Alberta Hansard — 3 November 1994, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 2)

19941103

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2813 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, November 3, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/1 1/03 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this Assembly, we renew our thanks and ask that we may continue our work under Y our guidance. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I'd like to present a petition which the Minister of Education was kind enough to pass on to me.

It is signed by 15 constituents of mine, and they're asking that the Legislative Assembly purge literature in our schools of any negative references to any religion. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition signed by 56 residents of Alberta asking the government to reconsider its plans to reduce seniors' benefits. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request that the petition I presented regarding the Sturgeon general hospital please be read and received. CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of the Sturgeon General Hospital within the Edmonton Region and to allow the Sturgeon General Hospital to serve its customers from the City of St. Albert, the MD of Sturgeon, the Town of Morinville, the Village of Legal, the Alexander Reserve, the Counties of Athabasca, Barrhead, Lac St. Anne, Parkland and Westlock. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to have the petition which I tabled in this Assembly on October 18 regarding the future of the Grey Nuns hospital in southeast Edmonton now read and received. CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to maintain the Grey Nuns hospital in Mill Woods as a full-service, active hospital and continue to serve the southeast end of Edmonton and surrounding area. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MRS. MIROSH: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour I am pleased to file four copies of a letter from the Alberta Pharmaceutical Association a nnouncing Pharmacy Awareness Week, November 1 to November 7. The pharmacists have played a significant role with the public, and I think this is an important event. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to file four copies of a report on my recent trade mission to Russia and to Poland. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table two resolutions today. The first is from the Ekota School Parent Advisory Committee with the following resolution: We the Ekota School PAC urge the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to amend the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year.

The second is from the Meyokumin School Local Advisory Committee with the following resolution: We the Meyokumin LAC urge the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to amend the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of Debbie Hart, the president, and the Northmount Parent Association I would like to table four copies of this document containing the resolution which reads: We, the Northmount Parent Association urge the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to amend the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded Kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to table four copies of This Could Happen, a document prepared by the Alberta Liberal caucus that indicates the impact which Bill 57 could have on Alberta social services. head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. MR. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with pleasure that I introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly recipients of the 1994 Rutherford scholars award.

This program recognizes the top 10 students graduating from grade 12 solely on the basis of diploma examination results, with averages ranging from 97 percent to 98.8 percent. This year we have 12 recipients because of tied scores. I had the pleasure with other members of the Assembly today to host a luncheon with the recipients and their families, who are seated in the gallery. I would ask that the recipients please stand as I call their names and remain standing until I've finished the list.

2814 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 The top academic achievers are: from Calgary, Sacha Agrawal from Western Canada high; Victoria Beck, Western Canada high; Jason Garred, Queen Elizabeth; Christopher Prusinkiewicz, St. Mary's; and from Edmonton, Roberta Radovanovic from Ross Sheppard; Lance Doherty from Harry Ainlay; David Ritter from Old Scona; Ronnie Cheung, Archbishop MacDonald; and from Fort McMurray, Gabriel Ting from Westwood; and from Spruce Grove, Candace Brooks from Spruce Grove high sc hool. Two recipients not able to join us today are Rebecca Sparkes and Christopher Thompson.

I ask all members to give these students a warm welcome. They are standing in both galleries. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to the members of the Legislature I would like to welcome 26 members of the grade 6 class from Brookside school, including my son, and their teacher Ms Jacqui G oon and the parents accompanying them: Mrs. Susan Hagg, Mrs. Mary Ann Morri- son, and Mrs. Jean Tredget. I'd ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. They're in the public gallery. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to introduce to you today and through you to members of the Assembly two classes containing 51 students from the C.P. Blakely school in Sylvan Lake. They're accompanied by their teachers Mr. Y ee and Mr. Y ard, parents Mrs. Kopitoski, Mrs. Way, Mrs. Herback, Mrs. Desaulniers, Mrs. Henderson, and Mrs. Topley. They are seated in the members' gallery, and I'd them to rise to receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and introduce to you and through you 10 students from the English Language Professionals Inc. school seniors 3 class. They are accompanied by their instructor, and they are seated in the visitors' gallery. I would like to ask them to rise at this time and receive the very warm welcome of this House. 1:40 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the other members of the Assembly two constituents of mine from Clymont in the Stony Plain constituency, who are here today to compare question period to what they see on TV. I'd like to ask Bruce and Pam Best to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Delegated Administration Act MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Leader of the Opposition. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 57 is not consistent with parliamentary democracy. In fact, it replaces democracy with government by decree and corporation.

The government has no mandate for this, and it's an abuse of the trust that Albertans have placed in their government. Albertans want to know what this government is up to. My questions are to the Acting Premier. Will the government now table Bill 57 until we have had a full public discussion with town hall meetings, forums, full consultations with stakeholders and the public? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the Bill is before the Assembly, and it will be debated in this Assembly in due course. MRS. HEWES: Mr.

Speaker, other situations – young offenders, school board amalgamation – are important enough, but this isn't important enough? That's not a reasonable answer. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this government bring in closure time and time again to shut off debate on important issues. My question to the Acting Premier is: will the Acting Premier give assurance that you will not invoke closure on Bill 57? MRS. McCLELLAN: I think what can be assured to this Assembly is that there will be an opportunity for full participation of members of this Assembly to debate this Bill. Mr.

Speaker, I would leave it to your guidance and wisdom as to discussion of this Bill, which is really enablin g legislation, and as to whether we should get into a debate during question period on the content of the Bill. If you so direct, I would be happy to oblige. MRS. HEWES: It's enabling dismantling of the government, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if we're not going to be sure that we won't have closure, will the minister, then, agree to a provincewide radio debate tomorrow morning on this issue to let Albertans know what the government is really doing to them? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, there will be an opportunity for very wide debate on this Bill, which is customary, I might say, and historical in our Legislative Assembly: to have full debate on Bills that are before this Assembly. I would look forward to the opposition attending that debate and participating in it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are four criteria that we use in assessing legislation. Does it ensure ministerial accountability? Is it consistent with parliamentary tradition? Does it make for a more responsive and cost-effective govern- ment?

Does it allow for legislative scrutiny? Bill 57 fails on all counts. What's more remarkable is that this Bill is completely and utterly inconsistent with the accountability framework set out by the Auditor General. My first question is to the Acting Premier. How does this Bill, Bill 57, conform with any account- ability framework when under

section 15 of this Bill the govern- ment is not legally responsible for any negligent actions of an administrative authority set up by this government that could harm Albertans? Is that your definition of accountability? MRS. McCLELLAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I look to your guidance as to whether we should debate

section 15 of this Bill in question period, but I rather suspect you would prefer that we don't. Mr. Speaker, this government has committed to bring forward progressive legislation. We have brought forward a piece of legislation, and the opposition will have every opportunity in

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2815 second reading, in committee, in third reading to discuss this Bill, and I for one certainly look forward to seeing their arguments put. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A classic example of why this is called question period and not answer period. My question is to the Acting Premier. How does this Bill conform with any accountability framework when under

section 4 of this legislation any program or service can be delegated to the private sector on the basis of only one public meeting? MRS. McCLELLAN: Again, I do believe that the opportunity to debate

section 4 of this Bill will occur on the floor of this Assembly, and it will occur in due course. The hon. member will have the opportunity to bring forth his arguments, and the minister and other members will have an opportunity to c ounter those arguments. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to that debate. DR. PERCY: Well, as I work and explain the Bill clause by clause to the government and they're unwilling to reply, let me conclude with my supplemental, Mr. Speaker. How does this Bill conform with any sensible accountability framework when under

section 1 1 of this Bill the Auditor General cannot even investigate the financial affairs of any administrative authority set up by this government unless the minister says so? Is that accountability? Is that husbanding the taxpayer dollars? MRS. McCLELLAN: Again, I don't believe you would wish me to debate that

section of the Bill. We will certainly be prepared to answer the questions and to enlighten the hon. member and other hon. members opposite as to what those sections have. Mr. Speaker, I can only say again that the government members look forward to the debate on this Bill and to participating in the debate and, as I say, to enlightening the hon. members opposite. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. Highway Construction MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the minister of transportation tabled a list of 42 highway projects approved for 1993 construction.

The list addresses a total of 42 out of a complete total of 256 projects. My first question to the minister of transportation is this. Mr. Minister, you've given us one-sixth of the projects. When will you table the list of the other five-sixths of the projects approved for 1993? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I will be able to provide each member with a complete list of the work done in their constituency very, very shortly. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, my supplemental question.

On the list that the minister tabled, the total that he provides is $79.4 million, yet when you add up the figures, it's only $77.1 million. My question to the minister is: what did you do with the other $2.3 million? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so good with figures and he has good research, maybe he can tell me. MR. BRUSEKER: I guess that's why we've got a $33 billion debt in this province. Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary.

Since $2.3 million are unaccounted for on the list of 42 projects, how many millions of dollars did he lose on the other 214 projects that we haven't had tabled in the House yet? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just so far off base, and it's unfortunate that the highway critic for the Liberal Party knows so little about highway construction and how it runs. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. AN HON. MEMBER: Are you outraged? Drunkenness as Courtroom Defence MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is the outrage of the week.

Albertans and Canadians and my constituents and your constitu- ents were absolutely shocked by the events of September 30 with regard to the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that concerns the issue of using drunkenness as a successful defence for violent criminal acts. Mr. Speaker, we were assured by the legal community at that time that the

interpretation of that by the lower courts would be very narrow, that it would indeed be nothing but a trickle-down effect. We have seen otherwise in this province. It's a bloody – excuse me – waterfall impact. I have a question for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. What specific recommendations have you passed on to the federal Minister of Justice that will amend federal legislation to stop the use of this ridiculous defence for criminal acts involving violence? AN HON. MEMBER: A good question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. 1:50 MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and it is in fact a good question. There are very serious concerns by ministers of justice throughout Canada about the impact of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. I think all of us as reasonable, right-thinking human beings feel that people should be responsible for their actions. The Supreme Court of Canada has come to the conclu- sion that extreme drunkenness is a defence for offences that require a mental element.

I am currently preparing a letter to the federal Minister of Justice recommending that we as justice ministers analyze this decision very carefully and consider whether there are legislative changes that could be made to the Criminal Code to ensure that individuals who break the law and who negatively impact on other law-abiding citizens in this country are not allowed to get off the hook on a technicality. MR. JACQUES: Then, Mr.

Minister, as the Minister of Justice for this province are there specific actions that you can take in the province of Alberta that would help to mitigate this situation until such time as the federal legislation is amended? MR. EV ANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada decision was dealing with a matter of the Criminal Code, which is federal legislation. We in the province are responsible for the administration of justice, administration of the Criminal Code and other federal pieces of legislation.

It is a long and valued tradition in this country that the judiciary is independent of the executive wing of government, and I certainly cannot in any way,

2816 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 shape, or form attempt to influence the

interpretation of the laws of this land by the judiciary. But certainly we can look at ways, along with our federal counterpart and with the help of other justice ministers throughout this country, of closing the books on this situation if in fact it is allowing those that should be found guilty to get off the hook on a technicality, and we'll continue to do that. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My last question, then, to the minister is: in your capacity as the chief law enforcement officer for this province are there specific actions that you can take or will be taking involving the laying of charges or with regard to the gathering of evidence that would attempt in some way to mitigate this defence from being used successfully again? MR. EV ANS: Well, certainly, Mr.

Speaker, it is the responsibil- ity of prosecutors and law enforcement officers in Alberta to analyze the law as it stands and to prepare their cases recognizing that law, recognizing the arguments that they have available to them to try to distinguish a general rule on specific circumstances in the cases that they are marshaling before the courts or in fact in circumstances that they are dealing with on the street.

I have every confidence that our law enforcement officers and our prosecutors will judici ously consider the im plications of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, as they do with all court decisions, and will take the appropriate and legal steps to ensure compliance but to ensure as well that they are serving the law- abiding citizens of this province and this country to the best of their ability. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two days ago I spoke in this House about the dangers of allowing extreme drunkenness as a defence for criminal behaviour. Y esterday the Department of Justice decided to appeal the recent acquittal of a Leduc man who successfully used this defence, but in announcing the appeal, the Minister of Justice, a former Crown prosecutor, commented to the press on the evidence before the court. He has now jeopardized the appeal. My first question is to the Minister of Justice. Mr. Minister, did you not realize that by commenting about the evidence before the court, you jeopardized the appeal? MR.

EV ANS: That's a very serious charge, Mr. Speaker, and I take it very seriously. I pointed out to the press yesterday that I could in no way, shape, or form discuss the issue before the courts in the Blair decision. What I explained to the media were the grounds for appeal in the appeal notice. That is public. There is absolutely nothing else that I can discuss with the media or otherwise with respect to that case because – you are absolutely correct, hon. member – to do so would be to jeopardize the appeal process. MRS. SOETAERT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister.

Y ou commented that the judge may have erred and that there was evidence on the mental state of the accused. When will this government realize that the judiciary in Alberta must be independent? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I'm taking these questions from the hon. member very seriously, and I'm going to answer accord- ingly. What I explained to the media yesterday were the terms in the grounds for appeal – and this is a filed document – specifically "that the learned trial judge erred in law in receiving and applying the opinion evidence of Dr. Rueben A.

Lang." I was explaining to the media what is in the appeal notice. Again, this is a notice of appeal. I made no comment on the provisions in that notice of appeal. I was merely describing what was in the notice of appeal, which is public record. MRS. SOETAERT: Mr. Speaker, my final supplemental to the Minister of Justice: what are you going to do to restore the faith in the independence of the judicial process? This government continues to meddle where they don't belong. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, and I think Albertans want to be very clear about this.

Were I to have made any comments at all on the case, that would have been improper, and I was very clear in pointing that out to the media. What I did was advise the media, as I have advised members of the Assembly today, what is in the notice of appeal that has been filed. This is public information. We must as the Crown identify grounds for appeal in the notice of appeal that is filed at court. That is precisely what I have indicated. It is from the notice of appeal filed on behalf of the Crown by our Crown prosecutors. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville-Viking. Social Services Caseloads MR.

STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. I understand that in January 1993, less than two years ago, the welfare caseload was nearly 100,000. What impact, Mr. Minister, has your welfare reform had on the caseload to date? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Y es, Mr. Speaker. Eighteen months ago the welfare caseload in Alberta was over 96,000 cases, which is equivalent to around 180,000 individuals.

With the major welfare reforms put in place in the last 18 months, we've seen a drop in the caseload, and it's a drop of 48 percent down to 50,000 cases, an annualized saving of around $300 million for the taxpayers. 2:00 MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, this is a significant reduction in caseload. What kind of impact does this have on things like the Canada assistance plan? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada assistance plan, of course, some of the programs under my department are cost shared by the federal government.

As we move forward with budget reductions and streamlining the operations of the depart- ment, we will see a decrease in the need for cost-sharing dollars under that particular program. In fact, this year we estimate that there will be $150 million less required from the federal govern- ment with these new reforms. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. STELMACH: Thank you. What impact has this reduction in caseload had on Albertans?

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2817 MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the program I believe generally is well received by Albertans. There are three phases of the reforms. One is to get the healthy young people back into the workforce, and that's been very successful. The second phase of the reforms is of course reshaping the child welfare issue, which is a large budget item and a very complicated and sensitive issue. The third one is another very complicated and sensitive issue, and that's persons with disabilities. As we move forward with these changes, Mr.

Speaker, what we have done is that when we put the young people back into the workforce, it allowed us to move dollars into the high-needs areas. In the past year alone we managed to move $100 million to the high-needs areas, and it was always our original plan to do that. In fact, last year we had over 12,000 students attending various forms of training programs and moved $65 million to students finance for grants and loans. We spent money in job- creation programs. We increased school fee allowance. We increased the personal needs supplement.

We provided a thousand dollar additional allowance for people moving from institutions such as Michener into the community. I feel this program is working well. It's on target, and I believe it's supported number one by the clientele. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. Disabled Persons' Programs MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government's latest target appears to be persons with disabilities.

We have just learned that the Department of Family and Social Services intends to shut the Vocational Training Centre in Edmonton's west end, a centre that provides needed day programming to approximately 100 disabled adults. My question is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Mr. Minister, how can you go on and on in the House about the needy and your commitment to the needy, as you put it, and at the same time shut down a worthwhile and necessary program for persons with disabilities? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I wish this member would be more specific with her questions. I have a large budget.

I have over 350 agencies that I f und. For persons with disabilities there's over a $400 million budget, so it is not a small project. When questions are asked, the member should be more specific. Or is it something like her new latest press release, This Could Happen? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, supplemental. MS HANSON: Thank you. Mr. Minister, there is one voca- tional centre in west Edmonton. I suggest that you go back to your department and find out what's happening.

If the department does intend to close the centre, with or without your knowledge, tell us how group homes will cope if their residents have no day program and are simply warehoused in their group homes with no stimulation other than a television set? This would take us back to the dark ages. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, this again is a This Could Happen issue. I know the project you're talking about, b ecause in the past year I personally visited that project not once but twice.

I toured it for one reason: to see how well that project works and to see as we move forward with reforming the welfare system, moving dollars to the high-needs areas, how we may improve the services we provide to persons. There is no indica- tion at this time anywhere that th is facility is being closed. We are reviewing all the services, over $400 million worth in my department, to provide a better service for the client and the parent. MS HANSON: Mr. Minister, okay.

A general question then: will you guarantee that you will not close any centre until there are alternatives in place and full consideration is given to long- term effects that you would have on disabled clients? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee nothing. What I will guarantee . . . [interjections] Listen. What I will guarantee is that when we are done, we'll provide a much better service for the client. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River. Syncrude Expansion MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Energy.

Recently there was an announcement that appears to imply that there is about to be a significant expansion to the Syncrude project in Fort McMurray. Since the province is a partner in this consortium, I'm wondering, Madam Minister, what this might mean in the way of our obligation to participate in any additional financial commitment. MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, I believe the hon. member is referring to an approval of an application by Syncrude to the Energy Resources Conservation Board that came out this summer after extensive hearings.

What that approval did was allow for an expansion of the production coming out of Syncrude, an extension of the lease to the year 2025. It also reviewed reclamation processes and procedures for the future. Basically that allowed for the regulatory framework, but actual expansion would be a discussion that the partners would have to have as things progressed. That, I believe, has not taken place as yet. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister.

The province has a long-term and a fairly significant investment in the Syncrude project, and I'm wondering, Madam Minister: has the return to Alberta been somewhat proportionate to our investment? [interjections] MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side may not think this is significant, but clearly the oil sands are the future for Alberta. We do know today, for the benefit of Westlock, that we have over 300 billion barrels of . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Redwater. MRS. BLACK: I'm sorry. Redwater. Sorry. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Come on over, Ken. Come on over. MRS.

BLACK: Y ou can't have him; we've got him. [interjec- tions] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. minister wishes to reply to the supplemental?

2818 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 MRS. BLACK: Y es, Mr. Speaker, I do. Clearly, Syncrude has provided along with Suncor the future for Alberta. As I say, we have, that we know of today, over 300 billion barrels of crude oil sitting in our backyard that is being developed, and Syncrude alone contributes to 12 percent of Canada's crude oil supplies. Clearly, that's as an equity position. We've also as a royalty owner received over a billion dollars in royalties from the project.

In addition, one of the things that I think has been amazing and a wonderful experience for all of us is the employment opportunities that have been found in that sector of the province. So I think the benefits are there, Mr. Speaker, and we can be very proud of what has happened up in our oil sands. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es. Once more to the same minister. Now that we've accomplished our objective of developing the heavy oil industry, are we still actively pursuing our efforts to dispose of our interest in Syncrude to the private sector? 2:10 MRS. BLACK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, last year we divested some of our interest in Syncrude, and there's been no secret as to the government's agenda to get out of business and let business get on with business. Clearly, if a proposal came forward that met the market evaluation of the project, we would consider that proposal. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Dinosaur Provincial Park MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An area within Dinosaur provincial park is so special that it has been designated as a world heritage site by the World Heritage Committee, but because of pressure for gas exploration in this area the government decided to redraw the boundaries of the world heritage site. With protection of the heritage site now out of the way as a problem, the Energy Resources Conservation Board approved last week without hearings licences for gas exploration within Dinosaur provincial park but now conveniently outside the newly drawn boundaries of the world heritage site.

My first question to the Minister of Environmental Protection: why would the minister allow a world heritage site to be altered without public consultation to make sure that gas exploration could go ahead at this location? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess that since the millions of dollars they spend on research doesn't seem to come up with the facts, maybe I'll have to set the hon. member straight on the facts. He said something about no public consulta- tion.

Well, in fact to start with the world conservation union of the United Nations, Alberta Culture, Alberta Energy, the federal government, local land owners, the Special Areas Board, the irrigation districts were all consulted. The interesting thing about this is that in fact there was an expansion of some 2,123 hectares. Then there was an adjustment in the boundaries that t ook out some 423 hectares for a net gain of 1,700 hectares. That is what actually happened at this site. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is as I said: it was done to allow exploration.

My second question to the Minister of Environmental Protec- tion: given that the assistant deputy minister of parks admits in a letter of October 26, 1994, which I am now tabling four copies of, that there has been "excessive surface disturbance" at a well site within Dinosaur provincial park, what steps will the minister take to protect lands inside our provincial parks from this kind of abuse? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, the situation that occurred was that the well site was inside the park and, incidentally, done with a minimal amount of damage. There was an error made.

The Special Areas Board did approve the road, and it turned out that 90 feet of that road fell within the park. The park officials were not consulted. In the best laid plans sometimes there's a glitch. Everyone is human. The fact is that the energy company has gone in, they have restored any damage that was done, and the long-term effect is very minimal. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Mr. Speaker, my final supplemental to the same minister: if your government is not willing to stand up for and protect a world heritage site, what area of Alberta is safe from industrial activity? MR. LUND: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it's extremely unfortunate that the hon. member is being so reckless with the facts, because this well site is not within the world heritage site. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. Minister of Energy wishes to augment? MRS. BLACK: I believe I must, Mr. Speaker, as an application was before the Energy Resources Conservation Board. I hope that the hon. member was not asking the government to overrule a board ruling just because he didn't happen to agree with it, because that is not what a quasi-judicial board does. Clearly, the ruling on this . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-West. Interprovincial Trade MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West has been recognized, hon. members. [interjections] Order. MR. DUNFORD: In July our Premier joined with his counter- parts across Canada in signing the Canadian agreement on internal trade. A great deal was made about the agreement at the time, but little has been heard about it since. My question is to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Could this minister tell us what the status of this agreement is? MR. ROSTAD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the member is correct that last July the Premiers and Prime Minister did in fact sign an agreement, a protocol. However, this does not come into effect until July 1 of 1995. Between now and then there are continuing negotiations in the energy

chapter and the

chapter relating to the MASH sector, or the municipalities, academic institutions, schools, hospitals. There's also the need to set up a trade

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2819 secretariat before we can get the agreement implemented as well. Everything looks like it's going to still reach fruition by July 1 of '95. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the agree- ment was signed, there were a number of people who criticized the agreement for not doing enough. My question to the same minister is: will this agreement achieve anything concrete for Alberta, or is it just smoke and mirrors? MR. ROSTAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, even at the time of the signing there was lots of discu ssion that it wasn't perfect.

It certainly wasn't, but I think that from Alberta's perspective there were probably three main achievements, the first being that there's a rules-oriented procedure in it so that we do have some predictability and stability in how we deal with particular in- stances. There's also quite broad and comprehensive coverage. It covers all the 1 1 sectors, I guess, of the Canadian economy, every type of government, including Crown corporations and the MASH sector, although that's still to be finalized in negotiation.

Probably the main one is that there's a dispute settlement mecha- nism that is part of the agreement so that if in fact there is a challenge, there is a very clear mechanism by which that dispute is handled. I think it'd be fair to say that there are some obvious shortcom- ings. I think there are too many exclusions in the agreement. I think the legitimate objective clause leaves a little to be desired in terms of the definition of what that is.

Probably what I would call very significant is that there's no provision for damages for private corporations if in fact they take an action against a government, and I think that has to be corrected. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned a good job done by our negotiators. This brings me to the final question, which is: will Alberta's chief negotiator, Jim Horsman, continue to be involved in this agreement and, if so, at what cost to the Alberta taxpayer? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, no. Mr.

Horsman, who was the chief negotiator, I think, as the hon. member said, did an excellent job as chief negotiator, but his contract expired in September of '94, and he won't be involved in further movements as this proceeds. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. 2:20 Loan Guarantees MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although Albertans have spoken out clearly against loan guarantees, it took this government only eight days after the 1993 provincial election to break its promise and give a $100 million loan guarantee to its friends at Bovar.

The track record of this government clearly shows that it is addicted to gambling with taxpayers' money, an addiction which has to date added well over $2 billion to the provincial debt. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: why is this government institutionaliz ing broken promises on loan guarantees by even considering a $20 million loan guarantee for a racetrack? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the media yesterday approached me with the same type of innuendo, and I said: I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Nobody has approached us; nobody has said a word about it.

I don't know where you're getting your information, maybe through somebody that's floating balloons. We have no intention of addressing this at all. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplemental is to the same minister. Mr. Minister, will you then commit that this government is ending all loan guarantees, that there will be no more loan guarantees, none, zero? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, you know, a question like that on this floor after the debates we've had over the last period of time is totally redundant. Are you saying no more student loans? MR.

SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll rephrase the question. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SEKULIC: Okay. My final supplemental. If loan guaran- tees are to continue, which ones will be considered and which ones will be put on the table and which ones are not going to be considered? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, that's a pretty broad question. Maybe they should put it on the Order Paper under a motion. MR. SPEAKER: One could also say that it could be hypothetical. The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Y oung Offenders MS CALAHASEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A number of my elderly constituents have called me regarding repeated incidents of youths harassing them and throwing rocks at their houses. These elderly people are too afraid to deal with these hooligans because they get rocks thrown at them also. Even when the RCMP are called, they rarely respond to the concerns. My question is to the Minister of Justice. What can the Department of Justice do to ensure that the protection of these people from these hooligans occurs and that the police will respond or become even more proactive in their efforts? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR.

EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would supply me with some details, I would certainly bring her concerns to the attention of the RCMP here in the province and have a discussion with them. MS CALAHASEN: Again to the Minister of Justice: would the advent of a provincial police force provide us with a more direct way of ensuring that police work with communities in a provincewide manner to address this type of vandalism and harassment, be something we can consider? MR. EV ANS: Mr.

Speaker, first of all I want to state very clearly that I have the greatest respect for the job that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do throughout this province. [applause]

2820 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 They have served the province of Alberta and its people with integrity and with diligence and with extreme competence. The hon. member may be aware that my pred ecessor was looking at the pros and cons of a provincial police force. That's something that has been discusse d. However, I'll wait for that report. It's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we all recognize – and by the pounding on the desks, I think it is well accepted – the kind of job that the RCMP do in this province. It is beyond reproach. MS CALAHASEN: Mr.

Speaker, if we can't get them to move, then will the minister direct his department to work with the regional groups to examine ways to empower communities to deal with the problem directly? MR. EV ANS: Well, we are talking about young offenders here, Mr. Speaker, and under the Y oung Offenders Act there is an opportunity for communities to come together and form youth justice committees.

They can then get involved in the administra- tion of justice with respect to young offenders, can get involved in alternate methods of serving their penalties once they have been accused and convicted of a crime, can get involved in the bigger issue of: how do we ensure that youth in Alberta are proactive members of the community? I would certainly encourage the hon. member to talk with her communities and find out whether they are aware of the youth justice committee opportunity and try to encourage them to get involved. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. Kindergarten Programs MR.

V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has managed in a very short time to give Alberta the dubious distinction of ranking dead last in Canada in public funding per student for kindergarten programs. This province now spends $595 per ECS student per year, while the next lowest, Saskatchewan, that rich Saskatchewan, spends almost three times as much, and B.C. five times as much. My question is to the Minister of Education. Can the minister explain why the other provinces spend at least three times more than Alberta on kindergarten students? MR. JONSON: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, for the third time in the last two days the hon. members across the way I think are quoting inaccurate statistics in terms of the amount of money per student spent on kindergarten. What the hon. member is referring to and picking out is the basic $595 grant per student – I should not assign motives – but perhaps just forgetting the millions of dollars spent on the program unit grants, the $1.7 million in the PEP grant, the mild and moderate, and all the other moneys available here. So our dollar amount is considerably above $595 per student.

The other thing is, as I've said before, that we have made a determination as a government to provide funding for a 200-hour program, which we believe is adequate preparation for grade 1, and, secondly, we have acknowledged all the way through that there is a need to target money to our high-needs preschool students, and we have continued those grants, Mr. Speaker. So we do have a direction. We are spending above that $595 per student. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

These amounts that I have from our scant research budget, by the way, are comparing basic amounts per student that the public funds are providing. Now, if I may ask the minister: is he intimating that these other provinces are placing too high a priority on kindergarten programs? MR. JONSON: I am not commenting on the funding of other provinces. I'm indicating, however, that we have set out a program of support for early childhood services in this province. The important point here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have deter- mined that we are providing adequate funding for our high-needs preschool students.

We are providing an adequate funding level for 200 hours of early childhood services instruction, and that is where we stand on the ECS issue as a government. Just for the edification of the members across the way, I would like to run down the list of a few amounts of money which have somehow missed the attention of the hon. members across the way in the questions that they ask us and the introduction to them. [interjections] With respect to the program unit grants, which I referred to earlier, for the 1994-95 fiscal year, $18,391,000, Mr.

Speaker, not an insignificant amount of money, not part of the figure quoted by the hon. Member for West Y ellowhead earlier. [interjections] There seems to be some concern about wanting to receive all this information, so I will sit down. They don't seem to want the information when they can receive it. 2:30 MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, whichever way you slice it, we place far less of an emphasis on kindergarten pro- grams. Since the government is always talking about a level playing field, why don't our children deserve the same chance as those in other provinces? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is very, very important to indicate that one of the primary initiatives of the government is to provide a funding system in the province which is fair and equitable across this province. We have responded to the need for equity in funding all the school jurisdictions in this province, and I would not want anyone to get the impression that we are not going in that particular direction. With respect to the particular topic of early childhood services, Mr.

Speaker, another of our initiatives: we are proposing to allow jurisdictions through some flexibility on ECS funding to decide what the priority and what the needs are in their commu- nity. So we are putting a priority on fair and equitable funding for students in the province, and I hope the hon. member across the way would acknowledge that. I think he agrees. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period has expired, but various ministers have indicated to the Chair that they wish to augment or answer questions that were asked yesterday in their absence. The first would be the hon.

Minister of Agricul- ture, Food and Rural Development, and the second would be the Minister of Health. Now the Minister of Family and Social Services has indicated he wishes to augment. Is that to the very last question? MR. CARDINAL: The very last one. MR. SPEAKER: Then we'll start with the Minister of Family and Social Services.

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2821 MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Because dollars or a lack of dollars projected by this government was mentioned by the opposition, I'd just like to advise, because it is a very sensitive area when you're dealing with children at this level, that programs overlap from various departments. I know other departments that have budgets to deal with children. In my department alone the day care program spends generally for the same children $65 million a year.

Brighter Futures, which is a federal program with some provincial participation, has targeted over $17.4 million in the next three years to deal with children specifically between zero and six years old. So there are a lot of programs that supplement what Education provides. MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Agriculture Financial Services Corporation MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to respond to the question that was raised yesterday by the Member for Redwater.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that the chairpeople of the SPCs, the special policy committees, are dealing with policy. They're not dealing with administrative matters, which was the nature of the question that was raised yesterday. The question basically asked was regarding a supposed increase in costing of the six top executives of ADC and Alberta hail and crop. The wages paid in 1993 for those six people were $560,1 19. The wages paid in 1994 for the five people that assumed the responsibility and the role for those people were $496,087, a difference in excess of $64,000 less in expenditure, not more.

Between October '92 and '94 the two corporations were reorganized and merged. As part of the reorganization these six executive positions were reduced to five, and as I mentioned, the total savings were in excess of $64,000. The Member for Redwater did not reflect the 5 percent that was cut back as well. Referring to the second supplementary, as was reported in public accounts, the total remuneration to directors and staff net of retirement allowances dropped by $2,768,860, or a 12 percent drop from '92-93.

It's difficult to determine how the hon. member's mathematics or research functions, because the total reduction over the period of the three-year plan will be in excess of 20 percent. I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that numbers are used in an advantageous manner that indeed are not properly reflected. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the manipulations and the mental nip-ups the hon. minister is going through to try to justify giving a raise. When you give a raise, it does not show up in past figures. That's why it's called a raise. It's going to show up in future figures.

I m ean, this is what we're talking about. To find out that the hon. Member for Little Bow gets $24,000 a year to sit on his rump and not know anything about raises. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, this is what I found out. That's what he says he can't answer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjection] Order please. MR. N. TA YLOR: Let me go on. Speaker's Ruling Questions to Standing Policy Committee Chairmen MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If the hon. member would refer to the ruling that the Chair referred to yesterday concerning the role and the function of standing policy committee chairmen in this House, he would have known the answer to that a long time ago. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I submit that anybody who gets taxpayers' money has to answer for why they're getting it. He can't just sit there and say, "No, his eyes are blue, or his hair is brown," or whatever it is. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order please.

It is a result of a ruling of the Chair in this Assembly that controls what chairmen of standing policy committees can do in this Assembly. It's not their decision. MR. N. TA YLOR: Y ou'll have to enlighten me, but I don't recall you ruling that standing policy committee chairmen cannot be questioned. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair referred to that ruling yesterday. The Chair will send you another memorandum, a reminder of when that ruling was made. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see that in writing. Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (continued) MR. N.

TA YLOR: Now, back again, this is the raise we're talking about. Then he says in the three-year plan that they will be under. But what he does not say, Mr. Speaker, is that they're going to get under by cutting the little guys, the foot soldiers. The whole plan there is a cut. The fellows at the top, in adminis- tration, in the next three years will have gained in money. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. MR. N. TA YLOR: I'm allowed to answer this. I hope you'll keep track of the rules a little better. So therefore I think the hon. member is playing fast and loose with the figures when he reports on this.

Point of Order Supplementary Responses MR. SPEAKER: What is the hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw rising for? MR. HA VELOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification. I thought that today the hon. minister is simply supplementing a question which was raised yesterday, and my understanding is that the hon. member on the other side of the House cannot then enter into a freewheeling debate on simply clarification of a question from yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is quite correct. The hon. Member for Redwater should not have been making the comments he was.

He could have responded by another question if there was anything new and exciting or unusual about the information

2822 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 that was given, but it is not the role of the hon. Member for Redwater to make the type of response that he did. MR. N. TA YLOR: May I respond to that point of order, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. No, you may not. [interjections] Order please. [interjections] It was not a point of order. MR. N. TA YLOR: Y ou mean anybody can interrupt anytime? MR. SPEAKER: It was not a point of order. The hon. member was asking for some clarification, which the Chair gave.

It was not a point of order, hon. member. [interjections] He asked for a point of clarification. [interjections] We will move on, hon. member, to the hon. Minister of Health. MR. N. TA YLOR: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Point of clarification. MR. N. TA YLOR: Call it clarification, if you want. MR. SPEAKER: Order. What is your point of order and the citation, hon. member? MR. N. TA YLOR: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that some years ago . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Citation. MR. N. TA YLOR: It's under rule 23 in the Standing Orders.

To refresh your memory, in 1987 it was always, up until that time – and this is why I'm very familiar – that ministers could come into the House the next day and after question period make a statement in answer to the other question. But it needed unani- mous consent. I withheld that unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the third party at that time. 2:40 So we worked out a system that whenever a minister opens the floor, comes in with a supplementary answer from the day before, whoever was there also had equal time either to respond in a statement or to respond with another question.

It just depended on the answer. So all we're doing for the hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw is informing him that in 1987 this was changed. The minister has the choice not to come in and say anything and therefore not give an opening to the opposition, but once the minister comes in and says something and reopens the question, that reopens an answer. The idea is roughly tit for tat or tat for tit, whatever way you want to look at it. So if he takes three minutes or four minutes, three minutes, four minutes back. So that, Mr. Speaker, is what the ruling was by Dr.

Carter, who was not known to bend over backwards to help the opposition. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Time is rushing by. Perhaps it could be useful to all members if the Chair would refresh the Assembly's memory of what the situation was in 1987 and the rules that we've been operating under since. The Chair will do that on Monday. The hon. Minister of Health. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development made his contribution. MR. PASZKOWSKI: I'd like to make a point on the point of order, and that simply is that the questions were taken under advisement. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Chair has ruled on the point of order, and we will proceed that way. The hon. Minister of Health. Biomedical Waste Disposal MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there was a question in the Assembly yesterday on funding the segregating and shipping of biomedical wastes. I would like to inform the House that since 1991 Alberta Health has provided funding to hospitals to offset the cost of those initiatives. This year our funding to acute care hospitals is $2.6 milli on for packaging, transportation, and any other additional costs. Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services also provides funding for capital.

The way that hospital biomedical wastes are handled in this province is the envy of the country. There is a commitment by Alberta Health to continue this co-operative partnership that's been in place since 1991 to ensure that biomedical wastes continue to be handled safely and efficiently. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. Point of Order Imputing Motives DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm rising on a point of order under Standing Orders 23(

h) and 23(i). The hon. Member for Sherwood Park made reference to the change of boundaries at Dinosaur provincial park, which is within my constituency. He impugned motive when he stated that the boundaries were changed in order to allow drilling within the realm of Dinosaur provincial park. The boundaries were changed under consultation with the World Heritage Site Committee in order to take into effect private lands within the world heritage site. As you know, the boundaries of Dinosaur provincial park and the world heritage site were contiguous due to the fact that they were publicly owned land.

There are a lot of coulees that run into the world heritage site that are very fragile and need to be protected by it. These boundary changes were done to take into effect private lands to protect the site. It in no way had anything to do with the government wanting to expand Dinosaur provincial park or the world heritage site for drilling. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. This is really not a point of order; it's a point the hon. member wished to make. To impugn motives, the motives must be to an individual and not to a larger group. The Chair says that it is not a point of order. head: Members' Statements MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Organ Donations MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recycling has become a very prevalent aspect of our lives. Communities, families, and individuals are all getting involved in recycling programs. It seems that now every child can tell you what the three Rs stand for.

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2823 Recycling programs work to help us cut down on waste, but they also teach us how we can make the most of what we have. This year the Kidney Foundation is asking us to apply that concept of recycling on a more personal level. The Kidney Foundation of Canada has launched the Recycle Y ourself campaign to promote organ donation in Alberta. The same ideas that encourage us to preserve our environment can apply to preserving another's life. There is a critical demand for organ donation in Canada. Thousands of people across the country are in need of an organ donation.

In fact, one-third of these people who are on the list for transplants will die waiting for a donor. Every day an average of seven Canadians learn that their kidneys have failed and that their survival depends on dialysis treatments or a transplant. A cost analysis shows that compared with dialysis a kidney transplant saves the health care system more than $145,000 over 10 years. A 10 percent increase in organ donations would save nearly $12 million to the health care system in Canada over 10 years.

In addition to this, the improvement in the quality of life of a kidney patient after a successful transplant cannot be measured in mere dollars and cents. We all have the ability to do something about this issue. Often possible organ donors are not able to contribute to the lives of others because they have not prepared for this event. The Recycle Y ourself campaign is aimed at asking people to agree to become organ donors and to discuss their wishes with their families.

I have committed myself as an organ donor since 1976, and I encourage all members of the Assembly to pull out their drivers' licences and health cards and sign themselves up as organ donors. The gift of life is the most important gift you'll ever have to make. Don't take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows, we need them down here. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Government Restructuring MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government says that their popularity is holding steady, but let's look at some concrete statistics.

Thousands of public health care and education employees have or will lose their jobs. Thousands of public and health sector employees have had to take at least a 5 percent wage rollback. Employees at the Children's hospital in Calgary, for example, are being asked to take an additional wage cut of 30 percent on top of their original 5 percent. Kindergarten hours are different across the province. Seniors' benefits have been reduced. Hospitals are being closed. I wonder if these Albertans would sing the praises of this government. Rallies and protests by concerned Albertans have had no effect.

Clearly, the government is not listening to the people of Alberta while it is taking a knife to health, education, and social services. And they aren't finished cutting yet. Albertans are saying that the deficit and debt are of course of concern but that the cuts are coming too fast and just perhaps the cuts have been made without adequate planning. Recently a grassroots organization called the Common Front was formed with local community action teams across the province. This organization is composed of parents, community groups, t eachers, health care workers, seniors, and churches.

These concerned Albertans will be lobbying the government to start listening and to start caring. I would urge the Premier and all MLAs to take some time to listen and to care when the Common Front comes knocking at your door. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. Indoor Soccer MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the hon. Minister of Community Development was in attendance when the Calgary Soccer Centre opened for its winter season. The Soccer Centre opened its doors for the first time in January of 1992 and became the first complex of its kind in North America.

This state-of-the-art facility located in my constituency of Calgary-East has four indoor fields and four outdoor fields, and indoor boards can be removed, creating a completely covered, full-size soccer field. 2:50 Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, even more remarkable than the actual structure is the volunteer work that has gone into the development and maintenance of this centre. Volunteers are the foundation of the centre and accomplish a great deal very ec onomically. This centre is a perfect example of what can be accomplished by the dedicated efforts of volunteers.

It demonstrates the importance of volunteers in the operations of all centres. Of the 8 and a half million dollars spent to date, approximately $3 million was raised by the volunteer efforts of the Calgary Soccer Federation. Because interest in the centre is so high, its operation is self-supporting. The Calgary Soccer Centre was constructed to deal with increased interest and registration. Soccer is the fastest growing amateur sport in Calgary and in North America.

There are over 18,000 registered players in the various leagues of the Calgary Soccer Federation; 6,816 people play i ndoor soccer on 426 different teams. Mr. Speaker, soccer is accessible to everyone. It is less expensive to play than hockey, and it is a perfect opportunity to work on co-operation and teamwork. All those people involved in the organization and development of the Calgary Soccer Centre should be proud of their achievements and their contribution to the city of Calgary. Thank you. head: Projected Government Business MR. N. TA YLOR: Could the hon.

Government House Leader let us in on what is intended for the House business next week? I know what it is: follow the Order Paper. MR. EV ANS: If he knows what it is, I'm surprised he's asking, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased on behalf of the government to advise the opposition that next week, since we are making, I think, relatively good progress on the legislative agenda, we will be moving forward on Monday at the time of Government Bills and Orders to second reading or Committee of the Whole or third readings. That's both in the afternoon and the evening.

I would like to be more specific, but quite frankly I can't be in terms of the Bills. The Bills are on the Order Paper of course. On Tuesday again we would be proceeding thr ough second reading, Committee of the Whole, and third reading both in the afternoon and evening. That would apply as well on Wednesday and on Thursday, and we'll see what kind of progress we make. Thank you. Point of Order Projected Government Business MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

2824 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 MR. SPEAKER: This is the time for points of order. MR. DECORE: Standing Order 8, Mr. Speaker. When we negotiated the changes in procedure for this Assembly, the Premier and I and the leaders of the House on both sides agreed that there would be an attempt made to show exactly what would be happening each week. We're not getting that information, and I don't think it's fair to this House and to the members of this House to get that kind of a general answer. It's the same way week after week after week.

I'm asking that the Speaker simply request the Government House L eader to provide us with the information and to live up to the intent of what that agreement was that the Premier and I negotiated. Let's get on with it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a point well taken. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry may not be aware that the House leader for the government side and the House leader for the opposition Liberal side deal with the specifics of the day each and every morning.

They do that in order to ensure that both sides of the House are well aware of what Bills are coming forward so that the critics for those Bills and others who may wish to participate in the debate can be ready to proceed. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a limited number of Bills on the Order Paper. I think it would be abundantly unfair to stipulate on Monday that we are going to deal with Bills 50 and 57 in second reading, then move to Committee of the Whole on, say, 41, 46, 51, 52, 53, and then indicate that if time permitted we would be going forward with 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, and 56 in third reading.

That is an abysmal waste of time. We are trying to co-operate with the opposition, and it is a benefit to our members as well, because they then realize what the Bills are that we will be dealing with. It is abundantly clear that we begin with second reading. We must proceed through second reading and move from there.

We will continue to discuss these matters with the House leader from the opposition party early in the day each and every day as we sit and advise that House leader what Bills we intend to pro ceed with, in what order, as we have done from the beginning of this fall session, and allow that member's caucus and the government caucus to have ample opportunity to prepare so that we can deal with these Bills in a responsible and appropriate manner. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, I think, the hon. member describes what is occurring quite accurately.

Indeed, we do check with each other in the morning, and sometimes by 9:30 or 10 o'clock we have it worked out. Unfortunately, what also happens – well, like today again I think we had one pulled off at about 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock. Then if we sit in the evening, on those days then they come in with another meeting agenda, so we're really talking about three times a day. Really, I don't know whether we should be burdening you with this, Mr. Speaker, but we did pass that they'd say what we're going to do the following week. Well, that means the following week.

What we're getting here is what we're going to do in the following three hours, and I don't think that's good enough. We wanted to go to the following week. I'll admit that some people come from great distances, and they're staying in hotels, at – whatever it is – a hundred dollars a day or something, and if we haven't planned it right, we may be finished everything in the afternoon and there's nothing to do that evening or very little to do that evening. But I think we're putting the cart before the horse. The government seems to say that we've got so many hours and we've got to fill them no matter what.

My argument is that we've got to know what Bills we're discussing, and if we finish them early, too bad, and if we don't finish them in time, then we m a k e a d j u s t m e n t s . W h a t w e ' r e doing now – when cabinet ministers have an appointment and they can't make it or something like that, I must admit, in all fairness, I take advantage too. If they say, "Well, the cabinet minister's leaving," then I say, "Well, maybe one of our critics can have the afternoon off too." But we're working into a very sloppy system that I don't think does the taxpayer any good. I think that's the really important thing.

These things should be discussed, our people should be in the House, and their people should be following a calendar. I don't know the answer, except, Mr. Speaker, to spank us both and tell us to get back into the room and tell us to come back with a solution. MR. EV ANS: I don't want to get into a continuing debate here, Mr.

Speaker, but I must point out that were we to have a better understanding from the opposition about how much time was likely to be spent on Bills from their perspective, we could certainly be more precise in identifying how much time we would be spending in total with the input from government members, and we'd be in a much better position to be more specific. Being in this Assembly costs the taxpayers money, and it is time and effort for all members to be here, effort that we want to make the most effective.

So when we talk about the way we are proceeding – we have 17 Bills on the Order Paper, 17 government Bills. We must be in a position to proceed with those Bills as expeditiously as debate will allow. We will try to improve this system if we can. Again, I think it would certainly help us, were the opposi- tion able to be more precise in the day-to-day debate, in determin- ing what matters are going to be dealt with, much more precise, if they could be, in determining how much time they would be spending on these Bills. Quite frankly, we have a difficult time trying to get a sense of what that is.

I'm not criticizing the hon. member opposite who is the House leader. I am making a statement of fact, and I appreciate that he has members who want to come in and get involved in debate. I guess one of the most realistic issues about debate is that the debate from one member may encourage another member, either on that member's opposite or on that member's same side, to get up and debate. I think we're going to work on this, but I take great concern with the implication of the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry that we're trying somehow to make their life more difficult and trying to actively discourage specifics about what is going on in debate. 3:00 MR. SPEAKER: Well, the hon. Deputy Government House Leader said that these things tend to engender – we might be here all day on this question, but the Opposition House Leader did make a comment that he didn't know why we were talking about this so much today. Of course, the Chair has to point out that the content of the business question cannot be enforced by the Chair.

All the order provides is that there's the right to ask the question, and it really is, as the Deputy Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader said, a question of trying to work together to make the best use of the Assembly's time and to make it as easy as possible on all members of the Assembly to get that

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2825 work done. The Chair hopes that there will be continued good communications between both House leaders in this regard. head: Orders of the Day [On motion, the Assembly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the committee to order and keep with our usual rule of no more than one standing and talking at the same time. Bill 41 Government Organization Act MR. CHAIRMAN: I would call for comments or amendments. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR.

PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to Bill 41.

The issue with Bill 41 from the perspective of the opposition in general terms – and then I'm going to come to the specifics of those items we would like to amend and then bring forward a series of amendments – regards the absence of accountability in this Bill and the fact that there are going to be ministers able to delegate responsibility without being accountable and in fact the chief minister, the Premier, can change the structure of govern- ment, appoint cabinet ministers, change the designation of cabinet ministers, without coming forward to the Legislature and getting legislative approval for changes in the structure of government and the way that those services are delivered through functional departments.

We view that as being an abrogation of the rights of the Legislature and think it's appropriate that that type of authority be granted by the Lieutenant Governor on the recom- mendation of the Legislative Assembly. So I'm bringing forward an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that corrects this grievous wrong. I know that the amendment is being distributed. I will read out the amendment and discuss it, and then I will wait till it's distributed. The amendment reads:

Section 2 is amended in subsection (1) by striking "Lieutenant Governor in Council" and substituting "Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Assembly." MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would indicate that we have received the amendment known as A1 to amend

section 2, and it carries with it the necessary si gnatures. So we would invite Edmonton-Whitemud to proceed with the amendment. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at

section 2, it reads, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may . . ." The thrust of this amendment is to in fact make this contingent upon approval by the Legislative Assembly. We feel that this is important because if you look at

section 2(1): (

a) establish departments of the Government that are to be adminis- tered by Ministers; (

b) give names to the departments. These are important elements that you would think are part of the structure of government, and one would like debate on what the function of those ministers is going to be, whether this is a cost- efficient way of providing that level of government services. Heretofore we've seen the government in a sense treat the cabinet like an accordion. It expands in terms of political need to meet geographic balance or political expediency. It contracts.

For example, we see the cabinet has shrunk in size, and suddenly an additional minister has been added, the minister of science and technology. One would wonder: would that have happened had this been debated fully in the Legislature? Whether or not this had been subject to debate, do we in fact need an additional minister? Do we in fact need to subdivide Economic Develop- ment and Tourism and take out the science and technology component.

Is that a cost-efficient way of achieving the delivery of these types of government services, or is this a way of in a sense providing patronage or the division of political spoils among various ministers? What this amendment does is require, then, that type of shift in the structure to be approved by the Legislative Assembly and have the merits of why the number of cabinet positions increase or decrease. I think you would find relatively little argument on this side of the House for contracting the number of ministers, because it makes eminent sense to reduce the size.

But when we see the number of ministers rising and it appears to be counterproductive, not necessarily related to any notion of efficiency, leads to increased duplication – in fact, as one of my hon. colleagues had pointed out, more than duplication, quadruplication, of functions when you look at the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, there's a minister for the Alberta Research Council, and there are parliamentary secretaries. What function do they serve? It costs additional money.

The array of government services now being offered has been broadened somewhat with conflicting and overlapping jurisdictions. I think many of the issues related to this excessive duplication would have been debated in this Legislature had it been required to come before the House. 3:10 Now, this Bill – it's called the Government Organization Act – is aimed at consolidation. But does it allow you to consolidate in a way that's efficient and a way th at is consistent with what the prerogatives of this Legislative Assembly are?

We would argue it doesn't, and in a sense it really standardizes the move of this government since June 15, 1993, to engage in executive decision- making and to remove the rights and privileges of the Legislative Assembly to debate various types of issues.

So although this may be viewed as consolidating what has already been tradition, we would argue that for a government that claims to be accountable and open, to in a sense preserve the status quo, as it does under this Bill – and this is eminently a status quo Bill – it in fact just consolidates and makes very clear always the implicit executive power that has been here.

There are relatively few changes in this Bill that allow for a more flexible and responsive government, and we would argue that one of the ways of making this government more responsive and more accountable is clearly to make it more responsive to the Legislature, because members of this House on the government side have always argued that they are reflecting the will of the people. If that is the issue, then this is the marketplace for ideas and this is where competing perspectives on what the public at large view as being a legitimate role for government, an appropri- ate role for government and the economy.

This is where it ought to be debated. What this Bill does by aggressively standardizing the status quo, as it does in certain sections, is in a sense perpetuate the type of government that we had under Premier Getty, where we ran up

2826 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 loan guarantee after loan guarantee through Executive Council, where we had a government that was very large in size, where the functions of the various ministries weren't debated. The amendment that we propose is in fact liberating, I would argue, and what it does is allow far greater public input into the process of structuring government. It allows for far greater ability for MLAs to poll their constituents and say: "Is this the size of government that you want?

Do you think these types of designations for ministries make sense?" We think that even the choice of ministers should in fact be an issue that should come before the Legislature, because what we've seen heretofore with this particular government is that there has been an abdication of responsibility on the part of some ministers in accepting responsi- bility or ministerial accountability, and those types of issues would be debated in the Legislature were they to come forward. So when you look at the elements of

section 2 of this Govern- ment Organization Act – and even the hon. member who's bringing it forward has said: oh, this is just purely housekeeping. Some aspects of it, Mr. Chairman, are housekeeping, as I say, aggressively standardizing the status quo to make sure we know exactly what has been happening. Other elements are not, and my colleagues, I am sure, are going to be bringing up the specifics of how under the guise of housekeeping there is an array of elements that are in fact quite different and very, very compatible with the intent of Bill 57.

Bills 41 and 57 in one sense are very, very integrated and very tightly co-ord inated in terms of the shift of delegation from government officials to individuals, and that is certainly the hallmark of Bill 57. So actually what the amendment that I have proposed does – and in fact it's extraordinarily democratic in nature – is allow the Legislative Assembly to have a say in the structure of the Executive Council, but certainly it doesn't constrain the Executive Council. It allows the issues at hand to be debated. It allows the functions of those ministries to be debated. I would think, Mr.

Chairman, that had the government come forward and said, "Do you think we should in fact break up the Department of Economic Development and Tourism and hive off the science and technology component and give it a mandate that's virtually identical to the mandate that the Department of Economic Development and Tourism has?" I think hon. members on both sides of the House would have said to them: "This is completely inconsistent with what our constituents want.

This is completely inconsistent with what many members of the House had argued during the election campaign." They had argued for a smaller, leaner, and certainly more intelligent form of government. I think many of the issues at debate here are properly debated in the Legislative Assembly. What this amendment does is give force to that by requiring that the "Lieutenant Governor . . . on the recommendation of the Assembly" make such changes. As it stands right now, it's on the recommendation of Executive Council.

To the extent, then, for this government to stand up and say that they're in favour of change, that they're in favour of liberating government, well, we're getting into the spirit of it, and we think: let us in fact ensure that it's sufficiently liberated, and we can debate some of the very important and fundamental issues that deal with the structure of government. Certainly Executive Council is one of those areas. If you look at other provisions of

section 2, I have talked about (

a) establish departments of the Government that are to be adminis- tered by Ministers; (

b) give names to the departments; (

c) designate the Ministers who are to administer the departments. Look at

section 2(2): If the name of a department is changed, a reference to that depart- ment in any Act or regulation is to be read as a reference to the department by its new name. That's clearly consolidation, and it's covered by the spirit of this amendment. If a department is reorganized or disestablished, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may declare that any reference to that . . . Those are truly housekeeping. So the intent of this amendment really pertains to sections (a), (b), and (

c) of

section 2. It is the role of the Legisla tive Assembly to try and provide advice to the government. Again, we've argued that sober second thought could have saved certainly the previous government of Premier Getty from serious economic and financial mismanage- ment and this government as well. So with those comments I will soon conclude. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman's Ruling Speaking Order MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes anyone, hon. members, be reminded that you can't hand off as you can in football.

It comes back to the Chair, and in the give-and-take the Chair is obliged to go from one side to the other and so on. As long as there's a member willing to stand on the other side, then it'll go back and forth. Okay? We do have somebody from the other side. The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you're right. This is not like football, and this government does not intend to hand off responsibility in this Legislature that it has been duly elected to perform. Debate Continued MR. SMITH: The amendment is quite interesting, Mr. Chair- man.

In fact, in speaking to the amendment, the member clearly – clearly – has spent much of his academic time becoming an absolute expert in economic theory and going through that forgot to take political science 200, where it clearly defines the authority vested in the government. We govern, as I am so privileged to do at this point in my life. They oppose. In fact, if you take an old parliamentarian's quote about another one, he said: there goes a sheep in sheep's clothing. Well, there goes a socialist in Liberal's clothing.

What this amendment proposes to do is again overregulate, to again provide more restriction, to again provide a criticism against the government that it is not free to perform its duly elected functions, as is the mandate of the election. With respect to speaking to th e member's argument for the amendment, this government has taken more strides in a very short period of time to be indeed open and to be indeed account- able to the electorate at large, to the taxpayers, to the voters. We have for the first time in the history of this great province published a three-year business plan.

That three-year business plan clearly shows to the electorate what's happening, what's coming, what's going on. It reflects the thousands of hours put together by dedicated public servants, by dedicated standing policy chairmen, who in fact spent countless hours up here, outside of their constituencies, in order to help this government concentrate on clear and important policy issues. The government has for the first time in the history of Alberta provided public disclosure of salaries. It's an ongoing process where we take one brick at a time, Mr.

Chairman, and we build a full sidewalk of accountabil- ity on which the taxpayers and the voters of Alberta can walk to

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2827 this Legislature. The Assembly in itself and by definition of the parliamentary system it is clear that the final accountability rests with the government to the electorate, to the taxpayer. 3:20 Further evidence of what this government has done in terms of being able to provide its electorate and its taxpayers and indeed the citizens of this province is the publication Seizing Opportunity, where it clearly makes a commitment, Mr. Chairman, to create an increase in export marketing opportunities from $19 billion to $24 billion.

It makes a commitment to provide an environment where the private sector can create 1 10,000 jobs. It was quite interesting. I listened carefully to the phones this morning, ensuring that everybody in Calgary-Varsity had absolute direct access to the Legislature, to the dome. I waited. I waited patiently, Mr. Chairman, all morning to hear the calls come in to say, "I just loved your impassioned argument to the subamendment on the reasoned amendment to Bill 41." The phone has yet to ring on that specific topic. This Bill 41 amendment put forth by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Whitemud is clearly just more evidence of the fact that they will use this Assembly to re tard progress, to be absolutely unfair to the electorate. I mean, Mr. Chairman, it's very clear in this amendment that he is actually asking the government to abdicate its responsibility. That is not the purpose of this government. This government wants to stand full square in front of the electorate, in front of the taxpayer and say: "Here's where we came from. Here's what we did. Here's where we're going.

We're prepared to stand to you on election day and ask for that accountability." While we're moving along that sidewalk that I talked to you about earlier, Mr. Chairman, we will in fact be, for the first time in Canadian history, providing quarterly business reports: quarterly reports to shareholders – taxpayers, voters, citizens of Alberta – information on what their government, the government of Alberta, is doing in the proper custodial management of the public purse. This has not been done before. We're reacting. We're putting it in their frame of reference.

We're putting it in generally accepted accounting principles, something that's never been done before. The r eaction from that has been extremely positive from the electorate, from the citizens of Alberta. It's important that we continue responding not to what 31 members opposite are saying but in fact responding to 1.7 million voters, 2.8 million Albertans. They want to know. They want us to be directly accountable to them, and we intend to do that. Bill 41, in fact, continues to reinforce that acc ountability.

It continues to reflect the reality of the fact that the electorate have come to us, people who work for a living, people who look after occupational health and safety. [interjections] Give it to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I wonder if we could just . . . MR. SMITH: Thank you. Actually, we're doing fine right here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, good. Just you and I. MR. SMITH: Let them pick it up as they go along.

The ability for what has now become to the opposition, who oppose while we govern, the bogeyman of delegated regulatory organizations is in fact a clear response to industry and individ- ual's requests who say: "How can you be more accountable to me in my everyday worksite? How can you be more accountable as a government in my worksite, in my paycheque, in the everyday walk of life?" Let me give you an example. Previous to occupying this chair beside my hon. partner here, I was involved in professions and occupations.

Professions and occupations administers a great array of legislation, as the Chair knows from his competent past in professions and occupations. Y ou know, then, Mr. Chairman, that you in fact have well over 125,000 individuals working in an environment that has a vast amount of regulation that has been changed and followed by government. Changes to those professional regulations have been made in committee rooms with specific representation by specific professions and in fact represent only corners of the entire structure. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if you were to take this model now – and of course this is a bit of a long example, but it's a very practical example, and it clearly indicates why the amendment can't be supported and is frivolous but not vexatious.

Professions and occupations will have the ability under this to be directly account- able to the 125,000 professionals, and through an exchange of fees they would then be responsible for administering the legislation, providing regulation to the professions, and reporting to a board of directors made up from the government, from the public, and from the professions, clearly and openly showing financial responsibility, progress reports, business results. It would be a much more open forum than it has been traditionally.

So in fact by putting one of these delegated regulatory organiza- tions to work with professions and occupations, one, the govern- ment can save upwards of a million dollars, which is already down from a million three during your time, Mr. Chairman. Secondly, it would provide an open, wide-encompassing forum; and thirdly, it would be more responsive and decisions would be made more quickly with greater facility and with greater benefit to the citizens of Alberta. So it's clear when you take an example like that that this amendment just can't be supported.

The ability for individuals who are involved in occupational health and safety, pressure and boilers, the safety associations of the oil industry – these individua ls are saying, and they are responding quite correctly: "We can take on more. Y ou don't have to be big government anymore. Y ou don't have to respond to the Liberal way of government, which is oppressive regulation which is tied up endlessly in meaningless legislature debates." No, Mr.

Chairman, these people want to take on the responsibility of self-governance, and if you've ever had the privilege of being raised, as I had, in a boys' school like Notre Dame College of Wilcox, you would find the importance of peer governance. In fact, that peer governance is an even stronger level of governance than anything that a government can impose on a group of individuals. So you'll find that the DRO, the delegated regulatory organization, is nothing more than a mechanism . . . Point of Order Relevance MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud is rising on a point of order. DR.

PERCY: Relevance. Beauchesne 453. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 453? DR. PERCY: Excuse me; 459 MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. Which, for the benefit of others, is relevance.

2828 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 3:30 DR. PERCY: The hon. member, although making a strong argument, is speaking of something that's not relevant to the amendment at hand, which is specific to a particular

section of the Bill. He will have ample opportunity when we intr oduce an amendment there to address the issue that he currently is address- ing. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. That issue of relevance is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because in fact, like so many of their amendments you cannot take out one specific part of this Bill, address it with some frivolous amendment without realizing: what does this thing do when it gets legs? What happens when this Bill becomes legislation and somebody comes up to you in High River and says: how does this affect me?

Well, in fact, in response to being accountable to the House, I am trying to relate specific examples, but of course the high level of debate from the party opposite would indicate that practical examples have no place in this Legislature. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would reflect that we have an interesting Bill before us. There is the general admonition to stay relevant to the Bill or stay relevant to the amendment. One of the awkward things is that at the commencement of the debate on this particular Bill we had before us an amendment.

So if one presupposes that some people had done some homework and had their speeches somewhat crafted before coming in, the admonition at best, then, is to try and make whatever they have relevant to the amendment, not knowing what the amendment was going to be beforehand. What I would do is agree somewhat with the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. There were moments when I wondered whether or not you were drifting away from the amendment; however, you would then come back. Let's hope that when you do come back to the amendment, as we are asking you to do, you stay as closely to it as you can. Debate Continued MR.

SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, when government steers and the private sector rows, it is so difficult from a conceptual standpoint to address totally in specifics something that says: striking "Lieutenant Governor in Council" and substituting "Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recom- mendation of the Assembly." Another clear reason why I just can't support this amendment. I'm trying to use all my persuasive powers to let other members of this House know that there's very little basis for support of this amendment. In fact,

section 2, if I may, Mr. Chairman, provides for the creation of new departments or the changing of the names of existing departments. Presently legislation is required to establish new departments, legislation through due process through this House. Departments are established or disestablished or names of departments are changed when ministers are added to or deleted from cabinet or the names of portfolios are changed. In fact, what we are doing and what this Government Organization Act does specifically in

section 2, to which the amendment is directed, is totally consistent with the parliamentary model of government which we follow. It doesn't give full rein to the disintegration of society as we know it, the ongoing inability for the members opposite to be involved in government. The system isn't struc- tured that way. We govern; they oppose. So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to thank you for, again, your careful guidance and steerage through this difficult task of speaking to frivolous and time-wasting amendments and not clearly being able to develop the total concept of – and this is important – the Government Organization Act. It is not the government reorganization Act. It is the Government Organiza- tion Act.

Another reason why I think this amendment cannot be supported is that it is in fact inconsiste nt with the arguments from the members opposite, both with respect to their debate last night on Bill 45 and in their other areas speaking to the principle and to the subamendment and to the reasoned amendment of this Bill. So having said that, Mr.

Chairman, and thanking this House for the time, hoping to be able to provide further light on what is a housekeeping Bill that is destined to clean up legislation that has been in force since 1905 and change some of the "thereto's" and "with respect to's" and also introduce the ability for citizens of Alberta to become again more actively involved with their government, I would again strongly suggest to the members that this amendment not be supported. Thank you. MR. DECORE: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. The amendment adds to

section 2(1) of Bill 41 a requirement that decisions that affect government be determined by this Assembly, by this forum. We often hear the words: this forum is the highest court in our province. It is the ultimate forum of our province. Now, I suppose we wouldn't have to worry too much if we just looked at this

section and there was nothing else in this Act that would perk up our ears and our eyes. But there is. What perks up our ears and our eyes are sections 9 and 10 of Bill 41 that say that a minister can "delegate any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on him . . . to any person." Then it says in

section 10 that "a Minister may enter into agreements on or in connection with any matter under the Minister's administration." The last time I spoke in this Assembly, I talked about Bill 57, which then takes this concept in sections 9 and 10 of Bill 41 further and allows for the creation of corporations to take over delegated authority for ministers. Corporations, the last time I looked at the Business Corporations Act in Alberta, are entities that make money.

So what we're dealing with is a concept that the government is putting forward that says: we want the right to delegate authority that used to be handled by this forum to entities that are going to make profit when they undertake that delegated authority. So we have to be vigilant. We have to be careful. We have to ensure that this Asse mbly looks after and determines what's best for Albertans. I thought it interesting when the hon. Member for Calgary- V arsity kept talking about, "We govern; they oppose." I think he's got it a little wrong. This is the highest forum in Alberta. This is the court of last resort.

This is where Bills, motions, initiatives are put forward and passed by elected representatives who represent all of the people of Alberta. It's a great honour for me to come here for my constituency and to offer options or advice or critique on an agenda that's put forward by the party that gets the majority. That's a big difference, hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, putting forward an agenda and believing, as you appear to believe, that you can run roughshod over people, that "We govern; they oppose." Well, "We govern; they oppose" doesn't mean that you slam or ram things down people's throats.

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2829 I took a moment to look at the BNA Act of our country and to look at the Constitution Act that followed – we now call it the Constitution Act – and look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to see if there was some sort of definition of government that says: here's the way an Assembly, House of Commons, or a Legislature should function; here's the way we set up a cabinet; here are the responsibilities of cabinet members and so on.

There's nothing in the British North America Act, or the Constitu- tion Act of Canada, that says ministerial responsibility works in such and such a way. There's nothing in here that says a cabinet works in such and such a way. There's nothing in the BNA Act that says that an agenda should be put forward in such and such a way by the majority party.

These are things that come to us by custom over many centuries, these customs having started in England and then moving to our country, where custom is then set into some codified forums that tell us how we do these things. 3:40 The custom of parliamentary democracy from England isn't very difficult to understand. We had a system where kings and queens ran roughshod over the people of England. "We govern by divine right and rule" was the creed that the monarchs had. There was an uprising, and that uprising led to the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta established that people would be elected, that there would be representation from the people of England, that moneys couldn't be raised willy-nilly and spent willy-nilly unless the elected representatives, advising the monarch – and the monarch had to take that advice – debated it and understood it. That forum, that ultimate forum, that court of last resort, made those determinations. That's what democracy is all about. It's not: we govern; they oppose. It's not the old monarch: I'm in charge and they'd better follow suit.

When we look at all of the precedents – I quoted some the other day when I talked about ministerial responsibility – it says in those essays and those writings in Canada that we have a cabinet, and cabinet members are given certain responsibilities, their ministe- rial responsibility and so on. There's nothing in the BNA Act that says that you can delegate to a corporation, and I think this flies in the face of exactly what that custom and that usage and that codification of the English parliamentary system is all about. That's why, hon.

Member for Calgary-Varsity, we have to stand and now start to protect and put forward options that ensure that that basic tentative English democracy, Canadian democracy isn't whittled away by this corporation business that you want to establish, this business of running roughshod over Albertans, having power delegated to corporations that make profit. This is an important amendment, and it must be taken in context with sections 9 and 10 of Bill 41, and it must be taken in context with what is set out in Bill 57. Just as a matter of interest, I smiled when the hon.

Member for Calgary-Varsity said that their government, his government, was putting matters forward in proper general acc ounting practices. Well, how can it be proper general accounting practices when you deal with Bill 41, which takes you to Bill 57, and Bill 57 says in section (13)(1)(

a) that the Financial Administration Act of Alberta doesn't have to be followed. So if you delegate authority from a minister to some corporation that's going to make a profit when an AISH person comes to this corporation, when you do that, you don't have to follow the rules and regulations of the Financial Administration Act. That was part of the Magna Carta: putting some mechanisms in place that ensured that the monarch wasn't running roughshod, grabbing money and spending it willy-nilly as he or she wanted. The Financial Administration Act talks about a Treasury Board that watches expenditures and revenue.

It talks about the responsibilities of a Treasurer. The "Treasurer is responsible for the collection, management and control of the revenue" that comes to the Crown and of moneys that leave and are spent for certain things. It talks about the need for public accounts, that there is a mandatory requirement when you're in government and you are taking money from people and giving back or spending it in some way that you have to acknowledge. Y ou have to set it out on paper exactly how it comes in, and you have to audit it. Y ou have to show exactly how it goes out, and you have to audit it.

So these aren't the general accounting principles that parliamen- tary democracy knows and expects. This is a very different animal that I've never heard of in Canada before. The only thing I know of that comes close to this is the system in Montana, where they come together once every two years and sort of say hello to each other and leave everything for others who have been delegated authority. That's not the system of government that we're used to in Canada or in England or the Commonwealth as we knew it. Mr. Chairman, the matters here have to be taken in context with other sections in this Bill.

This Bill must be taken in context and looked at with Bill 57. We're now on guard as the opposition to provide options and to provide critique. I don't want people running roughshod in the collection of money like these corpora- tions can do without any kind of accountability to Albertans. That's why this amendment is important for us to support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair would ask for unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Guests. All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Opposed, please say no. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister responsible for science and research. MRS. MIROSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to interrupt this exciting process of democracy and introduce constituents of mine from Calgary-Glenmore and, most important, their parents, who are here from Quito, Ecuador. I'd first like to introduce Ruben and Olga Endara from Ecuador and Monica and Keith Carson with their newest addition, Michelle Marie Carson.

Please give them a warm welcome. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole Bill 41 Government Organization Act (continued) MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to support the amendment in that I believe it is designed to keep power where it belongs and that power in this Legislature.

2830 Alberta Hansard November 3, 1994 Within days we'll stand with Canadians across this country and pause to reflect upon those people who served and those people who died in two wars in order that we may live the kind of privileged lives that each of us and our families do. Members in this Assembly will attend ceremonies, and they'll deliver solemn invocations. Members will lay wreaths with symbolic poppies at the foot of war memorials, and members will take

part in school ceremonies as we struggle to ensure that the terrible price paid by many of our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents was not in vain and that that sacrifice will be remembered by our children and we hope by their children after them. When we bow our heads, Mr. Chairman, when we stand in silence, I would ask members to think of that democracy that was defended and that democracy that was rescued.

I'd ask us to think about the rescuers and what they expected of us, of those who would follow, to think about democracy itself, to think about how unpredictable and how tenuous an enterprise it is. In my view, Mr. Chairman, in this Assembly we've tended to forget that. We've forgotten that democracy depends upon the everyday actions of citizens. We've forgotten that our political actions, that citizens' political actions and their political thinking in part depends and is based on what is done in this Assembly.

We've forgotten that you cannot tear down and criticize and abuse an institution and expect it to survive. We've forgotten that as we mouth our cynical comments about the evils of government, we are tearing at the very fabric of that democracy. We have forgotten that the very distrust in government we engender gnaws at what others gave their lives to protect. 3:50 We do not understand that when we encourage a press that feeds off political scandals, we help whet a public appetite that demeans the very government we say that we prize.

We've forgotten that the polls that count in a democracy are not those polls that show party X is in front of party Y or that the popular- ity of leader A is better than the popularity of leader B. There are other polls: the polls that show that in terms of public trust, politicians, the people in this Assembly, are at the very bottom of the list. We've forgotten much about our obligations to democ- racy, but it appears that the crafters of Bill 41 have forgotten about democracy altogether, and this

section that we want to amend along with companion sections such as

section 9 of the Act are proof of that. As we bow our heads on November 1 1, there will be much to think about. When we think about democracy and we think about this Bill and its companion Bill, Bill 57, we must ask ourselves: what are some things about this legislation that are worthy of our support? Does the legislation, for instance, enhance the rights of all citizens to influence political decisions? Does it make it possible for my neighbours, for my constituents to have greater power in the decisions that are made in this Legislature? Does the legislation give power to citizens over their affairs?

Will things that affect their lives be more in their purview than they were before the legislation was introduced? Does the legislation allow elected members of the Assembly to monitor activities, those activities that have been paid for by public tax dollars? Does the legislation add to openness? Does it help to build confidence and a culture of public trust in elected officials? [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] The answer of course to those questions is no, this particular piece of legislation and in particular this section. Here is a Bill that replaces accountable public servants with private corporation employees.

Here is a Bill that replaces legislative powers with ministerial power. Here is a Bill that replaces openness with secrecy. Here is a Bill that replaces selected fees with universal fees. Here is a Bill that repl aces limits on ministerial authority with carte blanche operations. Mr. Chairman, here is a government that wants to control many things. It wants to control the age when students drink. It wants to control when and where they buy cigarettes. It wants to control what owners do with wrecked cars. It wants to control the hours that professors will t each in classrooms.

It's a story of control and manipulation in the cultural field, but it's also a story of a government willing to turn over, as this legislation exhibits, with little or with no constrai nt the most sensitive work of government to the business field. Mr. Chairman, Remembrance Day will be a time when we pause and recall that humans are capable of great deeds, that humans are courageous and have the ability to commit selfless acts. Unfortunately, they also are capable of duplicity and abuse of power, and I believe that is what Bill 41 exemplifies. I ask all members to support the amendment. Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you. I, too, am rising in support of the amendment. I think what needs to be looked at is the view that up to this point in time the government members have had with regards to the whole notion of democracy and debate. I listened with interest last night when the hon. Minister of Labour got up and said: oh, well, we do partake in debate, and we are involved in debate, and we in fact have had six members who have spoken to Bill 41.

Now, I did some research or our understaffed research department did this morning, and it is true that there were six speakers from the government side of the House that spoke to Bill 41 before it was brought to closure. They spoke for a total of 29 minutes. Twenty-nine minutes. The total time of debate was seven hours and 49 minutes. Seven hours and 49 minutes of debate and they spoke for 29 minutes. We had a total of 23 speakers, who I'm sure if you look through Hansard asked some very relevant questions, and therefore it brought us to the amendments that we have in front of us.

This one being that we look at ensuring that democracy within this Legislative Assembly is supreme and that this democ- racy talks about a give-and-take and talks about the fact that the Lieutenant Governor in Council does not in a secret room somewhere make regulations, establish departments, designate ministers, change departments or reorganize them without the public scrutiny that our amendment would bring forward.

Our amendment says, "Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Assembly." Now, I think if you look at the past record, which of course we will be doing, of other Bills that were brought to closure, in terms of the amount of debate within this Legislative Assembly you would see that, yes, I guess there is the thinking perhaps that the only reason for the loyal opposition is to oppose. But in fact the reason for the loyal opposition is much more than that and is much broader than that.

It allows for the ability for questions and answers, hopefully, to be brought to the attention of the public, for there to be various points of view brought forward, for there to be reasonable debate, which is some give-and-take. I note with interest that something has spurred the Member for Calgary-Varsity to suddenly take

part in debate. I congratulate him for that, because up to last night, the total time the Member

November 3, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2831 for Calgary-Varsity ever decided to spend with regards to Bill 41 was three minutes. Three full minutes. So there must have been lots of answers coming forth from the member at that point in time. Now, I think what we are of course looking at is that this particular Bill and, to start with the Bill,

section 2 is a dangerous precedent. This is not streamlining legislation. This is not liberation legislation, and I'd love to have an answer in terms of what we are being liberated from. What that legislation does, then, is it erodes accountability and accessibility, and what it provides is the ability to govern by regulation, deregulation, or privatization. What we are seeing, however, is that in perhaps some of the attitudes – and I'm saying "perhaps" – there is a mockery of the democratic process and perhaps that is being reflected within the legislation that has been brought forward to us.

Perhaps the attitude is: we don't need to discuss this with anybody. We see it of course in Bill 57, where it talks about "at least," and maybe I should say that probably that will mean only one public meeting when major changes are being done, that there is no room for discussion, and discussion breeds accountability. 4:00 What I see is that there are questions that then arise. The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity brought up about the three-year business plans and how wonderful they are. I guess the three-year business plans are showing what the cuts are but aren't showing what the provisions are going to be.

Again, that brings me back to the amendment. By looking at the amendment, what it does is say that it has to be brought on the recommendation of the Assembly. So again it's brought in under the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, in the three-year business plans there are no performance measures and there's no benchmarking. When we start to talk about shareholders taking part, I begin to wonder – and this again is from the Member for Calgary-Varsity – what profits, I guess, the member is referring to.

Perhaps when we look at Bill 57, we can see that within that Bill there is the allowance for profits to occur. Now, I think when we look at this particular Bill and we look at where this Bill leads to – it says that the minister has various abilities, but again those abilities are only under the provisions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. They don't need to come back to the Legislative Assembly. They don't need to be under public scrutiny. They don't need to have any kind of accountability. In fact, what we are looking at is a shedding of government services and programs and increased user fees.

Now, I've heard over and over again, "Well, you know, nobody cares what we do in here, and nobody sees what the impact is." Well, unfortunately people are seeing the impact of what's being done in here every day right now. When you look at in Calgary, in particular, the hospitals that have been closed or are in the process of being closed, that's what comes out of a decision within this Legislative Assembly. When you look at decisions that are made with regards to safety codes areas and with regards to occupational health and safety . . . [interjection] Y ou really must take care of that cough.

MS CALAHASEN: Thank you. MS LEIBOVICI: Y ou're welcome. . . . then I think what you see is that there are problems in terms of what the increase is to individuals using those services. What the increase is is increased user fees. Now, this government can talk that there is no increased taxes. Well, I know that whenever someone puts their hand in their pocket, pulls out their wallet, and has to pay for something, then that to them will be seen as an increased tax. Again, these are all decisions that are going to be made without having to come to the Legislative Assembly for recommendation.

That is why this amendment has been put forward, so that in fact the Lieutenant Governor in Council cannot alone make those decisions, so that those decisions are made on the recommendation of the Assembly. Now, what are the reasons for this? Again I am asked about that. I think we've established that, yes, what happens in this Legislative Assembly does impact on individuals and individuals' lives either in a direct or indirect manner.

What we now need to look at is what in fact are either the benefits or what in fact will be the outcomes of having legislation that allows for essentially privatization of just about everything. I think when we look at the example of the Alberta Liquor Control Board and the privatization that occurred there, what we see is that . . . [interjection] Taber-Warner, I think, was clapping. [interjections] Who was clapping? I couldn't see. I knew it came from there. [interjections] Oh, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's hard to see when your hands are under- neath.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I guess if you were to take a survey of people in terms of whether they're satisfied with the cost, whether they're satisfied with the service, and whether they're satisfied with the selection, I think on a rating of one to 10, you'd be lucky if you got five on those three levels. [interjec- tion] No, somehow I don't think it would be 10 out of 10. If you're lucky, you'd get five out of 10 on each one of those.

I think if we used that as an example as to what the potentiality is when government looks at a headlong process of privatization, deregulation, and contracting out with no thought except the bottom line of "let's see what we can divest ourselves of and get our budget down to zero," then what happens is that you do end up with less service, more costs, and less choices. So even though the decision was made prior to coming to the Legislative Assembly, at least there was a semblance of debate that occurred with the ALCB.

When we look at the example of the registries, at least that issue came to the Legislative Assembly. If this particular Bill is passed without this amendment, which again allows for

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19941103
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S2 19941103 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3eac5a731d6bb3fa56a2825233a4cb421e48d023

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