent while Alberta has experienced an increase in population of about 14 percent, or 400,000 people. Individuals are exercis- ing their right to make responsible decisions with respect to a socially acceptable product in our society. Lifestyle changes and education, not access, have resulted in Albertans choosing to drink less. Mr.

Speaker, the private sector has demonstrated the ability to be a highly responsible and competent retailer of liquor products. We want Alberta business to be highly successful. However, this initiative will not diminish the Alberta Liquor Control Board regulatory role over liquor products. The Alberta Liquor Control Board will maintain strict enforcement of the Liquor Control Act and deal swiftly and severely with any breaches of conduct. Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Liquor Control Board will meet with all interested parties as soon as possible to answer any questions

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 41 they may have. The model we have created will provide many business opportunities but ensures the primary business is liquor sales. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:20 MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start by pleading with the ministers, the government, in the same way that the Leader of the Opposition in the last session had to plead with ministers, to have ministerial statements delivered to my office much more quickly. As I was leaving for this forum this afternoon, I was handed the ministerial statement.

I had a little more time with respect to the ministerial statement that was given to me by the minister of environment, perhaps five or 10 minutes. All I ask is their indulgence to give us some time to have a proper look at these statements. Mr. Speaker, this is a profound change to the system of sale of liquor to Albertans. Now, we heard the government yesterday and the day before brag about the consultative process. We heard the minister of environment say that the consultation that went into the new environment Bill is the most extensive that has ever occurred.

We hear the Premier brag about how consultation is taking place with respect to cutbacks. All of that's good. All of that is expected, I think, by Albertans. This is an issue that brings with it tremendous emotion from people, people who are opposed to the complete opening up of the system, people who want it much more tightly controlled, and those who want it completely open. It seems to me that in the spirit of what the government says they've been doing, what should have happened in this case is that a very extensive consultative process should have been instigated. Mr.

Speaker, there's much more than simply looking at the maximization of profit. People are at stake. I'm asking the Premier to give consideration to that. He's been pretty good about a consultative process, and I hope that he'll consider putting that process in place here. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this statement doesn't deal in any kind of detail with the difficulty of labour adjustment. Many, many Albertans are going to find themselves out of work. They feared this. Now today they know it's coming; they know it's at hand.

What sort of arrangements have been made with union leaders to talk about this and to deal with this matter? If that's the intended course, what provisions have been made to lessen the impact on people? Mr. Speaker, my final point is that the tendering process that we saw the government go through last time in giving wine boutiques licences was pathetic in that political people were given those concessions rather than Albertans. That should have been dealt with in this statement as well. Speaker's Ruling Introducing Private Members' Bills MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Prior to commencing Oral Question Period, in case the Chair forgets, would those members who didn't get the opportunity of introducing their Bills today kindly return them to the Table before you leave the Chamber today. Thank you. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. head: Oral Question Period Beatrice Foods Inc. MR. DECORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Long before the election the Premier of Alberta said that his government would reduce or eliminate direct support to businesses, fuzzy wording in a document called Seizing Opportunity.

On April 23 of this year our Premier told Albertans and told them in this Assembly about how his government was getting out of the business of providing financial support to corporations. Many members on that side opposite campaigned and gave their constituents the undertaking that there would be no loans and no loan guarantees given to corporations in the future. But yesterday this same government gave Beatrice Foods a $2 million loan guarantee, a loan guarantee to a huge multinational corporation, a corporation that has huge assets in the United States and in Canada, a loan guarantee to build a cookie factory.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable. I want the Premier to tell Albertans why he broke his word on this issue. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell Albertans that I haven't broken my word on this issue. As a matter of fact, this was a loan backed by the federal government through the Agricultural Development Corporation along with the western diversification office and Agriculture Canada. The ADC is mandated to do precisely that. My question, I guess, or my ponderance: would the hon. member have us then break down ADC?

That is the Agricultural Development Corporation, a corporation for the development of agriculture, right here in the city of Edmonton. Now, he makes light of a cookie factory. A cookie factory is value added. Making cookies is value added. It uses grain; it uses canola; it uses sugar. It uses numerous products that are grown in this particular province. Mr. Speaker, the ADC is set up to do precisely that, and as the minister of agriculture pointed out yesterday, there have been some 32 of these kinds of pro- grams initiated with no fuss or bother whatsoever. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, we were given the same story on NovAtel, GSR, MagCan: value added, we were told. Value added to the extent that $2.1 billion now has to be picked up by the taxpayers of Alberta. This company could have done it on its own, Mr. Premier, and you know it. My second question to the Premier is this. The Premier has kicked the teeth of children who are on welfare by denying them school supplies. I want to know, Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. Government House Leader is rising on a point of order. [interjections] MR. KOW ALSKI: After question period, Mr. Speaker. Speaker's Ruling Brevity MR.

SPEAKER: But the Chair would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition with all respect that a

preamble is allowed for the first question, which should be succinct and brief. The Chair has been rather lenient with the hon. leader on his

preambles, but for supplemental questions we do not go into long

preambles, hon. leader. Beatrice Foods Inc. (continued) MR. DECORE: Here it comes, Mr. Speaker. I want the Premier to explain why he gives priority to a multinational company that creates a cookie factory over children on welfare for school supplies.

42 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 MR. KLEIN: Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition has a tendency to express himself sometimes in the most stupid of ways. Really. The Canada/Alberta partnership on agrifood, CAPA, is an $18.4 million program. It is one of eight western economic partnership agreements in Alberta, which total $120 million. These programs are 50 percent funded by the federal government and 50 percent funded by the provincial government over a three- year period. These people over there were well aware of that program and said absolutely nothing about it.

As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Redwater was fully supportive of the program. The program started in the fall of 1992 and expires March 31, 1995. Projects may be eligible . . . [interjections] Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go as long as you will allow me just so he gets all the facts. Projects may be eligible for repayable funding up to 35 percent of capital costs to a maximum of $2 million if the project – now this is very important – adds value to the agricultural commodity. I'm sure the agriculture critic would be in favour of that.

It creates new economic activity and employment, which it's going to do right in the city of Edmonton, where most of these people are from. It demonstrates long-term competitiveness, involves significant private-sector investment – I would mention that in this case the company is investing $9 million of its own money – and increases Alberta agrifood markets without detriment to existing industry. 3:30 MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, you would think that after losing $2.1 billion, this government would be more careful with taxpayers in providing loan guarantees. My last question to the Premier is this.

We have lost $2.1 billion, all since 1985. I'd like the Premier to tell Albertans: how many more of these loan guarantees are we going to see this year and next year? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just isn't absorbing this. He's not getting it. This is a program under the Agricul- tural Development Corporation in co-operation with the federal government. It's a program called CAPA. It's a program that was endorsed by this caucus.

The CAPA program repl aced the old agricultural processing and marketing agreement, and the advantages of this program over the previous program are that the funding is fully repayable rather than a grant. It encourages high value-added agricultural processing. Funding is targeted to projects which increase exports or replace imports. The adminis- tration has been streamlined and taken over by Alberta Agricul- tural Development Corporation at a much lower cost than previous programs. The loan to Beatrice was fully in accordance with the mandate of ADC. MR. N. TA YLOR: He's more like a short Getty every day. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair would point out that we extended 14 minutes on the first question. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. DECORE: Y ou've got to tighten up the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Social Assistance MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, the department of social services has written to its clients, mothers and fathers who get social assistance, and they've said that those mothers and fathers that can't afford to pay for school supplies should go to their sc hool boards and ask for a special waiver of those fees. In Lethbridge this week a mother who has serious physical disabilities did exactly that.

She went to her school board. The school board denied giving her that exemption. Meanwhile, the Minister of Education says that school boards will pick up these fees in spite of the School Act saying only that they may have to pick them up. My first question is to the Minister of Education. In the same way that the minister of social services didn't consult with Albertans, I want to know why the Minister of Education didn't consult with all the school boards in Alberta to find out and deal with this very sensitive issue. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is very important to note that the government has provided considerable in the way of resources to the school boards of this province during the school year which is just now beginning. There is an overall budget of $1.8 billion, actually in excess of that amount. Alberta Education was one of the few departments, I believe one of three, that received an increase in funding this year, and quite a significant increase. School boards across this province received overall an increase in funding.

Thirty million dollars additional money was put into equity funding to help with the challenge in funding faced by some of our less wealthy school boards. I think that overall the school boards of this province have received for this particular budget year sound and adequate funding, and they will be dealing with this particular matter. I'd like to emphasize that no student in this province will be denied access to education for the coming year. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, my question was: why didn't he consult with all the school boards? My next question is to the minister responsible for social services.

We now see a cruel situation of passing the buck: one minister not knowing what he's doing; another minister not doing what he should do and not knowing what he's doing. Knowing that people are being denied by school boards to get this waiver, I'd like the minister to tell Albertans: what now, Mr. Minister, are you going to do from your department for these people? MR. CARDINAL: I'd just like to advise the hon. member of our priorities, Mr. Speaker. I've always indicated in this House that our high priorities are people that cannot fend for themselves, and that includes children in this province.

Everybody knows, like I mentioned in the House yesterday, that we are spending close to $250 million on services for children. The processes we have in place will allow the parents to find additional money thr ough additional earning exemptions to make sure that the supplies are looked after. I'd like to just advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we have right now over 8,000 children in Alberta receiving services from this province. We have 1,200 foster homes, and we have 2,396 children in foster homes right now. Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of those are native children. I'm not proud to say that.

I'd just like to show this House how there's so much political grandstanding in this House in relation to children. The Leader of the Opposition on November 7: “Decore concedes he probably slighted native people.” It says: “Why do you want to write a book about Indians? Nobody gives . . .” [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order please. Final supplemental. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go through this question slowly so that the minister can hear it, because obviously

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 43 he didn't hear it last time. A mother has been told – Mr. Minister, this isn't a funny matter. Don't laugh at this question. It's not funny when a mother is denied the ability to send her children to school in the appropriate way. For people laughing on the front bench, this is not a funny matter. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. DECORE: This is not funny. Speaker's Ruling Describing Members' Reactions MR. SPEAKER: No one's arguing that it is, hon. Leader of the Opposition, but the Chair is unable to see anybody in this Chamber laughing about that.

It is not a function of the question period for hon. members to give a scenario of what is happening around the Chamber. The function of question period is to ask questions and try to elicit answers. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the minister responsi- ble for social services was laughing at this, and this is no laughing matter. Social Assistance (continued) MR. DECORE: I'd like to put my question to the minister. This mother in Lethbridge has been told no. Mr. Minister, what are you going to do for this mother and other mothers who are going to be told no by school boards? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, this is not a laughing matter. The only reason that I may have smirked is: how sincere is that leader when you're dealing with native children? That is why I read this. That is the only reason: your sincerity in relation to native children. Mr. Speaker, no children will be left out of school. My department will ensure that this individual case is followed up on and looked after. I'd like to indicate to the hon. member also that the changes recently made in the welfare reforms will allow parents to earn additional income. Welfare clients are expected to use other resources, the same as working Albertans.

Welfare clients can use the child tax credit, paid monthly; quarterly GST refunds; and in some cases the school boards will allow the payment of the fees over a longer period of time. There are other ways of dealing with the issue. As a province we are working and working very hard to make sure that our children are looked after. We have today signed 18 of 44 bands in Alberta, negotiated agreements in relation to children's services, Mr. Speaker. The Metis children's services of Alberta is looking after . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House. MR.

JONSON: Might I be able to supplement the hon. minister's answer? MR. SPEAKER: Briefly, hon. minister. 3:40 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the school boards of this province are well aware of the legislative provisions that exist, and procedures have been in place for some time to deal with these particular incidents which may arise where there is a misunder- standing over who's responsible for ensuring that all students in this province have access to an education.

I would like to say further that normally in a situation such as this the hon. member posing the question would check on the particular circumstances involved, refer it to my office. If he would do that, I would certainly look into this particular individual case. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House. Alberta Cement Company MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of the turndown in petroleum exploration and development in the Rocky Mountain House area, our area has experienced a very desperate economic slump complete with business closures and a high unemployment rate.

After four years of serious work we finally got a forestry project going, which will provide about 300 jobs. Last spring Alberta Cement Company came forward with a proposal announc- ing the possibility of building a cement manufacturing plant in the green area west of Rocky Mountain House. An application for this plant was completed with the department of the environment about mid-August.

To the Minister of Environmental Protection: the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act was pro- claimed yesterday, September 1, and I'm wondering if this will have any negative effect on the construction and operation of the plant. In other words, will it need an EIA or an NRCB hearing before construction and operations can begin? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, our depart- ment received applications under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts from Alberta Cement Company back in November of 1992.

We have followed this process, and in point of fact, as the hon. member has indicated, the applications under those two Acts were deemed to be complete in the month of August. Under the transitional provisions of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act any application completed before September 1, when the regulations came into force and effect, will be handled under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, hon. member. As a result of that, the decision that was made by the department that an environmental impact assessment would not be required will stand. MR. SPEAKER: A supplemental question? MR.

LUND: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly good news. As I have discovered, probably less than 1 percent of the people in the area would agree that those unnecessary hearings and process would be necessary. There is a concern about the quarry. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate whether in fact it will need an EIA and a hearing. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister. MR. EV ANS: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The quarry's a different matter because we do not have a completed application for the quarry, and under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act any mineable quarry which has in excess of 45,000 metric tonnes being produced in a year requires an environmental impact assessment and an NRCB process. So yes,

44 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 hon. member, we will be going through that kind of a process on the application for the quarry. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. International Offices MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last spring the former members for Red Deer-South and Calgary-Currie jet-setted around the world to the tune of $45,000 of taxpayers' money and met with a variety of secretaries and receptionists in an attempt to analyze Alberta's foreign offices. Today, six months after I requested a copy of the report, the minister finally tabled a copy in the House.

The startling revelation from this report suggests that if we reduce the amount of office space and reduce personnel, we could save money. What a revelation. My first question to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism is: what happened to the report these guys were supposed to do and apparently, by this report, never did? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm really impressed with the histrionics of the Member for Calgary-North West. First of all, corrections, please. In fact, this report cost $40,000, not the inflated price the hon. member talked about.

Secondly, this report has been public for some period of time now. Anyone who wanted to have a copy from my office as much as four to five or six weeks ago could have one. MR. KLEIN: The Sun had it six weeks ago. Where were you? Y ou get most of your stuff out of the Sun. MR. KOW ALSKI: The hon. member must have missed it, obviously, Mr. Speaker. He may have been busy this summer, but the report has been available for some period of time. Thirdly, it's an overview, a précis report of an analysis done on foreign trade offices of the province of Alberta.

Since that time we've implemented a number of changes arising out of the recommendations provided to us by the two individuals who did write the report. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, I appreciate that we saved $5,000, I suppose. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is simply this. This report could have been written in a taxi ride on the way to the Heathrow airport. Is this the kind of product that we can expect for the $50, 000 that we're spending on Juan Oldring to develop our NAFTA strategy for Alberta? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, if you aren't confused in listening to a Liberal when they first start off, you certainly will be by the time they've ended. It seems to me I just made it very clear a few minutes ago that the cost of the report was $40,000. The member now has inflated it to $50,000. In terms of the quality of report one can become very subjec- tive. I'm one of those, I guess, who believes that if you can say something in 10 words and make your point, that's far better than hiring a, quote, Philadelphia lawyer and having him write for pages and pages and pages.

The point is very clear in the report, number one, that the protocol emphasis that we've had in our foreign offices in the past would be changed. Two days ago the Speech from the Throne came down. There's a very important paragraph in that Speech from the Throne which indicates that the intention and the focus of our foreign offices is going to be moving away from the protocol side to, in fact, in terms of the investment, tourism, and economic development sides. Secondly, there are some very important recommendations in here about changing the makeup of the foreign offices that we have.

I'd be very, very pleased, if the hon. member wanted to raise another question, to point out to him what changes have already been implemented in the last number of months with respect to these foreign offices. The fact of the matter is that there is a new direction, and that new direction came out as a result of the consultations that former members of this particular Assembly made as a result of their visits to a select number of foreign offices associated with this government. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Support for Agricultural Industries MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Y esterday I expressed concern with our involvement in the proposed Beatrice food plant to be located in Edmonton. I was assured that our participation is a result of a direct agreement that was already in place with the federal government under the CAP A program. I guess if I'm honest with myself, I'd have more concern with breaking an agreement than I would with this particular project. So I'm going to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he'd please tell the Assembly how much of that $18.2 million has been used to date and if there are any other projects being considered. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister of agriculture. MR. P ASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. The program, of course, that we're alluding to is the CAPA program, and I think our Premier has explained the program very thoroughly and very properly. The amount that was in the program was $18.4 million, which was jointly contributed to by the federal and the provincial govern- ments. The program was established in 1992 and is one of many programs, as the Premier has mentioned. It's a program that's designed to a specific part of the development of agriculture within the province.

The amount that has been used is a signifi- cant amount. That is difficult to put an accurate number on, because as the money is repaid – we have a revolving fund, so it just keeps revolving itself as it is paid back. To date we have had no defaults on this program. MR. BRASSARD: Mr. Speaker, I respect that this loan was made through the Agriculture Development Corporation and only came before this government because of its size. Can the minister assure me and this Assembly that accepted business financial criteria was used in the evaluation of this project to ensure its economic viability? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Thank you again. Certainly the question is an important one. Y es, indeed; acceptable financial controls have been placed on this program, as all other programs. In order to be funded, this program has to go through a criteria that is acceptable to all financial institutions. That's how we operate the ADC. That is why ADC has such a successful background. We will continue to operate our loans through that type of a process: fully accountable, fully successful. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. 3:50 Immaculata Hospital MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Westlock deserve access to quality health care, as do all Alber-

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 45 tans. However, every health care decision must now be made in light of the arbitrary, across-the-board $200 million cuts to health care in this province. My question is to the minister responsible for health care planning. Could the minister please tell us how the $10 million Westlock hospital project fits into an overall, cost- effective plan for delivering health care to Albertans, particularly in light of the roundtable's call for a moratorium on all health care capital spending? MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, that question is for the Minister of Health.

My job is to commence with the 10 roundtable hearings and come back with a report. That project along with many others is under review. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the Immaculata hospital at Westlock has been through a long process of planning and has had to suffer some time of waiting for that. It is one of the oldest hospitals in this province, the first part of it built in 1927. It serves a population of about 16,000 people.

I am sure that the hon. member across the way is sincere in the desire to provide safe health care to the residents of that community and safe working conditions for the health deliverers that are in that community. The discussions at the Red Deer roundtable gave us some very good information on the long-term planning of the use of facili- ties, how we deliver health care. I think I explained very clearly yesterday the process that would be followed after I receive the

summary report, which I expect in days, as to how we will proceed with the planning process on the long-term restructuring and delivery of quality health care in the province of Alberta. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll turn from the minister responsible for roundtable planning – that's a big job – to the minister responsible for health.

What kind of plan could this minister possibly have contrived that would see her left hand cutting $200 million from Alberta's health care budget while at the very same time her right hand is reaching into the pockets of Alberta taxpayers to build a $10 million hospital in none other than the Deputy Premier's very own riding? MR. KOW ALSKI: Y our leader announced it on June 14 in Westlock. [interjections] Well, you both announced it, took credit for it. MR. MITCHELL: There's a $200 million difference between then and now. [interjections] MR. KOW ALSKI: On June 14 Laurence announced it in Westlock. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, order. Time is flying. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I think in my first answer I explained that this project has been in planning and deferred since 1985. Also, I sincerely believe that the people in Westlock or the surrounding community should have quality health services delivered in a safe manner both for themselves and their commu- nity. Secondly, I would remind the hon. member that in any planning we must have a procedure for looking after the immedi- ate and the short term as we move along.

I suppose it would be the ultimate in our desires to be able to stop the system while we work on the long-term restructuring, but I again remind the hon. member that we do have to make decisions on a day-to-day basis for the safety of the health services that are delivered and indeed the safety of the people who work in our institutions. We will have to continue to assess that as we move through the planning process.

I would also remind the hon. member that this is the replacement of a facility, with new needs in the community being addressed in the extension of the long-term care beds that are there and the reduction in the acute care beds that are there. This very much reflects the health needs of the community of Westlock, and I have not heard from the community of Westlock that this is an inappropriate project or that it is not needed in their community. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. White Stag Apparel Ltd. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Labour.

The White Stag textiles operation in Edmonton has announced a shutdown. Over 100 people will be thrown out of work. MR. N. TA YLOR: Put them to work making cookies. MR. WOLOSHYN: That is one of the benefits of the cookie plant, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Labour concerned at all about this, or are these employees, many of whom are new Canadians, going to be left to fend for themselves? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the government does not think this is a laughing, joking matter. The member of the Liberal Party just indicated that he thought it was a joke that people were out of work.

It is always somewhat distressing to employees and to the community when there's an announcement of a plant closure. White Stag certainly has been active for many years, hired hundreds of people, and put millions of dollars into the economy. I can assure the member here that we are very concerned about the employees. The president of the company notified my office on August 23, and that was following legislation, our own Employment Standards Code, which requires an announcement four weeks ahead of time if more than 50 employees are going to be involved in a termination.

I can assure that within 24 hours officials from my office had made very clear to the people at White Stag the full degree and breadth of programs that are available through Alberta Labour, through Advanced Education and Career Development, and the federal programs in terms of retraining, upgrading. All of that's been made available, and we are monitoring the situation. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, retraining is fine, and I'm glad to see the minister has initiated that for the benefit of the workers after they're out.

However, a shutdown like this may give the employer the potential to leave employees stranded as far as wages and other obligations are concerned. Will the minister stand by and hope for the best, or will he actually do something to make sure that the employees get their wages and the other entitlements that they have coming? MR. DA Y: Well, we're certainly doing more than just hoping for the best, Mr. Speaker.

Along with information provided to the company in terms of programs available, officials from my department also make it very clear as to the provisions in the Employment Standards Code for the fulfillment of obligations in terms of wages, in terms of severance, holiday pay, whatever might be forthcoming. We work with the company on a day-to- day basis and with the employees to make sure that happens.

46 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 Loans and Loan Guarantees DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, over the last three years losses in loans and guarantees backed by this government have averaged $258 million. The Tory record now stands at $2.1 billion lost on speculative ventures that the private sector wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. My question is to the Provincial Treasurer. In the last budget Treasury predicted losses in bad loans at $10 million. How is it, Mr. Treasurer, that this government can go from an average of $250 million in losses to $10 million without Albertans thinking the books are being fudged? MR.

DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to debating the issue with the hon. member when the budget is released next Wednesday afternoon at 4 o'clock. I would, however, remind the hon. member that we have undertaken a review of the province's books through the Financial Review Commission, and they recommended a number of significant recommendations, which we have begun to implement. One of them, which the hon. member will see, is a very direct approach to our accounting to make sure that we book those kinds of liabilities earlier on than we have in the past.

I think he'll be delighted to see those changes in the books. I would remind him, however, when he raises numbers like $2.1 billion or others – it was interesting to go back and do a review of that number, and $730 million of that was a loss on one entity, the credit unions of Alberta. Why did the credit unions suffer the problems that they did, Mr. Speaker? It was because of the Liberal-led, NDP dominated and backed national energy program. It was a travesty they should not be proud of. 4:00 DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is to the Provincial Treasurer.

Alberta taxpayers are presently footing the bill for $20 million a year on interest payments on MagCan and Gainers loans outstanding. Just so this government won't take the hit on the $200 million on bad loans outstanding, Mr. Treasurer, when will this government come clean and take the hit on those losses that are out there? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, they have been booked already. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Community Tourism Action Program MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In May of this year $12 million of lottery funding was added to the community tourism action program, commonly called CTAP, and the program was extended to March 31 of 1994. Given the govern- ment's commitment to balance the provincial budget together with its commitment to get out of grants to business, will the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism please advise this Assembly whether or not consideration is being given to freeze CTAP applications immediately or as a minimum action to eliminate CTAP grants to private-sector operators? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, when the community tourism action program was created in 1988, what it did was basically set up an infrastructure whereby municipal councils throughout the province of Alberta appointed local community tourism action plan groupings that took applications and dealt with them.

Members of this Assembly were unaware of what was happen- ing in terms of what applications were forthcoming to these various committees in local communities, but it seemed that every time an approval was provided by the private-sector administrators of this particular program, individual members of this Assembly came under some degree of criticism. I r ecall in the past, Mr.

Speaker, despite the fact that not one member of this Assembly was involved in the decision-making here in the city of Edmonton when the local CTAP committee here approved funding for the bungee-jumping project they had in west Edmonton, it was hon. members of this Assembly who somehow took the heat. The former Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, I guess now Edmonton- Rutherford, just echoed, as he always does in the Assembly – he talked about an ice cream parlour.

The same thing applied in this particular individual member's constituency: totally unknown to him, the local group approved such a project and my other colleagues have to take the heat on it. So we have been looking at the community tourism action plan, and we've been looking at it in a variety of mechanisms. First of all, to ask the question: what was the original purpose of CTAP? It was basically to assist nonprofit organizations to promote tourism development in their particular communities. Funding was also provided to private-sector entrepreneurs and groups, Mr.

Speaker, and we've decided that as of today, we will not be accepting applications from private-sector gr oups under the community tourism action plan. MR. JACQUES: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to acknowledge, I think perhaps on behalf of all members of this House, that that is welcome news. Having said that, Mr. Minister, could you please advise whether or not you would be giving consideration to reducing the amount of funds that would be available between now and March 31 of '94? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, there are currently some $8 million worth of applications, I'm advised, with respect to the administrators of CTAP. First of all, the program will terminate March 31, 1994. It will die March 31, 1994. As of today no further applications will be accepted from the private sector. As of September 30, 1993, no further applications will be accepted by the administrators under CTAP. We'll deal with the bank of applications. They'll be processed if they merit consideration. If they do merit consideration, they'll be approved; if not, they'll be rejected.

But after September 30 of this year no further applica- tions will be accepted. The program will be wrapped up and wound down. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Liquor Sales MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Speech from the Throne this government indicated that it was going to consult widely with Albertans. Today, only two days after this commit- ment, the government is pushing ahead with its plan to privatize the Alberta Liquor Control Board without public consultation. My question is to the Premier of this province.

Will he please tell this House and the people of Alberta why he's broken his promise to consult with them? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't broken any promises at all. Indeed, the hon. minister who explained the program in his ministerial statement, I understand, has consulted with numerous affected groups and will be consulting as the process takes place. Relative to the fundamental principle, it was also noted in the throne speech and other government documents that this govern- ment will put to the private sector those things that legitimately

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 47 should be in the hands of the private sector, and that's exactly what we're doing. MR. BRACKO: Mr. Speaker, the government brought together a select group of stakeholders for a summit meeting on privatization. These meetings are shrouded in secrecy and are occurring without input from the 1,400 workers that will be affected by the outcome of this summit. Will the Premier please tell this House and those workers who were not invited to the secret summit why their opinion does not matter to them? MR. KLEIN: I think, Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member would perhaps absent himself from the House and go down and listen to the minister, he will get the deta ils of this program and he will find that indeed over the course of the privatization there will be a tremendous consultation. I reject the fact that there was a select group. As I understand it, there was representation from a broad

section of Alberta business interests and labour and organizations such as MADD and others. I understand that indeed there was a good and honest representation. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Community Facility Enhancement Program MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many municipalities and organizations in my constituency were pleased when the government announced an extension to the community facility enhancement program, now known as CFEP 2. These funds will continue to play a vital role in assisting communities in complet- ing various capital projects.

Many feel that the government should also be allocating some of these funds to assist local organizations in operating now existing programs and facilities. They feel existing programs and facilities must be maintained or there will be nothing to enhance. My question is for the minister responsible for lotteries. Will the community facility enhance- ment program guidelines be expanded to include operating funding to local organizations? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the question's a valid one because it deals with a very important policy and it deals with a policy that this government has always followed in allocating lottery funds because lottery funds tend not to be of an infinite perspective. In other words, in any particular quarter of the year we may very well find that our profit level reduces itself. It's a marketplace reality. So we have always followed a philosophy of not taking lottery funds and having them tied to anything of an operational nature.

There's a very important reason for that because experience in other jurisdictions in the world clearly indicates the difficulties one can get into to. 4:10 Michigan a few years ago had committed nearly a billion dollars to health care and hospital costs under their lottery fund. It showed up one October and all of a sudden found that their budget could only see about $700 million. They had to reduce almost 30 percent of the allocations they gave to their schools and their hospitals. We don't want to do that in Alberta.

Quite clearly the policy has been to make sure that operating dollars do not flow out of the Alberta lottery fund. The answer to the question addressed by the Member for Lacombe-Stettler is unfortunately no. MR. SPEAKER: Is there a supplemental question? MRS. GORDON: No. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. The hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated that he had a point of order. Point of Order Imputing Motives MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 23(

h) and (i).

Section 23 says, “A member will be called to order by Mr. Speaker if that member makes allegations against another member.” That's (h), and (i): “Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.” During the course of question period questions that I put to the hon. minister of social services, he responded by alleging, stating, imputing that I had somehow put down or negatively spoke of native children. I have never, ever, ever put down or negatively spoke about native children, and I think those statements should be withdrawn by the hon. minister. MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, what I said was “native people.” I just assumed that included native children. Speaker's Ruling Parliamentary Language MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was going to bring up Standing Order 23(h), (i), and (

j) as well concerning question period. The Leader of the Opposition has read out (

h) and (i). Subsection (

j) is also of interest here because it says, “Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.” The Chair would say that it believes there was a fair amount of disorder in the first question. The Chair believes it was caused by two words: one from the Leader of the Oppos ition, the other from the hon. the Premier. The Chair doesn't really believe the use of the words “kicking the teeth of children” or the use of the word “stupid” in this context is really of the highest parliamentary nature.

We saw the result of that: there were several members who didn't get their opportunity to ask questions today. The Speaker was incorrect in assessing the time for the first question as 14 minutes; it was in fact 10 minutes. Ten minutes is far, far too long to devote to one question. Most of it arose out of the use of these provocative words that the Chair would urge hon. members to try to avoid. Surely in the vast richness of the English language there can be better words to obtain the same result without inflaming people. Point of Order Imputing Motives MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, I apologize and withdraw my comments about the Premier kicking children in the teeth. I'd still like a ruling on the point that I drew, and that is that I'm most offended by the comments by the hon. minister. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to read again what I read. I said, “Decore concedes he probably slighted natives.” I just assumed that would include native children. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will then take the Leader of the Opposition's representation under advisement to check the Blues and make a ruling on that tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre, the Chair has not in fact tried to rule against your point of order yesterday, but the Chair anticipates making a ruling on that point of order tomorrow as well.

48 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 Point of Order Election of Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Speaking about points of order, the words “point of order” were mentioned in this room on Monday, and the Chair would like to make some observation on Monday's proceedings to elect the Speaker because a request was made by members on both sides of the House for some comment. First, members should be aware of the limitations on that procedure that was adopted last M onday. When the Speaker is elected, the Assembly does not yet exist as an Assembly. There is just a group of people in a room.

The Lieutenant Governor has appeared and asked the group of people to elect a Speaker. That is the only business that can be conducted until the Lieutenant Governor reads the causes of summoning the Assembly. Here I should add parenthetically that the election of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees in the Chair's opinion is the election of the Speaker because if the Speaker can't act, there has to be a deputy. The causes of summoning the Assembly is the Speech from the Throne. In this regard, I'd refer hon. members to Beauchesne 253 and 256.

Until that time, the Assembly is not able to move any motions, including any motion to determine how the Speaker should be elected. The Table officers and the Clerk in particular have no authority whatsoever in this regard, so a point of order or any appeal to them is of no use. Second, as to the actual procedure used, the only authority which existed at that moment was

section 16(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act and the Lieutenant Governor's request that a Speaker be elected. Our Standing Orders are silent on how the election is to be conducted. That being the case, we are required by Standing Order 2 to revert first – and I emphasize “first” – to the usages and precedents of the Assembly. The precedent which was then available was the manner in which the Deputy Chairman of Committees was elected on Tuesday, January 26, 1993. Nothing else could have been done.

It is the Chair's understand- ing that that form of election had been agreed to by the House leaders of the parties then present in the Assembly: the present Government House Leader, the then Member for Edmonton- Highlands, and the present Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Regardless, the people in this room on Monday, August 30, 1993, had no power to change the existing procedure or to adopt a new procedure. Everyone's hands were tied. Finally, there may be some uncer tainty as to the role that Beauchesne plays in the proceedings of this Assembly.

Again, Standing Order 1 requires all proceedings to be c onducted according to our Standing Orders. Beauchesne is based on the Standing Orders of the Canadian House of Commons, but it is often useful in interpreting our Standing Orders. When our Standing Orders differ from those in Ottawa, Beauchesne is not as useful. When our Standing Orders do not deal with a matter, Standing Order 2 requires us to look at our own usages and precedents. If an answer cannot be found there, Standing Order 2 requires us to look at parliamentary tradition.

Beauchesne and Erskine May are very useful as sources of parliamentary tradition. In Alberta, Standing Orders do not define the process for the election of the Speaker. We must rely on the precedents of the Assembly. In contrast, the Canadian House of Commons Standing Orders were amended in 1985 to specify the process by which a Speaker is elected, and Beauchesne describes those Standing Orders.

Since we do not have those particular Standing Orders, Beauchesne is not relevant to our election process. 4:20 On Monday reference was made to Beauchesne 150, which states that points of order have been raised during the election process and dealt with by the Chair. This is possible because House of Commons Standing Order 3 specifies who was to take the Chair during the election process and the powers the Chair has to hear points of order. Again, we do not have the benefit of such a Standing Order.

It would not have been possible legally or administratively for the Clerk to suddenly adopt the House of Commons Standing Orders as discussed in Beauchesne for that election. Did the hon. Government House Leader have a point of order? Then would he like to make it? Point of Order Parliamentary Language MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, yes. I did have a point of order, and it arose out of the first exchange that occurred, but subsequent events since then have ruled it redundant.

In essence, the point of order that I was raising had to do with the usage of certain words by the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, but the hon. gentleman has now retracted those words, and we thank him for that. In the same token, Mr. Speaker, were the Premier in his chair at the moment, he would be retracting the usage of the word that he used in reference to a question coming from the Leader of the Opposition. head: Orders of the Day MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to all questions and motions for returns on the Order Paper, we'll ask them to be held. [Motion carried] head: Motions Other than Government Motions Members' Statements 201. Moved by Mr. Severtson:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to include a member's statement period to the Tuesday and Thursday Orders of the Day schedule. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a great pleasure to rise today to speak on Motion 201. Many members of this Assembly today are aware of the goals and objectives of this motion, but a few of t hose here that are new will not understand the objectives of this motion. I'd like to cover some of them in introductory remarks.

One of the key reasons I entered politics was because I wanted to bring a strong voice for the constituency that I represent. I'm sure that everybody in the House has the same feeling. They want to represent their political perspectives from their ridings. With the idea of enhancing the ability of an MLA to represent his constituency, I introduced this motion in 1991 urging the govern- ment to consider the inclusion of member's statements. Y esterday I had the honour of moving the Lieutenant Governor's Speech from the Throne.

I was able to speak on the new directions this government is taking on budget reform, on tax reform, and on reform of the way government does business. The June election and the Speech from the Throne are signs of this government's mandate to balance the provincial budget and to involve Albertans in government as they never have before. This reform can extend to the parliamentary process as well. On Monday this Assembly elected its Speaker for the first time in the history of this province. We 're considering the possibility of

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 49 changing the number of days we meet per week in this Assembly during this session. The aims of this motion fit well into these reforms. There are many different ways a government MLA can contribute to the political debate that affects Albertans. We try to be effective spokesmen for our constituents on the various committees we sit on, the committees we chair and serve on. In question period we ask questions, and we can take

part in the many legislative debates on the Order Paper, such as this one. This motion is really a logical continuation of this government's desire to fully and completely represent Albertans in this Assem- bly. Basically what I'm proposing is a designated period for any MLA to stand up and make a brief statement on the issues and the concerns of his constituents. I believe the member's statements period would be another positive way for MLAs to contribute to the overall legislative system. We can also bring more responsi- bility and accountability to our jobs as MLAs.

There are other reasons to include members' statements in the proceedings of this Assembly. Often members of this Assembly compromise present Standing Orders by making member's statements in the House during question period. Question period is for questions, not member's statements. Quite often you'll see in this Assembly that when question period's on, members from both sides of the House will make statements and then at the end of their

preamble leave it with a question mark, but mainly it's a member's statement. This is flagrant abuse of question period which must come to an end. By including a member's statement period in the Orders of the Day schedule, this Assembly would have a designated time for MLAs to make their statements. It's a supplementary intention of this motion, but nonetheless it's still an important part of this motion. Other jurisdictions throughout the country have also included member's statement periods.

Before I get into the details of the proposal that I'm proposing, I'd like to highlight some of the features of member's statements in other jurisdictions. In the House of Commons there's a members' statement period every day for 15 minutes. The need for a members' statement period came about in 1982 through the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. It was unanimously accepted by the House on a one-year trial basis. The impact of the member's statement period was so positive that it is now a permanent part of the Orders of the Day.

British Columbia has a member's statement period every Friday, seven members up to one hour. The Northwest Territories has one member's statement period on the opening of every session. Ontario's member's statement period is the first proceeding of each day, 90 seconds up to three members from each party. In New Brunswick members are permitted to make a 90-second statement before question period for a 10-minute period. In Prince Edward Island a member can speak on a matter for two minutes, one member per day.

These six jurisdictions have incorporated member's statement periods into their daily routines on a permanent basis because it is the type of parliamentary forum that all sides of the House find useful and valuable, and it's working well. MLAs take their statements seriously, and they present them distinctly, and question period is for questions, not speeches. What I have tried to do is pull together the best features of member's statement periods from other Assemblies and bring them together in this motion.

Before I present the details of Motion 201, I should state that I look forward to the debate in this Assembly and I am open for certain amendments and believe that it is important to flush out as many ideas on this issue as possible. I realize the House leaders are meeting to discuss maybe including member's statements in the reformed Legislature Orders of the Day. So some of my rules might not apply if we change to a four-day sitting instead of five-days. First of all, the member's statement period would fall on a Tuesday or Thursday because this is when we do private mem- bers' business.

This period would come right after Ministerial Statements and just before question period. The member's statement period would last six minutes with a maximum of four speakers. I believe that a minute and a half is plenty of time, and it's the average length of the 12 other jurisdictions that I looked at. Each Member of the Legislative Assembly will be granted 90 seconds to make his statement. Rebuttals or comments on the statements will not be permitted because these statements are not designed for debate. B.C. is the only jurisdiction to have response to statements, but they also have devoted an hour.

We just don't have that much time. MR. SPEAKER: That's right, hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 8(3), we are now required to suspend debate on this motion until the next time private members' motions appear and proceed with the next order of business. head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading 4:30 MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I would like to move pursuant to Standing Order 73(2), I believe is the correct reference, that the House give unanimous consent to the debate on the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition's Bill 201. MR.

SPEAKER: Having heard the motion of the Deputy Government House Leader, all those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Carried. Bill 201 Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act MR. DECORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the minister of the environment for the motion. This is the fifth year in a row that the Liberal opposition, now the Official Opposition, has brought forward

an Act entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act. Four of those five times I personally stood in this Assembly to argue the principles of my Bill. My recollection is that one of those five times I was ill and couldn't, and the late Sheldon Chumir spoke on my behalf. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to imagine how citizens could be denied information from their own government or by their own govern- ment.

It's hard to imagine in a democracy that prides itself on the fact that people are elected by the people that those same repre- sentatives of the people would then turn around and deny, refuse to provide information to the very people that elected them. Democracy isn't served and wasn't served and hasn't been served in this province because that's not been allowed. Albertans have not had the right to ask for information and get information. Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge every state government in the United States has freedom of information legislation.

The federal government in the United States has such legislation. Every province in Canada except two, Prince Edward Island and Alberta, have freedom of information legislation. I am told that the Northwest Territories also does not have that kind of legislation. When I started proposing that this Legislative Assembly pass this

50 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 Act, there were a number of other provinces that did not have freedom of information legislation. Manitoba was in the throes of bringing it forward. Saskatche wan did not have it, and British Columbia did not have it. Manitoba now has it, Saskatchewan has it, and British Columbia has it.

In the workup in looking at freedom of information legislation in Canada, there is a very incredible progression of legislation from the provinces that first put it into place to British Columbia, the last province that legislated it, an incredible progression in the sense that provinces, Canadians, have learned from the experi- ences that have occurred in other provinces and have strengthened and improved their legislation.

I think that British Columbia has very good legislation and has made improvements on the Ontario model, which was the model that we, the Liberal Party, used to build our freedom of information Bill on. We made changes to the Ontario model, but there are lots of examples that we can use to see where there are difficulties and improve on those difficul- ties. Mr. Speaker, it's in the same way unbelievable that you could imagine that citizens could be denied information.

It's also unbelievable to go back on the Hansard record of this Assembly and review some of the statements that have been made in this Assembly about freedom of information. I did pick up Hansard and did look at some of the statements. I r ecall some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury when he spoke against the Liberal freedom of information legislation.

That hon. member – I guess he was trumpeting the line of his party – stood in this Assembly and said: we don't really need freedom of information legislation; you need only come to this Assembly and get whatever information you want by asking questions in question period or by putting it on the Order Paper as a written question or a motion for a return. That argument was made not only by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury but other hon. members on the Conservative side. What we did, Mr.

Speaker, was start tracking for the benefit of this Assembly answers that weren't given by written questions, and we started to track motions for returns that weren't allowed, weren't dealt with, and we started to track questions that weren't answered in question period. Y ou will recall that we released those statistics and they were alarming because they showed that you couldn't get answers, that you couldn't get information. I remember one in particular that had to be the most unbelievable of all.

When one of our caucus members asked for the statistics from the Provincial Treasurer on how much money accrued to the provincial government on tobacco sales, the only res ponse from the government was: question rejected. Whom do you hurt by providing that information? Whom could you hurt? Nonetheless, we didn't get that information.

As a very new member of this Assembly four and a half years ago, I remember reading the technical documents on the GST that were brought forward by the Conservative federal government, and I particularly remember a provision whereby lands that are bought and sold by the province would come under the provisions of GST and taxes would have to be paid.

All sorts of bells and alarms went off in my head because, having been a mayor of the city of Edmonton, I knew how much land is bought and sold and taken for roadway development and so on and believed that that could be astronomical in the sense of our province or cities or municipali- ties in Alberta having to pay money on GST. So I picked up the phone and I called the deputy minister in charge of the Treasury, and I asked for the information. It wasn't in the financial documents.

I asked for the deputy minister to provide me with the data on how much land had been bought and sold by the province of Alberta last year and the year before. The deputy minister made it clear to my office that he couldn't provide that informa- tion unless I first wrote a letter to the minister and the minister wrote a letter to the deputy minister and I was authorized to get that information. Who could have been hurt by my getting that information? Could anybody imagine why there would be a bureaucracy that would thwart that kind of information being given out? But it was and it still is in place.

Well, it wasn't only the Member for Olds-Didsbury that made those comments. The hon. Minister of Labour, in opposing the Liberals' Bill, also stood in this Assembly and said right after I spoke that we could come into this Assembly and get any information that we wanted. The hon. Member for Lethbridge- East made the same kinds of statements. How sad to look back on the record of this Assembly and see those statements. I remember the very strong debate that occurred in this Assembly on NovAtel. I remember the information that was asked for day after day after day by Mr.

Martin, the Leader of the Opposition, and members of his caucus and by me and members of the Liberal caucus. Day after day we attempted to probe and find out how $645 million of Alberta taxpayers' money could have found its way into United States cellular telephone companies, but every time we attempted to get that information we were thwarted. Who would be hurt by having that information given to Albertans? How could it be made worse than it already was to get that information? 4:40 To this day, Mr.

Speaker, we haven't received the full story on NovAtel because freedom of information hasn't been put in place to give us that information. We know, and I used this example a few days ago in this Assembly, that we found out the information from the freedom of information statutes in California. We found out that a corporation in California that NovAtel was dealing with was taking Alberta taxpayers' moneys and they were giving them to directors of a company. We found out that Alberta taxpayers' moneys were used to buy land and build a building in California by some cellular company.

We discovered that there was a cute little deal between a California company and some company in South America. We asked about that, and still today we can't get all of the details on that transaction. We discovered that special deals were given by NovAtel for companies to set up cellular operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Still there's no information, even though we requested that information, provided to the people of Alberta – $645 million.

My argument is that if Albertans had been told, if they could have received the information, we would have had better government, and the kind of mistakes that occurred in NovAtel would not have occurred. I watched the previous minister responsible for science and technology, who was res ponsible for NovAtel, stand in this Assembly for two weeks and say that the only kind of money that was being given out by NovAtel was product-financing money from the people of Alberta, from the taxpayers of Alberta.

That minister was either misinformed by his own staff or information coming from the United States to his bureaucrats wasn't proper. Nonetheless, he had to apologize in this Assembly two weeks later and say that the financing had gone way beyond what he had known it to be. If we'd had freedom of information in place, those things could have been looked at quickly and understood and critiqued and perhaps stopped. Mr. Speaker, we have $67 million in loans and loan guarantees between Gainers, between Mr. Pocklington and the people of Alberta.

I remember listening and reading to the representations made by the minister of economic development when he said that there would be a hog processing plant in Picture Butte, and I

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 51 remember reading when the minister assured Albertans that there was a guarantee of jobs in Picture Butte, on the moneys that were given to Mr. Pocklington. Mr. Pocklington put $6 million of $12 million that was intended for that hog processing plant in his pocket, and to this day there is no Picture Butte hog processing plant. Those documents have been asked for in this Assembly and still to this day have not been shown to the people of Alberta, and that's a tragedy. How could an individual get away with that?

Y ou can't get away with that when you go to your bank and try to get money. Try doing that and you'll find the window or the door pretty quickly in your bank, but Mr. Pocklington was able to do it. I'm a firm believer that if the people of Alberta had seen that, that horror story wouldn't have gone on and wouldn't have become as big and as horrible as it did and was. The Conservative government provided a $102 million loan guarantee to MagCan. It looks like that money's going to be lost.

The agreement that set up that loan guarantee has been requested in this Assembly, and still the people of Alberta have been refused the knowledge, the information, in that agreement. One of the provisions in that MagCan ar rangement with the government should have dealt with or did deal with technology transfer. Didn't Magnesium International have a claim on the technology that was used in High River? Well, we don't know. We think that there's a $33 million hit coming against the people of Alberta.

That information has been requested in this Assembly so many times I don't think we could count them on the Treasurer's hands and feet, and to this day that information still has not been provided. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, when the former Premier jet-setted off to England to have tea with the Queen, we stood in this Assembly and asked what the Premier would be doing. The Premier refused to give an itinerary or a

schedule on what he would be doing. I think Albertans are entitled to know what's going to be done; who the Premier, then and now, or any minister is going to meet with; the purpose of those visits; and how much this is going to cost Albertans. I think Albertans should be entitled to get that information now or as quickly after the event as possible, not two years or 18 months after the fact. Mr.

Speaker, how sad for Albertans to access knowledge on the debt of Alberta from rating agencies in New Y ork that will give you the exact amount of Alberta's debt, because a prospectus must be filed and signed by the Provincial Treasurer. Albertans themselves or members of this Assembly, when they ask questions in the House as to the exact extent of the debt, have been denied that information. That's what's happened.

Time and time again members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party asked to see the leases that were made between the government and Olympia & Y ork involving the City Centre Building in Edmonton. There is an allegation that the lease payments were far in excess of the going market at that time. To this day those leases have not been provided. That information has not been provided to Albertans. Well, the purpose of this Act, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that that kind of information is provided. Two purposes are set out in this Act.

The first purpose is to provide a right of access to information under the control of [government] in accordance with the principles that, (

i) information should be available to the public, (ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and (iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government, and that there should be a protection of the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by [government] and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information. Mr. Speaker, a Bill has to have teeth. This Bill has teeth. This Bill allows for a commissioner to deal openly, to deal in public with a request.

This Bill allows for a commissioner, that man or that woman, to determine that information which is requested should be given and must be given to an Albertan. If that information is not provided by a deputy minister or a minister or some functionary, some bureaucrat, there are ways, provisions, in this Act to compel that information to be given. Surely

an Act that would allow a deputy minister or a minister to simply say “I'm not going to provide it” and get away with it is not the kind of legislation that Albertans should have. The Act also deals with exemptions. There must be exemptions to protect certain cabinet di scussions, certain positions that government takes in workup of policy. We know that, and we accept that, but the exemptions should not be so unreasonable as to deny Albertans the information that they should have. I note with particular interest that the Bill that was filed just a few days ago by the hon.

Premier allows for an exemption, allows for third parties involved in financial transactions with the government to exclude or exempt themselves from public scrutiny. That would mean that the NovAtel $645 million request for information would be denied or could be denied. That would mean that matters involving Gainers would be or could be denied. That would mean that MagCan information would be or could be denied, that travel expenses would be or could be denied, that leases could be or would be denied. Mr.

Speaker, there has to be certainty and understanding and a sense of properness to the exemptions that are set out. There cannot be long delays, and I think this Act provides for that. 4:50 Mr. Speaker, one of the things that perhaps needs to be written into the new Act that's set out for Albertans is the assurance that the commissioner that is picked is not somebody who is under the thumb of the government, that that individual should either be a person who is selected by an all-party committee of this Assembly or perhaps by the public service commissioner.

My preference is to see that that person is somebody that is selected by this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable for us as legislators to accept that we could allow the situation to continue as it has in Alberta without the proper kind of legislation. Government has made a positive move towards repair of the damage that has been caused – that is, in not providing information – by coming forward with Bill 61. There are many improvements that need to be made to that Bill.

I would hope, if we're now negotiating, as we are, for improvements and reform of this Assembly, that hon. members on the other side might consider that the first Bill that would allow for free votes on amendments and the substance of a Bill be this Bill, Bill 201, or Bill 61, or the combination of the ideas out of the both of them after the panel of five legislators reviews the situation. I don't think that would be too difficult for this Assembly to handle. I think it would be a wonderful test of the reform that we're talking about. I think it would produce the kind of Act that we would all be very proud of.

I think it would allow for incredible debate from members on the opposite side and from this side. There are some problems, I'm sure, in Bill 201 that can be made better by input from hon. members on the other side, in

52 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 the same way that we're proposing input on Bill 61. We invite and we urge and we plead with members and the government to allow that to happen. Mr. Speaker, there can be no further delay in getting freedom of information legislation that protects the privacy of the individ- ual. That is critical, because in this world more and more information on the individual gets stored up in computer banks, and it's so easy to bring this all together and to create great embarrassment to individuals. We saw that in a computer disk that got away.

That means that there have to be certain things put into place to control documentation, that archivists have to be there helping us to determine how to manage and inventory what we have. There has to be a way of ensuring that Albertans know what it is that exists in departments. Inventories must be provided to them. Mr. Speaker, I'm hopeful that we're now just on the cusp of getting the kind of freedom of information legislation that Albertans so dearly and so completely desire. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's indeed a pleasure to stand today to speak on the very first private member's Bill debated during the First Session of the 23rd Legislature. I'd like to congratulate you on your election on Monday and say that I really look forward to working with you in this new session. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt the government is committed to freedom of information, as we've heard in the throne speech and as we saw with the Premier tabling Bill 1, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy, in this House on Tuesday. This government will ensure that all Albertans have access to informa- tion. Mr.

Speaker, we have debated Bill 201, Freedom of Informa- tion and Protection of Personal Privacy Act, in this House before, as the hon. member mentioned. It's by no means a new Bill; in fact, Mr. Speaker, Bill 201 is a close cousin to the freedom of information Act as it exists in Ontario. In contrast to Bill 201, Bill 1 is uniquely Albertan, and once Albertans have been given the opportunity to review this Bill in a very open and public process, Bill 1 will represent the views and ideas of Albertans, not solely those of the Liberal opposition or the government of Ontario as in the case of Bill 201.

Freedom of information and personal privacy are valuable principles to democratic governments. Access to information is something we should all concern ourselves with. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, we must ensure that a process is put in place that will ensure that any legislation, particularly this piece, is created in such a way that the final product is really representative of what the people of Alberta want and need. As all members of this House are aware, the Liberal caucus issued a press release on August 26, 1993, detailing their criticism of the government's freedom of information legislation.

They felt that their piece of legislation provided all of the answers. They did not even acknowledge the possibility that perhaps their legislation may require some fine-tuning. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say this: as with many things in the Liberal caucus, the Bill was not perfect, and to suggest such is an affront to the people of Alberta. This government has by no means suggested that our Bill is perfect. In fact, the government released a discussion guide in order to seek out public input in the process. The hon.

Premier has pledged to listen to Albertans, to talk with Albertans, and to deliver a Bill on freedom of information that really represents Albertans. This process will begin very soon. An all-party committee will be asked to go out to Albertans for their views on freedom of information, and these views will be taken into account before Bill 1 is passed by this House. As with all Albertans, the Liberal caucus is welcome to bring its ideas to the table, as they're doing here today with Bill 201.

Without a doubt there certainly are ideas within this Bill which have merit, and without going into the Bill in great detail, I would suggest that perhaps some ideas also need to be changed or are unacceptable, but in no way would I suggest that the government Bill is also perfect. Instead, I would suggest to all interested parties that they participate in the process of public consultation so we may truly create a Bill that's acceptable to all Albertans.

It's very positive that the provincial and federal governments are taking steps to improve their freedom of information and protection of personal privacy, but by no means is it an easy task to cover these areas. Legislation passed years ago in other jurisdictions has not stood the test of time. They have required extensive amendments, even in the Ontario legislation, which is so highly regarded by the members opposite. It has undergone a review leading to many suggested amendments. The stated purpose of an information Act is to allow people to have better access to information.

This is a worthy intention, but in truth such legislation can turn out to have an entirely different result from what was really intended. The government of Alberta is addressing these concerns now by presenting the framework for legislated access to information and protection of personal privacy to allow Albertans an opportunity to craft such legislation in such a way that it will truly stand the test of time. A variety of problems can and will arise when information Acts are not thoroughly and meticul ously thought out. Our fellow provinces can certainly attest to this, and their problems are far from over.

We can list among the problems denial of access to information, prohibitive and unn ecessary cost associated with information requests, nuisance problems, and manipulation of the legislation and the intent behind it. 5:00 The federal government represents a good case to begin with. Several years ago Ottawa backtracked on a promise to provide personal information held by Air Canada and Petro-Canada.

The federal Justice department recommended that Air Canada be exempted from the Privacy Act, while Petro-Canada was allowed to take advantage of special loopholes in the legislation to sidestep its responsibility as well. This incident is only one example of blatant misuse and disregard of the information regulations. The federal government has set a poor example to follow in the areas of efficiency and cost control. Canada's Information Commissioner spent over $5 million in 1988 alone. Manitoba is also experiencing increased costs in administration of its access to information system.

In this time of reduced government expendi- tures we must make very careful consideration of the cost implications of access to information. Manitoba is also suffering from problems in the appeal process. Civil servants have become reluctant to apply the law and release information. This has caused applicants to begin a long and torturous appeal procedure that lasts as long as six months. Manitoba is not alone in its appeal tribulations. At the federal level one out of eight requests results in a complaint being lodged with the federal Information Commissioner.

The province of Quebec has also encountered difficulties with an unwieldy appeal process, and often during appeal hearings lawyers must be retained by both the government and the plaintiff, costing both parties dearly. Is this the kind of example that we want Alberta's law to follow?

September 2, 1993 Alberta Hansard 53 Mr. Speaker, we must also take a good look at Ontario, as the Bill we are debating today is modeled after their legislation. Ontario's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act holds as one of its basic principles the public's right of access to government records. Of course, certain exceptions have been considered where it's deemed necessary to protect the confidential nature of some information and to expedite government adminis- tration.

While this seems reasonable, it in truth has turned into an opportunity for government to take incredible latitude for itself in administering the Act. Vague and imprecise language in the Act allows the government to manipulate the conditions, to determine information they want to suppress as privileged and confidential almost at will. Information from the Department of Health concerning physicians who broke the law by double-billing was denied to the public. The department of agriculture refused to release information on a list of publicly inspected meat plants.

Information on corporate violators of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act was withheld. These are just a few examples of information that should have been allowed in the hands of the people of Ontario and was denied. In Ontario we also witnesse d that the Act is applied discriminately in regards to in stitutions. The reason for this is simple: the Act lacks specification of criteria. The result is that some government agencies are covered by the Act and some are not.

Furthermore, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is able to remove institutions from the list simply by way of an amendment to the regulations. Can the opposition assure us that they've taken this problem into account? Or can we assume this is yet another problem that Alberta would encounter under the new Bill that's proposed? Ontario also provides a wonderful example of the problems we may encounter with a compelling public interest. Such a clause allows both the head of an institution and the Information and Privacy Commissioner to override an individual's right to privacy.

Interpretation of what constitutes a compelling public interest is open to vast

interpretation. The Premier of Ontario has used this provision in the past to force the disclosure of an Ontario Hydro employee's salary. Using a very liberal

interpretation of the vague compelling public interest clause ensured that disclosure of information took precedence over the individual's right to privacy. Is this what we can expect in our province, or do we as Albertans deserve much more than this? In addition to research and administration costs, the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner has stated that public awareness of the Act must be increased. This has resulted in a huge outreach program being launched, u tilizing public and municipal training programs, public addresses, conferences, brochures, newsletters, and the list goes on.

For a government in such severe financial trouble it is possible that there are more appropriate areas right now to invest that capital. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition news release talks of a commissioner with real power to enforce the Act. The Liberals would have this commissioner appointed by the Legislature and function in a realm with very little accountability. They speak of a commissioner who has coercive powers to ensure that the truth he or she sees is exposed. I think Albertans will want to take a very close look at where this is coming from.

Should we resort to coercion in our attempts to find what is right or wrong? There are limits, and this particular area deserves very careful consider- ation. We must also address the issue of nuisance requests under the Ontario Act. These include the famous example of a psychiatric patient who abused the system in Ontario to the tune of $200,000 with his 2,500 requests for information sp aced out over a four- year period. Nuisance requests are a real problem and deserve very careful consideration. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 201 has the potential to be an effective and responsive tool in guaranteeing freedom of information and protecting personal privacy, yet it requires the scrutiny of others, including the people of Alberta, before it can be considered. The government of Alberta has put forward as its number one priority Bill 1, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This Bill is by no means the answer. It is merely a framework of ideas for Albertans to consider. I would ask all members of this House to not support Bill 201.

To do so would be a slap in the face of Albertans who want and demand the opportunity to participate in the drafting of this legislation. This will have a much greater and profound effect on each and every one of us, given the opportunity to participate. I would indeed ask the Liberal opposition to consider all sugges- tions and ideas brought forward through the public consultation process and not pass judgment so quickly. To seek the passing of Bill 201 in the Legislature today would be a grave error.

We are all committed to an open process of public consultation, and I think we should consider that there are other options open when we do the public processes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, I thank all members for giving unanimous consent to allow debate on this important legislative proposal to take place this afternoon. I might make the observation, Mr. Speaker, that this particular type of legislation has had an incredibly torturous path that brings it here in front of the Legislative Assembly this afternoon.

I can tell you that I had some involvement I think starting in about 1974. This was at a time when Mr. Ged Baldwin, the former Peace River Member of Parliament, started to sponsor this radical concept or notion that taxpayers had a basic core right to find out how their tax dollars were being spent or misspent. I had the good fortune to be part of a small group including my predeces- sor, the late Mr. Chumir, in Calgary that was involved in terms of doing some lobbying for an adequate freedom of information statute in this country.

I think that it's not a question – and I haven't heard anybody from this side suggest that this particular Bill is perfect and flawless. I take the member opposite's point that we need the input and can benefit from suggestions from all members and all sides in this Legislature. But I do think it's a basic kind of responsibility for governments and legislators to come forward and learn from the experiences in other jurisdictions, to put in front of us the very best piece of legislation that we can craft.

I think since the Member for Calgary-Bow has raised the compari- son between Bill 1 and Bill 201, I simply have to say, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 1 virtually ignores 10 years, a decade, of experience across the country that other jurisdictions have had with access to information, freedom of information laws. 5:10 One would think that while there may be plenty of constructive suggestions in terms of how we could make this law more effective, more comprehensive, surely the starting point is to find the strongest law in the country that exists now, and let's add onto that.

It's astonishing to me and I think many members of this Chamber that when the government reintroduced the old Bill 61 now as Bill 1, what we see is a statute clearly modeled on the original freedom of information law, the federal statute, a statute in which we have had a chance to see the weaknesses, the flaws,

54 Alberta Hansard September 2, 1993 the imperfections, and the kinds of improvements and amendments that are required. What we've done in this Bill, sir, is we've tried to learn from that experience. We've looked across the country. We've talked to people involved who utilize freedom of information mechanisms and processes to be able to make sure that we have a system here that empowers Albertans, that gives them the right they are entitled to: to have information about how their funds, how their resources are managed and spent.

I think, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Official Opposition, that although the federal law was first, what we've seen in the intervening decade or so is increasingly more sophisti- cated statutes, more comprehensive legislation, and more effective legislation. What we've tried to do with Bill 201 is in fact to make improvements, to learn in terms of what's happened in other jurisdictions. In fact, the Bill that this caucus has introduced in this session is an improved version of that which we put forward in the last session, and I think we remain open to constructive suggestions and improvements.

I think, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about freedom of informa- tion, it's important to keep in mind that the best freedom of information statute in the world is absolutely worthless, useless, unless there's a good information management system. If we look across the country, we find that Alberta has the remarkable and somewhat embarrassing distinction of probably having the poorest and least sophisticated information management system anywhere in the country. If somebody can find a worse system, I'd be delighted to have that pointed out.

But what I see when I look across the country are other provinces that have realized that if you don't know what documents you've got, how on earth can you retrieve them to be able to respond effectively and promptly to a request from a concerned citizen? In Alberta what we have is a provision in the public works, supply and services Act that provides for a committee. The committee doesn't include oppositi on representation, as is the model in other jurisdictions