Alberta Hansard — 21 November 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19831121

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1731 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, November 21, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to table the annual report of Alberta Disaster Services for the 1982-83 fiscal year. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 45 grade 8 students from Ian Bazalgette junior high school in the constituency of Calgary Forest Lawn.

They are accom panied by their group leader, Barbara Will, and by student teacher Tony Barile. I would ask them to rise at this time and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 25 grades 5 and 6 students from Satoo elementary school in the constit uency of Edmonton Mill Woods. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dave Fairfield. They are in the members gallery, and I would like them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, being even-handed, I would also like to intro duce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some 55 students from Greenview elementary school. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Don Briggs and Mr. Gerry Mittlestadt, and also by driver John Greco. They are in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly, in the [public] gallery, rep resenting the Committee of the Unemployed: Arnold Vibe and John O'Reilly, from Edmonton Centre; Fred Weller, from Edmonton Highlands; Glenn Wood, from Clover Bar; Wayne Klassen, from Smoky River; and Larry Johnston, from Med icine Hat. I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Constitution — Notwithstanding Clause MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the first question to the hon. Premier.

It is a follow-up to a question I put last week to the Attorney General, with respect to the option the government is considering of using a notwithstanding clause in the Constitution Act. Could the Premier advise the Assembly if, during the 1981 constitutional negotiations, it was the posi- tion and initiative of the Alberta government that the notwith standing clause would in fact apply to

section 2 of the Act; that is, the Act which identifies the fundamental freedoms? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little difficulty with this. This is 1983. As the hon. member knows, one of the very fundamental rules of the question period, even though it is often not applied, is that it has to be a matter of some urgency and is not supposed to be a matter of past history. I think we have been around that one before. It would seem to me that that kind of information could be sought outside the question period, without taking up the whole time of the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The question really relates to an option the government is now considering. In reviewing that process of consideration, I think it is important to go back and find out what the situation was in 1981, in order to obtain the facts of the matter. Therefore, I submit that the question is in order. However, I could certainly rephrase the question, and ask the Premier to advise the Assembly: in the process of consid ering the option of using a notwithstanding clause, was it the position of the government of Alberta that this notwithstanding clause should apply to

section 2, dealing with the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Charter? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, yes, it definitely was. The then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta took the position in the constitutional discussions that we needed to have the supremacy of the legislature over the courts. As I mentioned in the House on November 6, 1981, we did not [want] to be in a position where public policy was being dictated or determined by non-elected people. We took the position that that therefore definitely needed to apply to

section 2 of the Constitution, under fundamental freedoms, insofar as the American experience had been that judicial inter pretations and other actions which were fundamentally different from the view of legislators were taken from time to time. So it was very definitely the view of the government of Alberta, supported by the then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that the notwithstanding section,

section 33, should apply to

section 2. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Was that understanding based on a very rare use of this notwithstanding clause, to deal essentially with what would be a miscarriage of justice as opposed to a policy difference of the Legislature with the Charter of Rights? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it was far beyond the issue of a miscarriage of justice. It would be when major matters of public policy were being determined by the court as a result of an

interpretation of the Charter. It was the view of those of us who expressed that position, which ultimately prevailed in the constitutional negotiations, that it should be the legislators and not the courts that should determine these matters. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Given that answer, what consideration is the government now giving to the difficulty that the notwithstand ing provision creates for legal

interpretation of the Charter of Rights? By that, I mean the importance of a coherent legal

interpretation of the Charter throughout the nation and the development of a consistent national case law on fundamental rights.

1732 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it was the view of those who were projecting the fact that we needed a Charter of Rights within the Constitution that, having accepted

section 33, they would find themselves with different positions across the coun try. We took the view that for those who wanted to project that point of view, it's quite possible that in a number of different circumstances over time the notwithstanding provisions of sec tion 33 could be used, and therefore a different

interpretation of the circumstances. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. So that the Assembly is clear, is it the position of the government that a policy matter then comes within the purview of the notwithstanding clause, as opposed to what I think is a generally accepted public view, that only the most rare and unique circumstances of vital importance should ever justify the distinguishing of rights among Canadians by provincial legislatures? MR. LOUGHEED: Very definitely, it's a matter of public policy.

The supremacy of the Legislature needs to prevail, as I mentioned on November 6, 1981, over the decisions or con clusions of non-elected judges. That's the view I expressed, and that's the view contained in the Constitution. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. That's the view the Premier has expressed.

Can the Premier advise the Assembly whether that was the basis of the accord which resulted in the agreement of 1981, and that that particular understanding, distinguishing between rare and unique circumstances and public policy, is in fact the under standing of all the authors of that accord? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it's definitely my view that that was fully understood. The record of the constitutional discussions, including the public portions of those discussions, would underline that. I refer the hon.

Leader of the Opposition to statements on the subject made at the time by other premiers as well as by myself. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the passage of Bill 62 in that province, which brings in the not withstanding

section to apply in the province of Quebec, has there been any discussion with the separatist government of Quebec, concerning their use of the notwithstanding clause, which appears to be the only use so far by a provincial government? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta has analysed the decision of the province of Quebec to invoke the notwithstanding clause relative to all legislation which that government has in force, but that is really a matter that relates to the fact that Quebec did not become a signatory to the constitutional accord.

While we have analysed the situation — and I think it is clear to say that the government of Alberta understands the position that has been taken by the province of Quebec — no extensive discussions on that subject have taken place with that government. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General. Has any consideration been given by the government to referring the perhaps contentious legislation, but legislation where the option of the notwithstanding clause is being con sidered at this time, to the Supreme Court of Canada for inter pretation?

In other words, the government would take the initiative, rather than waiting for a private organization to do so. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not entirely clear on the hon. leader's question. I perceived it to be: would there be a reference, in advance of the event, of the notwithstanding leg islation itself, as distinct from the legislation from which the exception was to be taken? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question related to the government taking the initiative with respect to the legislation itself, not the notwithstanding provision; we're clear what the powers are there.

It's a question of whether or not the government would find out by asking. By way of information to the House, it's my understanding that the government can request the Supreme Court to pass judgment on the constitu tionality of legislation vis-a-vis the Charter of Rights. My ques tion is whether or not any reference of the possibly contentious provisions would be considered by the government. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think not. The matter would progress in the normal way through the courts, which achieves the same result in the sense of a judicial

interpretation. I don't think the government would ever rule out the possibility of a reference, but that's not the intention with respect to matters about which the hon. leader has recently been asking. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to either the Premier or the Attorney General. Has the government given any con sideration to the establishment of a new all-party standing com mittee of the Assembly, to review the options whenever the notwithstanding clause is considered to be an option by the government of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker, we haven't. Dairy Quota System MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and ask whether he is able to confirm that the Alberta Dairy Control Board has returned the overshipment levy to farmers who shipped over the market-share quota, and thus has rendered the quota system non-functional this year? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question, the Dairy Control Board has returned to the producers the overquota levies that were collected. But to the second part of the question, that the quota system isn't functioning properly, that just is not true. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Given that some farmers had to dispose of cattle and give away milk in order to live within the quota regulations set by the Dairy Control Board, what consideration is now being given by the government to assist those farmers — I'm given to understand some 25 per cent of the producers — who played by the rules but, by doing so, lost money? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the levy that is charged producers is in fact a levy and not a penalty.

The amount that was collected on the overquota levy was somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million, of which $414,000 was needed to pay the overquota levies. There certainly were producers who had cut back on production, and the actual number of producers

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1733 who were over quota to any significant degree by the end of the quota year was very, very small. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister given any consideration, however, to the financial difficulties now suffered by those producers who played by the rules and in fact culled part of their operation — their cattle herd — or gave away milk in order to stay within the rules set by the dairy commission? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, all dairy producers know that when they go into a totally supply-controlled industry like the dairy industry, there are rules, and they abide by those rules. They know what their quota is and that if they are over quota, they either have to pay overquota levies or cut back on their herd or both. Very serious consideration has been given by the Dairy Control Board as to how it would help those producers through that time by arranging the quotas and trying to do what they could to arrange additional quota for producers who were over quota, and it made a number of other moves to assist them.

So all possible actions that could be taken to assist those producers were taken. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister held any discussions with the Dairy Control Board to analyse the precedent set on the operation of the dairy indus try, and in particular the farmers who played by the rules, by returning the overshipment levy to those people who did pro duce beyond their quota levels? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had discussions at length with the chairman of the Dairy Control Board on how to handle the overquota levies.

I also asked the Attorney Gen eral to look at what the legal position might be with respect to levies. The decision came back that the levy was indeed a levy and not a penalty and that I had no choice legally, basically, but to return that overquota levy to the producers who had in fact paid it. That was done and is done in most provinces in Canada.

The discussions I am now having with the Dairy Control Board are to make sure that in future years, that policy is known beforehand, not coming to the minister after the fact, so indeed the producers know ahead of time what in fact will happen with any surplus of overquota levies. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. As a result of refunding these overquota levies, what mechanism is the government considering to maintain the quota system? If there is no penalty for staying within the quota, then why would people do so, and how can the quota system be maintained? MR.

SPEAKER: We're certainly getting into the realm — in fact, we've been in it for a long time — of argument. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there will be no changes made in the quota system per se. The producers all agreed to join that type of system. It is a totally supply-managed industry, the quotas are there, and they will have to live within those quotas. The market-share quota that's available to them and the fluid milk quota are something they are very much aware of when they go into the business.

The overquota levies that were collected and which created the questions that the Leader of the Opposition is asking, are in fact really due to — there is a cost to dispose of milk, and that's what the levies are collected for. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Dur ing the course of the minister's discussions with the Dairy Control Board and the chairman of that board, will there be any move by the government to deal with some of the obvious short-term problems of those producers who had to dispose of some of their cattle or give away milk in order to stay within the rules set by the Dairy Control Board? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, with the quotas that the producers live under, they have to purchase quota if they're short of quota and, in many cases, they have done that.

The individual dairy producer's independent decision on what he does and how many cows he milks, is up to him. But he has the quota limit, which he can't go beyond, and he knows that at the beginning of each dairy year. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't put this question in an argumentative way but to ask whether or not, because of the problems the minister identified three or four questions ago, which were not the fault of the producers, the government assumes any liability to those producers who played by the rules and have lost as a result? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, the majority of producers did play by the rules and, in fact, did not lose in the process. There are a number, and it's quite a small number, that were significantly over quota — I'm talking about over 110 per cent over quota — that of course would be affected. Modifications were made to the dairy policy by the Dairy Control Board, to allow no loss of quota if they didn't produce up to their full market share for the year, and that meant that those producers did not have to buy additional cows to keep their quota. That quota was then shared with those who were over quota.

So modifications were made to the policy, Mr. Speaker, and I feel it was done very fairly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. acting leader of the Independents, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order before I ask my question. I'm a little disturbed by the ruling you made about the question period as it relates to urgency. I've always had the understanding in this Assembly that the question period is to seek information, number one, and that information should be of a fair amount of immediacy.

But sir, when you tell us that we cannot ask a question which may have occurred many months or many years ago, and something has come out of that act that took place many months or years ago and now is of sufficient urgency, I have great distress with that interpre tation. I would certainly like you to bring to the attention of the Assembly — not at this time but at some time — exactly what your intent is and how you interpret that rule. MR. PURDY: Read the May 30 statement. DR. BUCK: Your deputy or whatever you call him, sir, is mumbling something. Maybe he can help you in making a decision.

I feel very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the question period is being limited because you are interpreting something other than how I interpret the question of immediacy. MR. SPEAKER: I think there's an overall principle that applies to the question period; that is, we've got 79 members sitting here, and they're all sitting here while one member is asking for information. There has to be some regard for the time of

1734 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 those members. Consequently, over the years, rules have devel oped in order to make sure that that time isn't misused by seeking information that can be sought in a different way. Now, there has to be some sensible limit. For example, suppose a member wanted to know something about western economic matters, and all of a sudden he started to ask ministers about what happened at the WEOC conference at the beginning of the '70s. Where do you draw the line? The Constitution was discussed; the positions that were taken by all the participating parties were quite public.

It's back in 1981. It would seem to me that that information could have been gotten by a letter to the Premier or a telephone call or some other way and that there wouldn't have to be 77 other members sitting here while that was being done. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might use the statement that you gave to the Assembly on May 30, 1983 and, along with that, the reference it makes to page 132 of Beau- chesne, Citation 359. There are actually at least two items under Citation 359 which bear upon what the hon.

Member for Clover Bar has raised, briefly referring to it in this way: A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the adminis trative responsibility of the government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order. The reference is to "some urgency". Subparagraph (5) of the same Citation repeats that. The matter ought to be of some urgency. There must be some present value in seeking the information during the Question Period rather than through the Order Paper or through correspondence with the Minister or the depart ment.

I think that is no doubt what Your Honour was referring to just now, without specific reference to the citation number, but I wanted to be sure the citation number was on the record. MR. NOTLEY: I wonder if I could offer several comments on the point of order brought to your attention by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. No one is disputing Citation 359. Obviously there should be a matter of urgency. However, the question is, what is a matter of urgency? In a House of people who have strongly differing views, there are obviously going to be some differences as to what is urgent and what isn't.

I would suggest that it is normally prudent for a Speaker to err, if one has to err, on the side of the member raising the question. I think there is a larger issue; that is, if you have a matter of some immediacy, but there is an element of history that needs to be raised, then I do not think it inappropriate at all. I couldn't agree with you more about the general comment about rehashing the Constitution or rehashing an issue settled many, many years ago.

But if a question of urgency is now coming forward — and certainly most Albertans, I would sub mit 100 per cent of them, would suggest that the option of using a notwithstanding clause in the Constitution is a vital matter of fundamental importance and, I think within any House, would be considered within the purview of Citation 359 — it is not out of order to relate what may have been a decision in the past that now relates to a decision by the government, and an effort to ascertain that information is clearly within the spirit of 359. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that both the questions and the answers today, where information was sought and information was provided, were within the best tradition of the question period. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. I thought the hon. member was going to speak about the point of order, because I had intended to say something further about that. I have real difficulty in understanding how something that was decided some years ago can suddenly become a matter of urgency.

I think the hon. leader will be sufficiently candid to acknowledge that the usual purpose of those questions is to establish something that was done some years ago, and then to try to establish some inconsistency with regard to that matter, as to what is being done now. That's really hardly a matter of urgency; if anything, it's a matter of debate. When I originally intervened in the question period today, I thought the hon. leader was going to continue on a line of questioning that was going to show some urgency about what was discussed in 1981. But he didn't succeed in doing that.

There was absolutely no reason at all why those questions couldn't have been asked in the context of the present. There was no reason at all as to what was intended in regard to the notwithstanding clause. I concede very openly to the hon. Member for Clover Bar and also to hon. Leader of the Oppo sition that this is a matter of opinion. Of course, my duty is to follow the best opinion I'm able to form, and I think in this case it's quite a logical one. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure this is still not clear in my mind, but we'll continue it at a later date. Right to Privacy DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fed eral and Intergovernmental Affairs has to do with the right to privacy. I'd like to know if the minister has had any discussion with his federal counterparts or anyone in the federal government as to the right of privacy that municipalities have. I'm sure the hon. minister is aware of the case where Kitchener city council refused to give information to the federal revenue people. I'd like to know what we have in Alberta to protect our municipalities from Revenue Canada seeking from our com puter banks and computer data information which may be none of their business.

MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be aware that there has been correspondence from the government of Alberta, specifically from me to the [federal] government, with respect to the coming into force on July 1 this year of the freedom of information and the right to privacy legislation. That [correspondence] has been made public. In that, we have requested of the federal government that information which is supplied to the government of Canada by agencies of the government of Alberta not be made public unless it is so des ignated by the initiator of the information.

I'm not familiar with the case referred to by the hon. Member for Clover Bar, with respect to an Ontario municipal government. But I will take that matter under advisement and would suggest that the type of concern as outlined in the ques tion would indeed be covered by the approach the government of Alberta has suggested is appropriate in order to ensure that information which should remain confidential — particularly with regard to individuals and perhaps with respect to municipal governments — remains confidential unless the initiator of the information otherwise designates it.

As well, I should take this opportunity to point out that in the correspondence with the government of Canada, the government of Alberta indicated that a review of this whole question is being undertaken with appropriate departments, and discussions will of course take place with such agencies as

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1735 municipal governments in the process of formulating an official policy relative to the federal legislation. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the hon. minister would be in a position to indicate — maybe he is; that's the wrong word. In a situation similar to the one in Kitchener, Ontario, where the municipality refused to give the information to Revenue Canada, has the minister had any discussion with our municipalities that this information can be withheld, and the provincial government would support that municipality? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot really answer that question definitively, because I am not familiar with the facts of the Ontario case mentioned. But in general, the correspond ence between Alberta and the government of Canada — which, as I said, has been made public — attempts to deal with this issue. As I indicated, we will be discussing the formulation of an appropriate policy with appropriate agencies and emanations of the provincial government during the course of the prepa ration of our policy, which will be developed within the next few months.

I would appreciate hearing from the hon. member more particulars of the case in question and would appreciate any views he may have on the subject. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Does the minister or anyone in the government have available any information that can be supplied to the Assembly as to how the right to privacy of Alberta individuals is protected in government computer banks? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is the federal government legislation on that subject, and I believe that gives the right to privacy to individual Canadians.

As far as how computerized information might be protected, it's a matter of some technical nature that I would have to review further and discuss with my colleague from Clover Bar. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood; then the hon. Minister of Transportation wishes to deal with a previous question period topic. Kananaskis Park — Golf Course MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Recreation and Parks, and it has to do with the contract to operate the golf course at Kananaskis park.

Would the minister indicate why the government established the rate of return to the province of between 0 and 5 per cent of the gross revenues accruing to the operations? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, in working out the contract, many hours were spent trying to arrive at the price it would take to keep the facilities as a world-class project within Kan anaskis Country. Some $2 million was the price arrived at to do that job right. After the $2 million, we arrived at a figure whereby the government would get a certain percentage in return, working upward from 0 to 5 per cent over the surplus over $2 million. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. Will the minister advise how it was established that the contract operators will not be picking up the tab for either the labor or the equipment for maintaining the golf course, fairways, or putting greens at Kananaskis? I guess my specific question is, why is the government paying for this labor and equipment? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, that's not correct. The man agement of the golf course will take over all responsibility effective November 1, 1983. MR. MARTIN: I have the contract here, and the minister had better reread it. I'll go into the next part of it, though.

With respect to the purchase agreement for other equipment the operators will need, will the minister clarify if any interest charges will apply to the instalment payments the operators will make over the next 10-year period to the government, which is supplying the equipment? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there's an inter est within that program. The price was calculated over a number of years on a certain percentage being paid on a yearly basis. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister made that decision, did he take into consideration the government's restraint policy and the amount of interest which will be foregone for this arrangement, particularly given the government's guaranteed buy-back policy in the agreement? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, we did in fact take the interest portion into consideration. That's why we made an agreement for them to purchase that over a five-year period, interest included. So it was an agreement that we made at that time. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

When will the minister table appendices A, C, and G in the House, so the public will have an opportunity to examine the full details of the contract? Although they form part of the contract, they were not tabled with the contract. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that I tabled all those things. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. If he did not table appendices A, C, and G in this House, would he do so? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, before I commit myself to that, I'll have to have a look at it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

What consideration did the minister give to placing a regulated profit margin clause in the Kananaskis contract, so the objective of affordable leisure facilities, as I believe he put it, would be enforceable by the government on behalf of all Albertans who have paid for these facilities? MR. JOHNSTON: What is that, Ray? I'd need an appendix to define that. MR. TRYNCHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fees charged at Kan anaskis are well below other golf courses in this country. I think they're affordable to Albertans, and the contract so shows. MR. MARTIN: For the time being, maybe. My final question, Mr.

Speaker, is a simple one: why, in today's economic cli mate, is the government offering this insulated gilt-edged con tract . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. MARTIN: . . . to a few, especially when small businesses all over this province are going broke?

1736 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: That's definitely a representation and debate, and anything else that you want to call it, that isn't qualified for the question period. But under the circumstances, since the question has been asked, it would be less than fair if the minister weren't allowed to answer. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, we have one contract to run the golf course. I guess the hon. member is asking that we have 10 or 20 contracts, and I don't think that's feasible. Highway Overpass Project MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon.

Mem ber for Edmonton Norwood asked me certain questions with regard to an interchange on highways 22X and 2, just south of Calgary. As I indicated on Thursday, these interchanges are often constructed in several phases, with each phase being designed and scheduled to coincide with the traffic demands. In order to minimize the overall expenditure, each phase is designed to be compatible with later phases, even though they're built independently. In this particular interchange, a two-phase project is planned.

Phase one, which is currently under construction, is a full interchange which allows for all necessary traffic movements between the two highways and associated roadways and pro vides access connections to all nearby roadways and devel opments. Phase two, which is planned for construction at some future date when required by increased traffic volumes, will simply streamline some of the traffic movements. Like most other interchange projects, as I indicated again on Thursday, phase one of this interchange project involves several components and involves more than one construction season.

Approach fills, which are essential in order to construct the overpass structure itself, were constructed in the fall of 1982. The overpass structure itself was begun in the winter of '83 and was essentially completed by September 1983. Due to problems with acquiring borrow or fill dirt sources, necessi tating expropriation, the main interchange roadway construc tion project was not started until August of 1983.

This project, although not expected to be fully completed until July '84, is expected to be sufficiently complete to enable the interchange, including the structure, to be open to traffic by the end of November 1983; in other words, in another two weeks, Mr. Speaker. The construction process itself requires that some minor temporary connections be built to accom modate traffic during the construction period. Again, this is not unusual for this type of work. Since different parts of the industry are involved in both the structure and the roadway construction, separate contracts are tendered for each.

It is therefore not unusual that the structure and the roadways be completed at somewhat different times, and the two months' difference in completion of the two is something that is not considered in any way unusual. There is one more right-of-way problem in the southwest corner of the interchange, which has necessitated a temporary re-alignment until the right of way issue is resolved. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, all necessary access to nearby roadways and developments is being provided as part of the current contract. Where seasonal factors have prevented the final access from being completed, temporary access is being provided. Finally, no identifiable extra costs have incurred or are expected by completing the overpass structure prior to com pleting the remainder of the interchange. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Federal and Intergov ernmental Affairs has some further information on a recent question period topic, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. Right to Privacy (continued) MR.

HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, further to the answers I have just given to the hon. Member for Clover Bar, I wish to thank him for providing me with the information on which his ques tions were based. I wish to supplement my answer by saying that in the cor respondence on this subject which went forward from my office, dated June 30, 1983, to the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the nature of infor mation supplied by municipal or regional governments in Alberta was specifically mentioned as being part of the concern of the government of the province of Alberta.

Without reading into the record the contents of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, it is quite clear that there are specific items in those pieces of legislation to cover municipal or regional government information. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I still have some concern as to what protection Alber- tans have, specifically as to the material that's in our computer banks. I would just like to indicate to the minister that I got a Dear John letter from some federal agency saying: how many miles do you get on your Omega?

How they found out I had an Omega, which is none of their bloody business, is what concerns me. I just want to know what protection Albertans have to make sure that information that's in our computer banks is not made public or is not made available to people who want to put you on a list to sell you something. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very real concern and, as I indicated, has been expressed by myself to the federal Minister of Justice. That is why we have taken the position we have, relative to the information which is requested.

It's a two-edged sword: the right to information and the right to privacy. That is why we've taken a cautious approach with respect to this. I will indeed review the question of computerized infor mation relative to a technical nature that has been raised by the hon. Member for Clover Bar, and get back to him and to the Assembly on that subject. We share his concern. MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Due to the prolif eration of computers in our society today, would the minister consider establishing either a task force or a committee to review this entire area? MR. HORSMAN: I'll take the hon. member's representation under consideration, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 100 Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (No. 2) [Debate adjourned November 18: Mr. Martin speaking] MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to continue my scintil lating speech from the last day. We were talking about the six- month hoist. One of the things the Treasurer said very clearly

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1737 at the time is that because we've had the lowest income tax, we'd still be the lowest, although only about half a per cent behind British Columbia. In his introduction, he gave this as some justification for the fact that it would be okay, if I can put it that way, to increase income tax at this point. Besides the other arguments that we have made, Mr. Speaker — and I was coming to that at the end of my speech on Friday — there is some debate over income tax as being just part of an overall tax.

I was pointing out that there are many different types of tax, if you like — not income tax. We pointed out medicare premiums and the possibility that user fees could be taking money out of the pockets of Albertans on January 1. I think one of the things we have to talk about is the recent third edition of the Canadian consumer tax index. It's from the Fraser Institute — hardly a socialist outfit, if we know the particular bent of this organization from Vancouver. What the Fraser Institute says is fairly clear. They say that you have to take all the taxes into consideration.

The Treasurer has said that we're the lowest taxed. If we're going to look into it at this time, and we're basically getting a right-wing organization saying Alberta is the highest taxed — and I'll explain why — then maybe we need the six months to think this over. I don't know whether or not the hon. Treasurer has had a chance to look at this report — hopefully he has — but according to the Fraser Institute, the consumer tax index, the average Alberta family paid $16,024 in taxes in 1980, which amounted to 39.5 per cent of the total income of $40,000. They say we are the highest in terms of taxation.

They compare that to Ontario, where the average family paid $10,214 on a total income of $35,140, which translates into a tax rate of some 29.1 per cent. What they are suggesting is that basically we have to take in the whole realm of things people have to pay in terms of taxes; for example, as I mentioned, medical deductions. They talk about pension taxes, import duties, excise taxes on liquor and tobacco, property taxes, and so on. They point out that our property taxes in Alberta are the fourth highest. They also take in corporate taxes.

Admittedly we have the second lowest in that regard, which I suppose would represent the bent of the hon. member: we'll nail the little people, and give breaks there. But as they correctly point out, corporate income taxes are of course offset by corporations by passing on higher prices to us so that they can maintain profit margins. With the very limited time I have, Mr. Speaker — and I'm well aware of that — my point is that the Provincial Treasurer has given as justification that we have the lowest income taxes.

But even with the lowest income taxes before — and a 13 per cent increase is certainly significant — the point that they are making and that we are making here, is that you have to take in the whole realm of taxation. An organization like the Fraser Institute — which, as I have pointed out, is clearly of the bent the hon. members in the government are — after researching it and looking into all aspects of taxation, is saying we're not the lowest overall, even though we have the lowest income tax. But if you take in the whole, overall picture of taxation, we are the highest in the country. Mr.

Speaker, if that is in fact the case, then surely for that reason we're going to need six months for the Provincial Treas urer to find out. If, after looking into it, he would accept the argument — perhaps they're wrong; they've been wrong before. They are a well-known economic group, and if they're saying we are the highest, I think we should backtrack and take a look at this Bill. The point we're making is that it's the wrong time to be bringing in this Act. This is just further information that adds to the things we previously said, that would indicate to us that we have to take a serious look at this.

So if in fact we have the highest taxation in the country, Mr. Speaker, this 13 per cent increase in income tax at this time is going to seriously jeopardize the economy. As I said before: in a time of recession we think it's wrong. I'm sure that if most of the other groups are saying it's wrong, even the ones that hon. members opposite [purport] to represent, then surely the Treasurer should stop and take a look at it. The only ones saying it's right at this specific time seem to be the Treasurer and the government.

Almost all the business groups, all the labor groups, the opposition — both the Independents and us — and certainly almost every other person you talk to in the province, say it's wrong to do this at this time. So I think it makes eminent good sense to take a look at this for six months. With the money we have in the heritage trust fund, surely six months shouldn't break us, even with this government spending the way it does.

But if the economy goes down, if we have higher unemployment and have to waste money paying more for unemployment insurance, if we have more people on welfare, more small businesses going broke, this certainly will take much more out of the Treasury than the $220 million we would be putting back into it. If more busi nesses go under, then it's really pointless, Mr. Speaker. So recognizing that I do not have much more time — I'm not sure how much; maybe a half-hour or so — I would leave that thought with the Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Provincial Treasurer is an honorable gentleman and that, with these startling new facts I have brought to him, he will consider. As soon as I've finished here, he's going to stand up and say that I've made such eminent good sense that he is prepared to withdraw his Bill on second reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to try to add a couple of minutes of eminent good sense, if I could.

Having listened, as I have, for several hours to this tour de force of economic and financial criticism, I guess it would be amusing — if it didn't take so much time — particularly when the hon. Leader of the Opposition puts on his economic guru hat and speaks to us about taking purchasing power out of the hands of individuals. That of course will impact seriously on the economy, reducing spending by consumers, leaving Main Street, Alberta, vacant by year end, and other such dire pre dictions.

On other days, he has donned his more socialist hat, which seems to fit better at times, passionately advocating that we must maintain the integrity of medicare by taxing people according to their ability to pay. Presumably taxing people according to their ability to pay doesn't reduce their purchasing power. I'm not quite sure how that works, but if I stay here long enough I may learn. He did correctly identify at one point, perhaps unwittingly so, the progressive/regressive tax system as being a Marxist plot.

The even more Marxist plot, I guess, consists in the comment that somehow or other an income tax surtax is equi table. Mr. Speaker, the English language is brutalized these days, but this is a serious case. I think what he means, of course, is not "equitable"; it's "egalitarian". There is a dif ference. I suspect that there is nothing equitable. It's [not] my view, nor would it be the view of the Fraser Institute, in fact, that there's anything equitable about an income tax surtax.

Perhaps the greatest tax of all may be on the patience of mem bers who have to listen to these contradictions and try to sort them out for themselves, while sitting here patiently. While the member projects an empty main street, he seems to indicate that the hon. Grinch from Glenora has stolen Christ mas. Let me reassure members, particularly the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, that despite his fears, I predict that Santa Claus will visit after all.

1738 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 Mr. Speaker, tax increases are undesirable. I don't think there's any question about that. In fact it is a commonly held opinion, and it seems to me to be an exercise in futility to try to jump in front of a parade which purports to be against tax increases; that's as old as tax increases. There is no parade. We all recognize that it's a difficult problem. But I suspect that the citizens of Alberta are not quite so naive as they're being represented here. They know that deficits are even more serious. They know that at the moment the world is awash in red ink.

They know that that can't go on. They know that the world financial system, as a matter of fact, is on the verge of cracking under the strains of deficits accumulated by governments around the world. And they know that that problem has to be attacked on two fronts, on both the income side and the expense side. We must realistically assess our income. Our income comes from three sources: personal and corporate taxes, energy rev enues, and federal transfers. Incidentally, those are transfers of our own money back to us. We know now that two of those sources are at some risk.

Energy revenues have fluctuated and may fluctuate more. Federal transfers, if we can take the federal minister of health seriously, may also fluctuate. That forces us to take a sharper look at the expense side. Mr. Speaker, when we say we must take a look at the expense side, I think we should say that seriously and not allow our selves to indulge in the game of trivial pursuit that has been played so far by hon. members of the opposition. In a $9 billion budget, I have been astounded at the preoccupation with expense items like sand at Kananaskis, conventions, airline tickets, members' offices, or advertising.

If all of these were added together and eliminated, how much of a dent would they make in the expense side — a couple of million, 3 million, 5 million out of a $10 billion budget? I think we are forced into a position where we have to overlook this kind of triviality and get serious. We have matters of substance to address. I think the hon. Treasurer addressed those matters when he said that the size of the public service is being reduced, starting with a relatively modest figure this year and continuing next year and into succeeding years.

As has been pointed out by hon. members, he's an honorable man; I believe him. I think that has to be done and will be. I think we also have to remember that the only serious suggestions are with regard to major expenditure cuts. As he has pointed out, to offset this tax increase, if that's what we're talking about, we have to talk about recurring expenditures in the operating area of close to a quarter of a billion dollars. Unless we can make suggestions on that scale, then we should stay out of the debate. It has been pointed out that we should use the heritage fund.

The minister has pointed out that Albertans support the use of the heritage fund for the projects it's being used to pay for: loans for farmers and small business men through AOC and ADC, to complete the Prince Rupert terminal, to complete the major hospital projects that are now under way, for irrigation projects, oil sands research, and others that are matters of record and are ongoing. Expenditures have been allocated to those projects, and they must continue. But expenditures do have to be addressed. I expect to par ticipate; I'm sure other members do too. Much has been said.

I guess these trivialities that I've spoken of were intended to raise the consciousness of the general public. Perceptions are important; there's no question about that. In my view, that's one of the few benefits of the current tax increase. In my view it will heighten the perception of Albertans to the scope of the problem. It will underscore and outline the difficult choices we have to make. Mr. Speaker, one doesn't have to look much farther than the balance sheet of the province.

In the budget highlights, it is quite clear, and it seems to me important to perceive, that personal income tax and corporate income tax amount to about $1.7 billion. They do not quite cover hospital and medical care costs. I re-emphasize that all the tax sources collected by the province of Alberta do not quite cover one item on the budget expenditure side — $2.2 billion for hospitals and medical care. That leaves every other item, every other program, every other service needed by the province of Alberta dependent upon either energy revenues or federal transfers. I think Albertans under stand that.

When they get a sharper perception of it, they will understand it better and, as matter of fact, will enter into the debate more actively in terms of reducing the expenditure side. Interestingly enough, if they follow the example of some states in the U.S., they may decide in referenda that they prefer, for example, to increase their own taxation as opposed to reducing some services, which was recently done in the state of Ohio. Albertans are not that naive. They know the risk in the position that we have. They are accustomed to looking at their own budgets in terms of expenditures as a percentage of increase.

I'd like to point out further, Mr. Speaker, that last year when the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care spoke on his budget, he said that it comprised about 22 or 23 per cent of the provincial budget. He was speaking about budgetary expenditures. But when you and I run our households, we have to think of the amount of money we're going to spend in terms of the amount of money we're going to make, not the amount of money we're going to make plus borrowings. If our revenue is $6.6 billion and our expenditure on one item is $2.2 billion, that's 33 per cent, not 23.

So if we subtract borrowings, we're spending a third of our income on one item on the expenditure side, hos pitals and medical care. Albertans know that's a serious posi tion, and I'm sure they endorse the position taken by the Provincial Treasurer in his attempt to redress that imbalance. That can't go on — not to pick on hospitals or other major items which take up large percentages of a vulnerable income pie, for example education. These items were in fact not made in isolation. This House does not sit in a vacuum.

It listens to the sounds made by people who are on hospital boards, university boards, other kinds of independent boards, and the population in general. They send messages about how they want their money spent. Those messages have been heard. I have had a number of businessmen — I notice that lately some of the members oppo site have talked to small businesses objecting to the tax increase.

I had some say on Friday night: I guess you guys are in the same position that we were all in, in the '70s: we made too much money, we spent too much money, we made too many commitments; we got overleveraged, and now we have to build it back down. Yes, that's where we are. As this gentleman said to me, they expect us to take strong action on the expense side. And they realize the present expense level is unsustainable, just as their own levels were. They also realize that it takes time to pay down debt. Mr. Speaker, consumer spending isn't an item in isolation.

There have been some doubts voiced by many economists and analysts recently that the free-spending attitudes which persisted in the decade of the '70s and even to some extent earlier this year, will continue. In recent weeks and months, Canadians appear to have been buying Canada Savings Bonds, paying down their mortgages and credit card debts, and replenishing family sav ings. That tells me that they're good financial managers and that they understand what good financial management is all about. Forecasts are never precise; they're not scientific. They're done by necessity; they're imperfect.

They have been in the past, and they will be in the future. But by all the forecasts I

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1739 have read, it appears to me that our economy will survive and continue to recover. Just in the last week, two major investment analysts have noted that in 1984 Canada could record the best overall economic performance in seven years. Similarly, a wid ening consumer demand into non-durable goods and services from the durable goods and services, with which the upturn began, has already started and could strengthen the recovery.

On Friday one investment house contended that the backlog of market demand, stimulative economic policies, and lower rates of inflation will combine to produce an economic expansion in both Canada and the U.S. which will last for 10 quarters. This will hopefully give Albertans an opportunity to maintain their incomes at high levels relative to the rest of the country as a whole. Mr. Speaker, the tax increase will have the effect of empha sizing to Albertans the serious possibilities that we face in the forthcoming budget process. I think they will participate, and I think they will agree.

It also serves to signal that we have all become far too dependent on government services, and we simply have to cut back that dependency. The tax increase, along with a reduction in expenditures over the next couple of years, could work together to bring Alberta's economy to a soft landing, rather than setting up a serious and damaging deficit which could unsettle the economy for some years to come. I don't think anyone wants that. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, on page 1674 of Hansard I was invited to enter the debate by the Member for Little Bow, who even offered to write my speech for me if I would give it.

I don't think I want to give his speech. The member also claims to be the Independent Member for Little Bow, but I notice by the telltale fingerprints on amendments and subamendments that they have all been run off on the same machine. I guess inde pendence is only as deep as the duplicator. It kind of reminds me of the Canadian finals I was at last week. Wayne Vold had one of the brahma bulls on the end of a lariat, and he was hazing him out of the corral. The announcer said: push, Wayne, push.

I think this is what has been happening, The suggestion has been made that if we stick our heads in the sand, the problem will go away. My mother always said, don't put off today what you can do tomorrow. The problem is not going to go away. If we leave it six months or two years, the problem isn't going to go away. Regarding Bill 100, the question that begs an answer is whether or not the government was justified in reducing per sonal income tax by 28 per cent in 1975.

If we are to follow the line espoused by the opposition, clearly the individual is much more qualified than the government to make the decision on how to spend his money. I remember the Member for Clover Bar making that assertion directly. Therefore the government should not be collecting funds it does not require. The decision to lower taxes in 1975 was a responsible one. In retrospect, it is causing problems today because the Provincial Treasurer is reintroducing this tax. Surely it is responsible to collect personal income tax only — I want to emphasize "only" — when necessary.

It must be remembered that it has been 11 years since the last tax increase. The Leader of the Opposition challenged me to say that my constituents support an income tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I have had exactly one phone call in opposition and one letter very concerned with the imposition of sales tax. I answered that the Provincial Treasurer had assured me that the government wasn't looking at a sales tax at this time; however, it was committed to reassessing all government programs to increase efficiency and service to Albertans while at the same time assessing all available sources of revenue.

When discussing the tax increase with my constituents, they recognize that resource revenue has been reduced. When a province is collecting 70 per cent of its budget from resource revenue — from the 1980-81 Heritage Savings Trust Fund annual report — and that revenue suddenly decreases, it is logical that you have to turn to other sources of revenue. My constituents recognize that fact. They expected it in the 1982 budget. No one can honestly be enthusiastic about an increase in income tax. I agree with the Member for Edmonton Whi- temud there; it is not desirable, but it is necessary.

In 1983, resource revenue paid 85 per cent of the general revenue expenditures supplying services for Alberta. This reli ance on resource revenue cannot possibly be continued indef initely. If we don't address the problem now, our children and our grandchildren are going to be — I guess an unpopular term — in dire straits in the future. All of us have had to reduce expectations. Maybe our pet project hasn't received approval; I am certainly one of those people. I want to mention the importance of the Alberta personal income tax selective reduction program.

Albertans who really need protection from increased income tax are the low earners. A gross income of $13,850 for a family of four would result in a net income of $3,940. Because of the selective tax reduc tion, no Alberta tax would be payable. On Friday the Leader of the Opposition said that we got that 13 per cent increase right across the board, regardless of one's ability to pay. Some one said, that's not true. He said, prove it. Well, it's not true. Because of the selective tax reduction, the low-income earner is protected to a degree.

The actual Alberta tax payable on any taxable income under $4,700 would not increase. It is extremely important to preserve the spending power of the low-income earner. Five hundred thousand Albertans with less than $9,639 taxable income benefit from this program. The Member for Little Bow and the Official Opposition have been arguing that the government should restrict its own expenditures. If I remember rightly, the Leader of the Oppo sition talked of parallel agencies, duplicating services, and rede signing programs.

Yet you should have heard the righteous indignation when he read the memo from the Provincial Treas urer asking ministers to improve the efficiencies of their depart ments and cut out unnecessary positions. Last spring they were saying: instead of introducing user fees, increase income taxes. Mr. Speaker, methinks they talk out of both sides of their faces. The other area where low-income earners are protected is the renter assistance program. That hasn't been mentioned at all in this debate. Last year, $46 million was foregone in sec tions 10 and 12 of the renter assistance program.

That includes the royalty tax rebate. Mr. Speaker, I think that's probably one of the most important areas for the low-income earner — up to $250 tax credit, whether or not they've paid the tax. Some people actually get a credit if they do not have a taxable income. I hope that I'm right. I read this little book, and that's the way I read it. I know of a number of people who are at the low- income level who felt that the renter assistance was a distinct benefit. If you add the renter assistance, which is $46 million, and the $70 million foregone by the selective tax rebate, that adds up to about [$116] million.

The tax increase in this Bill is $200 million. The [$116] million of foregone revenue is from the low-income earner; make no mistake about it. I want to mention one other area, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has said a number of times that we as a caucus aren't asked to approve fiscal responsibility and reas sessment of employment needs in the government. I want to assure all hon. members that my constituents are telling me, and I am telling the cabinet and the caucus, that this government must practise fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility.

I hope and expect that the Provincial Treasurer will take that to heart.

1740 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to debate the amendment we have before us. I always quite enjoy the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud. I remember so well the first time he was seeking a Tory nom ination. He was seeking the nomination because he felt this government had gone too far to the left. He said that the only way he could maybe get this government to shape up was to join it, so he could infuse them with some of this right-wing philosophy that was supposedly a trademark of what Toryism seemed to stand for.

I am glad to see that the member is trying to do his bit. I can visualize how the gathered masses will cheer and applaud when the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud stands at a Tory rally or convention — we have to stop people who are stealing from welfare; we have to get rid of these welfare bums; we have to do all these great right-wing things. But I would like to say that either the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud has never been poor, or it's been so long since he was poor that he doesn't really know what goes on in the minds and shoes and budgets of the ordinary Albertan.

I didn't have the pleasure of attending the town hall the hon. member advertised, but I can see the members coming to that august gathering with their gold-plated Cadillacs and Toronados and Cutlass Cieras. I can see them applauding each other and the member for saying that we have to cut back; we have to cut down. That's true. All Albertans are asking for that, and they are ready for it. But at the same time they say that, they are saying to me — as I am sure they are saying to all the Tory back benchers and front benchers — you people are wasting too much money. That's what they're saying.

That's what Main Street, Alberta, is saying. This government has been a fat cat for too long. They've been wasting too much money. Now that the crunch comes, it's painful. So what are they going to do? Are they able to cut back on some of these superfluous programs? I'm sure the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud will stand in his place or outside this House and tell us that this government came up with too many Mickey Mouse programs. We have to tell the whole story, hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud.

Certainly people are ready for restraint; certainly they are asking for the civil service to be shrunk, because it has been overinflated and overpadded. So people are ready. MR. MARTIN: Too many Tory consultants. DR. BUCK: We don't include those Tory consultants in the civil service, hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. If you were realistic in looking at the people who work for this government, including the consultants, then the picture would be much more dismal than it is.

I know we've gone through that exercise in this Assembly, trying to find out in the budg eting process how many of these people who are supposedly acting only as consultants are really working nearly full time but we've put them in that other category so the figures don't look too staggering. Is that not misleading the taxpayers of Alberta? Or is that Tory economics and Tory bookkeeping in effect again? Mr. Speaker, we talked about the reductions in 1975. We reduced the tax in '75, but now we will put it back on. But the economic situation has changed very, very drastically.

If we are going to look at a turnabout and get the economy going again, that's when I say to the hon. Member for Drayton Valley that I as a taxpayer know and get more bang for the buck than any government ever has. We're trying to say to this government that the time is not right to bring in that 13 per cent. What we're saying is just basically that simple. That's what we're trying to say. Since I tabled the petition in this Assembly several days ago, there are still people flooding into that little store just 10 miles from Sherwood Park. They say: where is the petition; we want to sign the petition.

Now what is that saying? Is that saying everything is jolly and rosy, as the hon. Member for Drayton Valley is trying to tell us? Or does that tell this government and me as the MLA for that area that we've got some serious, genuine problems out there? That's what it tells me, but I don't wear those rose-tinted Tory glasses that tell me everything is fine in good old Alberta. Mr. Speaker, we look at one of the lowest corporate taxes in Canada, as the Provincial Treasurer says. But what is that 13 per cent doing to economic recovery?

How many of those struggling small business men were out at that last Tory town-hall meeting? Were the ones who have gone bankrupt there? You can be sure not. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to members of this Assembly that I think we face in this upcoming winter one of the toughest winters that Alberta has faced in many, many years. [interjec tion] It's not a matter of looking at the muskrat houses, as the hon. Member for Vermilion says. Members of the Assembly treat this issue lightly. It is not an issue that should be treated so lightly.

I would say that the crops the agricultural sector had this year are probably the worst we've had in the Edmonton area in almost 25 years. The prices of fertilizer, fuel, heating, and electricity have certainly not gone down. There are going to be many farmers in a very severe financial bind this winter, and if the weather is that much colder. These little things come out in our gas bill saying: you lucky Albertans, you're so lucky to be living here, because we have cut X number of dollars off your fuel bill.

But are they going to put that same little note in when they send us our income tax forms in April, saying: you lucky Albertans, we are now asking for 13 per cent more. No, I don't think we'll put that same little clipping in there. Sales tax. Of course this government would never have the nerve to implement a sales tax, because that is one of the legacies handed down to this government by the previous administration. Sales tax is a sacred cow. I don't think we should, or will, see a sales tax in this province.

I don't know, but with the revenues we have in this province coming in from natural resources, I don't think this province should ever have a sales tax. The hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud talked about the triviality of only $8 million or $10 million. The hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud has already been afflicted by the Tory sickness that $8 million or $10 million just doesn't matter. It's a symptom of the disease that this government has. They've been Cadillac Conservatives for so long, because the money has been pouring into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund; the money has been pouring into general revenue.

From the day this government took power, I have said that they know how to spend — that's quite evident — but they do not know how to manage. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Edmonton Whi temud talks about the triviality of $8 million or $10 million, when we look at one-third of the provincial budget being a deficit, it's quite obvious that this government does not know how to manage the fiscal affairs of this province. What are they doing? They're saying: give us another $200 million.

Alberta taxpayers; we've got this problem; we've overspent $2.5 billion in the last fiscal year; you've got to come to our rescue, you lucky people, so we can keep spending in the style to which we've become accustomed. That's what they're saying. I would like to say to this large, callous government that the people out

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1741 there are starting to find out; they're getting a little twitchy. Maybe it's time for a reincarnation of the WCC, because at least the WCC made this government twitchy two years ago. It was nice to see them doing a little dancing; it was nice to see the Premier recess the House and send them back to mend some fences, get them out of here. Even though the separatists are about the furthest thing that I ever want to be associated with, they did make this government twitchy, so they accom plished something.

In the next two and a half years — if we have the Premier stepping down and one of the fair-haired boys from the front taking over, we will have a snap election, so I don't think the people of this province will have two and a half years. (inter jections) As soon as the Tory backroom boys anoint the new leader, we will have a snap election, because this government would never, ever, take a chance to have that large majority threatened. I don't think the people of this province have until 1986 to indicate to this government some of the displeasures that are out there. What we're talking about are priorities.

We are talking about the fact that this legislation should justifiably be held for six months. Get us through the cold winter months when the farmer has very little revenue coming in but a lot of money going out. He's buying his fertilizer, his seed, and his fuel, and there's very little money coming in.

I think this is a legitimate amend ment, that the six-month hoist, or reconsideration, be given to this Bill, plus I think it would serve a very, very useful purpose, now that the Tory backbenchers have been let in on the secret that we're going to raise more money because we've done such a bad job of budgeting that we need an extra $200 million. Of course, the fabulous five that run this government, their prior ities committee or strategy committee, sat around their little table and decided: we've blown the dollars, gang; we need more money.

The Tory government that prides itself on con sulting caucus — they could not vote the other day on the Bill on Sunday closing, or Sunday opening, depending on which perspective you're looking at it from. MR. SZWENDER: Did you have a good long weekend, Walt? DR. BUCK: I'd like to say to the hon. member that steals nominations that I was looking after my constituents, and that's where a lot of these Tory backbenchers should be.

But as long as you get on Peter Lougheed's coattails, it doesn't matter if you do anything or not; you just ride to power, I would like to say that this government will have its day of reckoning and, when that day of reckoning comes, we will be comparing the reign of the Social Credit government with the reign of the Tory government. Mr. Speaker, the Tory government is not going to shape up too favorably, I'll tell you that. I well remember that when the government took power, they said . . . MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the hon.

Member for Clover Bar could come back to the point he's trying to discuss. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, in continuing my speech on why this government should go back for six . . . MR. SPEAKER: I must say that there has been a very consid erable amount of repetition between the hon. member's speech today and his previous speech on this particular subject. There have been at least five or six points that he's repeated from the previous day, and I'm just trying to get to the point where I can predict what the next repetition will be. MR. SZWENDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I've only been a member of this Assembly for approximately a year, and I've already heard this speech five times. DR. BUCK: If you could comprehend, you might even learn something. In continuing after that rude interruption, I would like to say that there are some economic factors on the horizon that are making Albertans very nervous. Some very, very nervous people out there wonder how they're going to get through the winter. They wonder how they're going to pay their fuel bill, how they're going to pay for their fertilizer. Mr.

Speaker, when we look at some of the built-in production costs, especially in the farming community, this government hasn't really done very much for the farmers of this province. The government hasn't done too much . . . MR. NOTLEY: For anybody, actually. DR. BUCK: . . . for anybody except those high-income Tory people. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order. I'm really having difficulty relating this part of his speech to the point he's discussing. It doesn't seem to mesh. MR. NOTLEY: He's explaining why it should be delayed six months. It's rather clear, Rollie. MR.

SPEAKER: I have the optimistic expectation that in a sentence or two the hon. member will relate this to the topic under debate. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, just in explanation to the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton Glengarry, what we're really talking about, hon. member . . . MR. MARTIN: Say it slowly. DR. BUCK: . . . very slowly, very carefully . . . MR. COOK: That's Ray's line. DR.

BUCK: . . . is that we are trying to indicate to these well- informed, learned government backbenchers who have so much input into what goes on in caucus, so much input into the Provincial Treasurer levying a 13 per cent tax on the people of this province, is why this tax should not be implemented for six months. Before we implement a tax, we have to have all the relevant information as to what went on, what went wrong, why we need the $200 million. Surely even a learned man like the hon.

Member for Edmonton Glengarry should be able to understand that, without having to run down and ask you-all Jimmy Carter why they should bring in this tax. MR. COOK: Why don't you ask Jim Keegstra? He's on the national Social Credit council. DR. BUCK: Maybe the former president of the United States can help the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry. Mr. Speaker, I would really like to see some of these people get into a tough election campaign where they really had to stand on their own merit. That would really be quite interesting. I would like to say this will be a tough winter, Mr. Speaker.

It will be a tough winter for the farming community, the small business sector, and the unemployed. The Minister of Social

1742 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 Services and Community Health is trying to do his bit to help Albertans; he slashed their budget. Maybe that $200 million is going to go to them. But when you slash the budget of the department, quite obviously the $200 million is not going to them. So it's going to be a tough winter for the young people of this province. When you talk to young people, they say: are we ever going to be able to get a job; if we go to NAIT, SAIT, Grant MacEwan, or to university, does that guarantee that we'll find employment? Is that what the $200 million is going to do, hon.

Member for Edmonton Glengarry? Is that going to provide employment for those young people? They can't all be as lucky as the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry and have a guar anteed income by being a Tory backbencher and riding in on the coattails of the Premier at the election every four years. It is going to be a tough winter. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to my learned friend the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont that the hon. member should go out and talk to the people in his constituency.

I know the Member for Edmonton Belmont has people in his constituency who will tell him exactly what they're telling us on this side of the House. I am sure that if the members of the government benches are getting the same information that we are getting, and if they had the nerve to stand in their places and relay that information to this Assembly, they would cer tainly vote for the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MRS. CRIPPS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I'd like to correct a figure I used in my speech earlier. The renter assistance credit for 1981-82 was actually $33,543,000. MR.

SPEAKER: On the motion for the six-month hoist, would the members in favor of the motion please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. [Mr. Speaker declared the amendment lost. Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Buck Martin Notley Against the motion: Alexander Horsman Paproski Alger Hyndman Payne Anderson Johnston Planche Appleby Jonson Purdy Bogle King Reid Bradley Koper Russell Carter Kowalski Shaben Chambers Koziak Shrake Clark Kroeger Sparrow Cook LeMessurier Stevens Crawford Lougheed Stromberg Cripps Lysons Szwender Diachuk McPherson Thompson Drobot Miller Trynchy Elliott Moore, M. Webber Embury Moore, R.

Weiss Fischer Musgreave Woo Fjordbotten Nelson Young Fyfe Oman Zaozirny Gogo Osterman Zip Hiebert Pahl Totals: Ayes – 3 Noes – 62 MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on second reading of Bill 100? [The question having been put, Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried. Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] DR.

BUCK: Before you take the vote, sir, I'd like to say to you and to members of the Assembly that I think our system, where we now have a minute or whatever it is to get into our places, is certainly better than the system we had before. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be only appropriate if the hon. Member for Clover Bar took out the patent on that, since he was the inventor.

For the motion: Alexander Hiebert Paproski Alger Horsman Payne Anderson Hyndman Planche Appleby Johnston Purdy Bogle Jonson Reid Bradley King Russell Campbell Koper Shaben Carter Kowalski Shrake Chambers Koziak Sparrow Clark LeMessurier Stevens Cook Lougheed Stromberg Crawford Lysons Szwender Cripps McPherson Thompson Diachuk Miller Trynchy Drobot Moore, M. Webber Elliott Moore, R.

Weiss Embury Musgreave Woo Fischer Nelson Young Fjordbotten Oman Zaozirny Fyfe Osterman Zip Gogo Pahl Against the motion: Buck Martin Notley Totals: Ayes – 62 Noes – 3 [Bill 100 read a second time] Bill 98 Hospitals and Medical Care Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 [Debate adjourned November 17] MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose second reading of Bill No. 98. There are many aspects contained in the leg islation we have before the House this afternoon, but I want

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1743 to confine my remarks to the introduction, by way of legislation, of what I consider to be a completely odious principle; that is, the introduction of user fees in this province. Some members could argue that that right has existed before. In actual fact, what is now very clearly happening, Mr. Speaker, is that we are moving by legislative authorization to a system of in part financing health care that is totally inconsistent with the prin ciples of the Hall commission. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether members of the Assem bly had an opportunity Sunday to listen to Sunday Morning on CBC, but during the course of that morning session, they had an interview with Mr. Justice Hall, a man who is still one of the most remarkable Canadians I have ever had the privilege of meeting. It was worth noting, as they interviewed that learned, esteemed Canadian, now 85 years of age, who was appointed by Mr.

Diefenbaker to look into the health care system and in 1964 came down with the Hall commission report, one of the great documents in the history of health in the world, I would say, not to mention our country . . . As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the only quarrel one could have with Mr. Justice Hall is that he once made the mistake of running for the Conservative Party, but of course that was when there were a few progressives in the Progressive Conservative Party, and when people like John Diefenbaker were still active and involved and concerned about the little people of this coun try.

Setting that minor partisan jab aside for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that for those of us who are committed to the principle of a prepaid, fully comprehensive health insur ance scheme, there can be no going back. I note that one of the backbenchers — I don't know which one it was — referred to it as socialized medicine. If that's the way he would like to describe it in the next election, I'm sure we would be glad to debate that poll by poll, because there is little doubt that the vast majority of Albertans, including I suspect the majority of the people who voted for the hon.

Member for Edmonton Bel mont, don't agree with his view of health care. In fact they would strongly support the principle of the health system that was enunciated by Mr. Justice Hall in 1964. Perhaps the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont is too young; that may be an arguable case.

But those members in this House who knew what it was not to have a system of prepaid health insurance, who can recall the difficulties either they or their parents went through in trying to pay doctors' bills, will know just how strongly held among most Canadians who've seen the contrast the commitment is to the principle of maintaining a fully com prehensive, prepaid health insurance system. Mr. Speaker, the major aspect of that entire concept is acces sibility. There should be no barriers to the use of the system. Before health insurance, there were all kinds of barriers.

Either people had to ask for charity, the medical professions had to give charity, or the hospital had to give charity. It is worth noting that in this province we began to move away from that concept many years ago, even before my time. As a matter of fact, the first prepaid hospital insurance scheme was developed during the days of the old UFA government.

Then during the years of the Aberhart and Manning governments, we went further along the road to developing and strengthening the sys tem of a publicly administered hospital system which recog nized that there shouldn't be barriers to people being able to use the system. As a result of the St. Laurent government in the mid-50s recognizing that hospitalization was a cost-sharable item, Mr. Speaker, we then moved beyond hospitalization to medicare. We now have a package of health insurance which I think is among the best overall systems in the world.

Because I believe that very strongly, neither I nor my colleague could, in good conscience, support a system which is going to reduce acces sibility to the hospitalization rights of Albertans. Some say, what's wrong with $20 a day up to a maximum of $200? It will make people recognize the cost of the system. No, Mr. Speaker, it's not going to do that. What it will inev itably do is add another burden on people who, as a result of policies of this government, are going to be faced next year with higher income taxes, higher property taxes, and user fees.

Sure, it may be that the maximum will be $200, but there are many people in this province today, whether in rural Alberta or urban Alberta, where that extra $200 is not going to be easily obtainable. Record unemployment, small businesses facing bankruptcy, difficulties in the agricultural sector — it's those extra charges which are vexatious and, in some cases, are going to be the straw that literally breaks the camel's back. Mr. Speaker, what user fees do — I won't go back and quote the sources that I did during the debate on my colleague's amendment on Thursday night.

But if one examines user fees and how they've worked in other provinces, there is no doubt that the empirical evidence shows that user fees act as a det riment to lower income people using the system. It's not going to stop a high-income hypochondriac from using the system, but it is going to act as a deterrent for low-income people who surely have a right to a decent quality of health care. I know there are some people who would like to turn the clock back, who would like to suggest to their fellow Canadians that it's too costly a proposition.

I say to those who make the sly arguments with the thinly disguised attack on our health care system: examine the real facts, examine the cost of health in this country and compare it to the United States. You will find that a smaller percentage of our gross national product is directed to health care in Canada, where we have everybody covered, than in the United States where some 40 or 50 million Americans don't have any coverage at all. Mr.

Speaker, when we have a system which, while not perfect, is working well, why do we insist on bringing in a principle which is going to erode one of the basic underpinnings of that system? I tell you very bluntly, with all the passion I can bring to an issue, that there is no issue more important to me in this Legislature at the moment than the question of maintaining our health system. In defence of that health system, Mr. Speaker, I believe those of us who oppose Bill 98 can speak for a majority of Alberta voters. I have no doubt about that at all.

I reckon that this particular offensive concept is yet another of the Hallow e'en tricks delayed a year and thrust upon the people of this province, when they voted for the Tories a year ago not knowing that they were going to get increased income tax, increased taxes of various kinds at the local level, plus user fees. I think many of them would have voted in a different way. Hon. members who now sit so quietly, securely, and apathetically in the Legislature would be doing something else. Maybe they would be more directly involved in the private sector. Mr.

Speaker, I say to members of the House that we totally oppose user fees. But even for the government, which seems determined to thrust this upon Albertans regardless of the wis dom, I think there is some argument for further study and evaluation.

Therefore I would like to move that the motion for second reading of Bill 98, the Hospitals and Medical Care Statutes Amendment Act, on today's Order Paper, be amended as follows: by striking all the words after the word "That" and by substituting the following therefor: "the subject matter of Bill 98, Hospitals and Medical Care Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs."

1744 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I was just being courteous again in giving government members an opportunity to get into the debate. Hope always springs eternal. Obviously I rise to support this amendment. I think it is a very important Bill. Certainly the last two Bills we have dealt with are important. I don't like to put them in any [order] of importance. But very clearly we believe we are establishing a principle here. I know that the Minister of Hospitals and Med ical Care has said, no, he wants to infuse money.

But by legitimizing user fees, as we are in this Bill, I believe we are in danger of two things. First of all, we are in danger of losing federal money — and I will come to that — that will far outweigh any money we would take in in user fees. Secondly and more importantly, besides the money is the whole concept of what medicare and hospitalization is supposed to mean in an affluent society. When we asked that this be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs, there is a reason for that.

Basically the reason is that at this point we do not see the understanding as to why we are moving and legitimizing user fees. The indication we are always given is that it has to do with money. But as I will point out, this does not make sense, because there are many things that we could do. Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the five guiding principles of medicare that were established . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I draw to the hon. mem ber's attention that he already dealt rather fully on November 17 with the question of the loss of federal money. Perhaps he might like to go on to another topic. MR.

MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You can refer to each different question. You can go back on the argu ments. When you talk about repetition, I think if you refer — I would like to know from you which item you are quoting from Beauchesne that says a person cannot do that. MR. SPEAKER: We have a Standing Order — I think it's No. 22 — which gives the Speaker no option. It says that the Speaker will deal with the matter if there is unnecessary rep etition.

The mere fact that we go through the motion or have amendments which may not change the direction of the debate doesn't mean that the House must sit here and hear the same thing two, three, or four more times. This is simply stretching out the debate, and that is not the purpose of the House sitting here. If a point is made in one part of the debate, regardless of whether it is on the main motion, on an amendment, or on a subamendment, if that point is relevant to that particular part of the debate, then the House should not be required to listen to it again on another feature of the debate. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. mem ber is not reading from notes. He is using material in reference to material that he has already indicated. Therefore if you are making an argument for why it should be referred to a com mittee, the hon. member is not giving the same speech that he gave at any other time in this House. What you are saying by the ruling is that you cannot refer to anything that you have said before, unless I have the wrong impression of what you have said. But when you are going back and indicating some thing you said previously or why something was done, that is not the same speech.

Of course some of the material is the same, but the reference to how that material was used is really what the hon. member is talking about. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how you can say that is a repetition. It is a repetition of the subject, but of course it is not a repetition of the way the statistics are used in one instance and used in an argument in another. I can't understand your ruling. MR. SPEAKER: The question is: is it repetition of the same argument? I am not suggesting that the hon. member is giving the same speech again. There are a number of things that he is saying in a different way.

It is a question of repeating the substance of the argument. I know the rule against repetition and the rule for relevance are difficult to apply, but they are there. Standing Order 22 doesn't say a member may be called to order by Mr. Speaker; it says "will be called to order". I realize there has been a great deal of latitude over the years, and I think there has been latitude this time as well. A number of arguments have been repeated that I haven't really intervened in. The hon. Member for Clover Bar referred to the hon.

Mem ber for Edmonton Norwood not going by notes, perhaps indi cating that he might not remember what he said before and consequently may be saying it again inadvertently. That cer tainly can happen, and I appreciate that the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood isn't reading a speech. But if he inad vertently goes into repetition and I happen to know that he's doing it, then I think it is incumbent on me to draw his attention to it. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You are wrong in two areas. First of all, the rule applies only to rep etition within a given speech addressed to a given question.

I have not spoken to this amendment, so surely I could not have repeated myself. Regardless of whether a given argument has been used to support or oppose a previous question, as long as it is relevant to the question at hand, no charge of repetition can properly be levied. To allege repetition simply because a member is using arguments previously used with regard to another question is not reasonable. Mr. Speaker, the other point is that I did not talk about the five things. I think you've confused [me] with the Leader of the Opposition.

I did not talk about the five guiding principles of medicare, if you want to refer to Hansard on that. I think your order is improper at this time. If you check back in Han sard, you will find that. MR. SPEAKER: I wasn't referring to the five guiding prin ciples. I was referring rather to the loss of federal funds. That was definitely raised previously. There is nothing in Standing Order 22 that says you can repeat the same thing: if you say it on the main motion, you may repeat it on an amendment and then again on a subamendment.

There is nothing in 22 that would give any justification for that kind of opinion. Surely it is common sense that the same argument shouldn't be made, having the House sit here listening to the same argument a number of times. Standing Order 22 is obviously based on common sense. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is who is determining common sense here. MR. SPEAKER: That happens to be my duty under the cir cumstances. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you are stifling debate here.

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1745 It's a reasonable amendment. It's not even an argument I've made. If every time there's a word that somebody used before or referred to, it's going to get to the point, Mr. Speaker, in all due respect — what are we even going to end up talking about? What we are doing is following legitimate parliamentary debate, stalling, if you like — which is quite legitimate — a Bill that we find repulsive. The fact is that this is a new subamendment. At one time I did refer to — this wasn't going to be the total mark of my argument; I just referred to it very quickly.

I said there was a reason for that — not at this time, two weeks ago. Are we going to follow through on this? Every time somebody mentions a word or two at some point in a debate, we can't mention these words or the concept again? Is that what you're saying, sir? MR. SPEAKER: Of course the hon. member is quite out of order in accusing the Chair of stifling debate. That's not the sort of remark that is supposed to be made in a parliament, because you don't take it out on the referee. However, by no means am I interfering with the repetition of a word that's used more than once.

It's an argument that I'm talking about. If the hon. member is stalling, as he mentioned a moment ago, then my only suggestion is that he has to do it skillfully. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have great difficulty, sir, in following what it is you're saying to us. Are you saying that if 74 members of this Assembly got into this debate, the 70th or 74th or 75th would be left with absolutely nothing to say? He could not say what speaker number one had said? Is that what you're saying? That's the way I interpret it, and I cannot believe that. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon.

Member for Clover Bar has per ceived what I've said in that way, then I have to agree with him that it's wrong. I'm not saying one member may not repeat what another member has said within limits. There is even authority to the effect that once an argument has been made by one member, it shouldn't be repeated by another member. I've never gone that far, but I have read authority to that effect. I don't remember where, but I'll find it. What I am saying is that the same member shouldn't be repeating the same argu ments. That's all I'm saying; it's very simple. MR. MARTIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is a rather important ruling. For clarification, I'm sure you're also aware that Beauchesne says that in repetition the Speaker should always err on the side of the hon. member, The point I'm making here is: are you saying that once an argument is made, right through debate — through second reading, Committee of the Whole, and third reading — that member cannot come back to that argument at a later reading? That's really what you're saying. In quickly going through, I mentioned — and I think it's an important and valid thing — millions of dollars in a time of restraint as an important reason.

I was going into the five guiding principles of medicare. Are you saying, sir, that once an argument has been made, say, in second reading, a member cannot refer to that argument again? Is that what you're saying? I want clarification on this. MR. SPEAKER: I'm not saying he can't refer to it, and I'm speaking about the same member, not a different member. I'm saying that the same member who has made an argument should not repeat that argument on the same subject, whether it be in second reading, third reading, committee stage, or whatever. The argument is made. It's recorded in Hansard.

There are people here with work to do. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, we are performing what we do as the opposition. That's very important work too, sir. I would again refer to

section 299 of Beauchesne, which says: The rule against repetition is difficult to enforce as the various stages of a bill's progress give ample opportunity and even encouragement for repetition. It says: In practice, wide discretion is used by the Speaker and the rule is not rigidly enforced. I think that's a very important principle, Mr. Speaker. In this case, I think perhaps you were a little quick to jump into the debate and in saying, again, that we can't advance arguments all the way through. If it's a bad Bill, at least in reference to the opposition, maybe the arguments are still valid.

That's their duty: to fight and make arguments through all stages. Surely, following this literally, we make a five-minute speech on each Bill and that's it. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. First of all, I could make the observation that the amendment, which as I understand it is an amendment to the Bill itself and not a subamendment . . . MR. SPEAKER: It's an amendment to the motion rather than to the Bill. MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry — an amendment to the main motion at second reading, but not a subamendment to an amendment, which I was concerned might have escaped our attention.

First of all, I note that the amendment is fairly direct in its intent. It would require that anyone speaking to it speak to reasons for proceeding in such a manner rather than in the normal course of procedure here. I think that does in fact, under

section 22(

c) of Standing Orders, pose some interesting chal lenges for those who will speak to it. The previous amendment was along the same direction — a different end result but along the same direction — so it will indeed be challenging. I would invite all members to assist Mr. Speaker in observing the intent of the application of

section 22 of our Standing Orders. MR. SPEAKER: There's really no need for any further dis cussion of the point of order. I think all the points that can be made have been made. If the hon. member wishes to continue, perhaps he'd do so. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue with precisely the reason we think this is a bad Bill, and why it has to be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs. With time to study this Bill and all the relevant facts that go into the Bill, we are hopeful that at some point they will change it and not legitimize user fees.

As we said, when medicare was established in statutes and federal/provincial agreements, there was agreement by all par ticipants, including this province, that there were five guiding principles: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability, and public administration. I suggest to you that by legitimizing user fees, as we are doing in Bill 98, we are affecting universality. At the very minimum, even if the government says we're not, there is genuine debate not only within this province but throughout Canada that in fact we are violating universality by user fees.

Obviously there are other people talking about double billing affecting universality. That's not relevant to this Bill — but certainly legitimizing

1746 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 user fees. Rather than taking a chance with one of the basic guiding principles of medicare, namely universality, we suggest that we need time to study it. That's why we've asked it to be referred. The

section of our agreement with the federal government which user fees violate is very clear. It's a short paragraph and is as clear as can be. It reads: provide insured services in a manner that does not impede or preclude either directly or indirectly, whether by charges or otherwise, reasonable access to insured services by persons entitled thereto and eligible there for. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to us that after January 1, with the possibility of user fees —and it will be up to each hospital board — we are affecting this precisely in this paragraph.

That is why we are saying to this government in every way possible, trying to help them not make a major mistake, that we want them to refer to the committee. Mr. Speaker, it's not just the opposition that is saying this. If you look at almost everybody who studies user fees — ranging from a study in '68 of user charges in Saskatchewan by Mr. Beck, and Badgley and Smith, the Ontario Council of Health, 1979 — they clearly say that the groups who are most affected by user charges are the socially disadvantaged; the poor and the elderly. That directly covers the universality and the accessibility.

I won't go into the Hall commission; my colleague has talked about it. The Northcott and Snider study here in the province, the Consumers' Association of Canada study, the Financial Post health care conference: all these people are saying that user fees affect accessibility, therefore we're going against the guiding principle that this province has signed. We're given to believe, by the minister, that the reason we're bringing in user fees is because of the cost of medicare. Cer tainly medicare is expensive; nobody says it isn't.

We're already all paying for it through our taxes, in which we're getting an increase of 13 per cent. But there is every indication to say that it is not overabuse, as the minister has said, and that's not why we're bringing in user fees. The Health Care Insurance Commission annual report — the government's own report — shows that from 1980 to '81 there was only a 2 per cent increase in services to patients, and from 1981 to '82 a three-tenths of a per cent increase in service to patients.

But if we're really serious about the cost — and this is a "but" — from 1980 to '81 there was a 20.6 percent increase in payments to doctors. At the same time, in the following year, 1981 to '82, there was a 24 per cent increase in payments to doctors. The question before we bring in user fees and legitimize them in this Bill, and why we think it needs more study, is why blame patients for increasing costs? If we're serious about the costs, there's where we'd better take a look, Mr. Speaker.

The minister estimates that if all hospitals implemented fees, they might bring in another 3 per cent of the operating budget. That's a maximum, and the minister admits this. That's hardly going to solve the problems of user fees, all the financial prob lems we have with medicare. It's hardly going to do that. We're suggesting that if he's talking about it being so minimal, why go through the process? Because as we already pointed out, it is going to affect certain people, the working poor — inac cessibility.

The point we have to make and have time to study in terms of costs is that the government itself is responsible for the massive hospital construction program. We're told that in Fox Creek, Mr. Speaker, they have a 10 per cent vacancy rate. That's costing them. The hon. Member for Clover Bar has brought this up in question period. Are we looking into that if we're seriously interested in controlling costs? One of the things that the member from Lethbridge — Lethbridge West, I believe; I'm not sure which part — has talked about is prevention.

When we look at the budget, I would agree with the hon. member from Lethbridge that what we should look at is how much we're spending. There's only $180 million budgeted for all community based and preventative health programs. That's 8.2 per cent of the total hospital budget. As the hon. member correctly points out, if we compare that to $270 million in liquor profits and if we're serious about the costs, let's look into preventative medicine there. This committee could do that; there's absolutely no doubt. The other thing — why we think we'll have user fees.

The minister says that basically it's up to the hospital boards. I would suggest that inevitably we're going to have user fees, maybe not all on January 1, because there's been only a 5 per cent increase in the budget of the hospitals. We're told by the Provincial Treasurer that next year there could be as low as 0 per cent increase. Inevitably user fees are going to become a fact of the land. If you undercut the hospital boards, how else are they going to pay for it?

The other point that has not been made clear by the minister is that there's no proof yet that administrative costs for hospital boards to bring in user fees and to look after them will not eat up money earned from user fees. It seems to me government at its worst if we're bringing in another bureaucratic program and it's not actually bringing money in. We've never seen a cost analysis of this. Maybe that's what this committee could go back and take a look at. When we were talking about finances in question period, I brought up the study from the joint com mittee on infection control.

They said that with proper infection control, we could save up to $4 million a year. That's a lot of user fees, and this committee could begin to look at that. They could begin to look at this committee report and find out where they can save money there. Another report they can take a look at — and I agree with the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care that it wasn't a very good report, but it certainly raised problems — is the report on surgery by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It clearly pointed out a correlation between fee for service and large unnecessary surgery rates.

If we take just that one area, we find there is a 3 per cent rate of Caesarian sections in the Netherlands, with a 14.3 per cent rate outlined here in Alberta. Surely a committee would want to look into this if we're really serious about cutting down on costs. That's the only reason the minister has given us, so we want them to have time to go back to this committee and take a look at it. I could go on and on and on. We've talked about seat belts. We've talked about many other aspects of where we could actually save money. But the point is that this hasn't been done.

We could talk about community clinics, the false claims that I've raised in the House. There's lots of money there, probably millions of dollars. The College of Physicians and Surgeons estimates that there are five every year. That's a lot of money.

When we talk about finances, the bottom line that we'd want this committee to take a look at, as I mentioned before, is that if they're looking at private management as the answer, I remind this government, through you, that when they take the GNP, that 7.9 per cent of the Canadian GNP is spent on health care as opposed to 9.8 per cent in the U.S., where there are private hospitals and no medical care. This is precisely why we want a committee to look into all these things and come out with some new ideas to save costs. What I'm suggesting is that there are many ways and there are many places to take a look at.

Why do we have to rush into it now, when the minister is saying it's not going to be that much money? As I come back, I hope I'm wrong, but I believe we're on a route towards private hospitals, as in the United States. That's why I want this committee to take a look at it.

November 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1747 Because we feel it is such a bad Bill, we in the opposition are fighting it with every means we have. One of the other means to give this committee some direction — and what we would like to see done, because it would give them some important feed-in — is to bring in a subamendment. It's very simple, Mr. Speaker: by adding at the end of it: "and that the Committee be instructed to hold public hearings on the subject matter of the Bill." By public hearings, Mr.

Speaker, we believe that this com mittee would see how the people of Alberta feel about it, and perhaps would change their minds on what we consider a very bad Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the suba mendment? DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, what's the hurry? I'll at least show the other members the courtesy of having them wait to see what it is that they're going to vote against. I'll just wait for a moment. Will I lose my place if I sit and we wait until the subamendments have been duly distributed? MR. SPEAKER: I can't see that that would be terribly out of order.

On the other hand, I can't instruct members as to what they should read before they vote. Has the hon. Member for Clover Bar the subamendment? DR. BUCK: Yes I do. MR. SPEAKER: Then I suggest we proceed. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I really take offence with the sup posed impartiality that the Speaker is supposed to display. I say that, sir . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker and members of this Assembly, it is a common practice when an amendment or a subamendment is handed out that surely we don't start the debate until at least the people have received the subamendment or the amendment. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member's remarks are quite out of order. I'll just act as if I hadn't heard them. I have no right to instruct members what they're to read before they vote, and I have yet to recall an incident in this House when the debate on a subamendment was delayed while the pages distributed copies. I've never heard of that occurring. I'm sure the hon. members won't have any difficulty following the hon. member's speech with one ear and looking at the amendment with one eye. DR. BUCK: The reason that I take offence, Mr.

Speaker, is that it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to rush matters through this Assembly. AN HON. MEMBER: That's because you're trying to stall. MR. SPEAKER: That's irrelevant. I'm not rushing a thing. If the hon. member wants to get on with his speech, would he please do so. AN HON. MEMBER: Question. DR. BUCK: Oh shut your mouth. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. DR. BUCK: What a bunch of puppets. What a charade. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that a long needle should be accompanied by a long fuse. I would ask him to deal with this word "puppets" again.

I know that he used it previously in an aside when he was heckling, and I didn't say anything about that earlier this afternoon. But that is not an acceptable word in a self-respecting parliament. We've gone into that at some length. I respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to withdraw the statement that they are puppets. They act like puppets. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. You know, there are with drawals and withdrawals. Occasionally we get one where the withdrawal simply repeats the offensive remark in a different way.

Surely the hon. member knows that that's not a with drawal. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the statement that the government backbenchers are puppets. I withdraw the state ment that they appear to be puppets. If the hon. members find that distasteful, then I withdraw it. MR. SPEAKER: May I express my thanks. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if you're welcome, sir, but . . .

I will read the subamendment we have before us in case some of the Tory backbenchers can't read or can't under stand: by adding at the end of it: "and that the Committee be instructed to hold public hearings on the subject matter of the Bill." The hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood talked about refer ring Bill 98 to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs, and now we're talking about public hearings being held on the subject matter of the Bill. I think it's an opportune time to just go back a little bit in history as to what happened in '68-69, when the province of Alberta was forced to enter into medicare. Mr.

Speaker, at that time the then Premier of the province had tendered his resignation to the Social Credit caucus, saying he would step down and there would have to be a leadership race. I was one of the participants in that leadership race. I was one of the people at that time who said we could do without this ill-conceived universal federal medicare program. The reason I said it, and I still defend that position, is that at that time 85 per cent of the people of this province were insured by the private carriers.

Of the remaining 15 per cent, under the Man ning plan, the people who could not afford to pay their pre miums were going to be subsidized or their premiums would be paid outright by the ones who could afford it, through the public purse. Mr. Speaker, when we were talking about universal medicare and when that leadership race was on, I was riding to Calgary on an airplane and I sat beside a very prominent Liberal in this province who was against the proposed federal universal med icare program. I said, why would a prominent Liberal say he was against the program? He said, because I'm a free-enter priser. MR.

COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'm enjoying the story, but I'm having difficulty relating this story to the concept of holding

1748 ALBERTA HANSARD November 21, 1983 public hearings, which is the only point that is different from the main motion. That's the point he should be speaking on. MR. SPEAKER: Again, notwithstanding some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon, there has been a consid erable amount of latitude. I had some expectation that the hon. member was about to relate what he said to the subamendment.

I agree that we now have a situation before the Assembly that is quite different from a motion for a six-month hoist, in that the focus of the debate must be very, very substantially nar rowed as to why the subamendment should be changed to add public hearings. It would seem to me that the only debate that would be relevant on that would be debate which might assess the usefulness or lack of usefulness of public hearings. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have public hear ings, we have to disseminate information to the public; that's pretty obvious. I think even the hon.

Member for Edmonton Glengarry, when he goes home and reads his comic books tonight, will be able to understand that. When we talk about the public participating in public hearings, the public has to know what went on, why we got to the stage we're at now, why we got to this point in time.

Because two federal Liberal cabinet ministers decided they needed some public support, and they knew some people who were not able to have access to medical care coverage, they decided over a cup of coffee one morning — two of these prominent inner circle cabinet min isters — they were going to set up a universal medicare program like they have in jolly old Great Britain. At that time, having been a free-enterpriser all my life . . . [interjections] That's all right. They can chuckle; they've probably been instructed to chuckle.

All we have to do is to look at what has happened to the universal program in Great Britain. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, he is disappointing my expectations that he was going to start dealing with public hearings. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, your enthusiasm is too ebullient. You just can't wait until I get to the matter of the public hearings. If we're going to have public hearings, you can be sure that all of this material will come to those public hearings. Because why do we have public hearings? MR. SPEAKER: We mustn't have the public hearing now.

We have to decide first whether we're going to have one. DR. BUCK: Okay, Mr. Speaker. When we have these public hearings by a committee set up by this Assembly to hear matters of public affairs, then the material will be presented to us. When we are talking about this committee, asking for public hearings, when the public comes forward at these public hear ings that this committee will instruct be held, the information that I am trying to bring out at this time will certainly justify the fact that we have to have public input.

Because public hearings and the need for those public hearings is a subject matter that all politicians, be they on this side of the House or on that side of the House — their constituents will be bringing, and have brought, those concerns to the members of this Assem bly. When we instruct the committee to have these public hear ings, what is going to be the structure of the hearings? Well, Mr.

Speaker, I say that in public hearings there will be people who want to express their views on [whether] we should main tain the system as it is now, or are we going to go back to the old system or progress to a different system? That's why the committee. Maybe there's something this Assembly has missed. Maybe there's something the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has missed. Maybe if this committee functions properly, in calling for these public hearings new information will come forward to this committee, and from this committee to the Legislature, and from the Legislature . . . Heaven forbid!

The caucus may even make a recommendation to the minister of health and social development. MR. SPEAKER: May I respectfully draw the hon. members' attention to the clock, and to say that the House stands adjourned until eight o'clock this evening. [The House recessed at 5:30 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.] MR. SPEAKER: Might we

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19831121
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19831121 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	45cdcc322cf86919d98ebeb3b7779c258a70bb7a

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