April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 741 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 5, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/04/05 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly His Excellency Xu Youfang, senior adviser of Alberta’s sister province in China, Heilongjiang, along with members of his delegation. He is accom- panied today by Mr. Gu Huaming, consul general of the People’s Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, the Premier had an opportunity to host His Excel- lency over lunch and conveyed to him the importance of the trip that he led, the Alberta mission to Heilongjiang last year and how impressed he was by the dramatic and very positive changes that he saw in Heilongjiang.

We’ll celebrate the 20th anniversary of our twinning with Heilongjiang next year. I’m very pleased that His Excellency is in Alberta today to see the exciting growth in our province, and I wish him and his colleagues a very pleasant and a very productive visit. I would ask that our honoured guests, who are seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, please rise and receive the very traditional welcome of this Legislature. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Mr.

Robert Smolen, undersecretary of state, presidential chancellery from Warsaw, Poland; Mr. Krzysztof Smyk, Polish consul general from Vancouver; Mr. Jarek Nowinka, president of the Canadian Polish Congress of Alberta; Mr. Zygmunt Potocki, vice-president of the Canadian Polish Congress from Calgary; Mr. John Szumlas, the vice-president of the Canadian Polish Congress, Alberta branch; and Mr. Archie Grover, former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Smolen is in Alberta to attend some of the exciting events that are being held during Polish Week in Edmonton March 30 to April 8 of this year.

Polish Week in Edmonton has been organized by the Polish Culture Society of Edmonton with support from Polish organizations and the University of Alberta. They’re seated in the Speaker’s gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’ve been advised that we have quite a list today, so let’s be patient. The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Yes. Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table today a petition from very wise and fair-minded young Albertans who have signed this petition in support of the intent of Bill 11. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to present on behalf of residents of Fort McMurray in support of Bill 11. It reads that they urge the Government of Alberta to provide respective Regional Health Authorities with the flexib ility necessary to provide the delivery of publicly funded, publicly administered overnight surgical services cost-effectively and efficiently.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again have the pleasure to rise and file with you a petition signed by 272 Edmontonians and citizens from Spruce Grove, Carvel, Stony Plain, and Sherwood Park. They are all in unanimous support of the resolution that reads: “urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 318 people from the Lethbridge, Redcliff, Medicine Hat, Raymond, Coaldale, Fort Macleod, Picture Butte, Cardston, Pincher Creek, and Taber areas. In fact, with today’s tablings that’ll be 1,607, totaling so far 40,033 that we’ve brought here, wise people from Alberta who believe in democracy and the ability to petition. They are petitioning the Legislative Assembly to “urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly from 325 Albertans from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, and Jasper. These individual citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to “urge the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition supporting public health care in Alberta on behalf of 210 Albertans from Fairview, Chauvin, Beaverlodge, Hythe, Fox Creek, and Wembley.

This is urging “the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased today as well to rise and table a petition signed by 247 citizens of Alberta from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, Onoway, and Stony Plain. These citizens implore that the Legislative Assembly “urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora.

742 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to present to the Assembly a petition that’s been signed by 209 residents of Calgary and Canmore. Not only don’t they like Bill 11; they don’t want closure on debate on the bill either. Their petition is: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition signed by 245 Albertans from Edmonton, Lethbridge, Calgary, and Spruce Grove. They are petitioning the Legislative Assembly “to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained.” With this submission the number of signatures on the petition is well over 10,000. Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the petitions in my name be read back to the Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, request that the petition standing in my name on the Order Paper be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to have now read and received the petition I tabled yester- day, which reads: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I tabled yesterday be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of th e province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am requesting two read-backs today, please. The first is a petition that I presented on April 4 in support of mature women’s health, and the second petition, also presented on April 4, was signed by a number of citizens who are against private health care.

Thank you. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Alberta Government to take an enlightened preventative approach and add the newer and more effective medications and therapies to the Alberta Drug List to ensure the health of an aging society. We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I request that the petition I presented on April 4 urging the govern- ment to stop promoting private health care now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would request that the petition I tabled yesterday regarding the undermining of public health care that’s happening in this province be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigne d citizens of Alberta pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented yesterday urging the government not to support private health care now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigne d citizens of Alberta pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask that the

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 743 petition I tabled yesterday urging the government to support public health care now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition with respect to support for public health care that I intro- duced yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions to be read back today. They’re both in relation to the promotion of private health care and the undermining of public health care and request that it be stopped. The first petition is signed by 265 Albertans, and the second petition is signed by 154 Albertans.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request that the petition from 439 Albertans requesting that the promotion of private health care and the undermining of public health care be stopped that I presented to the House on Tuesday, April 4 be now read and received. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d request at this time that the petition I presented on April 4 registering opposition to private health care be now read and received, please. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would request that the petition which I presented to this Assembly yesterday expressing the concern of Albertans regarding this government’s health care privatization scheme now be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigne d citizens of Alberta pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this afternoon I would like to table five copies of an independent legal review of Bill 11 by Chris Levy, professor of law at the University of Calgary.

The review concludes that Bill 11 does not violate any of the principles of the Canada Health Act and indeed is in full compliance with the Canada Health Act in its overall scheme. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table with the Assembly five copies of a letter recently sent to the Leader of the Official O pposition pertaining to the disposition of records from her time as minister of health. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table with the Assembly the annual report of regional health authorities in the province for the year ended March 31, 1999.

I provided the required number of copies for tabling earlier to the Clerk’s office. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table with the Assembly today five copies of the Safety Codes Council 1999 annual report. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’m pleased to file with the Assembly a letter of congratulations to the University of Alberta Bears hockey team. On Sunday, March 6 in Saskatoon the Bears won the second straight CIAU men’s hockey champion- ship.

The latest win brings the total of crowns in Bears hockey to 10, a remarkable accomplishment that demonstrates the U of A’s excellence in sports and, indeed, Alberta’s tradition of excellence in sports. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table information from the latest report of the Canadian Institute for Health Informa- tion, in which the minister will note the drop in hospital costs and hospital funding in Alberta in the mid-1990s. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings. The first one is a

summary of the expenses totaling $17,064.68, which was the cost of all advertising undertaken by the official Liberal opposition in opposition to Bill 11, and we’ll be tabling some incidental expenses as we have them. The next one is for the benefit of the Premier. I’m tabling a checklist that the Premier can simply fill in, listing the expenses that the government has incurred with respect to promoting and prosely- tizing Bill 11. The third item I’m tabling is a petition signed by . . . [interjec- tions] Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s speaking so loudly, I can’t hear myself speak.

744 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Documents THE SPEAKER: Okay. I think we’re going to ask for some attention. Everybody who partic ipated in Tab ling Returns and Reports today violated the rules of this House. Everyone. Now, under Tabling Returns and Reports you table them with no editorial comment, and if the hon. members want to go outside and continue the debate, they’re invited to do so. Tabling Returns and Reports: table them without any editorial comment. Then there’s no need for any debate. There’s no need for any chitchatter. Without editorial comment: that’s the rule.

That’s to be enforced by the various House leaders who have violated their enforcement procedures with respect to this matter. So let’s go on with no editorial comment. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) MR. DICKSON: Next, I’m tabling the requisite number of copies of a message signed by 606 people in the Vermilion area registering opposition to the privatization of health care. The final item I’m tabling, Mr. Speaker, is a set of letters from 67 correspondents in the city of Medicine Hat registering their opposi- tion to Bill 11 and the private health care initiative of the govern- ment.

Thank you. 1:50 MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, I have three tablings today. My first one is an excerpt from the Camsell Mosaic about a public hospital in Alberta with a rich and majestic history of service to the people of Alberta which the government is now proposing to sell for a dollar. My second tabling. Further to the Premier’s suggestion yesterday that I should tour Alberta’s health fac ilities, I am pleased to table today . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, just table it, and let’s move on. MRS.

SLOAN: . . . five copies of my graduate and registered nursing diploma, signifying that I have spent more hours in health care facilities . . . THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have five copies of a letter from a constituent, Joan Leslie, which I will table without comment. THE SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Thank you. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table five copies of a media release from the minister of health in Ontario announcing the closure of two private hospitals in order to protect Ontario’s public health care system. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am tabling a number of letters today that are all opposed to the Genesis proposal for Spray Lakes. They are from Maegan Hawkes of Calgary, Chris Fitznar of Banff, Lance Steinke of Canmore, Kevin Milliken of Canmore, and also from Bill Marshall of Canmore. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have for tablings this afternoon, some postdebate feedback for the Premier: copies of the Bill 11 householder marked returned to the Premier, one with a cartoon that says, “We said no damn it!” Mr. Speaker, my last tabling is from a constituent of mine, Marcel Gibello, who asks that I please table the following letter in the Legislature in regards to Calgary’s push for private MRIs. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this afternoon.

The first one is the strike time line from November 8 until April 5 for the strikers that are having job action with the Calgary Herald. The second is the Alberta Labour Relations Board decision still pending regarding that unfortunate labour dispute. The third one is very interestin g, Mr. Speaker. This is the complete version of the Conrad Black/Andy Marshall confrontation as well as it can be heard. This is a transcript for all hon. members of the Assembly to have. THE SPEAKER: Okay. I’m sure there’s somebody else who wants to participate in tablings today. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR.

PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got three tablings today. The first one is a letter to the minister of health from Dr. W.A. Fuller from Athabasca. It’s a three-page letter opposing Bill 11 and giving reasons for it. The second letter is from one of my constituents, E.J. Kowal, again opposing Bill 11, a fairly extensive two-page letter. The third one is one from David Finch from Calgary, vehemently opposing Bill 11 and asking the Premier to read his letter carefully. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Okay. I have to make a correction to what I said a little earlier.

There were actually two members today who did follow the rules with respect to tablings: the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who was absolutely correct, and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. All others failed. head: Introduction of Guests MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a group of 60 senior high school students from across this province who are visiting the Legislature with the Forum for Young Albertans.

The Forum for Young Albertans is a nonpartisan political learning experience which provides the opportunity for close study of provincial and local politics. Joining this group of enthusiastic young Albertans is Mr. Blair Stolz, executive director for the Forum for Young Albertans, and group leaders Tanya, Jeff, Anne Marie, and Richard. They are seated in the public gallery this afternoon. I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, my second introduction.

I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly two guests visiting from Warrington in Cheshire, England. They are concluding a two month long world tour and depart for the United Kingdom tomor- row. Colonel Bill and Rosie Sp iegelberg are in the members’

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 745 gallery. I would invite them to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly students, teachers, and parents from Avondale school in Grande Prairie. The students are accompanied by teachers Paul Waite and Mrs. Joanne Bordeniuk and parents Mr. and Mrs. Don and Brenda Girard, Mrs. Pat Proudfoot, Mrs. Cecilia Littleton, Mrs. Irene Gaw, Mr. Don Sellick, Mr. Kevin Pringnitz, Mr.

Paul Plant, and Dorothy Brown. They’re scheduled to be seated in the members’ gallery. I’d ask that if they are here, they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m privileged to have two school groups from the Wainwright constituency today, the first being a group of talented grade 5 students from the Sedgewick Seventh Day Adventist private school. They are accompanied by Debi Anderson and Sherilyn Grovet. I welcome them to the Legislature to watch government in action. They’re in the members’ gallery.

I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. My second group, Mr. Speaker, is a delightful group of students from the Wainwright high school. They are accompanied by teacher Brent Allen. They are in the members’ gallery. They are here to observe the Assembly in action, and I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf I’m pleased to introduce to this Assembly two former pages of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta who are seated in the members’ gallery.

Karen Diepeveen served as page from November of 1999 to December of 1999. Karen is currently completing her grade 12 at the Edmonton Christian high school. Also joining us this afternoon is Agnes Mickus, a former Speaker’s page from November 1998 to May 1999. Agnes is also completing her grade 12 at Maurice-Lavallee. We are pleased that they are able to view this Assembly from a different perspective this afternoon. I would ask them to please stand and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly Erin Wiley. Erin is a grade 10 student at McNally high school. She’s enrolled in the international baccalaure- ate program there. She is diligent, conscientious, and she’s a graduate of Holyrood elementary school and Kenilworth junior high. Erin has been selected to represent Edmonton-Gold Bar in Mr. Speaker’s Alberta Youth Parliament. She is present in the public gallery. I would now ask her to please rise and receive the warm and traditional welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. 2:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a longtime constituent and friend, Mr. John Webster. I had the pleasure today of meeting with Mr. Webster, along with Miss Karen Grose and Mr. Larry Stevens. They are seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask that they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to introduce three very special visitors from Calgary today.

These prominent individuals are nationally renowned journalists. Today is the 149th day of the Calgary Herald dispute. Today these individuals met with all caucuses represented in this House to draw their attention to Alberta’s poor labour laws and seek their support in concluding their first collective agreement. These journalists are also asking the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to show some leadership in the resolution of their first collective agreement. They are seated in the public gallery.

They are Andy Marshall, president of CEP local 115A; Brian Brennan, a renowned journalist; and Murray Lamb, a visitor from British Columbia. I request that the guests now please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you two constituents of mine that I had the pleasure of meeting with today. They are Laura Shutiak and Paul Drohan. I’d ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question.

The Leader of the Official Opposition. Private Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Expansion of the Swan Hills waste treatment plant, government refinancing of the West Edmonton Mall, and now the Premier’s private health care privatiza- tion campaign: each boondoggle bears this Premier’s hallmarks of misrepresentation, blanked-out pages, hidden documents, and in the end costs taxpayers a bundle. My questions are to the Premier.

Given the Premier’s tendency to blank out pages and hide taxpayer- funded reports, are the Premier and his minister hiding any docu- ments that examine private hospital policy in other provinces of Canada? MR. KLEIN: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is no. You know, we just learned that there are 155 boxes of documents from the former minister of health who is now the Liberal leader. I understand she has consented to release those to the archives, and perhaps she might want to release those to the House, so we can get an idea of where she was coming from. We don’t know today where she’s coming from.

Perhaps those documents that have been kept in locked boxes for something like 10 years could shed some light on where the minister was coming from then. I know, for instance, that she removed a whole bunch of hospital signs along the highways so that people wouldn’t know whether they were going to a hospital or to, as she described it then, a community health centre or a community clinic, Mr. Speaker. You know, we would like to know what her rationale was at that particular time. We would like to have access to those documents.

746 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not FOIPable, and for the viewing public, FOIPable means that they are not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They use it against us all the time, but they will not table their traveling expenses. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo spent more per kilometre than any other MLA in the smallest constituency in the province. You know, people run that constituency at noon hour.

They run the length for their exercise, yet he spent about $45,000 traveling the length, the width, and the breadth of his constituency. And you want to talk about hiding things. You know, hiding things. I don’t know. How much did this littl e odometer that he had on his pocket cost? What does he charge up? Does he charge a penny a stride? They want to talk about hiding things. Mr. Speaker, these are the people who are hiding things. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition in the

preamble made some reference to West Edmonton Mall. I don’t know; I’d like to look at the Blues to see what reference was made. This is before the courts at the present time, and I’d have your indulgence in telling the leader that they should watch what they say about this case. MRS. MacBETH: Getting back to the question that the Premier refuses to answer, Mr. Speaker, why are the Premier and his government misleading Albertans by saying that his policy on private surgical facilities is the same as the other provinces? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this government is not misleading anyone at all.

But, yes, when we talk about – and this is Liberal vicious, malicious misinformation. We don’t know how much this cost, but I’m going to read from it. It says: Why Bill 11 Is the Wrong Prescription for Alberta. This handout, this publicly paid for piece of trash says that it “legalizes private, for-profit hospitals.” That, Mr. Speaker . . . [interjection] Well, no, no. I’m going to address that later. It “creates a two-tier health care system,” it “opens the door to extra charges without protecting patients,” and it “permits the queue-jumping that is going on today.” Mr. Speaker, I read from Beauchesne.

These are the words that we’re allowed to use. That’s a “barefaced false hood.” That is deception, and it purports to “deceive. “ It is “dis honest.” It is “false.” It is “fraudulent.” It is “ind ecent.” It is “insincere. “ It is “malicious.” It is “misinforming.” It is “misleading.” It purport- edly “misled.” It’s “not telling the truth.” It is “phony.” It is “scandalous.” It is “rotten.” It is a “smokescreen.” It is a “stinker.” It is “stupid.” It is “untrue” and “untruthful.” And, you know, one last phrase I could use: “The pig has nothing left but a squeak.” MRS.

MacBETH: Let’s get back to the issues that are on the minds of Albertans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question about the other provinces, that the Premier has misrepresented the laws that are in place in other provinces.

Perhaps I can brush up the Premier’s memory by tabling a document from his own department of health on the background of private facilities in other provinces and ask: why is he misleading Albertans, saying that his policy is consistent with the provinces when, in fact, his own government document shows that there are huge differences between what other provinces are doing and what this Premier is doing with his private hospital policy? 2:10 MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, we tabled some time ago in the Legisla- ture legislation that has been introduced and passed by other provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario. In my recent meeting with the Prime Minister we agreed that we would sit down and review all of this legislation to make sure that there is indeed some consistency in the legislation. All of that legislation, by the way, refers and alludes to contracting out minor surgeries to private clinics. We want to know: is our legislation consistent with that in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in Ontario?

What we want to do across this country, Mr. Speaker, is really to have an intelligent review of the situation to end the patchwork of legislation that exists across the country where certain things are allowed in one province but for some reason are not allowed in another province. The Prime Minister has agreed to that. Thank you. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, the document which we tabled today, which of course the government prepared in terms of a survey of the other provinces, says quite a different story than what the Premier might have had in his little discussion with the Prime Minister.

Given that the government’s own report says, and I quote: ministry officials in British Columbia consistently indicate that there are no facilities that provide insured or uninsured surgical services that require an extended stay, end quote, why would this Premier continue to mislead Albertans by saying that his Alberta private hospital policy doesn’t completely contradict the British Columbia one? MR. KLEIN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no private hospital policy, and that question is absolutely irrelevant.

Specific to the question, in our research there is nothing in any of the legislation as it pertains to British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or Ontario that prohibits overnight stays. As a matter of fact, in Ontario, as I understand it, there are about three clinics that do accommodate overnight stays under the publicly funded health care system. I’ve read various letters saying that the Saskatchewan legislation prohibits overnight stays, but if you read the legislation very carefully, there is nothing in that legislation, Mr.

Speaker, that prohibits overnight stays, nor is there anything in the ND govern- ment’s legislation from British Co lumbia that prohibits overnight stays, nor is there any in Manitoba, and certainly there is nothing in Ontario, where in fact the bill, introduced by a Liberal cabinet minister at the time, Elinor Caplan, is entitled the Private Hospitals Act. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, given that this government’s own report says that, and I quote, Saskatchewan Health indicates there is no provision of either insured or uninsured surgical services requiring extended stays, why does the Premier continue to mislead Albertans into thinking that hi s Alberta hospitals policy isn’t completely inconsistent with Saskatchewan’s? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, our statement relative to the Saskatche- wan legislation is quite true. There is nothing in their legislation that prohibits overnight stays. I’ll have the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness elaborate on this issue. MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. The Saskatchewan government has in effect passed and proclaimed the Health Facilities Licensing Act. As far as overnight stays are concerned, there is nothing in the legislation which prohibits overnight stays. It provides for the licensing of clinics in a very general way without any prohib ition with respect to overnight or day clinics.

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 747 There are a number of unlicensed facilities operating in Saskatche- wan as well. They are approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They are the Horizon eye centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, and the Midwest Laser Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, which does facial plastic surgery, laser work. There’s also the Gimbel Eye Centre in Saskatoon. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, let’s move on to Manitoba. Manitoba says that there are no facilities that are providing extended stay services, yet this government wants to do it in its legislation.

Why is the Premier misleading the people of this province by saying that his legislation is consistent with Manitoba when the exact opposite is true? MR. KLEIN: The exact opposite is not true. As a matter of fact, I was in Winnipeg only two days ago and had a long discussion with Gary Filmon about this particular piece of legislation. It is probably the most comprehensive legislation relative to the regulation and legislation related to surgical facilities, again introduced not by the Conservatives but by the socialist NDs under Howard Pawley in Manitoba. Again, there is no prohibition. No prohibition.

Yes, former Premier Filmon admitted that there are no facilities that offer overnight stays, but there are numerous surgical facilities now operating in Manitoba, the most recent being the Pan Am sports medicine facility, which treats a num ber of sports injuries through surgery on a day basis. But he admitted quite freely that there is nothing in that legislation that prohibits overnight stays. Speaker’s Ruling Question Period Practices THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’m going to recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition for a question momentarily, but the tone is not good here. The tone is not good here.

In fact, the intent in the questions and some of the responses would lead one to suggest that this is not a parliament, that this is something else. There are words that can be used in a context, and they have certain meanings, and they can convey certain things. The purpose of question period is to ascertain information with respect to government policy and matters of urgent business. And this place is called Alberta. It’s not called Saskatchewan or British Columbia or Manitoba or something else.

There’s also a time-honoured tradition in this House that if one hon. member says something, we accept the word of the hon. member. Words like some of the ones that have been quoted here, leaning all the way from “misled” to “phony,” are not words that basically should be found in the question period. The purpose of this particular point of our routine is to ask about “matters of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer.” This is not part of the debate.

We started the debate on a certain health bill yesterday, which I think is the background for much of this, and far as I can see in the Orders of the Day, it’s scheduled for later today and tomorrow as well. MR. DICKSON: Policy. THE SPEAKER: Why don’t we listen for a moment. Why don’t we listen for a moment, hon. Offici al Opposition House Leader, to what’s being said. We’ll deal with each question as it comes up, but there will be interjections from the chair unless the tone is improved dramatically. We deal with what the whole purpose of the question period is supposed to be. This is not part of the debate.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Private Health Services (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Since the Premier claims that he’s not proposing private hospitals, then why do his focus group documents – remember those focus group documents we talked about about two months ago? Why do those focus group documents with the blanked out pages say that the focus groups were convened for the purpose of discussing the proposed policy statement on the future role of private hospitals in Alberta? Why is that? 2:20 MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, quite simply, the focus group participants were guaranteed anonymity in return for their participation. This is not uncommon. Well, I don’t know but I would think that the Liberals would hold focus groups from time to time, convene focus groups, and would respect and guarantee the anonymity of those participants. We would do the same thing. MRS. MacBETH: So, Mr. Speaker, if Albertans are to trust this Premier, then will he now show Albertans just exactly what’s in these 30 hidden pages and the report that he’s been hiding from Albertans on his private hospital policy for the last two months?

Will he just show them, let it out? He can cover up the names. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, FOIP in terms of legislative law is very, very new, and there are some people who handle FOIP requests properly. I’ll commit to this today: to provide without the names, if the hon. House leader will submit, the comments that were offered by the focus groups if I could have an undertaking on the part of the Liberal Party that they will share with us all of the focus group results and so on. MRS. MacBETH: Absolutely. MR. KLEIN: Fine. We’ll do that. No problem. Okay. Without the names.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite the government’s attempts to put the best possible spin on its morally bankrupt private, for-profit hospital scheme, Albertans are not being fooled. Earlier today I delivered thousands of postcards from angry Albertans, many of them Conservative supporters who are breaking ranks with the government on this issue. Much of the opposition comes from the government’s own Calgary backyard. My questions are to the Premier. What does the Premier say to R.W. White of Calgary, who writes: I have supported Mr.

Klein since he first ran for mayor of Calgary, but this action is the last straw; no more, Mr. Klein? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess the only answer to that question is purely political. I’ve been in this game now for 20 years, and I get letters like this day in and day out. If I went into my shell and if I buried my head in the sand and if I ran away because every person who wrote me a letter said, “I voted for you as the mayor, I voted for you as the MLA, but I’ll never vote for you again,” you know what? I wouldn’t be standing here today. You fight for what you think is right.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is obviously

748 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 abandoning his own supporters. What does the Premier say to Thomas Clausen, also of Calgary, who writes: I have been a PC supporter since Peter Lougheed and a strong supporter of Ralph Klein; I suggest a plebiscite on this issue? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there will be a plebiscite on this issue and every other issue facing this province in the challenges of the future. That plebiscite is called an election. There will be an election, and we will fight that election, and I welcome the participation.

We will fight the election not just on Bill 11 but on a government that has done a $30 billion turnaround, a government that is the envy of the world, not only of the country but of the world, Mr. Speaker, a government that cares about health care, a government that cares about education, a government that cares about agriculture, a government that cares about preserving and protecting our energy industry, a government that is concerned about protecting our environment, a government that wants to build sensible and strong infrastructure, a government that wants to have safe and secure streets and good justice.

That’s what the election is all about. Mr. Speaker, we are a party of all things to all people. We are not a one-trick pony. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans accept the Premier’s challenge so long as he calls the election before he wrecks their medicare system. My last question to the Premier . . . MR. KLEIN: Well, with all due respect to the . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, I listened very attentively to the questions. MRS. SOETAERT: It wasn’t a question. THE SPEAKER: You can’t have a

preamble, so it must have been the question. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the election will be held in due course. I would remind the hon. member and the leader of the third party that we’re only entering the third year of our mandate. There are so many challenges for this government as we enter the new millen- nium. One of them, of course, is Bill 11. You know, when that bill is done and it’s passed, believe it or not, people w ill look out the windows, and they will still see the building standing.

People will be going to their workplaces, people w ill be going to their hockey rinks and their community halls and their golf courses and their workout places, and the world will not have collapsed. As a matter of fact, hopefully they’ll be going to their workpl aces in their communities and their churches and so on, and they’ll say: hey, this is still a very, very good province.

You know, if there’s one thing that makes me so proud to be an Albertan, it’s people from this province who travel elsewhere, including Liberals, by the way, because I’ve heard of them boasting about Alberta and the Alberta advantage and how good it is here. It is so good to hear people who travel not only to other parts of Canada but to other parts of the world who come back and say: you know, in Germany, in the Czech Republic, in the Slovak Republic, in Uganda, in South Africa, in Uruguay they know about Alberta, and they know about the success of this province.

They come back and say: do I ever feel proud being an Albertan. The only people who don’t feel proud about being Albertans are the Liberals. The NDs do. The hon. leader does. He’s consistent, and he feels proud. These people over here don’t feel proud at all, but most Albertans feel proud about their province and what we have accomplished, what we have accomplished as a team, a w onderful team. They feel proud. There’s a sense of pride. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 2:30 Gasoline Taxes MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of rhetoric but little action coming out of the federal Liberal govern- ment about lowering the price of fuel at the pumps. The federal Finance minister was recently quoted in the media as saying that he was willing to lower the federal taxes – and I stress “taxes,” because the federal government has both an excise tax and the GST applied per litre – if the provinces would lower their fuel tax. My question to the Acting Provincial Treasurer is: what is Alberta’s response to the challenge from the federal government? DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, a bit of a lead in to that is that the federal government has 10 cents a litre on the price of the fuel, and we have 9 cents as a gasoline tax plus the GST. The other day the hon. Stockwell Day, the Treasurer sent a letter to – he was Treasurer when this letter was written – Mr. Paul Martin recommending that he look at the GST as it was a tax upon a tax and that perhaps they could do something with that. Following that up, Mr. Martin made an offer to the provinces that he would consider looking at move- ment on the taxes if there were offers coming from the province.

So I sent a letter yesterday to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Paul Martin, and I asked him: Please advise me of the rate reduction you would consider and the anticipated duration of the reduction. I would . . . like to know the extent of the provincial participation you would expect, including the size of provincial tax cuts and whether other provinces must agree to take part before federal fuel taxes will be reduced. I asked him to meet with me as soon as possible if he would like to discuss that. In that letter and following that I make the statement: whatever that decision is, it’s your move, Mr. Martin. MR.

HLADY: My supplemental to the same minister: what would be the budgetary impact to Alberta if Alberta decided to lower our tax and over what period of time? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, if we lower by 1 cent the 9 cents we have on, it would be approximately $60 million, so if the 9 cents were removed in total that would equate to $540 million. Mr. Martin phoned me yesterday after this took pl ace, and I said to him: you have about $500 million coming out of Alberta in your 10 cents, and we have roughly $540 million; what would you be willing to lower on a matching basis?

He said that he wouldn’t make that commit- ment and that he would have to talk to the other provinces but that he would get back to me on it. What it means budgetwise is that we would – say it was 3 cents over a six-month period; we’d probably be looking at about $90 million. I make an emphasis here, a very strong emphasis, that this money goes into roads and infrastructure . We’re spending this year $1.2 billion on infrastructure. The $540 million we take out of the 9 cents plus about $190 million on licence plates and registrations does not come close to what we’re spending.

In fact, it’s a little over 50 percent of it. So we could not sustain this if the price of oil goes down. It’s $25.23. We could not sustain forever taking out the 9 cents, because I don’t think the people of Alberta want their roads to deteriorate. Mr. Martin, on the other hand, could take this out for a period of

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 749 time and not affect his road budget. You know why? Because out of the $5 billion that they collect across Canada in that excise tax, the gasoline tax, they only return $221 million a year to the 10 provinces and two territories. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Private Health Services (continued) MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it’s interesting that in other provin ces surgical facilities that allow overnight stays are called hospitals, but in Alberta they’re called accredited surgical facilities.

While other provinces like Ontario are clamping down on these facilities because they know how much they threaten medicare, this gove rnment’s policy is moving in the opposite direction. On March 3 the Ontario government announced that it’s closing two private hospitals “as part of its ongoing efforts to protect Ontario’s public health care system.” My questions are to the Minister of Health. Why doe s this government want surgical facilities to provide overnight stays when other provinces have realized how much this threatens medicare and are taking steps to protect the public system? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the information that I’ve received, comments from individuals at the recent health ministers’ meeting in Ontario, would indicate that in Ontario, as has been accurately reported, they do have an Independent Health Facilities Act, and they also have another piece of legislation that fits with it called the Private Hospitals Act, which regulates insured services in private hospitals. So they have passed that legislation, and as was pointed out earlier, it was done by a Liberal government. As far as I know, there are no plans to repeal that legislation, at least as of approximately a week ago there weren’t.

The point that we are making is that for years in Ontario – and I won’t go through the list of all the other provinces unless they want to question those too – these hospitals or clinics or centres have been providing surgical services. They are private operations. They’ve been under contract arrangements with the Ontario government, and at least in the case of the Shouldice clinic they’ve done a very, very substantial business with uninsured persons, particularly our neighbours to the south, the Americans. We are first of all apprized that these clinics have provided good service, quality service.

It has worked well within the Ontario system. That is the point that we’ve made all along with respect to our particular policy. It is more protective, more restrictive than these other pieces of legislation, and we have to raise the question as to why there is concern from across the way and why there is some reticence on the part of the federal government, although I would like to emphasize that the Prime Minister has said in conversation with the Premier that we should go ahead and pass Bill 11.

MS BLAKEMAN: Well, given that this government knows very well that private hospitals in Ontario are grandfathered from prior to medicare, why don’t they just stop misleading Albertans by using Ontario examples to bolster their weak argument? They don’t apply, and he knows it. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be – I would have to verify this – that there is some discussion of some kind going on in Ontario at this particular point in time. This was not just solely a matter of grandfathering. If it was grandfathering, why did the Ontario government – it’s a rhetorical question, I know.

If this was the case, why did the government of Ontario go to the very extensive effort to pass two pieces of legislation, one called the Independent Health Facilities Act, which provides for the approval of these facilities, and also, f itting with it, the Private Hospitals Act, which regulates insured services in private hospitals? Why would they do that if they didn’t feel it was acceptable and worked well for them?

MS BLAKEMAN: Why won’t this government just admit that when a person walks into a private hospital in Ontario or an accredited surgical facility in Alberta, they’ll be walking into the same kind of place? They’re both private hospitals. He knows it. The govern- ment knows it. The focus groups knew it. That’s why they blanked out the pages; isn’t it? Admit it. 2:40 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I repor ted the titles that the Ontario government has used for their surgical clinics.

I think if you looked at the types of services that these specialized hospitals provide, they may use the other term, but in fact our term “surgical clinic” is much more accurate. For instance, the most famous in Ontario of these private facilities is the Shouldice hospital, which does only one highly specialized procedure, and that is hernia operations. They do it very well. They do it very efficiently. We’re debating over names, Mr. Speaker. If you go to the Cambie clinic in British Columbia, there they refer to it as a surgical clinic, and it covers quite a wide range of specialized services.

Again, it is highly regarded in terms of its quality and its provision of services. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Apollo Gas Inc. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Government Services. Last week we heard that Government Services would not renew Apollo Gas Inc.’s licence to market natural gas to Alberta effective April 1, 2000. I understand that 64,000 Albertans, including a number of St. Albertans, have signed contracts with this company for the provision of natural gas.

Can the minister explain why the decision was ultimately made? MRS. NELSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have in the province of Alberta a code of conduct that we expect to be followed by compa- nies operating or licensed in this province, and we don’t look at that very lightly. We take it quite seriously. We work with companies to make sure that they in fact operate within those parameters, and when we do have difficulties, then we usually work very closely with the company to try and bring them onside and to bring them in line with accepted practices within the province.

In this particular case we’ve worked for well over a year trying to bring this group into that framework. We were not successful. We had issued some warnings and some suspensions, and quite frankly there’s only so long you can go. I relate it to almost a ball game: three strikes and then that’s it. Now, insofar as the 64,000 Albertans who have contracts with this group, we are working with the company to make sure that their service is not interrupted. There are options where their contracts can revert back to the original utility company, but they will be looked after.

There is a process in place to help ensure that custom- ers are looked after. I have to stress that our rules are very tough, but they’re very fair, and if you follow them, there’s no problem. If you don’t, then we

750 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 have to come down hard on companies that do not work within those parameters that we’ve laid out. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. While I understand that Apollo Gas may appeal the decision, can the minister explain the status of my constituents’ contracts with A pollo Gas today and during the possible appeal process? MRS. NELSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have received a request for an appeal on this.

Under the Fair Trading Act I am obligated as minister to put together within 30 days a review panel that will look at the application for appeal from the company, and they will proceed on with that. Separate and apart and in the meantime, we will ensure that the 64,000 customers are, in fact, dealt with to ensure that there’s no interruption in their delivery of service, and that will proceed on. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental question is to the Minister of Resource Development.

Can we expect the same concerns with the anticipated deregulation of the electrical industry later this year? DR. WEST: No, Mr. Speaker. The short answer is that the reason for that is because the Minister of Government Services has been working diligently with the Department of Resource Development on this. I’ll have her supplement this answer, but I think it’s noteworthy to say that the issue around Apollo or any other marketer that has come forward and been in that gray area about marketing contracts has been good for electrical deregulation b ecause now there is a good focus by Albertans on this issue.

The Minister of Government Services is taking due diligence in looking at good rules, and I’ll have her answer around that. MRS. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, just to supplement. We’ve had the benefit of working in a deregulated environment with natural gas. That has been a good guideline to show us where there are some potential loopholes that are being tightened up right now, and they will be fed into the electrical direct marketing concept and regula- tions. As I said before, our regulations are tough, but they’re fair, and if you operate within the code of conduct within those regula- tions, we welcome you to Alberta.

If you don’t, we don’t want you here. It’s very straightforward. Consumer protection is critically important. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Private Health Services (continued) MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta govern- ment claims that it conducted this review of the private provision of medical and hospital services in other jurisdictions to see how other provinces protect their health care systems.

Now, the document reports that B.C. “prohibits practitioners or facilities from charging fees beyond those in the fee

schedule for insured services.” My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Why won’t the Alberta government follow the British Columbia example and have a policy prohibiting fees for enhanced services? After all, if these services are necessary, then they should be covered. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, we do in Alberta exactly what British Columbia does, and that is we negotiate an overall agreement, an overall fee

schedule with our physicians in this province: Alberta Health and Wellness on behalf of the government and the people of the province, and the Alberta Medical Association on behalf of physicians. A fee

schedule is arrived at. This fee

schedule governs the provision of payment to doctors for insured services. That’s the way they are reimbursed today, and that is the way they’ll be reimbursed under the provisions of Bill 11. That is very much, I think, in keeping with what is being done in British Columbia. MRS. SOETAERT: My second question. Why does the Alberta government allow wealthy Albertans to jump the queue by paying for diagnostic services like MRIs when in Saskatchewan private health facilities are prohibited from charging for diagnostics so that people cannot jump the queue? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, that particular question is now being posed for the third or fourth time. It was initially raised as a good question by a member of the government caucus. The

interpretation under the Canada Health Act of the provision of MRI services is that it is not in the category of being a mandated insured service under the Canada Health Act. There are, I believe, two provinces besides ourselves that have MRI clinics operating in the private sector. I acknowledge that in Saskatchewan, for instance, they have, as far as their government is concerned, declared it an insured service. Certainly that is something to be reviewed. I would acknowledge that. Mr.

Speaker, the other point here, though, I think is very impor- tant, and that is the very considerable effort that government is making and will continue to make to expand the capacity in the province for MRI scans. I have alluded to it before, but I think it should be repeated, and that is that just in these past number of months we have approved and expanded the MRI capacity of MRI services in this province paid for by the public health care system to Lethbridge, to Red Deer, soon to Mistahia or to Grande Prairie. Approval has been given as far as Medicine Hat is concerned.

So there is recognition of the need for additional MRI capacity in this province which will be paid for out of the public health care system, and we are following up on that. 2:50 MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then to the minister: if MRIs then are needed for all medical diagnoses, will you not put that under the public system, put all MRIs under the public system? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure of the question. As I understand the question, it was: if they are needed for all medical diagnoses. Well, it is a very state-of-the-art diagnostic tool.

As I’ve said, we have dramatically increased the capacity for paid-for MRI services in this province through our health authorities, concentrated, yes, in Edmonton and Calgary but also in the regional hospitals that I’ve mentioned. We are certainly cognizant of the importance of this particular diagnostic tool, and we want to have the expansion of its availability on a paid-for basis to Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Sarcee Trail Extension MS GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are to the Minister of Infrastructure. On Monday of this week the council of the city of Calgary voted to sign the memorandum of understanding which would permit negotiations to

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 751 now begin on the 37th Street extension to Sarcee Trail through the Tsuu T’ina Nation. My constituents in Calgary-Lougheed, which is very traffic congested, are very interested to know what’s going to happen next. Can the Minister of Infrastructure tell us what the next steps are in this process? MR. STELMACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The city of Calgary has approved the memorandum of understanding with amendments. The city will forward these amendments to the Tsuu T’ina Nation and also to our department for further review.

Once we have looked at the amendments, the three parties to the MOU will then meet to discuss the amendments and to decide on the process for signing the memorandum of understanding. This MOU is an agreement to negotiate, so once the province and the Tsuu T’ina Nation have joined the city of Calgary in signing the MOU, that’s when negotiations can begin. We will be negotiating all parts of the project including, as well, who will finance the necessary planning studies. The time lines, though, for this project are part of the negotiation. MS GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.

Now that the city has ratified the memorandum of understanding, does the minister know of any reason why the province won’t sign on to the agreement straightaway? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t officially received the amendments, but I don’t know why we wouldn’t sign the memoran- dum of understanding if we receive agreement from the Tsuu T’ina Nation on the amendments. I’d like to make it clear that we recognize the importance of protecting the environment, the ecological resources, the historical and archeological sites that are in that area, and we have written this into the MOU.

We are committed, of course, to a consultative process that includes Calgarians, the Tsuu T’ina Nation, and of course all Albertans. Four open houses were held in Calgary to discuss the details of the MOU. The process for further consultation will be defined in the next set of negotiations. Now, signing the MOU will defin itely set the principles and values which guide the next set of negotiations. However, I want to be clear that it does not commit us or anyone to the project. The process will be open and transparent.

The city once again plans to consult with its residents before any further decisions are made after the signing of the MOU. MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question then. It’s my understanding that the due date for the finalization of the negotiations is in fact October 31 of this year. Is that going to stand, or will that have to be changed? Does the minister know? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, that’s one area that’s still open to negotiation.

I can’t say for sure that if we don’t r each an under- standing by that certain day, all parties just go back and not proceed further with negotiations, but that is a time line that’s there. It’s there at the request of the Tsuu T’ina Nation, and we respect that. I think it’s a time line where it now gives us a date to work towards, and if we accomplish it, fine. If not, then at that time we’ll again look at it and see if we can come to a common agreement on how we can proceed further. Definitely the hon. member highlights an issue with respect to congested traffic. It’s a major road going through the community.

The city of Calgary has just issued to us the most recent updated census, and they’re projecting a million people in the city of Calgary by the year 2007, so that’s a huge, huge growth. head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now we’ll call upon the first of seven members to participate today. Hon. members, it’s also the birthday of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie today. Now we’ll call on the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Douglas and Cherie Gillett MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to recognize Douglas and Cherie Gillett, who are celebrat- ing their 50th wedding anniversary on Thursday, April 6, 2000. Douglas is a native Edmontonian born in Rossdale, and Cherie arrived in Edmonton at the age of six months. They have two children, Ken and Jane, and are the proud gra ndparents of three grandchildren. Both Doug and Cherie are very active in St. Luke’s Church in Strathearn and are involved in the choir. They also operate a group called the Heart and Soul Singers, who perform at lodges and seniors’ homes.

They are both accomplished artists, and Doug gives art lessons in the community. The Sherard Musical Theatre is another project in which both Doug and Cherie actively participate. I wish them every happiness in their 50th year of marriage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. 100th Anniversary of Cowley Mail Service MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If one goes into any village or hamlet in rural Alberta today and visits their post office, you get a unique opportunity to meet with grassroots Alberta.

The village of Cowley celebrated 100 years of postal service to that community and surrounding district on Saturday, April 1, 2000, and that’s 100 years to the day. Much is changed from the days when mail carriers would provide rural service by traveling from the main post office, like Cowley, to outlying posts and exchange incoming for outgoing mail. Today families come to the Cowley post office and appreciate and enjoy the traditional one-on-one service. I’d like to thank Marjorie Haugen for the invitation last Saturday to mix and mingle with these families and relive the history of their great community.

I’d also like to recognize former and present postmasters for providing continuous, reliable service to the residents of Cowley. They are: from 1900 to 1907, James E. Davidson; from 1907 to 1912, Donald R. McIvor; from 1912 to ’52, Matthew A. Murphy; from ’52 to ’57, Marjorie Haugen; from ’57 to ’61, Edith Evans; from ’61 to ’83, Alice Sepeta; and from ’84 to the present, Lucille Martin. Congratulations to them all on reaching this great milestone, on continuing tradition. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. 3:00 Edmonton West Raiders MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure this afternoon to recognize a group of dedicated coaches, parents, and soccer players: the under 13 girls’ B division Edmonton West Raiders. On March 18 and 19 they obtained silver in the provincials in Calgary, and this team has a history of winning. Last year they won a bronze in Medicine Hat. These young girls have poured heart and soul into the game of soccer. They practised many hours every week in all types of weather to achieve the excellence they have. The support and dedication of the parents has also been essential to

752 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 the success of this team. Coach Paul Kuin and assistant coaches Tony Procacinni and Stuart Burr itt also need to be recognized for their dedication and hard work. On behalf of the Members of this Legislative Assembly I would like to extend congratulations to the Edmonton West Raiders. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Daysland Thunderstars MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my great pleasure to give recognition in this Assembly to a true triple crown winner, the Daysland peewee-A Thunderstars in the Wainwright constituency.

This talented hockey team was truly magnificent throughout the 1999-2000 season as they first captured and won their zone and then the gold medal at the 2000 Winter Games in Sherwood Park. The second leg of the crown was the winning of the league championship after a hard-fought battle. The third and final leg of the triple crown was captured in Wainwright, March 24 to 26, at the provincial playoffs, where they defeated Beaumont in the second overtime period. Congratulations to the players, coaches, managers, parents, and fans. They all played an important role in developing this super team of young men.

Congratulations to the community of Daysland. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Tommy Douglas DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize a remarkable Canadian and a former giant of Canadian politics, the late Tommy Douglas. All of my colleagues in the Assembly know that Tommy Douglas is the father of Canadian medicare. He fought tirelessly for his vision of medicare, and fortunately for us all he succeeded. His dream of universal medicare became reality, and it touches us all. Achieving his dream didn’t just simply happen. Tommy Douglas worked ferociously; he never gave up.

Today Canadians and Albertans find his life and work incredibly inspiring. When asked why he stayed with the NDP when he could have done better with a more powerful party, Douglas replied: I have watched politicians for the last forty years drop their princi- ples in order to get power only to find that those who paid and controlled the party which they joined prevented them from doing all the things they really believed in. Tommy Douglas believed. Tommy Douglas endured. We are forever indebted to Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek.

World Figure Skating Championship MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to rise today to bring recognition to the three Alberta figure skaters who participated in the world figure skating championship in Nice, France. Many Albertans held their breath through triple axels, quadruple lutzes, and wonderfully choreographed performances of the young skaters who represented Canada at the 2000 World Figure Skating Championship. Alberta Games alumna Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, her partner, finished fourth in the pairs competition.

Although Jamie now trains in Quebec, she still is an Albertan in our heart, and we will be closely watching her rising career. We shared the disappointment of Jamie and David in their fourth pl ace finish after being touted for a medal in Paris. Well, Jamie and David, we are extremely proud of you. Many will also remember Kristy Sargeant, from Alix, a Canadian champion and an Alberta Games alumna. Her pairs skating experience will continue to take her and her skating partner to new heights. Mr. Speaker, these skaters demonstrated pride and excellence in their classes at the 2000 World Figure Skating Championship.

This is the calibre of athletes that sustain Alberta’s reputation for excellence in sports. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Sergeant James Brown MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, Her Honour Lois Hole, at a recent investiture of the Royal Life Saving Society presented a rescue commendation to Sergeant James Brown of our Edmonton garrison. Sergeant Brown was one of six individuals awarded the rescue commendation. Sergeant Brown had been involved in search and rescue early in his military career, and over the last two years instructed in first aid.

In August of last year Sergeant Brown was enjoying a day at Allan Beach with his family when his attention was drawn to a woman screaming for help, as her husband had disappeared into the water while sailboarding. Sergeant Brown without hesitation dove into the water and pulled the man from entangling weeds. Upon reaching the shore, he performed CPR for 40 minutes until STARS air ambulance arrived. Unfortunately, the 36-year-old father passed away shortly after midnight that day. Sergeant Brown credits his St.

John Ambulance training to enable him to react in an emergency situation and believes that everyone should have that excellent training.

I would like this Legislature to recognize the brave efforts by Sergeant James Brown. head: Statement by the Speaker Televised Second Reading Debate THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, last evening during the special debate that all hon. members agreed to the rules for, there was notification of a number of points of order, but I’m pleased to advise that today I’ve been notified that in fact there are no points of order arising out of the session last evening, so that’s very, very positive.

The chair would also like to recognize and basically thank the vast majority of members yesterday for abiding by the rules that people agreed to. I know that some members sent me personal notes as the evening wore on about how difficult it was. I r eceived these notes from all quarters of the House but for the most part would like to recognize that it basically means there could be a model that could be used.

The chair also recognizes that at a certain point last evening one could almost take out the Sergeant-at-Arms’ sword and cut through the tension that was in the air and the desire that various members really had to do more than simply look at one another with a smile. Presumably that sort of attitude basically carried over to the early part of the question period today, and I guess that type of exuberance is all part of the human spirit. Nevertheless, there are two points of order that we have to deal with today. Again, I hope I’m not providing a personal view with respect to it.

Perhaps it’s an extension of what didn’t occur last night, and because it couldn’t occur last night, it occurred today in the question period. That’s probably the reason we have these two points of order, but once again, I guess I’m not supposed to do that. First of all, we’ll deal with the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, the Official Opposition House Leader.

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 753 Point of Order Factual Accuracy MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This arises from the first set of questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier. The authority would be Beauchesne 408(2), and I’d suggest that that authority was offended in two ways. The first way was that the Premier said that the Liberals are not FOIPable and went on to complain that the Liberals had in effect concealed information, had not shared information to inform Albertans as to the cost of their campaign. In response to that, Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier had been paying close attention, he would in fact have heard the tabling, but mere moments before, of documents establishing that the cost of the Liberal opposition advertising was $17,064.68. He would have heard me undertake that there were some minor consequential costs for a couple of room rentals that I’d be tabling as soon as I had them. So in fact the information had been provided from the Liberal opposition in response to the queries from the Premier both last night and then again this morning. The second respect in which 408(2) would be offended would be this.

When the Premier singles out and suggests that the Liberals are not FOIPable, that’s actually an inflammatory exaggeration of the facts. The facts are that it’s been the Liberal opposition that has pressed to make amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, most recently in the three-year statutorily mandated review of the FOIP act. It in fact has been government members that have uniformly and consistently resisted all such efforts to allow for fuller disclosure. So on those two counts I think 408(2) was offended. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don’t think there’s really much to say on this. I think the hon. member was trying to clarify the fact that he’d made a tabling and perhaps it was missed in the din and hue of the afternoon and wanted to re-emphasize what was in it. That’s simply a clarification and nothing more. As respects the various representations he makes before commit- tees with respect to the FOIP act, they speak for themselves.

I don’t think we’re in a position this afternoon in the House to get into debate on what he’s put forward with respect to the FOIP act, but if he’s suggesting that we should have FOIP applied to private members and their business in the House and those sorts of things, well, it’s not even worth going there. It’s a matter of clarification. It’s not a point of order. 3:10 THE SPEAKER: Two brief comments with respect to this. I do believe that there was some degree of exuberance with respect to this, and the word “inflammatory” was used.

In my recollection of the first 20 or 25 minutes of the question period today there was a fair amount of inflammatory activity going on both in responses and in

preambles to questions that we all could have done better with. Again, let’s be careful with these

preambles. They’re getting us into a great deal of responses that only lead to the heightening of tension in here and basically violate I think what’s the best in us. Government House Leader, you have a point of order? Point of Order

Preambles MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You just dealt with it. I was rising with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, specifically with respect to her second supplementary to her first question, when she engaged in what I thought was a rather lengthy, unn ecessary, inflammatory, inappropriate, and misrepresenting

preamble, which then begged responses which would correct the misapprehension that people might have if they believed the assertions which were being made in the

preamble. But you’ve dealt with that, I think, today and I think should continue to do so. The only thing I’d add to that, Mr. Speaker, is that in dealing with that type of question earlier on, you indicated that the House leaders should keep their caucuses in order. I would also ask that you intercede on a more regular basis when these unnecessary and inappropriate

preambles are being put forward and also would like to indicate that I appreciated the fact that you interceded when such a

preamble in the form of a question was put forward by the leader of the third party. MR. DICKSON: I was almost going to associate myself with the comments of the Government House Leader until he made the last observation. I’m not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that I’d encourage you to participate to a greater extent in question period. I think you’ve used wisely your discretion to intervene sparingly. I think we’re dealing with a hugely important issue, and as you yourself recognized, there’s always an emotional component when people feel strongly about an issue important to their constituents.

Obviously, we all have to do a better job on both sides of the House in terms of asserting and exerting self-discipline and trying to find a measure of restraint, notwithstanding the passion of our convictions. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much, both hon. leaders, for your comments with respect to this. I just want to repeat once again what the philosophy is that I use with respect to this. This is the highest court in the province of Alberta. The honourable people who are here have earned the right to be here. They have earned the right to participate.

They have earned the right to represent their constitu- ents. They have earned the right to rise and be recognized. They have earned the right to rise and be recognized and respond to the question as much as the question is given, and they’re all honourable people. This is called question period, and the purpose of question period is to bring everyone accountable on both sides. The last thing in the world that this particular individual wants to do is interject every 30 seconds or every minute. He can do that, and in fact there are Speakers across the country who do that.

There was recently one, a very good friend of mine in Ontario, who is no longer the Speaker, not for these reasons. He used to take it upon himself to interject every minute, and he didn’t think it was a good day unless he threw out at least six members every day. That was his objective. He was going to throw out six members every day, and that was his quota. It was absolutely chaotic. Now, that is not the philosophy of this Speaker. This is not his philosophy. He thinks the hon. members are honourable and that the hon. members should have the right to ask questions and also another hon. member respond.

On the one hand, if the need is that we should interject every 30 sec onds, this will no longer be a question period. It will be simply known as Mr. Speaker’s interjec- tion period. That’s the way that would be. So the discipline is on everybody. I have no difficulty doing the interjections, but I think that a little more brevity and clarity with respect to the question and a little more brevity and clarity with respect to the response would help us all. Thank you very much. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

754 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given yesterday, it’s my pleasure on behalf of the Deputy Government House Leader to move that written questions appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 7, 8, and 10. [Motion carried] Contaminated Sites Q7. Mr. Sapers moved on behalf of Ms Carlson that the following question be accepted.

What was the total number of contaminated sites recorded by Alberta Environment on December 31, 1999, how many of these were underground petroleum storage sites, how many of the remaining sites were classified as severely, moderately, or lightly contaminated, how many were unclassified, and how many in each category had been visited and reviewed between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The motion is very straightforward, and I think it describes what is a perfect subject for a written question.

It asks for statistical informa- tion, detailed information, very, very specific information, and of course taken in its totality, it would give Albertans a picture of how many contaminated sites there are around the province in several different categories. Any lesser information would not represent disclosure and would not represent, I think, goodwill.

So we are hoping that the government will help us communicate with Alber- tans regarding a number of contaminated sites, particularly on how Alberta Environment has treated these sites and how many of them, as I say, are represented in each category and whether or not they’ve been reviewed in the last calendar year. I look forward to the government’s affirmative response to Written Question 7. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d associate myself with the comments made by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glenora, but I would like to suggest some amendments to Question 7, that it be amended by adding the word “approximate” before the expression “total number”; by striking out the expression “how many of the remaining sites were classified as severely, moderately, or lightly contaminated, how many were unclassified”; and finally, by striking out the expression “in each category.” Accordingly, the amended question would read as follows: What was the approximate total number of contaminated sites recorded by Alberta Environment on December 31, 1999, how many of these were underground petroleum storage sites, and how many had been visited and reviewed between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999?

Mr. Speaker, my department is developing a database of all contaminated sites, but it is not yet complete. Accordingly, I would only be able to provide an approximate list of these sites. Finally, the reference to sites as being “severely, moderately, or lightly contaminated” bears no resemblance to the manner in which these sites are classified. Sites are not classified by the degree of contamination but are classified according to the nature of the contaminant. Accordingly, my response would clarify this for the benefit of the member asking the question. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo on the amendment? MR. DICKSON: Yes, on the amendment. I was listening carefully, because when I saw the amendment – and I’m not sure why the department is not able to tell us the total number of contaminated sites. If the minister gave an explanation for that, I’m sorry; I didn’t hear it. I heard his explanation in terms of the classification system. I would think that notwithstanding all the cutbacks we’ve seen in staff at Alberta Environment, this would be an important number to track and that the number would be available.

As I say, I didn’t hear an explanation in terms of why that information isn’t available. 3:20 On the other part of the amendment, “how many of the remaining sites were classified as severely, moderately, or lightly contami- nated.” The minister says that they use a different classification system, that this doesn’t accurately reflect the departmental way of classifying them, but I note that in the amendment he doesn’t propose to provide information that reflects that. It may be that the department has 40 different variables. I mean, I don’t know whether it’s that complex.

I understand him to say that it’s a different sort of measuring stick, a different sort of valuation, and that’s fair, but I’m not sure we’ve heard a reason why we wouldn’t be able to see that information, to know how many were severely, moderately, or lightly contaminated. This minister in particular is certainly creative enough, I would have thought, to find a way to be able to provide that information. The purpose clearly is because Albertans value the quality of their environment.

I think they want to know and are entitled to know with some specificity the extent of the problem, and that, I think, is the import of the question. To have it come back in the form that’s proposed as amended, there’s no gradation, no sort of qualitative assessment as to how big the problem is.

I mean, to know, whether it’s approximate or absolute, “the total number of contaminated sites,” I would think is not so much useful information as having some sense of what the range of the problem is. [interjection] It may be that the Acting Treasurer wants to get involved in this too, but as I understand it, we’re trying to quantify the extent of and seriousness of the contamination. Although the minister will certainly give us some information with the amendment, his amendment doesn’t address the degree of contamination. I think that is implicit in here.

That’s a key part of what my colleague is trying to find out. I think it’s a key element that Albertans would want to know, and I don’t understand why you don’t have that information. As I say, maybe it takes a little more work on the part of the minister. Maybe the grading system is just so complex, there’d be no way to do that in a manageable way, but I didn’t hear the minister say that. Maybe that’s the case, but I didn’t hear him make that assertion. So that’s the comment with respect to this. “How many were unclassified” is the other element that would be dropped with this amendment.

Once again, you know, the job of opposition is, frankly, to keep government on its toes and keep ministers on their toes. If in fact there would be a significant number of contaminated sites that weren’t classified, there are some things that flow from that. We would hope, I guess, that that number of unclassified contaminated sites would be a small number, because that would suggest that there’s some work that had not been done and ought to have been done. So I think that would be useful to have. I don’t know how the site visits work.

What we’re still left with is: how many had been visited and reviewed in that time period? There’s an issue of the visit, the review, and presumably that’s sort of a necessary precedent to the classification. In the minister’s very skeletal, very brief submission we didn’t hear those particulars, Mr. Speaker.

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 755 So those are the problems that I have with the amendment. This minister, I’d just add, usually distinguishes himself in the House by trying to go the extra mile to accommodate opposition requests for information. I’m assuming that he probably may think he has some good reasons for not providing the other information, but I didn’t hear with the kind of fullness and the kind of detail that I’d hoped to hear, Mr. Speaker, why that information wouldn’t be proffered to the people of Alberta. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning on the amendment. MR.

GIBBONS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stand looking at the amendment and talking about it, I’ve got concerns around “approximate” and “in each category.” The main thing is that other contaminated sites around the province are a major issue. We have talked with many people and organizations throughout the province who want to know the status of these.

I do understand, by visiting with municipalities throughout the province, that when you have underground areas where you’ve got ex filling stations and so on and the cleanup and that they want to do something with this, this is something that we have to really look at. There are major contami- nation problems throughout the province. What are municipalities supposed to do when the owners have closed their businesses and, with no fault, have moved away or gone into bankruptcy? This is a cost that goes back on them.

Now, we’ve asked these questions on a major issue, asking how many there were, but we’re getting the amendment back that actually stresses an approximate number. If you’d actually even change “approximate” to 99 percent of them or something like that, because approximate could be 50 percent out there in the province while the actual fact is there are maybe a thousand sites that we have to look at. Striking out “how many” is the same type of variation.

With a classification of severity, we’re talking anywhere from the Bovar site down to gas stations and other types of contaminated areas: sloughs, problems with spraying throughout the province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on the amendment. MR. SAPERS: Yes. Thanks very much. I won’t repeat the observations made by my colleagues. I’ll simply add a note of disappointment in that I’m surprised to hear that the minister would not be collecting information that would distinguish between severely versus lightly contaminated sites.

Clearly there’s a range of sites and remediation for these sites. The amount of concern that nearby residents would have would be affected not only by what has contaminated the site but also by how badly contaminated that site is. At the very least I would have hoped that the minister would give us this alternate scheme for classifying contaminated sites and may take under advisement the suggestion that some scale be applied to the degree of contamination in reporting to Albertans.

The one comment that I don’t believe I heard my colleagues make reference to was the use of the word “approximate.” Again I’m a little bit concerned. When the mi nister says that there’s this alternate scheme which lists sites by what has contaminated them, it would lead me to conclude that there would be a count, that there’d be a tally at the end of that classification.

By using the word “approximate,” it suggests that the minister in fact doesn’t have that information and that we could get back a response to this amended motion that would say that there may be approximately 100 sites or 200 sites or 1,000 sites, and we wouldn’t really know what that meant. We wouldn’t have any confidence that we actually would know how many actual sites there were and which sites would pose a health or an environmental concern. It’s not too late for this minister to rethink this amendment, and it’s not of course beyond expectation that the House may not accept this amendment.

Then we’d be able to revert to the original motion as proposed by my colleague, which would provide a much better quality of information and would provide a higher degree of certainty as to what it is that Albertans are dealing with. So I would ask the minister to rethink the amendment, but in the absence of that sober second thought, I would ask my colleagues in the Assembly to not accept the amendment so that we can proceed to a vote on the motion as it was originally proposed. [Motion on amendment carried] 3:30 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora to close the debate. MR.

SAPERS: Well, I suppose reasonable argument doesn’t always carry the day. MR. HANCOCK: The vote was unanimous. MR. SAPERS: Was it a recorded vote, Government House Leader? Okay. We’ll debate through the chair, obviously, Mr. Speaker, but I can’t account for the lack of hearing on the part of the government. Maybe that also accounts for why they didn’t accept my reasonable arguments to defeat the amendment. In any case, I accept the minister at his word, and I hope that he will provide the highest quality and the most complete information that his department can assemble.

If he can give us an actual number instead of an approximate number, I think the Official Opposition and all Albertans would appreciate that. If he can provide us with this alternate classification scheme in his answer, even though the amended motion doesn’t require it, I think we would all appreciate that.

Certainly I would appreciate the minister providing a response to my colleague who is the Official Opposition critic for matters regarding the environment as to our suggestion that he begin to classify contaminated sites according to their degree of contamina- tion, particularly with reference to those that are severely, moder- ately, or lightly contaminated.

While we will get some information, I’m concerned that it won’t be the quality of information that was originally sought, but I do hope that the minister will do what he can to still make this a worthwhile process by ensuring that the information that is received is as complete as possible and takes into consideration the nature of the discussion we’ve had on Written Question 7. [Written Question 7 as amended carried] Trade Offices Q8. Mr. Sapers moved on behalf of Dr. Nicol that the following question be accepted.

What are the estimated costs of operating Alberta’s trade offices and engaging trade consultants under contract abroad for the fiscal year 1998-99 broken down by accommodation costs and salary ranges for consultants, clerical staff, commer- cial officers, and posted staff?

756 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m aware that the department does a review of foreign offices. There is some information that is available, but the information does not satisfy the natural curiosity of taxpayers when it comes to how their money is used supporting these foreign offices.

Keep in mind that it was just a little bit earlier on, actually late in the year 1999, that there was some government speculation that there was going to be an expansion of trade offices and a reopening and restaffing of trade offices. I think Albertans made it very clear that no such activity should be undertaken before there was a good understanding of the outcomes and the benefits of such an initiative.

I think Albertans are very cost conscious when it comes to this kind of government program and want to make sure that there is value for each and every dollar spent when it comes to staffing and operating Alberta’s trade offices and engaging in trade consultations on a worldwide basis. Now, the Official Opposition is certainly not saying that Alberta should stop participating in these international activities. We believe very strongly that Alberta’s future in part depends on our ability to have our products and services sought after in the global market- place.

We certainly s upport the joint federal/provincial trade missions and encourage Alberta business to get on board and tell the world about good-news stories that are born right here in Alberta, but what we would like to see as well is the highest level of account- ability for tax dollars spent when it comes to promoting Alberta business. There’s a fine line to be walked between government policy which supports, promotes, and enhances business opportuni- ties on a worldwide basis and government policy which actually provides a direct subsidy to a select handful of Alberta enterprises.

This is a government that has said that it’s out of the business of being in business. This is a go vernment that has said that it no longer wants to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

I think that we’d like to hold them to those commitments, and we can do so by ensuring some transparency in the accounting for how Alberta trade offices and trade consultation initiatives are contracted for and what their cost estimates are and by providing the information on how much money is paid to each and every one of the men and women that are engaged on behalf of the province of Alberta to participate in these trade initiatives. I hope that the Assembly will find favour with Written Question 8, and I would seek its speedy acceptance. MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development I would move to amend Written Question 8 by striking out the word “estimated” and substituting the word “actual” and by striking out the expression “accommodation costs and salary ranges for consultants, clerical staff, commercial officers, and posted staff” and substituting the expression “ posted staffing costs, locally engaged administrative and clerical staffing costs, accommodation and operating costs, and what was the salary range for posted staff?” The written question would then read: What are the actual costs of oper ating Alberta’s trade offices and engaging trade consultants under contract abroad for the fiscal year 1998-99 broken down by posted staffing costs, locally engaged administrative and clerical staffing costs, accommodation and operating costs, and what was the salary range for posted staff?

Salary ranges for consultants, commercial officers, and locally engaged clerical staff vary based on the type of service, length of term, and the local labour markets. There is no standard range. The actual figures are published in the annual report. This is a more accurate reflection than the estimate requested by the hon. member. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford on the amendment. MR. WICKMAN: Yeah. Just to speak a bit on the amendment. The amendment, of course, does provide a shot at the information that was requested in the original motion.

These types of trade consul- tants and facilities and such have always come under question by the public, and that’s why it becomes so important to have all that information disclosed. Even with the information fully disclosed, there is still some question as to whether the benefits of spending those dollars by having those types of facilities and consultants is a worthwhile investment. Then the question comes into play on the appointment of the trade commissioners, or the expression that’s used when they go to places like London, for example. London is a classic example.

I can recall a former minister of a Conservative government being posted over in London. Possibly the person was very, very qualified; I don’t know. Then, on the other hand, it is a bit of a coincidence that she did happen to be a member of Executive Council, of the government side. Upon my retirement I don’t expect that the government is going to be sending me over to Finland to run a trade office over there. Mr. Speaker, on the federal level we see the same concern being expressed by the public.

We have the recent example of a person with probably one of the shortest if not the shortest reigns of any Prime Minister being shipped off to Los Angeles with a surprisingly big budget. I’m not sure exactly what that person does in Los Angeles other than entertain and socialize and such.

Those are the types of instances that cause the public to question the costs that are associated with these types of expenditures, these types of facilities, these types of consultants, and as to whether this money could be put to better use. 3:40 Another question that is probably in order to be responded to at a later date is a question along the lines of trying to get some tangible indication of return on that expenditure. In other words, if the operation in London is going to cost $1.5 million a year to operate, what economic benefit is it to Canada?

Is it increasing the economic benefit by a multiple of 10, in other words tenfold, or is it actually a minus situation? I commend the minister that he has gone some distance here to make the question acceptable by incorporating his amendment, which I’m speaking to, and on that basis it softens the blow some- what. I thank the minister for that. [Motion on amendment carried] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora to close the debate. MR. SAPERS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re not talking about small potatoes here when we’re talking about Alberta trade and the international community.

I think it’s worth while reviewing for just a moment the nature of that trade. With the United States of America, that my colleague from Edmonton-Rutherford was just speaking of, I believe our local agent is actually posted now in Portland but probably does a high degree of business in California as well. I notice that trade exports to the United States last year from Alberta equaled something in the order of $25 billion, and manufac- tured exports to the U.S. were about $7.8 billion. In Japan there is one Albertan locally posted in Tokyo and nine locally engaged representatives maintaining a full-service office.

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 757 Total exports to Japan from Alberta are $1.3 billion, and manufac- tured exports are just shy of $800 million, soon to be a billion dollars. When it comes to China, there is a newly assigned collocation agreement with the Canadian embassy. We had some representa- tives from the People’s Republic here with us today in the Assem- bly. It’s our fourth largest trading partner actually, totaling about $400 million in exports and $250 million, give or take, in terms of manufactured exports.

That’s separate, of course, from the business that’s done in Hong Kong, which reaches $90 million in exports and $80 million in manufactured goods. It goes on, Mr. Speaker. Alberta businesses are doing business in South Korea, in Taiwan, in Mexico, throughout the European continent and the European Union. In the U.K. market alone there are exports exceeding $230 million and manufactured exports exceeding $150 million. Clearly we’re talking about a sizable business exchange that goes on between Alberta and its global partners and its global business associates.

I think that’s why we would like to see the highest quality information and the highest level of disclosure when it comes to how the Alberta government is supporting these initiatives, is making sure that money is spent where it needs to be spent and that we’re getting value for those tax dollars. I appreciate the minister’s undertaking to provide both some reasonable amendments and also some high-quality information. [Written Question 8 as amended carried] Highway Maintenance Q10. Mr. Wickman moved on behalf of Mrs. Soetaert that the following question be accepted.

How much has the government saved each year from 1996- 97 to 1998-99 as a result of contracting out highway mainte- nance, and on what evidence are the figures based? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Written Question 10 the hon. member is inquiring of the government as to the amount of savings for the years ’96-97 and then again ’98-99 as a result of the contracting out of highway maintenance and for some evidence as to those particular figures. [Mrs.

Gordon in the chair] Now, there have been no amendments coming forward, so I’m not sure if the government wants to accept this and provide that information on some restricted basis, with some amendment in place, whatever. The question that has been put forward by the member is a very, very valid question, because when we start getting into the privatization question, the measurement of dollars, the measurement of efficiency in terms of those dollars, and the measurement of output in terms of those dollars become very, very important.

I’ve had lots of Albertans tell me that since the mainte- nance of highways throughout the province has been privatized or contracted out, the road conditions have deteriorated considerably. I’m not sure if other members have heard that. I’m not sure if other members, as they’re driving to wherever home is, feel all those bumps on the road that you didn’t have years ago.

Obviously, if the government’s concept or perception, which I disagree with incidentally, is that by contracting out you save money and if the level of service being provided is of a lesser level, then there should not only be savings from the contracting out to the private sector but also additional savings because the same degree of performance is not being achieved. In other words, it’s lesser quality. On this question of the benefits of privatization, yeah, in some instances privatization can work very, very well. There’s no question about it.

But there are other instances where the taxpayer says: “I pay good money for certain things. I pay good money in taxes and such to have roadways that are worthy of the vehicle that I’m driving. I don’t want that vehicle of mine breaking down because of roadway c onditions, because some private contractor hasn’t done the work up to par.” It may be saving the government a few bucks and he might save himself $2 in terms of taxes in his wallet, but then he’s laying out $800 for a new transmission. We see that happen, Madam Speaker.

We not only see that happen on the highways; we see similar complaints in the municipal- ities. I can remember that during my days on city council it was a very, very standard, typical argument where somebody would say: so you guys are trying to save a few bucks by only paving this roadway every 10 years instead of every five years. Meanwhile, it’s cost him three tires, one transmission, a clutch, and such; in other words, $2,400 worth of repairs so that he can save about 75 cents on his tax bill. So it’s a false economy. Madam Speaker, as I wrap up, I touch on privatization.

It is impossible to touch on privatization without at least referring to Bill 11 in passing. That’s all I’m going to do, just refer to Bill 11 in passing, because we’re not dealing with that bill. We’re dealing with the aspect of privatization of roadway maintenance. Madam Speaker, I’m trying to remember the rules here now. The minister is going to get up and respond and may accept the question, but if he doesn’t accept the question, then of course my colleagues will also have the opportunity to speak. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’m not sure what games are going on this afternoon. It looks like we’re going to be debating written questions and motions for returns all afternoon, perhaps so that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t have to come and promote her bill. Maybe she’s decided not to bring forward Bill 207 this afternoon. MR. SAPERS: Is this relevant? MR. HANCOCK: It’s very relevant to the whole question, because it’s normal in the House to ask whether a question will be accepted. Of course I’m more than delighted to indicate on behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure that we’ll be prepared to accept this question.

Don’t be so sensitive over there, Edmonton-Glenora. 3:50 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford to close debate. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Seeing that the minister was good enough to accept the question, I’m going to be good enough to commend him for it, thank him for it, and say that I have no further comment on it. [Written Question 10 carried] head: Motions for Returns THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

758 Alberta Hansard April 5, 2000 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Deputy Government House Leader it’s my pleasure, proper notice having been given yesterday, to move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 13, 14, 15, 16, and 24. [Motion carried] Special Waste Treatment Centre M13. Mr.

Gibbons moved on behalf of Ms Carlson that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the plan that Chem-Security (Alberta) Ltd. and Bovar Inc. were required to draw up under the enforcement order that was announced by Alberta environmental protection on January 15, 1997, showing how they will address all sources of PCBs, dioxins, and furans identified in the inventory required by the enforcement order together with a copy of any design plans that were subsequently drawn up to address any potential adverse impacts on the environment and any evaluation of these plans carried out by or for those compa- nies or Alberta Environment or Alberta environmental protection from that time until February 28, 2000.

MR. MAR: Madam Speaker, I move to reject Motion for a Return 13. In light of the ongoing investigation into this incident, I’m not able to provide the information requested here and must reject the motion accordingly. I am however able to provide the assessment plan required of Chem-Security and Bovar and will undertake to table the same requisite number of copies following the vote. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. The whole legacy with this government and Bovar is an interesting one, and it’s been an expensive one.

We seem to go a couple of steps forward and then two or three steps backward every time the opposition asks for information. This really is a made-in-Alberta boondoggle, and there are some very serious concerns that persist to this very minute regarding the environmental safety of some of the things that are going on in and around that plant. This is a very reasonable request. Albertans deserve to know how Alberta Environment will address sources of PCBs, dioxins, and furans identified in the inventory required by the enforcement order that came about as a result of this very significant problem.

The minister just said that he’s unable to comply, and he didn’t really tell us why. I think Albertans want a little more clarity from this minister on this very important issue. This is not going to go away, and it certainly doesn’t make any sense for the government to bury its head collectively in the sand on these environmental problems. We should fess up to them so we can try to correct them the best we can. The more disclosure there is, the greater the understanding will be and the easier it will be to address the issue.

This is a serious concern of mine, because not only are Albertans still paying the tab, but because of the deal that was negotiated, Albertans will have to pick up the cost for any site cleanup and remediation. In the meantime we can’t even find out all the details that we could reasonably expect to receive from this government of the adverse impacts on the environment as a result of some problems at that particular site. This minister, I think, will probably want to be remembered for being a good steward of the environment.

I think this minister will probably want to be remembered for always doing the right thing and not just the political thing, and he can certainly begin working on that legacy by reconsidering his rejection of this motion for a return. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning to close debate. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased that we are receiving some of the information.

The Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie thought that this one was going to be accepted and was going to be quite happy that some easy information was going to come forward, but it continues to be an ongoing issue, especially now that the Premier has actually broken his promise to Albertans by allowing hazardous waste to be imported from out of the country. The first delivery from Japan is expected any day now. So it’s a major concern.

When the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie left here today, she thought this one would be totally accepted and that even with their legal problems there would be some forthcoming informa- tion from this department. So I’m closing debate right now, Madam Speaker. Thank you. [Motion for a Return 13 lost] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. MAR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Consistent with my earlier undertaking to provide the assessment plan required of Chem- Security and Bovar, I’d like to table the requisite number of copies with the House. Special Waste Treatment Centre M14. Mr.

Gibbons moved on behalf of Ms Carlson that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a monthly

summary of all monitoring results and any individual values that exceed permitted limits from April 1, 1997, to February 28, 2000, collected by Chem-Security (Alberta) Ltd. and Bovar Inc. as required by the approval to operate the Alberta Special Waste Treatment Centre at Swan Hills and by the enforcement order announced by Alberta environmental protection on January 15, 1997. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment. MR. MAR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wish to move that Motion for a Return 14 be amended by striking out the expression “and by the enforcement order announced by Alberta environmental protection on January 15, 1997.” Accordingly, the amended motion for a return would read: . . . a monthly

summary of all monitoring results and any individual values that exceed permitted limits from April 1, 1997, to February 28, 2000, collected by Chem-Security (Alberta) Ltd. and Bovar Inc. as required by the approval to operate the Alberta Special Waste Treatment Centre at Swan Hills. Madam Speaker, once again, in light of the ongoing investigation into this incident, I’m not able to provide the information requested based on the enforcement order of January 15, 1997.

The monitor- ing results required outside this order are public information and will be provided accordingly. 4:00 THE ACTING SPEAKER: On the amendment, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Yes. Thanks very much. The amendment on the

April 5, 2000 Alberta Hansard 759 face of it appears reasonable. While we’re disa ppointed with the results of the earlier motion for a return, we will take a look at the enforcement order just tabled by the minister. The information from this amended motion will help fill in the picture a little bit. We’ll review the information. I know my colleague will get back to the minister, and there’ll be some subsequent follow-up questions.

Contrary to what the Government House Leader may have said on the record before in terms of this being a game, this is a sincere attempt on the part of the Official Opposition to obtain information that is of interest to the public and is in keeping with our capacity as the Official Opposition, which is in part to hold the government accountable on behalf of all taxpayers and even, interestingly enough, Madam Speaker, some who maybe even voted for the government. THE ACTING SPEAKER: On the amendment, hon. member. MR. GIBBONS: Madam Speaker, I rise to close debate and will accept the amendment as given.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is no closing of debate on an amendment. MR. GIBBONS: Okay. We’ll let the amendment go. [Motion on amendment carried] THE ACTING SPEAKER: Now on the motion as amended. Hon. member, you will be closing debate. MR. GIBBONS: I will. Thank you. I rise to close debate with the amendment and accept the information. Thank you. [Motion for a Return 14 as amended carried] Forest Service Contracts M15. Mr. Wickman moved on behalf of Mr.

White that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a list of all contracts issued by the Alberta forest service in the calendar year 1999 indicating the purpose of each contract, the name of the company to which it was awarded, and whether the contract was awarded as a result of a public tendering process. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford on behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a legitimate question that’s being asked, with no game playing involved.

If the minister over there would indicate to me whether it’s going to be accepted, I could minimize my comments. [interjection] You have to get up and say that publicly. THE ACTING SPEAKER: I need someone to respond, please. The hon. Minister of Environment. MR. MAR: Madam Speaker, I would move to accept Motion for a Return 15 with these comments. It is a poorly worded question as there is no entity as the Alberta forest service, and there has not been since 1993. I believe the hon. member was referring to the land and forest service, the correct name.

I would have thought that the member opposite would have known that by now. However, I do accep