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

19960313

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 533 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/03/13 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the petition I presented yesterday in the Legislative Assembly regarding funding for Viscount Bennett Centre in Calgary be now read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to ensure adult education programs at Viscount Bennett Centre in Calgary are supported at the same level as post-secondary institutions in the province. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that the petition I had introduced the other day on behalf of Viscount Bennett students and supporters be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to ensure adult education programs at Viscount Bennett Centre in Calgary are supported at the same level as post-secondary institutions in the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition which I presented and read yesterday be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to ensure adult education programs at Viscount Bennett Centre in Calgary are supported at the same level as post-secondary institutions in the province. head: Introduction of Bills Bill 13 Registries Statutes Amendment Act, 1996 MR. SEVERTSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Registries Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. [Leave granted; Bill 13 read a first time] MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill 13, as just introduced, be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 14 Health Foundations Act MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 14, the Health Foundations Act. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this Bill would provide legal authority for regional health authorities and provincial health boards to establish foundations with agent-of-the-Crown status.

These foundations would provide a mechanism for donors to make gifts in the right of the Crown to benefit Alberta's health system. [Leave granted; Bill 14 read a first time] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Bill 15 Hospitals Amendment Act, 1996 MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Hospitals Amendment Act, 1996. Mr. Speaker, in common with other provinces Alberta has had a program in place for many years to recover the cost of hospital care provided as a result of the negligence or wrongdoing of a third party.

In 1994 that program was expanded to include all health care costs. Until now recovery of health care costs has been undertaken by the minister on a case-by-case basis. This Bill would replace that practice with a single aggregate payment for each automobile insurer. The Bill will streamline the process for recovering the cost of health services based upon the principle that negligent third parties should bear the cost of health services required as a result of their actions. [Leave granted; Bill 15 read a first time] MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill 15, as just introduced, be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm tabling four copies of seven different letters from key players in the liquor industry illustrating the confusion in the liquor industry today. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure this afternoon to table four copies of a news

article dated the 25th of February that corrects the inaccurate information that the Premier introduced into this Legislature yesterday. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

534 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table four copies of a document entitled Classroom '95: Time to Reinvest, a study of the classroom impact of educational funding cuts. It was prepared by the Educational Issues Sub- committee of the Edmonton public teachers local of the ATA. I would encourage all members to take time to read it. A little note: if you think being an MLA can be stressful, try being a teacher with 30 kids, a quarter or more of those kids with special needs, no additional support. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to table in the Assembly today four copies of an editorial dated March 5 from the Sedgewick Community Press. The editorial is talking about the pending privatization of the Islay and Galahad hospitals. It says, “Local residents are being asked to accept a `pie in the sky' dream of entrepreneurial wanderlust.” THE SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member. Order.

The purpose of tabling is to allow the document to be put before the Assembly for members to read for themselves. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you to this Legislature some 43 bright and very polite students from St. Anthony school in Drayton Valley, in the constituency of Drayton Valley-Calmar. They are accompanied here today by their teachers, Mrs. Trish Molzan and Mrs. Patty LaBranche, and a parent and helper along, Mrs. Donna Tkachuk.

They're in the members' gallery. I would ask that they rise, please, and receive the warm welcome of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me today to introduce several people from my constituency. First I would like to introduce Tom Sims, who is a businessman in the town of Lacombe, and Alex Weber, who is the secretary of the Wild Rose school division in Rocky Mountain House. Also viewing question period today are Reeve August Liivam, Council- lor Shirley Ramsay, and Development Officer Allan Williams of Lacombe county.

Of course, Lacombe country is home to the announced expansion of Novacorp and Union Carbide. They are seated in the members' galley. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period 1:40 Health Care Transfer Payments MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, we are 10 days away from losing another half a million dollars because of this government's continued violation of the Canada Health Act.

Even so, the Premier actually had the nerve to stand in the Legislature yesterday and say, “We will not . . . in any way, shape, or form violate the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.” To the Premier: how can he say that he supports the Canada Health Act on one hand while he is supporting the Hotel de Health proposal, which runs directly in the face of publicly funded health care? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it comes down to the fundamental question as to whether we were, have ever, and now are violating the Health Act, and that is a point under discussion. The feds have their

interpretation; we have our

interpretation. The hon. Minister of Health will be meeting with her federal counterpart I believe in the not too distant future hopefully to iron this situation out. Mr. Speaker, relative to promoting the Hotel de Health, the only person who has actively promoted the Hotel de Health is the hon. Member for Leduc. Here is the article. This is not an editorial. This is an

article that says: Leduc MLA, Terry Kirkland, spoke to the Crossroads regional health authority at its regular meeting last Wednesday and told board members he could be the best salesman for the Hotel de Health. I can be your best salesman, he said. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier not taken the time to read the letter from David Dingwall, the federal Minister of Health, to the Minister of Health in our province which very clearly settles the issue of cont ravention of the Canada Health Act?

It says that you can't charge facility fees and you can't have doctors publicly and privately charging under the Canada Health Act. Y ou're contravening the Canada Health Act. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. minister will be meeting with her counterpart to discuss these points, and hopefully we can come to some terms. If we can reach some compromise, then that money that has been taken away from us – and we think wrongfully so – will be restored. MR. MITCHELL: How many times does Ottawa have to tell this Premier?

How much money does this Premier have to lose on behalf of Alberta taxpayers before he picks up this letter, reads this letter, and understands that he is contravening the Canada Health Act? THE SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. MR. KLEIN: Well, thank you. In his letter the minister doesn't say that what we are doing is wrong. What he says is: I continue to believe, as did my predecessor, that principle 1 1 . . .

That is the case in point, whether doctors can operate outside and inside; that is, in the private system and in the public system, do both: principle 1 1. . . . poses serious difficulties for the federal government because it could . . . “could,” not will but “could” . . . lead to resources being drawn away from the public sector in favour of the private sector. He says two important words there: I “believe,” not “it is my firm opinion” but “believe” and “could lead.” These are the points that need to be negotiated.

We say we believe that not to be true, and we believe that it might not and probably will not lead to resources being drawn away from the public sector. That's the point that needs to be argued. The reply from our minister to the federal minister reads: As you know, I do not understand why principle 1 1 of the Alberta Approach is a stumbling block. Our

interpretation is that it is simply a statement of what already exists. Physicians in Alberta, and I would presume elsewhere as well, can now receive

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 535 funding from both the public and private sectors. Several examples spring to mind. Plastic surgery, [well, specifically nose surgery], if performed for a medically required reason such as re- building after trauma, is an insured service and paid by the government; the same surgery performed for cosmetic reasons is not insured, and the physician is entitled to bill the patient for it. There is one example, Mr. Speaker. MR. MITCHELL: He s hould read the rest of the letter, Mr. Speaker, and maybe you'd let me do that. Would you?

In addition, until such time as facility fees for medically necessary services provided in private clinics . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. Hospital Privatization MR. MITCHELL: The East Central health authority decided to close the Islay and Galahad hospitals over one year ago because of budget cuts. The local residents want to preserve long-term care beds, which they know they need in their communities. Meanwhile, the Minister of Health actually says that she doesn't really know what's going on and hasn't read the relevant docu- ments.

Why can't the Premier or anyone else in his cabinet describe how public health care will be protected when the Islay and Galahad hospitals are privatized? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, once again I will have to say to the opposition and to all members of the Legislature that we have not received a proposal – we have not received a proposal – relative to the Islay and Galahad hospitals.

I understand that the proposal is going to be unveiled to citizens of the area at a public meeting tonight, and I'm sure that members of the Liberal Party will be there as will officials of Alberta Health and perhaps some of our MLAs to see what indeed it is all about. I'm sure that the greatest promoter of Hotel de Health, the Member for Leduc, will be there saying once again that he can be the best salesman for the Hotel de Health. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, how hard would it be for the Premier to go out and get a copy of the proposal or at least direct his Minister of Health to get a copy of the proposal and read it? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I've answered this question in the Legislature. The regional health authority has had discus- sions with a number of private operators, not just one, looking at delivery of services. The regional health authority has been in contact with both the minister and department officials over this period of time. The regional health authority did not have a proposal to give to the minister at this point.

I will make this point one more time. They are having a public meeting tonight – tonight – in Galahad or in the area, and they expect probably upwards of 400 interested people from that community to come to that meeting. Mr. Speaker, after that meeting, when the community members have had an opportunity to have input into how services are delivered in their area, their regional health authority will subm it to the Minister of Health a proposal, if in fact it goes ahead.

At this point it is not a decision, and different than the opposition would do and impose decisions on people, we want to hear from the residents. 1:50 Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. members if they care at all about the residents of those communities or the care they receive or if they simply care about raising issues and trying to do anything that's possible to put a bad light on an initiative that might provide services there. I think the community members have the opportu- nity tonight to hear this proposal. If it is decided by that commu- nity to be brought forward, we will respond to it. [interjection] MR.

MITCHELL: Can the Minister of Health please confirm what the minister of transportation just yelled across the way, that you, this government, and the regional health authority have already accepted the proposal for Islay? Can she confirm what he's just said here in the House? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker . . . THE SPEAKER: Order. If the hon. minister has a point of order, it comes after question period. DR. WEST: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. That's totally . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. MR. HA VELOCK: He learned it at Principal. He continues to lie. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw, be quiet.

I don't know what it is about the ends of this front bench on this side. MRS. MIROSH: Careful. THE SPEAKER: I said this front bench. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health tries very diligently to deal with que stions that are provided to her from members on both sides of this House. Y ou know as well as I do that if I responded to everything that was called across the room, which I may or may not have heard, I would be here on my feet a lot longer than I am. I will respond to this issue when it is brought to me in an appropriate way. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, supplementary information. THE SPEAKER: No.

No. No. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Electoral Boundaries DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has hinted at an election based on the old boundaries, yet the Court of Appeal decision was clear in stating that the existing boundaries had to change “if Alberta wishes to call itself a democracy.” A democracy. The Alberta Civil Liberties Association has stated that an election on the existing boundaries could be challenged in court. Others have argued that an injunction could be obtained to prevent an election from being fought on the old boundaries. My questions are to the Premier.

Since you now have such strong views on effective representation, Mr. Premier, why didn't you instruct your Justice minister to incorporate those views into the electoral boundaries legislation or even participate in the debate on the Bill? Y ou had a chance then to have your views known. MR. KLEIN: Y ou don't have to participate in debate on the Bill,

536 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 especially with these people, to know what effective representation is all about. All you've got to do is travel to pl aces like Taber and Warner and Milk River and other towns and jurisdictions throughout this province and find out what the people are saying relative to effective representation. They know far better than these people; I'll tell you that for sure. DR. PERCY: Obviously he disregards the work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. THE SPEAKER: Order. Supplemental question. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: why has the Premier gotten so directly involved in the debate when the whole process was set up to be arm's length from politicians to allow regular Albertans to have their views heard before the commission and to comment on the interim report? Y ou've jumped the queue. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a dereliction of political duty if any member of the opposition or any member of this caucus who was required to attend a community meeting in his or her constituency on the issue of boundaries or any other issue failed to attend. This is a political issue.

This is an issue that absolutely directly invo lves the MLAs who are currently representing those constituencies that are affected. When an MLA, such as the MLA for Taber-Warner, comes to me and says, “Lookit; can you come down to my constituency because there is great concern there over the boundaries and they want to let you know about those concerns?” it is my obligation, it is my duty to attend those meetings. It's my duty to meet with close to a hundred municipal legislators from villages, from towns, from municipal districts, from counties to hear their concerns because they're elected officials as well.

DR. PERCY: To the Premier: will the Premier commit to fight the next election on new boundaries and not the existing bound- aries in light of the comments that have been made by the Alberta Civil Liberties Association and th e potential of a lawsuit? Just make a commitment. Y ou know, listen to the commission. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we have not received the final report yet. When we receive the final report, we will deal with it at that particular time. This Legislature will have to deal with that report at that particular time.

I will go into the next election, which could be sooner or could be later, and we will fight very success- fully that election on whatever boundaries exist at that time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Southern Alberta's Economic Outlook MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An export highway from Grande Prairie through Coutts has great economic implica- tions for the residents of my constituency of Lethbridge-West. My questions today are to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism.

Now, I want to reflect on southern Alberta because, as I am fond of now saying, the future is so bright for southern Albertans that we need to start to wear welder's goggles. To the minister: what will the minister put in place to assist southern Alberta businesses once the export highway is complete to help them compete and gain access to the American market? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are looking for a definition of effective representation, that's it right there. That's it right there. I think that intere st in that constituency is great.

In fact, in terms of wealth-creating departments we are not the only department that creates wealth. There's ongoing co-opera- tion with Energy and transportation and environment and agricul- ture, providing the education links as well, which Lethbridge is well known for with the University of Lethbridge. In fact, we've done work with PNWER, which is the Pacific northwest region of the United States and Canada. We also work in the markets of tourism cross-border. Mr.

Speaker, the important strategies that are going to lead to the success of southern Alberta – the results are well put forth in The Alberta Advantage review '95 – are the strategies of the private sector to undertake to capitalize and profit-maximize on their strengths in th at town with their community development groups, with their chambers, and with their economic develop- ment officials. 2:00 THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order to better understand, then, the base that we're working from, how has Alberta's access to the western American marketplace translated into jobs for southern Alberta thus far? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in fact, Alberta's always been committed to free trade. The biggest thing you see coming forward for all Alberta is the free trade agreement with the United States, which has almost resulted in a doubling of exports, from $9.5 billion to $18.5 b illion, over the five years from 1989 to 1994. In fact, in southern Alberta there's a workforce of over 1 1 1,000.

The results of the private sector undertaking expansion down there: Canbra Foods expanding over $10 million, Y ork Farms with an expansion, Saikai Spice. With what you can do with a balanced budget, with what's going on with specific initiatives in the M and E tax adjustment, we see that as being a real initiative for rural Alberta, particularly when 20 percent of the produce is able to produce many value-added marketing opportunities. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Deputy Minister of Health MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Premier told Albertans that he would release the Public Service Commis- sioner's report checking the credentials of Deputy Minister of Health Jane Fulton this week. This week he's telling us that Fulton's lawyers have instructed him to delay the release of the report for at least 10 more days so that they can review it. Why is the Premier taking instructi ons on this matter from Fulton's lawyers when she's the one that's under investigation for alleged mistakes in her résumé? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, how they twist things around. I have never said at any time that I have spoken to Dr.

Fulton's lawyers. I said that I talked to Vance MacNichol, who is the senior deputy minister, and he advised me that her lawyers advised him that, first of all, the report ought not to be made public until it is examined even further by an academic who has yet to be chosen.

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 537 Secondly, the report is taking longer than expected because there is just a pile of paperwork that Dr. Fulton thinks is appropriate to be reviewed in detail to prove her innocence. It's terrible when you have to prove your innocence. MR. SAPERS: Is the reason that the Premier is delaying this report that he and the government were threatened with a lawsuit from Jane Fulton's lawyers if they didn't see it first? MR. KLEIN: No. MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Speaker, maybe the Premier can explain to the Assembly why it is taking so long to simply review the résumé of one public servant, not that it shouldn't have been done first, when it only took 15 days for the Ethics Commissioner to review the entire Multi-Corp affair, a nd that was just a little more complex. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this involves documents that go back, as I understand it, 15, 20 years, and Dr. Fulton wants to have the opportunity of making sure that every single document she has in her possession is examined and is examined in detail. Workers' Compensation Board MR. HIERATH: Mr.

Speaker, my questions today are to the Minister of Labour and concern his relationship with the Workers' Compensation Board. Earlier this week we heard some good news about the ongoing improvements in services to workers and employers that the board is providing. I now have become aware that other provincial WCBs are recruiting senior officials from Alberta. My puffball question to the minister is: are you aware of other provinces attempting to recruit senior officials from Alberta's WCB? If so, is this going to compromise the turn- around time we've seen at the WCB in any way? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, though hopelessly unprepared, I'll try and address this. I can say that it is a fact that the turnaround over the last three years at WCB has attracted attention not only across the province but from other jurisdictions, and it is true, from conversations that I've had with officials in other jurisdic- tions at the government level and the administrative people have had at WCB again with other jurisdictions, that that is going on. People are wanting to know the details of how things have been turned around. I would hope that those certain systems have been improved.

We've seen great improvements, and that may lead to the loss of some officials. The systems that are in place are substantially in place enough that improvements will continue. I have obviously no ability to restrict the free movement of officials who are being asked to consider contracts and move to other jurisdictions. The systems are in place, and I know that we will continue to see improvements at WCB. MR. HIERATH: Does the minister have a contract with the current CEO of the board, and has he talked to him about staying in Alberta? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, the CEO has a contract with the board, actually, and I can share with all members here that the relation- ship between the minister and the CEO is one of full and open disclosure. That's, I believe, the only way in which we can successfully operate. I have been and was aware that there were people notably in Ontario who were making offers to the CEO, and I in no way would want to restrict somebody's career path.

I am pleased that from comments I've seen quoted – I won't discuss private discussions – the CEO has indicated that even though substantially larger amounts of salary were being offered, he prefers the Alberta advantage. There are certain tax advan- tages to staying here. The quality of life in Alberta, as I read, was an issue for him and the fact that there's still unfinished business to do at WCB here: all are factors which were indicated to us for his staying here, and I was pleased that that was his decision. MR.

HIERATH: What steps is the minister taking to ensure the improvements in service at the board continue? MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, when you look at what has happened, there's a lot of good news there, but the system isn't perfect yet. I mean, it's delightful to know that for three years in a row employers have had their rates reduced. That's a first in history anywhere in Canada. They've also had rebates, $39 million this year.

It is also a delight to know that workers themselves have had their maximum insurable amounts increased, they've had their pension amounts increased, and there's now a cost-of-living adjustment. Workers now, 70 percent of them, receive a cheque within one week of that injury being registered. Those are vast improvements. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as one person contin- ues to be injured in this province, as long as there's one adminis- trative delay that is an impact on an injured worker, the staff at WCB are committed to ongoing perfection of the system, and that will continue.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. 2:10 Multi-Corp Inc. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans want to know what references there are to Multi-Corp in the missing 20 pages deleted from our freedom of information request regarding the Premier's 1994 trade mission to China. Last week we sent a letter to the minister responsible for freedom of information and privacy – and I'll table four copies of that letter – requesting clearly an appointment of an adjudicator to review the freedom of information request for the 20 missing pages.

My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information and privacy. Why the delay in appointing the judge to rule on this request? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should inform the member that in

section 75 it says that “on receiving a request for a review, the Minister must as soon as practicable” give the request to and get an adjudicator appointed. Now, there are other items in here that we have to follow, and we are in the process of following those guidelines. I should say that the necessary letters that have to go out have been written, have been signed, and are on their way out. So the process is in place, and we feel that our department is doing an excellent job in following the Act. MR. BRUSEKER: My supplemental question is to the same minister. Is there a problem in appointing the judge? The legislation that the minister just referred to calls for the Lieutenant

538 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 Governor in Council, i.e. the cabinet, to appoint the judge, but all of those cabinet ministers are also in a conflict of interest because they owe their job to the Premier, who might be injured by the document release. THE SPEAKER: That is a question that is calling for an opinion by the hon. minister, and we'll have another supplemental. MR. BRUSEKER: My final supplemental, then, is to the same minister. When will the judge be appointed to rule on this FOI request? Give me a date. MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in

section 75 it says “as soon as practicable.” We have to inform the bodies that are involved in it first, before we go into the process of appoint- ing. We are doing that, and it will be done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Abandoned Railway Lines MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Due to many factors a number of rail lines across Canada have been closed and the tracks removed. The Collicutt line in my constituency was abandoned some 15 years ago, leaving the adjoining landowners anxious about the vacant property that in many cases has dissected their land for many, many years.

To the Minister of Environmen- tal Protection: what is the status of this abandoned CP Rail line that runs from Crossfield to Cremona? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, this land has now been turned over to the Department of Environmental Protection through an agreement with the railway and the federal government. The process that we go through is that once we receive this land, we ask the munici- palities if in fact they have any use for the land; i.e., for a utility corridor or transportation link. We've gone through that process now.

The MD of Rocky View has said that they don't have any use for this land, so we will be moving forward to notifying the adjacent landowners and the possible sale of the land and consoli- dation into their quarters. MR. BRASSARD: Mr. Minister, I know that a group known as Rails-to-Trails has expressed interest in this abandoned rail line as a possible recreational trail, but I'd like to know what steps have been taken to enable the adjo ining landowners of that line to obtain this vacated land and finally properly enclose their property. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that Rails-to- Trails was very interested in it, and in fact the department did take that into consideration, but the determination was made that in fact it should proceed to the sale to adjacent landowners. We are continuing to meet with the folks from Rails-to-Trails and are hoping to set up a meeting with the landowners and the interested folks to convert this. We have to remember, Mr.

Speaker, that this land will be privately owned, so in fact if there is any change or if the landowners feel that they can accommodate this Rails-to-Trails, then in fact that's what would happen, but the department would only be acting as a facilitator. MR. BRASSARD: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can advise just how the potential environmental issues related to this or to any other abandoned rail line for that matter are being handled. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, under the Environ- mental Protection and Enhancement Act the railways will maintain the liability for any environmental problems. We will be monitoring it very closely and making sure that there isn't an environmental problem on these railways. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Liquor Industry Privatization MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The whole privatiza- tion of the ALCB has been a tragedy of errors. Now we see the Premier and his minister responsible for liquor disagreeing on the use of logos.

The liquor industry does not know from one day to the next what the policies of this government are because of all the flip-flops. To the Premier: will the Premier confirm that the agreement made in 1993 between his government and the liquor industry is still in place? MR. KLEIN: As far as I know, it is still in place. Relative to the

preamble, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the industry is in shambles. Well, as I understand it, the independent liquor store owners are gathering here in Edmonton this evening. Perhaps the hon. member would like to go down to their meeting and repeat that statement. I'm sure they would be glad to hear what he has to say. I'll have the hon. minister responsible respond. DR. WEST: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have lots of shots being taken at the privatization of the liquor industry.

There is no doubt that after 70 years of the tradition of a heavy-handed government policy, when it was changed, there was a tremendous amount of vested groups that had a lot to lose and some to gain when we privatized. The interaction in policy between those will go on for a long time. Right now the policy has not changed, but there's a constant

interpretation of the rules and regulations set in place when we privatized between those that were excluded in some areas of cross-marketing and/or the right to licensure in certain buildings. That conflict goes on continuously. It will probably take five, seven – I don't know what – years of it for the evolution of this to take place. There will be constant – constant – rhetoric back and forth between various parties. The policy hasn't changed but the rhetoric has. MR.

BRACKO: To the Premier: why did the minister responsible change the agreement by allowing grocery stores to use their logos on the liquor stores, which would really hurt the independent liquor store owners? MR. KLEIN: He's asking me why I instructed the minister to do something. Far be it for me to instruct this minister to do anything, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you let him do it?

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 539 MR. KLEIN: Why did I let him do it? Well, I don't know if I did let him do it, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I'll have the minister reply as to whether I did in fact let him do it. 2:20 DR. WEST: The issue that the hon. member is alluding to is a policy where certain businesses us ing the same logo as their business on a liquor store business would have to have it deter- mined if there was any cross-marketing between the two of them, products being sold.

We did look at the policy and allow certain logos and then went back and, under a redefinition of it, have said that they constitute cross-marketing as far as the definition of our policy and have since indicated to those businesses that they would not be able to use those logos. So there was a period of time – and I acknowledge that – when we had in our

interpretation of cross-marketing made one decision and then went back. That isn't unusual in public policy. The term cross-marketing is as broad as it is wide. It's very hard to define. Right down to whether it's a liquor store that's promoting a certain barbecue for a giveaway – well, we don't know whether that's cross-marketing, but then we see other flyers out there that might allude to the connotation that if you buy liquor here you might buy some other product over here, whether it be cars or whether it be this. We have to constantly define that policy. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR.

BRACKO: Thank you. That's not enough. As the minister has said, the decision was reversed at great cost to the grocery stores. Who is going to pay for your mess? DR. WEST: Y ou should come to the meeting tonight. I don't like to use the word hypocrisy, so I won't. The first question was in defence of the small liquor store owners and the new privatized model. The second question is in defence of large operations that want to get into the liquor store business. Where is he sitting on these issues?

I'd like him to come tonight to the group gathering of the Liquor Store Association, and I'd like him to just explain his questions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Nonprofit Organization Tax Exemption MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the preparation of the 1995 amendments to the new Municipal Government Act considerable debate occurred with respect to those types of nonprofit organiza tions excluded from property taxation. One of the small community golf courses in our riding has a concern with the educational portion of this assessment.

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is this: what process did you use to get input to deal with the taxation of nonprofit organizations during the preparation of these assessments? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's an excellent question, but the process that we went through in developing the nonprofit taxation process was an extensive consultation with not only the municipal organizations but other stakeholders, a large array of them, that included large cities and large municipalities, a cross

section of all of these stakeholders. It was through this consultation process that we developed the nonprofit organization tax exemption regulation. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past year there have been additional taxation concerns raised by some of these different nonprofit organizations. Can you indicate how you're dealing with these concerns at the present date, Mr. Minister? MR. THURBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, those nonprofit organiza- tions, where it was evident that they were nonprofit when we originally developed this, were placed in the Act, and a lot of them are enumerated in there.

Since that point in time, we've run into some anomalies where you finally have to get down and try and decide exactly what a nonprofit organization is. The consultation process is continuing. We have a large array of stakeholders involved in that as well as department people to try and develop a level playing field in the taxation area, particu- larly on the education side. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you. How does the minister propose to deal with nonprofit day care facilities and nonprofit sports' organizations? MR. THURBER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as you're aware, the municipalities do have the ability at this point in time to exempt any facility from the municipal portion. We're looking at it again. As I said before, we have a large cross

section of stake- holders to determine what in fact is actually a nonprofit organiza- tion. Golf courses and curling rinks are sometimes included in this. In our view only that portion that is a commercial operation within that facility should be taxed on the education side, such as a pro shop in a publicly owned golf course or a bar or something that's competing with the private sector. It's just to provide as level a playing field as we can. Those consultations will continue. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Teacher Stress MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Figures from the Alberta school employee benefit plan show that claims for extended disability among school personnel, primarily t eachers, is up 20 percent, and payments for drug prescriptions are up 22 percent. In addition, claims for the antidepressant Prozac are up by one-third. Stress and psychological consultations paid for by the plan are also up significantly. I recognize that this is a complicated issue, and I have notified the minister that I will be asking this question.

What I would like to know is: what measurement does the minister use to track teacher stress or stress in the classroom, especially given the fact that there are more special-needs children with less resources in the classroom than there were five years ago? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that the whole area of special education is an area where there are increased demands being placed upon the system. We are monitoring very carefully the increase in the number of special-needs students that are being identified.

We have noticed in terms of our assessment of special needs in the high-needs category that the number of students diagnosed as having behavioral disorders has gone up very

540 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 significantly, and I think we need to look into that. That's certainly an additional challenge for the education system. So we're acknowledging that and monitoring that particular statistic very carefully. Now, I think I've responded to one of the member's questions. I'm not sure what the first one was with respect to the Alberta school employee benefit plan but perhaps the hon. member would like to phrase that again in terms of a supplementary. MR.

HENRY: Perhaps in terms of a supplementary I could ask the minister: given that in his business plan there is no measure- ment or no performance outcome in terms of looking at teacher stress, could he explain why that has not been a priority in his business plan? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make one general comment which applies I think to all citizens of this province, if that's what he's connecting it to.

We've had across this province a great deal of additional effort and work done by everybody from members of the public service to people in the private sector to people in the farming community to people in education and people in the health care system. Certainly there's been an additional challenge and an additional amount of work required, and we're very grateful as a government for that additional effort.

Now, in terms of the specific statistics of the Alberta school employee benefit plan, I have not been apprised of the numbers that the member across the way has alluded to, as to whether that relates to a particular part of the province or things of that nature. I will take his question, though, under advisement, and I'Il look into what those rates actually are and maybe what factors are involved in that increase. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. HENRY: Okay. Thank you. And thank you to the minister. This is a question, Mr.

Speaker, that I've asked the minister in estimates, as well as the Labour minister, but now that he's had time to think about it perhaps or to look into it, I'm wondering if the minister has any plan to track the number of teachers on disability insurance, both long term or short term or either the number or percentage of sick days used over a long period of time. 2:30 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question I would say that we will have an overall look at that particular issue.

I would like to just mention that some weeks ago there was a report – I believe it was featured in an opposition news release, but at least it was in the newspapers – that there was a dramatic increase in the number of teachers in a sc hool jurisdiction in this province in terms of people being on stress leave. That was both administrators and classroom teachers.

Upon looking into this particular case – it was a major school jurisdiction – we found that the numbers that were purported to be the case in the media were not in fact the case, and the numbers of people on stress leave were not out of the range of previous years. MR. HENRY: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: Before proceeding to points of order, could we have unanimous consent of the Assembly to revert to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to intr oduce to you and through you 46 grade 6 students from two schools, being the Gadsby school and the Waverly school, which are located in the eastern part of my constituency. They are accompanied today by teachers Deb Hronek, Andrew Lawson, and Hank Boer as well as parent helpers Ken McCarty, Pat Kempf, Tammy Anderson, Darlene Renfree, Madeleine Chapman, Verla Crawford, and Pat Walgenbach. They're seated in the members' gallery. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: Points of order. The hon.

Member for Leduc was the first on his feet, followed by the Minister of Transporta- tion and Utilities, followed by the Member for Edmonton-Centre. Point of Order Allegations against Members MR. KIRKLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise under 23(

h) and (i), (h), being making allegations of suggestible quality and, secondly, “imputes false or unavowed motives.” It behooves me as the humble little MLA from Leduc, Alberta, to stand in this Legisla- ture and correct the Premier of this province for a second time in two days. Mr. Speaker, there's one trait that a politician s hould carry. That's integrity. Due to the fact that the Premier of Alberta continues to advance false information in the Assembly, I have to conclude that the Premier does not want to embrace that particular trait. The Premier continues to quote an inaccurate newspaper

article dated February 18. I want to take some time to outline in detail this difficulty that we have of misinformation in the House, because the Premier does seem to be a bit of a slow learner here. The

article that the Premier waves in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, was dated February 18, and it's a classic example of inaccurate reporting. Certainly the Premier s hould know that when he stops to consider the difficulty he had with the press in how they reported Multi-Corp. Just to clear the record, I would like to take three sentences out of the

article I tabled today and share it with the Assembly here so the Premier doesn't embarrass himself again tomorrow. This is a letter that followed up to that particular article: “Message Not Accurately Captured – Kirkland”: An

article that appeared in the Feb. 18 Representative (Kirkland offers sales skills) covering my presentation to the Crossroads Regional Health Authority failed to accurately capture my message to the authority. Unequivocally, I am opposed to the leasing of the third floor of the Leduc Hospital by Hotel de Health to offer medical services to foreigners. This is a statement and the reasons for it are a matter of public record. I will read that into the record one more time. Seeing as the good Premier didn't have the common sense to apologize for his false allegations yesterday, I would ask the same today. MR.

DA Y: Briefly on the point of order I can understand the member's nervousness. The last two Liberal MLAs that disagreed with their leader got booted out of the caucus. I know he's nervous about that.

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 541 Mr. Speaker, it's very clear. There is a newspaper

article there. All we've said is that it was reported that he said he would be the best salesman. We didn't say he said it. We simply said: it was reported. It's interesting that on February 25, when this was written, which is the clarification – we still haven't seen an apology from the newspaper saying, “Golly, gee, darn, sorry; we misquoted you.” And he said then that he's still waiting the authority's response on the issue. That was February 25. So it's not our problem; it's his problem. THE SPEAKER: This matter was raised yesterday, and the Chair ruled that there was a clear disagreement over the

interpretation of what's appeared in public print, and it appears that this disagreement is continuing today. The hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities. Point of Order Imputing Motives DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I too am going to stand under Standing Order 23(

h) and (i), but mine is a little, I guess, more critical to me. I have a problem in this House where individual members from the opposition can stand and put on record false information and then send it outside of this House to every newspaper. They're already asking if it's a done deal out at the Islay hospital with the regional health unit and with the province of Alberta because of what the Leader of the Official Opposition said in this House. He said that I said that the regional health board and this government, the Department of Health, have already okayed the Islay Hotel de Health thing.

What I had said across the floor was that the people of Islay, the board that represents them, have accepted the Hotel de Health in principle at this time. I'd like to table a letter from the county of Vermilion River that I will read into the record that says that the people of the area support it too, but this does not mean the regional health author- ity. This does not mean that this government, who has to await the regional health authority's decision, has authorized this at this time. This comes from the county of Vermilion River, Reeve Peter Green.

In response to recent news broadcasts, County Council for the County of Vermilion River No. 24 would like to forward its support in the proposal being offered for the Islay and Galahad Hospital facilities. The proposal received from the Hotel de Health to use the facility at Islay will be a definite benefit to the residents of the County. Council does not consider the Hotel de Health's proposal to offer a wide range of health services on a cost recovery (“fee for services”) basis, a precedence for a 2-tiered health system or feel that it will threaten the breakdo wn of the current public health services.

Instead, it will offer people the opportunity to r eceive medical attention sooner than on the health care's waiting list now in place. The Council offers its support in encouraging you to pursue this proposal. Now, I read that in for a reason on this point of order, because this individual, the Leader of the Opposition, has left false motives on my part and has left an innuendo on this floor that I said something that I didn't. I think it's high time that this House called to order individuals who use the protection of this House to spread misinformation to people out there for political reasons.

That's the other thing. I'm raising this point of order because they've impugned me and left this at their po litical will for political points. But when I get through out at Islay, you'll find out what kind of political points this is. 2:40 THE SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the reason the Chair is not recognizing you is because the Chair is going to rule that there is no point of order.

The Chair wants to say that this whole tempest blew up because the hon. minister of transportation was making comments across the floor while the Premier was answering a question, and it ill behooves the hon. minister of transportation to complain about something that resulted from something he shouldn't have done in the first place. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Point of Order Clarification MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the minister of transportation I don't have a big problem here.

I just wanted to set the record straight with the Minister of Education when he indicated that he had read an opposition news release or a general media about certain statistics about numbers of days, the number of individuals on disability, et cetera. Just for the record, the opposition didn't release those figures, but they were covered widely in the popular media. Thank you. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in terms of a response, I'm quite prepared to apologize if I did not couch my answer in the proper way. I think I indicated that I had heard across the way that this was a concern of theirs.

I did, however, refer to coverage in the media which I would stand behind as being correct, and I acknowledge the point the member's making. THE SPEAKER: Thank you. That seems to resolve that matter. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that written questions appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of 157, 159, 164, 165, 176, and 177. [Motion carried] Timber Stolen from Crown Land Q157. Mr.

Van Binsbergen moved that the following question be accepted: What are the estimated volumes of deciduous and conifer- ous timber that were stolen from Crown land in 1994 and in 1995? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with this government's openness and accountability, we will be accepting that question. THE SPEAKER: There was some noise in the House. Did the Chair hear the hon. minister say that the question is accepted? MR. LUND: Y es. [Motion carried]

542 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 Correctional Institutions Q159. Mr.

Dickson moved that the following question be accepted: Which of the provincial correctional institutions have laundry facilities and what is the complete inventory of each of the la undry facilities, which of the provincial correctional institutions have a greenhouse and what is the size of each gree nhouse and the inventory contained in each, and which of the provincial correctional institutions have shop facilities with the n ecessary equipment for activities such as shoe repair or furniture construction and repair and what is the complete inventory of each of the shop facilities? THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to answer this question that's been proposed by Calgary-Buffalo, but I do want to make an amendment to it before I accept it. The commentary in the question as presented talks about complete inventories of laundry facilities and complete inventories of shop facilities. I don't think the hon. member was probably talking about some of the small equipment that we'd be forced, if we accepted wit hout amendment, to provide.

I would like to make some amendments that I think will give the hon. member what he's looking for by changing that to major capital equip- ment. What I mean by that, hon. member, is anything above a $5,000 value, and then I think that will provide you with the information that you want. The proposed amendment, Mr.

Speaker, would be to strike out “complete inventory of” at the end of the first line and the beginning of the second and substitute “inventory of the major capital equipment in,” and then insert “major capital” in the third line before “inventory contained in each,” and strike out “com- plete inventory” and substitute “major capital inventory contained in” on the second to last line. I believe that those amendments are in the process of being circulated, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that the hon. member has seen – I hope he has anyway – the amendment I'm proposing.

Again, the focus would be on major inventory, major capital equipment, major capital inventory, so that we wouldn't be dealing with very small components. With that amendment, I'd be more than happy to accept on behalf of the government. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased with the comments of the hon. Justice minister, and I guess the only caveat would be: he has the benefit of knowing what equipment is in there and its respective values. Clearly, I am only interested in the more significant items, and I'm assuming that the $5,000 threshold captures all of the major significant features in the shops.

If that's the case, then I'm pleased to accept the amendment and I look forward to the response to the question. [Motion as amended carried] Waste Management Authorities Q164. Mr. Collingwood moved that the following question be accepted: Which waste management authorities received provincial funds for the planning and construction of landfills and other solid waste treatment facilities including composting each year between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1995, how much did each receive, and for what purpose? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again in keeping with this government's accountability and openness and this department's acting in the same manner, we will accept as presented. [Motion carried] Kananaskis River Q165. Mr.

Collingwood moved that the following question be accepted: How much was spent to dredge the Kananaskis River close to the Kananaskis golf courses each year from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1995, and from which budget was this paid; and what is the projected cost to move the Kananaskis River into a former river channel to prevent flooding of the golf course, what are the plans to proceed with this realignment, and from what budget would the cost be paid? MR. LUND: Accept. [Motion carried] THE CLERK: Question 176, Mr. Dickson. MR. DICKSON: In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I choose not to move this because I've already received voluntarily the written res ponse from the minister which complies with the request. So I choose not to move this written question, sir. THE SPEAKER: Should there be a motion for withdrawal? MR. EV ANS: Well, as a formality, Mr. Speaker, because it was dealt with as a motion, I'm accepting. As the hon. member has indicated, I've already provided him with the answer. THE SPEAKER: We shouldn't leave the question. It should either be accepted or withdrawn. Does the hon. member wish to move that it be withdrawn from the Order Paper? MR.

DICKSON: Perhaps let's do it this way. Minimum Security Inmate Criteria Q176. Mr. Dickson moved that the following question be accepted: What are the criteria for classifying a provincial inmate as a minimum security inmate, and who determines that classification? [Motion carried] Crown Prosecutor Caseload Q177. Mr. Dickson moved that the following question be accepted:

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 543 What is the average number of cases handled by each Crown Prosecutor in the province for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995? MR. DICKSON: I think the government's going to take away all the righteous indignation that they expect from opposition members at this stage of the afternoon. 2:50 MR. EV ANS: I'm almost ashamed to say this, Mr. Speaker, after that eloquent comment from the member opposite, but I'm going to have to reject this question on behalf of the government.

The reason I have to reject it is because we don't collect data in that way, and therefore trying to get some kind of an answer to the question that has been posed by the hon. member wouldn't be meaningful. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes prosecutors are required to be in a number of places a number of times and deal with a number of cases that they would not necessarily take from the very beginning of a case through to a decision and to sentencing. So we're concerned about providing accurate information. What I might suggest to the hon. member is an alternative that we'd be more than happy to accept.

That would be that if he were to propose a question that read something like “What are the elements that make up a prosecutor's workload?” I'd be happy to advise him of as much information as possible so that he'd have some reasonable information. In all good conscience I can't accept the question as it has been proposed by the hon. member, but I will provide as much information as I can, were he to submit another question. THE SPEAKER: All those in favour of Written Question 177 . . . MR. COLLINGWOOD: Is there a debate on the motion, Mr. Speaker? The motion is being rejected. THE SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. The hon.

Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'll stand and make some comments on Written Question 177 prior to my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo closing debate on it. I appreciate the comments from the Justice minister that there are potentially some unique and special circumstances in the work of the Crown prosecutors and the job that they do with the Department of Justice for the province of Alberta.

The purpose is for we in opposition to assess and understand the kinds of workloads that the Crown prosecutors currently undertake, and I think in fact the Minister of Justice made some reference to that in his comments and indicated that he was prepared to look at other ways to provide the information. In terms of answering this ques tion, we will often, in making some effort to understand things, use averages. Sometimes averages aren't the best way to go; nonetheless; it's a fairly common practice for us to take an average. Sometimes unfortu- nately, Mr.

Speaker, we use averages when it's to our advantage and we fail to use averages when it's not to our advantage. Nonetheless, the statistic does exist and can be used and inter- preted as best as can be, given the circumstances. The average, of course, would be a very simple calculation for the Justice minister to calculate. It would be the number of cases divided by the number of prosecutors to come up with the average. That doesn't take away from the fact that there are special circumstances. That doesn't take away from the fact that there are unique circumstances.

That doesn't take away from the fact that some of the prosecutors deal with very complicated and specific cases. Some deal with more serious crimes; others deal with the sort of daily routine of prosecution in the courts of Alberta. Nonetheless, in terms of answering this specific question, it would be for the Justice minister a very simple calculation for him to provide that information. As meaningful as it is, it is still information that could be provided. I did hear the Justice minister indicate that they don't collect that kind of data. Fair enough.

But, again, there will be information available to the Justice minister of how many cases were dealt with in the period of time in question, how many prosecutors there were handling those cases to come up with that average figure. So, Mr. Speaker, in terms of answering the question, it would be easy for the Justice minister to do that regardless of how the statistics are kept within his ministry, and that would give some indication of the workload the Crown prosecutors are under at this point in time. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm therefore disappointed that the Justice minister has determined that he will reject Written Question 177. I think it would be easy enough for him to answer. Thank you, sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I knew it was too good to be true, hon. Minister of Justice. We were making such good headway through the list. My colleague for Sherwood Park had said that it was fair enough that the minister didn't have this information. I guess my perspective might be slightly different, Mr.

Speaker, and it would be this: why wouldn't the Minister of Justice track this kind of information? Y ou know, in effect what he's doing is running one of the larger law firms in the province, and if there's one thing that law firms have developed skills in, as the Minister of Community Development will recall, it's keeping track of time and trying to marshal resources in the most effective way possible. It seems to me that this is the kind of information that the manager of this large law firm would want to know, should want to know.

I would hope that this large public law firm wouldn't be any less concerned than any private law firm with making sure that resources are marshaled and husbanded in the most effective way possible. The specific reason for asking the question, hon. minister, was that I know that the Crown counsel in Calgary – and I'd be thinking of the 27 or so Crown who regularly handle preliminary inquiries and trials – have a caseload of approximately a hundred files each.

My understanding is that this is 25 percent higher than, for example, the caseloads in Edmonton, and I have no idea what it is in Medicine Hat or Red Deer or Lethbridge. But it seems to me this would be a useful kind of planning tool for the minister to be able to have access to and, because we have the wonderful opportunity to challenge the minister and hold him to account and ask questions, a useful tool for us as well.

If in fact you have imbalances in certain Crown offices, that's going to impact on the ability of the Crown to deal with victims, to provide the kind of assistance to victims that I know the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek wants to see done. I know that other people want to see the Crown take a strong case in dealing with repeat offenders, violent offenders. We've got to make sure that those Crown counsel have the time and the ability to do the

544 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 preparation, to give the advice and information to victims that we think victims should have, and to be able to manage these cases in an expeditious but an effective way. How on Earth can that happen when the head of this public law firm comes and tells us he doesn't know what the average number of cases is? Maybe this is one of those times sort of like freedom of information. It imposes a kind of discipline on a system. It requires that certain records be kept so they can be accessed and retrieved. I respectfully suggest, Mr.

Speaker, this is one of those kinds of information that should be available, and if it isn't, a written question accepted by the House would impose that kind of discipline on this department so that information could be retrieved when required. For those reasons I would urge members to support the written question and require the Minister of Justice to make the necessary changes so this kind of informa tion can be maintained in the interest of having the most effective criminal justice system we can in this province. [Motion lost] head: Motions for Returns THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR.

EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that motions for returns appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, and 175. [Motion carried] 3:00 Jail Laundry Services M166. Mr. Dickson moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of all contracts between the Justice department and independent contractors for the provision of laundry services to all provincial correctional and remand centres from June 15, 1993, to February 13, 1996. MR. EV ANS: I'm going to accept this motion but with a pro- posed amendment. As the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo is aware with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there are issues that we should not be getting involved in. Certainly those that deal with a third party bargaining position should not be made public. The amendment that I am proposing would be to add at the end of the motion as presented the following sentence: As the contractor's bargaining position could be adversely affected if contract amounts are disclosed, the contracted dollar amounts, as per

section 15(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, have been severed. So that's the only thing we would be taking out of there, the contract amounts, but the other information we would be more than happy to provide. MR. DICKSON: The proposal from the Minister of Justice is curious in this sense: there's some flexibility in terms of what part of third party dealings can be revealed. There's nothing in the Act that says that the amount can't be disclosed. That becomes an administrative executive election, if you will. I'm curious.

I would think that there may be some way of indicating the values without comprising the third party rights under the FOIP Act, and perhaps that's something I can deal directly with the minister on. It's again one of those things that without seeing the documents, it's tough the extent to which you can argue what parts of it are necessary to see and what parts may not be. So I think with that qualification I'll accept the amendment from the minister but without prejudice to my right to come back, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, and say that there's additional information I'd like to see.

Speaker's Ruling Admissibility of Amendment THE SPEAKER: The Chair would like to comment. The Chair is a little concerned that we might be establishing a precedent for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act controlling what can be given to the Legislative Assembly, which the Chair would not like to see happen and hopes this won't be a precedent in that area. But that being said, there seems to be an apparent willingness to accept the amendment for the time being. [Motion as amended carried] Timber Harvest Violations M167. Mr. Collingwood moved on behalf of Mr.

Van Binsbergen that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the penalties assessed against commercial timber operators for breaches of the Forests Act and regulations or of the Alberta timber harvest planning and operating ground rules where the penalty exceeded $1,000, the name of the operator, the nature of the infringement, the amount of the penalty, and the date on which the infringement and penalty were made known to the public for the period January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1995. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. EV ANS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Minister of Environmental Protection again I'm prepared to accept this motion for a return but with an amendment, and again it relates back to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Of course, information on penalties is available, but under the Act there is a prohibition on departments identifying individu- als who have been assessed a penalty. Now, the names of companies that have been assessed penalties are not protected under the Act and can be released.

It's not the current practice of the department to publicly release details regarding the assessment of penalties, so there's no information to provide in response to the public disclosure part of the motion.

The amendment that the Minister of Environmental Protection is suggesting is to strike out the words “operator” as well as “infringement and penalty were made known to the public” and to substitute “company” and “pena lty was assessed” so that the motion would read: The penalties assessed against commercial timber operators for breaches of the Forests Act and regulations or of the Alberta timber harvest planning and operating ground rules, where the penalty exceeded $1,000, the name of the company, the nature of the infringement, the amount of the penalty and the date on which the penalty was assessed.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 545 received a copy of the proposed amendment as indicated by the Deputy Government House Leader. Subject to your comments on the intrusion of the freedom of information Act in our time in the House for written questions and motions for return, my informa- tion from my colleague from West Y ellowhead is that he is prepared to accept this amendment. [Motion as amended carried] Forest Resource Improvement Program M168. Mr. Collingwood moved on behalf of Mr.

Van Binsbergen that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a list of all projects that were approved for funding under the forest resource improvement program from January 1, 1995, until D ecember 31, 1995, giving the name of each company, a

summary of each project, and the amount granted. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I'm pleased to accept Motion for a Return 168. [Motion carried] Hazardous Waste Management M173. Mr. Collingwood moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a list providing the names and locations of all sites approved under each subsection of

section 15.1 of the Special Waste Management Corpora- tion Act to store hazardous waste, operate a facility for the collection of hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, and dispose of hazardous waste. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I'm pleased to accept Motion for a Return 173. [Motion carried] Special Places Site Nominations M174. Mr.

Collingwood moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a list of all site nominations submitted under the special places program including their location, area and size, and the status of each nominated site in the review process on February 13, 1996. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I'm pleased to accept Motion for a Return 174. [Motion carried] Hunting Licence Auction Proceeds M175. Mr.

Collingwood moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a list showing how all proceeds from the 1995 special auction and raffle for two sheep and two elk permits were distributed, including a

summary of each project, the amount allocated, the name of the body responsible for administering the project, and what plans have been made for auditing the projects. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I'm pleased to accept Motion for a Return 175. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 206 Recall Act [Debate adjourned March 12] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion and to wrap up the Bill then, this piece of legislation, as we've all talked about, creates accountability for the MLAs. It gives the constitu- ency the opportunity to kind of keep their MLA in check, responsible to their wishes. We've heard a number of issues raised with respect to particular aspects of the Bill and how it can be applied, what can happen to it if it gets passed. There were concerns about frivolous motions for recall. What we've got in this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, is a number of provisions at the end that allow for regulations that define the responsibilities of the returning officer in terms of evaluating a petition for recall. Guidelines can be set out in that part of the Act to control frivolous recall petitions. It can also set out regulations which deal with aspects that were of concern to one of the members when they talked about there being no fee associated with it. The last provision under the set of regulations allowable for this Act stipulates that a fee can be determined, a fee can be set by the returning officer for each petition of recall.

So if we find that frivolous recall proposals are being put forth, the fee can be raised. In essence, that can be one mechanism that can be used to control frivolous action as well as the set of guidelines that deals with it. 3:10 Mr. Speaker, I'd like to encourage the MLAs to vote in favour of this Bill. The principle of it sits very well with people who believe in constituent representation, and also it deals with the idea that we have to make th e communities feel like they're participating in the democratic process, in the legislative process.

So what I'd like to suggest is that if we vote in favour of this, a lot of the concerns can be looked at in terms of amendments in Committee of the Whole. We can deal with a lot of the issues that are associated with it. We can look at issues that would deal with what constitutes a frivolous action in terms of the proposal, setting ranges for fees. Mr. Speaker, there was an issue raised – and I think it was from the Member for Medicine Hat – that dealt with the idea that we can have more and more and more than one petition.

The way I interpreted the clause in the Bill, as I designed it and proposed it, it was one petition for recall per session. If that's not clear – and we'll get an

interpretation of it – it will be modified to make it so that there is one petition for recall per session so we don't have weekly or, as the member had indicated, daily petitions for recall coming in. It was my intention when I had the words in there, one election for recall per session, that meant one election for the entire process, not one by-election. So when I talked about one election for r ecall, it was just that you can have one opportunity to recall your member per elected term. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the members to seriously consider this based on its principle.

Let's talk about it in terms of the amendments that come up, and if we can make this into a good Bill, I think the people of Alberta will be very pleased. If we can't make it into a good Bill, I'll accept the

546 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 actions of this Legislature and have it defeated at committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East has moved second reading of Bill 206, R ecall Act. All those in favour of this Bill, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:14 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abdurahman Forsyth Nicol Bracko Havelock Percy Bruseker Henry Sekulic Carlson Hewes Soetaert Collingwood Hlady Vasseur Day Kirkland White Dickson Leibovici Zariwny Dunford Massey Zwozdesky Against the motion: Ady Haley Pham Beniuk Herard Renner Black Jacques Severtson Brassard Jonson Shariff Burgener Laing Smith Calahasen Langevin Stelmach Cardinal Magnus Tannas Coutts Mar Taylor Doerksen McClellan Thurber Evans McFarland Trynchy Fischer Mirosh Woloshyn Fritz Oberg Y ankowsky Gordon Totals: For – 24 Against – 37 [Motion lost] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Tannas in the Chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call the committee to order. Bill 203 Family Dispute Resolution Act THE CHAIRMAN: I'll call on the hon. Member for Edmonton- Beverly-Belmont. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's indeed a pleasure for me to open debate in committee in regard to Bill 203, the Family Dispute Resolution Act. I would at this time like to move under Standing Order 41(c):

Be it resolved that Committee of the Whole defer consideration of Bill 203, the Family Dispute Resolution Act, until April 17, 1996, or until the first day for consideration of private members' business after that date. [Motion carried] MR. DA Y: I move that the committee rise and report. [Motion carried] [The Speaker in the Chair] MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has under consideration certain Bills. The committee reports progress on Bill 203. I wish to table copies of the resolution agreed to by the Committee of the Whole on this date for the official records of the Assembly.

THE SPEAKER: Does the Assembly concur in the report? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE SPEAKER: So ordered. head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading 3:30 (continued) Bill 207 Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 1996 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 207 before the House today as a private member's Bill is the Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 1996.

Just l ooking back on the B ill, the Conflicts of Interest Act, the original version, was introduced in this Legislature back in 1991. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Hon. member. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The original conflict of interest legislation entered this House as Bill 40 on June 20, 1991, introduced by the Member for Camrose. The Bill as introduced at that time raised some concerns about a variety of things that certainly we in the Liberal opposition felt were lacking in the original Bill and indeed which we debated at the time.

The previous Member for Calgary-Buffalo, the hon. Sheldon Chumir, debated Bill 40, the Conflicts of Interest Act, extensively and raised some concerns with the Bill at that time. Mr. Speaker, the government chose not to incorporate those concerns in their Bill, and we have the current conflict of interest legislation before us. Since the Bill was introduced, of course we've had a number of investigations that have been conducted by the Ethics Commis-

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 547 sioner. In fact, we have had most recently the Premier giving direction to the conflict of interest commissioner to create a panel, a panel called the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel, which was struck to review the current conflict of interest legislation to see if changes were required. That panel indeed was struck, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware. Dr. Allan Tupper was the chair of that panel.

Francis Saville, QC, a lawyer from Calgary, was a member of that panel, and Patricia Newman, who came from the town of Innisfail, was the third member that made up the panel to review the conflict of interest legislation. I should say that they, the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel, produced a report, quite an extensive report, of some – I'm looking for pages here. MR. EV ANS: A bunch of them anyways. MR. BRUSEKER: Y eah, a bunch of them anyways. I'm sure the minister of Justice has read them.

There were some 71 pages in total, and they came up with a total of 27 recommendations for improvements to the current conflict of interest legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Bill that we have before us today, Bill 207, reflects some of those recommendations put forward by the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel. The Bill has seen a number of drafts. It started being wr itten by myself back in the fall of 1995, prior to the review panel's report coming forward, with the report being produced and in fact presented to the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Clark, on January 1 1.

I then reviewed that report and incorporated some of the sugges- tions which, to be candid, I hadn't originally considered in the original drafts, the early drafts of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that in the review panel's report they make some interesting comments. I want to highlight a few of those comments, if I may, that are included in the report from the panel that I think are important to note.

Page 2 of the report of the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel has, amongst others, the following statements. “The vast majority of public office holders in Alberta are persons of integrity.” I certainly concur with that stat ement. Also they say, “Public officials in Alberta should face higher standards of conduct than at present.” I also agree with that one. The panel makes the comment – and I would also agree with it from a personal standpoint – on page 2: “The Panel does not pretend to have all the answers.” Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that I do not have all the answers to the issue of conflict of interest. I do not propose that this Bill before us today will solve all the problems that we will ever face regarding the issue of conflict of interest. I do bring it forward because I believe there is a need for this. The panel itself in their report and their review makes the following statement, and I think it's important for all members to remember this statement as well. This comes from page 3. I want to note that they highlight the word “major,” so I hope Hansard reflects that as well.

It says: Major changes are required if Alberta is to have a conflicts of interest system that meets public expectations, stands the test of time and provides the province with guidelines that are second to none in Canada. That comes directly from page 3 of the report. So the panel has said that there are some problems, there are some holes, and they recommend a number of changes. In producing Bill 207, a number of sources have been utilized by myself in the preparation of this Bill.

Obviously, I've made a number of references to the panel that has reviewed the conflict of interest legislation, and many of those recommendations of that panel indeed are included in here. As well as the panel report, Mr. Speaker, I have also referred to other conflict of interest Acts across this country, including specifically the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and, in Ottawa, the nation's conflict of interest legislation as well. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 207 really proposes to tighten up the current conflict of interest legislation by setting those higher standards that are referred to in the report of the conflicts of interest review panel. It introduces also some procedures that were suggested in the Wachowich report, which was presented earlier on. Back when the whole concept of conflict of interest was being intro- duced, the Premier at the time, the hon. Don Getty, appointed a review panel. That panel was chaired by Mr.

Justice Ed Wachowich, who produced a report making some recommenda- tions for the legislation that would subsequently be created, which is our current conflict of interest legislation. [The Deputy Speaker in the Chair] In fairness to the government many of the recommendations of the Wachowich report were indeed included, but a number of those recommendations were not accepted by the government of the day and were issues that were spoken to by my colleague Mr. Chumir in 1991 when Bill 40, the Conflicts of Interest Act, came forward.

Some of the things that were not included – they were part of the Wachowich report, but did not make it in the original Bill – include things like an object and principles clause. If you look at Bill 207, one of the things that I have included is an object and principles clause.

Part 1.1 outlines basically what the purpose is of this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, that has come from other conflict of interest legislation that we have in the nation. It is not in our current piece of conflict of interest legislation and is one that really outlines what the purpose is for conflict of interest legislation. It has been highlighted by the Wachowich report. It has been highlighted by the conflict of interest review panel as a noticeable oversight in the current legislation and is one that I have included in my Bill 207 that is before us today.

In fact, if you look through it, it includes a long list of objects and principles to be given consideration by this Assembly. Another issue that was in the Wachowich report that was not included was that the Assembly should deal with any report of the Ethics Commissioner within 30 days. In fact, what we have in the current conflict of interest legislation is a figure there of 60 days, twice as long a period of time, Mr. Speaker.

The Bill 207 before us today, the conflict of interest legislation, proposes to implement that recommendation of the Wachowich report into the new conflict of interest legislation, this Bill 207, the amendment to that Act, to shorten the 60 days down to 30 days. That was also reflected, I should add, in the conflict of interest review panel's report. The current conflict of interest legislation allows for only a six- month cooling-off period. There are people, Mr. Speaker, who have suggested a two-year cooling-off period when ministers leave cabinet and move on to other endeavours, I guess.

The Wachowich report suggested one year, and the report of the panel and therefore this amendment Act also proposes that it be a one- year cooling-off period rather than two years and rather than the six months we currently have. 3:40 Mr. Speaker, both the Wachowich report and the report of the review panel suggest that within legislation – within legislation –

548 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 we should have guidelines whereby the legislation would apply not only to Members of the Legislative Assembly, of course including cabinet ministers, but would also apply to senior public officials. The amendment before us today, Bill 207, proposes to include senior public officials in the conflict of interest legislation as something that needs to be amended. Currently what we have is a memo that was produced by the Justice minister of the time, Mr. Dick Fowler. It's simply a memo that is on the side and parallels it.

This Bill 207 proposes to include senior public officials under the legislation directly rather than as a separate dealing. Mr. Speaker, the other issue that was proposed under the Wachowich report was broader powers of investigation by the commissioner. That, too, has been included in this particular piece of legislation. So the Bill proposes to broaden a variety of issues, of acts that the Ethics Commissioner can do.

It also suggests, as indeed is referred to by the review panel, that perhaps one of the things we should be doing is reconsidering the concept that the conflict of interest commissioner should not hold any other public office. Currently, as I'm sure you are aware, it is possible in this province. In fact, what we do have is one individual who finds himself wearing two hats, if you will: that of a conflict of interest commissioner and that of a freedom of information commissioner. This Bill would prevent the conflict of interest commissioner from wearing that second hat. The reason for that, Mr.

Speaker, is that if Bill 207 is imple- mented and ultimately passed, the person who finds himself in the office of conflict of interest commissioner will, I would argue, find it virtually impossible to do both of those jobs because of the increased duties before that individual. That would mean that Alberta would have to find a second individual to wear the hat of freedom of information commissioner, and one individual would wear the hat of conflict of interest commissioner. Mr. Speaker, the Bill does not include anything to deal with the issue of lobbyist registration.

The report of the panel to review the conflict of interest legislation suggests that that should be included as part of the conflict of interest legislation. That has not been included in this Bill. It is not an oversight. It was a decision made by myself, at the time when I was drafting the Bill, to not include it. I want to point out that the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud has before this House as Bill 223 a private member's Bill that would create a lobbyist registration Act. I do see that as an important issue, but I have not included it in Bill 207.

We chose instead to include that as a separate piece of legislation. So it is not an oversight. It was sort of a strategic decision, if you will, as to where that concept should be dis- cussed. Mr. Speaker, when you review the Bill, there are a number of sections. Y ou'll see, I'm sure, in reviewing it that the Bill for a private member's Bill is indeed rather lengthy, some 20 pages. That comes about directly as a result of my survey of that other legislation to which I referred. It comes about as a result of my review of the Tupper report, if I can refer to that.

The review panel's report is the Tupper report, since Dr. Tupper was the chairman. It also includes issues that were raised by the Wachowich report back in 1991. So that is the reason why indeed the amending Bill, Bill 207, is as long as it is. Mr.

Speaker, an issue that was also brought forward by the Tupper panel, which proposed the list of 27 recommendations, was that in addition to the cabinet ministers and senior bureau- crats, the Leader of the Official Opposition also should be considered as a unique individua l, if you will, holding a unique position and should get special recognition, with special attention paid to the person in that pos ition in the conflict of interest legislation.

Indeed, if you review Bill 207, you will see a number of places where there is reference to inclusion of the Leader of the Official Opposition for special consideration as well. In looking at the section, if one starts to consider the variety of these individuals' different roles, then one must also review the varying degrees and types of investigations and reporting mecha- nisms that it would be incumbent upon the Ethics Commissioner to deal with in requests for investigations. In fact, a good

section of the Bill reviews that whole process by which the Ethics Commissioner can review what I refer to as a public office holder. I use that term specifically rather than mentioning MLA or cabinet minister or whatever. I include the term “public office holder” because we are all holders of public office but so are senior bureaucrats.

The term “public office holder” is a term that was mentioned in recommendation 1 of the Tupper panel and is a term, in fact, that I have incorporated in here to review the issue of how investigations would be included and concluded and to whom the reporting mechanism would be made. Mr. Speaker, that gives a broad overview of Bill 207. I'm sure there are many other individuals who wish to speak to Bill 207. I do want to point out that through the course of reviewing this Bill there were a number of drafts that have been presented.

Lest someone think that anyone else should be brought to task for it, I want to point out that in fact there is a bit of a numerical error in the Bill that would have to be corrected at the Committee of the Whole stage. I will take the responsibility for that error being here, having had the responsibility to create the Bill. If I may, Mr. Speaker – I know it's not typical to refer to a particular section. But if I look at page 16 of the Bill, this refers to

section 23 that is being substituted, and you will see it's quite lengthy. It starts on page 13 and goes through to page 16. In fact,

section 1 1 has been omitted. I will take responsibility for that error being there. By way of advice to members of the Assembly,

section 1 1 would read precisely the same as what is currently numbered as

section 13, and it refers to the Leader of the Official Opposition. So that should be included. It is an error that would be corrected at the Committee of the Whole stage, if indeed the Assembly passes the Bill at second reading stage and we get to that point. It is an error that should have been cor- rected before this final draft came before the House. Unfortu- nately, that did not occur, and that will be addressed in the future. Mr. Speaker, that is a quick overview of Bill 207. It proposes to guide us as elected officials more directly, more precisely in the future.

I look forward to comments from members on both sides of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. 3:50 MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 207. This is a Bill that seeks to further enhance the public confidence in the integrity of public office holders and indeed the decision making-process of government itself. I recognize, Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure every other member in this Assembly does, that it's not sufficient that we as elected officials are above conflict of interest; we must be seen to be above such conflict as well. Having said that, I don't think overreaction is called for either.

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 549 There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that we're living in an age of new and changing realities. Everyone in this Assembly, however, is here out of a sincere attempt to serve the people of Alberta to the very best of their ability. No one member or one party can presume to have an exclusive corner on hard work or dedication to that purpose, and I recognize that. It's this dedica- tion to purpose and perception that indeed prompted this Bill and also caused our Premier to establish the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel to review the present Act.

I think such initiative was extremely appropriate, even though so much of what was being examined did indeed deal with perception rather than actual reality. Since that report, referred to as the Tupper report, deals specifically with the contents of this Bill, I'd like to spend the next few minutes discussing the recommendations that were put forward in that report. Before I do so, however, I must stress that these are my own personal observations and do not necessar- ily reflect the opinions of my colleagues. Recommendation 1 called for an “Integrity in Government and Politics Act.” I agree, Mr.

Speaker, that a clear statement of purpose or of ethical obligations is indeed desirable and should be included in conflict of interest legislation. However, I do not agree that a new integrity in government and politics Act is required to achieve this goal. Recommendation 2 also refers to that same call for an integrity in government and politics Act.

While I agree with some of the comments in that recommendation that state “that Members of the Legislative Assembly and appointed officials will avoid both real and `apparent' conflicts of interest” if they conform to that – and I agree that the Members of the Legislative Assembly should indeed avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest in law – I do not believe, however, that a member should be found to be in conflict of interest simply because “a reasonably well informed person” believes such to be the case.

Therefore the obligation for members to attempt at all times to avoid apparent conflicts is desirable, but for all practical purposes this could only be contained within the statement of purpose that I referred to in the first recommendation. The third recommendation also referred to the integrity in government and politics Act and referred to the obligation for members of the Legislature to act impartially. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we “act impartially on behalf of all Albertans,” and this too I believe should be contained quite appropriately in the statement of purpose in the current Act.

Recommendation 4 deals with the proposed integrity in government and politics Act again and refers to restrictions now imposed on former ministers which should be extended to those members who chair standing policy committees and/or who chair or supervise significant agencies of the government of Alberta. Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with those statements, and I agree that the obligations currently imposed on the members of cabinet should extend to the members who chair the standing policy committees of government.

I believe, however, that further study will be required as to whether those obligations should extend to those who chair significant agencies of government and which agencies those might be. I'd want to define the word “signifi- cant” before offering any complete support for this recommenda- tion.

Recommendation 5 also refers to this Act that's being proposed and states that “the Leader of the Official Opposition should operate under the responsibilities and obligations imposed on Members of Executive Council.” I obviously agree with this recommendation, subject of course to the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition. Recommendation 6 also once again refers to that integrity in government and politics Act and calls for the employment of “a clear definition of the financial instruments in which Ministers and designated others should not be involved.” Well, I concur with this recommendation as well, Mr.

Speaker. But the existing Conflicts of Interest Act could easily be altered to accomplish this. “The present

section on Members' contractual dealings with governments is [far] too complex.” It's dealt with in recommen- dation 7. They state that it requires clarification and simplification especially as “contract- ing out” of government services is now a major part of public management in Alberta. Well, this is referred to in s ection 8 of the current Conflicts of Interest Act, but certainly it could be made far clearer. I believe this amendment should be brought forward, Mr. Speaker. Recommendation 8 itself refers to the present obligation on Members, outlined in

Section 12 of the Conflicts of Interest Act, to report the financial status of their spouses and minor children “so far as is known to the Member.” This is too weak, they claim. The Panel therefore recommends that Members be obliged to make “reasonable efforts” to ascertain the facts. Otherwise public disclosure cannot be effective. Well, I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I agree that a member should make reasonable efforts to learn about the financial interests of a spouse.

However, if the member is satisfied that a certain financial interest of a spouse has no connection whatsoever to the member's public responsibilities, there should be no further obligation in that regard. Number 9 refers to: When Members withdraw from their legislative duties because of conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest, the general circumstances and times of such withdrawals must be part of the public record. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is current practice.

Members routinely withdraw from discussions where there may be a potential conflict of interest, and such actions are recorded in cabinet minutes. The recommendation to make such withdrawals part of the public record is accepted. I have no trouble with that. I do, however, have a growing concern that such withdrawals marginalize those constituents who are represented by that member in this Assembly and in discussions on that legislation. So I think we have to be very, very careful that we clearly define those who are and who are not in conflict so that we don't marginalize those whom we represent.

Number 10 states that the present restrictions on the activities of former Ministers are legitimate safeguards of the public interest. The existing six month “cooling off” period is too short. They claim that it should be moved up to 12 months. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this recommendation because I believe that the current cooling-off period is appropriate. Any further extension of this cooling-off period should only be accompanied by an appropriate financial compensation.

Number 1 1 states that members must seek advice from the Ethics Commissioner when they are uncertain about what constitutes a gift, fee or other benefit or about the circumstances in which a gift, fee or benefit may be accepted. The onus is on them. Other Canadian governments deal with gifts in a manner similar to Alberta. No obviously superior policy alternative presents itself, although other jurisdictions, notably British Columbia and Ontario, employ clearer statutory language.

550 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree that members should seek advice from the Ethics Commissioner on the matter of gifts, fees, and other benefits. I have found his office to be most helpful in this regard. Recommendation 12 deals with, again, “income, gifts or other benefits received from a political party.” The reporting of this is a matter of practice currently. I certainly agree with this recom- mendation as well.

Number 13 deals with the integrity in government and politics Act that was referred to earlier in their report, which “should be reviewed by a committee of the Legislature every five years.” Well, I obviously agree that conflict of interest legislation should be reviewed every five years in order to ensure that the provisions of that legislation remain current.

This is consistent with current sunset provisions being applied elsewhere throughout government. 4:00 Recommendation 14 deals with consideration being “given to separating the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and the Office of the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner.” This is an issue that has been debated by both parties a great deal. Y ou know, Mr.

Speaker, I cannot accept this recommendation because I sincerely believe that the duties of the Ethics Commis- sioner and those of the Information and Privacy Commissioner are sufficient for one office, given the responsibilities involved and the financial resources currently available to this government. I think, however, that we should continue to monitor the workload associated with this office, and if there is indication that the workload is excessive, then at that time consideration should be given to this recommendation.

Recommendation 15 states that the educational activities of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner should be enhanced. The Commissioner should meet with each caucus at least twice annually. Candidates for elected office should be informed of their ethical obligations when they are nominated or even earlier if possible. Well, I think that this is a great idea, Mr. Speaker, and it'll go a long way to clarify any area of misunderstanding. Recommendation 16 is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. It states quite simply that “members' unpaid taxes should be publicly disclosed.” Well, I agree.

Recommendation 17 states that the disclosure forms used by the Office of the Ethics Commis- sioner must be continuously reviewed and updated. The forms should clearly state the Members' obligations and the purposes served by the information being requested. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly in keeping with the implied intent of the existing Act. Recommendation 18 states that “the legitimate costs of Mem- bers for complying with the Act should be paid for by public funds.” I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is only fair. Recommendation 19.

This integrity in government and politics Act which the report called for should be drafted as clearly and as tersely as possible. It must be “reader friendly.” Such an important Act should be comprehensi- ble to citizens and to those whose activities are governed by it. Well, I don't feel this is applicable, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think we need such

an Act. This recommendation assumed that this new legislation would be introduced. However, having said that, whenever possible I think we should continue to stress the need for reader-friendly government documents. Recommendation 20 states that the Code of Conduct and Ethics for the Public Service must continue to be systematically reviewed and modernized in light of changing circumstances. Provincial public employees must know their obligations under the Code. Training and development activities in this area should be reviewed continuously to deter- mine their effectiveness. I think that's a great idea, Mr.

Speaker. Recommendations 21, 22, 23, and 24 talk about “a new group of officials [being] proposed as the basis for revised policy for appointed officials.” This group would be called “policy officials,” and as such they would be subject to the “Code of Ethics and Conduct for the Public Service” and so on and so forth, “to obligations and restrictions outlined in the Integrity in Government and Politics Act.” Recommendation 22 talks about the policy officials who “will be covered by the Integrity in Government and Politics Act,” which, as I said, I don't agree should be there.

Recommendations 23 and 24 also talk about policy officials. Mr. Speaker, I don't agree that these four recommendations essentially should be accepted. They propose one initiative: that a wider group of government officials be covered by conflict of interest legislation.

These officials, largely responsible for public policy development, would include “assistant deputy ministers, executive assistants, senior staff in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and a further group who,” in the opinion of the Premier, would “wield enough policy or administrative influence to be included.” This could involve a sizable number of public service employees. It is proposed that this group of officials and their families be subject to all the same obligations as members of the Assembly.

As the review panel pointed out, it is a change in the terms and condition of employment for important appointed officials in Alberta. Their personal financial lives and those of their families will be exposed to public scrutiny. Well, I don't concur with the pr oposal that this am ount of disclosure by these levels of officials and their families is needed in order to ensure integrity in government. I honestly believe that all public service employees involved in the development of public policy already understand their ethical obligations as a result of their employment with the government of Alberta.

I also strongly believe in the practice of ministerial accountability. Perhaps we could broaden the scope of recommendation 15, dealing with the educational activities of the office of the Ethics Commissioner, to include these officials. That pretty well runs through the entire Tupper report, and as I said at the start, these are my own personal opinions and not necessarily those expressed by my colleagues. It's truly unfortu- nate that the Liberal Party decided not to provide input into this Tupper report b ecause I feel that their i nput was necessary and certainly would have been valued.

It could very well have been that it may have changed the content and direction of Bill 207, Mr. Speaker, that we're debating here. I do believe that the Conflicts of Interest Act Review Panel did a credible job; however, the report needs to be reviewed in its entirety before we embark on yet another piece of legislation. I therefore, unfortunately, cannot support this legislation. How- ever, I do thank the member for bringing it forward. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 207, the Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, as proposed by my colleague from Calgary-North West.

March 13, 1996 Alberta Hansard 551 Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the Member for Olds- Didsbury, who was speaking about the various recommendations that came forward from what we are referring to this afternoon as the Tupper panel on conflicts of interest review in the province of Alberta. I heard him say in his discussion that there was recogni- tion of the good work that the Tupper panel had undertaken in recognizing the need for change to conflicts of interest legislation in the province of Alberta. [Mr. Herard in the Chair] I was surprised therefore, Mr.

Speaker, to hear him say that he was not going to support the legislation. As you know, when we are in second reading stage of a particular Bill in this Legislature, regardless of whether it's a government Bill or a private member's public Bill, we deal with the concept of the legislation. We don't deal with the specific sections of the Bill. We defer that debate and that discussion to Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we take the time to look at Dr.

Tupper's panel's report on the Conflicts of Interest Act as it currently stands as requested by the Premier of the province of Alberta, we can clearly see that Dr. Tupper and his panel recognized some urgency in the need for changes to our conflicts of interest legislation. There is and continues to be and all members of this Assembly will feel personally a sense of cynicism within the public towards public officials. There is suspicion in the public about the level of integrity of public officials.

My colleague from Calgary-North West made the statement and I concur with the comment made in the Tupper report that “the vast majority of public office holders in Alberta are persons of integrity.” Undeniably, Mr. Speaker, the members of this Assembly that hold public office are persons of integrity. What's necessary, though, Mr. Speaker, is that we can't go and sell ourselves and convince people of that without being armed with the proper tools, without being armed with the proper product.

The product is a s ound, comprehensive, clear, under- standable, and I would venture to say tough conflicts of interest legislation where there's a recognition that not only a conflict of interest but an apparent or a perceived conflict of interest is sufficient to bring the issue forward for a member who sits in this Assembly to deal with. It's that kind of an approach that is necessary for the public of Albe rta, that every jurisdiction in Canada, every jurisdiction of a democratic jurisdiction will need to reinstill confidence. The statement is made by Dr.

Tupper and the panel in their report that major changes are required if Alberta is to have a conflicts of interest system that meets public expectations, stands the test of time and provides the province with guidelines that are second to none in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think that many members of this Assembly on both sides will agree with me that there is a call from the public of Alberta to have that kind of change take place, that the conflict of interest legislation as it currently stands has received its own level of controversy.

For members of this Assembly to move forward and make an attempt to deal with that, to improve upon that, to come to the Assembly and debate that I think is very worth while for the people of Alberta. 4:10 It would surprise me that members on either side of the House would choose to debate, at least in concept, that an improvement to the Conflicts of Interest Act is not worthy of moving the Bill into the next level of debate.

I will certainly stand in my place and suggest that I will approve the concept of improving upon our conflicts of interest legislation and allow this Bill to move forward into committee stage to determine where we can improve upon the particular sections of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, I was listening, as I say again, to the Member for Olds-Didsbury, who very comprehensively went through the list of recommendations that came forward from the Tupper panel. I will hope that the Minister of Justice was listening carefully, as the Member for Stony Plain was.

As I understand, as a result of the Tupper panel, which was requested through the Premier's office to our Ethics Commissioner, and as a result of the govern- ment's response to the Tupper panel, the Premier created at that point a task force to review the panel's review. So we have a government review force to review the review panel's review. Now, that's what I call action. Mr. Speaker, when the Premier through his office set up the review task force to review the review panel's review, it gave it no mandate, gave it no time line within which to report.

Now, the irony of that is that as the Tupper panel task force was developed and created, again at the behest of the Premier, it was given a hurry-up time period within which to conduct its work. It was given an incredibly small time frame within which to work. Certainly to my way of thinking, I would suggest that the comprehensiveness of the Tupper panel's report is incredible, given the amount of time that it had to conduct its work.

I noted that the Member for Olds-Didsbury took a moment to comment on the fact that I and my colleagues in our caucus chose not to participate in the informal discussions that we were invited to participate in by Dr. Tupper and the panel as it was attempting to achieve its goal and to do its work with the incredibly limited parameters that it was given. We did discuss that, hon. member, and we came to the conclusion that the opportunities that had been given to Dr.

Tupper and his panel were incredibly restrictive, that we had much more to say than could be said in a few minutes over coffee in an informal discussion, which was all that was offered at the time. Quite honestly, I think that's all Dr. Tupper had the ability to offer to us. We were already at that point in time, hon. member, moving to the preparation and creation of Bill 207 because of the changes that we saw were necessary to the Conflicts of Interest Act as it currently stands. We felt that there was no benefit to be gained for either Dr.

Tupper or his panel or for ourselves in having that informal coffee-cup chat about the conflicts of interest legislation. I and my colleagues saw it, Mr. Speaker, as an issue that needed a much more serious and formal approach than chatting over coffee. It was for those reasons that we declined to participate in that. That does not mean that we were not dealing with the issue then or now. We were dealing with the issue, and you see the result of our dealing with that in my colleague for Calgary-North West's introduction this afternoon of Bill 207. As you heard the sponsor of the Bill say, Mr.

Speaker, many of the provisions contained in Bill 207 were original recommenda- tions that came forward from the Wachowich report and dealt with the level of reasonableness, in many aspects, of having an effective conflicts of interest regime in the province of Alberta: the inclusion of senior public officials under the same scrutiny as those elected representatives because of the important and influential positions they hold; the cooling-off period of one year, again necessary because of the influential positions that elected representatives hold; the aspect of dealing with an Ethics Commis-

552 Alberta Hansard March 13, 1996 sioner's report that is tabled in this Legislative Assembly coming forward within 30 days as opposed to 60 days, as it currently stands. That addresses the issue of integrity and recognizes that the Legislative Assembly unto itself and all of the Members of the Legislative Assembly are prepared to deal quickly with an issue that may affect an individual Member of the Legislative Assem- bly. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that for all members of this Assembly on either side of the House as we deal with business on private members' day, an issue of integrity or of conflict of interest is not just a reflection on that particular individual or that particular member. It is a reflection on the institution as a whole.

Every member of this Assembly should want to have the issue dealt with and dealt with quickly and dealt with properly and dealt with publicly so that if a colle ague in this Assembly is an individual subject to a conflict of interest investigation, if that member does in fact find themselves in a conflict of interest, Members of this Legislative Assembly should want to deal with that. They should want to deal with that as quickly and as effectively as they possibly can for the benefit of this institution. It is not necessarily for the be nefit of any one individual within this institution.

I think it's important that we think about that, that it is not a self-serving issue, but it's an issue that protects the integrity of the institution as much as the members that participate in public life. Mr. Speaker, just to refer back, then, to the report of the Tupper panel. The recommendations that the Member for Olds- Didsbury referred to were given to the government, and we have not yet, as I indicated, seen any result of that.

The Member for Olds-Didsbury made comment about those particular recommenda- tions that he felt for himself and on behalf of his constituents were appropriate and could be made, could be implemented as recom- mendations and those that he felt for himself and on behalf of his constituents may have specifically in any particular case gone too far and perhaps created an imbalance in terms of individual rights and responsibilities as opposed to public responsibilities. 4:20 Well, Mr.

Speaker, what we don't know of course at this point in time is whether those kinds of discussions and that kind of debate we're having this afternoon have taken place with the task force that the Premier crea

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19960313
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S4 19960313 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	69d3445586d9a2d63a49a14f120e9c13de16aaec

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