Alberta Hansard — 27 August 1996, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 4)

19960827

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2411 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, August 27, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/08/27 [The Deputy Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The prayer today is one that is said in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Let us pray. O eternal and almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province.

Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, it's my honour to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly Mr. Takashi Tajima, the new ambassador of Japan, accompanied today by his wife, Hiroka, and Mr. and Mrs. Ise, the consul general and his wife. Mr.

Tajima was appointed ambassador of Japan in January of this year. This is his first visit to Alberta. I'm sure we all wish him a warm welcome. Mr. Tajima has had a long and prestigious career serving with the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs in posts such as Myanmar, Bulgaria, New Y ork, Australia, Thailand, and virtually around the world. Japan continues to be Alberta's number one offshore trading partner, and the government of Alberta places a high priority on its relations with Japan. We look forward to working with His Excellency in continuing to build Alberta/Japan relations.

I would ask His Excellency and his party to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly His Excellency Abdel-Majid Kamil, the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania to Canada, who is accompanied by his s pouse, Mrs. Kamil.

In addition, I've heard that the ambassador and his wife are expecting an addition to their family, and I would like to extend our congratulations to them and a welcome to the province as well to their yet unnamed boy or girl. Mr. Speaker, this is the ambassador's first visit to this province. I had the pleasure of entertaining him at lunch today. I can advise members of the House that he's already toured a livestock farm near Camrose, and I was happy to tell him that agriculture is our future and not our past here in the province of Alberta.

His Excellency will be traveling to Calgary tomorrow to meet with a number of oil and gas companies and telecommunications companies. While in the past relations between the province of Alberta and Mauritania have not been extensive, we're certainly hoping that as a result of the ambassador's meetings, this will soon change. He advised me that he views this trip to Alberta as one of the most important trips that he's made during his time in Canada. I'd ask that our honoured guests please rise and accept the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary- Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition of 136 names of Calgarians who would not like to see the General hospital closed in Calgary. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Centre. MR. HENRY: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I would beg leave as well to present a petition signed by people from various parts of Alberta. The essence of the petition is petitioning the Legislative Assembly “to urge the government to support the continued provision of an affordable, high quality post-secondary education system” in our province. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS.

HEWES: Mr. Speaker, may I request on behalf of the Member for Calgary-Buffalo that the petitions that he presented on the 19th and the 20th of this month be now read and received. THE CLERK ASSISTANT: We the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to suspend hospital closures in Calgary, and immediately hold an independent public inquiry on health facilities in the city.

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to maintain a full complement of health services for veterans at the Colonel Belcher Hospital. head: Presenting Reports by head: Standing and Special Committees THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Bills I have the following report to make concerning a Bill the committee has considered. The committee recommends that Bill Pr. 2, the Covenant Bible College Tax Exemption Act, proceed with some amendments.

The committee has recommended substantial amendments to the Bill so that it would, if passed, no longer grant tax exemptions but would incorporate the college in the same manner as other private colleges. One of the amendments is to change the title of the Bill so that the reference to tax exemption would be removed. Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the amendments recommended by the committee and seek the concurrence of the House in this report. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Having heard the report by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, does the Assembly concur in this report? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed?

So ordered. head: Notices of Motions MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I give notice that tomorrow I'll move that written questions stand and retain their places on the Order Paper with the exception of 206, 207, 208, and 21 1.

2412 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 I also give notice that tomorrow I'll move that motions for returns stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 209 and 210. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give oral notice today of a motion which may – which may – be moved tomorrow during Committee of the Whole, which reads as follows:

Be it resolved that further consideration of any or all of the resolutions, clauses, sections, or titles of Bill 41, the Water Act, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. MR. KLEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to table three letters: one to the Alberta Cerebral Palsy Association, to the Alberta Sports and Recreation Associa- tion for the Blind, and to the Alberta Section, Canadian Wheel- chair Sports Association. These letters say basically the same thing.

They point out the achievements of various individuals. I'll just read the first paragraph, if you will allow me. Basically the letter says: It is with great pleasure that I extend my congratulations on behalf of the Government of Alberta to the Canadian Paralympic athletes on their outstanding performance in Atlanta. These 132 athletes are some of the world's finest and confirmed their international reputation by winning 69 medals and placing Canada 7th overall. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that we've had considerable discussion on this very topic of tabling and having details given.

What's for one side should also be true for the other side. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. 1:40 MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you'll permit a moment's indulgence, because this is a tabling of a report on the sixth anniversary of the craniofacial osseointegration and maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation unit, better known as COMPRU. COMPRU is an outstanding program. It is hosted at the Misericordia community hea lth centre by the Caritas Health Group. It is an example of something that in spite of overwhelm- ing odds has gone right.

COMPRU is involved in the application of innovative biotechnology and is really helping not just Alber- tans but people around the world, because it is a world reference site for the kind of work that they do. It's my pleasure to table four copies on their sixth anniversary and to extend my congratu- lations to Dr. Wolfaardt and Dr. Wilkes. Mr. Speaker, I have two further tablings. However, not all of the news in health care is good news. The first tabling is from Mr. Lawrence Noel, who asks that this letter to the Premier be tabled in the Assembly.

He cautions the Premier that there are political consequences for what he is doing to our health care system. Mr. Speaker, the second letter that I have to table today is from a Dr. Jan Adam from Calgary, who also asked that I table his correspondence in the Legislature. It's a letter to me regarding the solicitations for funding and what he believes to be a policy of imposing user fees after the fact on Calgarians who receive health care services. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services, followed by the hon. minister for economic development. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's my pleasure to table three annual reports with the Assembly. The first one, in accordance with

chapter A-44.1,

section 6 of the Architects Act, is the 1995 annual report of the Alberta Association of Architects. The second, in accordance with

chapter E-1 1.1,

section 12 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, is the 1995-96 a nnual report of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. The third is the 1995-96 annual report of the Consulting Engineers of Alberta. Should any of the members wish to review these reports, additional copies are available through my office. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. DR. WEST: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table two annual reports, the first the 72nd annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996, for the Alberta Liquor Control Board, and the 1995-96 annual report of Alberta Lotteries, both required by statute. I'd like to note the significance today of the new format of these tablings, which is commonsense and to the point and fiscally responsible. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table with the Assembly four copies of the annual reports for the year ended March 31, 1996, for the following health authorities: Capital health authority, Mistahia regional health authority, Northwestern regional health authority, Keeweetinok Lakes regional health authority, Calgary regional health authority, Northern Lights regional health authority, Aspen regional health authority, Lakeland regional health authority, and Headwaters health authority. Additional copies can be obtained through my office. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table four copies of a letter dated August 27 that I wrote to the Member for Calgary- Buffalo in reply to his question in the House on August 20, 1996. This letter provides clarification regarding private room fees at the Colonel Belcher hospital. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table four copies of a letter to the Minister of Health outlining Christine Campbell's concern about a family member who was unable to get tests done in the hospital, causing unn ecessary, life-threatening health problems and subsequently costing the health care system major additional dollars over what would have been necessary in the first place. head: Introduction of Guests THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, followed by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. ROSTAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly today two constituents from the Wetaskiwin-Camrose constituency. The first

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2413 is the mayor of Wetaskiwin, Gary Johnson, and with him is Diane Roth, who is the president of the Wetaskiwin/Ashoro Friendship Society, which is the twinning of the town of Ashoro and the city of Wetaskiwin. They're in the members' gallery. I'd ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, followed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce for the second time in this House the mother of one of the pages, the page Rob Nichols, and I see that this time he didn't abandon the House when I was going to introduce his mother. His mother was so impressed the last time she was here, and I'm not sure if it was with our activities during question period or the excellent job that these young pages do. I suspect it's the latter. Audrey Nichols has come back for a second visit, and this time she is accompanied by her two other sons, Brett and Chris. They are in your gallery, Mr.

Speaker, and I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this House. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I introduce to the Members of the Legislative Assembly Sue Olsen. She is a longtime constable in the Edmonton Police Service, and she is the Liberal candidate in Edmonton-Norwood for the next election. I'd ask that the members join me in welcoming her to the Assembly today. head: Oral Question Period Health Care MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, 345 people waiting more than a year for home care in Calgary, five-month waiting lists for urgent heart surgery in this province, eight-day waits for urgent cancer test results, hospital infection rates skyrocketing, doctors and nurses fleeing this health care system, and what's the Premier's response? He picks a cheap political battle with Ottawa so that he can distract people from the real health care issue in this province, which is the chaos and the crisis that his health care policies have created in this province. Well, he's picked the wrong fight.

Albertans support the Canada Health Act, and they support universally accessible public health care. Isn't it true that the Premier wants to push the federal government out of health care so that he can create private clinics, Hotels de Health, and privatized, two-tiered, Americanized health care in this province? MR. KLEIN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the leader of the Liberal opposition read the communiqués that came out of the Premiers' Conference. Secondly, the answer to his question is no. MR. MITCHELL: Why, Mr.

Speaker, does the Premier keep saying that Alberta's health care problems are Ottawa's fault when it's this Premier who's sitting on a $1 billion surplus and it's this Premier who cut the $650 million from health care in this province? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the Liberal opposition hasn't been paying attention. It's the law in this province that we have to apply the surplus to the pay-down of the debt. The money that we have to spend and to reinvest in the future of this province is real money, and it comes from the savings on interest.

If he doesn't know the law by now, perhaps I'll have the Provincial Treasurer send him over the law as it now exists. We must by law apply th at surplus he re fers to to the debt. MR. MITCHELL: Talk ing about law, why should Albertans believe that the Premier is going to protect the Canada Health Act when his government voted against the Liberal Bill to include the five principles of the Canada Health Act in Alberta law? Where was he then? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, our support for the Canada Health Act is clear. We support the Canada Health Act.

We support the Canada Health Act and all the principles of the Canada Health Act. Mr. Speaker, like his predecessor Mrs. Marleau – I've never met her – I've never met Mr. Dingwall. I am not picking a fight with him. What Mr. Dingwall and what the leader of the Liberal opposition fail to understand is that this is not the Premier of Alberta speaking. These are four Liberal Premiers from the Atlantic provinces, three Conservative Premiers, two ND Premiers, and two territorial leaders saying the same thing. Saying the same thing. It's in the communiqué. 1:50 MR.

MITCHELL: Why is the Premier misleading the people of this province right here and right now that somehow it's provinces other than Ontario and Alberta who are the ones that want to gut . . . Speaker's Ruling Parliamentary Language THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition knows from his long standing in this House that when the Speaker stands, it's a call for order and you're to sit down and stop talking.

Secondly, I think that when we get into name calling and calling things dishonest or misleading, we begin to break the whole issue of parliamentary courtesies and treating one another with respect. I think in rather recent time I asked the leader of the government to reconsider a phrase, and I will now do the same for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Can I rephrase it? This is my fourth question. I'll rephrase it then. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Really I didn't say it properly. The Chair did not say that properly. I should have said to reconsider it and then presumably withdraw it. MR.

MITCHELL: Y ou're right, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't misleading. He was sinfully describing the situation with respect to other provinces and how they feel about national standards in health care. It's the Conservatives in Ontario and the Conserva- tive government in Alberta who want to gut federal health care. Health Care (continued) MR. MITCHELL: How can Albertans believe that the Premier will defend universal public health care when even this morning he's in the news saying that he believes in private clinic facility fees?

2414 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what has been in existence in this province for the last 10 years or more was acceptable. It was a unilateral and an arbitrary ruling by the Minister of Health at the time, Mrs. Marleau, who said: what you are doing is wrong. There was no process to have that matter adjudicated other than perhaps go to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional grounds, which would have cost, I would suspect, millions of dollars and just a tremendous amount of time.

What I'm saying and what the four Liberal Premiers from the Atlantic provinces are saying and what the three Conservative Premiers are saying and what the two ND Premiers are saying and what the two territorial leaders are saying is that there is no room within the context of the Canadian spirit, the spirit of nationalism, for this kind of arbitrary and unilateral action on behalf of the federal government. What we are saying is that, yes, there should be national standards. There should be put in place a mechanism for compliance, but this word “enforcement” is an abhorrent word.

It is not in the spirit of nationalism at all. What we are saying is that national standards over a period of time have evolved into federal standards where the minister is the enforcer and the judge and the jury. That is wrong. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, what exactly can the Premier not do under the Canada Health Act to restructure this health care system if it isn't simply that he can't bring in private clinics, can't bring in Hotel de Health, and he can't create a privatized, Americanized health care system?

Thank heavens we have a federal government that believes in universal public health care, because this Premier doesn't. MR. KLEIN: The Leader of the Opposition has just demonstrated very, very sufficiently just how myopic he is, how narrow focused and perhaps narrow minded he is. This doesn't only pertain to health, Mr. Speaker. It pertains to all areas in which the provinces have constitutional authority. I'll point to another, and maybe I'll pose this question. He might ponder this question, and he might want to answer this question.

Does he think it's acceptable in B.C. that the federal government arbitrarily and unilaterally would fine the British Columbia government $40 million a year b ecause they have a three-month residency requirement for people coming to that province and seeking welfare? Does he think that is right? MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, what does it take for the Premier of this province to understand that it isn't the Canada Health Act and it isn't the federal government and it isn't Ottawa and it isn't some other province that have created the problems in the health care system here.

It's this Premier, his caucus, his government, and his unplanned cutbacks. [interjections] When is he going to take the responsibility for that and stop picking a cheap fight with Ottawa? [interjections] MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, over the noise and the phony thumping over there I didn't hear the question. [interjections] I didn't, and that's the truth. MR. MITCHELL: What does it take for this Premier to under- stand . . . [interjections] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. I quite agree with the Premier that it was difficult to hear the question.

There seemed to be a lot more verbiage in there and then, of course, all of the ambient noise that is occurring. Could we have a succinct final supple- mental, hon. Leader of the Opposition? MR. MITCHELL: What does it take, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to accept his responsibility for the chaos and the crisis in health care? Rather than saying that it's somebody else's fault – Ottawa, some other province, the Canada Health Act – why won't he simply take responsibility for the problems he's created in health care? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I will concede there are problems as they relate to some regional health authorities, but change doesn't come without its problems. That is the challenge of change: to overcome those problems. That's why we're in a period now of assessing and evaluating, and hopefully we'll have this all ironed out in due course. It takes time, but I'll tell you that had this government continued spending the way it was spending on health care in particular, we wouldn't have a system five years down the road.

We had to challenge the health care system to find new and better and more effective and more efficient ways of doing things. Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Liberal opposition. Instead of being obstructionists, instead of being out there and stirring up the community, instead of the fear mongering that they know how to do so very, very well, perhaps they can work with the govern- ment to see us through this very, very difficult situation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Confidentiality of Private Records MRS. HEWES: Mr.

Speaker, Alberta seniors, in fact all Alber- tans, are concerned about the protection of their personal privacy and their vital information. As talk continues about health smart cards and as information about Albertans is handed out to commercial companies, that concern grows. Now a senior citizen has contacted my office very worried about this government accessing her confidential information, income tax files, without her permission.

I want to table today a document dated July 16, '96, from the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner acknowledging that this senior's privacy has in fact been breached by this government and also indicating – and I quote from the Privacy Commissioner – that this “was not the only case in which this happened.” My questions are to the Minister of Community Development, responsible for seniors. Mr. Minister, just how many seniors' income tax files has your government accessed without permission? 2:00 MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I will acknowledge, as the hon. member has pointed out, that unfortunately and regrettably three senior citizens' files were accessed without their permission. Now, I will re mind hon. members that there are over 250,000 seniors in this province. That does not in any way vindicate this error being made. However, I can tell the hon. member that each one of those seniors has been contacted. I can also assure the hon. member, because I believe her concern is extremely genuine in this instance, that the Privacy Commissioner has been involved in this.

I will quote to the hon. member a short line from the Privacy Commissioner's letter that states that Alberta seniors' benefit staff show “a high level of concern for protection of privacy and for careful handling of sensitive information.” Further to that, I can assure the hon. member that further

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2415 safeguards have been put in place to ensure as much as we possibly can that this will not happen again and also assure the hon. member that any information that is accessed on any senior's behalf from those files is handled with the utmost competence and confidentiality. We will continue to ensure that we do everything we can to improve that system while we continue to try to operate this program, which is a benefit to seni ors of this province, with the greatest degree of efficiency and expediency so that seniors get the assistance that they require from that.

I appreciate the hon. member raising the issue, and I hope my explanation covers her concerns. MRS. HEWES: I thank the minister for her comments. My supplementary is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, as your government hands the management of sensitive, personal informa- tion over to private companies, what safeguards do you have in place so that this won't continue to happen? MR. KLEIN: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps defer this to the minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr.

Speaker, we are very, very aware of the sensitivity of private information, and as we're going through the process of implementing the Freedom of Information and Protec- tion of Privacy Act, we're ensuring that every possible safeguard will be in place to make it impossible for unauthorized people to access information that they're not entitled to. So I would say that this hon. member can rest assured that every possible precaution is being taken to ensure that we don't have any problems in the future with this. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, that does somewhat allay concerns, but not completely.

Back to the minister responsible for seniors: Madam Minister, could the original policy and the policy currently in place be tabled and made public so that seniors and all Albertans have it in their hands and have a clear understanding of the government's intentions in this regard? MRS. McCLELLAN: Certainly I would see no problem, Mr.

Speaker, in tabling with the Legislature the procedures that are followed in handling Alberta seniors' benefit claims and also including in that tabling the further safeguards that have been put in place to upgrade our computer system to ensure that this indeed doesn't happen again and also including any recommendations that have come from the Privacy Commissioner, who has been extremely helpful to us in trying to resolve this difficulty. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- McCall. Child Welfare MR. SHARIFF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services.

R ecent media reports indicate that child welfare caseloads have risen consider- ably over the past few years. Could the hon. minister confirm for the House what the exact figures are? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the numbers were made public a month or so ago. In tracking the information systems, it became clear that there has indeed been an increase in child welfare caseloads over about the last 18 months. I think it could be called signifi- cant. Two years ago those caseload numbers were about 7,700, last year they were about 8,800, and in June of this year they're up over 9,000, actually about 9,900.

There's a similar trend that we notice across the country. It is significant. It requires a real heartfelt look, and that is going on at the present time. MR. SHARIFF: Again to the Minister of Family and Social Services: why are we experiencing this increase in child welfare cases? MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a question that I've been asking as I go around and visit the various regional offices, district offices, community agencies that are dealing with the difficulty. What I'm hearing from people working in the field is a couple of different things.

First of all, with the whole initiative to moving social services to the community and the redesign that's going on, certainly the awareness of services is becoming much more prevalent to people in the community. So they are accessing those. Hearing from workers, Mr. Speaker, I think the fact is also that families who are in need of help are realizing that actually there's probably no family that doesn't have some problem or another at some time and that it's not a negative thing to reach out a hand to ask for somebody to help them when they're dealing with problems.

So I think there's more of an openness in the public in general for people to reach out and say that they need some help. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as the increase has happened, the resources have followed the increase that we've seen. From approximately $179 million being committed to child welfare, that is $205 million now, and there's been an increase of over 70 child welfare workers in the field to address the problem. We're also asking the communities, the families, the churches, the syna- gogues, the people agencies of our province to pull together and address some of these issues.

When we talk about intervention, Mr. Speaker, it's important to make it clear that we try as far as possible to stay away from actually removing children from families when in fact more and more of the trend that we're finding successful is having workers go right into the home, spend time in the home as is required. That's a direction more and more that is being seen as successful when it can be done. MR. SHARIFF: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the minister responsible for children's services.

Could the hon. minister tell this House specifically what is being done to address the increase in child welfare numbers? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for children's services. MS CALAHASEN: Thank you. As the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services has indicated, more funding is being made available for child welfare services for families in need. How- ever, Mr. Speaker, spending more money is not the only answer. We also need to look at how we ensure that local communities will become more involved in providing support for families and children in need. Mr.

Speaker, under the redesign of children's and family services local communities are becoming more and more involved.

2416 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 With that, we have allocated $50 million over three years through the early intervention program. I think that by helping to address problems with families before they reach a crisis point, we will start to address the needs of fa milies in need, and that really makes a difference when we're talking about building communi- ties. The increase in child welfare numbers is certainly a major concern. However, I believe our efforts at encouraging early intervention programming will go a long way to reducing these numbers and to keeping Alberta's families healthy.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. 2:10 Superior Furniture Systems Mfg. Inc. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government lost in excess of $200 million of taxpayers' money in its involve- ment with Gainers Inc. and affiliated companies. One of those affiliated companies is Pocklington Financial Corporation, which is 100 percent owner of a company called Superior Furniture. Superior Furniture is in bankruptcy, with $9 million in liabilities and only $4 million in assets. My questions are to the Provincial Treasurer.

Given that the Treasury Branches have loaned 2 and a half million dollars to Superior Furniture, how many of these taxpayer dollars do you expect to get back for Albertans? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the member is asking for a comment about a banking arrangement that exists between Alberta Treasury Branches and one of its clients.

As members well know, that is not a matter that I will discuss on the floor of this Assembly, that I would want to cross that magical Percy line that would draw me into running in br each of the regulations, which simply say that the Treasurer should not be releasing any client information. We just had a question here about protection of privacy. Now the Liberals want us to invade that privacy and put that informa- tion on the floor of the Assembly. Which side of their mouth are they going to speak out of next, Mr. Speaker?

We will not, I will not, the Treasurer of this province will not engage in a debate about specific clients of Alberta Treasury Branches on the floor of the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the way Hansard will record the minister's response will be prevention of privacy, not protection. My supplementary question to the Premier: is the reason that the government purchased $6.3 million worth of furniture from this company an attempt to keep this company solvent and prevent showing yet another loss on the government's books? MR.

KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the transac- tion to which the member alludes, but perhaps the hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services can shed some light on this matter. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, we do have a variety of sources, suppliers that we deal with, and I'll be glad to look into it and see just what we have to deal with here. MR.

BRUSEKER: Well, my final supplemental: given the track record of Pocklington Financial Corporation, why is it that in May of '94, July of '94, March of '96 this government allowed the Treasury Branches to provide financing to Coliseum Management Inc., yet another company owned by Pocklington Financial? When are you going to learn? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, again, the member is asking me to comment on a banking relationship that exists between Alberta Treasury Branches and one of its clients. I don't think that's an appropriate matter to be discussing in the Assembly. Where would the hon. member want me to stop?

Mr. Speaker, I would pose a question to the member across the way. Why is the Liberal Party the only party that is in receipt of political contributions from Pocklington Financial Corporation? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Special Education MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our schools in every community and to an unpr ecedented degree are being expected to cope with physically handicapped and special-needs children. Dealing with these children is not a curriculum choice; it is a curriculum necessity.

After door-knocking extensively this summer, parents in Calgary-Fish Creek are concerned about the funding and why it is not reaching the classroom. My questions today are to the Minister of Education. Given the integration of students with special needs, what actions will you take to assure parents and teachers that the resources and supports required with integration will reach the classroom? MR. MAR: Well, in my short tenure as Minister of Education I have certainly heard a great deal about the issue of special education. Accordingly, Mr.

Speaker, one of the reinvestment areas for this government, as was announced on June 24 of this year, is an additional $34 million to go into special education commencing in the next provincial government fiscal year, which will apply to the current school year that is starting in just a few days. Alberta Education provides funding to special-needs students on a per capita basis of $8,910. That is over and above the basic instructional grant. Those dollars, those grants are subject to a 4 percent administrative cap, but at the end of the day, Mr.

Speaker, it is the school boards that make decisions in co- operation with of course parents and teachers and principals and other professionals on how those dollars are used. It's felt that those are the most appropriate places for those decisions to be made because those are the people who are closest to the students. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Supplemental, the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is: how is the student/teacher ratio determined, and are special- needs children considered in this count? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, student/teacher ratios are determined at the local level. They do differ from school to sc hool and from region to region. Those teacher ratios and teaching assistants for students with special needs are determined in accordance with the needs of the student.

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2417 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final supplemental, Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My third question is: is your no-fail policy a direct result of integrating special-needs students? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I think I want to make one thing very clear at the outset, and that is that the Department of Education for the province does not have a no-fail policy. The second thing that I'd like to mention is that the two issues are not really related.

The decision on whether a student will advance or be retained in a particular grade is a decision that's made at the school level, individual schools in consultation with the parents of the student. Those decisions are made on the basis of the individual needs of the student, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. Career Designs Inc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally the Auditor General has been requested to investigate Advanced Education and Career Development's business dealings with Career Designs Inc.

Two of the owners of Career Designs Inc. also have an interest in a company called M & M Careers, as does the Alberta Treasury Branch. M & M Careers Ltd. is one of those several vocational service providers who meet WCB standards. My first question this afternoon would be to the hon. Minister of Labour, responsi- ble for the WCB. Mr. Minister, will the Auditor General's investigation into M & M be expanded to examine all WCB contracts in addition to advanced education contracts? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, M & M Careers has been under contract to the WCB for five years providing job search and training to WCB clients. The contract expired in June of '96. The WCB had been using M & M on a case-by-case basis. They had been once affiliated with Career Designs, and the only affiliation now is that they share two directors. The WCB has informed me that they have temporarily stopped referring clients to M & M. They have no reason at this time to be concerned about the work of M & M, but they will be doing a review of the company. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My second question would be to the hon. Treasurer this afternoon. Has the Provincial Treasurer taken steps to suspend contract payments to Career Designs Inc. pending the outcome of the Auditor General's investigation? 2:20 MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I think that's a matter that could be more appropriately answered by the minister of advanced education. MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I think we need to bear in mind that there have been some allegations made against Career Designs by certain people, and those allegations have been referred to the Auditor General to deal with.

Career Designs and M & M have been notified that there will be no further intake of students into their programs until the Auditor General has come forward with the findings of his investigation. I think Albertans should feel secure in the fact that it is in the hands of the Auditor General of the province and that he will be moving as expeditiously as possible to conclude that investigation. When he does, I certainly expect that we'll be abiding by his recommendations. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Leduc, final supplemental. MR. KIRKLAND: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The final question to the minister of advanced education: will the minister ensure full public disclosure of the investigation results of Career Designs? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would see no reason why we would not be willing to be public with the Auditor General's report. All Auditor General's reports, to my understanding, are very public, and when that one is forthcoming, I would expect that it would be public. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Beverly-Belmont. Provincial Fiscal Policies MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Toronto- Dominion Bank released its annual report yesterday, where it is encouraging the federal Liberal government and the provinces to keep cutting their deficits as well as the debt. The report goes on to talk about eventual rewards for those diligent in doing so. This seems to be contrary to all of the doom and gloom that we are hearing from the other side of the House about this government's fiscal policies. Some are even painting visions of Armageddon just over the hill. My questions are all to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Mr.

Treasurer, it's been six months since you presented us with the province's fiscal plan for the next three years. What independent assessment, if any, has been done to judge our budget, its effectiveness, and how we compare to other provinces? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question as to not what we say about ourselves and certainly not what the Liberals might say about the provincial government; it's more important what others outside of our province perhaps might have to say.

As recently as yesterday the Toronto-Dominion Bank's report on provincial government finances acknowledged that the top group ranked by overall fiscal performance has Alberta at the top of the list. It says that Alberta stands out as not only having the lowest debt burden among the provinces at 18 percent of GDP but also for enacting very strict, balanced budget and debt retirement legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I could also comment that the likes of the Bank of Montreal has recently said that “Alberta will lead the national forecasts for growth in 1996.” The Scotia Bank predicts that Alberta will top provincial growth charts this year and next year, and again the Royal Bank forecast says that “Alberta will lead growth” in the Canadian economy. What I find interesting, too, is a report done by Professor Chambers of the Western Centre for Economic Research at the University of Alberta, which also happens to be the academic home of our own Liberal Member for Edmonton-Whitemud,

2418 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 where they acknowledge that Alberta's export shipments reached 26 and a half billion dollars, up 15 percent since '94, and that since 1988 Alberta's exports to the United States have grown 126 and a half percent, almost 12 percent per year. That's an acknowledgement from the associates, the colleagues, of our learned Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, the Liberal Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Edmonton- Beverly-Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon.

Provincial Treasurer tell this Assembly what impact, if any, these independent assessments have on our goal of improving the Alberta advantage? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the question: what do these assessments mean to people who are considering where they might in vest their dollars, not just in Canada but across the globe? Clearly, as I mentioned on the export side and as my colleague the minister of economic development has often talked to us about, we are an export-based economy. We are part of the global economy, and investment is absolutely essential.

What's more important is that when investors look at a place to invest their dollars, they say, “Can we be confident that we're going to not only get our money back but that we're going to make a little extra as well as we make this kind of an investment?” So they look at reports like this. They look at comments by people about our economic performance, not what we have to say and certainly not what the Liberals have to say, and then make their investment decisions. I'm reminded of what Ontario Premier Mike Harris said after CP Rail decided to move its head office to Calgary.

He's reported to have said that one of the most disturbing lessons about that head office move was that CP never, never even took a whiff at Toronto, which in the past would not have been the case. So as I said, Mr. Speaker, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank, the Scotia Bank all are saying that Alberta is the place to invest their dollars because we're getting our fiscal act together. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final supplemental, Edmonton- Beverly-Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's well and good, Mr.

Treasurer, but can you explain what this benefit really is to the Albertans who live in my constituency and the businesses that they operate? [interjections] MR. DINNING: The Liberal members, especially the Liberal members in Edmonton, can laugh about job prospects for Edmontonians and northern Alberta, but at least this member is willing to stand up and talk about what the opportunities are for his and their constituents too. He's the only one talking about it, and Hansard should note that, Mr. Speaker. I would point out, Mr.

Speaker, that when you consider the number of jobs created in this province in the last three, three and a half, almost four years, over 140,000 new jobs were created. Our unemployment rate is the lowest in the country at 6.8 percent, and it means investment dollars coming into this prov- ince. As my colleague the Minister of Labour reminded me this morning, especially as banks released their third quarter reports on profits this morning, the Scotia Bank and the Bank of Montreal are both saying that their incomes had gone up, by almost 22 percent in the case of the Bank of Montreal.

These banks are the partners in growing the Alberta advantage today. It isn't the provincial government that's in the business of financing or guaranteeing. They are the partners for economic development in the province. [interjections] Speaker's Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is the right of all private members in this House to ask question and to have them answered. If we don't like the answers that are given to another hon. private member's question, we should keep that dislike to ourselves instead of making all of the noise. Hon. Provincial Treasurer, have you finished responding?

Provincial Fiscal Policies (continued) MR. DINNING: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I would make one more comment to the banks, who have reported an increase in their profits again today. The Alberta government is not in the business of financing and providing guarantees any longer. It is the banks who are the key financing partner to grow this econ- omy. As they laud Albertans for their successful fiscal perfor- mance, I say to them: please look again at the economic prospects here; look at farms; look at rural Alberta; look at small business; look at big business. This is the place to invest those bank dollars.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly. Child Poverty MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During question period of April 1, 1996, the Premier said: We will always look after the children because they're deemed to be the people who cannot look after themselves . . . But if the children are going to suffer, we will make sure that we look after the children. The latest Edmonton Food Bank statistics show that 50 percent of those it feeds are children. That's 8,500 hungry children a month in Edmonton alone.

The Calgary Inter-faith Food Bank says that 45 percent of its clients are children and in June they helped feed 3,000 youngsters. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Mr. Minister, given the positive economic forecast that the hon. Treasurer just gave us, how can you allow this to happen in Alberta, and what are you going to do about it? 2:30 MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the power to stop somebody from going to a food bank.

I can tell you, in the light of the remarks just made in terms of economic forecast, that in fact more people are working in the province than were even three years ago. Actually, when that starts happening, that helps people who previously had been in need. Further to that, the job corps program, which is used to assist those people who have been on assistance and are now out in the workforce and working, has a success rate of about 70 percent. That means a lot of people, thousands of people working, gainfully employed, who previously were simply receiving their

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2419 cheques. That means a lot of children are sharing in the confi- dence that their parents now have because they're working. Now, with the existence of food banks, which we will always have in the province because there's always a need, people somewhere for some reason need to access that food bank. That will continue to happen. I cong ratulate the people who work at those food banks for their good work. We also do have an open invitation to people who work at the food banks to get in touch with us through our social workers if there are children who are actually not being fed.

There's no reason for that to happen in this province. We would then be happy to work with the parents who are involved with those children to make sure that all children indeed are being fed. MS HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the economic forecast and the future plans probably are fine, but something needs to be done now. The action is up to the government. Could you tell me what action you're willing to take? MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was focusing on something else a few moments ago when I addressed some of the things that are being done related to child services.

When the minister responsible for the redesign of children's initiatives was speaking, she also commented at some length on the initiatives that are in place right now in terms of early intervention. As the minister responsible for the redesign of children's initiatives just said and should be underlined, pouring money at a problem simply is not an answer. We do say and indicate very clearly that with increased need there have been increased resources in place. The resources will continue to be there.

Again the word of appeal from my perspective to people, especially as it relates to the question on food banks, is that if there are children in this province that are going to food banks and there's a problem that they're not getting fed, we need to know about that because that does not have to happen in Alberta. We want to work with parents to make sure that problem does not exist. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final supplemental, Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister without portfolio responsible for children's services.

Madam Minister, how can your government ignore hungry children when your own children's services working groups say that hunger and poverty is issue number one across the province for families? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for children's services. MS CALAHASEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, to correct that notion of ignoring, we certainly don't ignore children in need. As a matter of fact, I believe that the best way to fight child poverty is to get parents off welfare and get them back to work or training.

I believe that that's one way for us to be able to deal with that, through our reforms, through the job corps, as the Minister of Family and Social Services indicated. Mr. Speaker, I believe that with this initiative we're going to have more people involved in the process to look at all the concerns that have been identified by local communities. I believe that's one area that we must look at and see how we can include it in the process as we go through the process.

I'd encourage more of those people to become more involved as we go through the initiative, because this is the only way that we can hear from the local communities to be able to address the need of child poverty or those in need in terms of the food bank. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Grain Marketing MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunny skies, beautiful harvest weather, good crops, some of the highest prices internationally for grain.

But some of the constituents seem to feel that our provincial minister of agriculture is advocating the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. My question to the minister of agriculture today: what is this government going to do in terms of developing a policy environment that rewards farmers with the highest possible farm gate produce price? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon. Member for Little Bow.

Obviously agriculture has been mentioned earlier as our future and will continue to be our future, and we have to build on that. It's a role and a responsibility for us in the Alberta government to see that every Alberta producer, no matter what the product is that they are producing, is allowed to maximize the highest possible return for the product that he produces. It is the role and the responsibility of this government to work with the producers to see that that opportunity is indeed achievable and achieved.

Therefore, we're working closely with the producers and the producer organizations to see that market opportunities are made available to them in all commodities, not just one or two or several but in all the commodities that they produce. It seems to me that one of the ways that you achieve the highest possible return is through the competitive nature of the free enterprise process. It seems to me that when you have options, you are the one that can determine the highest possible return for the product that you are trying to market.

It is quite evident that if there are options, indeed the producer will be the one that will have the opportunity to choose the highest possible return for the product that he has produced. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Little Bow, first supplemental. MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal Liberal minister's own hand-picked, blue-ribbon panel took nearly a year to study the grain marketing, and they advocated free market. What is the minister's reaction to their recommendation? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Generally, the provincial position on the panel report is support.

The panel traveled throughout the provinces, not only the province of Alberta but all of the western Canadian provinces, heard what the producers were wanting, heard the producers firsthand and indeed had the opportunity to dialogue with the producers of both wheat and barley and had the opportunity to ultimately make recommendations to the federal Liberal minister. The minister has procrastinated. He has taken the results of the panel, has conducted a letter to all the producers on his own since

2420 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 that time. This is over a year in the making. He now is conduct- ing a telephone poll. AN HON. MEMBER: He's consulting. MR. PASZKOWSKI: He's consulting and consulting and consulting over a period of three years, and it's unfortunate. We've had the opportunity of the highest grain prices we have ever had, and in the process of consulting, grain prices are going to start deteriorating, and we will still be consulting. This seems to be the Liberal way. This seems to be the Liberal process. What we're really asking for is action on the process. There were recommendations.

We've written to the federal Liberal minister and suggested to him that he should act on the report. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fina l supplemental, Little Bow. [interjections] MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister explain how a marketing choice, or dual marketing, could allow for a strong role for the Canadian Wheat Board? Speaker's Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister may have had some difficulty hearing the question. Certainly the Chair did.

I wonder if hon. members that seem to be onto a lively discussion here could postpone that discussion until after question period and presumably out in the lounge. Hon. Member for Little Bow, would you repeat the question. Grain Marketing (continued) MR. McFARLAND: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he could explain how marketing choice, or dual marketing, another name, could allow for a strong role for the Canadian Wheat Board. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that we support the Wheat Board. We support the principles of the Wheat Board, and we support the work that the Wheat Board has done. Indeed the Wheat Board has a long and historic record, one that we feel should be allowed to continue. 2:40 Having said that, we're living in changing times, and part of changing times, of course, means that we have to change the way that institutions operate. It's cr itical indeed that institutions are there to serve the people, not the people to be there to serve the institutions.

In the process it's critical that we allow for the changes that are required. The day of the iceman has passed. We have to make changes to accommodate that, and we have to do that with the whole process of marketing grain. It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, in the changing times how rapidly things can change. I'd like to table some statements that have been made by our Liberal counterparts across the way on how rapidly these times have changed.

I'd just like to quote very quickly. [The Alberta] Liberal parliamentarians have been lending their support to pro-Wheat Board rallies and speaking in favour of the [Wheat Board] monopoly. First to make an appearance were Alberta MLA Ken Nicol [the agriculture critic] . . . Then Senator Taylor, who has recently been anointed to the sainthood of the Senate, has been touring the province, and he's made a statement. We live in a democracy, and that means that once a majority has expressed a position, it is the responsibility of government to make sure the minority comes in line.

That's Alberta Report, August 26, 1996. On August 2 in Grande Prairie, which is my home constituency, in the Grande Prairie paper: “When we have a government which undertakes to subvert democracy through marginally legal processes . . .” THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. minister. MR. PASZKOWSKI: The last thing here . . . THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no last thing. Hon. minister, I think you more than answered the hon. member's question, and since the time for question period has now ended, we'll move on with the next item of business. Thank you. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table this.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: We assumed that that's what you were doing. head: Members' Statements THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Centre. Dutch Elm Disease MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I daresay I won't be quoting from the Alberta Report. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak about a very important issue in my constituency. The province of Alberta has invested tens of millions of dollars in urban parks, including Edmonton's own Capital City park system.

These urban parks not only enrich the quality of life for Edmontonians but also have a significant economic benefit and increase tourism as well as increase property values. Unfortunately, this government is prepared to sit by with its valuable resources threatened by the arrival of the European elm bark beetle, one of the carriers of Dutch elm disease. Since 1992, four years now, the Liberal opposition has been telling this government that this disease was a threat to Alberta's cities. Sure enough, for the last two years the beetle responsible for spreading this disease has been found in Edmonton and Calgary.

Earlier this year I wrote to the minister responsible, and his response is simply that his department is developing a proposal under Alberta's critical pest infestation response plan. This isn't good enough. We need action now to stop this threat before irreversible damage is done. The questions that my constituents have asked me to pose to the minister include: since the government has known that the beetle has reached Edmonton and Calgary for the last two years, why are they developing a response now instead of doing something concrete?

Since it's likely that the beetle entered Alberta from Montana or Saskatchewan by individuals bringing in firewood for

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2421 campfires, has the minister responsible communicated to the minister responsible for parks that the arrival of this beetle happened at the same time as the province started charging for firewood in provincial campsites? What compensation program for individuals is this government prepared to put into place to repair the damage that could occur if Dutch elm disease spreads through the cities of this province b ecause of this government's negligence?

And since it w ill cost upwards of $1.5 m illion in each of Edmonton and Calgary to control this disease, what assistance will this government provide to the urban areas of this province, given that this problem is a problem now because this government wouldn't act? Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Health Care MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak today on the alleged crisis in our health care system. Recently I have had several occasions to visit friends and relatives in the Foothills hospital. I was very impressed by what I observed.

I didn't see any beds in the halls. People were actually receiving three good, nourishing meals a day. The staff were pleasant to visitors and very caring with patients. The floors were clean, and the sheets were fresh. Furthermore, I even saw a call bell answered in five minutes. My relatives and friends have received excellent care. They speak very highly of the staff and the treatment they received in the Foothills hospital. Many times when we are subjected to the opposition victim of the day stor y, there is a very apparent implied criticism of health care workers.

I have a problem with this wide-ranging finger-pointing done by our colleagues across the way. I would like to salute the health care professionals who have met the challenges of rapid changes and continue, with care and dedication, to do a stellar job in meeting the needs of their clients.

Some examples I would like to mention are the pharmacists who have made a dedicated commitment to health promotion and to counseling clients on medication and lifestyle, the lab technicians who come to the house to collect samples from the elderly or the ill, the doctors and the dentists who donate their time and their expertise to disadvantaged clients at the CUPS clinic in Calgary, the Salvation Army Grace Women's Health Centre, another notable example of the new health system with a focus on wellness and a holistic approach to health.

I could continue giving examples for at least another two hours, but with our very limited time I would like to close by saying that there are many fine professionals in the health system who have made the commitment to put their clients first, and Mr. Speaker, it shows. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert. Vehicle Inspections MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Downsizing and deregulation seem to be this government's buzzwords of the year, but responsible legislators must be wary of deregulation and downsizing that could cost lives.

I would like to specifically refer to the foolish moves that the de partment of transportation will have completed by the end of September. At that time there will be only three vehicle safety in spectors left working in the department of transportation. In order to be a vehicle safety inspector, one must have two mechanics' licences, both auto and heavy duty, as well as a background in a managerial position. These people used to travel areas of the province doing mechanical checks on all kinds of commercial vehicles and school buses. They also trained people to be CVSA certified.

That's the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. This certification is a four-day training course consist- ing of one day of logbooks, one day of load securement, and two days of basic mechanical fitness. With the new regulations from this government, heavy commer- cial vehicles and school buses will now be road inspected by transport field officers who are only CVSA certified, not qualified mechanics. Who will oversee the repair shops? Who will inspect them? Three people to cover the entire province is not enough. What about our schoolchildren? What about children on propane- powered buses?

Who is left that is qualified to inspect them? There is virtually no one. Mr. Speaker, in 1982 regulation 235/82 was included in the Highway Traffic Act. Since that time there has not been one mechanical defect accident in the school bus industry. Obviously, things were working well. Members of the Conservative caucus and minister of transporta- tion, if one child gets hurt because of a mechanical failure on a school bus, Albertans will hold every one of you responsible. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're now at the stage where we ask for the points of order. I believe the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert called a point of order. Point of Order Imputing Motives MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My citation is Standing Orders 23(

h) and (i). The minister of agriculture was implying here, from an

article in the Alberta Report no less, that the Member for Lethbridge-East – and he quoted things that this member has not a chance to say. When you're quoting the Alberta Report, you've got to really check out your sources.

I know for a fact that the Member for Lethbridge-East has always said that if we're going to look at the Wheat Board marketing situation and if it's going to be a dual system, it's only fair if the farmers truly understand what that will mean, and that the survey the government sent out did not fully inform the farmers of what a dual marketing system would mean, that the farmers should be entirely educated on this issue, and that they should make the decision. The Member for Lethbridge-East has always, always endorsed that he would back what the majority of the farmers decide about the marketing board.

So for the minister to imply that he has said anything else is imputing false motives to that member, and that should be retracted. Thank you. 2:50 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert has referred to a number of sections within Standing Order 23. Rather than debate the issue of the Wheat Board and the monopoly, I wonder if both sides could address the point of order of the allegation. The hon. minister. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to respond, and had the hon. member allowed me the

2422 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 opportunity, I would have quoted Dr. Nicol directly from Hansard: The minister is correct that we basically have a situation now where the federal government has kind of procrastinated or refused to act in terms of its response to the farmers in Alberta when they asked by a two-thirds majority vote to have some kind of a change in the way they market their grain. I consider that a pretty profound statement, and I quoted from Hansard, April 23, the hon. Dr. Nicol. AN HON. MEMBER: Why were you quoting from Alberta Report? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: I was planning on quoting from Hansard as well; however, I did not have the opportunity. However, I have tabled this report, and it is in the hands of the Speaker. I would suggest that indeed in future the Liberal Party become more responsible for the statements they make. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have quoted the hon. member who has made the statement. I leave that in your hands. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order we definitely have a difference of opinion between hon. members, and therefore I hold that there is no point of order.

Now, I think the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford had a point of order. Point of Order Brevity MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to Beauchesne 417, and let me just refresh everybody's memory as to what Beauchesne 417 is. “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.” We've seen several occasions this afternoon like many, many afternoons where government back- benchers ask a puffball question, and rather than answering the question, we get a ministerial statement.

I believe the comments made by the minister responsible for agriculture must have gone on 10 or 12 minutes and would have gone on longer. Despite the fact you were standing there, he continued to ramble and ramble away. It's one thing that he's firing shots at the most respected agriculturist in western Canada, Lethbridge-East, but to abuse a very, very fine privilege, the privilege of question period, is wrong. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, rather than getting into the debate that's provoked your comment, we'll stay to the point of order, 417. Did the Government House Leader wish to reply?

The Chair is already in agreement with the hon. member that several of the answers this afternoon were unduly long and certainly, as the Chair interceded in the case of one of the ministers, began treading on being a prolonged speech. The comment that was made by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, though, is one that I want to clarify. I did indicate earlier on in the tumult of question period that all private members in this House, whethe r they're to the right of the Speaker or to the left of the Speaker, are entitled to ask their questions.

They're entitled also to determine what it is that's important, and the Chair was obliged to speak to that issue before. Whether they are puffballs or not is for others to judge, but it is their right to ask the questions and to receive, hopefully, a brief and to the point answer. So in a sense your point of order is well taken and was commented on, and I'm sure all hon. ministers will take that under advisement in future question periods.

I think that was all we had, hon members; was it? head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 217 Law of Property Amendment Act, 1996 [Adjourned debate August 21: Mr. Jacques] MRS. GORDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti I wish to continue debate. Mr. Speaker, all Albertans have the right to equal access to the judicial system. Unfortunately for Albertans residing in small judicial districts across this province, this is not always the case.

People living outside the two major urban areas of the province have been campaigning for years for increased access to the justice system, and I empathize with their predicament, as it is both inconvenient and financially difficult for people living in rural parts of the province to have to travel to Edmonton or Calgary to attend court proceedings. The issue at hand is that of a preferential treatment offered to residents of urban areas in the matter of foreclosure proceedings. Mr.

Speaker, this preferential treatment is essentially the result of current legislation which stipulates that defendants in a foreclosure action are required to attend court proceedings in the location chosen by the plaintiff. The location for these proceedings often ends up being Edmonton or Calgary, as the major financial institutions involved in mortgage lending have their head offices located in these cities. This means that the mortgagor must hire a lawyer or travel to that city to attend the proceedings them- selves.

This places many Albertans who live in smaller jurisdic- tions at a definite disadvantage. [Mr. Herard in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, seldom do foreclosure actions go to trial. In fact, most often these proceedings are settled by interlocutory applica- tions during the stages before an actual trial. In the first applica- tion of a foreclosure proceeding the plaintiff files a statement of claim and the defendant is given the opportunity to explain why payments have not been made. At this point the judge is able to set a redemption period to allow the defendant a chance to make the payments.

This grace period can be up to a maximum of one year for land in rural areas and six months for land in urban centres. Some defendants may not take advantage of this opportunity to explain their situation and to get an extension on their payments because of the difficulty of hiring a lawyer or the inconvenience of traveling at a time when their resources are limited. Mr. Speaker, in order to eliminate any disparity between the treatment received by rural citizens and that received by urban citizens, these procedures must take place in the district in which the land is situated.

This would increase the ability of defendants to participate in the proceedings. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this Bill reflects another vital issue

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2423 for Albertans, that of the exodus of rural professionals to urban centres. Indeed, if civil actions such as foreclosure proceedings are traditionally dealt with outside of rural areas, there will be an unequal distribution of workload between rural and urban locations. This could create a domino effect whereby lawyers and court personnel will be compelled for economic reasons to leave their rural areas in search of more lucrative employment opportu- nities.

As well, if we provide for more foreclosure proceedings to be heard in smaller districts, this will consequently redistribute the work that has been overloaded on the urban districts and will lessen the wait for court dates. With that said, we can catalogue the beneficial elements outlined in this aspect of Bill 217 into two categories. Firstly, the Bill would help to ensure that the smaller judicial districts retain the services of local lawyers and of court personnel.

Secondly and perhaps most importantly, it would help to improve the overall efficiency of the justice system in Alberta. 3:00 For these reasons it becomes apparent upon examining this Bill that its purpose not only favours the individual living in a rural community but the community as a whole. By ensuring that all mortgage foreclosure proceedings are held in the judicial district in which the mortgage property is situated or as close to that judicial district as possible, Bill 217 increases the accessibility of the judicial system for all Alberta residents.

It has been argued that if the foreclosure proceedings are not commenced in the correct judicial district, the procedure could be declared invalid based on this technicality. Now, I find it highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker, that a proceeding could be declared invalid because of the fact that it was commenced in the wrong judicial district for the obvious reason that the lawyers handling the case as well as the judge presiding over the case would surely pick up on such an elementary mistake.

As well, it has been mentioned that the judicial district in which the land is situated in a foreclosure proceeding may be a district in which neither the defendant nor the plaintiff reside. By changing the legislation, we would be tying the court's hands and hindering its flexibility. Let me state that this claim is unfounded, given the fact that this eventually can be rectified by means of a court order. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, once the plaintiff and defen- dant agree upon a more ideal location, they simply have to address the courts and obtain an order allowing them to change locations.

Providing for actions involving foreclosures to be held in the judicial district in which the land is located is a change that is long overdue in Alberta, one that my constituents want. Mr. Speaker, our rural citizens are weary of this drawn out debate, and such weariness can only foster mistrust and resignation towards the judicial system as a whole. In order to alleviate such feelings, it is important that this problem be addressed. Bill 217 will improve access to the justice system for people living outside the two main judicial jurisdictions of the province.

This Bill will also be a step forward in helping citizens who are facing the loss of their property due to foreclosure actions. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of Bill 217 and encourage all Members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in voting for this Bill to pass second reading. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. GERMAIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm heartened by the positive comments in support of rural Alberta in connection with Bill 217. Let me make my position on this Bill absolutely clear. This is a Bill I will support.

It is a Bill that is long overdue. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler and the hon. sponsor of this Bill come to this Assembly with absolutely clean hands, because last year, you'll recall, I sponsored a similar Bill called the Commencement of Actions Act, and both of those hon. members who have sponsored the Bill and who have spoken in favour of this Bill also stood in this Assembly and were counted among those few that were prepared to support rural Alberta by voting in favour of that Bill.

I am delighted that the hon. sponsor of this Bill had the courage to bring forward the Bill again, even though many of his caucus voted against this very important issue for rural Alberta. In the year or two that he has been here, as we all have, he has matured in both his eloquence and in his persua- sive powers, and it is my hope that this time when the vote is called, this Bill will pass. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that are equally problematic involving litigation in rural Alberta. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler talked about the interests of professionals involved in this equation.

While I sympathize with her interest in professionals, I put this Bill on a much more basic plane: it is a factor of common, basic decency that if you're going to take a man or woman's home or farm away from them, you have the courage to go face them face to face in their own community in rural Alberta. Y ou don't hide behind some legal procedure. We have seen in this province the paradox of financial institu- tions often courting and seducing this business in rural Alberta. The loans officer comes from rural Alberta; the farmer comes from rural Alberta.

At the first sign of distress they will race to the larger cities in an effort to put distance between themselves, and they're now litigating a rural individual, often a rural farmer. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler might well be legally trained, with her clear and perceptive analysis of the procedure. In fact, before any order taking away a man or woman's farm or home must be made, the court must be satisfied that there is no possible ability for that person to redeem himself or herself.

How can you hear and entertain arguments about redemption when you put 300 or 400 or 500 miles between that person who wishes to go with his cap in his hand and beg for mercy in the courts and that judge who will dispense that mercy, if he or she sees fit? Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I have only a passing disappoint- ment that this Bill was not passed two years ago when it was called the commencement of proceedings Act.

My passing disappointment will rapidly evapor ate, however, if people have now seen the right way and vote positively today for this particu- lar Bill, which is so important to rural Alberta and is both symbolic of our respect for rural Alberta and in fact the right thing to do, the genuinely right thing to do. We heard here several comments this afternoon from the minister of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, about how agriculture is the future of this province and not its past.

While I would like to lump energy in with the future of Alberta, I am not prepared to disagree that agriculture is part of the future of this province. We cannot ensure a good future if we are cutting the knees off those people who are farming in the province of Alberta by preventing them access to the courts. I would urge all members of this Assembly to pass this particular Bill. I would urge all members to pass it unanimously so that all those who read the Hansard debates and all those who

2424 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 see and hear of the Bill will know that in the province of Alberta we protect those people who live in rural Alberta. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to take a few minutes to speak in support of Bill 217. I think it is imperative that we address – and this gives us a wonderful context to do that – the unequal financial burden placed on the residents of Alberta's rural regions in regards to foreclosure proceedings.

This unequal financial burden imposed on residents of rural regions stems from the very nature of our current legislation concerning foreclosure procedures. As Albertans we are entitled to the same treatment before the law. Whether this treatment consists of undue financial burdens or whether it be unequal access to the judicial system, it is unacceptable to allow such disparities to persist in our province. It is both unjust and unfair to have rural Albertans pay more for a service than their urban counterparts. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, this added burden is the result of our actual Rules of Court.

Indeed, the present Rules of Court do not require the location of court proceedings to be held in any particular judicial district. However, according to these same rules, it is the plaintiff's prerogative to suggest a jurisdiction in which he would like the proceedings to be held. Given that for the most part the major financial institutions involved in mortgage lending have their head offices in Calgary or Edmonton, mortgagors from rural areas are at a disadvantage compared to their urban counterparts.

Those from rural areas have to hire a lawyer or travel to that jurisdiction themselves in order to attend court proceedings. The foreclosure applications usually deal with families' homes and farms. Now, at a time when the mortgagor is in a particu- larly difficult financial situa tion, the additional expense of traveling a long distance and forcing defendants to hire lawyers cannot be justified. Mr. Speaker, these people are defending their homes and their livelihoods.

Consequently, f aced with the prospect of hiring a lawyer or traveling to Edmonton or Calgary, a defendant in dire financial straits may simply throw up his hands and do nothing when all that might be required to save his or her home or farm is for them to attend the court hearing personally. The bank, on the other hand, must instruct counsel in any event, and it would appear not to impose a hardship on it to instruct counsel in a smaller judicial district. As well, all additional inquiries pertaining to foreclosure properties must be made at the clerk's office at the courthouse where the suit was started.

Having the place of i nquiry in a different jurisdiction than where the property is located may serve as an additional deterrent for interested parties who would potentially be interested in this information. Mr. Speaker, the objection by the Rules of Court Committee that such a change would tie the hands of the court and prevent it from choosing the most suitable location can be answered simply. Indeed, any party to an action where the possession of the land is claimed may make an application to change that place at which the interlocutory applications are made and the trial is to be held.

Under Bill 217 this application would be made, in the first instance, in the judicial district in which the land is situated. This would therefore eliminate the need for the defendant to hire a lawyer or travel these distances. 3:10 It has been brought forward, Mr. Speaker, that costs may be awarded against a plaintiff who selects an inappropriate judicial district. However, these costs are always discretionary. It has also been stated that telephone applications may be made and that documents may be filed and served by fax machines. All of these assume that a defendant will hire a lawyer.

In reality, however, most defendants cannot afford to do so. They should simply be able to walk into a court in the judicial district in which they reside and explain their personal circumstances to ensure that their rights are protected. This simple amendment proposed to the Law of Property Act could have the desired effect of ensuring that all Albertans have equal rights and access to the courts regardless of whether they reside in a smaller judicial district or not. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think there's anyone in this Assembly who would argue against the principle of all Albertans having equal access to the law in our judicial system. Another beneficial aspect of the proposed amendment is that the change would result in a redistribution of the workload from Edmonton and Calgary to our rural communities. Given the overload and delays that typically characterize the urban judicial district, it would be most advantageous for all concerned to have the backlog redistributed more equitably.

As well as from an economic and demographic standpoint, it is imperative that our rural lawyers continue to practise in their jurisdictions in order to prevent a massive conglomeration in the cities. Mr. Speaker, as I have explained, it is absurd that any Albertan residing in a rural area should suffer undue hardship by sheer virtue of their geographical location. For this reason and those previously stated, I support Bill 217 and commend the Member for Medicine Hat for bringing it forward again.

I encourage all the members of this Assembly to support this Bill and the principle of ensuring that all Albertans have equal access to the judicial system regardless of where they reside. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to express my support for Bill 217, the Law of Property Amendment Act, and commend the sponsor, the Member for Medicine Hat, for having authored this document.

I think it goes a long way towards redressing the present imbalance between rural and urban Albertans in the sense that out in our faraway regions – that is to say far away from the big cities – we are often forced to trek, in my case and in the case of my constituents, to Edmonton, a distance of almost 300 kilometres, in order to be involved in suits to deal with foreclosure cases or other cases as well. I think it's therefore proper to have this kind of law instituted, which allows us to be able to begin those proceedings and to deal with those proceedings much closer to home.

I'm a little – the word “disappointed” is perhaps too strong. I would like to have seen the inclusion of other types of proceed- ings, not just foreclosures, because I think the same argument applies to them. I'm thinking of filing for divorce or dealing with land actions, building liens, torts, cases that involve motor vehicle accidents, and so on: all the kinds of things, by the way, that the Member for Fort McMurray introduced in his Bill two years ago, and of course it was duly voted down.

To me that would have been an even better expression of trying to redress this imbalance between urban and rural Albertans. Mr. Speaker, it is as with the electoral boundaries Act; one is never able to get perfection in this world, and politics is the art of compromise. Therefore, I go along with the Bill in its present

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2425 state, and we hope to bring, perhaps at the Committee of the Whole stage, some amendments to the floor that might just deal with some technical flaws in this. Thank you very much. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to take the opportu- nity to add a few words to this debate in favour of Bill 217, the Law of Property Amendment Act. All Albertans have the right to equal access to the judicial system.

Unfortunately, for many people residing in small judicial districts across the province, this is not always the case, since our geography and the logistics of the distribution of our population make the physical achievement of equal a near impossibility. We have to look at ways of delivering a more practical alternative, and I would call that equitable access. Mr. Speaker, under our current legislation defendants in a foreclosure action are required to attend court proceedings in a judicial district chosen by the plaintiff.

Often the central office of the bank or mortgage company foreclosing is located in Edmonton or Calgary, so the proceedings are generally initiated there. This means that the mortgagor must hire a lawyer or travel to the city to attend the proceedings themselves, and it places people residing in rural areas of the province at a decided disadvantage. Not only is this inconvenient, but it's also unfair to require these people to cover the additional expenses for lawyers and travel that those living in Edmonton and Calgary are not required to pay.

People facing foreclosures are obviously already having difficulties meeting their financial obligations and likely have limited resources. To require them to travel or hire a lawyer during that difficult time places an undue burden on the defendant. Mr. Speaker, these people are trying to hold on to their property. Why make a desperate situation any more difficult? If a financial institution is willing to do business in the judicial district in which the land is situated, should it not be reasonable to bring its court applications there as well? This would seem to be a fair thing to do in my opinion.

The majority of foreclosure actions do not go to trial. Instead, they are settled by interlocutory applications during the stages before an actual trial period. To clarify, the foreclosure actions are commenced by issuing and serving a statement of claim on the defendant, and the defendant is then given an opportunity to explain why the mortgage payments have not been made or why some other breach of the mortgage contract may have occurred. At this point the judge is able to decide upon a redemption period, which is sort of a grace period given to the defendant to redeem the mortgage.

The court can look at a number of circumstances when setting the redemption period including the ability of the debtor to pay, the earning capacity of the debtor, whether the debtor's failure to pay was due to temporary or permanent unemployment, the value of the land, whether the land has been abandoned, the nature and extent of the value of the security, whether the failure to pay was due to something like hail, frost, drought, agricultural pests, or any other conditions beyond the control of the debtor.

Often all that is required is that the defendant attend court at the designated hearing time and inform the judge as to the circumstances which led to the missed or late payments to successfully counter a financial institution's applica tion for a shortened redemption period. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the defendants may not take advantage of this opportunity to explain their situation because of the cost of hiring a lawyer or the difficulty of traveling at a time when resources may be extremely limited and will miss out on the opportunity to be granted a grace period or to allow time to make the payment.

It seems unfair that Albertans living in small judicial districts will miss out on the opportunity to redeem their property when there may be a tenable reason for the default. If the foreclosure proceedings were to take place in the judicial district in which the land is situated, it would increase the ability of the defendants to participate in those proceedings. People would be able to go to their local courthouses and speak to the judge there.

This would seem fairer and a more equal access to the judicial system all across the province. 3:20 The resolution of this issue is long overdue, and I would like to commend the Member for Medicine Hat for bringing forward this Bill which proposes, in my opinion, a workable and objective solution. Presently all Albertans do not have equal access to the judicial system in the province. In fact, people living outside of the major urban centres are clearly disadvantaged, and I don't think we should allow this to continue. Mr.

Speaker, if Bill 217 were to pass, it would ensure that mortgage foreclosure proceedings were held in the most appropri- ate judicial district, the one in which the mortgaged property is situated or as close to that district as possible. If there is more than one judicial district in which the action may be commenced, the action could be tried in any one of those. An action could also be transferred to any judicial district in the event that both parties agree to such a transfer.

If either the defendant or the plaintiff resides in the same judicial district as the mortgaged property, they may have to agree to change the location of the proceedings. The parties to an action may, by agreement filed in the office of the clerk of the court in which the action was commenced, agree to transfer the action to another judicial district. Bill 217 will not only benefit people in small judicial districts but also the entire judicial system.

There are court services available in small districts across the province, and a redistribu- tion of workload from the two larger urban centres to the smaller judicial districts could improve the overall efficiency of the court system. It could lessen the waiting period for a court date in the two major urban centres of the province as well. It could also help to ensure that smaller districts maintain their court services. An increase in workload could ensure the continued availability of the services of a master and lawyers for those living in the smaller districts. For those reasons, Mr.

Speaker, I support Bill 217, and I would encourage all the members of this Assembly to support it as well and the principles it stands for. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also want to rise and speak in support of Bill 217, the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1996, a very important Act that makes for more equality for all Albertans. I want to thank the Member for Medicine Hat for bringing it forward.

However, it's two years after the Member for Fort McMurray brought in a similar Act, the Commencement of Actions Act, which not only included this but also included petitions for divorce proceedings or marriage conflict, also torts and motor vehicles. He had three big issues, concerns, there that could be set out in

2426 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 the districts where they live, not having to go to the cities. Y ou could imagine someone from Fort Chip having to come to Edmonton to have a dispute settled. In Fort Chip there are no summer roads; you have to fly there. If you're in a situation like this, you're probably in need of money. Y ou don't have the resources to do so, so you're penalized for this type of thing. The member two years ago brought this forward. It was defeated by the government. Unbelievable. It's the Alberta Liberals and the Member for Fort McMurray that have to stand up and fight for rural Alberta.

Not the Tories but the Liberals, the Alberta Liberals. Unbelievable. Y ou know, two years later, after what should have been in force and would have protected others. Two years later. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for following up on the Member for Fort McMurray's action two years ago. We need the other two parts of the Bill in here too, the torts and the matrimonial disputes, to make this a sound, solid Bill so you could resolve the issues in the district where you live. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat to close debate. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure for me to rise to close debate on this Bill. I would like to thank all members who spoke in support of this Bill. There's just one brief issue that I would like to acknowledge, and that was the comments from the Member for Calgary-Buffalo when he indicated that the Rules of Court Committee was already considering changes and that this Bill to some degree was not required. Well, I'd like to remind all hon. members that the Rules of Court Committee has been considering this very issue for many years.

The fact that they are considering it quite frankly does not give me a lot of faith that they will bring it to a success- ful conclusion. And I do think this legislation is important. This is a vote of confidence in rural Alberta. I also would like to remind the Member for St. Albert that while it's true that the Member for Fort McMurray brought forward similar legislation, as did I – I have had a Bill under my name on the Order Paper that unfortunately didn't come up for discussion. I also had a motion under my name. So I have been pursuing this matter since I was elected as well.

I certainly acknowledge the helpful comments that were made by the Member for Fort McMurray. I spoke at some length in support of his legislation last time around. I would just at this point encourage all members to support this legislation. I understand that there are some individuals who have some suggestions for improvement at the committee stage, and I look forward to that discussion should this Legislature vote to take this to committee. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would call the question. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Medicine Hat has moved second reading of Bill 217, Law of Property Amend- ment Act, 1996. All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. Let the record show unanimous. [Bill 217 read a second time] THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we have unanimous consent to proceed to the next order of business. All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. head: Motions Other than Government Motions Legal Services Ombudsman 514. Mr. Havelock moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to examine the feasibility of establishing a legal services ombudsman to investigate how complaints about lawyers have been handled. [Debate adjourned August 20: Mr. Dickson speaking] [Motion lost] Election of Judges 515. Mr. Hlady moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to initiate an immediate study to examine the feasibility of electing judges. MR. HLADY: Mr. Speaker, firstly I would like to state that I have personally never had a problem with our judicial system or a judge. I have a great deal of respect for what they stand for. They are a crucial part to making our society fair to all who live here. [The Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Bringing this motion forward is about the fundamental right of an Albertan or Canadian to have input into the decision-makers that rule them.

I have brought forward this motion due to the fact that Albertans have been telling me that the question of judicial accountability in this province needs to be examined. There is a feeling out there in the coffee shops and on the doorsteps that the judiciary is accountable to no one. We are currently operating in a legal system designed 100 years ago and put into place by legislators. The people, Mr. Speaker, have had no direct input, and from the growing undercurrent in our society today, people are not happy with the direction that they see their judiciary going.

In 1985 the Canadian Bar Association criticized the process for selecting judges as being too selective. The public has little knowledge of the method by which judges are chosen and consequently has no say as to the types of candidates it wants. There could be no doubt that the decisions of judges reflect to some extent their personal values. They follow common law within the scope of their own values and beliefs. As humans they cannot but have opinions and sometimes prejudices. Through an open election the public would know what kinds of values or biases a judge would have ahead of time.

Not only would it be an open system, but it would be one where judges are account- able. 3:30 In 1981 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced, and with it came an increased level of activism inside the

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2427 judiciary. The Charter entrenched individual rights and freedoms within the Constitution, and as a result judges were given increased powers in terms of maintaining those rights and freedoms. Individual rights and freedoms were important, but their preservation was a matter of tradition and the will of the people through their elected Legislatures. Prior to the Charter, Legislatures were free to limit or open individual rights and freedoms as they saw fit.

Alberta traditionally has maintained a high level of freedom for its citizens and to this day believes in as little government interference in the lives of Albertans as possible. There are three levels of lawmaking in our country. Ones that we are particularly concerned with are judge-made law and laws made here in the Legislature. Judge-made law is quite a lengthy process, literally taking years. This is due to the fact that the judiciary has to wait for cases to come to them, and it cannot anticipate cases.

This is the oldest form of lawmaking, based on precedents or following the decisions of judges in similar cases. If a case currently before the courts is similar to one that has been tried previously, say 200 years ago, the outcome of the case will be similar to that of the older one. However, there needs to be a conflict before there can be found a solution, which is why this form of law takes decades to evolve. The direct election of judges was adopted in a majority of the American states. This system emerged since judges were recognized there as having a great deal of power.

It was felt that this power would only be legitimate when exercised by persons directly elected by the people. Therefore, judges should be elected. A majority of the states still elect their judges, although often with substantial modifications designed to overcome the inadequacies of the electoral system. One of these is the partisan election, which consists of a nomination process through party conventions, primaries, followed by a popular election. This is used in 18 states and is not particularly effective in a lot of people's views.

Nonpartisan elections are regarded as an improvement over the partisan process. In a nonpartisan election someone wishing to be a candidate circulates a petition, and if they get a certain amount of support, their name is pl aced on the election ballot without any party designation. This is used in 20 states in the U.S. The emphasis on insulating judicial selection from partisan politics is premised on the assumption that judges and judging are not political in the way that legislators and legislating are, and therefore judges need not be politically accountable.

The best known of these modifications is sometimes known as the Missouri plan. Missouri has a system of selecting judges independent of politics. A nonpartisan nominating committee considers applications for vacancies in all of the courts. They submit a shortlist of three to the state governor, who has 60 days to appoint one of them. The su ccessful applicant is then placed on probation for a year. After that time their name is placed on a ballot and put to an election. If elected, they are placed on retention for a 12-year term, after which point they are up for re- election.

The elections are based on the candidate's record, not on a party. The Missouri plan is a practical compromise between the goals of judicial independence and public accountability. Two years ago a study in the States found that 86.5 percent of the judges surveyed were in favour of retention of elections. The judges felt that this was the best possible method of judicial selection. It removes judges from partisan politics, it gives the public a way to remove bad judges, it increases accountability, and it gives the judges some independence from public opinion.

The Canadian system of selecting and appointing judges is based on the practice developed in England and now followed in much of the common law world. The majority of Canadian judges are appointed by the governments of the 10 provinces and the territories. Although the courts presided over by these judges are sometimes referred to as lower courts or inferior courts, they are the courts in which most Canadians will have their only firsthand encounter with the justice system.

In all the provinces the appointing authority is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and in nine common law provinces, including Alberta, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has the responsibility of bringing recommendations for judicial appointments before the provincial cabinet. Control of judicial appointments by the provincial cabinets has meant that there has been known to be some political patronage.

In a study done by Peter McCormick and Ian Greene it was noted that one-third of the judges in Ontario and Alberta accepted an appointment to the bench b ecause of unpleasant aspects of the career they were leaving. Their practice had become boring: almost half of the provincial court judges cited this as the reason for leaving. Others just felt burnt out. Some said that they were attracted by the security and the pension. Over a third of the judges accepted the appointment as a new challenge. Others saw it as the crowning pinnacle of a legal career.

What is the kind of motivation we want to see in our appointed officials? How many people do we know who get themselves appointed to a position like that because they are bored with their present career? Is this acceptable or is it unacceptable to the people of Alberta? This summer the Canadian Judicial Council released its annual report for 1994-1995, and in it they described a record number of public complaints against judges. This year there were 174. This was the seventh year in a row that complaints were at an all-time high.

This says to me, if nothing else, that the judiciary and its role needs to be reviewed. For this reason I would like to propose an amendment to Motion 515 which would expand its scope accordingly. In the amendment that I'm putting forward, I would like to change the motion as it stands to:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to initiate an immediate public review of the judiciary, including a study into the feasibility of electing judges. I have copies of this right now that I would like to have passed out to everyone in the House. Should I let them pass that out, or should I just keep going? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it's the cart and the horse. The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View wishes to make a substantive amendment to his motion. This would require unanimous consent of the Assembly. Are you ready for the question?

The question then is: may we have unanimous consent for the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View to make an amendment to his motion? All those in support, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed? Y ou have unanimous consent. Y ou may now propose it. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion would now call for a public review . . . [interjection] We haven't voted on it. Speaker's Ruling Admissibility of Amendment THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just so the Chair

2428 Alberta Hansard August 27, 1996 explains it. When you're making a substantive amendment to a motion, the hon. member is required to have unanimous consent. Otherwise, it would fall to the bottom of the Order Paper. We did not vote on the amendment because we haven't seen it, and we can't see it until you get unanimous consent, so it's a cart-and- horse sort of arrangement. Now he's going to speak to it, and it's going to be handed out. Hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, on your amend- ment. Debate Continued MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The motion would now call for a public review of the judiciary, including looking into the election of judges as a means of increasing judicial accountability. This motion, once amended, would more adequately move towards addressing Albertans' concerns about the state of the judiciary, its appointment, and how it exercises its powers. The people of this province have told me such a review is long overdue, and I agree with them. As the power and discretion of judges comes to be more broadly recognized, a deeper democratic urge for more openness and acc ountability in their selection arises. With that, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to just allow the amend- ment to continue to be distributed. I'll speak a little bit more in re gards to why I felt that this should happen. I believe by expanding the motion from strictly electing judges and moving it to a review of the judiciary – I know there have been numerous complaints that I have heard. I'm sure many of my fellow members here in the House have seen and have received from their constituents in many different areas and different ways complaints about the judiciary and not just re judges. I think some of those other areas would be the courts themselves.

It could be how the processing is working, particular sentencings. It could be our parole system. I think there are many pieces that are out there that people want to have input on, and I think this process and doing a public study would allow the people of Alberta to say what they really believe and what they think. I think it is a natural way for us to allow the people to say the most important things about the people that govern them. That is why I put it forward, Mr. Speaker. With that, I will ask for that unanimous consent.

Or is that done at the end? 3:40 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: To move it now, you're moving your amendment. MR. HLADY: Y es, I am. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray on the amendment. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to first of all say that when this Legislative Assembly granted the hon. member unanimous consent to discuss his amendment, it is part of the charity of this Assembly that we allow members to be able to speak their minds freely and fairly and be able to clearly articulate what message they are trying to convey.

With the greatest of respect to this hon. member, I suggest that he is trying to convey a message of disregard to the judiciary of the province of Alberta and indeed the Canadian judiciary. He is trying to convey a suggestion that there are problems and things amiss with the judiciary, and he is trying to convey some possible concern that the members of the judiciary are not now properly appointed, properly screened, and properly analyzed for their competence. I want to take issue, in the clearest possible terms, with all of those suggestions.

I want to suggest that the judiciary in this particular country has served the country well for many years. It is another one of these problems where we could use that street- front analogy that if it ain't broke, why are we fixing it? Let me now discuss some of the issues raised by this hon. member's Motion 515 as amended. With the greatest of respect I found, frankly, the original motion to be odious to the extreme, and now I find his amendment to be even worse. The original motion was nonjudgmental in that it seemed to indicate that there would be a feasibility study of electing judges.

That in itself might be something you could take a reasonable approach to and say, “Well, why don't we study the issue?” Even though we come to the forefront with an acknowledgement that there's nothing wrong with the way in which judges are today selected, we could study the issue. I mean, heaven help us, Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be the first time the government has frittered away tax dollars on inconsequential studies and feasibility reports. The history of governments across Canada in fact is that they have libraries full of the littered carcasses of studies on various issues.

However, in his amendment to this motion this member moves further. His amended motion would now read:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to initiate an immediate public review of the judiciary. Who is calling for an immediate public review of the judiciary, Mr. Speaker? Who, other than this hon. member? This particular motion was first discussed widely in the Calgary press about the time that there was issue as to whether judicial salaries could be rolled back in the province of Alberta. This is a very mischievous motion, mischievous as printed on the Order Paper and made more so by the member's amendment.

He wants an immediate public review of the judiciary, and I urge all Members of this Legislative Assembly to unanimously reject this motion and show the confidence that we have in this province for an independent judiciary. If anybody could cr iticize about the appointments of the judiciary, we could, for example, suggest as opposition members that numerous judges at the provincial level with Conservative leanings get appointed to the judiciary. We do not take that position, because we as an Official Opposition look at judicial appointments in two ways. Mr. Speaker, we say this. MR.

DUNFORD: Y ou want the federal ones. Y ou want the federal appointments, Adam. MR. GERMAIN: Well, all right. Some hon. members are saying, well, let's talk about federal appointments too. Okay; we're going to talk about federal appointments in a moment and the deep-rooted screening process and the thorough analysis of those competent men and women that accept federal appointments, often at great personal sacrifice to themselves, for the purpose of providing a necessary and essentia l service in this province and indeed across the country. [interjection] Y ou know, it is the hon.

Member for Lethbridge-West who wants to find great humour and great amusement in the fact that honourable women and honourable men from an honourable profession that has been around since before the time of Christ would be in fact prepared to make self-sacrifice by accepting a judicial appointment. I can only say to the hon. member that I know many such men and women who have made great personal sacrifice to become members of the judiciary, and because of it

August 27, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2429 you sleep better at night, hon. member. Y ou should be grateful to them, and they should receive the gratitude of a grateful nation. I want to go on to say that the hon. member says that there should be a study into the feasibility of electing judges. This being a provincial Alberta motion, it could only go into the feasibility of electing provincial court judges. Is there any member of the government who wants to stand up in their place and say that the way in which you've been appointing judges in this province since this government came to power 25 years ago is wrong?

Does any Member of this Legislative Assembly want to stand up and say that the concept is flawed, that the concept is inappropriate? While you can take – and it is easy to take – political shots at the process, the two questions that must always be asked, Mr. Speaker, are these. Do we in the present system get a good selection and a good cross

section of men and women from the bar who want to put their names forward to be judges? If your answer to that is yes, then the only other issue, the only other possible issue could be: do we select appropriately the best men and women for those positions? Frankly, having observed this process, Mr. Speaker, from near and afar for many years, I am not prepared to stand in my place and say that we do not get a good selection of people applying for the judiciary.

I am certainly not prepared to say that we have a selection process which, whether by poor politics or good politics or good luck or bad luck or good research, does not appoint good judges. Because I think in the main it can be said, and fairly said, that the men and women who accept judicial appointments in the province of Alberta themselves prove that they deserve those appointments in most cases. Now, if the system, Mr. Speaker, is working, then let's talk about the proposition for change. This hon. member says that we are going to put a political overtone to the election of judges.

Let's put aside partisan politics here today, ladies and gentlemen. Is there anybody in this Legislative Assembly who is not prepared to admit that the political process we have now for the election of ourselves discourages good men and women from running? MR. DINNING: Well, obviously. MR. GERMAIN: It discourages good men and women from running. The Provincial Treasurer agrees. The press picks at you; self-interest groups will pick at you. Some politicians find that they have to promise anything to anybody to get elected. We have career politicians, Mr.

Speaker, who will say anything, do anything, and be anything to get elected time and time again. We want to import all that we find upsetting about the electoral process for politicians into the appointment, by a voting process, of the judiciary. Ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this Assembly for the most part have children. We all have children. Do you want somebody who lives in a primarily adult community to campaign on the basis that he or she thinks that children cause crime and that those children have to be prevented from causing crime?

Do you want somebody who lives in a primarily Caucasian area to campaign on the basis that it is ethnic minorities that cause crime and that crime is going wild because of immigration to the country? Do you want that type of person, making those kinds of campaign statements, getting elected to be a judge? Or do we want people who are sensitive of thought, competent in their intellectual processes, properly trained in the law, people who are compassionate, people who are respectful, people who are not part of the political harangue of elected politics?

I say to you that the political elective process discourages certain types of people from seeking political office, and it would discourage them from seeking judicial office. Mr.

Speaker, those people who are sensitive, those people who are shy, those people who are compassionate would find that they do not want to run and campaign for elected office of the judiciary, particularly when they are taking on these jobs in many cases at great personal sacrifice. 3:50 I urge all Members of this Le gislative Assembly to kill this motion as amended unequivocally and unanimously and in so doing show our respect for the judiciary of this country at all levels and put aside partisan politics of how judges are appointed. Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, last week in this Legislative Assembl

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19960827
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S4 19960827 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	511a6c2a65e185b4b408c21d2b544ed60223cdd2

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