April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1547 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 28, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/04/28 [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. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, I'm pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Mr.

Johng-Won Kang, consul general for Korea in Vancouver, who is in Alberta on his first official visit since becoming appointed consul in October of 1993. Mr. Kong is accompanied by Mr. C hun, who is the consul. Korea is an important market for Alberta coal, petrochemicals, and agricul- tural products and is our third largest trading partner. Since 1974 Alberta has maintained a special relationship with the Korean province of Kangwon. During the Premier's mission to Asia last fall he met with Kangwon's governor. I would ask that Mr. Kang and Mr.

Chun rise in the gallery and receive the warm recognition of this Assembly. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, also seated in your gallery today I'm pleased to introduce the hon. Jim Abbott, Reform MP for the constituency of Kootenay East. He is here from British Columbia watching democracy in Alberta. Joining him also are his son Dan, his daughter Darlene Day, who is married to his son-in-law, Matthew Day, who happens to be my brother coincidentally, and Mrs. Abbott is there also. I would ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Rocky Mountain House. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition today signed by approximately 145 people from the Rocky M ountain House constituency and areas around including Edmonton and Calgary. They're very concerned about the Special Places 2000 initiative, and they're very worried that in fact large tracts of land are going to be put aside and access restricted. MR. BRACKO: Mr. Speaker, I'm presenting a petition from the residents of St.

Albert, Morinville, Legal, Onoway, Bon Accord, Edson, Smith, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Whitecourt who 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, and the Counties of Athabasca, Barrhead, Lac Ste. Anne, Parkland and Westlock. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would beg your leave to present a petition signed by residents of Bawlf, Alberta. It's a petition protesting the cuts in ECS funding. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of 48 concerned c itizens from Edmonton- Avonmore and Edmonton-Gold Bar urging the Government not to alter funding arrangements for Alberta's Seniors Lodges and Seniors Subsidized Apartments until Seniors have been [properly] consulted and have agreed to any revisions to funding arrangements.

Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 12 I introduced a petition with the names of 346 Edmontonians opposing the erosion of government support for health, education, and social services. I ask that that petition now be read and received.

CLERK: We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to reconsider the cuts made to Social Assistance and in the future to consult broadly with clients, labour and profes- sionals to determine where savings can be made that will not harm Alberta families. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I tabled on April 1 1 now be read and received.

CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to continue funding kindergarten at the current level, allowing each and every child in Alberta the opportunity to r eceive 400 hours of kindergarten instruction, without placing undue financial stress on Alberta families by the imposition of user fees. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. MR. ZARIWNY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now ask that the petition I tabled from Strathcona Place lodge on April 18 be read and received.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government not to alter the level of support for all benefits for Alberta's seniors until seniors have been consulted and have agreed to any revisions. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would request that the petition I tabled on April 1 1 now be read.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government not to alter funding arrangements for Alberta's Seniors Lodges and Seniors Subsidized Apartments until Seniors have been consulted and have agreed to any revisions to funding arrange- ments. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan.

1548 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table 500 coupons that support "Don't cut education, Ralph. Protect it!" Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HENRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a notice about a save kindergarten information night rally being held tonight at 6:30 at the Butterdome. head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have the pleasure of introducing two Calgarians: Mr. and Mrs. Perry and Muriel Hein. I worked with Mr. and Mrs.

Hein for a number of years at the Calgary Bow Valley centre. They've recently retired and are here today to celebrate their 37th wedding anniversary. We're pleased they've chosen Edmonton for that celebration. I'd ask that the members help me give them the warm welcome of the Assembly. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 27 visitors from Consort school in Consort, Alberta, in the constitu- ency of Chinook. The visitors are the grade 9 class.

I'm sure the class is delighted to be in Edmonton to experience a number of learning opportunities, but also they are undergoing a massive renovation of their school, so I think it's probably useful for them to be out for a day or two. They are accompanied by a number of staff and supervisors, but they particularly wanted me to introduce Joelle Fawcett, their class president, as their class organized this trip. I would ask them all to stand and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. MR. KLEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to you and to other Members of the Legislative Assembly three individuals who are attending the Professional Council of Licensed Practical Nurses annual conven- tion here in Edmonton. I would like to ask Tom Minhinnett, Eileen McRae, and Sharon Reimer to stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, we all know how busy the Premier of Alberta is, and oftentimes he doesn't have the necessary minutes in a day or hours in a week to visit with all of his family.

So today we're very pleased to introduce four members of his family who have come to visit him in the Legislature Building. With us today are Darren and Tammy Klein from Edmonton and Lynn and Sharon Klein from Victoria, British Columbia. They've come to see their favourite brother and brother-in-law. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. 1:40 MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of this Legislative Assembly a young woman who holds a very special place in my heart. Her name is Natasha Thapar.

She is accompanied today by 29 of her classmates who are grade 6 students at Ellerslie elementary junior high school and also by their t eacher Mrs. Phyllis Olson and their counselor Ms Bev Gable. I ask that they all rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assem- bly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's with great pleasure today that I introduce to you 15 visitors from the community of Rosemary in my constituency. Rosemary is a very vibrant community, and they've certainly traveled a long way to be here today.

There are 10 grade 8 students accompanied by Mr. David Blumell, their teacher, and parents Mrs. Merle Blumell, Mrs. Mirjam Janzen, Mr. Jorgen Lindved-Jensen, and Mrs. Donna Janzen. I'd ask you to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. BRASSARD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly a friend of mine from Calgary: Mr. Sam Ameri. Sam just returned from a well-deserved holiday in Lebanon, where he celebrated his 94th birthday. He also happens to be the father of one of my colleagues.

I wonder if he would stand and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you five individuals, parents and a child, who are concerned about the future of children's education and are here to watch the stimulating debate in this Legislative Assembly. They are Elsie Barry, Rhonda Ouimet, Marcelle Arnold, Elaine Brander and her three-year-old child, Quinn. If they would please stand and receive the warm welcome of the House.

Thank you. head: Ministerial Statements Day of Mourning for Injured Workers MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker and fellow members of the Legislature, I'd like to take a few moments here this afternoon to bring an important item to your attention. Today, the 28th day of April, is the day on which the Canadian labour movement recognizes those workers who have been injured, killed, or had their health affected on the job or as a result of their work. I'd like to take this opportunity to express the government's support for this initiative.

Industry, labour, and government are the major partners in the goal to safe and healthy Alberta workplaces. There's no doubt we are seeing improvements in this area, and Alberta continues to have one of the best workplace health and safety records in the country. But incidents continue to occur, and Alberta workers continue to suffer injury or illness as a result. The number of work-related injuries experienced by Alberta workers has declined from more than 43,000 lost-time injuries in 1990 to fewer than 32,000 in 1993.

The rate of injury has also declined from 5 percent in 1990 to an anticipated rate of less than 4 percent in 1993. Nevertheless, provincial occupational health and safety investigators responded in 1993 to 25 workplace fatalities. This was a decrease from the 36 workplace fata lities investigated in 1992, but it does reflect the reality that even one death is one too many. In total the Alberta Workers' Compensa- tion Board accepted claims for 77 work-related deaths, which would also include motor vehicle fatalities, in 1993, and this was a decrease again from the 1992 fatality claims, which were 99.

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1549 This government is committed to seeing a continued reduction in the number of work-related injuries and fatalities. The Alberta Labour business plan and its focus on increasing the extent of government partnerships with industry and labour will help to see this goal attained. This year is of course also the International Y ear of the Family, and it's vital that we remember that work-related injury, illness, and death has a devastating effect on individuals and their families. These events also have a negative effect on Alberta's economy.

Workplace accidents have been estimated to cost our economy more than $1 billion per year. There is much more work to be done. New prevention-focused initiatives, such as the growth of health and safety associations and increasing partnerships among labour, industry, and govern- ment, are leading the way. Today is a day when we can all pause and take a moment to think about those Albertans who have been injured as a result of their work.

Every day, however, is a day to think about prevent- ing future incidents as well as to think about the health and safety of our families, our employees, and all of those around us. Much like any issue we can only continue to make positive strides by enhancing our focus on health and safety as an everyday part of what we do, not just today. Today I will be joining a group of Red Deer and area injured workers to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for injured workers. Similar events are occurring across this province.

I'd like to conclude by commending the labour movement in this province for those commemorative, positive, and constructive events being organized for today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I first met this request for a commemoration day for injured workers and workers who have died when I was the mayor of Edmonton. I saw firsthand the feeling that workers had for their colleagues, for their fellow workers who had died or who had been affected in the workplace. This is a very genuine feeling that they have towards their colleagues, those fellow workers.

So for that I congratulate labour organizations in what they've done to alert Canadians to the sad fact of injuries in the workplace, deaths in the workplace and congratulate them for sensitizing Canadians, Albertans to what happens in the workplace. The hon. minister has talked about the fact that deaths in the workplace have reduced. That's true. S till in 1993 in Alberta there were some 77 deaths in the workplace. He talked about the number of injuries in the workplace having been reduced, and that is also good news, but even just short of 32,000 is still too many injured workers.

It's interesting to note that there is an increase in the incidence of injury to women in the workplace. This is, I think, very troubling and must be something that legislators are very much aware of and monitoring. The first thing this Assembly must do is to send their condo- lences to the families of the workers who have died in the workplace in Alberta, those 77 families. The second is to express the concern that members of the labour community have expressed to our caucus, and that is their belief that the government's move to privatize safety inspections is one that is fraught with danger.

The government will be sending this work out to private-sector entrepreneurs, work that was previously done by government inspectors. The labour community sees that there is danger in the fact that there may not be a standard kind of process throughout the province. They see the danger that the bureaucracy in Alberta, what's left of it in this area, may not be properly monitoring and picking up the things that are happening in the workplace to stop workplaces where there should be stoppage of work. They see, Mr.

Speaker, the danger that with private inspections there is likely to be more negotiation and less stoppage of work where there is real danger to the workplace people. Our plea therefore, Mr. Speaker, is that all legislators be sensitized to the fact that the best possible legislation must exist for Alberta people in the workplace. The last thing I ask for, Mr. Speaker, is for you to ask this Assembly to have a moment's silence for those 77 individuals who died in the workplace this year and others. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree with this request? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried.

Please be seated. head: Oral Question Period 1:50 Catholic School System MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Alberta has stood in this Assembly and has cha llenged the Catholic community of Alberta on many occasions – many occasions – to come forward with ideas on how to solve the crisis that faces Catholic education in Alberta. Well, Catholics did that, and they did it in good faith, and not very long ago, Friday in fact, the minister agreed with the Catholic boards and the lawyers representing both sides to an agreement to solve all the problems. We now know, Mr.

Premier, that your government scuttled this plan. Mr. Premier, how can you shoot down, how can you scupper a deal that's a win/win for both sides, a deal that Catholics liked and your own minister accepted? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. Minister of Education met again today with authorities from the Catholic school districts, and he may wish to s upplement relative to that meeting. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education. MR. JONSON: Y es, Mr. Speaker. The meeting was I think very civil, very constructive. We will be having further discussions.

I've clarified our position as a government, and we will be having further discussions. I would like to make a further comment which is very impor- tant, and that is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should concentrate more on what's happening in his caucus rather than try and inaccurately portray what is happening in ours. This news release, Mr. Speaker, is inaccurate on a number of points, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease inciting and causing confusion in terms of a very serious debate on education. MR. DECORE: Well, what this caucus knows is that . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier of Alberta to give us the specifics of what wasn't acceptable to your government in the deal that was made between the Catholic boards and the minister. What were the specifics that you don't agree with? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of things that are considered through negotiations. Those negotiations are ongoing.

1550 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 As I indicated, the minister met with the Catholic school jurisdic- tions today, and what we want to do . . . MR. HENRY: Be specific, Ralph. MR. KLEIN: Are you ready to listen now? Are you ready to listen? [interjection] Fine. Mr. Speaker, we want to achieve three things that will be good for all Albertans and will be good for the Catholic school districts. We want to make sure that their constitutional rights are pro- tected, and we are making sure that that is done.

We want to make sure that students throughout this province are given the opportunity for equal education, so we want to create fiscal equity, and of course, we have the long-term objective through this whole program of restructuring and reorganization of reaching our financial target of a balanced budget by 1996-1997. MR. DECORE: It was a pretty easy question to answer. I'd like to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. DECORE: Mr. Premier, why is it that you intend to break the Catholics on this issue? Why do you keep beating them down? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, far be it for me to break down the Catholics on this issue. My wife is a Catholic, and I'm sure that within this caucus there are many, many Catholics and people who are married to Catholics. There is no intention whatsoever to attack Catholics. To attack Catholics: I think that is such an unfortunate use of words.

What we are trying to do is simply create a scenario, a scenario, by the way, which is supported by about 83 percent of the Catholic school districts in this province, that will achieve fiscal equity, that will provide the Catholics with their constitu- tional rights, and that will allow us to meet our financial targets. I'll ask the hon. minister to supplement. MR. JONSON: I would like to just supplement the answer of the hon. Premier, Mr.

Speaker, and that is that there has been very strong leadership in providing fair and equitable funding to the students of this province, something that the members across the way do not seem to be very interested in. I think we should think about students here whether they be in the public or separate school system. That's what's important here. [interjection] MR. DECORE: Y ou're going to get your chance in a moment. Just . . . MR. SPEAKER: Second main question. Kindergarten Programs MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Education dumped a thousand studies in this Assembly to try to fool Albertans into believing that kindergarten cuts are harmless. Experts have now pored through those studies and say that not one – not one – supports the government's claim that children won't suffer, and, listen to this, Mr. Treasurer, they say that most of the studies are irrelevant. Tonight a rally will take place with parents in Alberta that say that the government's plan is wrong. Mr.

Minister, how does the study into parental discipline that you tabled prove that cutting kindergarten in half is harmless? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on March 22 that I tabled a very comprehensive list of studies in the area of early childhood factors and programs. I think it's important to point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in case he has not had any time, since he's been reading the newspapers quite a bit lately, to look into those articles – for instance, we have an

article by Sergesketter and Gilman: "Results showed there was no significant difference in reading scores between full-day and half- day kindergarten students." I think this is necessary because they have not really looked into this. Then there is a very important study under the name of Kathleen Pinkett. Results indicated that advantaged children who attended preschool and advantaged children who did not attend preschool were not different in social and cognitive competence by the third grade. I could go on at some length from the material that I tabled. Speaker's Ruling Brevity MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair does believe the hon. minister could go on at length because of the nature of the question that was asked, but I think all hon. members should realize that time is limited in question period, and questions should be designed to elicit a brief answer. MR. DECORE: And time is limited for the children of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. 2:00 Kindergarten Programs (continued) MR. DECORE: Mr. Minister, here's one you tabled. Tell us how a study entitled Alternative Approaches to Thanksgiving proves your case. MR.

JONSON: The hon. member, I note, has taken one of the studies that is on the list of the pages that were copied. I admit that that has some diversionary value I suppose in question period. Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have the time to go through a number of other studies which are right on topic, which show that research has been done. People have worked hard at it. It is very inconclusive, and there's an important message there. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair believes that that information can be provided later this day when we are in second reading. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Minister, will you agree to go to the rally tonight and take one of those studies, one study that proves your case, and read it to the rally, and say, "Here's the proof for the action that we're taking"? Will you do that? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the point that has to be made here is that there is a considerable amount of research related to this topic. A great deal of effort and work has gone into it. It shows us a number of things. One is that there is no conclusive evidence that time factors and the overall long-term achievement of students are dramatically, positively affected by early childhood programs.

What it does say is that the nature of the program itself, the way it's structured and delivered is important, and Alberta Education is working on revising and improving the program for early childhood services. Secondly, it does indicate that for high-needs students there is a benefit in sociological terms, and we have continued special-needs funding for very young children. We have introduced an enhanced opportunity grant to deal with high- needs areas of our large cities, and we are following through on that.

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1551 North West Trust Company MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, for the last two weeks the Liberal opposition has demanded that the government take action to roll back the obscene salary and severance package that Mr. Gary Campbell will get as the CEO of North West Trust, who also just happens to be a Conservative fund-raiser. The Treasurer wrote a tame little letter saying: Mr. Campbell, examine the issue if you would.

Well, today at the annual general meeting of North West Trust the Treasurer gave the 99 percent controlling voting shares by proxy to none other than Gary Campbell, and there were no rollbacks. My first ques tion to the Treasurer is this: why didn't the Treasurer attend this most important meeting, which affects Albertans, and as the spokesman for those 99 percent of the shares tell them, "Roll it back"? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I wrote to the chairman of the corporation on April 19 and filed the letter in the Assembly and advised the Assembly that we had asked that the North West Trust Company board of directors review the remuneration and termination arrangements for executives and senior officers. I have been advised by the corporation that this matter is going to be brought forward to a board meeting in the near future, and I expect them to take the necessary action.

I must remind members of the Assembly that it was this government that spelled out in the Financial Administration Act that this kind of disclosure is required not only for government departments and agencies but for provincially owned agencies such as North West Trust Company. We've done that in this case with North West Trust. We've done that with senior officials in government. But funnily enough, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has not yet told Albertans how much he pays his staff. MR. DECORE: I want to know, Mr.

Treasurer, and Albertans want to know why you gave your proxy, the proxy of Albertans, 99 percent of the shares, to Gary Campbell so that he could go and vote his own severance package and his own salary. Why'd you do it? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the board of directors to take the necessary action with respect to salary, with respect to severance, and I expect that they will follow the direction of the government. MR. DECORE: Y ou're sounding pretty mousy today, Mr. Treasurer. Y ou're sounding pretty mousy.

I'd like the Treasurer to tell Albertans why he's allowing taxpayers' moneys to be squandered in the way they are being squandered at North West Trust and he doesn't do anything. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the corporation was able to advise shareholders this morning that the company's net income for this past year was $4.5 million, almost double what it was the previous year. So I believe that under those hands, the financial side, the business side of the operation has been in good hands. Speaking of mousy, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sitting beside a leader who got 100 percent votes from his party as opposed to 68 percent. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod. [interjections] Order. Speaker's Ruling Decorum MR. SPEAKER: I guess there's not much desire to make much headway in question period today. The Chair has had an indication that there are about 18 people who would like to ask questions today. MR. N. TA YLOR: We just ruined the Treasurer. What more do you want? MR. SPEAKER: Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, hon. member. [interjections] Order. The hon.

Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod. Nationwide Achievement Testing MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that across Canada national testing is taking place with respect to reading and writing. This is a follow-up to the national testing that took place in mathematics last spring. Many of my constitu- ents did not understand that those exams were national testing, and they didn't understand their purpose. My question today is to the Minister of Education.

Could you, hon. minister, please indicate if all provinces are participating, and how many Alberta students are involved in this national testing? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, all of the provinces and territories with the exception of the province of Saskatchewan are participat- ing in this nationwide test. Approximately 5,000 Alberta students are engaged as part of the Alberta sample for this overall testing activity. MR. COUTTS: Why have you, Mr. Minister, chosen to have Alberta students involved in this national exam? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, this is deemed by myself and by my department as a very important activity. It provides a comparison of achievement across our nation, which I think is important. We can learn in terms of the relationship of our achievement and test scores relative to other provinces.

The comparisons are useful, but more importantly the preparation that goes on with provinces working together to come up with the best possible examination and, most importantly, the results that we analyze in terms of improving our curriculum and the overall delivery of education in this province are very important to ourselves and to other provinces in Canada. 2:10 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister, then, please indicate how we came to be involved in this national program of testing? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the province of Alberta has been a leader in the student achievement indicators project. It was identified some time ago at the council of ministers meeting that there would be a constructive purpose served by bringing provinces together in terms of developing a joint testing effort across Canada, and also we would benefit from the interprovincial discussion about making sure our objectives in education across the country were strong objectives, that high standards were set, and that all the knowledge that is there in this nation on education could be shared.

1552 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. North West Trust Company (continued) DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning I was at the North West Trust meeting. The Provincial Treasurer wasn't, but his proxy was. That proxy was there to preserve the status quo. My questions are to the Provincial Treasurer.

Will the Provincial Treasurer confirm that of the $4.5 million in net income earned by North West Trust, $4.2 million comes from managing the NovAtel portfolio, which was given untendered, other administrative fees for managing government contracts, and also interest income on deposits held by North West Trust? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, the investment income of North West Trust in 1993 as reported this morning was some $78.2 million last year. Under that there were costs of funds of some $58 million, so net investment income was $19.5 million.

In addition to the $78.2 m illion of investment income, there was other income of mortgage and loan administration of $4.3 million, most of which comes from the NFI contract. So when I count $4.3 million and $78.2 million, that comes to nearly $82 million. That means that $4.3 million of the $82 million comes from the contract that North West Trust has with the provincial govern- ment. DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, can the Provincial Treasurer justify the remuneration package of management?

In particular, can he explain why board members receive an $8, 000 a year retainer, receive $100 to $250 per telep hone meeting attended? Can he explain why the chairman of the investment committee receives $2,000 a month for special assignments? Can he explain how that makes sense in light of the performance of the trust company? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, as for performance, the hon. member knows and acknowledges through briefings that the members of his research caucus have received that here's a company that started off with $50 million in retained earnings and today has $90 million in retained earnings.

This year they had a net income of some $4.5 million. So from a profitability point of view, when I think of other trust companies across this country, North West Trust has had a pretty successful year this past year and in fact in the past three or four years. As for the remuneration and severance packages, I've referred to the letter that I tabled in th is Assembly earlier this week and expect that the board will deal with this very soon. DR.

PERCY: Can the Provincial Treasurer explain why no steps were made to change the composition of the board in light of the Bancorp fiasco, in light of the golden handshakes to Bancorp workers, in light of the golden handshakes to the management of North West Trust? Why was the same board acclaimed without a peep? MR. DINNING: For two reasons, Mr. Speaker. One is that here we have a corporation whose retained earnings have grown by $40 million in the last seven years. As a result here is a company that has earned a profit overseen by a board of directors that were appointed, yes, by the provincial government.

Secondly, that provincial government, over my signature this last week, has asked for a review of the remuneration and severance arrange- ments for executives and senior officers. Having been asked to do that, I know very well that this is a matter the board is going to address. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Helicopter Fleet MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

I understand that the government r ecently disposed of their helicopter fleet and that these helicopters played an important role in assisting in environmental disasters such as forest fires and floods as well as human life emergencies. Could the minister please comment on the rationale behind selling these helicopters? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Between 1973 and 1979 the Alberta government purchased several Bell 206 helicop- ters.

In 1983 we purchased a Bell 222 helicopter mainly because of its twin engine reliability and the safety design of it. The decision to dispose of the fleet was made for a couple of main reasons: usage has declined over the past years and the age of the machines. They were getting to the point where it was going to cost over $5 million to replace and repair and bring them up to date. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister answer what moneys were realized from the sale of the same helicopters? MR. THURBER: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, during the last eight months two of the 206 helicopters were destroyed and written off as a result of accidents. Thank goodness, there were no lives lost in those. The remaining three helicopters that we had, the 206s, were r ecently sold for $885,000, and a total of $522,000 was realized from the insurance settlements. The Bell 222, the larger helicopter, was sold some weeks ago. It and the spare parts for it brought in over $1.1 million. MR. MAGNUS: To the minister, Mr. Speaker: would you please advise how helicopter services will be provided in the future? MR. THURBER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in line with our mandate in this government to look at all services that we perform and find out if the private sector can do it better or if we should in fact be in that business, we believe that in the private sector in Alberta there's some number of helicopter operators that act on a competi- tive basis. We believe that it'll be provided adequately through the private sector within this province. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Timber Exports MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to Environmental Protection figures about 1 15 million board feet of private timber was sold into British Columbia, about 25 percent more than the minister responsible for forestry had originally predicted. The same minister has stated that the demand for Alberta's private timber in B.C. will be even higher this year than last. Private woodlot owners looking at tidy profits will be even keener to turn their trees into cash. My first question to the Minister of Environmental Protection: will profit-motivated private woodlot operators be asked to police themselves on

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1553 meeting environmental standards and meeting the goals of sustainable development? MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EV ANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The tone of the question seems to indicate that there's something wrong with an owner of property in the province wanting to make a profit from the sale of a renewable resource, and that I can't understand. The next question that was asked was: will the owners of these properties regulate themselves? Well, of course, they won't.

I've said in this House a number of times that we have a number of pieces of legislation in the province that are in place to ensure that we protect water courses, to ensure that we protect our agricul- tural land, our soils. We want to be sure that our soils are not degraded. We certainly have a number of agreements with our forest products industry in this province through their own Forest Care system.

They are out in the woodlands operations in this province operating on Crown land and operating on private lands as well, keeping a wary eye out to ensure that sustainable woodland operations are what is going on in this province. Our department is also working with the Department of Transportation and Utilities to regulate and to watch what's going out of this province to ensure that sustainable practices are indeed being lived up to. [interjections] 2:20 MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question will be just as fair as the first question.

Given that answer, how many inspectors does your department have out there that are going to make sure that these private woodlot operators know the goals? MR. EV ANS: We have in total, Mr. Speaker, some 4,000 staff in Environmental Protection. The Premier of this province, when he became the Premier, recognized the importance of having an integrated system to ensure th e sustainability of our natural resources. [interjection] So what he did was amalgamate the departments of forestry, lands, and wildlife, the environment, and the parks division into one department.

What we have, therefore, is not only our lands and forests officers out in the backwoods of Alberta; we have the entire complement of our 4,000 staff, many of whom are in regions in this province, who are wary, watching out for the unsustainable practices that the hon. member is referring to. [interjection] Not only that, but again we have . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. Does the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs have some sort of debate going on while the minister is answering this question? If so, I would ask him to stop it. The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection to wind up fairly quickly, please. MR.

EV ANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I will. I just wanted to once again point out the relationship that we have with the Alberta Forest Products Association and their Forest Care program, which again has many, many members of private industry in this province out in the woodlands operation ensuring that sustainable forestry practices are indeed the norm in this province. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Environmental Protection: is the free flow of logs to British Columbia part of an economic development strategy in your department that promotes the export of our raw materials out of Alberta and the import of everyone else's waste into Alberta? [interjections] MR. EV ANS: Well, maybe we could spend 20 minutes on that, but I won't, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to promote value added in this province.

Everything we do is trying to ensure that our natural resources are not only harvested in this province but are value added in this province, because that's where the jobs are. That's where the economic development is. Now, what we are doing is recognizing that, of course, by refusing to allow any of our Crown resources, our Crown timber out of this province without special permit, and essentially it doesn't happen, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing as well is recognizing that we promote freedom in this province, the freedom to make a profit, the freedom to man your own business.

We want free enterprise to thrive in this province. What we have is the ability in this province to do that by allowing our landown- ers to get the best deal that they can get. Now, in terms of importation of waste . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We've spent five minutes on this question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. opposition caucus be quiet? The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. Gun Control MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year there were over 150 man with a gun complaints in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton.

This is fairly significant considering that each of these complaints has the potential to result in a homicide or multiple homicides. In fact, this past weekend in Calgary there was a drive-by shooting which involved the use of a weapon that resulted in a homicide. So my question today is for the hon. Minister of Justice. Because it has been said that Alberta is one of the provinces with the highest number of guns per capita in Canada, would the minister please supply some information on how many guns there are in Alberta? MR. ROSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, there are not accurate statistics because we can only keep track in Alberta by firearm acquisition certificates. An Angus Reid report in March of '91 stated that 39 percent of households in Alberta had a firearm and that the national average was 23 percent, so there's obviously quite a disparity. We also had the highest number of firearms in households for all provinces. It's estimated that there are 919,000 firearms in Alberta. MRS. FRITZ: Mr. Speaker, of the firearms in Alberta how many are handguns or other restricted and prohibited weapons? MR.

ROSTAD: Well, as of December 31, '93, there were 136,728 restricted weapons registered to persons in Alberta, according to the RCMP registry in Ottawa. This is through your acquisition certificates and collectors' licences and that sort. As

1554 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 of March 18, '94, there were 572 converted fully automatic firearms registered to persons in Alberta. These are prohibited weapons unless registered to a genuine gun collector for that type of firearm. They are fully automatic firearms that have been converted to semiautomatic fire and were registered on or before October 1, '92 to a genuine collector. A person not classified as a genuine gun collector on that noted date cannot possess or acquire any of these firearms at this date. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that there are almost a million firearms in Alberta, is the minister planning to make a submission to the federal Minister of Justice on the issue of firearms control, which has been the subject of recent state- ments in the press by the federal minister? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member alluded to, gun control is in the federal jurisdiction. We administer the program within the province. The reports have been in the news of late. I have not received any official or formal notice from the minister.

At the time that any particular change to the gun control laws is brought forward, we will through our network as MLAs, government or opposition, bring our constituents' positions forward and definitely communicate with Ottawa in that regard. Child Welfare MS HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the government's recent fixation with young offenders overlooks a crucial element: the importance of prevention. While the debate rages about how we should get tougher on young offenders, little is being done to help children at risk from becoming habitual offenders.

My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services: what is the minister doing to reduce the three-month waiting list for children with severe behaviour and emotional problems needing placement and treatment in a long-term care facility? MR. CARDINAL: As you are aware, as we moved forward with our welfare reforms in the past year, we always indicated that I would redirect dollars into the high-needs area. This is exactly what this ministry has done. We've redirected in this past year alone, '93-94, close to $100 million into the high-needs area, Mr.

Speaker, and a percentage of that, of course, is dealing with children. I'd like to advise the Assembly that just in the Edmonton area alone my departmental budget is over $500 million, and a high percentage of that is in relation to support services for children in various forms. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that $500 million isn't well spent if the kids have to wait three months to get into a facility.

Will the minister address the concerns of professionals that children in secure treatment facilities are often just warehoused and are not getting the diagnostic and treatment services mandated under the Child Welfare Act? MR. CARDINAL: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, we do provide a good service in Alberta, as good as we can. We are spending, you know, over $200 million on children's services alone in Alberta. We have over 8,000 children that we support in various areas, and it's a big project. We do have contracts with over 150 agencies in Alberta alone that provide various forms of services.

One thing I've always said and I'll say again: I'm not proud to say that close to 50 percent of the children in care are of aboriginal ancestry. We're working very hard with the aboriginal community to make sure that changes in the future. 2:30 I would ask the hon. members, if they do have any specific cases where children or families are not receiving services, to advise my ministry so we can deal with the issues. Some of the members from the opposite side in the past – I have to thank them – when there was a concern, they brought it to my attention. They can be assured that I never deny any help.

I'm always assisting opposition members also in various areas. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People shouldn't have to bring them to the minister's attention if the system is working. What is the minister doing to address the shortage of appropri- ate group home beds, which is also causing some children to be confined longer in secure treatment than they need? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, again if there is a specific problem in any specific area of Alberta that I'm not aware of and the opposition member is aware of, I would suggest that they contact my office so we can deal with that specific issue. Presently we are reviewing the whole area of child welfare. A second phase in fact of the major welfare reforms in Alberta was to look at and completely review the child welfare area, Mr. Speaker. Over a year ago I asked the hon. members on the opposite side to assist us in this review, and I haven't yet to date received any information.

I would like to get some information from them so they can assist us in designing a good system for Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. Water Management DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A recent advertisement in a Calgary paper asked for applications for construction of the Carseland-Bow River headworks project. This project is to be implemented in phases over the next seven or eight years. My question is for the Minister of Environmental Protection. Are there other capital headworks projects to be funded by your department? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR.

EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the advertise- ment that the hon. member is referring to was an application notice under the Water Resources Act just indicating that there was going to be additional work done on the Carseland-Bow River headworks system. Now, the hon. member has asked: are there any other projects? Well, indeed there have been some $525 million or $526 million worth of projects that have been funded in the province since 1980 when the program was set up. I think there are six that are being funded this year. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the funding for headworks projects coming from the environmental protection and enhancement fund?

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1555 MR. EV ANS: Not currently, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may be referring to some statements that I made about tabling some amendments to the environmental protection and enhance- ment fund so that we would expand the natural resources emer- gency fund or the environmental protection and enhancement fund mandate so that we could deal with natural resource emergencies. If the hon. members on both sides of the House are in favour of the amendments, which I do intend to table, then we will have some additional leeway to deal with these kinds of issues as the years go on. MR.

SPEAKER: Final supplemental. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the environmental protection and enhancement fund is to be used for irrigation projects, are we not simply diverting moneys such as stumpage fees for irrigation projects in southern Alberta? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the environmental protection and enhancement fund is to ensure that new resources that come into the department through licence fees, thr ough stumpage fees, et cetera, are put into a fund to deal with emergen- cies.

Certainly the irrigation systems in the southern part of the province could fall into that category, whether that is a matter of a drought problem and therefore headworks and canals being built or whether it's a flooding problem if one of the older canals is in need of repair. So it certainly could see some money being put into it from the emergency fund.

For example, the stumpage fee increases that we negotiated with the forest industry this year will be going into that emergency fund, and they're specifically earmarked for things such as fire protection, fire suppression, research into silviculture, and other forestry issues. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. Biprovincial Upgrader MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Husky Oil upgrader is turning into another Gainers. Although Gainers only cost us a little over a hundred million, with Husky we're already $305 million in the glue, and I guess the for ecast is for another $24 million loss.

Can the Minister of Energy confirm that one of the issues being discussed now is the management fees to be paid to Husky for managing this loser? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, all owners of the upgrader are reviewing the economics of the upgrader to come forward with plans. It's no secret that the oil prices have not been favourable to this project over the last few months as they have slumped, because this project is based on a price differential.

It's no secret that we're trying to accomplish as many efficiencies within the project as possible, and it's no secret that this project has experienced some layoff of staff yesterday. There is no secret that all of the owners, the other two governments and Husky Oil and ourselves, are looking at the economics of the project. When we're through that review of the project, we'll come back to the House. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, supplemental. What we're after here is the management fees. Like, remember that Gainers went on for years just to keep the management alive.

Would the minister table in the House the management agreement we have? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question earlier. MR. N. TA YLOR: I don't think she did, but she has answered it by refusing, anyhow. Mr. Speaker, why can Saskatchewan say no to this loser, hasn't put up any money in the last year and a half, and we still have to keep paying? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, Alberta is a partner and an owner in this project, and Alberta up to this point has honoured its obligations.

But let me make it very clear that Alberta along with the other owners is reviewing this project, as we are all the projects we are involved in, to look at the future for them. So until such time as that review process is complete, I will not make comments on the review because all of the owners have been sitting together at the table. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Kindergarten Programs (continued) MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The school boards in Calgary have recently determined that in order to facilitate the ECS program, parents must register for the full 400 hours of ECS notwithstanding that 200 hours are supported by provincial funding. These parents must pay the fee assessed by the board for the other 200 hours. My question to the Minister of Education is: can a board refuse entrance to ECS students or demand payment for a program which is partially funded by Alberta taxpayers? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, unlike grade 1 to grade 12 education in the province where fees cannot be charged for the program itself,

section 24(2) of the School Act does provide the ability for school boards to charge a fee for the program of early childhood services that is offered. On the other hand, when a program is offered, it is expected that all students would have access to that program. I understand that in Calgary, certainly in the public school system, they have made a provision for, on an appeal basis, allowing into the program students whose family situation is such that they cannot afford to pay the fee. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. 2:40 MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This intervention that the school boards have allowed for families who are unable to pay this tuition causes personal embarrassment to many of our Calgary residents. Can we intervene in any way as a government with this policy? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, when the early childhood services system was established in the province, the advocates of that system wanted it to be somewhat separate and different from the structure that is provided for grade 1 to grade 12 education.

Part of this dealt with providing a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of time, in terms of charging fees, and in terms of the nature of the overall program. The school board, as I've referred to legislation, is able to charge a fee. I would hope that in deciding on their policy, they would make every effort to accommodate students if they wish to take 200 hours. Certainly the goals of early childhood services are so general and flexible

1556 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 that an adequate program, a good program can be offered within the context of 200 hours. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What recourse then would parents have to review or revisit this policy? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a responsib ility of the school board. Parents who wish to make a change in this should make representation to their locally elected school board representatives. MR.

SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired, but because of the delay in the opening routine and the presence of a school class that has to leave, could there be unanimous consent to revert to introductions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? The hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of my colleague from Wainwright to introduce to you and through you 46 of Killam's finest public school grades 5 and 6 students.

They are accompanied by nine supervisor/teacher/parent adults with them. They're seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Members' Statements MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Health Services Restructuring MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue of health care reform has focused on regions, boundaries, boards, and budgets, and with the recommendations of the Hyndman report the opportunity has developed to ship the debate to another critical point of the discussion; that is, on quality of care and community outreach.

Three significant documents are currently at the centre of health care restructuring. I refer to the health goals document from Alberta Health, the three-year business plan of the department, and also included is the Starting Points document, the Oberg/Wagner report. The focus of these docu- ments is on patient-centred care, co-ordination of services, community outreach, education com ponents, outpatient counsel- ing, and most importantly, a wellness model of health.

In addressing the specific recommendations of the Hyndman report with respect to the Children's hospital, I have met with the community action committee of the Children's hospital, which is a parent liaison group. I am very pleased to comment and compliment this committee on their assistance in dealing with this very emotional issue that was raised through the Hyndman report, and I think it's important to bring to the attention of this Assembly some of the positive actions that can develop from community action on a sensitive issue.

This organization has met with me and with their board and is now part of a working group with the Foothills hospital in order to deal with not only the recommendations of the Hyndman report as it reflects the patient care and the transfer of services from the Children's stand-alone facility to the potential site of the Foothills but also deal with the strength of their patient care community outreach program. In addition to that, they have agreed to participate in a workshop, which will bring the focus of the type of care that their children receive at the Children's hospital into the focus of debate.

I would like at this time to compliment that group for the initiative they've taken in dea ling with a sensitive issue and bringing that information to the community in a positive way. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Vietnam MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This Saturday marks the anniversary of the 1975 communist takeover of South Vietnam. There was worldwide attention given to that unforgettable exodus. Miraculously many of those exiled survived and eventually found new homes in our province. Our province has been the beneficiary.

We now have a vibrant and growing Vietnamese Canadian community. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget what is happening today in Vietnam. Human rights are systematically violated, and women and men are persecuted, tortured, and even killed for their religious beliefs. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect individuals from discri mination in our country, but for Vietnamese citizens religious persecution is the order of the day. Hundreds of pagodas and churches have been confiscated by the communist regime.

Last weekend I spoke at a conference on the persecution of religions and human rights violations in Vietnam. I was touched deeply by the conviction held by many Vietnamese Canadians and others in speaking out. We heard reports that the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, the supreme patriarch of the Unified Church, is now under house arrest. Buddhist scholars including the Venerable Thich Quang Do are under brutal imprisonment. The Venerable Thich Thien Minh was executed in prison in 1978. The pastor Reverend Dinh Thien Tu and 10 more pastors of the Alliance Church have been imprisoned. Dr.

Nguyen Dan Que, head of the High Tide humanist movement, who, incidentally, was awarded the Raoul Wallenberg award for contributions to human rights by the international organization of parliamentarians, has also been imprisoned. Canadians can influence their own government and the interna- tional community by saying that the current Vietnam government's wish to broaden trade must be accompanied by a recognition that religious persecution and human rights violations must end before economic partnerships can be realized.

I urge all members of this Assembly and all Albertans to use whatever means they have to push for an end to the repressive actions of the current govern- ment of Vietnam. Thank you. South Africa MR. SOHAL: Mr. Speaker, citizens throughout the world this week are witnesses to history. After centuries of waiting democ- racy has arrived in the republic of South Africa. While history tells us that democracy, particularly in its infancy, faces many uphill battles, citizens nevertheless will be the beneficiaries of peace, prosperity, and progress. This week signifies a remarkable achievement.

While it is something we often take for granted, democracy has and will continue to be a step forward for mankind. Democracy is

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1557 reaching corners of the world where only five years ago no one thought it would ever r each. While many nations in the last decade of this century, particularly in eastern Europe, have embraced democracy, South Africa's evolution has been slow. Thirty million blacks, ethnic Indians, and persons of mixed race leave behind an era of oppression for a new one of hope and the chance to become masters in their own houses.

While Canada should take pride in the role it played in the Commonwealth and the United Nations in bringing down the walls of apartheid, we should look to South Africa as another area of the world where we can promote the Alberta advantage. Even under tough economic sanctions South Africa has in recent years been Alberta's second largest trading partner on the world's second largest continent. As barriers to trade disappear, this gives tremendous potential for our entrepreneurs in a market which was closed to most Canadians.

With our strengths in areas such as telecommunications; oil, gas, and petrochemicals; food process- ing; and forest products, Alberta producers can meet increased demand as South Africa modernizes its infrastructure and opens further the doors to prosperity. Once again, I salute the people of South Africa for their many years of determination and for succeeding in their efforts to bring democracy to all citizens. Thank you. head: Projected Government Business MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, we'd like to have some idea of what's going to happen next week under Standing Order 7(5). MR. EV ANS: I'll try to give the hon.

House leader for the Liberal Party and the other side of the House some information about next week. On Monday, May 2, we'll begin in the afternoon after question period with Royal Assent of those Bills that are on the Order Paper awaiting Royal Assent; moving from there to Government Bills and Orders for second reading, as per the Order Paper; then in the evening Government Bills and Orders for third reading, as per the Order Paper.

Moving along, Tuesday at 4:30 in the afternoon, Government Bills and Orders for third reading, again as per the Order Paper; in the evening, Government Bills and Orders for second reading, as per the Order Paper. On Wednesday in the evening, Government Bills and Orders for second reading, as per the Order Paper, moving on then to third reading, as per the Order Paper. Completing the week, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday in the afternoon, Government Bills and Orders, Committee of the Whole; it's our intention to begin with Bill 18. Speaker's Ruling Money Bills MR.

SPEAKER: Before the actual orders are called, the Chair has a ruling with respect to money Bills that arose out of a question by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood in Febru- ary. The Chair undertook to try to assist members with their understanding of how money Bills should be treated. So if the hon. members would bear with me, the Chair would like to dispose of this matter. In February the Chair ruled on a point of order on this matter raised by the Member for Edmonton-Norwood with respect to Bill 4. The Chair did undertake at that time to give the Assembly a more general statement on the matter.

I'd hoped to do it with respect to Bill 4 before it got third reading, but that third reading was called when the Chair wasn't present. 2:50 Public finance is complex, and its applications are so varied that it is not an issue which lends itself to a concise rule. To some extent every case has to be considered on its merits. Every jurisdiction in Canada has a somewhat different view of what constitutes a money Bill. In some, a money Bill is defined very broadly so that any Bill with spe nding implications is viewed as a money Bill. In Alberta a narrower view has been applied.

The requirement for the royal recommendation arises from

section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states: It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed. This is repeated in our Standing Order 79. In Alberta this is read so that it is appropriations of either public revenue or appropriations of taxes or imposts which require the royal recommendation.

The most obvious example is an appropriation Bill. A measure imposing or creating a tax or impost but not appropriating the money from the tax or impost does not require the royal recommendation. However, a measure imposing or creating a tax or impost must be brought in by a minister. This is because the means by which money is raised is part of the process which ultim ately supplies money for the purposes requested by the Crown, and the Crown must take responsibility for such measures through its ministers in the Assembly.

In Alberta a money Bill is a Bill which is itself the authority to appropriate a sum of public money to carry out its objects. To put it another way, any provision which authorizes the spending of public money out of the general revenue fund or authorizes public money to be spent before it reaches the general revenue fund is a money Bill. Similarly, a Bill which expands the purposes for which public money from or destined for the general revenue fund is a money Bill.

Conversely, any Bill which contains a scheme which might cost public money to carry out but leaves it to other legislation to actually provide the money is not considered a money Bill. In other words,

section 54 applies only to a Bill that effects an appropriation and not to one which would require an appropriation to be effected but does not itself make the appropriation. If a Bill requires money to operate and money is not appropriated to it, the resulting law will simply not operate. This is reflected in Beauchesne paragraphs 613 and 614 which state: 613.

A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money bill, and no Royal Recommendation is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction. 614. A bill, designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money, to be voted subsequently by Parliament, may be introduced in the House without the recommen- dation of the Crown.

As stated, Bills which impose, increase, or widen taxes must be introduced by a member of Executive Council, but do not require royal recommendation. A Bill to reduce, narrow, or do away with a tax may be introduced by any member. The question arises as to what is a tax. The answer, while not entirely satisfactory, is that it depends on a number of things. The Chair will adopt the following from White, Lederman, and Bur in Canadian Constitutional Law: Until recently, the courts had not gone far in defining taxation for the purposes of

section 91(3) (of the Constitution); indeed their attempts to define the term under other constitutional provisions were none too helpful. Generally, they broadly described taxation for constitutional purposes as a compulsory levy imposed by law by a public body for a public purpose. But this does not distinguish it from other levies; it places no limits on the purpose for which taxation may be imposed.

1558 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 It is the Chair's understanding that both Legislative Counsel and Parliamentary Counsel are very careful about scrutinizing Bills for the requirement of royal recommendation. This is not to say that members should not raise their concerns but merely to suggest that in this complex area members with concerns may wish to obtain further information from counsel. Thank you. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 26 Appropriation (Lottery Fund) Act, 1994 MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I move third reading of Bill 26, the Appropriation (Lottery Fund) Act, 1994. MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? MR. WHITE: No, sir. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mayfield. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, true to the tradition of the House we shall be dealing with three Bills in fact. The first that I'd like to deal with is Bill 26, of course. Bill 26 is the Bill that disseminates the funds, an appropriation Bill for the lottery fund, specifically. There are a number of questions that relate to appropriation of funds, disseminating public funds.

First and foremost is the moral question. How these funds are set out is one question. The other moral question is: how are these moneys collected? With two- thirds of the income coming from gaming and gambling going directly into the general revenue fund, there's no question in my mind that it's a tax. Now, that money is taxed from those that participate in gaming and gambling, particularly lotteries and slot machine operations run by the government or run through an agency of the government.

The Member for Olds-Didsbury the other day raised the issue, and even though I have yet to speak to that particular matter, there is a question that has to be asked and answered: that simple question of whether in fact it is the responsibility of a government to propagate machines that take money from the poor, many times from the constitutionally weak, getting into influencing the young. Because we are in fact a gambling society or at least tending to be a government-supported gambling society, that certainly has to influence younger members, the examples they see of their elders.

Now, I have difficulty with that, personally. Not that I don't have to listen to those that say: it's the prerogative of each and every individual whether or not one should gamble. We heard the other day in this House that 4,700 some odd machines in fact are in place. They're slot machines, pure and simple. Thirty years ago there would be people running about with sledgehammers to do away with those machines because they were immoral.

Today government is out pushing these things, not backbench members or private members of course but one particular minister through an agency which no member of this House has any control of. Absolutely none. Try and find the legislative authority and how it has to be chased. There is only one member of this House that has any kind of authority to make any kinds of recommendations to that agency. That I don't think is the right way to deal with a moral question in this province.

It certainly isn't the way that I know the members of any clergy would like to deal with it in this province. 3:00 There's no question in most of the minds of others how this is somehow justified. The one-third of the moneys that are gathered and the damage that that does to individuals in society – it steals from some children and the less fortunate, that actually have the funds taken away from them through a compulsive gambler or through a problem gambler. Those moneys are justified on this supposed charitable work. Well, charitable work is a very, very, very tiny piece of these funds.

It's some $36 million of the whole intake. The gross revenue is almost 10 times that, nine times that actually. This is the area that is justified as being the one that deserves the collection of these funds. These are things like the Elks hall in Crowsnest or the local community hall in Kitscoty or some place like that. Now, into and unto themselves those are in fact very good projects. The difficulty I have is the way the money is raised and then directly put. That is not the way to do it.

If you go to those people and say, "This is how this money was collected," and graphically show them the difficulties that these raised dollars can present to society and the broken homes that it creates, I'm sure they would have second thoughts.

If in fact these elements of expenditure stacked up on a very, very large, the largest of all priority lists, that being the whole government spending in these estimates, then I and all would say: yes, it is definitely worth while making those expenditures and making those expenditures as promptly as possible and through consultation with particularly the Member of the Legislative Assembly that represents that area as to what the priorities could and should be in that area, not through the one minister, certainly not through one sole minister.

It matters little which side of the House one is on; he's proud of the fact that one must write a letter. In fact, his office instructs one to do that, to write a letter or to speak directly to the minister, because they certainly do not have the authority to issue any funds other than through that one final signature of the minister. There are certainly other reasons for having difficulty with expenditure of funds in the lottery appropriations. Other members on this side shall have some more things to say about that, I'm sure.

There certainly is no reason to limit debate on that particu- lar item, but I should like to move on to an area which is the general area of expenditure and how that comes about. This particular budget approved through appropriation doesn't seem to have any priority other than one single priority, a political one. The costs of that are enormous. Headlong hurrying into a slash and burn; headlong into cut first, question later; priorities out the window: we'll deal with those later.

The members opposite should take the time to go and learn some of the other areas of expenditure that they're not very familiar with, but they're so very busy on so many other boards, authorities, tribunals, and such.

If they t ook the time to under- stand the effects on health care and how one can just cut these expenditures holus-bolus and say to those supposed lesser souls that work in the deliverance of health care, "Cut as you will; this is what the bottom line is," not where our priorities are in that vast array of expenditures in public health, whether it be in long- term care or extended care or through home care and delivering it to them. No, there isn't any priority. This government has said nothing about that. "Oh, let somebody else.

We're just here to disseminate the largess as we see it," and "We have a revenue problem, not an income problem." Well, that is so much hogwash.

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1559 When you look at the revenue stream over the past X number of years in this province, you see that energy has lost a lot of its value internationally, and there's nothing one can do about that. To say by extension when we lose money, we don't have enough money, and we're in a deficit position, it's because we spend too much. Maybe so, but don't just take this platitudenal deliverance of saying that it's an expense problem and not a revenue problem and then go along slashing and burning and closing your eyes and walking away from those that are hurt and hurt badly.

The area that is hurt perhaps the worst here, overall in the province, is an area that's not any specific one little element. It's each and everyone of us that has lost confidence. There are those that are saying: "Well, how does the small entrepreneur, the one that has some funds to disseminate and invest – how does one do that?" Does one say, "Look; I'm going to invest in my brother- in-law's small business or start my own small business"? No, no, no, not in this province now. We have no idea what is going to happen. This slash and burn, we can't tell what the next place is that's going to be hurt.

We don't know what the future holds. We're losing confidence rapidly. Consequently, what if it goes in debt financing to mutual funds? The sales of mutual funds in this province have absolutely soared, and that money is not invested in Alberta, certainly not invested in large measure in western Canada these days. Some of it's offshore, a lot in the United States, and certainly it's in eastern Canada and central Canada. Well, that is not the way to run a government. Y ou don't scare people. Y ou don't say: "Y ou have a job.

Y ou should be proud to have a job, and you're lucky to have a job because next week all those other people are going to lose theirs." That is not the way to run. Y ou do it through – and the government said it time and time and time again – consultation. Well, consultation in this particular budget meant nothing. It was a political opportunity.

It was a window to say, "Y es, in four years time we can win by simply doing one thing, keeping one promise: we slashed, we burned, we cut." In this great social experiment it doesn't matter how psychologically we damage each and every individual out there; we've slashed so greatly that, yes, we made the end. See, we balanced the budget. Y ou've closed your eyes on all those that you've destroyed. Y ou've closed your eyes on the ones that have been pushed, not taken, pushed off welfare. Y ou just said: look, you just don't deserve it; we're just cutting you off, justifiably or not. Nobody tells us anything.

All for this one end: we think we can win four years from now. That is it totally and completely. I mean, it would take just one more year to gather and say: "Maybe we can. We can do some cutting and some trimming in many, many areas of government service." It's agreed. It had to be done, and it will have to be done. But legislators, the ones who have the time and the interest and the ear of the people out there, should be bringing those concerns, should be saying those things. We heard concerns today from Calgary-Currie on education. We heard concerns today from this side and that side on many items of business.

We do daily. Those things should be listened to. They should be compiled and put on a large priority list, and this Legislature should spend endless hours debating and question- ing and understanding precisely where these expenditures go. Set priorities, not do a line by line; understand when a hospital should be built in a particular area. Whether it be Westlock, Sherwood Park, Red Deer, or Didsbury, it doesn't matter. What we should know: are those people being treated in the same manner as the people in the other areas of the province? 3:10 Y ou cannot just say: "Look; that's the way it is.

Because I'm a minister and because it's my particular riding, it s hould go ahead," and then have other ministers pop up in their places and say, "Y eah, yeah, yeah, yeah." That's not the way to run a government. That's not the way to do it. It's not the way, I know, some of the members opposite would like their government to run. They would like to have that hands-on and be able to make those judgments on behalf of all Albertans and their particular region. The cuts that are occurring in education.

Having been married for some 24 years now to a former teacher, I can tell you that it hurts her no end to see what is happening in the education business, to see that there are children that are simply not receiving the attention they so desperately require. There are children that are coming into the system that in fact are starved for attention. Y ou find a child in grade 3 or grade 4 that is as bright as any other but doesn't have attention at home and is trying desperately to have some kind of attention from the biggest hero in their life at that time: the teacher. She can deliver all she can in the hours.

Y et we've gone from a classroom of 24 students, where she could actually get around and deal with them, to 34. The difference is not, in engineering terms, simply linear. It doesn't increase with one single child. It is what's called exponential. It goes up astronomically. Y ou just cannot possibly deal with it. Every teacher knows that at a certain level, varying between 18 and 24, depending on the class, the discipline breaks down, and you end up spending more time disciplining children and trying to get them to head in one direction and to keep control in the classroom than actually teaching.

Now, every time you do an expenditure cut – and this govern- ment says: oh, we only chopped a few dollars out of the budget; we only chopped 14. It depends on what day you listened what percentage is cut. And then they say: well, it's got to be cut out of administration. The facts are: administration over the entire province, including, some would say, the bloated department, is 7 percent. All the rest goes into replacement of capital – this is operating – teacher's salaries, janitorial salaries, and the like.

Now, if you chop 14 percent, and you're trying to get it all out of 7 percent, something's not going to work. The only thing that can be affected – any educator, period, will tell you that it has to affect the classroom in the negative. The student/teacher ratio has to be affected. It cannot be any other way. No matter how much talk, you cannot cut out of administrative services or capital services or any of those. Y ou can't do it, cut enough out. Y ou have to affect the student/teacher ratio even if you do lower the salaries.

So we've affected the fundamental component of our future in this province by cutting education. Personally I'll be affected in the manner that I have two children in school, but they're certainly not going to be affected like the children that are coming into the system. This is not something like: oh, we can get around later to fix up the roads; we took the money out of the road system this year, and we'll perhaps put it in next year; minor repairs will have to be made, and it will be right as rain in the third year. Y ou cannot do that.

Y ou've entered this wonderful social experiment you've delivered here in the deliverance of education. Once you've taken it away, once you have limited that child's ability to attain an education, you can't gain it back. Y ou don't sort of say, "Add a little more next year or the year after that and bump it back up." Once you have starved that child or diverted their attention from that bit of learning that they may have got in those early years, you've done it totally and completely forever and ever. It cannot be returned.

In this great social experiment that this government seems to be doing just by slashing and burning – I mean, it's beyond me how one can justify it, looking at oneself in the mirror in the evenings

1560 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 and saying: "Look; this is what I'm doing with my time. I'm sitting in the Legislature allowing my colleagues to do this." To what end? That one single purpose is election next time. Now, that is a pretty narrow view and the worst of all possible views of what a politician is and what a politician does. Thank you, sir. MR. SPEAKER: Calgary-Shaw. Point of Order Imputing Motives MR. HA VELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order, 23(i), imputing false or unavowed motives. I think the member has made some statements which quite frankly are totally inappropriate.

I think the members on this side of the House should have an apology. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. This is a debate, hon. members. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Debate Continued DR. PERCY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the appropria- tion Bills. Let me explain in some detail why I so do rise. First, let me make it clear that I support the elimination of the deficit. Had I been elected in May of '93, I would have supported the Deficit Elimination Act. DR. WEST: Y ou're not elected yet? DR. PERCY: "Had I been," I said, hon. member.

Had I been here in May 1993 when the Deficit Elimination Act had come forward, I would have voted in favour of it. I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that when many of the members here were sitting passively spending, spending, spend- ing, a number of us were saying that we were on the road to ruin. We were writing and talking and speaking on it. In fact, I can give the hon. members a publication dated 1984 from the Fraser Institute where we set out in pretty clear detail that we were going down a road that had a lot of potholes in it, and it was going to cause us serious problems.

Throughout that period a number of us were pointing out that we had a structural deficit. That structural deficit had arisen because they did not have the wherewithal to reduce expenditures. So where we are today, Mr. Speaker, is a direct consequence of a lack of action by many members of that side of the House from 1986 on. I am in support of deficit elimination, but I am not in support of the way it is being undertaken in this budget. I am against eliminating half the funding for early childhood schooling. I am against that, and I could not support the budget b ecause of that.

I am against eliminating funding for bus passes for children whose parents are on social welfare. I'm against cutting off the allow- ances for children whose parents are on social welfare so they can't buy what they need at the schools. I'm against that. This budget forces it. There is no planning; there's no process in this budget. They cut, but they don't think about who they're hurting. This is what's wrong with this budget. They don't target; they don't focus.

For them it's across-the-board cuts, and by gosh, we'll cut even more than we have to under the Deficit Elimination Act because it's a good thing to do. It's a politically good thing to do three years down the road when they run on balancing the budget on the backs of Albertans. So, Mr. Speaker, let me review in some detail. Y ou might have now guessed that I will vote against this budget, not because I'm against eliminating the deficit, not because I'm against a consolidated deficit of $1.8 billion, though the target in this budget is $1.55 billion.

I'm against and will vote against this budget because of who it impacts on. It impacts on those in our society who have the least. It does not promote the notion of a level playing field. It tends to pick on and hurt those who have the least in our society and those who are the most vulnerable. I think there are a number of very serious problems with the budget. I look at the business plans which are to set out a three- year record, Mr. Speaker, of how we're going to plan, how we're going to target, how we're going to focus resources. Y ou don't see a plan in those.

What you see is a series of platitudes, performance measures . . . Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs rising on a point of order? DR. WEST: Would the hon. member entertain a question in debate? DR. PERCY: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I would look forward to it. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's gone on with a lot of the things that he is against in our cuts. That's a matter of opinion, and he's welcome to it.

But I happen to know that he worked for a time at the University of Alberta, and I know that they've just recently cut the Faculty of Dentistry in a proposal to save money at the university. Does he support that, number one? And if he doesn't support the cutting of the Faculty of Dentistry, would he support taking the moneys equally out of the other departments, including the department of economics, in order to save the dentistry faculty? 3:20 DR. PERCY: I welcome the question from the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, and let me be very clear.

The department that I am on long-term leave from has taken a significant hit. In fact, let me explain the process for those members who don't under- stand how it works when across-the-board cuts are imposed. Y ou have, Mr. Speaker – and this is something that they're unaware of, given their high incomes as ministers. The bottom line is that as in the civil service, as at universities, my reckoning is 82 percent of the expenditures of the university are tied up through salary expenditures to faculty and to staff.

Now, because the board of governors, which I believe, if I'm not incorrect, was a Tory appointed board – is it true? Was it a Tory appointed board? I believe it was. If the hon. minister of advanced education were here, he'd confirm for me that it was a Tory appointed board that in fact did not negotiate any type of financial exigency clause. In fact, what they did, I think they took it out. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. DR. PERCY: Y es, it's true. Their appointees really didn't know what they were doing. They did not know the proverbial bottom from a hole in the ground. Mr. Speaker, when the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs seeks to ask questions about his board of governors appointed through order in council, I would be very curious then, whomever he has asked, those board members that he helped appoint, what they were doing and how they'd be doing it. Because I know that at the university those that are dealing with the cuts have tried to

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1561 do so in a way that ensures the resources are at the front end, at the teaching end of the university. Classes are full. There are classes there where students are standing – standing room only. There are classes there where instructors are voluntarily teaching extra classes. So, Mr. Speaker, the university is trying to adjust. It's trying to ensure that it maintains its focus as a teaching and research institution, that it is part of th is community, an important, vital part of this community, and that access is maintained despite the cutbacks that they have imposed.

As to the specific question that he asked me with regards to the Faculty of Dentistry, that in fact is a proposal by the president that then goes through the administrative framework of the university ultimately for a decision. The issue that they've raised – and I'm glad that they have. What they're concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is how they're going to eliminate the provision of dental services in the rural sector, because they know and they're very concerned that the rural sector has written and lobbied extensively that they're concerned they will not get the dental services they need.

They already know that they can't get the medical services they require because many doctors do not want to go there. So what the hon. member is asking, I believe, is: what are the consequences of a cut that we've imposed, and how does it impinge on the rural sector that heretofore has provided us with so much support? I empathize with him, but there's very little I can do other than suggest that he in fact pick up the telephone, call the president of the univer- sity or talk to people in the medical faculty.

It would do him good, actually, to talk to somebody who's experiencing the consequences of the cuts that he has imposed. Debate Continued DR. PERCY: Now, to get on with my reasons, then, why I am for – I am for deficit elimination but against the particular cuts . . . Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Calgary- Shaw is rising on a point of order. MR. HA VELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member was so magnanimous to accept one question, I'm wondering if he'd be prepared to accept another? DR. PERCY: I would like to, Mr.

Speaker, but unfortunately my time is just being eaten up, eaten up, eaten up, and they know that the more they can eat up our time, the less we can get on record what the consequences are of the cuts that they're imposing on Albertans. Debate Continued DR. PERCY: So, Mr. Speaker, let me continue. I am against – and I'll just repeat it for them – eliminating the financing and funding of bus passes for children whose parents are on social assistance. I think it's mean spirited. I am against the elimination of school allowances for children who then can't participate in the wide range of extracurricular activities.

Those for me are sort of examples of the mean-spirited nature of this budget, because I think in a society such as ours we have to look after those who have the least. We want to ensure that their children have access to opportunity. That access, then, is ensured through an educa- tional system where they're treated no differently than anyone else. Mr. Speaker, when I look at the array of cuts, I see extensive road construction still going on, and we're cutting back in social assistance. Y ou know, a question came up in terms of an emergency shelter for youths. We've seen significant cutbacks in policing.

At the very time that all of us are concerned about crime, violent crime in particular, we're eliminating both mechanisms of enforcement, but perhaps more importantly we're eliminating mechanisms of prevention. That's where you want to put your money: at the front end. So I look at this budget, and what I see is a budget that is in a sense myopic in terms of how it's constructed. They're going to eliminate an array of programs and projects whose payoff lies five years, 10 years down the road, whose payoff is in terms of higher retention rates for students.

But, heck, that's five, 10 years down the road, and that's not related to our budget cycle. It's related to the fact that many children will go through this system, and they'd have a higher level of self-esteem had the funding not been cut in some of these programs, but now they enter the system as second-class citizens because they don't have access to what other kids have. I'm against – and I cannot emphasize this too strongly – the emergence of two-tiered education systems. I'm against the emergence of two-tiered health care systems. I'm against the Americanization of the Alberta society.

I'm against those, and I believe they are embodied in this budget. For me, I look at the budget and I see the consequences of this, and I see the natural incremental steps towards two-tiered health and two-tiered education. I think we have to avoid that. We want those two systems in particular to be open, accessible, and a level playing field. That's why, for example, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the student loan program for advanced education, I'm concerned.

I don't think it is in fact the role of the state to say: the default rate here is 35 percent; therefore, you, because you're poor, cannot get a loan to enter that program. On the other hand, if your parents were rich, you could go in and take that program. For me that's a two-tiered system that discriminates against you because you don't have money. I look at the revision to the student loan program. On the one hand, I can understand why the government would attempt to do this. It would try in a sense to ensure that some of the costs of defaults are borne elsewhere and try and ensure that the default rate falls.

But I look at this program and I say: does it work? Does it ensure targeting of funds at those that really require the funds? I don't see it, Mr. Speaker. I see in fact a program where the rate is 5 percent plus prime,

whereas in other provinces it's prime plus 1 percent. Is that fair? Do I see other provinces moving down this route? No. Do I see with this program the fact that we still have the 10 percent high-risk rates, and we'll be responsible for them? Y es, I do. Do I see the bank in question getting 5 percent for managing the other 90 percent? Y es, I do. Do I see that this bank then gets 65,000 additional customers and all the payoffs that are associated with that plus the 5 percent premium? Y es, I do. Do I see the students in question getting anything out of this? No, I don't.

So there are a number of issues in this budget, Mr. Speaker, that we have to address, that we've tried to address as an opposition. One is a philosophical issue. Do we want the emergence of two-tiered systems in this province? Will we turn our back on a heritage where we have tried to ensure a level playing field, where the state is involved to try and ensure that every individual, regardless of how much money their parents have, has equal access to the system? I think we're moving away from that, and that's why I'm against this budget.

I do believe that we could have stayed on track in the deficit elimination without in fact engaging in basically a budgeting process that builds in regressivity, that builds in screening and discrimination

1562 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 solely on the basis of whether you've got money or not. That for me is not the Alberta I want to see three or four years down the road, and it's certainly an Alberta that I will work to see does not emerge. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude. 3:30 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak today to the third reading of the appropriation Bills, and in particular I want to touch on Bill 26, which is before us now.

I do want to of course get into the other appropriation Bills just to recap what I spoke a bout earlier, in the days that pr eceded today. Mr. Speaker, the lottery fund. The lottery fund is one that's been quite peculiar, in my mind, for such a long time. We wonder so often how much it is, in fact, that we have been generating in terms of gross revenues. That is a question that hasn't been answered yet in this House. I know I looked at a document that is titled Lottery Fund, 1994-95 Estimates. It was passed around in the House a number of days ago.

In those 1994- 95 estimates it is quite clear that a large portion of those lottery funds do indeed go to the general revenue fund: 62.6 percent of them, totaling $21 1 million. So almost two-thirds goes to the general revenue fund, and the balance goes to programs that are provided for by the minister responsible for the lotteries. I believe it's the Minister for Economic Development and Tourism and trade. Amongst other duties that the minister has, this is another one.

Those programs that are in there, like I mentioned, that go to the general revenue fund, $21 1 million, include things like health and education. So that funding goes towards health and education. Funding to the tune of 3.7 percent of the $337 million – it amounts to $12.5 million, Mr. Speaker – goes to education initiatives, it says. It goes on to say that health and wellness initiatives, science and environmental initiatives, CFEP – the community facility enhancement program is one that is in here, and it's a good program. They're all good programs.

I submitted this session, just the other day, the very first application under CFEP for my constituency. Y ou know, when I sat in on the community leagues in my riding, the presidents' meeting, it was discussed around the room that night how much money each and every one has. Each community league got up, and for the most part they're quite healthy. They're doing very well. Perhaps maybe we can all learn from watching what they do, because what they're doing is right if they've got money in the bank. I mean, they're in the black. For the first time a grant application has been talked about.

There's a specific project in mind, and they've asked me if I would assist, and indeed I did. I've taken it to the minister's office. That's the very first one, and I hope that one gets approved for my constituents. We go on. It says tourism initiatives, recreation/sport initia- tives, cultural initiatives, and agricultural initiatives take up the total amount of $337 m illion in this lottery fund. The $337 million and all the different expenditures that I've described in these estimates have no indication whatsoever as to administration.

We talk about the lottery fund and how much it brings in, $337 million, where it goes, but what about administration of this fund? How much is it? How much is in fact the amount of money that we bring each year into this f und? I don't particularly care to look at the net amounts, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to know the gross amounts and be able to critique this thing. I'd like to be able to know how much we're spending on administration. I want to know how much we're spending in other areas that I don't know are being expended. So those are the kinds of things that need to be detailed much greater in the future.

I'm not in third reading asking for anything more at this stage, Mr. Speaker. I'm merely highlighting and asking that we as legislators ought to provide that detail not only to our constituents but to ourselves, because this certainly does not provide it all. It certainly would not pass in the private sector; let me tell you that. If I were sitting as a director on the board of some company and I saw that, I wouldn't agree with it. I'd have to have more detail, and I know that I'd get more detail. Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party has often said, time and time again, that all lottery funds ought to go to the general revenue fund. It shouldn't be separated and segregated. There shouldn't be a whole different bureaucracy that takes charge and takes control of the lotteries and expends those funds as it sees fit. Absolutely not. What we ought to have is that those funds that do come in as another revenue towards the province of Alberta and for the province go into the general revenue fund. That is the main fund. That's the fund that we pay everything out of.

Lord knows we're paying out of the general revenue fund, that pays to the Alberta heritage savings fund, that comes back to the general revenue fund. We heard all about that the other day, and we continue to hear all about it, the circular accounting. But the lottery fund is one area. I think those $337 million, including those but all of them, all the funds – the gross amount of funds must come to the general revenue fund, and that's how we ought to administer it.

Quite clearly, when we look at all the different areas that are being supported by the lottery fund: the education initiatives, the health and wellness initiatives, science and the environment, tourism initiatives . . . What about CFEP? Couldn't it be handled? Couldn't it be handled nicely in the Department of Community Development? Why do we have another bureaucracy handling it out of here? Couldn't tourism initiatives be handled out of the Economic Development and Tourism department? Recreation and sports initiatives coming out in the lottery fund?

Y ou know, the same holds true for the heritage savings trust fund. We've got little bureaucracies all over the pl ace that are costing us all kinds of money. In this Legislature we continue to say that we want to get rid of overlap and duplication. That is one area that we have to look at. We have to get rid of it because it's costing us. That's what's costing us dearly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the deficit that we're now trying to eliminate. Why couldn't cultural initiatives here as well go in with the Community Development portfolio?

And 6.7 percent in agricultural initia- tives: we've got an Agriculture, Food and Rural Development department. Why aren't we utilizing that department to expend these funds if – if – these funds actually need to be expended? Perhaps there's some overlap and duplication within this that each individual department is already doing. That is why we can no longer create all of these little bureaucracies: because we lose control far too easily. That's what's hurting this government.

In the future I would hope that we would solve that problem by providing more detail and by bringing the lottery funds into the general revenue fund. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak briefly on the Alberta heritage savings trust fund, the liquidation of such fund. What we've got there is this huge fund that has given Albertans a false sense of security for some time. It is now time that we liquidate those assets that we know we can cash in on, the ones that we know are not generating revenues that surpass or even meet or match the expenditure side.

I'm talking about certain investments that we have that are under the interest rates that we are currently paying for some of the loans and debentures that we have from the GRF, general revenue fund. Those are the ones that we have to consider eliminating. Those are the ones that we have to cash

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1563 in. Those are the ones that we have to bring back into this government, and we have to pay down that debt, probably a gross debt somewhere in the range of $30 billion. 3:40 Mr. Speaker, this is a staggering debt. This is one that's costing us $1.5 billion every year to service. It's one that we can no longer continue to pay because it's costing our children, our children in our education system, our children in our health care system. It's costing us no matter where we go. Our municipali- ties. People fear for their lives nowadays when the policing grants are going to be cut.

Chiefs of police across the province are saying that it's going to hurt them. They've got to cut down on staff. Reaction times are going to be slower. There are going to be problems perhaps. These are areas that I don't think we have to cut back on just yet. I think we have to look at where it is we can cut back and eliminate that overlap and duplication that I talk about. Let's get rid of it. We haven't looked at it yet.

I know we haven't looked at it in great detail simply because in 1991 we did that study whereby we identified $4.3 billion – $4.3 billion – of overlap and duplication between us and the federal government. Now, where is it that we're attempting to eliminate some of this duplication? I know one area that I can think of is the corporate income tax side. The province decided to give it back to the feds. I guess it wasn't a good idea in the first place. I don't know why we created it if it wasn't a good idea. So here we are giving it back to the feds and asking them to take care of it, to collect our tax for us.

If that is one area, where are the other areas? We've identified $4.3 billion, and I can only think of a small portion of that. Our total tax revenues on the corporate side for the province of Alberta are, I think, $550 million. I can't imagine where the administration to collect that could be any more than, say, $50 million, if that. I doubt it, but let's assume 10 percent. That would put it at $50 million. Well, we're still a far cry – a far cry, Mr. Speaker – from $4.3 billion. Where is that overlap? Where is that duplication? Let's get some answers. Let's identify where they are, and let's act on it.

If we did that, I suspect that we probably wouldn't have to make some very profound changes just yet to our education system and to our health care system, a health care system that we heard the hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud saying is going to lead to a two-tiered system. A two-tiered system, one for the rich and one for the poor: that is what is going to happen.

In education it scares me to think that it could create a two-tiered system, that what is being proposed now is going to be a system whereby the poor people, people that are disadvantaged, people that don't have sufficient funds to send their kids to school – I've seen it all around the world in those poorer countries whereby certain children are given the benefit of schooling and health care and whatever else for the good life, and those that can't afford it because their parents can't afford it are sitting back, can't go to school, or they can't go to the schools that have a teaching system that is one that would make a child excel.

I know, growing up in this province, that we had one fantastic education system. It's one that I want my children to continue to go to, and it's one that I know my children's children would want to go to. Not only would I consider that being something that we would want them to do, but I would want to take it a step further. Rather than finding ways to dismantle some of the system that we have come to accept and to love, what we have to do is consider how we are going to make it better, not how to dismantle it. There is an ever-changing world, Mr. Speaker. The world is changing dramatically.

As we speak there are technologies going on that are mind boggling. Why is it that we're thinking of dismantling some of the systems that we have in place without even looking at how we could make it better, adaptable to the ever-changing world that we have to continue to live in? These are the areas that I know we have to consider. We have to consider them when we consider balancing our budget. Balancing our budget by downloading just doesn't solve the problem, Mr. Speaker, because the root of the problem still exists. It reminds me of quack grass.

Y ou can pull out the grass all you want, but, by golly, in just a few short days you'll start to see it sprout up again. I guess we can call this the quack theory of balancing the budget that exists today. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs, quite a farmer himself, just smiling away because he knows I'm right. He knows I'm absolutely right, because when you pull that grass out, in a c ouple of days, why, it starts to grow back again. MR. SEVERTSON: No, we use Roundup now. [interjections] MR. CHADI: He's talking about nuclear energy now, I think, or nuclear bombs. I'm not sure. He's calling it Roundup.

Y ou see, the root of the problem still exists, Mr. Speaker. We have to get to the root. We've got to get to the fundamental problem at hand. Just suggesting that a flat across-the-board cut or something close to it in each department is just not the answer. It isn't. We have to understand that it's going to go down all the way through the system and work its way down, whether it's municipalities or whether it's our education system, whether it's our counties, whether it's our IDs. No matter where it is, it's going to have to stop somewhere, and something is going to happen. Something has got to be given up.

We're starting to see it in health, and we're starting to see it in education. We haven't yet begun to see it in the municipalities. When I say we've only begun to see it, I don't mean that we've begun to feel it, because feeling it is quite different from seeing it. I know that Albertans are going to be really put out when the time comes that they start to feel the full effects of these budget cuts. Policing is an area that scares me, an area that we have to really consider whenever we're downloading onto municipalities. Fire departments: that scares me as well.

We have to consider that, because it's going to hurt. It truly is. Mr. Speaker, now I want to go into another area that we discussed earlier in different estimates debates. It's quite appropriate today to bring it into appropriation, because this is the final time that I'll have to speak on appropriation and on the budget. It w asn't so long ago that we were in estimates. All across the different departments that I spoke about, I suggested and I continue to insist that wh at we have to do is sell off the surpluses that we've got and utilize those funds to pay down debt.

Take whatever it is that we can sell off, whatever is salable, whether it's real estate, whether it's equipment of any kind. Use those moneys to pay down the debt. We heard today that there was a sale of certain assets. I question: where are those funds? Once you sell those assets, what do you do with those assets if you sold them?

I know that each department would sit there and say, "Well, you know, that helicopter was in my department; therefore, those funds ought to stay in my department." Or, for example, the sale of a piece of equipment that was in the Department of Municipal Affairs: "Well, you know, that should stay in my department." I dis- agree, Mr. Speaker, because the way I see it is that when you've expended funds, you've requisitioned funds first of all from the GRF. Y ou got those moneys from the general revenue fund. It came into your department, you purchased that equipment, and

1564 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1994 now you've sold that equipment. But in order to requisition those funds from the general revenue fund in the first place, you created a deficit situation in the whole budget system. All across the different departments, right across them, everyone is to blame. No matter whether we bought a $2 pen or a $50,000 computer; it all was part of the problem of creating the deficit in the first place in that particular year. So when we sell off a piece of equipment, take those funds, put them not in the general revenue. Apply them to debt.

Get rid of the debt that is the problem today that's causing us the most grief. Let us do that. Let's get rid of it. 3:50 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To use the Minister of Energy's phrase, it's no secret. It's no secret that I am opposed to these appropriation Bills and have been opposed to this budget. I've in fact been opposed to the budgets that have led us over eight years into the mess we're in. Incredible to me that the government and the cabinet want us to believe that they aren't accountable, that the mess we're in isn't their fault.

As I look at the front bench, 16 out of 17 were all here when the decisions were made, many of them a part of the inner circle. They were part of those decisions that got us into the trouble we're in now. This year we've got yet another flawed budget. This year it's accompanied by something called business plans. Now, I've said before, Mr. Speaker, that I think a Junior Achievement would be embarrassed to present a business plan of this nature.

The business plans are full of high-sounding phrases and buzzwords like "visions" and "goals" and "outcomes," but they're absolutely incomprehensible to anyone who has ever written a business plan or who knows what they are supposed to contain. MRS. BLACK: When did you last write one, Bettie? MRS. HEWES: Six months ago maybe. Want to see it? The deficits. Well, where did they come from? Did they come from the kindergarten children who are now going to have to . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Y es, yes. MRS. HEWES: The deficits came from the children. Okay. Did they come from unemployed people looking for work, Mr.

Speaker? Did they come from single folks on assistance? Did they come from sick people, disabled people? Did the deficits come from seniors who overspent? Where did they come from? Well, the deficits came from a profligate government, big spenders. Big spenders taking risks with taxpayers' money. Big, high-toned spenders. Now these big spenders, who are still, many of them, sitting up here making the decisions, are saying to us: "Oh, we're now the good guys. Now we've got the white hats on.

We're the good guys, and you innocent souls who have been paying the freight for eight years are now going to have to pay to cover up our mis- takes." That's what they're saying to us: "Now we're good guys. We made the mistakes, and you are going to get to pay for them." No secret – no secret – that I and other members of my caucus have urged this government over eight years – Mr. Speaker, over eight years we have begged, pleaded, and urged the government to get responsible, to be reasonable stewards of taxpayers' money.

No secret that we've asked for reform in how the budget is dealt with; we've asked for reform in the pensions. We've begged for it. We've asked for this government to compress government. No way; nothing to do it. Now this same bunch of folks, who presumably were never accountable for anything although they were all there making the decisions, are saying: "Oops, you're going to have to pay, folks. Not our fault." Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs is rising on a point of order. DR. WEST: Would the hon. member entertain a question in debate? MRS.

HEWES: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Too scared, too scared. MRS. HEWES: Y ou're so silly, Mr. Minister. Debate Continued MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, the question that gets asked of me over and over is: where did the money go? Where did it go? Well, let me tell you; it's still going. We heard about some more of it today. It's still going down the tube, and they still don't seem to be able to stop the drain. It went into unplanned, unnecessary activities. It went in to high-risk failures. It went into purchased friendships. Mr. Speaker, now this not-accountable team wants us to suffer the anguish.

They want to take tough measures, and everybody suffers. Well, I say that this government in this budget is trying to save money on the backs of people. They've hit the large budgets with no understanding of the consequences. MR. EV ANS: All the rest of the money went too, Bettie. MRS. HEWES: The money went, Mr. Minister, and you were here when the decisions were made, and you incurred the losses. No way of dodging that responsibility. I didn't vote for the budget. [interjection] Y ou didn't either; you were sitting over here. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor, sir? MR.

SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, the budget is being worked, the savings are being attempted on the backs of frightened, helpless people who have very little political clout. Eighty new taxes – 80 of them – new fees, off-loading to municipalities with the inevitable results of increased costs in utilities and property taxes, off-loading to private nonprofit and commercial agencies and organizations. Let me give you an example that I've spoken about before that I think is the essence of what is wrong here and the essence of what these unaccountable, unconscionable budgeters are trying to do.

Let me talk a little bit about what I think is a story of bad faith, and that is the story of what's happening to the seniors. Mr. Speaker, three years ago the government made an arbitrary cut in seniors' extended health benefits and other benefits. The seniors complained. The government got nervous because seniors do vote, and it was clear that this was an unfair kind of cut. There was a series of consultations, as we all know. Last year there was finally a roundtable to look at it. Last year the consultation reports were really shredded, and we were treated to a very sanitized version of what had happened.

Then a roundtable was held, and some other recommendations were made.

April 28, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1565 Then finally, not related really in any in-depth way to what had been said at any of those events, we had the plan that emerged in the business plans and in the budget. This is the plan that's called the Alberta seniors' benefit. It takes into consideration in a