October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2665 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, October 31, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/10/31 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which Y ou have given us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been presented with a petition signed by approximately 50 people representing Lethbridge, Alberta, urging the amendment of the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I seek your leave to introduce into the Legislature a petition signed by 1,040 Alber- tans, residents of Claresholm, Stavely, and Granum, requesting the government to ensure that no hospital beds are closed in South Western Alberta by an unelected Regional Health Authority without adequate consultation with residents. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd request that the petition I presented concerning Sturgeon general hospital please be read and received.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of the Sturgeon General Hospital within the Edmonton Region and to allow the Sturgeon General Hospital to serve its customers from the City of St. Albert, the MD of Sturgeon, the Town of Morinville, the Village of Legal, the Alexander Reserve, the Counties of Athabasca, Barrhead, Lac St. Anne, Parkland and Westlock. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to table four copies of the Workers' Compensation Board annual report for 1993 and four copies of a three-year review by the Occupational Health and Safety Council. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to file with the Legislative Assembly four copies of the annual report for the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1994.

I'd also at this time like to file four copies of the annual report for the Agricultural Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1994. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to file with the Assembly four copies of the sales agreement between the government and Deltaquad Ltd. for the return of Northern Lite Canola to the private sector. Th is filing is yet another example of the Premier's commitment to open government and complete access to information. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've been asked to table and read four copies of a letter from the Local Advisory Committee of Steinhauer Elementary School, their resolution. Their resolution reads: We, the Steinhauer Elementary School LAC urge the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to amend the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to file with you for the Assembly four copies of a letter addressed to the former Minister of Justice inviting the government of Alberta to partici- pate in the Alberta Liberal Caucus Y outh Justice Consultation Panel. There was not one response from the government members' side. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to file four copies of a letter from Mayor Jan Reimer of Edmonton to Audrey Jensen dated August 18 stating that there is an absence of any provincial legislation prohibiting live peep shows. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table four copies of a letter to the Minister of Education from the St. Albert Protestant school board urging the government of the province of Alberta to amend the Alberta School Act to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per [student] per school year. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wish to table with the Assembly the response from the Ethics Commissioner as submit- ted to the Speaker today.

The response is with respect to the announced appointment of the former Deputy Premier and Minister of Economic Development and Tourism to the position of chairman of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Copies of the response are being distributed to members of the Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose. MR. PHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and to all Members of the Legislative Assembly the former MLA for Calgary-Montrose, Mr. Rick Orman, who is sitting in

2666 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 *These spellings could not be verified at the time of publication. the Speaker's gallery today. With your permission I would ask him to stand up and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to present to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly 60 enthusiastic students from one of St. Albert's finest schools, Marie Poburan. They are here with their t eachers Gilbert Guimont and Janice McDonald and with four parent helpers: Mrs. Anne Gannon, Mrs.

Joan Klassen, Mrs. Anne Brown, and Mrs. Sharon McLeod. They are in the public gallery. I'd ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased and honoured to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 45 people from Muir Lake school. They're made up of 38 grade 6 students who are very, very up to date on the goings-on in government and are here to culminate their studies of it.

They are accompanied by their teachers Mary Brackenbury and Debbie Rutland, also by parents Mrs. Kaarsmaker, Mrs. Batke, Mrs. Basiuk, Mrs. Hage, Mrs. Crawford, and Mrs. Meunier. I'd ask them all to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Leader of the Opposition. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to introduce to you, sir, and through you to members of the Assem- bly a group of 15 students from the social work program in Grant MacEwan Community College in the city.

A number of these students are doing student placements in constituency offices and in social agencies throughout the city of Edmonton. I also want to make special notice that one of them, Miss Janet Goodall*, is working in my constituency office, and she's very welcome there. They are accompanied by Adrian* and Rose Marie Tremblay. Rose Marie manages my constituency office and is a very valued friend and employee. The students are sitting in the public gallery, and I'd ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, there's a special young goblin visiting our Assembly today.

He's in the members' gallery. He's a young gentleman by the name of Nicholas Assaly. He's been at kindergarten all morning long. He'll be at kindergarten all week long and all year long. He's here with his mother, Mrs. Denise Assaly. I'd ask them to rise and seek the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to members of the House – perhaps I should more appropriately say reintroduce – former page from Calgary, Jean Moore, and next to her is the sister of Jennifer Ross, Amanda Ross.

I'd ask them both to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period 1:40 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Leader of the Opposition. Ethics in Government MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans see the government's bungling of all of last week's events as scenes out of a Three Stooges comedy. The Liberal opposition proved that the former Deputy Premier had significant official dealings with the ERCB despite the Premier's assurances to the contrary. The Premier got caught disregarding his own conflict of interest legislation. It's now been verified by the Ethics Commissioner.

My first question is to the Premier. How could the Premier have proposed the appointment of the former Deputy Premier when you both – both of you – were part of approving dozens of significant ERCB permits over five years? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all I'm so very, very pleased to see that the former Deputy Premier and Minister of Economic Development and Tourism is very much a part of our caucus, part of a strong team, is sitting in the Legislature today fully committed and devoted and dedicated to the constituents of Barrhead-Westlock, and we're so proud to have him here. Mr.

Speaker, relative to that particular appointment, as I said, it was considered at that time that there was not significant involvement. However, I stated quite clearly and honestly and openly that I would abide by the ruling of the Ethics Commis- sioner, and I'm so very, very happy that the Ethics Commissioner has brought down not a ruling on this particular case but has set very clear and specific guidelines for the future. That's what this party is all about. That's what this government is all about. It's about the future, not the past. MRS. HEWES: Mr.

Speaker, it seems to be routine now for ministers to breach their own legislation and regulations: the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Utilities, the Minister of Family and Social Services, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My question is to the Premier. When are you going to remove those ministers? MR. KLEIN: There won't be any cabinet shuffles this week, Mr. Speaker. MRS. HEWES: Not really a laughing matter, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, my next question is again to the Premier.

By referring all of these messes created to ethics commissioners all around the c ountry, are you adm itting that you really cannot determine what is right and what is wrong? MR. KLEIN: Well, yes I can: we're right; they're wrong. That is a good determination, Mr. Speaker. Relative to my referral to the Ethics Commissioner it was not my referral; it was the hon. member's referral. It was the hon. acting leader of the Liberal Party who referred this matter to the Ethics Commissioner, and I stood up here openly and honestly and said that we would abide by the ruling of the Ethics Commis- sioner.

What could be better than that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Energy and Utilities Board Appointment MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On October 24 the Minister of Energy sang the praises of the former Deputy Premier and his qualifications as chair of the AEUB. She claimed, and I quote, that the energy industry was quite supportive [of this appointment], in fact are looking forward to the talents that this gentleman brings to the table, his long years of administrative capabilities.

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2667 Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. My question to the Minister of Energy: will the minister retract her foolish claim that the energy industry supported the appointment of the former Deputy Premier to the chair of the AEUB? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, on the October 24 date I expressed the talents of the former Deputy Premier in this House, and I still believe that those statements are absolutely accurate, that he has tremendous talent and tremendous capabilities and is recognized throughout this province as having those talents.

I clearly said also that at that point I had indication from the industry that they were supportive of the nomination going forward, and I stand by that statement that I made on that day that they were in fact at that point supportive of it. However, as the week progressed, controversy continued to arise after that, and we had to review the situation and reflect upon the decision. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question, hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did this minister compromise the energy interests of Albertans just to allow the Premier to bail out of his political jam?

MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, this minister has never compro- mised the energy industry in this province. In fact, it was this minister that tabulated the response and the controversy and went forward to her Premier with that information. MR. DICKSON: Well, that begs, then, this question, Mr. Speaker. Why did this minister sit silent for over a week and permit this blatant corruption of the AEUB when she knew on October 20 that this pork barrel appointment was already in the works? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, this minister did not sit by.

This minister met with industry players, with the business community, and with the environmental communities to discuss the appoint- ment and made an assessment on it and reported the same. Highway Construction MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, last week we learned from the Auditor General that the minister of transportation somehow jumped the priority listing of road construction projects and chose nine low priority projects all for Tory ridings and all just prior to the 1993 election.

Today I am tabling the minister's own lists of road construction criteria, which don't, believe it or not, specify pre-election politics as a consideration at all but put safety as the number one priority in picking road projects. Why, then, did the minister of transportation approve only four of 35 projects required for safety reasons while intervening personally to choose nine low priority projects all for Tory ridings and all just months before the 1993 election? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I tabled docu- mentation in regards to the core list of priority projects, and it's dated February 4.

I think the hon. member can read it. Let me just say what the item says: At this time, the following Core List contains previously approved projects plus additional projects considered high on the priority list. I go on to say what the criteria for the province of Alberta say. In general, operation and safety, reconstruction, rehabilitation projects are priorized higher than new grading or paving projects, and Highway 43 was in that category. 1:50 MR. MITCHELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister did actually choose four safety-related projects out of the 35 listed by his own department.

Was it just coincidence, or was it further political interference that fully three of these four projects just happened to be in the minister's own riding? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I tabled a list, but let me say again that there was only one Liberal opposition rural member in the House when this announcement was made on February 4. As I've said before, Highway 43 is one of the busiest two-lane highways in the province of Alberta, and people respect safety, want safety, and that's what they received under this criterion, which was classed as A, a priority item. MR.

MITCHELL: I guess there's another criterion: safety is especially a priority when it's in the minister's own backyard. Mr. Speaker, why did the minister of transportation overlook the other 31 safety-related road construction projects while approving among other things a $1.8 million dust control project, which – I'm sure it's just a coincidence – also happens to be in his own riding? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, when you look at the item that I tabled – and I would hope they'd have another look at it – there are 42 items that we put on our priority list.

Why would I approve a $9.1 million contract for Highway 63, which is – oh, he's not here today; it doesn't matter – on the road to Fort McMurray? Highway 43 runs from British Columbia straight through my constituency and a number of others, and we did a number of jobs on Highway 43. I suppose the Liberals would say that we shouldn't have fixed the road up from Whitecourt to Fox Creek, Moose Row, where there was a safety hazard, killing of animals. That's what they say. They say: don't do anything in rural Alberta. That's the policy of the Liberals.

They also said that if they were the government, they would remove $800 million from roadwork in Alberta. That's the kind of road policy they have. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. MR. N. TA YLOR: Don't run over Bambi. MR. SPEAKER: Order, Redwater. Ritalin Prescriptions DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend it surfaced from several sources that the number of Ritalin prescrip- tions had increased dramatically this year over last in the province of Alberta. One of two things is happening. Either the recogni- tion of attention deficit disorder is increasing, or Ritalin is being abused.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Y ou stated that your department . . . [interjections] Speaking of attention deficit disorder. Y ou stated that your department would be addressing this situation. Why wouldn't you simply turn the issue over to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who already can track Ritalin through the triplicate prescription program, and ask them to conduct an investigation as it falls within their mandate? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, in addition to referring the matter to my department for a report back on their assessment of the situation, I have already contacted Alberta Health, and it is my understanding that the Minister of Health has requested that the

2668 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 College of Physicians and Surgeons provide an assessment of the situation as to the use of Ritalin. Certainly it is an area which involves the clinical expertise of people in the medical field and their relationship to their patients and their community. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, there's no doubt that a great number of children with ADD are being helped by Ritalin. How can you guarantee that these youths will continue to receive treatment without the stigma that this type of publicity brings? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think the important thing here, as I have indicated, is that all parties involved have the best interests of the children in mind. This is a matter between a family and their physician, and in terms of having this viewed in the proper perspective as the type of medical patient relationship that it is, I can only urge all parties involved to be aware of this issue, to respect that relationship, and to provide for the proper confidenti- ality and so forth with respect to the children and the families involved. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental? The hon. Member for Leduc. Child Welfare MR.

KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. The minister's attempt to divert attention from the latest child welfare issue, including the minister's own breach of his own law, is clear evidence of incompetence and irresponsibility by this minister.

The department's effort to downplay the circumstances surround- ing a six-year-old child in its care were shameful enough until we heard the minister say in this House last week: I will not at this time commit to an independent investigation until I know and our colleagues know that there is something wrong with the system. Mr. Minister, my question to you this afternoon is: how many cases of abused children and department neglect and government- commissioned reports have to be presented to you before you wake up and realize that children in Alberta are not safe? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, I think that when it comes to children in Alberta, this government is very serious. That is why in the next three years we're sp ending close to a half billion dollars on services to children. That is why inside a month we'll come out with a complete new plan and a new way of providing services to children in Alberta. In that particular case in Calgary of course my department is doing a review of how the issue was handled. When that review is completed, I will report to the Assembly. MR. KIRKLAND: Mr. Minister, we've heard your mathematical lessons constantly.

Move into some human compassion lessons right away. My supplemental this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is: how are you going to restore the privacy of this six-year-old child and her family since both you and your communications officer have breached your own Act by wilfully disclosing their personal information all for the purpose of damage control within your department? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, this issue I personally referred to the Ethics Commissioner. When he comes forward with a report, I will address the issue at the time. MR. KIRKLAND: The final question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier.

He's concerned about children in this province. Are you prepared to show that you're serious about the safety and dignity of children in this province by removing this minister, who has shown that he contravenes his own rules, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this minister tried to share some information with one of the opposition members as a matter of courtesy, and I'm sure that he shared that information in the best interests of the child involved.

The hon. minister is indeed a very caring individual with a tremendous amount of compassion and a tremendous amount of concern for the children of this province. I think it's insulting for the hon. Member for Leduc to make those remarks, those kinds of comments. He should be ashamed of himself. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. Emergency Medical Services MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Labour.

At the Alberta Urban Municipali- ties Association meeting last month a resolution was passed that requested that emergency medical services be declared as an essential service and that the Labour Relations Code be amended for that reflection, and I'd like to file four copies of that resolu- tion with the Assembly. As you know, firefighters, police officers, and nurses are declared essential services and are precluded from the right to strike, but that's not the same with emergency medical services, and their services cannot be provided by alternate health care providers.

So my question today is: when does Alberta Labour plan to start negotiations with the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association to declare emergency medical services as essential? 2:00 MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the member has correctly identified the areas that are declared essential right now. Actually emergency medical services in some jurisdictions are in fact declared essential services if those people are working for a hospital, and there is a number of jurisdictions in the province where that's the case.

This having been brought forward at the convention by a resolu- tion as such, it is certainly something that we want to look at and also be in consultation with all parties that would be involved to look at the possibilities of changes if necessary. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, if some of the groups such as the union reps or medical employees are opposed to the change, what position would Alberta Labour expect to take? MR.

DA Y: Well, the position and the stated mandate, as a matter of fact, of Alberta Labour on issues like this is to be a facilitator and to show that co-operation can lead to results. That's some- thing we've certainly proven over the past, and we'd like to continue to keep that record and follow up with the appropriate actions.

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2669 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, how long will it be before we can expect to see the reclassification as an essential service? I'm w ondering if it would be in time to prevent another strike. MR. DA Y: Actually it's been very rare that these particular services have struck. However, a situation did occur about three years ago, I believe, in Calgary where that arose. Legislation exists right now for the government to have the ability to order people back to work in any event.

So if there were something looming in terms of a risk to the public, the government could take steps to order those people back to work. It's an area that we've made a commitment to in terms of looking at, as with any suggestions that come forward for improving our legislation, so we're going to be happy to do that. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. Government Appointments MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday the Premier promised to review the Department of Economic Development and Tourism to deal with the many patronage appointments in that particular department, and speaking of patronage appointments, I'd like to remind the Premier of the order in council from May 18, 1994, appointing his former city hall assistant, Mr. Wilf Morgan, to the Alberta Assessment Appeal Board. My first question to the Premier: was Mr. Morgan given this appointment following a full and open public competition, or was it just his good connections to the Premier that got him the position? MR. KLEIN: Well, first of all, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure if Wilf Morgan is indeed a Conservative. I know that he used to vote for me as the mayor. [interjections] Y es, absolutely. I can tell you something about Mr. Morgan. He has a wealth of experience in municipal administration. As a matter of fact, this gentleman was responsible for the complete design of the very highly successful plus-15 system in the city of Calgary. He is a qualified planner, fully familiar with the intri cacies of the regulatory process and was indeed a very good candidate. Now, I'll tell you who else was a good friend of mine at city hall and extremely competent.

His name is George Cornish. He was the former chief commissioner. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? He's also on that board. MR. BRUSEKER: My supplemental question: could the Premier table a list in the House of a ll the people who applied for that particular position? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. DR. WEST: Y es. That's under the jurisdiction of Municipal Affairs, and I believe that there were some 280 applications on a public process for this board. We've combined three boards together: the Assessm ent Appeal Board, the Local Authorities Board, and the Planning Board.

We do some cross-appointments of these people so that they have functions not only in assessment but in planning and other areas of decision-making as it relates to municipalities. One of the interesting things in doing this, of course, is that we got rid of three chairmen and an overall director. It saved the province probably some $350,000, and at the same time it went to a public process, probably the first that's ever been done when it came to the Assessment Appeal Board and the LAB, in a truly open fashion. I'm sure I can come up with all the names that applied for that job. MR.

BRUSEKER: Well, now the issue's getting a little cloudier, so I'll go back to the Premier. Can the Premier tell Albertans which . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. MR. BRUSEKER: I wonder if the Premier could tell Albertans and in particular his Tory pals what criteria he's going to use in deciding which patronage appointments he's going to let stand and which patronage appointments he's going to rescind. MR. KLEIN: I don't know. Perhaps you can ask that of your hon. colleague once he's appointed to the bench, ask what criteria will be used at that particular time, Mr. Speaker. I recall the hon.

Minister of Environmental Protection here in the Legislature last week saying to the Liberals: pick one, pick one of your own, and we will assign that person to the Alberta special waste management board. So we're wide open. We're saying that we'll appoint Liberals along with Conservatives. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. Member for Fort McMurray to file with me a list of all the Liberals who work in the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. I'm sure there are some. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Education Labour Relations MRS.

BURGENER: Later this week the three major school boards associations are going to begin their annual conventions and anticipate that continued discussion will focus on the fiscal framework document, which has specific recommendations regarding the funding of administration and some options for them to consider. My question today is to the Minister of Education. To what extent are the preparation and negotiation of union contracts included in the administration funding envelope in the fiscal framework document? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the whole area of collective bargaining and the resulting preparation of contracts and collective agreements is part of the administrative and governance function of school boards and therefore would be considered to be funded under the amount for administration and be under the administra- tive cap. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What allowances is the department prepared to make for boards where prolonged contractual negotiations may draw resources from the classroom into administration in order to deal with the completion of these contractual obligations?

MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in the province today you have quite a wide range of expenditure on administration. I have not had it drawn to my attention that this is directly related to collective bargaining. I think the collective bargaining process is part of the current administrative and governance function of school boards, and it can be handled under the concept of an administrative cap. If by a prolonged period of negotiations the

2670 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 hon. member is referring to a strike or lockout situation during that period of time, there has been the ability of school boards to provide the funding for meetings and so forth that is necessary to carry on discussions. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. BURGENER: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour.

Given that the Alberta School Boards Association has downsized consider- ably, they may no longer have the resources to offer labour relations support, and I want to know whether the Minister of Labour is prepared to consider the option of provincial bargaining for our school boards in Alberta. MR. DA Y: Actually that option is available, Mr. Speaker, but it would be up to the parties to decide if they want to go to a provincial organization or not.

In terms of resources it's impor- tant to remember that the number of boards involved in bargaining now has gone from 120 to something less than 60 – I think 58 or 57 – so there's considerable savings there. But, again, a decision to go to province-wide bargaining would also be somewhat in contradiction to what the 1993 consultation across the province showed, which was that people preferred the local autonomy of local bargaining, but if they do prefer to go to a provincial organization, that option is available to them. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. 2:10 MLA Remuneration MRS.

ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike Manitoba, who established an Indemnities and Allowances Commission for pay, perks, privileges, and pensions to MLAs, this Premier continues to break his promise to set up such a commission. The issue is not money but the fact that members of the Legislature can set their own pay. I wonder how many Albertans have that privilege. My question is to the Premier. Why do you continue to break your promise to Albertans to establish an independent review body, allowing for the continua- tion of past fiscal obscenities? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, again the form and the structure of such a commission is not the Premier's responsibility; it is the responsibility of Members' Services. Now, the firm that did the first report has been asked to do yet another review of that report. When that is in, I will present that to Members' Services. If you're on Members' Services, hon. member, maybe then you with your colleagues both on your side and this side can recommend a form and structure for that independent review. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the Members' Services Committee was canceled conveniently.

To the Premier: how can you justify to the youth of Alberta your continuation of past practices of rewarding former members of this Legislature with blatant patronage appointments, these same people who placed a $30 billion mortgage on the future of our youth? MR. KLEIN: I don't know what she's talking about. I really don't. Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that you are the chairman, sir, and I'm not going to comment beyond that. Just to show how slow these people are, I mean really slow, this order in council filed by the hon. Member for Calgary-North West is dated May 18.

The name that he mentioned . . . [interjections] Because she brought up the question of patronage, Mr. Speaker, and I consider that to be all part and parcel of the answer I'm about to provide. When I look at the list, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 1 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 appointments. [interjections] Thirty appointme nts, and they pick out the one person I know, and I don't even know if he's a Conservative.

I will bet that on this list of 30, there are more than one or two or three or four Liberals, and I don't mind. [interjections] MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, the only joke in this Assembly is the Premier of this province, and it's obvious he had kindergarten. To the Premier: Mr. Premier, will you stop demanding daily that Albertans make sacrifices while you ignore the demand for such a commission to review perks, privileges, patronage appointments, re-establishment allowances, and all other obscene grapplings over the public purse? And it's no joke, Mr. Premier. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, this government has gained a reputation across Canada as being the only government to really address in a real, meaningful way the whole question of salaries, perks, and pensions, the only jurisdiction in this country to completely scrap pensions, the only jurisdiction that provided leadership by taking a 5 percent rollback in salaries. We have done a marvelous job, and I'm proud to say that the Liberals have been part of it, and they should feel good about it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Trade Mission to Russia and Poland MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Alberta Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Can the minister please advise the members of this Assembly of the purpose of his recent trip to Russia? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you. To the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West: yes, I'd be pleased to. Alberta was asked to head up the Canadian delegation to Russia to discuss the issue of Russian/Canadian federalism. This is a project that was estab- lished by the federal government.

Because of the expertise that Alberta has in federal and provincial governments and the long- standing relationships that they have established, Alberta was asked to head up this particular session. There will be six sessions that will be held over a period of two years. This was the first one, and as a result I was quite honoured and quite pleased to have had the privilege to head up Canada's delegation to this important conference. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister is responsible for agriculture in this province, will the minister advise if he was involved in any meetings regarding agriculture? MR. PASZKOWSKI: The first two days were spent basically discussing the Russian/Canadian federalism project, how to structure government. We have to realize that Russia has been a

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2671 federalist state from virtually its inception. It has not had the privileges that we have or the knowledge of the operations of federal/provincial/municipal governments, so this was part of the process of structuring. The third day we had the opportunity of meeting on items regarding agriculture. We have to realize that the province of Alberta does more business in Russia than any other province in Canada. We also have to realize that throughout the years the Russian government has bought more grain from Canada than any other country in the entire world.

We had the opportunity of meeting with the ministry of agriculture. We met with representatives of the Russian state and land committee regarding privatization; the establishment of the Torrens system, for example. Through the period of time Russia has been one big state block. It is not subdivided, and in order to privatize, obviously the whole issue of subdivision has to become a fairly important issue. So that was one of the other items we dealt with. We also had the opportunity while there to meet with the World Bank regarding financing and funding. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My final s upple- mental: will the minister advise what progress can be reported as to his travel to Poland? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Poland is really an exciting part of the world as far as trade opportunities for Alberta are concerned. Poland has established a network of distribution throughout all of the eastern bloc countries. Though this is the first venture for Alberta Agriculture into Poland, we were actually able to do a fair amount of business. We were able to contact Alberta companies regarding the issue of pork, of beer, of canola, of the whole area of environmental cleanup.

Poland, a country which at one time was not able to meet some of its financial commitments, in 1989 chose to take the route that the Premier of this province chose. That was to make a change in their fiscal policy, and they chose to do it in a very dramatic way in that they chose to do it all up front and all at once. Poland is now the most successful country in the eastern bloc countries. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. School Board Amalgamations MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the 29th of October the people of Slave Lake Roman Catholic separate school division voted overwhelmingly against the forced amalgamation with the newly formed Greater Trinity Catholic regional division, and still this government will not listen. This is yet another example of how this government continues to dictate and impose its authoritarian agenda. My firs t question is to the Minister of Education. Is the minister going to force this amalgamation, which will save no money, in spite of the will of the people? 2:20 MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is my understanding that a significant majority, some 20 percent of the electorate, that turned out did vote against the process of amalgamation and regionalization. However, I think it is very important that in the process of amalgamation and regionalization we had set out a goal, which was to reduce the number of school boards in the province. We knew that there would be some efficiencies to be gained for the system overall in that process. That goal of the government was set out many months ago.

There's been the opportunity to work with Alberta Education, to work with our implementation team to discuss the whole issue of a smooth transition to larger school jurisdictions. That was available to the Lesser Slave Lake Roman Catholic school board. They chose not to amalgamate and regionalize voluntarily, and following the deadline of August 31, they were amalgamated, regionalized with other school boards. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplemental is to the minister.

Why are you forcing these school boards to spend money on lawsuits instead of on educating children? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is not forcing any school board in this province to spend money on lawsuits, I can assure you. That money is better spent on running the schools of this province, and that is certainly the case. I think all Albertans would agree with respect to that. Now, with respect to the question that the hon. member is, I think, asking again, we have a goal in mind of reducing the number of school boards in the province.

We have moved forward as we said we would a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, and the goal of 60 school boards in this province, the target is being reached. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister once again going to dictate, just like he did with the Sundance- Evergreen regional division, who's going to be on the new board? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, following the deadline of August 31, yes, the appropriate ministerial orders, the orders in council, were passed setting up the last number of regional arrangements that needed to be made, including of course when you have a school board, you have to have some trustees to serve on it. I would like to mention one other thing just before I close, Mr. Speaker, on this answer, and that is that the vast majority of public and separate school boards in this province took on the challenge of amalgamation and regionalization. They have done a tremendous amount of work. They have been part of the process.

They have allowed us to meet the goal of 60 school boards in this province for the betterment of education in the province. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Highway Construction (continued) MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the nine projects commented on in the Auditor General's report was the final paving link between the south end of Highway 22 in the former Pincher Creek-Crowsnest riding and the north end of Highway 22 in the Highwood riding. This final link is in Little Bow. Since 1987 three local municipalities, three local municipal governments . . . AN HON.

MEMBER: Y ou're the missing link. MR. McFARLAND: It must be Halloween, Mr. Speaker. We've got some clowns over here.

2672 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 Three local municipal governments have realized the importance of general transportation safety, local ratepayer concerns, as well as tourism. Will the Minister of Transportation and Utilities clarify at what stage of development this final link was when he gave the final approval to complete the project this past year? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, we have some 400 requests come to us from priorities of local governments – MDs, counties, IDs – and we rank them according to our criteria.

If I might mention, the criteria that we use are quite adequate, because in Public Accounts the Auditor General says, "We're not saying that the criteria are inadequate." He went on to say that there is a need to do some sorting of these criteria, and that's exactly what takes place. We have in addition to those nine secret highways that we hear about some 247 additional highway construction programs that were constructed in '93-94 for a total of 256 projects, all priorized by local governments, for a total of some $225 million. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order that we might share that information and I might provide a response to the constituents in Little Bow, would you be willing to provide a list, which you've just indicated you have, to those of us in this Assembly? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, every highway project that is tendered by Transportation and Utilities and awarded is public knowledge, but I will make this commitment: I will provide each member in this Assembly with the roads, highways, construction programs that were done in '93-94 within their constituency if they so desire. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Were some of these projects, Mr. Minister, that were completed by your department this year planned in co-operation with local municipal- ities over a number of years or months, or in fact were they just planned since June of 1993? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, some of these projects have been on the list with counties and MDs and local governments for years not just months. Y es, some are of a lower priority.

As I toured the province this year and visited with every local government – every county, MD, special area, and ID – we set out criteria that roads with a certain amount of traffic would be given a higher priority and those with a lower amount of traffic per day would be given a lower priority. Y es, in conjunction with local governments we set that priority, and some of them have been on the list for a number of months. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Alberta Opportunity Company Appointment MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday we learned from Public Accounts that a tutor was hired and paid $98,000 to tutor both the former Deputy Premier and his prede- cessor, Peter Elzinga, on how AOC works. This appointment was a blatant patronage appointment by none other than Peter Elzinga, now the Premier's right-hand man. To the Premier: what duties did this tutor perform for the minister to justify his $98,000 salary when there are hundreds of other AOC employees capable of performing this function? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm just getting briefed on a number of issues relative to my department, and the hon. member has just provided me with one more issue to be briefed on. Thank you. MS CARLSON: Well, this should be easy. Was this one of the blatant patronage appointments that you had to keep to satisfy Peter Elzinga? MR. KLEIN: It doesn't take much of anything to satisfy Peter Elzinga, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I'm being briefed on a number of these issues, so I'll check it out and get back to her. MS CARLSON: Well, perhaps you can answer this one.

How is it that patronage is more important than taxpayers' dollars? MR. KLEIN: I'm sure you'll be able to ask that question very soon of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, I filed a document in the House last week. Mr. Roy Parker was hired by the then economic development and trade minister to help that specific board not the minister. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Senior Citizens' Programs MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seniors have carefully planned their futures while this government has not.

Government incompetence in implementing the Alberta seniors' benefit program has forced three-quarters of Alberta's seniors, 150,000 people, to call the government hot line in an attempt to understand the program and the status of their applications at a cost of $4,500 a day. My question is to the chair of the seniors' advisory committee. Why has a two-week program costing $45,000 become an eight-month nightmare costing over three- quarters of a million dollars with no end in sight? 2:30 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has raised a very serious question with respect to process, and seniors have indeed been on the phones trying to seek clarification of this program. I think the issue to be recognized is that there is a very complex change in what seniors have been involved with, and a number of people have been assisting them in addressing the completion of forms. I'm very pleased that the staff of the department have worked considerable hours at personal expense to clarify the situation for seniors. Thank you. MR. BRACKO: It should have been planned better.

To the same member: since you've received 150,000 phone calls, what will it take for you to realize that something is wrong and needs to be fixed? MRS. BURGENER: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the interesting things that developed over this particular phone campaign was that

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2673 a number of seniors were identified who were entitled to benefits but because of process and lack of information had not accessed them, and we have been able to assist seniors in receiving the benefits that they were entitled to through this particular process. MR. BRACKO: My question was to the Premier, but he's left early. Maybe they should dock his pay. To the same member: are you going to wait for the other 80,000 seniors to call so you can ignore all seniors in the province? MRS. BURGENER: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that the Seniors Advisory Council in conjunction with the Alberta Council on Aging held an information workers' workshop in the first week of September to bring together close to 200 key workers for seniors throughout the province to clarify the information and get the message back to the community. So I think we're taking a proactive stand on this. Thank you. Speaker's Ruling Decorum MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period has expired, and the Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind the hon. Member for St.

Albert that it is inappropriate to make the comment that he did, particularly in view of the question that he asked afterwards. There was absolutely nothing in that question that couldn't have been asked to the hon. member. The hon. member should cease making those comments. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 41 Government Organization Act Moved by Mrs.

Soetaert that the question for second reading be amended to read that Bill 41, the Government Organization Act, be not now read a second time because the Assembly feels that the Bill does not recognize the need for the Legislature to approve the creation and establishment of government departments and the delegation of powers, duties, or functions to any person. [Adjourned debate October 26: Mr. Renner] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order. [interjec- tions] Order please. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of your last ruling I certainly won't comment on the reason for the commotion and the fact that I had to wait to start speaking on this important Bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief this afternoon. What I would like to do is remind all members of the House of the comments I made the last time we were discussing this Bill, when in fact I moved adjournment on the debate on this Bill.

I pointed out at that time that this Bill, which is being, in my opinion, filibustered by the opposition, is nothing more than a consolidation of a number of Acts regarding the structure and the way that the government operates. If you'll remember, at that time I used as an example the Department of Advanced Education Act, which is one of the Acts among many that is repealed as a result of the Government Organization Act.

I pointed out at that time that there are many, many similarities between the existing Act, the Act that we operate under at the present time, and the Govern- ment Organization Act that's under debate right now.

I won't go into a repetitive nature on that, but at that time I indicated that I felt the opposition was raising issues that they felt were of dire concern to them, dire to the point that they had to bring in a reasoned amendment to this Bill showing this House and showing the members of this House how terrible it would be for the government to operate under this new structure, when in fact a lot of the points that they were making, in fact most of the points that the opposition has been making during the many hours of debate on this Bill are essentially the same thing in the existing legislation.

They talk about the fact that the Minister has the right to delegate authority. Well, the minister has the same right at the present time. They talk about the fact that the minister has the authority to write regulations and to enact regulations through order in council. That same right is in the Act that we already operate under at the present time. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would encourage all members of the House, particularly members of the Liberal opposition, to rethink their position on this reasoned amendment.

Let's bring the reasoned amendment to a vote as quickly as possible so we can get back to discussing the real business at hand in this House, the real business at hand of restructuring and reforming the way this government operates. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I stand to continue the filibuster and to serve notice on the hon. Member for Medicine Hat that I think it is our duty on this legislation to filibuster as hard and as long as we can. I'd like to give the arguments to you this afternoon, hon. member, for those reasons.

First of all, I'd like to start with an explanation of ministerial responsibility. This is taken from a book entitled The Language of Canadian Politics. It's written by a professor at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University, and I would like to read just from page 170. It says: Ministerial responsibility. The prin ciple that cabinet ministers are individually responsible to the legislature for actions and policies within their portfolios. Ministers are also responsible to each other and collectively to the legislature.

This constitutional requirement is central to responsible government, that is, the legislature's control of the executive. This is the forum that is the supreme forum. Some people call this the highest court of Alberta. This is the forum where ministers are held accountable, where a cabinet is held account- able by the elected representatives. Now, hon. member, your argument is that this legislation, Bill 41, "is nothing more," as your words put it, "than a consolidation of a number of Acts." Well, let me read two sections to you and then relate to the other Act that was dropped on us last week. In Bill 41,

section 9(1), it says: A Minister may in writing delegate any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on him by this Act or any other Act or regulation to any person. It looks pretty innocuous. Then it says in

section 10(1) of Bill 41: Subject to

section 1 1, a Minister may enter into agreements on or in connection with any matter under the Minister's administration. I guess if you looked at Bill 41 standing alone, you would say again: well, that looks pretty innocuous. The real blow comes when you look at Bill 57. I hope the hon. member has had an opportunity to look at that Bill, because that Bill takes those two sections and takes them further. I just want

2674 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 to give you a couple of pertinent sections out of Bill 57, hon. member. It says in

section 2(1) of Bill 57: In accordance with this Act, the Minister may enter into a contract with a corporation under which the responsibilities of the Minister or of a public official under an enactment are exercised by the corpora- tion instead of by the Minister or the public official. In other words, we're now seeing how this thing is unfolding. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat says that a minister can delegate.

Bill 41 says that you can delegate and you can delegate pursuant to agreements, and this new Act says that we can set up a corporation and this corporation can take on the duties that a minister would normally have or an individual that reports to the minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many issues here. One of them that I want to get to is the issu e of the Auditor General. Under the Auditor General Act the Auditor General can only do an investigation if the Auditor General is dealing with a review of the records of a department, a fund administrator, or a provincial agency.

I hope the hon. member is listening to that, b ecause I need to repeat that. Under the Auditor General Act the Auditor General can do a review, and the review can be requested – as I requested the Auditor General to do a review of Gainers, but he wouldn't do it – of the records of a department, a fund adminis- trator, or a provincial agency. Hon. member, it does not say anywhere here: a private corporation or a corporation or some entity that has been created by agreement that's referred to in Bill 57. This is important. 2:40 Now, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 57,

section 1 1(2), it says that "the minister may ask the Auditor General to conduct an investigation of the financial affairs of an administrative authority" if the minister is satisfied that ther e is something wrong with the financial records and there are "reasonable grounds for doing so." But again it's got to relate to a department, a fund administrator, or a provincial agency. So if you delegate authority from a minister to some new corporation, a private corporation incorpo- rated under the laws of the province of Alberta, now we can't get a review. If I stand in this Assembly or the hon.

Member for Medicine Hat stands in this Assembly and says, "There's some- thing wrong with this agreement; there is something wrong with the financial statements that relate to this corporation that the minister delegated to," nothing can be done. Nothing can be done. Under the old system something could be done. Now, in addition to that, there's something called ministerial responsibility, which I happen to believe in and so does the country and so does the province and so do the people of Alberta.

This runs away; this flies in the face of that ministerial res ponsibility or those concepts, those precepts of democracy as we t ook them from England. Now, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is dangerous. It looked innocuous, but when you combine the provisions of Bill 41 with the provisions of Bill 57, this is dangerous legislation. It thwarts the kind of review an Auditor General should be doing. The minister can stand in this Assembly and say: "I don't know anything about it.

I delegated authority to this corporation to look after the affairs of the transportation department or an issue in highways." Here's one: the assured income for the severely handicapped. There's a provision in there, hon. member, that says: the director may require a person receiving a benefit to submit to a review. This is now a provision under Bill 57 that could be delegated to a private corporation.

Ministerial responsi- bility and ministerial accountability, the need to be able to come into this House to talk about how fees are assessed or might be paid to AISH people, I couldn't contemplate that happening, but a private corporation, if this were given to a private corporation, could impose fees on somebody who wanted to come and talk to the corporation about his or her benefits under AISH. Is that what the hon. member wants? Is that the kind of democracy that we know in Alberta? I don't think it is.

So this is hardly "nothing more than a consolidation of a number of Acts," as my friend from Medicine Hat is suggesting. This is a dramatic wholesale departure from the democratic precepts as we know them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just go a little further and link Bill 57 and Bill 41.

The responsibility that a minister has under any Act – you can take AISH; you can take a Bill that deals with the Auditor General Act; you can take a Bill that deals with the Motor Vehicle Administration Act; you can take a Bill that deals with the Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act: any of these things have ministerial responsibilities set out in the Act. In the Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act, for example, it says that a minister shall ensure that proper education is looked after for people that are in an apprenticeship program.

Under 41 linked with 57 this could be spun off to a private corporation, and a private corporation would then determine what sort of education people would be subjected to, would have to take in this appren- ticeship training program. There is no recourse or proper appeal to this forum the way it should be, the way ministerial responsibil- ity calls for it. There's a silly little appeal process that's set up within the corporation to deal with a problem that may arise.

So the hon. member is wrong – wrong – when he says that this is "nothing more than a consolidation of a number of Acts." He says that what the opposition is complaining about already exists, that the minister has power to delegate right now. Well, the minister doesn't have power to delegate right now and take authority away from the Auditor General's responsibility under the Auditor General Act, but he will be able to circumvent that if we link 41 and 57 and see both of those passed. Mr.

Speaker, this is bad legislation, and the reason that we have to stand and filibuster and speak against it and produce reasoned amendments is to allow Albertans to see how bad it really is, to give them time to inspect what appeared to be innocuous at the beginning, to have them see that it isn't innocuous, to have them see that this is dangerous, to have them see that this goes against parliamentary democracy as we took it from England many decades ago.

I guess it's like the Montana model, where legisla- tors in Montana come back every two years and they simply delegate everything else between that time, I guess, to private corporations and others to look after the affairs of people in Montana. That's not the kind of Alberta that I want, and I don't think that's the kind of Alberta that the hon. Member for Medi- cine Hat wants, because I know him to be a caring and sensitive individual. I hope he looks at this legislation, studies it. This reasoned amendment allows him to take this back, look at it, and study it.

It allows him to link 41 and 57 to see how bad this situation is. I invite him – I plead with him and other members of the government to do that, to see that this isn't the kind of democracy that we want in Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment calls for the following, that this Act be not now read a second time becau se the Assembly feels that the Bill does not recognize the need for the Legislature to approve the

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2675 creation and establishment of government departments and the delegation of powers, duties, or functions to any person. I'm repeating this just in case some of the members haven't followed this. Mr. Speaker, that is pretty fundamental, and I think not everybody appears to have recognized that. The House leader spoke, before this session resumed, that it was going to be short and that it was just a mere housekeeping session really. Well, I don't know where he got that idea.

It seems to me that some very fundamental renovations to this particular House are being contemplated here, not just decorative. Totally fundamental foundations are being changed here. 2:50 Mr. Speaker, this particular Bill allows the minister or any minister, for that fact, to delegate anything he or she wants, to make agreements with whomsoever, to charge fees – and this is something else – so presumably they could delegate certain powers to a private agency along with the powers to charge fees. All this removes it very much from the pale of this Assembly.

The question, of course, that we are particularly concerned with is: how much control will we have over what is being done? When we say "we," by that of course we mean the people, because we're acting on their behalf. How much control will we have, and whom will we hold accountable for whatever happens by these private agencies and private organizations? It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that this is a dangerous move, indeed, which gives a great deal of power to the ministers.

I think that the Treasurer obviously had a hand in this particular Bill, because in addition to all these powers of delegation and creation, over the levying of funds and whatnot, fees, he also is the big winner in the sense that he now alone can come up and authorize loans. That's an interesting thing actually, because

section 74(1) stipulates that all loan guarantees be approved and executed by the Provincial Treasurer. I find it a bit strange, though, b ecause after all, assurances had been made by this government that there would not be any more loan guarantees at all. So why he would need this particular power? After all, they're going to get out of the business of being in business and, presumably, out of the business of being in government by all these delegatory powers. Anyway, I guess he might be called upon to call a new loan guarantee an old loan guarantee and all those shenanigans we've going through.

Therefore, it's going to be solely within his purview now to make those determinations, and it's a good thing, too, because if and when we dig up any more of these loan guarantees that have been handed out in the greatest of all secrecies, we will be able to point an accusing finger at the Treasurer alone. We won't be faced with the spectacle of cabinet ministers blaming one another and backbench- ers jumping in and shouting their disapproval and so on. It's just the Treasurer who will hang in that particular case. Now, that is the only glimmer of hope I can see in this particular move. Mr.

Speaker, we go on to the rest of the Bill here. Once again, every Bill that is being introduced by this government that keeps promising us a great amount of openness instead takes more and more items out of the public arena and therefore away from public scrutiny. In that sense, the go vernment is very consistent; it is not faltering at all. Once again I think I can perceive a New Zealand hand behind it all, because we're getting now to the point where I think there's going to be privatization of certain aspects of school systems and so on and so forth.

They'll be coming, without a shade of a doubt, knowing full well that many members of cabinet are in favour of such a move. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a whole bunch of questions, really, but there are so many that I have trouble picking and choosing. Let me at least restrict myself to one major one, and that's probably the most basic one: why does this government continue to introduce Bills that promote secrecy and dilute the power of this Assembly to debate the important things in an open forum? Why is that happening?

I think I'm posing the question to the Member for Medicine Hat because prior to me he was speaking to the Bill. I think that's an important question, and I would like the government to come clean – and perhaps the member can do that – with the extent of their plans. To what extent are they going to dilute the power of this House? To what extent are they going to delegate, privatize, commercialize, et cetera? Bill 41 allows all kinds of departments to write their own regulations as well. I find that interesting, and once again it takes it away, out of the realm of this particular Assembly.

It allows them to levy fees. It allows them to establish delegated regulatory organizations – that's one of these new acronyms, I suppose, DROs – to take over all kinds of programs and provision of services, again privatization moves. The thing that scares me, though, Mr. Speaker, is that we have seen one particular model at work in the way of privatization, and that is what we refer to as the ALCB model. Of course we know what happened to it. We've seen that same model applied to the latest moves involving the Deputy Premier. Again it meant shooting first and aiming afterwards.

That particular model seems to be embraced wholeheartedly, and therefore all these moves are scaring us ever so much more. I'd like to refer to one particular department, the department of advanced education, for some of these regulations here. Under

schedule 1,

section 2, advanced education: The Minister may make regulations (

a) for the establishment, operation, administration and management of provincially administered institutions; (

b) respecting fees and other charges to be charged . . . (

c) concerning programs offered . . . by a provincially administered institution; (

d) providing for the co-ordination of programs and services between 2 or more institutions, et cetera, et cetera. Y ou know, this all is very scary, actually, because it gives the minister so much power. I can only harken back to historical examples where governments have taken over complete control of education in general and advanced education in particular.

That kind of example once again scares the dickens out of me and I think many colleagues on my side and, I think, ought to scare members on the other side as well because those dictatorial regimes did not have in mind the best interests of the students or the citizens in general. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on, but I know there are more of my colleagues chafing at the bit, so I will stop here. Let me just telegraph my intention to vote in favour of this particular amendment and oppose the Bill. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking to the amendment, I'd like to point out that the amendment addresses some of the fundamental weaknesses of Bill 41 itself. One of those fundamental weaknesses, I believe, is that within the government there's an underlying confusion as to the role of government. There are some things that we know and have learned from past mistakes that governments do very poorly. Getting in the investment business was a lesson hard learned by Albertans. We know that when governments interfere in the daily

2676 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 operations of school boards and other elected bodies across the province, things go poorly. But there are some things that the government does very well, that only the government can do well, that only the government can take the action that is in the best interests of citizens. The basic problem with Bill 41 and what this amendment attempts to prevent is that there is no clear distinction between those two.

I think the other fundamental principle that seems to be at work here: it's an example of what occurs when ideology drives legislation, when a particular political perspective, when a particular way of looking at reality drives legislation. The context in which that legislation will be acted out has little to do with what occurs. If you look at the ideology of the new right, of those very right-wing Conservatives that seem to dominate things in this Legislature, one of the things they make abundantly clear is that the best government is no government and that there is very little respect.

There's little respect for democracy as such, and in fact democracy is often seen as an impediment to big business getting on with the kind of business they think should be conducted in the province's or the country's best interest. So here we have an example of ideology that's driving the legislation and again has little to do with the kind of context that prevails in Alberta at this present time. 3:00 If you look at how Bill 41 tries to meet that goal of having less government, it does that in a variety of ways.

It creates, first of all, the labour statutes delegation schedule, which will allow the delegation of administrative authority for program and service delivery to external agencies. They are called, as we all know by now, DROs, delegated regulatory organizations. We first heard of these in the three-year business plans. DROs, of course, are nongovernmental bodies, private organizations, industry-funded and -operated regulated bodies that are accountable only to the minister. They provide a mechanism for industry stakeholders to assume responsibilities for various programs and services.

It's intended that they be run by a board of directors selected by the regulated industry in a manner approved by the Minister of Labour. The minister will make 40 percent of the appointments to those DROs, and he'll do that only after he's consulted with those stakeholders. It's intended that the DROs will be self-funded, and their fees will be assessed on the goods and the services that they provide to citizens. They may include fees for certification and consulta- tion and operating. DROs will pay fees for any services that are provided to them by the government.

It's intended, according to the legislation, that DROs will operate at arm's length under a delegated authority from the Minister of Labour through a set of bylaws. The bylaws will regulate the services that a DRO can undertake. DROs will also provide an appeal mechanism that's acceptable to the minister. The DROs can be expanded at the minister's discretion based on the effectiveness of their operation, and they are to be subject to regular audits by the Department of Labour.

According to the government, the move to an industry-driven delegated authority always results in an increase in standards because i ndustry is clearly focused on ownership of standards and is responsible for achieving those standards. Again, when you start getting stipulations like that in the legislation, it goes back to the funda- mental ideology, and that is part and parcel of new right thinking. Labour's three-year business plan indicated that the DROs will be established in the areas of boilers and pressure vessels, pensions, professions and occupations, and occupational health and safety.

Schedule 10, the labour statutes delegation, lays out the details of how these DROs will be established and operationalized. Given the important departure in the delivery of programs and services within the labour area, the following provisions of the schedules I think have to be highlighted with respect to the government's use of regulation to establish the conditions of program and service delivery. I'd just like to cite several sections.

Section 2(1)(a)(ii) allows the government to appoint members to boards of DROs and to prescribe their remuneration. It seems that there's experience and potential here for patronage appointments to run wild. There's no clear indication of how these appointments are to be vetted or the kind of panelling process that might be in place.

Section 2(1)(

c) allows the government to impose "conditions on the delegated powers, duties or functions." Again there's no indication of what the nature of these conditions might be.

Section 2(1)(

d) allows the government to limit the liability of a delegated person "in an action for negligence with respect to the delegated power, duty or function." Again we see a contradiction. In the Health Act we're going to hold people liable, third parties liable, and in this case the government of course won't be liable. So there are a number of specifics in the legislation that raise more questions than provide solutions.

I go back to our basic premise, and that is that Bill 41 continues the dangerous precedent of using the motto of streamlining government operations as a means to erode accountability and accessibility to the Legislative Assembly so that the government can govern by regulation, deregulation, or privatization, whatever the case may be. Bill 41 – and this is what this amendment attempts to stop – contemplates the further shedding of govern- ment services and programs and increased user fees through such mechanisms as the DROs.

Again there's no clear indication anywhere that this is going to lead to improved effectiveness or efficiencies for Albertans in either the short or long term. We've indicated, I think, in the past that we're in favour of reducing red tape and duplication within government services, and we believe and concur with the government that regulatory reform is necessary if government programs are going to be delivered more efficiently and meet the needs of Albertans.

We support deregulation and outsourcing and privatization of government programs and services where it can be conclusively proven that Albertans will receive additional benefits of efficiency and effectiveness. We introduced a Bill last session – I think it's already been mentioned – Bill 205, the Information on Privatization Act modeled after innovations south of the border. It would put in place a systematic process to consider the privatization and the outsourcing of government programs and activities, and that, certainly, we'd consider a prerequisite before any Bill such as Bill 41 could come into effect.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, when you review, as a number of authors have, the track record of the Reagan, the Thatcher, and the Bush administrations. If you look at the legacy of those particular new right ideologues, the judgment seems to be that what the Americans and the British ended up with was more government, not less. They ended up with more regulation, not less, and for that reason I believe the amendment should be supported. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to speak to the reasoned amendment on Bill 41. In listening to the comments of my colleague from Medicine Hat, he indicated that he could see in this legislation that it was nothing

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2677 more than streamlining the legislation that exists currently. As has been stated in debate to this point in time, a further and more timely analysis of Bill 41 indicates that that is simply not the case. I hope that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat is not suggesting that debate on a Bill as fundamental as this is not worthy of the time spent in this Legislature debating the Bill and debating a reasoned amendment that speaks exactly to the point about what in effect this Bill will do. Th at is exactly the purpose for this Legislative Assembly.

As we look at the provisions of Bill 41 and, as others have indicated, Bill 57, we see that our opportunity for debate and reasoned debate in this Assembly is again being challenged and potentially again being eroded.

So I would invite all hon. members on the opposite side to give serious consideration to the concerns that are being expressed by my colleagues in opposition about what in fact the consequences will be of passing this particular Bill into law in the province of Alberta, b ecause the consequences are significant and in fact attack, as the reasoned amendment suggests, fundamental p illars of democracy in the society of Alberta and Canada for the way government conducts itself on behalf of those that are electors in the province of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, in looking at Bill 41 and its accompanying Bill, Bill 57, members on this side of the House and, I would hope, members opposite will stand and admit that this Bill is a full attack against the fundamental principles of democracy by virtue of its attempt to leave all decision-making with respect to ministries, programs in ministries, and the delegation of authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council through regulation. Those responsibilities rest with the Legislature.

Every member of this Assembly is duty bound to uphold the principles of democracy and to use this particular forum, not a forum of a few select members of this Assembly, to make decisions about the delivery of services and to be held accountable to the people of Alberta. This is not the process. This is not the kind of legislation that in fact asks us as members of this Assembly to revoke, to stand by and allow this to happen when it is our responsibility to make sure that the delivery of programs is in fact a responsibility.

If, hon. members, you are prepared to vote for this legislation in second reading as a matter of principle or concept, you are in fact abrogating your responsibilities to the constituents which you serve. That is the ultimate consequence of supporting Bill 41. 3:10 Others who have spoken to the reasoned amendment have spoken on specific provisions of the Bill. To reiterate,

section 2 will now allow by regulation that ministerial departments of government will be established and administered by ministers. Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that until this government and until legislation that allowed for the transferring of programs and ministries by regulation and order in council, the convention of this Assembly and the convention of all other Assemblies in the Dominion of Canada is to have ministries and departments determined and defined through legislation. It is not determined and defined by regulation. To allow the legislation to proceed and to allow

section 2 to come into force as the force of law in this province will again take away from and erode fundamentals of the responsibility of this Legislature to establish ministerial depart- ments, to establish programs, to be held responsible, and to be held accountable for the delivery of those service programs to Albertans. The sections that are most offensive in the government's attempt to streamline government – which we have heard them say many times is the purpose for Bill 41, and we have heard them say many times is just a housekeeping Bill with nothing significant, just to streamline government – are of course

section 2 and

section

Section 9 allows any minister in writing to "delegate any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on him by this Act or any other Act or regulation to any person." It is again my submission to members of this Assembly that your support of that provision, as broadly stated as it is, is an abrogation of your responsibilities to your constituents to remain responsible and accountable within the confines of this Legislative Assembly for the work that is done in any ministry. To simply allow a minister to say, "I don't want to do that anymore, and I'm going to privatize it" is, in my submission, Mr.

Speaker, an improper attitude and an improper response by members of this Assembly to say that that's just fine. It is not the responsibility of just the minister of that department; it is the responsibility of every member of this Assembly to ensure accountability for the delivery of every program that comes under any particular ministry. I want to also raise with memb ers another

section of this Act that is profound in the change that it makes to other Acts that are being repealed and again gives much greater authority to a particular minister who is not yet defined under the legislation. I refer members to

section 14 of the Bill and in particular to 14(3), which indicates: A Minister may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any estate or interest in land under his adminis tration and any personal property acquired by him under this section. Mr. Speaker, that is fundamentally different from the provisions that now exist in the Department of the Environment Act which specifically prohibit the Minister of Environmental Protection from selling land. The specific

section now under the Department of the Environment Act is

section 9(3), which says: The Minister of the Environment may not sell any public land under his administration, but he may dispose of an interest in the land on any terms and conditions and for any period of time he prescribes in the disposition. We have now by

section 14(3) given the power to the minister to "sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any estate or interest in land." To be interpreted, that means that a minister now, without anything further, has the full and total ability and power under Bill 41 to sell Crown land. Mr. Speaker, there has been an ongoing debate with respect to grazing leases and the administration of public lands in the so- called now shared stewardship between the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

As it stands, the latter department has the day-to-day decision-making with respect to public lands, and the Department of Environmental Protection has the final say in its disposition. If we allow

section 14(3) to come into law, that shared stewardship approach will be gone and the minister responsible for the public lands of Alberta, the minister not yet designated by this legislation, will be given the full power and authority to sell land. I venture to say that the government is under some pressure to sell off some Crown grazing leases, and this piece of legislation will give them every opportunity, power, and authority to do just that, one minister selling Crown land by virtue of this particular

section of the legislation. The other legislation that currently exists has a much tighter control over the disposition of land. Currently under the Public Lands Act there are restrictions and conditions on the disposition of property. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, we don't need

section 14(3) of this particular Bill because we have in existing current legislation better protection for the sale of land. It would be again my submission that those checks and balances under existing current legislation give much greater accountability for how Alberta's Crown lands are administered than the proposed Bill 41, which could be the outright sale of Crown land to raise

2678 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 more money and more revenue for the province of Alberta. It would appear that that is the intent behind 14(3), so if the government is in a bit of a cash crunch, it just sells off Crown land to make some money. 3:20 This cold is catching up with me, Mr. Speaker, but never fear, I'll continue, because it's far too important an issue to sit down and not continue fighting for the fundamental principles of democracy.

I will take my full opportunity to speak to Bill 41 and to remind all hon. members of the very serious changes that this Bill brings about by virtue of those particular provisions that I've mentioned and that other members of this Assembly have mentioned with respect to changes that are forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, the reasoned amendment speaks to the motion by my colleague from Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert that this Bill be not now read a second time becau se the Assembly feels that the Bill does not recognize the need for the Legislature to approve both the creation and establishment of government departments and the delegation of powers, duties, or functions to any person. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the two provisions I spoke of, being specifically

section 2 and

section 9 of this particular Bill. It calls upon all members of this Assembly to recognize the need for the Legislature to approve these and to not simply delegate those responsibilities and powers through regulation and order in council by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Now, what I have indicated in this Assembly – and I would like to give my colleague the hon. Member from Medicine Hat a chance to respond, because he is prepared to defend this Bill, and I think that he has to stand again and defend the Bill because what it does is in fact attack the fundamental principles of democracy.

So to make that clear, Mr. Speaker, I'm proposing a subamendment to the reasoned amendment. The subamendment to the reasoned amendment indicates, then, the fundamental principles of democracy by stating as follows: and that by not so recognizing this, the Bill ignores the fundamental principles of democracy and negates the importance of public participation in decision-making through access to information of government organizations. When I refer to "this," I'm referring to the need for the Legisla- ture to approve this.

It cannot be any clearer than that, that this is what Bill 41 does, and that is why Bill 41 cannot pro ceed through this Legislature if every member in this Assembly takes their responsibility to their constituents seriously. So, Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to move the subamendment on behalf of my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly to invite further debate on the fundamental principles of democ- racy, which this Bill attacks, and to hear hon. members opposite defend this Bill and tell us why it does not impede the fundamen- tal principles of democracy when, clearly, on the two sections that we're referring to, that's exactly what it does. I look forward to debate on the subamendment to the reasoned amendment and to hearing members defend their support for this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to address the subamendment. I think it focuses in more clearly – and hopefully the Member for Medicine Hat will have some cohorts with him. [interjection] That's a pleasant word. Don't get your back up. If you look up cohort, it means helper. It's an old Roman word meaning fellow warriors. So, consequently, if you thought it was some unnamable sexual disease, quiet your minds and sit down and behave. Cohort is actually a compliment.

What I'd like to point out though – and I think the Member for Medicine Hat, who seems to be the only one who has girded his loins to come forth to do battle, Mr. Speaker, must feel like Horatius at the bridge as the alien hordes from northern Italy are descending on him. I thought he would be interested in focusing this in so that he could actually attack and go after what we're getting at. The subamendment says: negates the importance of public participation in the decision-making process through access to information.

Now, in speaking to the first amendment, my colleague from Edmonton-Glengarry already mentioned that even if this were to go through, it doesn't appear to have been planned that well, because the Auditor General wouldn't be able to investigate any of the people that were transferred to it. But I wanted to talk to the government and to the Member for Medicine Hat, if he's carrying the load. Certainly he's a very qualified and worthy antagonist, as a matter of fact one of the best over there, Mr. Speaker, so I have no hesitancy in talking to him.

I would ask him, seeing that we're talking about parliamentary government, to maybe go back a little in history. I know he's not as old as I am, so he'll have to read the book,

whereas I lived it. I mentioned the word "cohort" and I mentioned the Roman legions, and that's not without some planning, b ecause the first actual move in the western democracies to this type of government that we see now proposed here arose out of a lot of the same problems that this government perceives are out there. Y ou have to put your mind back to Italy in the 1920s. The state that had been put together by Garibaldi was fighting with each other, and they were thinking of separating. There was also a very low opinion of politicians in general.

Benito Mussolini, a newspaperman, got elected on the platform that he was going to make the trains run on time; in other words, the government was going to work. Mussolini put together a partnership, just as we're talking here, between the government, or elected officials, of the day and big business. It was a partnership put together.

He said, just as this government now proposes, "Why not let debate take place in the Legislature, and we can become a debating club and talk about high principles?" But the actual fact of making the trains run on time and making the bureaucracy work and the services of government be provided to the people would be best done by the private sector. Of course, the private sector in no time at all, it would become very obvious to the people of Italy, were those that already had administrative experiences. I don't know what the large corporations were named in those days, Fiat and others.

Over here it would be Esso, Gulf, ATCO, and the different engineering outfits in downtown Calgary. They're all smooth administrators, so they would be able to run, and the politicians would be over here. I would ask the Member for Medicine Hat to read further. This sounded very beautiful on paper, but what happened very soon is that the lions of industry and the captains of industry soon started telling the politicians, "Well, it's all right to go through this election in four years every time, but we don't want to be dealing with a separate set of politicians.

We've got a nice partnership going, and we in private industry and administration set out plans to run not three or four years but a generation. So, Mr. Musso- lini, would you look into this?" Well, my friend Benito had a very simple solution to it. He did away with elections so that they could continue this partnership of business and politicians. Now, the political scientists of the day or of the later days have called t h a t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t f a s c i s m .

I ' m n o t s a y i n g t h a t t h i s government would call what they're putting in fascism, but they're on the long, slippery road of trying to make the trains run on time, and this has to concern all of us a bit.

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2679 3:30 This is why I suggest the subamendment is such a good one. It does point a finger right at what the problem is here; that is, fundamental principles of democracy. Now, they may think that they have discovered this method, and the gurus and the stooges or whatever they want to call them that advise them may just all light up and say: "Why didn't we think of this before, Mr. Speaker? Gee whiz. This is great. This is wonderful stuff. We're going to put out the administration to free and private enterprise.

To make sure that they aren't bothered too much, we're not so sure that the Auditor General needs to peek into the minds and the pockets and the hearts of the people that have been contracted to run Alberta for us." So, Mr. Speaker, we have a real challenge to the democratic system. Now, I know – I know – there is a great deal of complaint from the people out there that say that maybe the parliamentary system isn't working as it should. They say that sometimes they think that the administration is too glued up and the bureaucracy gets peering down their necks too often.

The point is that the only check, the only ultimate check on a runaway democracy is ministerial responsibility and, from that, back to the ultimate responsibility of getting elected. Now, I know the last thing the Member for Medicine Hat and his cohorts would say is: "Well, we're not going to dissolve elections. We're not going down this fascist pitch. We know just how much of our little toe to dip in that pool without falling in.

It may be a philosophy of fascism to have the corporate elite and the political elite together run the country, but our corporate elite and our political elite will stay together, with the political elite always being in charge." Well, as Confucius say: the man that rides the tiger dares not dismount. So this government, by setting up an administrative process run by a government, appointed by ministers with a right to contract out, are riding a tiger that I daresay they will not be able to dismount in the future. Mr.

Speaker, when we look at our system here – and this is one of the reasons that we're debating so long. This takes awhile. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat is worried about filibustering when we've debated it, I think, three separate times for one hour each. Well, that's hardly a filibuster. I mean, that's not even a good workout for somebody in southern Alberta. What can you do in three hours in southern Alberta? Watch the sun set maybe, but if you started out driving, you'd barely get to the next town.

So he knows that three hours is not a long time. [interjection] The hon. member from Vulcan is trying to remind me that he's got water irrigation. What I want to get at here is that we are embarking on something that's very, very important, and I'm the first one to admit as a politician elected in a democracy that if indeed out there the public doesn't give a damn, I'll still fight on, and we will probably lose the debate. But it is important that the public know what's going on.

Now, to dress it all up and say that it's a simple housekeeping motion and that something we put in motion that we've had nearly 500 years in our British parliamentary system – Sir Oswald Mosley, you will maybe recall, Mr. Speaker, back in the 1940s did propose a system of an alliance of the economic elite and the political elite in England. It never caught on. There were some riots and so on and so forth. It had been proposed but never caught on.

This government here, right here in Alberta in the year 1994 is proposing something – and I don't think they really fully realize it – that is really an anathema to the whole demo- cratic process; that is, delegating the administration and govern- ing, not government – governing – an administration to an independent body or somebody that's removed from it. I'm not too sure that they can get it back.

What we in the opposition want to do and why we're debating – we're going to move on, and we served fair notice that we'll be doing that with Bill 57, which focuses in maybe a little more closely on this idea of divorcing the elected government of the day from the governing process – is that we want the public to be fully aware of what's going on. It's been hard to get that across in the last week or two because of all the scandals that the government seems to supply us with in opposition, but hopefully they will not be stepping in as many cow pies in the next week as they have in the last week, Mr. Speaker. MR.

BRUSEKER: Don't count on it. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, one never knows. If they do, that will occupy first attention in the press. There's no doubt about it. What we'd like to get across is a good debate out there amongst the towns and the hotels and the coffee shops and the skating rinks of this province as to what type of system this government is proposing. It's as radical in its day as Social Credit was in its day, and it deserves debate and to be looked at and to be exam- ined and to be held up, smelled, and compared.

As I say, I compare it to Mussolin i's solution on how to keep the trains running on time, on how to run society without the politicians getting in your hair. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what they're doing here, and that's one of the reasons why we're trying to attract attention to the public. Now, I'll admit that in a week or two if the public was giving a big yawn and saying, "What we want to do is hear a little bit more about Barrhead scandals,” we're going to be in trouble.

But the point is that a real thought-provoking debate on the issue of parliamentary democracy has to take place, and I'm hoping that we can have debate. I'd like to see someone on their side besides the Member for Medicine Hat – and don't get me wrong. He is a very, very worthy opponent indeed, as I mentioned earlier, but he must have some of those cohorts and those Roman legions over there that can tell us just why Mussolini should be in there in order to make the trains run on time. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure to stand up and speak in favour of the reasoned amendment to Bill 41 this afternoon. [interjections] I can see by the comments already that they're anxiously awaiting my words, so I will bring them forth. First of all, I'd like to start by applauding the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, as many of my colleagues have here. I find him to be a very reasoned debater, Mr. Speaker, and I consider him to be one of the very few over there that actually will listen and stand up and debate the points of the argument coming forth from this side.

It's not a case of waiting the next day and reading what great words of intelligence the opposition has put forth and handing it to a researcher and having him write a speech so they can read it in the House. This hon. member stands up on his feet, and with his own initiative he puts forth some very good argu- ments. The arguments against this reasoned amendment earlier today, Mr. Speaker, indicate that in fact the previous Acts and regula- tions that this Bill is amalgamating were essentially the same. To some degree the hon. member is right. There is to some degree some sameness about it.

However, I think that when you listen

2680 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 to the arguments that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry put forth here this afternoon, he articulated very clearly that this is a step away from democracy. Everyone in this House is fully aware that they have a mandated duty to look after the interests of Albertans and the legislation of Albertans, and this is the venue and the stage upon which to do it. Bill 41, I would suggest, moves away from it. That's why I can speak in support of the reasoned amendment. There are, as I indicated earlier, some areas, that the hon.

Member for Medicine Hat identified, that are the same. How- ever, I think we must view this Bill, Mr. Speaker, in the context of the present government's philosophy today. That philosophy, as I see it, sitting on this side – and I'm sure those members on the side opposite would agree with me on this. There is certainly a tremendous amount of downloading. There's a tremendous amount of off-loading. There generally is a large shedding of government responsibility that I would suggest is traditional and very necessary. There is a role for government.

There are some clearly defined areas that the government should be involved in, and I would suggest that we cannot eliminate government involvement in all areas. 3:40 As an example, Mr. Speaker, to make my point I would bring forth Bill 53, the Social Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, that will be coming up here later in debate, which gives babysitters the authority to actually l ook after six children as opposed to three.

There are some stipulations associated with that, but clearly what that is intended to do is to move again responsibility for anything that might happen to children outside this Legislature for perusal. I just throw that forth as an example, because I think it's another example of where we're shedding our responsibility of government. This Bill does that as well. I know that the hon. members on the other side, or the side opposite there, certainly when we have reviewed the debates and the legislation of the last months – and I would have to concede that it is ad nauseam in some cases.

Unfortunately, one has to take that tactic to try to make the point. Most of the legislation that we've seen come through this House, Mr. Speaker, in the one short year that I have been involved here is driven by regulation, and as we know, regulation takes and dilutes the responsibility of this House. The decisions that are made are taken outside this particular House. I have to ask and I would suggest it begs the question: why do we want to remove the authority of this Legislature?

I would suggest that this Legislature is the conscience of Alberta, and I would also suggest that not only is the Liberal Party the conscience of Alberta, but members opposite also have to assume that role as well. It's part of their mandate. I would suggest that if we look at this Bill 41 and we look at the reasoned amendment, what it will do is establish for all members in this House the opportunity to actually go on record that they did not agree with some of the legislation that is coming forth. Now, I think that there are those on the side opposite that certainly have the courage to do that.

I think if you listened to the debate that's come forth from some very learned members on this side, from the hon. Member for Redwater, who gave us a little history lesson and attempted to draw a parallel to fascism – I wouldn't go that far, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly would say: be cautious. In the simplest fo rm we're simply diluting the authority of this particular Legislative Assembly, and I think that it's very unfortunate that we would sit back and let that happen.

Certainly we all were elected here with bright minds, and we all entered this House looking to work for Albertans, Albertans in general regardless of what your political stripe is. I think back to the discussions we've had very recently with regards to loan guarantees here and the many comments. Some of those newly elected members from the other side indicated they were very strongly opposed to that only to find out that the inner circle, if I can use that term, Mr. Speaker, had issued one of those loan guarantees that they were so opposed to.

This legislation, Bill 41, I would suggest will open the door to more of that to remove it beyond the perusal. It, in my estimation, clearly focuses all the legislation in the province of Alberta and coming forth from the government of the day on the minister's office and the bureaucrats. Now, I know that there are many bureaucrats that are very fine individuals and have some good ideas, but I would also harken to add that there are bureaucrats certainly that are driven by their own department and their own importance.

With due respect to some of the ministers, those bureaucrats, generally speaking, work eight hours a day at collecting data before they feed it to a minister. So there's a concern in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to continue along the path of Bill 41, it not only dilutes this particular Legislature, but I would suggest it removes from the observation and the perusal of the hon. members s itting in government some of the actions that are taking place. I would have to ask why we would want to leave ourselves open to that, regardless of which side of the House we sit on.

In my first opportunity to discuss Bill 41, I pinpointed several issues of the Act, and I had hoped that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat would address those particular points as well and prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I think, with due respect, his research didn't go quite that far, though it went further than most on that side. I drew the member's attention, all the members of the House's attention, to an aspect of the health Act that I found particularly disconcerting, Mr.

Speaker, and that was: disposition, by sale, lease or otherwise, of a Government health care facility or of personal property pursuant to an agreement under this

section may be made for a nominal consideration or for a price less than its market value. Now, it would be my suggestion when we look at exactly what this Act is attempting to do and the delegation of authority outside this House, that one may never have the opportunity to really debate whether in fact we should give away, in the case of Edmonton, the Charles Camsell hospital to maybe a private individual. That's a concern to me. I think you can apply that same particular approach to Calgary. With due respect, we know that some of those decisions have been distorted by political patronage.

If in fact it were to happen in Calgary, such an occurrence that a hospital was in essence given away – that's a public facility that the public paid for, and if in fact we are to dispense with it, I would suggest that the taxpayers have the right to have this Legislature as a forum to debate that particular point, Mr. Speaker. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] As I read this

schedule 7 of Bill 41 on the health Act, I would suggest that in fact that could very well happen. The members on this side and the members on the other side won't have the opportunity to voice their disapproval with that until after it's completed. So that leaves me with a large concern, as I expressed the first time I spoke to this. Many members have spoken to the concern about loan guaran- tees. I touched on that when I spoke to the Bill originally. I won't waste the Assembly's time reiterating that. I did express a concern last time, Mr. Speaker, when I was addressing Bill 41

October 31, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2681 and indicated that the argument I put forth was supportive of the reasoned amendment. I had a large concern about some of the new powers that were surfacing in the transportation safety branch, and that would be

part 7.1 of Bill 41. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is of very large concern to me is when in fact a copy that an insurance company puts forth assigning blame in an accident – that particu- lar document can be secured by the government and in turn used to perhaps launch a lawsuit against a wrongdoer. Now, we've heard lots of debate about the wrongdoing aspect. I have some respect for the insurance companies, but generally speaking I would suggest that they're very self-serving. The reports that they compile certainly will attempt to shed the responsibility elsewhere.

I do not believe they are as objective as they should be. When I look at that and use that small example of another little power that's moved outside this Legislative Assembly, a little power that will not put Albertans in good stead when it comes to defending themselves, I would suggest it speaks well and backs up my support of the reasoned amendment to Bill 41. So in closing my debate, Mr. Speaker, I'm very concerned. I think everybody in this House worked long and hard to be elected to this particular House.

They felt by doing so – it is a very honourable institution – they would have the opportunity to participate in the direction of Alberta and where it went. This Bill 41 moves away from that. The reasoned amendment attempts to put a stop to that dilution of the Legislative Assembly and its powers. It attempts to put a stop to the removal of the debate from beyond this particular Chamber. So that being the case, I strongly support the reasoned amendment, and I would ask all members to objectively have a look at exactly what's intended in Bill 41. It's a monster; I agree.

It's very difficult to analyze, but you have to have a look at it in concert and in conjunction with the other Act that's coming forth, and that is Bill 57, I believe, the Delegated Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask all to tweak their consciences. Certainly there is no reason why in fact we should not debate anything in this Legislature. Too often the best debates take place behind closed doors.

I would suggest that what is going to occur in this example of the delegation of power by ministers and the removal of so many decision-making opportunities from this Legislature by regulation, is that those decisions behind closed doors will become certainly more numerous and, I would suggest, probably less to the benefit of Albertans and more to the benefit of the minister of the day. So I thank you for the opportunity to address the reasoned amendment, and with those comments I will close my debate. 3:50 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Mayfield. MR. WHITE: Thank you kindly, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to the subamendment, it speaks quite clearly to democracy. It's a shame that the other side doesn't feel moved at all even to acknowledge that they are awake. In this democracy of ours we're supposed to be able to have this free flow of ideas and some debate. We've seen none of it. The other side is absolutely silent on the matter, and it would be difficult to argue that they are in fact the silent majority. If you go back to your constituents and ask them: should I speak on this matter that's of some fundamental impor- tance – and you can't just wash it out.

I mean, it's not very difficult to read plain English and the delegation of authority and the authority that moves away from this Chamber. This Chamber is in fact – if you don't believe it, just ask the students that come in each and every day. They get a little lecture on democracy, and they begin to understand what it is. All the grade 6 students understand that this is the pl ace where one person speaks at a time, generally, and that matters of major import are supposed to be discussed.

It doesn't mean that one side sits on their hands filling seats and occupying spaces, signing papers, and making paper airplanes. Too bad the member from – Medicine Hat, further south there . . . MR. N. TA YLOR: Cypress. MR. WHITE: . . . Cypress is off on very, very important business; I'm sure. We could have some insightful remarks from him certainly about how democracy protects all those that can't protect themselves. We've had a great deal of discussion about that lately. Mr.

Speaker, from a former life in and around the land development business, being an engineer I can see that this piece of legislation fundamentally offends the traditional rights, not the rights that are written in stone but the rights that govern a free- market society to allow citizens to participate in an economic democracy, which is free enterprise, at a rate at which they will on taking their own risk and defining their own risk. One of the things that one doesn't want to do is be in competition with their own government, and

section 14(1), (2), and (3) clearly sets out that a minister can be a private developer. I mean, there's no question. Reading

section 14 and reading the schedules that represent the regulations or the finer points of that

section does offend and would offend had they known about it. Unfortunately at this point the press is so preoccupied with the comings and goings of one government minister and his affairs of state and personal affairs that they don't seem to have time for the important work of this Legislature, which is currently Bill 41. They don't seem to believe – they may believe – that it is important, but certainly the readers are preoccupied to the extent that they just don't have time to write the necessary call to arms from the citizenry necessary in this Bill. I suspect that they shall.

Part of the reason that one must stand in his place and argue these points over and over and over again is because (

a) they haven't got the time and (

b) the other side seems to be asleep. As well they had too much activity earlier in the day with their discussions at caucus and a former minister's plea of something or other. We're not sure what. AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder what he got. MR. WHITE: Well, of course, speculation as to what he got can be carried on for a great deal of time. Certainly his silence today and the caucus' solidarity and silence – unlike some of the more vocal members, silence is not their strong point, but they seem to have carried it off today reasonably well. There must have been some kind of a deal cooked.

When you have this piece of legislation along with Bill 57 – combine the two and the government is redundant except the ministers of the Crown. The backbench will truly be the back, back, back, way back bench, because there won't be any say whatever. Now, if you marginalize those people, what happens with the public? I mean, certainly that speaks directly to democ- racy, and that's what this subamendment is speaking directly to. How does one go about saying to a member of the public, "Y es, well, we did that, but we did that under the guise of a ministerial order"? Not even a proper order of cabinet.

How can you say that's accountable? How can anyone believe that that's account- able? I mean that kind of thing happens in Second and Third

2682 Alberta Hansard October 31, 1994 World countries all the time perhaps but certainly should not happen in Alberta simply because the government happens to be preoccupied with a number of other issues at hand. The transfer of programs, particularly in

section 2, has one wondering whether in fact there is any credibility at all afforded by this Bill to the government of the day. Certainly there has to be some leeway. We understand that, and certainly it doesn't take a great deal of reporting to report either on the Order Paper or in a ministerial statement as to what has occurred in the department. It's a movement within programs. It would be reasonable, one would expect, to tell the public how one is going about spending their money. It doesn't seem to be this government's priority to tell anybody anything other than where to go now and again.

The Premier does that in fine form every question period. He tells the world about how dastardly the Liberals are and what the Liberals would do. It sounds so incredibly childish that it is difficult to keep a straight face on this side, and it certainly embarrasses the children in the audience on a regular basis too. I cannot see why it furthers the ends of democracy. In particular, he hasn't even had the courtesy to stay in this House once – not once – long enough to debate this particular Bill. The

schedule of fees and the delegation of that authority to the private sector or the public sector or the quasi-public sector, the volunteer sector, is absolutely appalling. Y ou cannot say that a minister can have control of the expenditures of the province and the revenues of the province and his department when he has delegated this authority without any knowledge of the Legislature and presumably without any knowledge of the other members of his council, either the priorities committee or any other commit- tee. It doesn't say anything within the legislation that they're required to report anywhere.

Who knows if it's at the minister's discretion what kind of note of the action takes place. How does an auditor record how these transactions have happened if there is simply a ministerial order that may or may not see the light of day anywhere. It's beyond belief that we're heading towards this kind of thing in the province of Alberta without any debate. I mean, these people on the other side say that this is to streamline. Sure, it streamlines.

It streamlines to the extent that we could just delegate all our authority to act to one person and then that person can then disseminate the power as that person wishes, as we often see in the Legislature with the appointments to various and sundry boards and authorities. It seems to me and it seems to a great number of the public, too, that these pork barrel appointments are done for one reason: so as to keep the present party in power ad infinitum and doing it in a less than forthright manner. There is provision within this Act why one would say that.

It seems to me that you would want to do all one could to have lines of authority clear and concise. This particular piece of legislation says that there can be two ministers. Well, two ministers managing one program – I mean, it seems incredibly silly to even suggest such a thing. Certainly there could be under some transition one program or another that is collapsed or expanded or modified or changed.

Certainly there has to be one minister in charge and one minister responsible, although this government doesn't seem to – every time there seems to be something controversial, a ministe- rial change occurs, and then of course the responsibility seems to fall between the cracks.

In fact, in law it does not and in parliamentary tradition it does not, but this government doesn't seem to recognize parliamentary traditions any more than it seems to respect fundamentals of democracy, which this particular amendment speaks to. 4:00 There is one area that should be – and I would expect that before debate is complete on Bill 41, hopefully there'll be some kind of a discussion on tightening up and bringing to an end some of the ministerial discretion to get the government into loan guarantees.

There are sections w ithin this particular Bill that allow a minister to do all manner of things which hitherto they were not. The members opposite are so fond of saying that they're so fundamentally against the government being in the business of being in business that they will do away with guarantees. Well, here is your o