December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2235 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, December 6, 1999 1:30 p.m. Date: 99/12/06 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, good afternoon. Would you please remain standing after the prayer. Let us pray. On this day let each of us pray in our own way for the innocent victims of violence. Amen. Life is precious. When it is lost, all of us are impacted. Today we join with Legislatures across Canada and honour the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.

This day of remembrance marks the 10th anniversary of the 1989 massacre of 14 women students at l’ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. Hon. members, please join with me in observing one minute of silence. Thank you. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the consul general of the Republic of Korea based in Vancouver, Mr. Kang. He is accompanied today by the consul, Mr. Park. I want to welcome Mr. Kang to Alberta on his first official visit to our province since his appointment.

In addition to being Alberta’s fourth largest trading partner, Korea, of course, occupies a very special place in Alberta’s interna- tional relations. Kangwon was Alberta’s inaugural sister province back in 1974. This year, of course, marks the 25th anniversary of our special relationship. Alberta/Korea relations were elevated recently with the appointment of Mr. Jack Perraton of Calgary as the honorary consul of the Republic of Korea. I would ask our honoured guests to rise in your gallery and receive the very traditional and warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 217 Albertans, primarily from Edmonton and Calgary, urging the Government of Alberta to conduct an independent public inquiry of the Workers’ Compensation Act, including an examination of the operations of the WCB, the Appeals Commission, and the criteria for appointments to the Board. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to table a petition from some 111 Calgarians, which brings the am ount to 1,253 Calgarians, that urges the Government to increase support for children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition sent by the SOS group, and they are asking the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. That’s 122 more people who have signed. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg permission to present a petition signed by 109 Edmonton and district citizens urging the Government to increase support for children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that the petition I presented the other day with respect to underfunding of public education might now be read and received, please.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to increase support for children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented last week on the Workers’ Compensation Board now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to conduct an independent public inquiry of the Workers’ Compensation Act, including an examination of the operations of the WCB, the Appeals Commission, and the criteria for appointments to the Board. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to request that the petition I presented on Thursday on the freezing of tuition fees and institutional fees be read and received now.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, urge the Legislative Assembly to freeze tuition and institutional fees and increase support for post-secondary education. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a Standing Order 40 submission. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 40 I will be asking for the unanimous consent of the Legislative

2236 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 Assembly to debate the skyrocketing numbers of homeless persons throughout the province. I have the requisite number of copies for distribution. Thank you. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Bill 46 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999 (No. 2) MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request leave to introduce a bill being the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999 (No. 2). [Motion carried; Bill 46 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE CLERK: The following documents are tabled pursuant to Standing Order 37(1) required under the Legislative Assembly Act and the Government Accountability Act: Executive Council 1998- 99 annual report; Advanced Education and Career Development 1998-99 annual report, sections 1 and 2; Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development 1998-99 annual report; Agriculture Financial Services Corporation 1998-99 annual report; Community Development 1998-99 annual report; Economic Development and Tourism 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Education 1998-99 annual report, parts 1 and 2; Alberta Ministry of Energy 1998-99 annual report; Ministry of Environmental Protection 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Family and Social Services 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Ministry of Health 1998-99 annual report, sections 1 and 2; Inter- governmental and Aboriginal Affairs 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Justice 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Labour 1998-99 annual report; Alberta Municipal Affairs 1998-99 annual report; Public Works, Supply and Services 1998-99 annual report; Science, Research and Information Technology 1998-99 annual report; Science, Research and Information Technology 1998-99 revised annual report; Alberta Transportation and Utilities 1998-99 annual report; and Alberta Treasury 1998-99 annual report. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, that was the first time in this Legislative Assembly that we’ve exercised the provisions under Standing Order 37(1).

Provincial Treasurer. MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to table the Government of Alberta annual report for the fiscal year ’98-99, and that’s in accordance with

section 10 of the Government Accountabil- ity Act. This contains all of th e consolidated financial statements highlighting the fact that for the fifth year in a row the government produced a balanced budget and reduced the provincial debt. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to file with the Assembly today copies of three news releases issued at the close of the recent World Trade Organization ministerial meetings in Seattle.

These releases are the Alberta government release, the government of Canada release, and the Cairns group release, and they all express their deep disappointment over the unsuccessful conclusion and the need for suspension of those talks. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got two tablings for today. The first one is the statement issued by the Alberta Teachers’ Association today condemning the call for closure on Bill 40, and it calls on the Premier to annul this attempt to seek closure. The second one, Mr.

Speaker, is the report of the count of homeless persons in Edmonton undertaken on November 17, 1999, which indicates a 30 percent increase of the homeless in Edmonton over last year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I have four tablings: one by Rick Robinson, who wants the Premier to know that along with his friend Shane Andrus he opposes private, for-profit hospitals.

On the subject of Bill 40 I’ve got one from James Keylock of Innisfail objecting to Bill 40, another from John McIntosh, and finally from the Psychologists’ Association of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A number of tablings: firstly, a letter from the Calgary Chamber of Commerce opposed to Bill 40, the Health Information Act; secondly, a letter from the Health Sciences Association opposed to Bill 40; thirdly, the Canadian Medical Association model health information act; fourthly, an editorial from The Medical Post on patient confidential- ity; fifthly, the Canadian Medical Association presentation on Bill C-6 to the Senate of Canada; and finally, copies of more than 50 Liberal amendments to fix problems with Bill 40. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to table five copies of a report from an Alberta injured worker. It starts with a letter from the board of directors that they cannot recommend changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act for the purpose of affecting a decision of the Appeals Commission and has many pages of evidence why there should be changes to the Workers’ Compen- sation Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased today to rise and table the Manitoba 1999 Child Poverty Report Card, An Agenda for Action and, secondly, a citation of what poverty means to a child that is incorporated in this report. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a tabling today from a constituent of Edmonton-Manning saying to the Premier that there’s insufficient help with home care for their family. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very proud to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly an excellent citizen and tremendous volunteer in the community of Viking, a gentleman who has served three terms as

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2237 mayor and also two terms as councillor. I’d ask Mr. Bill Taylor, who is seated in the members’ gallery, to rise and for us to receive him with a very warm, traditional welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Innovation and Science. DR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my privilege today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Mr. John Masters.

John is the president and CEO of the Calgary Research and Development Authority, and since taking on this new position in February of 1998, John has been a tireless promoter in the encouragement of growth in the high-tech, knowledge-based sector of this province. He certainly keeps me well informed as to what is happening in the Calgary area, promoting the Calgary area and the importance of the Calgary area to knowledge-based businesses. I’d ask John to please rise and r eceive the warm welcome of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly 47 energetic students from Fraser elementary school up in northeast Edmonton. With them are two teachers, Mr. Hiob and Mr. Hennig, and six parents: Mrs. Chekowski, Ms Diol, Mrs. Bundun, Mrs. Tomlinson, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Romaniuk. They’re in the public gallery, and with your permission I’d like to ask that they now stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my privilege and a pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly some 60-odd young, bright, and polite kids from the Calmar school. They’re accompanied today by two teachers, Mrs. Jeanette Wilson and Mrs. Andrea Cameron, and eight parents and helpers. I don’t think they needed any of the parents or helpers because these kids are very polite and well mannered. I’d ask at this time that they rise in the gallery and receive the warm welcome of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 30 students from H.A. Kostash school out of Smoky Lake. They’re not present in the House at the moment but will be here during question period, and I did want to recognize them. They are being accompa- nied by their teacher, Dominique Cere, and parents Mrs. Barbara Shapka, Mrs. Penny Cherniwchan, Mrs. Karen Stark, Mrs. Bonnie Kordyban, Mrs. Bobbie Manak, and Mrs. Barb Zenko. I would ask that we give them a warm traditional welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Centre I would like to introduce to and through you Alainnah Borlind, an Edmonton-Centre constituent newly elected to the Downtown Edmonton Community Association board. This is a new community group for people living in the downtown. If she would please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Private Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

This Premier seems determined to implement two-tiered health care in Alberta despite overwhelming evidence that it results in higher costs and longer waiting lists. In a paper to be presented at the finance ministers’ meeting in Ottawa this week, provincial finance ministers point out that “Canada’s publicly funded health care system provides a competitive advantage to firms in this country”.

According to a Conference Board of Canada study cited in the finance ministers’ report the advantage of medicare lies in the cost of employer- sponsored health plans, which represent just over 2 percent of payroll costs in Canada compared to 9 percent of payroll costs in the United States. My questions are to the Premier. Why is the Premier promoting two-tier health care in Alberta when it will cost busi- nesses more to purchase supplemental health benefit plans for their employees? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I have said time and time and time again in this Legislative Assembly that we are not promoting in any way, shape, or form a so-called American style two-tiered health care system. As a matter of fact we never allude to the American system. The only people who allude to the American system are the Liberals across the way. What we’re proposing, through a policy statement that has been issued, is a program that adheres without question to the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.

So what we’re talking about is the delivery of services within the publicly funded system as we know it today. 1:50 Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of regional health authori- ties now contracting out to private clinics. I’ve named two. Cataract surgeries: that’s one. Abortions: that’s another one. Various diagnostic services: there’s another one. So it’s happening right now. All we want to do is take some of the pressure off the system by expanding it somewhat, and many editorials, many reports, have said that the steps we’re proposing are actually timid, tepid, and modest. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, where is the Premier’s proof that his scheme to contract out won’t result in higher payroll costs for businesses for the purchase of enhanced employer benefit packages for their employees? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t see how it could result in that because everything we’re proposing is under the publicly funded health care system, and as I pointed out before, this is already being done. We’ll take the Calgary health authority, for example. The CRHA currently provides health care services through contracts with community partners in the amount of approximately $250 million per year.

As a matter of fact, those rules that govern those contracts will be strengthened in the legislation, because the contracts will have to be open, and they will have to prove beyond doubt that there is going to be a cost benefit. It’s happening right now, as we speak. I’ve asked the opposition before: if it’s not happening – what about abortion clinics? Will they stand up now, today, and say that abortion services should not be contracted? Will you stand up and say it? [interjections] Never mind all the shouting and yelling. No, you won’t. You won’t.

2238 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 So here are the rules that govern those contracts as I speak today: services or procedures offered through contract to community and private partners do not provide preferential access for any patient. It’s when you provide preferential access to patients with dollars to pay that you create the two-tiered system. That is not what we’re proposing, Mr. Speaker, and they know that. All procedures and services are covered by the CRHA. Patients are not required to pay any out-of-pocket expenses. I don’t see how that’s going to add to anything. Standards of care . . . AN HON.

MEMBER: Speech. MR. KLEIN: Yes, it is a speech, Mr. Speaker. It is a speech because they don’t seem to understand, and they won’t listen. So I keep having to repeat the messages over and over and over again, and I’ll continue to do so. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, why doesn’t the Premier just admit that his scheme to establish two-tier medicine could make it too costly for small businesses to enhance the health coverage for their employees leading to inferior employee benefits? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, again, this is the kind of fear mongering, misinformation that does the Liberal Party a disservice and the people of this province a disservice. The only one who is on record as alluding to a two-tier system is the leader of the Liberal opposi- tion, and I refer to a press release that she put out. She said, “Ban private, for-profit hospitals from receiving taxpayer dollars.” So by simple deduction, what this member is saying is that she would condone private, for-profit hospitals. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, it’ll be nice when the Premier understands his own policy.

Regional Health Authority Contracts MRS. MacBETH: I’m glad the Premier has raised this whole issue of the contracts, because clearly the elements of his scheme to entrench two-tier health care is to hide those contracts from taxpay- ers’ scrutiny between the RHAs and private hospitals and clinics. The taxpayers of Alberta are being asked to subsidize private contracts with private hospitals. We believe that Albertans deserve to see those contracts, not some sanitized version as referred to in the Premier’s policy statement. My questions are to the Premier.

Will the Premier commit to releasing the full details of the existing contracts in the short-stay clinics between RHAs and private clinic operators? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve pointed out before – and the questions are becoming quite monotonous – those contracts and all business dealings between an RHA and a contracted procedure or a contracted service are subject to the rules of FOIP. We have said that if they allow this legislation to go through, all contracts, as a matter of law, as a matter of legislation, will be open and transpar- ent.

But they do not want that, because they don’t want to see the legislation go through. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier backtrack- ing on the promise that he made on the radio this past Saturday when he said: we will make the contracts public? Was he referring to the existing contracts, which are not public, or the new contracts, which anyone has yet to see? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, right now the RHAs operate under the rules of FOIP.

There are rules relative to contracting, and that’s that all contracts or surgical services are tendered and evaluated right now by the CRHA on the basis of quality, cost, and the experience of the provider. The business dealings are subject to the laws of FOIP as are the business dealings of this government. I was alluding to the legislation and the policy relative to the legislation, which quite simply says that all contracts will be open and transparent, and we’ve given that undertaking to the federal minister. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, why should Albertans believe this Premier when he says that he will produce contracts when he has refused to produce the ones that already exist? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question. There is no legislated authority at this particular time other than the freedom of information . . . [interjections] Mr. Speaker, will you kindly tell him to shut up. [interjections] No. Really. I’ll let him have the floor. THE SPEAKER: Third main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. Confidentiality of Health Records MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Canadian Medical Association has adopted a very tough privacy code and did so in 1998. It’s one that has received very favourable comment from all parts of Canada, yet this government wants legislation that affords less protection of private health information than the Canadian Medical Association standard. My questions are to the minister of health. Will he indicate which elements of the Canadian Medical Association privacy code the provincial government does not accept? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, if I might comment on the opening remarks of the hon. leader, I agree that the privacy code has received a favourable comment from all of the doctors’ organiza- tions across Canada. But the system is, I think, mainly focused on and should be focused on patients. They should have protection of their private identifiable health information, and that is what our legislation is focusing on.

There should be a principle involved in the legislation where the least possible information will be released for the purpose for which it is needed, and that’s included in our particular legislation. 2:00 In terms of the overall answer, the general answer to the hon. leader’s question, Mr.

Speaker, we are focusing on the needs of the overall health care system, yes, the needs of physicians and other providers within the system, but where our focus is, I think, which may be somewhat different from the focus of the Canadian Medical Association, is on the needs of the individual, first of all, and the needs of the system to serve the individuals who are being treated in the system of Alberta. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will this minister table a detailed response as to why this government refuses to accept the CMA privacy standard, which protects information between physician and patient in Canada?

MR. JONSON: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the premise on which the question is based is inaccurate. Our particular legislation, which is before the Assembly, has gone to a great deal of detail in protecting and providing a reasonable balance between the rights of the individual, the rights of the physician, and the ability of the

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2239 system to perform the best way possible on behalf of Albertans. I think that is the direction that we should go. We will not have legislation in this province that is going to serve Albertans well which is focused on the point of view of any one particular part of the system. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will the minister stand by our Alberta physicians when they choose to adhere to the higher standard of the Canadian Medical Association? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, we feel that, first of all, our overall approach to health information and its protection and proper use is at a very, very high standard, and as I’ve said, I think the code of the Canadian Medical Association certainly is at a, quote, high standard as it applies to the doctors’ contro l of information, but once again, although doctors are an extremely important professional component of our health care system – one might certainly agree that they are probably the most important in terms of their in-depth knowledge – they are not all of the health care system.

The patients are part of the health care system, the general public is part of the health care system through their overall interest in it, and that is what we’re providing the right balance for in this legislation. Private Health Services (continued) MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, hospital services funding between 1975 and 1998 fell by 33 percent. In the meantime other health care spending, primarily in the area of home care, which is mainly delivered by for-profit agencies, little more than doubled, and at the same time prescription drug costs between 1975 and 1998 increased by over 60 percent.

Knowing this, I’d like to ask the Premier why it is that he continues to promote private, for-profit hospitals dipping into taxpayers’ pockets instead of doing something to control the explosive costs of prescription drugs in our health care system. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, if a full commitment, an absolute commitment, an unwavering commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act is leading to a two-tier system, then what this hon. member is talking about and what I’m talking about are two different things obviously, because we are talking about absolute compliance to the principles of the Canada Health Act: universality, public administration, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and portability. Nothing wrong with that. That is not wicked, and that is not sinful, and that is somethin g that the majority of Canadians would support.

That is the fundamental framework for the legisla- tion that we are proposing. Relative to drug costs, I think that if you ask any doctor or any person involved in the pharmaceutical i ndustry, one of the causes that has led to rising drug cost s is that these drugs are exotic. They’re sophisticated drugs, they prolong life, they ease suffering, Mr. Speaker, and the simple fact is that they are very, very expen- sive. MS BARRETT: Well, Mr.

Speaker, instead of driving up health costs by promoting legalized private, for-profit hospitals that will be dipping into the taxpayer’s pocke t, why doesn’t this government save some money by expanding public, not for-profit delivery of home care services, a move that would be supported by 81 percent of Canadians? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has alluded to one of the problems that is deemed to be contributing to the high cost of health care, and that’s the aging population. I would venture to comment that most, not all – of the people who require home care are people in the seniors category.

Certainly, this is part of our program to deliver health care services more efficiently and more effectively. As to what we’re doing relative to home care and the delivery of home care services, I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to remind members of the Assembly, perhaps particularly the leader of the third party, that we have, I think, been making a major effort in terms of planning for the care of our aging population, although they are not the only group of people who need home care in terms of supports in this province.

It is quite in keeping with the trends and directions of health care in this province and across this nation that we would be committing additional resources percentagewise each year to meeting this very, very important need. The second point that I think has to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had for years in this province a mix of volunteer, private, and mainly public providers of home care and long-term care.

There is nothing changing in that particular area of our health care system except that, yes, we are committing more resources to it, and we’re committing it along th e philosophy and the direction provided in the long-term care report. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is so clear, conclusively shows that for sectors like home care and prescription drugs private, for-profit delivery costs more. Why, then, won’t the Premier just drop his cockamamy idea of promoting for-profit hospitals putting their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets? MR.

KLEIN: Well, I have no idea how what the hon. member alludes to as private, for-profit hospitals, which, you know, is something that we aren’t promoting at all, relates to the delivery of home care services. The hon. minister pointed out that there’s a combination of delivery systems, some by the private sector, some by nonprofit organizations, some in conjunction with hospitals or RHAs. So, Mr. Speaker, there’s a combination right now.

The things that are driving up co sts generally are the afflictions that are associated with a rapidly aging population and, as the member points out, the high cost of drugs that are somewhat more sophisticated and more exotic now than they were 10 or 15 years ago, but those drugs go a long way to alleviating suffering and prolonging life. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Family Violence MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in this Legislative Assembly knows that violence against another person is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Therefore, any form of violence within a family must be addressed as criminal violence. Unfortunately, there are still a number of high-profile cases in Edmonton that continue to keep family violence in the spotlight. My questions are to the Minister of Justice. What has the Justice department done r ecently that will help reduce these types of criminal acts of violence? 2:10 MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s a very important question and, I think, an important question today, 10 years after the unfortunate event in Montreal, which was so appropriately com- memorated by the House earlier.

In 1998 almost 5,500 incidents of

2240 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 spousal abuse were reported to police, and charges were laid in 70 percent of those cases. As a government we’ve worked hard to give police more tools for dealing with family violence. Alberta Justice, for example, worked with the then department of family and social services to bring forward the Protection against Family Violence Act, which was proclaimed into force last June.

The legislation gives police power to protect family members from violence by removing abusers from the home, by preventing abusers from contacting victims, by allowing police to search homes for family members at risk so that they can leave if they want to. Last week during question period I’d remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I also outlined work being done in Calgary as a pilot project to set up a new domestic violence intake court. This dedicated court will include judges, prosecutors, and probation officers devoted to dealing with cases of family violence. That court will be up and running in the new year.

These are just two examples of many that are being brought forward by the government to assi st in dealing with this critical issue. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary to the same minister: will the Justice minister explain to all Albertans just how well the new Protection against Family Violence Act is working, and are there enough police to fulfill the mandate accord- ing to the act? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult at this point to give a full and complete answer to that because it had only been proclaimed in force as of June 1. We are monitoring that.

The early reports from police are that they are finding the act useful. We’ve heard that victims are finding it easier to get help. We’re continuing to monitor the act and determine its effectiveness. We’re working closely with Children’s Services, under whose purview the family violence act is. Early indications are that it’s proving to be a very effective tool, and we’ll have a more full and complete monitoring of that over time and a full and complete report next fall. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last supplementary is to the same minister.

What, in fact, is Alberta Justice doing to reduce family violence in aboriginal communities? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, again, that’s a very important issue and a complex one. The Protection against Family Violence Act doesn’t apply on reserves. So we’re working with Children’s Services and the Associate Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to help First Nations that wish to proceed in that direction develop bylaws they can use to make sure the tools that are available under that act will be available on reserve.

We’re also working in a number of areas; for example, with the new Tsuu T’ina tribal court as a part of our provincial court, which will bring the first comprehensive a boriginal justice system in the country. We’re looking forward to how the peacemaker’s role, for example, in that court works to help reduce family violence and provide a role for the community in showing that family violence is not condoned within the community and help to eradicate it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. WTO Negotiations in Seattle MR. KLAPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, who is responsible for trade policy. I understand that the Seattle World Trade Organization’s ministerial conference was suspended without an agreement on the next round of trade negotiations. Can you give details on why the talks were suspended? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, an important question of interest to Albertans considering that about 34 percent of our GDP depends on trade.

At the last round of world trade talks, the Uruguay round, it was determined that agricultural services would be the main areas mandated to be topics for this round. Therefore, in the ministerial conference in Seattle we were expected to come to an agreement on the final agenda for the next round of talks. Unfortunately, we were unable to do this because of disagreement in three primary areas: first was the elimination of export subsidies, second was addressing the concerns of developing countries, and, thirdly, the elimination of antidumping trade actions. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a very complex area.

There were 135 member countries trying to r each agreement, and it became very clear that the European Union was not going to consider and refused to consider the elimination of export subsidies. The U.S. certainly was very reluctant to talk about antidumping. The member countries of the developing or the least developed countries were very concerned because they don’t see that what had moved forward in other trade talks had been implemented in their countries, and they wanted to make sure that there was an implementation plan before they participated. MR.

KLAPSTEIN: My second question is also to the minister responsible for trade policy. What were Alberta’s priorities in this round of World Trade Organization negotiations? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s position on trade and investment are certainly long standing, very much in concert with Canada’s position, not entirely in all areas, but there’s certainly agreement on one of our primary objectives which was the complete elimination of all agricultural export subsidies, a substantial reduction of domestic subsidies that end up being trade distorting. We definitely wanted improvement in market access.

We wanted larger tariff reductions. We wanted larger access levels. One of the very important areas for us, Mr. Speaker, was agree- ments in the sanitary and physosanitary measures that can restrict trade artificially. Our objective was to ensure that those are only used if there are sound, scientific bases for them so that they cannot be used as an artificial barrier. We wanted, of course, to change the unwarranted use of countervailing and dumping laws. Our overall objective, though, Mr.

Speaker, and an important objective of this is to make all of the rules clearer, to impose some discipline in obeying those rules. We are trading in a world environment, and it’s better for everyone, wherever you are in this world, if the rules are clear, if the disciplines are tight. Those were our objectives going into these talks. MR. KLAPSTEIN: My second supplementary question is also to the minister responsible for trade policy. What happens next? Will there be another meeting in another location to resume the talks? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, the director general has been, of course, charged with having discussions with the member countries to talk about the resumption of these talks. They were suspended; they were not ended. My understanding is that the director general will write a report on the talks. I want to make it clear to everyone that the work that was agreed upon is not lost. It is frozen, put in the

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2241 bank, you might say, and will become a part of the next discussions. When the director general is satisfied that he’s had the necessary consultations to have, one, a process and, two, a place to hold these talks and a commitment from the member countries that they want to proceed with these talks in a positive way, we expect that they will resume. It is our position and certainly the government of Canada’s position that the sooner these talks resume, the better for all of us. I must add finally, Mr.

Speaker, that our negotiators, Minister Pettigrew and Minister Vanclief, did an extraordinary job of putting forward Canada’s position, reinforcing it, and including us in the complete discussions of those talks. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Peace River. Health Services Availability MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A constituent of mine, Corinne Kushneryk, is physically disabled with rheumatoid arthritis and has used a wheelchair for 25 years.

She has always worked but needs the services of a full-time, live-in personal care attendant, which she employs through the self-managed care program of Alberta Health. She has recently sold her house in Edmonton as she’s planning to move to Devon to be closer to her family and friends. Two weeks ago she wrote to the Premier and minister of health and still has received no reply. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Can the minister explain why Ms Kushneryk has been informed by the WestView regional health authority that she will not be able to access the self-managed care program as there are no dollars left in that region’s program? 2:20 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the particu- lar case, I will certainly make sure that the reply is coming more promptly if that’s the issue of the questions. The second thing is that there is some difference across regions in terms of the extent to which they develop certain programs.

In some smaller communities there is not the economy of scale or the number of people to have that particular, in this case, self-managed care in place. That might very well be the reason that WestView has not established this type of program within Devon. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would undertake to review the situation, but I would like to also point out that we do have – and the ques- tioner certainly acknowledges – self-managed care in this province, something that is not common to all provinces in this country. It is an indication of the fact that we are providing a wide range of services in this province.

MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why can’t the dollars for Ms Kushneryk be transferred from the Capital health authority to the WestView region to allow her to move closer to family and friends and keep her livelihood? Transfer the dollars. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking that is the case with respect to provincewide services with respect to what we refer to as our import/export health care services. The hon. member is quite correct in that we do not have money following the patient in the area of home care and, as was mentioned here, self-managed care. Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, I undertake to look into the situation, but as I’ve said, the lady was receiving care and chose to move to Devon. We will have to see what can be done there. MS LEIBOVICI: Is the minister willing to tell Ms Kushneryk that she’s unable to move outside of the Edmonton region because the dollars for self-managed care are not transferrable? Are you going to tell her that she can’t move within this province? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly – and I’ll repeat myself – committed to look at the specifics of this particular case.

I think I should also indicate so there is no misunderstanding that there are differences across the province in terms of the ability to provide certain types of surgery, certain specialized programs, and those are only viable in certain parts of the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Canada Pension Plan Reform MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These questions are directed towards the Provincial Treasurer.

For a number of days now there have been a lot of media reports about Alberta’s position and possible policy change relative to the Canada pension plan. This coverage has included editorial comments on both ends of the spectrum relating to benefits and possible disadvantages to Albertans should we decide to opt out of CPP and establish an Alberta plan. To the Provincial Treasurer: I know this could be lengthy, but perhaps you could give us a short version of the main problems from an Alberta perspective of the existing Canada pension plan. MR. DAY: I dare not make it lengthy.

The Speaker might have an observation on that. There are some significant challenges that we’ve identified. The unfunded liability is something that would be significant. Now, we’re responsible for that to a degree right now; it’s just where it appears on the books. There’s no question that that is one of the concerns. We’ve got the investment guidelines that we feel should be upgraded so that the people doing the investing are allowed to move along industry standards, including increasing the foreign investment levels to 30 percent. That should be something they should be allowed to do.

The whole aspect of how it’s reported. The fund itself is broken into different areas. There’s the whole area of disability manage- ment, then, of course, retirement benefits and survivor benefits. Those should be broken out of their component parts so they can be more accurately reported and more accurately administered. MR. FRIEDEL: Again, to the Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, and with perhaps just a few specifics. How complex a procedure would it be for Alberta to disentangle itself from the Canada pension plan? MR.

DAY: Well, we’ve said that to this point now we have been able with the considerable research that has gone on to identify that there would be some economic advantage to doing this. The technical difficulties and challenges to that are not small: just calculating, as I said earlier, the unfunded liability, add to that calculating Alberta’s share of assets so that there is an appropriate transfer there, and then setting up our own administrative capabili- ties. We do have the capability within the province, but there would be some significant work to be done on that.

The aspect of portabil- ity: workers who have been residing in Alberta for a while and then move to other provinces are going to face some portability issues, so there’d have to be formulas put in place there. There are technical challenges to doing this, Mr. Speaker. MR. FRIEDEL: I know this is a complicated issue, but would we have assurance that anyone who is now entitled to or anyone who is

2242 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 about to in the future be entitled to Canada pension plan benefits would be as well off or better off in an Alberta plan? MR. DAY: Well, Mr. Speaker, again to clarify, we are not by any means giving notice that we are doing this. We are exploring it and exploring it with more intensity than we were even a year ago, and that would be an absolutely integral part of moving further in this direction.

People who are presently vested, people who are pres- ently receiving benefits from the plan would have to know abso- lutely that their present vestments would be guaranteed and that if there’s any benefit change, it would be a benefit to the better, that they would not be put at risk. So that’s very clearly a part of any approach: absolute comfort going to those who are presently vested and those who are receiving benefits. And there would be benefits, Mr. Speaker.

We’re concerned about this intergenerational transfer of wealth, where the younger workers would be paying proportionately more and at the end of their paying time, when they’re 65, they might be receiving less. That’s a concern that we have. If the federal government would agree to some things being put into the plan which would lower the administration costs, increase investment rates, yield more back to the plan, you could then have the possibility, we suggest, of a portion of a person’s contribution being put into individual savings accounts. That’s a possibility that we’d like to see pursued.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Electric Utilities Deregulation MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s electricity deregulation plan is on the verge of a major short circuit. Deregulation supposedly is to help Albertans lower their energy bills, but in fact the bottom line of the socialist B.C. government’s power company is going to be enhanced. It seems to be the only thing that’s clear. My questions are to the minister responsible for Resource Development.

How does this minister back up his claim that electricity prices will go down under deregulation when a report prepared by the electricity consumers in this province called the Consortium, large industrial users, clearly shows a $2.5 billion increase in costs to Albertans? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, actually, consumer rates have gone down since 1995-96 in the province of Alberta. We base the whole premise of deregulation on a competitive marketplace.

The KPMG report that the hon. member refers to is a speculation put forth by some of the industrial consumers that is not based on fact, on what the PPAs will perform like during the auction process. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister says that the PPAs have performed, could he tell this House and the province how that’s occurred? It certainly hasn’t occurred thus far. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the power purchase agreements are before the EUB, the regulator in the pr ovince right now. We’re awaiting the result of that hearing.

I don’t want to make any speculation on the value of those power purchase agreements, which are the value accessed to the hundred and some plants existing in the province owned by shareholder companies. Discussions such as this could send a signal to the marketplace, which s houldn’t be done here on the floor of the Assembly. MR. WHITE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, dip and dive. Can the minister tell this House what will occur should the balancing pool be in the negative? What happens? Who s upports the loss there, sir? 2:30 DR.

WEST: My best calculations, going forward without the results of the EUB hearings, is that there will not be a negative balance in the balancing pool. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there’s an initiative under way called Yellowstone to the Yukon, or Y to Y, that has to do with protecting w ildlife corridors. I’m interested in the effect that this initiative may have on my constituents of West Yellowhead. My question today is to the Minister of Environment.

What is the Y to Y initiative, and who are the people involved? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative, or Y to Y initiative, has the objective of establishing a protected wildlife corridor that will extend from Yellowstone national park in the state of Montana through to the Yukon territory, which will be about 3,000 kilometres of wildlife corridor. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who have been involved in putting together this project. It includes conservationists, ecologists, social scientists but also First Nations peoples, recreationists, landowners, and community leaders. Mr.

Speaker, the government supports the Y to Y principle. My department is specifically looking at the details very closely before determining how Alberta’s existing wildlife corridors will become a part of the Y to Y initiative. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary question is to the same minister. What is your department doing to ensure that Alberta’s wildlife corridors are protected? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, this government has already protected 30,000 hectares of land in the Bow Valley corridor, which would be a very important part of the Y to Y plan.

We will be developing a management plan for this corridor in the new year. Certainly stakeholders and the public will have an opportunity to participate. Mr. Speaker, the eastern slopes grizzly bear project is a solid example of how we are working with stakeholders to ensure a healthy animal population in our protected areas. Information from studies like that grizzly bear project will allow us to determine how better to manage the animal populations in those areas. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, the province has recently adopted a no new development policy for Kananaskis Country, following a great deal of public consultation. That prohibition on new industrial and recreational development in K Country area will also further help protect wildlife in the area. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary question is to the same minister. What is the department doing to achieve a balance in Alberta protected areas? MR.

MAR: Well, it is true that our protected areas are certainly important habitats for our wildlife populations, but they also serve as important places for our human population to enjoy nature, and I’m agreed with the hon. member when he suggested there needs to be a balance between those two values.

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2243 One way that we do that is to pr ovide guidelines with respect to recreation, preservation, tourism, and appreciation of the natural environment so that we can work together in harmony for our protected areas. As an example, Mr. Speaker, my department uses a science-based framework so that Alberta special places can achieve the right balance of protection for the province’s six natural regions and 20 subregions.

Finally, we will seek public input into the management plans for every protected area, and we will redevelop our protected areas legislation based on feedback from the public on the Natural Heritage Act consultation. My observation has been that when we go to the public, the public does have a very strong sense of the balancing needs of protection and use of our natural areas in the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Prince Rupert Grain Terminal MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Treasurer confirm that Alberta taxpayers will not receive $16.4 million in principal and interest payments due this year on the $93 million loan to Prince Rupert grain terminal? MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, his numbers aren’t quite accurate. The loan itself was established in 1985-86. Actually, the facility was built for a cost of $289 million, and the Alberta government provided 80 percent of that amount. Of the 80 percent, of the $231 million, $106 million came from the heritage fund and $125 million from general revenue.

Of that $106 million from the heritage fund, there was a commitment that interest would be paid at 11 percent and also that there would be a minimum payment of $4.25 million each year on the principal. For the last nine years Prince Rupert actually paid the full interest amount, and they also paid in six of those nine years the full principal amount of $4.25 million. The way the deal was written then, 1985 – we wouldn’t get into this type of deal today – was if the throughput of grain fell below a certain level, then they wouldn’t have to make the full payment. The member is right on the one point.

The full payment will not be coming in this year according to the agreement. We think it’ll be just over $3 million that will come in rather than just over $15.4 million. We have been advised of that, and that’s part of the original deal. MR. SAPERS: Will the Treasurer confirm, then, that the further recovery at some future date of this $16.4 million in deferred payments is uncertain at best and has been added to the $42.9 million provision for loss against the loan principal and interest on the terminal? MR. DAY: The member is quite right. We also are concerned with the final collection of all that.

When a full payment is not made, it is not written off. That portion is written down for that year, but it is added to the final principal and final amount that’s owing. So we share that same concern. It does have to be paid at the end of the agreement. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Treasurer, given the low wheat and barley prices, what assurances can the Treasurer provide Alberta taxpayers that they will receive a full $20 mi llion principal and interest payment due in the year 2000? MR. DAY: I’d like to be able to give that assurance, Mr.

Speaker, but in fact to make that full payment, there needs to be a level of something in the order of 4.5 million tonnes that come through, and there is no way that I can stand here or that anybody could guarantee that that’ll happen. We don’t know what prices are going to be next year. So I can’t give that assurance to taxpayers. As I said at the start, this deal was done back in ’85 and wouldn’t be done today. If the prices are down and if the flow of grain is down, then, in fact, next year there will not be a full payment, but what is owing will be tacked onto the end of the agreement. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Aboriginal Policy Framework MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the MLA for Calgary-West and as an Albertan I am very proud of our aboriginal roots and history. I know that many of my constituents share this pride and also applaud government initiatives that involve working co-operatively with aboriginal communities. My main question is to the Associate Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Why has the government of Alberta released a governmentwide proposed aboriginal policy framework? MS CALAHASEN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, it’s been a long- time request by aboriginal leaders in the province of Alberta. Secondly, we have maintained what we call a positive relationship with aboriginal people in this province, and we’ve dealt with issues on a case-by-case basis for many, many years. Thirdly, we now need to develop something more comprehensive and something that will work within the departments we have that work with various aboriginal groups. Mr.

Speaker, it is a draft for discussion only, and I think it’s very important to be able to know that we are now doing consultations with various groups in the province of Alberta. MS KRYCZKA: Mr. Speaker, my first supplementary is also to the Associate Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. How have aboriginal communities and other Albertans who are interested been involved in this process? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, I’m really pleased today to be able to identify the process we’ve gone through.

First of all, on Septem- ber 14 we called the aboriginal leaders, the chiefs of all the nations in this province, to come to our meeting so that I could personally hand deliver this for a number of reasons: first of all, with respect for the leaders of the First Nations that are in this province and, secondly, to ensure that we work on a government-to-government relationship. 2:40 Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on September 15 I met with Metis settlements leaders as well as the Metis Nation to ensure that they got the information prior to anybody getting this information.

So I really feel that we’ve worked with the First Nations. But we also have other stakeholders. We’ve got industry. We’ve got oil and gas. We’ve got the forest industry. We’ve got the mining industry. We need to make sure that whatever happens, we consult with them also, because I think that when we’re dealing with an aboriginal policy framework, we’re also dealing with those individuals who have to work with First Nations as well as Metis people. MS KRYCZKA: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary is to the same minister. How will this policy framework actually benefit grassroots aboriginal Albertans?

2244 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 MS CALAHASEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, this document, this draft, is for discussion only. It deals with a number of things. First of all, it has goals. We have three goals, we’ve got principles attached, and we’ve also got commitments to action. In fact, the first goal identifies that “the government of Alberta will work with aboriginal people to improve individual and community well-being and self-reliance,” which is very important when we’re talking about aboriginal communities.

Secondly, the government of Alberta will manage natural resources and revenues for the benefit of all Albertans, in a way that takes the existing treaty and other constitutional rights of aboriginal people into account. Mr. Speaker, we must be able to work in partnership and co- operation to be able to work out solutions rather than dealing with problems on an ad hoc basis. Thirdly, Mr.

Speaker, it talks about “the government of Alberta will clarify its own roles and responsibilities with respect to aboriginal people.” These are items that the aboriginal community as well as industry have been asking for, and we need to be able to find a solution to something that’s going to work for all people. Thank you. Recognitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now we’ll call on the first of seven hon. members who will be participating in Recognitions today. Thank you all for your co-operation during question period today.

We arrived at 12 sets of questions, which is the largest number we’ve had so far this session. The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Alberta Honey Producers Co-operative Limited MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few weeks ago I attended the annual banquet and dance of the Alberta Honey Producers Co-op Limited. They were celebrating a productive year as well as planning for the next. The Alberta Honey Producers Co- op exports to 30 different countries, and in fact the co-op is responsi- ble for 30 percent of total Canadian honey exports. The co-op started in 1940.

The benefits of forming a co-op quickly became evident when pr oducers joined together and were able to import bees and supplies. When sugar was rationed during the war, you can imagine that profits were excellent. Presently, in addition to marketing beeswax, they lead industry with their development and research and have many lines of flavour blends of honey and natural ingredients like cinnamon, lemon, barbecue sauce, and honey mustard. The honey processing plant is located in Spruce Grove.

Spruce Grove has been dubbed the honey processing capital of Canada and welcomed the plant with the slogan: honey, I’m home. Since 1985 Roy Sterling has been the general manager for the honey producers, and under his guidance and forward-looking board members the co-op thrives. Every continued success to the Alberta Honey Producers Co-operative Limited. National Farm Family Award MR. FISCHER: It’s with pride and pleasure that I rise today to recognize the farm family who recently won the Canadian outstand- ing young farmers award.

This prestigious award honours young farm families that exemplify excellence in their profession. Their operation consists of two purebred cattle herds, Gelbvieh and Red Angus, and a commercial herd. They export embryos, semen, and live cattle to places as far as Australia and China, as well as exporting timothy hay to Japan. Scott and Lisa have successfully shown cattle throughout North America for the past 10 years, accumulating numerous awards. Most notably, in ’96 they were named Alberta purebred breeders of the year.

For the past two years they have bred and owned all of the champion Gelbvieh cattle at the Canadian Western Agribition. In ’99 they were the first Canadian breeders to have bred and owned grand and reserved champion bulls at the Denver national livestock show. For this they were named premier breeder of the show. Congratulations, Scott and Lisa Severtson, whose proud father is here in the Legislature today. Thank you for your great contribu- tions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Colonel Belcher Hospital MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to recognize 135 men and women who live in the Colonel Belcher hospital in the city of Calgary, a long-term care facility, and their long-suffering families in Calgary. There had been a great deal of excitement on November 8, when the Calgary regional health authority indicated that there would be a news conference with respect to the relocated Colonel Belcher facility.

You can only imagine the acute disappointment those people felt to find, when they showed up and waited patiently, that all we heard was recycled announcements that had already been made before and were well known to these people: that the facility was going to be built on the old motor vehicles’ site in the constituency of Calgary- Bow, that it would be attached to some other facilities. But the point is that no one yet has indicated when construction will start. So you have a great number of people who have been waiting many years for some certainty.

The question is: when are those people going to be able to move into a new facility? Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Shane Fage MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Shane Fage is a constituent of Calgary-Fish Creek who I am extremely proud of. He has recently been accepted into the sixth international y oung composers’ meeting in Holland. It is a great honour, because the conference operates in tandem with International Gaudeamus Music Week.

As part of the conference there will also be a composition competition, and all successful entrants are expected to submit an example of their work. The winner of the competition will receive a commission for a large-scale orchestral piece with a premiere performance. The meeting is limited to 15 participants worldwide, and Shane will be representing Calgary, Alberta, and Canada. Secondly, Shane has r eceived a commission for a large-scale orchestra piece from the Biblioservice van Gelderland on his orchestra work Westerbork Memorial.

Camp Westerbork was a Nazi Dutch internment camp that was liberated by both the Dutch underground, General Allard, and the Canadian military on April 12, 1945. The work is dedicated to the Dutch people and the Canadian military who fought for Holland’s freedom, some of whom were from towns and cities here in Alberta. I ask the Assembly to join me in congratulating Shane and wishing him good luck.

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2245 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Provincial Football Championship MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to recognize and congratulate the Jasper Place senior football team, the Rebels, who this year won the provincial football championship on November 20, 1999. The game was a close and an exciting one, as evidenced by the final score, 39 to 37. They dethroned the reigning champions, the Raymond Comets, who have won this championship three years in a row. For 12 years no northern Alberta team has won this coveted championship.

This year was a memorable one for the JP Rebels. They had a 12- 0 season, defeated Ross Shep in the city championship 30 to 20, and defeated Bev Facey for the northern Alberta championship, 42 to 6. Duane Gladden, number 20, was voted the most valuable player of the Edmonton public league, and coach Elwin Worobec was voted the coach of the year. We are all very proud of their season. The players showed character, desire, determination, and heart throughout, and they represented us all very well. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker. Okotoks Community Lottery Fund Projects MR.

TANNAS: Thank you. Today, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to give recognition to the community of Okotoks, who said thank you to the Minister of Gaming for the community lottery grant program. Okotoks Mayor Bill McAlpine and Okotoks client services co- ordinator Marg Cox recently presented the minister with a book which contained coloured prints and descriptions of the 58 separate projects, which ranged in cost from $750 to $28,000.

The projects included improvements to tot lot parks, playgrounds, Rotary and Lions club parks, family parks, skateboard/BMX facilities, swim- ming pool, ice arena, victims services office, community recycling centre, running track, community garden, so ccer fields, and the cultural station. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Okotoks is a vibrant and exciting community of 11,000 people which is growing rapidly. So recre- ation facilities are in demand and well used, and the community lottery funds are very much appreciated. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. 2:50 United Victims Assistance Foundation MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to recognize the United Victims Assistance Foundation. The founda- tion was established by Sig Jorstad and exists to provide, at no cost, professional personal protection services for victims of violence who have been harassed, abused, stalked – most commonly women – and related child custody matters and elder abuse, who have no recourse to defend themselves if the police are not directly involved or present.

Clients are attended by assigned guards who are specifically trained in threat assessment and counterassault techniques, which can be delivered by either a highly visible guard in a marked patrol vehicle, including a canine, which is, of course, a German shepherd as a partner, or as a plainclothes, undercover bodyguard. The individual situation will determine the type of service best suited to the circumstances. Referrals are received through police social agencies and by private contact.

The foundation mainly assists individuals in the Edmonton area but has now established a 1-800 number to assist in all areas of the province. Thank you. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a Standing Order 40 application. Housing for the Homeless Dr. Pannu:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly, in light of the skyrock- eting numbers of homeless persons throughout the province, urges the government to dedicate a portion of its ballooning surplus to provide direct funding to nonprofit community groups to build and operate safe and affordable housing for the homeless. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House to give unanimous consent of the Assembly to debate this motion, which is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This request is pursuant to Standing Order 40. As to the urgency and pressing necessity of this motion, Mr.

Speaker, this motion is certainly the result of the release and receipt by me of a report just released by the Edmonton Homeless Count Committee. The title of the report is A Count of Homeless Persons in Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, the numbers are, indeed, chilling. Between March and November of this year – March was the month when the first count in this city was taken. Between then and now there has been an alarming increase in the numbers of people who are homeless. The latest count stands at 1,114 persons who, according to this report, are homeless.

This is a dramatic increase of 33.25 percent over the last nine months. It’s such an important matter because, with the winter upon us, with the very, very cold part of the winter setting in, with Christmas around the corner, we find this very large number of our fellow citizens – children, people over 65, young people between the ages of 18 and 24, families, and single persons – exposed to terribly serious risks. These are people at risk, as a matter of fact. Their lives as well as their health are at stake.

Just to draw attention to the composition of this group, with your permission, for the adults between the ages of 19 and 24, Mr. Speaker, the number has grown from 586 in March to 807. These are people of working age, these are people willing to work, and yet they don’t have any homes, any shelter whatsoever. Again, 111 persons in this latest count happen to be children with no shelter whatsoever. The aboriginal population, which constitutes no more than perhaps 8 percent of the city’s population: 36 percent of the 1,114 people are of aboriginal background and ancestry.

So there are certain groups which are really, I think, exposed to an extreme danger. I, therefore, stand here today to call on my colleagues to give unanimous consent so that we can debate this matter and urge the government to provide resources on an immediate basis to prevent tragedy that’s very likely to happen if this large number of people have no place to go when it’s minus 30 and minus 25 or even minus 10 outside. Even at minus 10 I don’t know how these people survive in subzero temperatures, but once the really cold temperatures come in, these people will be seriously at risk.

They’re likely to lose their lives, they’re likely to lose their health, and they’re already ex- tremely poor and devastated. So I call on this House, Mr. Speaker, to give unanimous consent so that we can debate the needed solutions to this problem on an urgent and immediate basis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

2246 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Assembly has before it a Standing Order 40 petition put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Two questi ons will be asked. Would all those members in favour of proceeding with the Standing Order 40 submission please say aye? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 43 Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act, 1999 [Adjourned debate December 2: Mr. Magnus] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR.

NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take this opportunity this afternoon to stand and speak on the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act. This is the act that is going to allow the government to increase expenditures in areas that are important to the public, yet the focus that we have to take in dealing with this debate is whether or not the amendment as such is adequate, is appropriate.

I guess the need of it also has to be looked at, and the means that we do that is by looking at how it is going to change the sections of the act in terms of removing the commitment that the Fiscal Responsibility Act created to use 75 percent of the surplus to pay down the debt of the province. What we have to do, then, is look at it from the perspective of how the amendment now is going to be able to deal with giving us an appropriate parameter, an appropriate look at how we’re going to be able to do that and whether or not the amendment will actually improve the act for future applications.

On the second part there I think we can see that effectively the bill, because it does put in place an exemption of $600 million only for the one fiscal year, does not really set about to improve the focus of the act. It doesn’t set out to provide for the kind of flexibility in the act that is illustrated by the very need for this amendment act. The original bill was put in place and created a very rigid limit and a rigid structure on how we were going to be able to deal with any surplus.

In the end we find now that, because of the growing demand for onetime dollars, the provision of the bill was not flexible enough to allow us to meet those in the context of public need. So what we’re doing now, effectively, is not addressing the inflexibility of the act; we’re just making an amendment that will allow us to deal with that kind of change for one year on its own. So what we’ll have is the same situation again next year, where we’ll be restrained by the same kind of parameters.

What we need to do, then, is look at it from the perspective of whether or not this amendment really does much to improve the bill, or is it just a manoeuvre to allow us to meet needs in a given year? 3:00 This one-year exemption effectively has been provided for, and it will be now committed through the supplementary supply act, and this is going to be then divided up and allocated to the appropriate purposes for the onetime expenditures.

The interesting thing is that in conjunction with this we’re allowing the Provincial Treasurer or the government to also increase expenditures to the agriculture community through the declaration of a disaster classification for the farm income disaster dollars that are needed to support the new, revised version of that farm income disaster program. This was a provision that was in the Fiscal Responsibility Act in the sense that the parameters of that act that restricted the 25-75 breakout had an exemption for disaster programs.

So effectively what we’ve done is allow for an increase in dollars to support the agriculture community that are not accounted for in the $600 million increase that is being proposed with this bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we look at is the way that the farm income disaster program has been changed.

It looks now like the program, because of its new structure and the disaster declaration that was associated with it to get it included under that component of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, is going to be only available to farmers in the areas where disasters have been declared, or will it still be available to all farmers, and then we’ll have to see how this is going to be divided up and broken out so the original dollars that were put in the budget can be used under the original parameters.

Will the new dollars that’ll be available because of the disaster classification be now available to support the program in those areas where disasters have been declared? So this is a complication, I think, that’s come about because of the way we’re playing with words in the various bills. Mr.

Speaker, what I would suggest is that as we look at this bill in second reading and talk about the principles of it, we should be looking at whether or not this amendment really does much to improve the bill or whether it does, as I’ve said before, create just a onetime opportunity not to operate under the parameters of the bill.

I think it would be more appropriate if we looked at the structure of this bill and talked about it in the context of how do we conduct a debate, how do we conduct an analysis of the validity of any surplus that results at the various quarterly reports, how do we determine the priorities for the onetime expenditures, and secondly, at what level of public need does it trigger an appropriate action that would allow us to change the parameters of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, rather than look at it from the perspective after the fact of coming back and now dealing with changes that have to occur in the context of the very rigid restrictions that were put into it.

So, I guess from that, Mr. Speaker, what I’m saying is that it would be more appropriate for us to look at amending the act to put in place a set of parameters that would deal with priority setting and the aspect of public need in terms of how we deal with the surpluses.

In the context of the communications that have come to my constituency office I would suggest that one of the things that we need to put in there as well is looking at the true relationship between revenues and expenditures, whether those revenues are expected on a continuing basis or whether they’re a short-term anomaly or a cyclical pattern, and then what we need to do is also put into the debate maybe whether or not tax relief should be part of the action.

I think we’d then have feedback from the public that would say: do we serve the needs of the province better by determin- ing that some of this surplus now is an ongoing surplus, a structural surplus, and therefore should be dealt with in the context of either program expenditures or tax relief?

I’m sure we would hear from a number of our constituents that within that context, in an open public debate, tax relief would be one of the issues that they would like to see included as an option for this kind of re-evaluation, a mid-term evaluation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act or the parameters and the execution of that act. So what we’ve got now is basically an option here to debate a bill that’s going to allow us only one option, and that is to increase onetime expenditures rather than to take the opportunity to amend

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2247 the bill to make it much more flexible and much more responsive to the kind of debate that the constituents that call my office are always asking for in the context of: “Well, you know, we’re being told there are these kinds of surpluses within the provincial budget. How are they going to be used?” So what we need to do is deal with it in a much broader perspective to address their issues. I don’t feel that this amendment act does that in the sense that it’s giving us a very limited debate on how we can deal with looking at and allocating surpluses. Mr.

Speaker, I know the public recognizes the need for and the importance of paying down debt, but they also look at the critical needs we have right now in some of our program areas. They also look at the benefits that would accrue both to their personal well- being and to the economic growth of the province if we could get some tax changes. So what we’ve got to do, then, is look at how that kind of debate can be built into the ongoing operation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Putting in a onetime exemption to the tune of $600 million doesn’t provide for either that debate or the flexibility that the people of my constituency, at least, are asking for when we talk about what’s going on and how this bill is being amended. So with those comments on the context of the bill, I think what we’ve got to do is look at how the process can be made better.

Right now we’re talking here about changes to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but most of that has to tie into what we also see in Bill 45, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, because that is the one that goes back and relates the actual breakdown and the priorities that were put on how that $600 million is allocated.

By separating the two of them out into separate bills and separate functions, we don’t have the kind of debate that would be appropriate if we were truly talking about creating a Fiscal Responsibility Act that was responsive, that was truly usable for the people of Alberta, and that they could understand that it had parameters.

This almost respond- ing to concerns of certain sector s of the public seems to make a number of people in my constituency, at least, a little bit cynical in the sense that they feel that the dollars aren’t spent in the way that they would like to see them priorized, yet they don’t see how they can have that input in a public way to determine when the changes are going to be made and how those changes can be brought about. 3:10 So what we’ve got, then, is essentially a reflection here that as we look at the role and the function of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we have to look at it in the context of how can we develop this kind of living budget.

The quarterly updates are a very important compo- nent of that because they keep us on track, they keep us mindful of the fact that not all predictions are totally accurate when you’re dealing with a year in the future. Two years in the future is just kind of taking a guess, and once you get beyond that, you’re really just pulling a number out of the sky when we’re talking about economic growth numbers and the impact that the different parameters can take, especially when our revenues are so closely tied to the natural resource sector where we have an oligopoly controlling world prices in that particular area.

We see that they can dreadfully and very quickly change the whole scenario and the whole perspective of the world as it relates to revenues that come to us from the sale of those oil-based products. So if we had to develop some kind of process that would look at having a living budgeting process, the Fiscal Responsibility Act does deal with the concept of just flat line reductions if there appears to be a deficit and then this 25-75 percent allocation if there is a surplus projected. Those are very rigid in the context of public input.

They are very rigid in the context of allowing for the true analysis of whether or not the causes behind either those deficits or surpluses are short term or whether they’re truly structural and can be dealt with on a long-term basis. It’s important, then, that we reflect on the fact that this amend- ment doesn’t do much to improve the Fiscal Responsibility Act but could be essentially the forerunner or the precipitator of a series of debates and a series of discussions that could eventually lead to a much better act. I guess, Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents are even cynical enough to ask why we have such

an act if we’re just going to change it, at the whim, on a good budget so that we can meet the needs. In essence, what we’ve got to do is deal with it from the perspective of how sound it is and how truly it reflects the way the people of Alberta want their budgets and their budgeting process to be carried out. I would dare to say that most of them would find this to be a very rigid process, a very constraining process, to address Alberta and Alberta’s budgeting the way they would see as being useful. If we look at it in the final perspective, Mr.

Speaker, what we’ve got to do is look at it in the context that this piece of legislation in its original form was designed and has now been confirmed to be basically just a piece of political legislation, because it’s being changed at a whim and it’s not being used to provide us with a real open and direct process of managing and controlling the budgeting process in our province. We need to reflect fully that it is possible that some of this debate would occur in the context of next year’s budgeting process, but that puts it into a yearly cycle.

It would be better, then, to deal with it in the interim just as we do have the checks and balances that are associated with the quarterly reports on that yearly basis as well. One of the main fears of the onetime expenditure scenario is that this leads us to a situation wher e we’re going to be dealing with onetime expenditures – most of that has to be infrastructure by nature – and we’re then going to be putting dollars into the creation of infrastructure at a time when the economy is heated.

That’s what is the precipitator of surpluses: economies that are growing more rapidly and performing better than what we were projecting. So that effectively means a growing or a very high-capacity economy. Then we’re going to be spending our public dollars on infrastructure and onetime expenditures at a time when prices are probably as high as they could be in the context of the economic cycle. Mr.

Speaker, with those comments I would just like to say that in the context of changing the Fiscal Responsibility Act, I find that this process and the changes that are made through the parameters outlined in Bill 43 don’t really improve the act. What they do is make a onetime exemption possibility so that the political needs, if you want to call them that, of a few sectors can be addressed. Now, we’ll deal with the validity and the priority of those sectors in the debate on Bill 45, but that’s not how we need to look at it in the context of this bill. So with that, Mr.

Speaker, I conclude my comments and allow someone else to address the issue. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to stand in the Assembly today giving my viewpoints at second reading of Bill 43, the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act. It’s very surprising that a few short months ago in this Assembly we were watching a bill be pushed through here at a very quick pace. All of a s udden here we are again. This government continues in terms of illustrat- ing poor budget management and business planning.

The govern- ment’s fiscal management system ignores the high differences that we have in this province around the Alberta economy. The variety

2248 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 is mainly due to the reliance on commodity-based industries such as petroleum, forestry, and agriculture. The high level of economic variability translates into an unstable revenue base, making revenue forecasting extremely difficult and requiring prudent spending choices that can be sustained over the planning period. The AAMD and C and the AUMA in the past few weeks in particular have been concerned with the release of figures, that they’re saying, of $111 million in extra taxes, which is around the education tax. Yet we seem to see taxes going up.

We seem to see a puffball answer coming back from the government of a 5 and 10 percent cap. Why not just freeze it? Why is such a large province being lumped together in market value, and is it working? The Treasurer likes to say that his unbudgeted spending is due to the population growth over the past year. Don’t we have a plan for growth and infrastructure into the next year already? Aren’t we looking at five years? Anybody running a business today would be planning anywhere from five to 12 years. You know, why do we need a bill to be proper managers or to have a fiscal budget to operate this province?

Whether we have $12 per barrel or $27 per barrel, we should be projecting some of these things. I know that it’s extreme, but maybe if we’d start budgeting and dealing with our infrastructure deficits, we’d be much further ahead. Certainly there were strong views and a strong agreement that the deficit that had accrued in Alberta by the early 1990s needed to be eliminated. This government chose to take the deficit that had accumulated, and through a reduction in its transfer payments to local governments that deficit was handed down to them.

We’ve been able to quantify that decision by the government in our questions and our debates over the past couple of sessions, when we are in the Assembly, and especially in the spring session. The government basically off-loaded onto regional health authorities, our school boards, and our municipalities the deficit that has been carried by them. As a result, our school boards are now carrying a deficit, having to lay off teachers, cut resource pers onnel, and increase class sizes: all of those kinds of things that we do when we are strapped for cash.

Yet we saw a bill come forward this past spring that said: this is the way we are going to spend, 75 and 25. 3:20 Going back, we have seen regional health authorities carrying deficits. Government is now spending more than it was when the cutting began, yet services have been deteriorating. We also see municipalities carrying deficits, and given that that’s not a legal option for them, the deficit is being carried in the form of roads that are not being repaired or maintained or built to a level that the growth of this province would dictate.

This government for the past six years in their downloading and offloading, while paying down a debt created by the province, has created a hidden deficit. In debates over the last couple of years I have quite often referred to the type of budgeting that is happening as a one-string guitar. Now we see that they have added one or two strings, because they’ve got a bit more money, but they haven’t learned how to play this instrument with a plan. Where’s the plan, Mr. Speaker?

Just think: a plan for the next millennium, a plan that Albertans could all look at and be looking forward to, thinking that we do live in a great province, and we all know that we do live in a great province. In recent days the two major cities in our province as well as Lethbridge announced that their property taxes are going to be going up, yet there is another level of downloading, but this one is on the individuals. During the spring session we highlighted some of these individuals who’ve been impacted by the downloading in the province.

The education tax is an ongoing problem, and the committee, as I said before, still hasn’t solved anything. Have they traveled the province? No. When we are talking about education, children are one of the groups directly impacted by larger class sizes, inadequate services, mental health as an example. But so are individuals on the other end of the age scale, our seniors.

While our senior citizens appreciate the recognition this past spring of the United Nations International Year of Older Persons, they are one of the groups that has been hurt the worst in this whole country: their health, their housing, their glasses, their medical, their taxes. What has been happening with the hidden deficit over the last few years is the fact that municipalitie s have been raising their taxes through another system, and that is through user fees.

Similarly, with a critical shortage of continuing care beds for seniors right across the province, many families are correspondingly providing the care and the support for seniors at home that they ca nnot get from this province. Today I tabled a letter that talked about a family in my constituency where the woman taught right up until the end of last June but is dying right now and can’t get home care. Her husband works at a plant out in Strathcona, and he’s having to take time off to be with the family. Where is home care? Mr.

Speaker, within six months th is government has turned the Fiscal Responsibility Act into a fiscal irresponsibility act, if you want to call it that. What happened to the fiscal discipline and business planning process that the Provincial Treasurer was preaching about in February 1999? Obviously, with the need to make changes to the allocation formula for the economic cushion, the government must have determined that imposing fiscal discipline and business planning on itself was a hundred percent harder than it was six months ago.

The proposal to override the allocation formula, even on a temporary basis, is nothing more than the exasperation of a crisis-based pressure-point approach to a budget practice that this government has pioneered over the past six years. It’s not a continued adjustment or an override of the allocation formula for the economic cushion that is important for ensuring fiscal discipline. Proper business planning, effective performance measurements, honest forecasting are major, major items that should be underlined and totally thought about.

Honest forecasting and reporting on results are what is needed, not a change to the Fiscal Responsibility Act. We need fundamental changes to the budget management process in Alberta to create certainty, predictability, stability, and sustaina- bility for our local authorities. Over the years members on our side have proposed a number of other elements to improve the credibility and stability of the budget planning process, to sustain our core programs in health care and education, and to ensure the fiscal and human balance in both good times and bad.

These elements include – and they’re not very hard to really drive at – number one, amendments that require the government to table monthly budget updates so that Albertans know where they stand on a regular basis; number two, establish a ministry performance measurement and a benchmark for our variance between budget and actual revenue similar to what has been done in different parts of the United States, requiring in the budget the preparation of a fiscal strategy report with a 10-year trend for a major fiscal and economic indicator.

As I mentioned before, businesses do not even forecast what is happening on a one-year term. They are basing their budget plans on five to 12 years. The third one is to establish a fiscal stabilization fund, which would ensure that the strategic investments undertaken in the health care and education systems are sustainable over the long term, not relying on the up-and-down economy and revenue, which seem to guide our budgeting system or decision- making, particularly on the program side of the ledger. A fiscal

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2249 stabilization fund would introduce greater stability and certainty in the budget process in Alberta to allow us to sustain our core social programs, which are the backbone of our competitiveness in society. Now, where do we go on this? Well, we can actually really be asking a number of questions. One of the main problems mentioned before is that this government has had improper budget manage- ment.

They didn’t manage to cut properly in health or education, they can’t effectively manage to reinvest, but they are talking about maybe a new bill coming out and going private, because they are out of the bricks and mortar. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Mr. Speaker, whether or not we have bricks and mortar, we have to have a plan, reinvestment into what is best. There is a place for government.

It might not be in liquor stores, and you might say that it might not have been in the highways, but they haven’t proved that the minister of the day’s 20 percent saving has actually come through and shown Alberta that it can be saved. It’s laughable to hear the Premier and the Treasurer talk about infrastructure as onetime spending. Only a fool would believe that infrastructure investments are one time. What does the government propose to do? Build long-term care facilities, schools, and then let them fall down? Roads, bridges, and schools have been maintained and repaired.

We’ve had a good record in this province of mainta ining them. The Auditor General in his annual report this year said that capital expenditures do not occur in isolation – they create a stream of subsequent operating costs that are often not fully recognized at the time of the original investment. That is why a long-term maintenance and repair plan for infrastruc- ture is required.

The onetime infrastructure grant is nothing more than a $600 million patch for a multibillion-dollar pothole this government has created through downloading and offloading on municipalities, school boards, postsecondary institutions, and regional health authorities over the past six years. The government has failed to develop a provincial strategy on infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, this bill is to amend the 25 percent allocation. Just think what would happen if their promise of their spending failed?

I’m not wanting the bill to fail, but as an Albertan I do wonder where actually we are going and why we’re not there now, why we’re not producing a plan that we can go forth with. We didn’t have to produce a bill and a second bill in one fiscal year. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let’s thank the Albertans who have been the receivers of the lack of a plan, the lack of any foresight, the lack of any future plan. They are those in health, education, the munici- pal leaders, and everybody else out there that is still waiting for this government to go forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:30 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill 43, the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act, 1999,

an act that follows the amendment acts of 1998, ’97, ’96, ’95, ’94, and ’93, as long as I’ve been in this Legislature. It’s unfortunate that this is the way the Treasurer feels he has to run his department. Certainly I won’t be supporting this amend- ment, Mr. Speaker, which is requesting a change in the allocation formula for the economic cushion that the Treasurer has created in this province.

The add-on to the formula we think is nothing more than a pure manipulation of the prov ince’s finances to legitimize a crisis-based pressure-point approach to budget management and business planning, the same type of management process that this government has used since 1993. Certainly what it shows me is that this government has a lack of fiscal discipline and a lack of commitment to three-year business planning, which is contrary to what they say, Mr. Speaker.

I know that they repeatedly talk in and outside this Legislature about how great the three-year planning pro cess is, and a three-year planning process is great if, in fact, it’s followed. But this government has made a mockery of that particular system by the way they budget within the system and by the way they hoard surplus dollars and then decide at some point in time that they want to dump those dollars back into the economy and into the system. Having to bring in an amendment act like this is what happens, Mr.

Speaker, when the government brings in poor legislation in the first place, and we saw that when they brought in the original legislation that talked about how they were going to budget in this province. It’s very unfortunate that they would do this, because Alberta has an opportunity, I think, to be a role model government for all governments globally, not just in Canada as a provincial government. They could set their sights a lot higher than that.

With the kinds of revenues they have had at their disposal in this province, they could have really done some landmark decision-making planning, and they could have used this as an opportunity to really set themselves apart from the way other governments have run in a very progressive fashion and, in fact, in the kind of business way that they talk about doing but which they don’t actually apply. We talk about this government all the time in terms of the business model, because this is how they like to portray themselves, as having a business perspective.

You know, they’re very dollars- and-cents oriented, and they’re going to provide maximum benefit for the services with the dollars they’ve got. But, Mr. Speaker, that isn’t what happens at all. This government is in the business, I would state, of providing dollars for core services and infrastructure throughout this province.

In doing that, they’re making a commit- ment, a covenant, if you will, with the people of this province that they are going to provide those dollars for core services and infrastructure in a fashion that will give the best possible service and the best possible infrastructure that dollars can buy in the system. To do that, if you’re going to get the best bang for the buck, if you will, what has to happen is that they need to make a commitment to those that they’re passing the dollars on to, to do so in a regular and consistent and planned process. That isn’t what happens here.

What they do is underfund every core service that this government is responsible for, and then they expect those service providers to provide efficient and effective service. Well, that’s not possible, Mr. Speaker. You can’t be underfunded continually and then be expected to be as efficient as possible or as effective as possible. Then when pressure builds up from outside sources and the govern- ment dumps money back into the system, these providers have to accommodate that, and once again that leads to neither efficiency nor effectiveness. You wouldn’t run your household budget like that, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is very fond of making those kinds of analogies in his speaking. But you’d never do that. You’d never say that even though I’m making a net income of $2,000 a month, I’m only going to give the household $1,000, and when you scream loud enough because the children are hungry, then I’m going to dump in another $500 and continue to hoard the rest until some future time when it may be more strategic for me to give those hoarded dollars to another family, someone outside our own, because that would give me whatever it is that the government is looking for, which, of

2250 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 course, is political gain in this particular instance. It isn’t a proper way to run a household. It certainly isn’t a proper way to run a province. I would state that this government has the knowledge, the understanding, and the information available to them to do this right. Certainly, people that work within the departments have an excellent background in what they’re doing. They have the knowledge, they have the ability, and they have the research capacity to budget properly in this province. So the question then, Mr. Speaker, is: why don’t they do that? MR.

SAPERS: That’s a good question. MS CARLSON: Well, I think it’s a good question too. If they have all this knowledge a nd ability to build a good budgetary process, then why don’t they do it in this provin ce? You can’t say that it’s because it’s a government with a new tenure. After 30 years they should have figured it out. You can’t say that it’s because there’s a new Treasurer in place. They’ve been r unning budgets like this forever and a day. You can’t say that it’s because there’s been a huge turnover in the staff of Treasury. That isn’t the case, Mr. Speaker. So then why don’t they do it properly?

They don’t do it properly, Mr. Speaker, because they don’t want to. It doesn’t fit in with their strategic plan. Then what is the plan? The plan as I’ve seen it here by observa- tion and by experience during the years that I’ve been elected to this Legislature is for this government to create an environment for balloon surpluses to occur so that they can reward and punish departments, individuals, groups, organizations as they see fit, Mr. Speaker. We’ve seen this reward-and-punish type of process occur year after year after year.

In fact, that is precisely what this amendment speaks to, creating a situation where now that they have some surplus dollars, they want to put them back in the system, not in a planned and organized fashion, not in a fashion that is going to participate in making this province a better province or providing the ongoing kind of funding for services or infrastructure that is so dearly needed in this province but based on their reward-and- punishment process. 3:40 What does this do for recipients of this money?

Whether we’re talking about municipalities who desperately need infrastructure dollars and who have faced the pressure of downloading for the past six years by this government, whether we’re talking about health care that’s been chronically underfunded and where they’ve created a situation that’s absolutely ripe for two-tiered American-style health care to come in, whether we’re talking about the education system where we’re seeing the pressures that our children are being faced with now as the teachers within the system are reacting to the underfunding problem, what does all of this create?

I think this creates an environment, Mr. Speaker, where we are losing some of the very key success factors that have been a part of this province’s history that are intangible and can’t be bought but that are built and, in fact, have become the roots of a system in this province that used to be second to none. I would suggest that those key success factors are creativity, commitment, continuity in services and in memory and in history of what’s gone on, pride in your work and in the accomplishments that individuals and organiza- tions and groups have had in this province over the years.

I would suggest to you that this chronic underfunding, these balloon payments, these kinds of amendments that come in and dump money back into the system have hurt the very basis of the strength that our province has been built on. Let’s take a look at some of these areas and see if these apply. If you chronically underfund education, Mr. Speaker, what happens to the teachers, to the frontline workers there who are providing the services? It used to be that they worked long hours.

They still work long hours, but they used to have some preparation time and some ability to think and to provide th e best possible services to the students that they could. They had time to be creative, they chose to be creative, they wanted to be creative, and they were creative. Now that they have the kinds of pressures faced by them, they don’t even have time to react to the classroom. They don’t have time to provide the kinds of services that they used to.

Their spirit is being squashed by this process, and there just is n’t anything left there in terms of creativity to be able to draw on, to provide the kinds of role models that our kids need, to provide the kind of future for our children that will make them competitive in a global marketplace. Other jurisdictions, other countries are doing this, so we are going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the very near future because of this. What about continuity, Mr. Speaker? Let’s take a look at health care for that. Let’s take a look at nurses and doctors.

I don’t have much exposure to the health care system, but even I am appalled at the times that I’ve been called to the hospital on a Friday or Saturday night – and I’m talking about the Grey Nuns hospital in Mill Woods – by people who cannot get in for service, for care in that hospital because there are no beds. Why aren’t there enough beds? It goes back to a lack of staffing at the Grey Nuns in particular. Because of the cutbacks that were made in health care, many nurses left the profession.

Because of the types of strategies that the government pursued in terms of bumping and other issues like that that have been around for a few years in health care, many nurses left the profession, and with them leaves the history, the continuity of care. Along with that, we’ve seen that happen with many doctors. Many doctors who don’t like the kind of chronic underfunding that we’ve seen in the health care system and who know that the system cannot adapt to these balloon payments that are dumped on them, which this amendment specifically addresses, have left the province, Mr.

Speaker, and with them we’ve lost some of the continuity of care, the history. A lot of the doctors that I know that have left were doctors who had longstanding practices in this province, were specialists in their field and had unique areas of expertise that all of the patients and all of the other health care workers that worked with them benefited from, and we’ve lost that forever. You don’t get it back in a day or an hour or a moment. It takes decades to build up that kind of experience, and we’ve lost that continuity. What about commitment, Mr. Speaker?

Think of yourself in the kinds of jobs that you held as a young person or perhaps later on in your career. If you were constantly underfunded, constantly under pressure that you wouldn’t have that job, what’s your commitment going to be like in that situation? You lose commitment to the work that you’re doing if you feel that you are constantly being devalued, and that’s what this kind of budgetary process does.

It devalues not just the organizations, not just th e services that are being provided but the very people that are delivering the service, the very people that need to be recognized for the outstanding service that they do provide to us. If you devalue them, how are they going to have pride in their work and accomplishments, and how are they going to excel in times when they don’t have enough money or enough time or they have to make do with what they have? There is no incentive to do that, Mr.

Speaker, so we are losing all of those components that, I would state, have provided in the past key success factors to the functioning of our government and this province and the people and the children who live here. It’s really too bad that’s happened, but the Treasurer doesn’t seem to consider that to be any reason for concern, because

December 6, 1999 Alberta Hansard 2251 he continually comes forward in this fashion in terms of lack of respect for a proper budgetary process. I’d like now to move to some of the comments that the Treasurer has made with regard to this process and talk about them. We can never as the Official Opposition in this province responsibly agree to increase the portion of the economic cushion that can be used to fund in-year spending initiatives and tax reductions. But this Treasurer seems to be quite happy to stand up and often talk, what seems to me, out of both sides of his mouth on the issue.

His comments back on February 23, 1999, in debate on the Fiscal Responsibility Act seem to highlight this. He said then, when talking about the 25 percent allocation formula, the one that we are now amending: Twenty-Five percent of that will be available to us for items like infrastructure, pressures, and onetime capital spending that is in place already. There will be a plan where we can see in an orderly way what we can do to accelerate some of our infrastructure costs.

So the plan is simple yet detailed . . . and this is the part that I find of most interest, . . . but it builds in the fiscal discipline in terms of our own planning process. Every minister who’s planning their budgetary spending has to realize that we have thr ee-year business plans in place, that they’re being reinforced by this particular act. This puts teeth in the three-year business planning process and puts discipline in our own particular planning [process]. Well, first of all, Mr.

Speaker, it’s interesting the Treasurer feels that he has to legislate discipline in a planning process in a govern- ment that has billions of dollars of revenue at its disposal. Certainly no other organization that I know of feels they have to revert to legislating discipline when it comes to dollars and cents. That’s a core responsibility of people tasked with budgeting for the money and the subsequent spending of those moneys.

It calls into question the very abilities of those making those decisions when the Treasurer thinks he needs to legislate discipline with the departments that his own colleagues and cabinet ministers are responsible for. Then what he’s saying by this statement is: “Beware, colleagues. You have a three-year business plan, and you’re supposed to stick to it. There’s going to be 25 percent of the money available for discretionary items,” as he is labeling them, “pressures and onetime capital spending. No more, no less.

So budget according to that, and then line up and lobby me for that 25 percent balloon that’s going to be available at some point in time.” That’s what he said in the spring. Now, a few short months later the rules have changed, Mr. Speaker. No longer is he expecting these same cabinet ministers to be content with the 25 percent. No longer is he reinforcing the discipline that he talked about in the spring. Now there’s a new set of rules, and there’s a new list that you need to line up for, with your hand out, for moneys for whatever project that these ministers are lobbying for. So why have the rules changed?

You bring in legislation, you establish a set of rules, you expect discipline in terms of that, and you expect people to follow the three- year business plans. Not bad goals, all of those, but all of a sudden now the rules change. So I would like the Provincial Treasurer to explain why he does that. It’s unbelievable. [interjection] We have a cabinet minister here, Mr.

Speaker, who would like to enter into the debate and is quite happy to sit back in his chair in a very complacent way and heckle but not actually speak to the issues. 3:50 Those are: how can you have a certain set of rules debated in this Legislature, passed by a majority vote, and then changed a few months later? The rules are changed. How can that be? What are the people of this province supposed to expect from a government who, when they feel like it, will change the way they spend money in this province?

We’re not saying that there aren’t very many places where the money is needed, because there are. [Ms Carlson’s speaking time expired] Unfortunately, I’ll have to come back. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Just phone in, Gary; just phone in. MR. DICKSON: I’ve been encouraged to phone in my comments. Well, next Saturday maybe. I’m not sure; it sounded like the Premier’s phone-in program on Saturday was the last one we’ll see until 2000. Maybe he won’t do it anymore.

Maybe there’ll be a different screening process, so I’m going to take advantage of this opportunity right now to make some observations. When I looked at this bill, I thought it would be interesting to see – you can read the text in a bill, but it often doesn’t give you a spirit of why this thing has come forward, so what I like to do is reference Hansard and hear some of the proponents of the bill make the case for why this is necessary. You know, Mr.

Speaker, I was in luck, because I happened to find that on December 2, 1999, the Minister of Government Services rallied to the defence of the beleaguered Provincial Treasurer. Nobody ever accused our Minister of Government Services of backing away from a fight, and true to form, she stood in her place and offered a very, very vigorous defence of Bill 43. In the course of her vigorous defence, she made this observation: “Our Provincial Treasurer is a fiscal hawk.” I thought to myself: a fiscal hawk.

Then I sort of had visions, but I could imagine a hawk with a broken wing and one that couldn’t get very high, sort of circling around, maybe a hawk with a bit of a vision problem, because he couldn’t quite see all the terrain below. You could barely get over the edge of the cliff, so all you could see were a couple of big boulders around you, and you lacked the opportunity that a healthy hawk would have of being able to see the whole valley and start appreciat- ing how the things fit together.

You know, it was interesting that the Minister of Government Services was not alone in thinking of a bird when she thought of the Provincial Treasurer. In fact, this may have been who Bob Rae, the former Ontario Premier, had in mind when he said: “When one’s left wing is not working, one tends to fly around in circles a great deal.” Now, nobody I know of has ever suggested that our Provincial Treasurer had a strong left wing, so perhaps this is exactly what we’ve identified here. We have a fiscal hawk but something of a crippled fiscal hawk flying around in circles, unable to view the whole territory. DR.

TAYLOR: Watch he doesn’t deposit something on your head. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, it would be a hawk. You know, when you go to Medicine Hat, one of the great communities in this province, you see that magnificent valley over the river. In fact, you see hawks in the Medicine Hat valley, but most of those hawks have the ability to see the entire landscape, the entire horizon. That isn’t the case that would obtain here in this case. The other thing, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at the Fiscal Responsibility Act, that the government would have us amend in this Assembly, and you look at the bottom of the revised statutes, what they do is print the date down there. All members may be wonder- ing what the date would be for the Fiscal Responsibility Act,

chapter

2252 Alberta Hansard December 6, 1999 F-11.5. The date is “July 18, 1999.” That’s the date that this statute came into force. So we start thinking again: what kind of a fiscal hawk would promote and bring in a piece of legislation that five months later we’re coming in to make huge, fundamental changes to? This puts me in mind of the concern and the disquiet I’ve always felt about bills like the Fiscal Responsibility Act. They purport to do something that really isn’t appropriate for a piece of legislation. They purport to impose a kind of discipline on a government.

It seems to me that it’s sort of in the nature of sloganeering. It’s sort of in the nature of propagandizing. You bring in a piece of legisla- tion with a lofty sounding title that appears to constrain. It’s sort of like the government collectively is putting its hands voluntarily into some kind of a straightjacket or handcuffs. In fact, what you find, Mr. Speaker, is that the government really has no intention of being bound. The bill is only there as long as it suits the purposes, which may change from month to month or half year to half year.

So what we’ve got with a bill like this and with this amendment: it really shows how inadequate a piece of legislation is to try and impose good management, self-discipline on a provincial govern- ment. It doesn’t work. Maybe it was a grand experiment. Maybe this was a bold experiment that was worth while trying. But now we look at five months after the bill goes into force, and we see that it simply doesn’t do the trick. Maybe it’s time, while we’re in second reading of Bill 43, to look and say: maybe this just isn’t the way to do it.

Maybe what Albertans really require is an astute provincial government, a government that is able to assert a kind of discipline in its practices and in its programs, but create it within that government so that we don’t deal with the fancy sloganeering and maybe we don’t have the bill that we trumpet as binding th e hands of government. It’s all nonsense anyway, Mr. Speaker, b ecause as you know better than anyone in this Assembly, a Legislature is always sovereign. The only piece of legislation I can think of that binds our hands is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but because of

section 33 and the notwithstanding clause even that isn’t completely binding. Legislatures can do whatever they darn well please. What they decide this week can be undone next week. What they do this month can be undone next month. What they bring into force in July of 1999 can be undone in D ecember of 1999. Let’s say that the emperor has no clothes. Let’s say that this means of legislation, of lawmaking, is really an illusion. I think we see that illusion now for what it is. I know that the Provincial Treasurer and his colleagues would say: so who would you deny money to? That’s a bit of a nonsensical argument, be