May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1985 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 17, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/05/17 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. Our Father, we confidently ask Y ou for Y our strength and encouragement in our service of Y ou through our service of others. We humbly ask for Y our gift of wisdom to guide us in making good laws and good decisions for the present and the future of Alberta. Amen. Would the members remain standing for a moment.

On behalf of the Members of the Legislative Assembly I extend our expression of sympathy to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on the death of his wife, Trudie. Our prayers are with the minister and his family in this time of sorrow. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of this Assembly His Excellency John Beck, ambassador and head of the delegation of the Commis- sion of the European Communities to Canada. Seated with Ambassador Beck are his wife, Mrs. Helen Beck, and Mr.

Frank Deeg, principal assistant of economic and commercial affairs with the commission in Ottawa. Ambassador Beck was appointed ambassador and head of the delegation to Canada in April of 1993. He is making his first official visit to our province. He has had a distinguished career which has included positions as the economic community's deputy head of the permanent delegation to Geneva and head of the division responsible for the GATT and multilateral trade policy based in Brussels.

In 1993 Alberta exports to the European union member states amounted to approximately $440 million, with wood, pulp, wheat, canola, and telecommunications equipment comprising the majority of those sales. The European union is Alberta's third largest trading partner following the United States and Asia and represents Alberta's largest number of overseas visitors every year. In the recent past Alberta's European focus has shifted toward tourism, investment, and technology access and away from the more traditional commodities.

While in Alberta Ambassador Beck has had an opportunity to meet with government officials to discuss issues relating to market access difficulties and the effects of the European communities' common agricultural policy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask His Excellency, Mrs. Beck, and Mr. Deeg to please rise in the Speaker's gallery and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to file with the Assembly a petition supporting the Children's hospital and urging that it be kept as an active treatment hospital to serve the children of southern Alberta. There are 1,951 names on this petition. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm rising to present a petition with 2,731 signatures gathered from residents of Edmonton-Avonmore, Edmonton-Mill Woods, Edmonton-Ellers- lie, Edmonton-Gold Bar, and other surrounding areas who are petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to maintain the Grey Nuns Hospital in Mill Woods as a Full-Service, Active [treatment] Hospital and continue to serve the south-east end of Edmonton and surrounding area. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to present a petition today with 1,424 names on it, which now makes over 30,000 names that have been presented in this Legislative Assembly of people who support keeping the Grey Nuns hospital open as an active care treatment centre. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to present a petition with 1 15 names of concerned citizens in the High River and Longview area who are asking that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta urge the government to maintain the Children's hospital on its current site.

Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I tabled on April 26 regarding the Alberta Children's hospital be now read and received. CLERK: We the undersigned petition the Legislature of Alberta to urge the government to reconsider the recommendation of the Hyndman Report in regards to the relocation of the Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to request that the petition I submitted May 2 in regards to early childhood services be read and received today. CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to include 400 hours per year of Early Childhood Services (ECS) in the School Act as an essential part of a Basic Education. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now request that the petition which I presented on May 2 concerning the Children's hospital location be now read and received. Thank you.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to maintain the Alberta Children's

1986 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 Hospital in Calgary on its current site and as it currently exists as a full service pediatric health care facility. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to request that the petition I submitted on the 21st of April concerning the Children's hospital in Calgary be now read and received. Thank you.

CLERK: We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to maintain the existing Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary as a full service, active hospital which will continue to serve the children of southern Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that my petition of May 2 regarding removing the Sturgeon general hospital from Edmonton be read and received.

CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of the Sturgeon General Hospital within the Edmonton Region and to allow the Sturgeon General Hospital to serve its customers from the City of St. Albert, the MD of Sturgeon, the Town of Morinville, the Village of Legal, the Alexander Reserve, the Counties of Athabasca, Barrhead, Lac Ste. Anne, Parkland and Westlock. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the petition I presented on May 2 concerning taking the St. Albert Sturgeon general hospital out of the health region of Edmonton be read and received. CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of the Sturgeon General Hospital within the Edmonton Region and to allow the Sturgeon General Hospital to serve its customers from the City of St. Albert, the MD of Sturgeon, the Town of Morinville, the Village of Legal, the Alexander Reserve, the Counties of Athabasca, Barrhead, Lac Ste. Anne, Parkland and Westlock. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition which I presented on April 27 regarding the retention of the Grey Nuns hospital as an active, acute care treatment centre be now read and received. CLERK: We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government to maintain the Grey Nuns Hospital in Mill Woods as a Full-Service, Active Hospital and continue to serve the south-east end of Edmonton and surrounding area. head: Presenting Reports by head: Standing and Special Committees MR. DUNFORD: Mr.

Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act and pursuant to Standing Order 52 I hereby would like to table the 1993 committee report. Copies will be distributed to members after question period. I'd like to thank all committee members for their support. head: Notices of Motions MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I'm giving notice that tomorrow I'll be moving that written questions and motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. head: Introduction of Bills 1:40 Bill 36 Teachers' Retirement Fund Amendment Act, 1994 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 36, the Teachers' Retirement Fund Amendment Act, 1994. Mr. Speaker, this Act provides for the following: the adjusting of contribution rates, the commuted value of pension and lock-in provisions, and it provides for contributions at full cost for past maternity leave.

These amendments provide for the implementa- tion of necessary revisions arising from the memorandum of understanding of the year 1992. [Leave granted; Bill 36 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the answer to Motion for a Return 169. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table copies of a media release dated today issued by the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, starting off, "The Government has winked, blinked, and shut its eyes." MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order please.

I am tabling with the Assembly a letter dated May 10, 1994, from Mr. Glen Braum requesting that his name be withdrawn as the candidate recom- mended by the Select Special Auditor General Search Committee for the position of the Auditor General of Alberta. A copy of the letter is being distributed to members. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, related to your tabling, I wonder if I might request unanimous consent to revert to Notices of Motions. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the request by the hon. Govern- ment House Leader, all those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no.

So ordered. head: Notices of Motions (reversion) MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the motion would be as follows:

Be it resolved that the Select Special Auditor General Search Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta be revived to continue its original mandate pursuant to Government Motion 22, passed by this Assembly Tuesday, November 9, 1993, due to the withdrawal of the committee's recommended candidate in its report to the Legislative Assembly Thursday, May 5, 1994, being sessional paper 656/94.

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1987 head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you 83 energetic grade 6 students from Stettler elementary school located in my cons tituency. These students are accompanied here today by teachers Don Falkenberg, Malcolm Fischer, Karyn Hayden, Rod McElroy, Ron Komishke, and Jenn Konshuh as well as parents Sheila Wiest, Carol Dand, Anna Garez, Kevin Sawula, Karen Hummerstone, Donna Jacobs, Mila Barclay, and Marlene Boyer.

I would ask them to please rise – they're seated in both the members' and the public galleries – and receive the warm welcome of this Assem- bly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my privilege to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Mr. P.J. Reimer, teacher; gr oup leaders Mrs. Rachel Reimer, Mrs. Mona Payne, Mrs. Cindy Broadfoot; and 22 grade 10 students from Millwoods Christian school. They're seated in the public gallery, and with your permission I would ask them to stand and receive the traditional welcome of the House. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly another one of Saskatchewan's great products. We know that indeed one of their greatest exports is their people. I'd like to introduce to you a business leader in Calgary, one of the first air charters from Calgary to Siberia to help open the Russian oil fields for work by Albertans. He's certainly a part of the Alberta advantage, and it gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. Tom Bugg, who's seated in the Speaker's gallery.

I'd ask that you give him a warm round of welcome. Thank you. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you and to members Philippe Labossière. He's from St-Hyacinthe, Quebec. He's a fourth year political science major studying international relations. Philippe is a participant in the Quebec/Alberta student employment exchange program and will be assisting government members with caucus research until mid-August. I would ask that Philippe stand while we signal bienvenue from the Assembly today. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To you and through you I would like to introduce to this House a constituent and another Albertan concerned about education in this province: Mr. Dan Backs in the public gallery. Would he please stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period School Act Amendments MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, in the last seven weeks the government, particularly the Minister of Education, has caused acrimony and division amongst Albertans over education.

The government bullied the Catholic community into accepting a compromise, and in changing its position, what the government partially solved for the Catholic community they created or made worse for other communities. Now public school representatives are angry at the government, angry at usurping their local autonomy. Is the minister going to continue his style of bully tactics and fumbling and ignore the concerns of public school boards today? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, if there has been anybody or any group that's been promoting acrimony as far as the education debate is concerned, they're located across the way. During the past number of days and weeks I've been working on providing a series of amendments which will improve Bill 19. As I see it, these amendments provide a number of improvements that provide for fair and equitable funding for all students in this province. I would ask the members across the way to, you know, remember that there are students out there as they bounce around from one side to the other on this issue.

These amendments provide for that fair and equitable funding for students in this province, and it provides the mechanism to do so. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, acrimony comes from writing bad legislation. Why is the minister adamant in beating down local autonomy and not allowing school boards the right – and this is basic to local autonomy – to choose their own superintendents? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition that perhaps he could read Bill 19 or have someone read it for him, because Bill 19 does provide for local school boards advertising for selecting their own superinten- dents. MR. DECORE: Bad legislation leads to acrimony. Mr. Minister, how can you discriminate by not allowing the public boards the same kind of advantage that you've now given to the Catholic boards in this province? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to bad legislation. From his remarks I can only conclude that he doesn't know what's in it anyway, so it's very difficult to assess that.

The legislation that we have proposed gives no particular advantage to any school board in this province over another. It provides equitable and fair funding through school boards to the students of this province, where it is important that the funding arrive and be applied. That is not a system that puts any advan- tage to one group over another. 1:50 MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, good legislation doesn't require . . . MR. SPEAKER: Second main question. MR. DECORE: Maybe he should do his homework. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education . . . MR. HENRY: What you have to do is make up your mind over there. MR.

SPEAKER: Order. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question.

1988 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 School Taxes MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Educa- tion said that he would use revenue from new assessment to replace the $30 million in funding from lotteries for education. We now learn that there won't be enough money to make good on this $30 million. The minister has also said that there will be no new tax increases for education. Mr. Minister, tell Albertans how much short you'll be on the $30 million that you said would be covered. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, our projections are that we will obtain the $30 million required. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Minister, will you agree to table in this Assembly as soon as possible the figures, the financial documents that show clearly how and from where this $30 million will come? Will you do that? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would refer the hon. leader to the budget documents that have been tabled with the Assembly. The projections are there. In terms of reporting on revenue that is taken in by the profits and the sources from which it came, certainly that will be accounted for in due course through the public accounts and through the budget documents of the province. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Minister, what kind of plan do you have when you say that there will be no new tax increases and officials from your department are now negotiating with some municipali- ties for such tax increases as we speak? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, officials from the departments involved, particularly Alberta Education, are contacting and are in discussion with local municipal authorities and with school boards, but particularly local municipal authorities, and dealing with the approach, the direction that has been clear from January 18 onward, and that is that in order to meet the $30 million required for equity payments this year for the benefit of students in this province, we were going to tax the real growth in the assessment of the tax base in the province. Athabasca University MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, Athabasca University's mandate – this is set out clearly in government statements – is to provide equality of educational opportunity for adult Canadians. A commercial centre has been created at Athabasca with the minister's blessing. This is to award MBAs to wealthy interna- tional students. Stephen Murgatroyd, a special friend of the Treasurer and one of the promoters of this centre, received a $5 million loan and loan guarantee from the Conservative-appointed board of Athabasca. My questions are to the minister of advanced education. Mr.

Minister, explain why you have not directed the board of Athabasca to revoke the loan and the loan guarantee that has been given to a profit centre that Mr. Murgatroyd is promot- ing. MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear that the MBA program that's being delivered by Athabasca University was not created in an effort to serve, necessarily, international students. As a matter of fact, the last time I checked with Athabasca University, at least half of the applicants are from within Alberta for that program.

We have something over 40 applicants that have applied and been accepted into that program, and it's brand new. It's brand new. The centre that the hon. leader refers to is a centre that was set up to carry this whole cost-recovery program so that it could be separated out. As far as the loan guarantee, let's be clear: there's no loan guarantee going to Mr. Murgatroyd. The centre that's set up is an arm of the university. It is not a separate corporation. It's there as an arm of the university and there to serve the cost-recovery programs that they may see fit to put in place.

Students are paying some $7,000 in tuition, full cost recovery to the institution, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECORE: Mr. Minister, why would you deny universities financial resources that keep away 20,000 Albertans who can't get access to postsec ondary institutions, but you can without even blinking an eye allow a $5 million loan to be given to that fellow's friend? How can you do it? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, let's be clear that what has happened with the creation of this centre is not impacting to the extent that the hon. leader would have us believe.

In fact, it's there as a creative approach to providing a service to Albertans and others across this country who may see fit to access an MBA, a very coveted MBA, I might add, that will be of value to Albertans and others across this country. I see it as a very positive thing, and I'm surprised that the Liberals across the way would try to cast a negative pall on something that's so innovative and good for Albertans. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Minister, tell Albertans how you could allow this Tory-appointed board to thumb its nose at the govern- ment and allow through the back door a government to be in the business when it said that it wouldn't be in business. How can you do that? MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, each year the government gives a grant to institutions, and it's administered by the board of governors and the administration of that institution. At that point, they have jurisdiction over programs that they may see fit to bring forward that will serve Albertans and international students if they choose to come here.

In this case, the same thing was done to Athabasca University. They received their envelope of funding. They saw fit to enter into this on a full co st recovery at no cost to the taxpayer – the student pays the cost – and will provide an educational service to Albertans in this province. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, supplementary information. Last fall this Legislature had before it amendments to the Financial Administration Act that would give the government greater influence over the financial control, the financial affairs of institutions like our universities.

It was the same Liberals across the way who opposed those kinds of amendments because they said that the government shouldn't meddle in the financial affairs of the university. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. [interjections] Order. The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Northern Alberta River Basins Study MS CALAHASEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think spring is around the corner or it is here, b ecause we seem to be getting quite a lot of chirping. [interjections]

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1989 MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. member. MS CALAHASEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The northern river basins study, which is in the final year of informa- tion gathering, has many implications for northern Alberta, especially the people who depend on northern rivers for food and water. I was interested to learn that of the $2.6 million allocated to carry this study to its conclusion of March 31, 1995, $433,000 has been earmarked to research traditional knowledge.

Can the Minister of Environmental Protection tell us what role traditional knowledge is playing in this study and how that knowledge is being gathered? 2:00 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very good question by the hon. member. The input from northerners is extremely important as human history information in the northern river basins study.

What we are trying to do, along with the scientific information that's being gathered, is broaden out the perspectives that we have by getting the input from northerners as to what the impacts have been on the changes that have occurred in the northern river basins. Now, how are we doing that? Well, we're doing it through involvement of northerners. Local people who have been given some information and education, really, on traditional knowledge and also on modern interviewing techniques are going to a number of communities in the north.

In fact, about 50 people from 10 different communities are going to be inter- viewed, and we hope that all of that information will then become part of the history of the area. We want this information to be part of the north, and it will certainly be used in connection with the scientific information to give us a final report on northern river basins. MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, too often it seems that we get studies done, but nothing gets done. Could the minister then indicate what the results of that northern river basins study and all the components of it will comprise? MR. EV ANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, certainly not only with respect to the Department of Environmental Protection but also with respect to the Department of Health I expect that this traditional information will be used for project approvals and decision- making generally in the north. We also want to compile all of this information and make it available for the communities in the north. I would foresee the information being in libraries, for example, in the north so that the average citizen in the north and students in particular can review it and learn about their history through that information gathering. MS CALAHASEN: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Health then: what is the involvement of Alberta Health in this project? There obviously are health issues related to the work being done under this study. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, Alberta Health is a partici- pant in this study, and we are a participant because we feel that the data that can be garnered from this study and that can be analyzed by scientists could give us information as to possible linkages between environmental health, between the health of populations and possible contaminants that are found in the air or water.

We would expect that the results of that information would lead us with better information to make decisions on how to deliver health programs in those areas. So we are a full partici- pant and looking forward to the work and the information gained from that study. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Special Waste Treatment Centre DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past six years the government has committed over $196 million of taxpayers' moneys to operate the Alberta Special Waste Treatment Centre at Swan Hills. That's $196 million.

Meanwhile Chem-Security, the operator of Swan Hills and a subsidiary of Bovar, has received $34 million in guaranteed profits on its share of the Swan Hills facility since 1989. My questions are to the Minister of Environ- mental Protection. How can the minister justify a subsidy of $196 million so a private company can generate a guaranteed return of $34 million in profits? A guaranteed return. MR. EV ANS: Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, when the government of the province of Alberta in the mid-80s decided to site and build the special waste treatment facility in Swan Hills, they did so wishing to have this operated by the private sector. The government of the day, and we continue today, wanted to be leaders in environmental protection, and special waste or hazard- ous waste is a very serious problem.

What we had through that period in the mid-80s were negotiations with a number of private- sector partners or potential partners, and the best deal that could be worked out to ensure that this facility was sited and built was a 60-40 joint venture with a guaranteed return. Now, that was the very best that could be obtained at the time. Now, if the hon. member opposite is suggesting that we should not be in the business of dealing with hazardous waste in this province and should not have made that decision, then I'd ask him to make that remark clearly to this Assembly.

We have taken our responsibility for environmental protection very seriously, and we have sited a state-of-the-art facility the superior of which does not exist in North America. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did this minister – we're not talking about the previous government, as you referred – keep the sweetheart provision of prime plus 3 percent when the contract was amended in April of 1993 just before the election? Why keep that deal? MR. EV ANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, during the time frame from 1985-86 to 1993 the facility was not making money.

In fact, it was losing money. We had a number of choices in front of us when we came up to a renewal: let's try to find somebody who'd be prepared to jump in and take over this facility or to give us a better deal. Well, quite frankly, we could not find a better deal. Now, if in the future this facility becomes self-supporting, I think there will be some better deals, but the time was not right in 1993. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How can this minister claim this is a good deal for Albertans when the actual subsidy and cost to taxpayers thus far is almost $5,000 per tonne of waste incinerated? Five thousand dollars per tonne.

1990 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 MR. EV ANS: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have taken a position in this province that we will clean up hazardous waste. Now, we are the only province in this dominion of Canada that has been able to site and build a hazardous waste facility. We have a facility that can eliminate these wastes. In fact, we are essentially PCB free in this province. We have eliminated all the PCBs that were accumulated by i ndustry in this province on an ongoing basis. Now, that's only because we have this facility.

I am very proud of the environmental record of this government and the facility at Swan Hills. I believe that Albertans are very proud of that record. They realize that we have taken on a massive environmental responsibility and the cost attendant to that. We will continue to be supportive of this and hopefully turn it into a profit-making facility in the near future. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River. Physiotherapy MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health.

In earlier discussions, Madam Minister, it was indicated that there was going to be more direct access by patients to physiotherapists. More recently we're advised that the Alberta health care insurance plan will not fund physiotherapy services after the community rehabilitation program is imple- mented. I wonder if the minister can advise us of the present status of the direct access issue and if there are plans to proceed with freer access. MRS. McCLELLAN: We have accepted in principle direct access for physiotherapists.

I met with the Independent Physical Therapists, the College of Physical Therapists, as well as the Alberta association for physical therapists and asked them to provide some information that we would require to complete this process. That group has met, Mr. Speaker, and has provided very, very insightful information, answering many of the ques- tions. I am in the process right now of reviewing that. But I would see that direct access would be available for physical therapists in the very near future. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: will the funds that are presently in the Alberta health care insurance plan be transferred to the regional funding for community rehabilitation, or is it expected th at this service will be required to be funded from existing budgets? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, the three-year business plan for Health does provide for the development of a community rehabilitation program. We have a committee in process now developing the terms of reference for that program, and that committee has representation from all of the various therapies in the province.

We presently have committed about $32 million a year through the health care insurance fund to physiotherapy. We also provide dollars through our hospital-based program, through long-term care, and through home care. I would see that the dollars that are available today are removed from their present holdings and into that program pending the successful develop- ment of a program, but we do look at allocating the present dollars to that area. 2:10 MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: if it were more efficient to do so, could a hospital contract its physiotherapy services to a private clinic or therapist and continue to receive f unding through the insurance coverage that it now gets? MRS. McCLELLAN: Today, Mr. Speaker, hospitals and others can certainly make arrangements for how they fund physical therapy. However, if we are successful in developing a commu- nity rehabilitation program in this province, those dollars would be available in the regions for those therapies. Therefore, there would not be dollars available in the health care insurance fund.

So when we move to a different program, those dollars will not be there to access. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Special Waste Treatment Centre (continued) MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the government and its joint-venture partner wanted to expand the Swan Hills hazardous waste plant, they said that they needed the expansion to deal with Alberta-only waste and to reach so-called economies of scale. Eighty-five million dollars later the expan- sion is ready to go, but the story now is that without imported hazardous waste, the expansion can't be used to full capacity.

In fact, the minister himself has said that if importation is not allowed, part of the $140 m illion newly expanded complex will have to be shut down to protect taxpayers. My first question's to the Minister of Environmental Protection. If there was no hidden agenda on importing hazardous waste, why didn't the government get approval on importation first and then get approval on the expansion after the fact? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, back in 1990 there was a very, very thorough and transparent review of an application by Chem- Security to expand at Swan Hills.

That review was done through the Natural Resources Conservation Board. It involved a number of intervenors, who came forward, asked very appropriate questions, took a look at waste streams, and knew that the proposal was for Alberta waste only. The decision of the Natural Resources Conservation Board, a quasi-judicial body independent of government, was that the expansion of Swan Hills was in the public interest given a review of environmental, social, and economic considerations. That was a decision of the board back in 1990. It had nothing whatsoever to do with importation of waste.

It was based on the information that was available at the time and the policy of government, which was Alberta only. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal caucus at that time said: you're going to have to import with the size of expansion. My second question to the Minister of Environmental Protec- tion: isn't it true, Mr. Minister, that whether you shut down part of the plant or not, if importation is not allowed, the private company running that facility will still be guaranteed a profit? MR. EV ANS: Well, firstly, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not the facility would be shut down in whole or in

part is totally hypothet- ical. When I was trying to answer a question yesterday by the media, I indicated that if the volumes of waste that are being

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1991 treated were to stay level or below what they are today, which was exactly the reason that this figure of $400 million came up from Chem-Security themselves, then remedial action would have to be taken to try to minimize the loss to Albertans. That could include a partial shutting down of the operation. I went on to say, though, that I don't expect that to happen. One of the reasons that the waste stream has been at lower than capacity is because we've been in a construction phase for the last couple of years on the new kiln.

That does curtail the amount of waste that can be handled. Of course our economy in the province has not been great in the past couple of years. It's certainly moving forward now, but during that time of a difficult economy companies in the province hadn't been willing to spend the money to treat their waste. With the improvement in our provincial economy and with the in itiatives of our Premier I am confident that the waste stream will increase and that we'll get to viability. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was about guaranteed profit, so my final supplemental to the Minister of Environmental Protection: what are the chances that the government will redo the sweetheart deal with Bovar so that Alberta taxpayers don't have to pay for profits that aren't earned? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. member opposite, who is a lawyer, just as I am, doesn't seem to appreciate the sanctity of contract. It's very, very much sanctity of contract if it suits his purposes, but now even though we have a contract, he's saying: well, let's go and rip up that contract and start again.

Well, I'm not going to contemplate that, because I don't want to try to presume what the decision of the NRCB will be on importation of hazardous waste. I don't want to try to presume what's going to be the case in the years in the future, but I do want to state again that we believe in the sanctity of contract. That's why this government is respected. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Provincial Fiscal Policies MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Provincial Treasurer. This government has set a high standard in reporting and public accountability.

It's a powerful tool when combined with a well-defined plan to elimi- nate the deficit. Would the Provincial Treasurer . . . [interjec- tions] Well, the well-defined plan from the members across the way was $1.1 billion in brutal cuts, but they can't seem to remember where they were going to get it. Would the Provincial Treasurer . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please get to the question. MR. MAGNUS: I'm trying, Mr. Speaker. Would the Provincial Treasurer advise Albertans when we can expect the fourth quarter report on our fiscal progress? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, the Deficit Elimination Act calls for quarterly reports after June, September, and December. There is no provision in the Deficit Elimination Act for reports following March, but our quarterly report for March 31 will in fact be our annual report, which is the audited, by the Auditor General, financial statements of the province, volume 1. Those statements will be out by June 30, earlier than they have ever been out in the history of this province, in compliance with the Auditor General's recommendations, and volumes 2 and 3 will be out by the end of September. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR.

MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: in the absence of a quarterly report can the Treasurer provide an account of Alberta's progress in meeting our fiscal and economic targets? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I can, and I could cite from a number of reports, not the least of which was Statistics Canada's recent report on unemployment and employment in this province and indeed in this country, that the year-over-year employment growth in Alberta, April '94 over April '93, was some 40,000 in size.

What that says is that Alberta and British Columbia are now the only two provinces in the dominion that have exceeded prerecession employment figures. It's something that Albertans should be proud of, b ecause it's Albertans who have put this province back to work. I can advise the Assembly that our rate of unemployment is the second lowest in the country. It's not yet low enough, but we've made some progress. MR. MAGNUS: Mr. Speaker, what impact does this have on our credit rating, if any? [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order, hon. members. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, this is important.

The members across the way . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair recognizes that it's important. That's why the Chair is encouraging the supporters of the Provincial Treasurer to be quiet so he can be heard. 2:20 MR. DINNING: Well, I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that you recog- nize the importance of this, because it has a significant impact on our ability to borrow and therefore the cost of our borrowing.

I would refer hon. members to comments by the president of the Canadian Bond Rating Service who said that there are three provinces who are in line for a credit upgrade, and they are British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. From a credit rating point of view, they are the three provinces that are moving up. I also refer to a report by CS First Boston out of New Y ork who took issue with comments by Standard and Poor's decision to maintain our negative outlook.

They went on to say that we "believe that it will change later in the year as the budget deficit plan continues its success." Exploratory Well in Whaleback Area MR. N. TA YLOR: Y esterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environmental Protection made a statement in the House that doesn't quite jibe with the truth. He stated that he visited the Whaleback area and then decided that no environmental assess- ment was necessary,

whereas the media release that I'm turning loose now shows that he visited it a day after he decided that it wouldn't be necessary. Churchill would say: some trip; some plane. I wonder what they serve aboard those things. I'd like to

1992 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 ask: in view of the minister's statement yesterday that the Department of Environmental Protection would "have a decision- maker in the area" – this is page 1945 – "who will likely be called at the Amoco exploratory well review" . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. N. TA YLOR: That's it. It's coming now. Y ou won't like it. Y ou won't like it. Could the minister provide the name of that decision-maker and assure the House that the intervenors will be able to cross-examine that person? MR. EV ANS: Well, firstly, Mr.

Speaker, I want to point out that I don't make decisions for the department based on a flyover and a landing at an exploratory well as to whether or not a licence of occupation and a mineral surface lease should be allowed. I take the input from my experts in our Department of Environmental Protection. That's the basis for a decision. Now, I did say yesterday that I went out to that site, and it was because I was concerned about what the process was, and I wanted to see it for myself. In terms of the direct question from the hon. Member for Redwater, he said: well, who's going to be there?

We will have a decision-maker from our integrated department and probably one of our biologists who will be in the area at the hearings. If called and if the board feels that it is appropriate for that individual to make comment and give evidence, then we'll deal with it at the time that application is made. We are there, Environmental Protection, as observers to this review by the Energy Resources Conservation Board. MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, I know a trip with the Minister of Energy is its own reward; nevertheless, I would ask the minister just to listen to the question once again.

Will that decision-maker be allowed to be cross-examined by the intervenors? That's the real crux of the question. MR. EV ANS: I guess I'll try to answer this one more time, Mr. Speaker. The point of this exercise is that this is an application for an exploratory well; that is, for the well itself. Okay? As I mentioned yesterday, there are a number of checks and balances before you get to an Energy Resources Conservation Board hearing. Our input is with respect to the licence of occupation and the miscellaneous surface lease.

I don't believe at this point in time that that's going to be relevant to the issue of the explor- atory well; however, I'll leave that to the board. If the board feels that a representative from Environmental Protection should be called, we'll take that under advisement. Our legal counsel for the application will analyze that and make a decision at the time. MR. N. TA YLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess you've had the same experience. They call that a hostile witness; isn't it?

Could the minister then explain why at the ERCB hearings yesterday his department's lawyer said that the Department of Environmental Protection was only providing information and was not willing to be cross-examined? Why did he say that? MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I think that was with respect to Mr. Lorne Fitch, who had been requested to take the stand and to justify the contents of a letter that was made public early on, not dealing, hon. member, with the exploratory well but rather the potential consequences of exploration in the area.

It was found not to be relevant, and that's the position that our lawyers have taken. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Cardiovascular Surgery DR. L. TA YLOR: Thank you. [interjections] Please, Mr. Speaker, could we have some quiet on the other side to hear my question? Some figures I have obtained for the year 1991-92 indicate that there are a number of cases of cardiovascular surgery being performed on out-of-province patients. Unfortunately, Alberta Health only recovers between 50 and 70 percent of the costs.

This means that Alberta taxpayers subsidized patients from out of the province to the tune of $1.5 million. To the Minister of Health: if these figures are substantially correct, do you expect similar figures for '92-93? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, that is quite possible. I should explain to the hon. member, though, that provinces across Canada have set per diem rates under reciprocal agreements, and certainly this is in keeping with the portability principle of the Canada Health Act, which I know everyone in this Legislature supports.

So while we may not receive a benefit to the full extent in one area, we may receive more benefit for another procedure. So these are per diems, and it depends on activity as to how much is expended. DR. L. TA YLOR: How does the minister justify this expenditure when we are cutting back on health care dollars for Albertans? MRS. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I have to emphasize that this is a principle of the Canada Health Act. It is the portability of the Act. It is reciprocal agreements with other provinces.

When Albertans receive treatment in other provinces, they receive it at a per diem rate that has been set. I think that's important, and I think that we have a commitment to the Canada Health Act to that portability. So I believe that it is very justified. DR. L. TA YLOR: Does the minister have an estimate of the benefit of this reciprocal agreement for Alberta, and would it not make more sense to proceed toward a hundred percent recovery so as to reflect reality? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world it might be considered that we should move to 100 percent costing.

However, this would be quite complex. We do not have similar costing methodology across provinces. I think that Alberta is certainly moving in this direction of having good costing method- ology here, but to have each province do their costing methodol- ogy the same way is difficult. I still believe that the more important point in this is the portability of medical care in Canada, and to do that we must have reciprocal agreements with other provinces. We will be discussing this matter at our ministers' meetings to see if we should indeed be putting specific areas in.

I think the hon. members would be interested to know that we do have special costing for some procedures: MRI, transplants, et cetera. Whether cardiovascular should be a part of this is a question that we will examine. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Sorry; Edmonton-McClung.

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1993 2:30 Children's Hospital MR. MITCHELL: Y ou can do a lot of things to me, Mr. Speaker, but please never mistake me for Calgary-Varsity. He's much shorter than I am. In fact, I'm as tall as he is round. Over 55,000 southern Albertans have signed a petition telling the Premier to stop playing politics with the southern Alberta Children's hospital. They are especially concerned that the Premier simply does not understand the role of the Children's hospital and its relations hip to the Foothills hospital.

Does the Minister of Health agree with the Premier when he says that the Children's hospital is not really all that important anyway because the really sick children are transferred to the Foothills hospital, or is she simply embarrassed by what the Premier has to say? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a well-known fact that the minister does not comment on third-party discussions, because I have ordinarily and most commonly found that those have been misinterpreted. However, I would say that the minister under- stands the importance of children's health services, as does the Premier, as does this government.

Our commitment to the people of this province is to ensure that we have the best health services delivery mechanism for children as well as for others in this province, and those will be the determinants that make the decision as to children's health programs in this province, wherever they are. MR. MITCHELL: How can the Minister of Health continue to disregard the wishes of 55,000 Albertans, who unlike the Premier and probably unlike the Minister of Health know all too well that you can't save one cent by closing the Children's hospital or by relocating it to the Foothills hospital. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, there is one very significant difference between the Minister of Health, in the way that she would arrive at that decision, and the member opposite. I will not receive all of my information from newspaper clips or others. I will take the best information that can be developed on a clinical and a cost basis. That information is being developed today by a group that involves people from the Children's hospital, people from the Foothills hospital, and people from the community. They will bring forward recommendations to the minister. Mr.

Speaker, let me point out one more time to this Assembly that no decision as to where the Children's hospital should be sited or how those programs should be delivered – no recommen- dation has come to this minister or to this government, and no decision has been made. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, why would the minister be moving to close the Alberta Children's hospital in Calgary before the new Calgary regional board, which would much more aptly be able to make that decision, has been structured? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, there has been no – no – movement to close the Children's hospital in Calgary by this minister or by this government. It is another example of informa- tion that is being given out incorrectly in this House. I would ask the hon. member to provide some documentation that shows that the Minister of Health or this government has recommended closure or is considering closure of the Children's hospital. That is what is wrong with this discussion. We have said that we will base the delivery of health services to children on the best information that we have available to us, both clinical and financial. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Classroom Instruction Time MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the constitu- ents of Calgary-Varsity are very pleased that the hon. member identified himself as being from Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Speaker, it is this government's job to provide an environ- ment where individuals in the system can manage and indeed be accountable at the local level. There's irrefutable evidence that decentralized management can be geared to providing maximum results at all levels of government. AN HON. MEMBER: That's three. MR. SMITH: That's two.

The Department of Education has emphasized the importance of decentralized management, local accountability, and t eachers all over Alberta have indicated how much additional time they spend to ensure quality education for our children. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SMITH: Thank you. To the Minister of Education: why does this government legislate a maximum of 1,100 teaching hours per annum? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the current provision is a maximum of 330 instructional minutes per day.

It is proposed to go to a maximum of 1,100 hours to allow more flexibility in scheduling, which is a conversion to 330 minutes on a yearly basis. The reason for that is one that goes back some time in history, but it was a provision that was put into legislation rather than being left to collective agreement negotiations. It was put into legislation to define the most important function of teachers and to provide that there is a maximum amount of time assigned there.

This, I think, has shown its value over the years, because teachers have found some sense of security in that and have not pursued a wide range of technical clauses and additions to collective agreements which would detract from the extra work that they currently do and the flexibility that they exercise in their jobs. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Education: what can be done in the regulations to more accu- rately reflect the work schedules and duties of those in the management process? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think that certainly there could be additional regulations and requirements put in to define this or to limit the roles and time that people put in the educational system, but the preferred approach, as far as this minister is concerned and as far as the government is concerned, is that we look at the performance of the overall education system. We assess that. We measure that. We hold people accountable within the system in terms of what is done by way of pr oduction performance in the school system. That's where we focus our attention in terms of measurement of outcomes. MR.

SPEAKER: Final supplemental.

1994 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, if the government bargains on a local basis and the Alberta Teachers' Association seeks its guidance from local agents, why is not the issue of maximum and minimum hours of work negotiated locally? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is provided for in legisla- tion. The reason is that it was deemed – and I think there's still merit in this – that this very important aspect of instructional time be decided and determined provincially.

That has shown to have, I think, some good results in that we do not have collective agreements between school boards and t eachers in this province that are three or four inches th ick with all kinds of stipulations and controls and things that people will do or won't do. There- fore, that particular protection in legislation has led, I think, to teachers doing a great deal beyond the 330 minutes of instruction in a very flexible way and in a way that can be very effective in the schools. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. head: Members' Statements MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. Sexual Assault Awareness Month MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you. One in four girls and one in 10 boys will be sexually assaulted during their childhood. So, Mr. Speaker, if you'll allow me, I'd like to share this letter with the House. It may enable all of us to make Albertans more aware of this issue. The Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres have designated the month of May 1994 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Plans are underway to inform as many Albertans as possible as to the role of the . . . centres.

This will encourage those who are in need of support to be knowledgeable of the services provided. I'd like to share some quotes from survivors who have benefited from these centres. Y ou and your organization are a very necessary service to anyone who has had to endure what I had to endure. Without your service I could not have done what I had to and my assailant would have been free and undeterred and would most likely have f ound another victim. 2:40 A second quote: I am a survivor of abuse. For fourteen years, I was abused every day and night. I have, on my body, over twenty cigarette burn scars.

However, I have unseen ones as well. They include: Sexual, Physical, Mental, Verbal, and Emotional scars. When I moved to this community, there was no Agency or counselling for men who were abused . . . Because I have looked and acted normal, people have doubted me when I have said I am a survivor. No one except the Sexual Assault Centre. Sexual assault centres are financially supported by agencies such as the United Way, the secretary of state, the provincial govern- ment, community fund-raising, and private donations. The theme of the month of May will be: Believe . . . Healing is Possible.

This choice of words was selected to emphasize that the first step towards recovering from sexual assault is believing that change is possible. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. MR. SMITH: I'm just giving the hon. Member for Edmonton- McClung another opportunity to see what he's missing. Home-based Businesses MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House to speak about challenge and success in the province of Alberta. In a recent business

article in the Calgary Sun and in the April issue of Business in Calgary there are articles about an entrepreneurial spirit which is alive and well in the city of Calgary. Leslie Roberts, a master of business administration student at the University of Calgary, released a study on home-based businesses in Calgary. She found that one out of every seven households, or 15 percent of all Calgary households, has a home-based business operating from it. Interestingly, this figure is double the national average.

The study found that a further 1 1 percent of Calgary households have plans to start a home-based business within the next two years, suggest- ing that a home business will be operating in one out of every four homes in Calgary within the next two years. The study predicted that each home-based business would create 2.26 part- time jobs, .83 full-time jobs, that spending would be around $1.5 billion in wages and salaries, with revenue generated by each business at $35,000.

The study also suggested that two-thirds of Calgary's home-based businesses are operated on a full-time basis in comparison to a national average of 50 percent. Alberta's economy has depended very much on the success of the agriculture and oil and gas sectors. Both industries require risk-taking flexibility and a need to look onward. They're capital intensive and subject to government interference and export pricing beyond their control. The federal government controlled by central Canada has also bred a great deal of independence, self-reliance, and perseverance into Albertans.

While the entrepreneurial spirit is most visibly identified within the city of Calgary, there are many stories that are successful provincewide. The city of Calgary has already acknowledged the importance of home-based businesses in their city and is looking at ways to streamline licensing and other regulations governing home-based businesses. As legislators we must streamline our regulatory process to allow small business in Alberta to flourish. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Before recognizing the next member for her statement, could there be unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Member for Leduc. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the other members of the Assembly here 18 young and bright students from the Round Hill school in my constituency. They're accompanied this afternoon by Mrs. Brenda Johnson and Mr. Dan Adrian.

They are seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Members' Statements (continued) MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie.

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1995 Drug Abuse Resistance Education MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This year over 55 million schoolchildren will learn the skills they need to resist pressure to take drugs or join gangs thanks to the drug abuse resistance education program. DARE has already taught drug resistance skills to over 20 million students worldwide. Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Mexico, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the department of defence schools are all participants in this program.

DARE is a police officer-led series of classroom lessons which teach children how to resist pressure to experiment with drugs and alcohol. Veteran officers are used b ecause they can answer students' questions based on their training and experience. This program goes far beyond traditional drug abuse programs which typically emphasize drug identification and the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol. Traditional programs warn children not to use these substances but don't teach them how to resist the pressures to try them.

Over the course of a 17-week program DARE gives children skills to recognize and resist the subtle and overt pressures that cause them to experiment with drugs and alcohol. These skills include providing students with accurate information about alcohol and drugs, teaching students ways to say no to drugs while providing alternatives to drug use, teaching students decision- making skills and the consequences of their behaviour, building students' self-esteem while teaching them how to resist peer pressure. The Edmonton Police Service is the third city in Canada to offer this program.

This year this program was a pilot project in three schools. I urge the government to remember that long-term cost cutting means greater emphasis on preventative care. Outstanding, successful programs such as this are needed and necessary. I urge the government to ensure that this program will continue and will be available to all of the students in this province. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 212 Whistleblower Protection Act [Adjourned debate May 1 1: Mr. Dunford] MR. DUNFORD: As I recall, Mr.

Speaker, last time I was so rudely interrupted and I had to take a minute to find my place. To carry on, Mr. Speaker, the government is in the middle of a complete restructuring of the way that government operates, and a major part of the restructuring process is finding ways to do things better, more effectively, and at a lower cost. It is impor- tant that the system does not stifle such innovation and imagina- tion, especially amongst the public servants who work day in, day out within the system.

It ought to be both the right and the responsibility of employees to bring forward new ideas that make their departments more efficient. Mr. Speaker, let's be realistic. Without a system in place that encourages employees to be innovative and imaginative while protecting their interests, few of these ideas are brought forward. Employees deserve the opportunity to present new ideas to their superiors. They deserve to be able to point out inefficiencies and to make suggestions as to how to make positive changes. The employee must be free of the possibility of reprisal for pointing out defects in the system.

If Bill 212 is to be a positive Bill, a Bill that will help government to become more effective and efficient, it must accomplish this end. Mr. Speaker, some of the principles behind Bill 212 would conceivably accomplish this goal to some extent. The importance of enshrining the protection of individuals within the bureaucracy that want to make changes cannot be denied. Frontline workers will be protected from reprisals for making positive suggestions. Through this protection workers may very well feel comfortable in bringing forth new and innovative ideas.

The results will hopefully be more cost-efficient government departments and agencies, a concept consistent with this government's commitment to openness and accountability. Mr. Speaker, my

interpretation of

section 1(

e) of Bill 212 – and I will welcome clarification from the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo if I am mistaken – is that the various entities in the MASH sector will come under the investigative jurisdiction of the provincial Ombudsman. The municipalities, academic institutions, schools, and hospitals have long avoided the scrutiny of the Ombudsman. These alone happen to be areas of the public sector that need considerable restructuring when it comes to cost efficiency. If the frontline workers in these sectors are free to voice their opinions, we are likely to gain immeasurably from their expertise and experience.

It is time that we ensure that the people who are directly involved in the provision of services have the opportunity to come forward with their own original concepts to aid in the restructuring process. 2:50 However, Mr. Speaker, the objectives of Bill 212 are really just a small piece of a much bigger pie. The real issue that we need to be dealing with is that of productivity and performance evaluation. We should have undertaken a more comprehensive evaluation of the public service in line with the three-year business plans.

It is this type of investigation that would go a lot further in terms of the accountability of the public service to the people of Alberta. I would also like to have seen Bill 212 examine more thor- oughly the idea of incentives for employees who take the initiative and come forward with a suggestion, proposal, or comment. What I'm getting at here, Mr. Speaker, is that employees should be rewarded for coming forward with ideas that result in a more effective and efficient system. We have the opportunity to be proactive in this area. We should be instituting a system that rewards initiative.

I think we all know that incentives are a great way to elicit exceptional ideas and concepts, so that is why I am pleased to see some of these issu es that are implicit in Bill 212 come to the attention of this House. I have already indicated that there are some good ideas in this Bill. I recall reading it over quickly for the first time and thinking to myself: this is something I could support and vote for in the House. But then I read it again and then another time, and I became more concerned with some of the provisions of the Bill.

My first understanding was that public service employees could bring instance of serious government wrongdoing to the attention of the Ombudsman for a fair and impartial investigation into the matter. In fact, the first ni ne pages of the Bill outline the expanded role of the Ombudsman and the protection that would be accorded to such employees if they brought these matters to light in good faith. So far so good, Mr. Speaker.

1996 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 It is when we get to page 10 of the Bill that I begin to have some concerns. Bill 212 would have a clause added to the Public Service Act that names the Ombudsman to be the hearer of complaints and the investigator, as the previous nine pages of text would confirm. But members should notice that there is another party besides the Ombudsman that grievances under the Whistle- blower Protection Act could be brought before, and this other party would be a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

This is part of the Bill that I have some real reservations about, because the ability for an employee to take his concern directly to an MLA on either side of this House could detract from the neutrality that I consider to be essential in dealing with these matters. I cannot see how justice will be served by politicizing the investigative process that has been thus far reserved for the provincial Ombuds- man. The members of the Official Opposition claim to be interested in making government bureaucracy more efficient.

I suggest that this Bill, if passed in its current form, could do just the opposite and make the various workplaces in the public sector virtually unworkable. The whole climate would be extremely adversarial. I would like to suggest that perhaps there is middle ground that can be reached. Maybe we should examine the current structures for settling employee/employer disputes, and if there is a consen- sus that they are not as effective as they could be, another framework could be developed.

The Legislative Assembly Office might look into the feasibility of setting up an interdepartmental committee that could act as a dispute resolution facilitator. This could be an intermediary step with the office of the Ombudsman being used as an appeal of last resort. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, efficiency and accountability within government departments and agencies is something that we definitely ought to strive for. There are some d ecent intentions behind Bill 212, but there are also other aspects of this Bill that I am finding a little difficult to swallow.

I agree with the assertion that a simple amendment to the Ombudsman Act would be sufficient in providing protection from adverse employment action for employees who express concerns. So to sum up, the goals of employee protection and bureaucratic efficiency are very desirable ones to say the least. However, the approach that has been taken by Bill 212 would not be the most effective way to implement these initiatives. I believe there are more effective ways to address the concern of complainant protection, and I hope we will see a realization of this goal in the near future.

As far as increasing accountability and efficiency in government agencies and departments, I think we need to take a look at the big picture and co-ordinate more appropriate measures in conjunction with each department's three-year business plan. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo has brought some very important issues to this Legislature within the context of Bill 212, the Whistleblower Protection Act. I think we should take these issues and incorporate them into an overall scheme of making government departments and agencies as efficient and effective as possible.

I do have concerns with some of the provisions of this Bill, but as I have said, I cam- paigned on many of the principles that are in the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. member for bringing them forward. MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, might there be unanimous consent in the Assembly to revert to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and to all the members of the Assembly a group of 19 students from the school at Heinsburg, which is in my constituency. They are from grades 10 and 1 1, and they are accompanied today by two teachers, Mrs. Terry Fleming and Mr. Shannon Leskiw. I would like to ask them to rise and receive the welcome from the Assembly. head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 212 Whistleblower Protection Act (continued) MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud for the remaining one minute. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Certainly the Member for Lethbridge-West has emphasized an important point; that is, the issue that the Bill also focuses both on the role of the Ombuds- man and of MLAs as potential recipients. That's the least important aspect of this Bill, and it's easily amended. The overall principle is ensuring, then, that government is accountable and responsive.

What this Bill attempts to do is ensure that those civil servants who perceive that there are problems in this system can come forward and get that information to a concerned individual who will act upon it and they don't have to fear that their jobs are in jeopardy by so doing. I certainly concur with some of the sentiments that have been expressed about the need to get incentives into the system so that the overall system works more efficiently. This Bill is tight, nicely tailo red, and with amendments in Committee of the Whole it will address any of the concerns that have been raised.

The principle is what we are concerned with here, and the principle is ensuring, then, that we no longer have NovAtels emerging or any other types of fiascos that could easily have been eliminated had information been provided, for example, to the Ombudsman. So I certainly strongly support this Bill, and I think some of the issues that have been raised can be easily debated in committee stage and that the Bill can be further improved along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR.

SPEAKER: All those in favour of second reading of Bill 212, Whistleblower Protection Act, as proposed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no.

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1997 SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 2:59 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abdurahman Havelock Sekulic Beniuk Henry Soetaert Bracko Hewes Tannas Bruseker Kirkland Taylor, L. Carlson Langevin Taylor, N.

Collingwood Leibovici Van Binsbergen Decore Massey Vasseur Dickson Nicol Wickman Dunford Percy Y ankowsky Fritz Sapers Zwozdesky Hanson Against the motion: Ady Friedel Mirosh Amery Gordon Oberg Burgener Haley Pham Calahasen Hlady Severtson Clegg Jacques Smith Coutts Jonson Sohal Day Laing Stelmach Dinning Magnus Thurber Evans Mar Trynchy Fischer McClellan West Forsyth McFarland Woloshyn For – 31 Against – 33 [Motion lost] 3:10 Bill 213 Loan Guarantees Statutes Amendment Act, 1994 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's with pleasure that I rise to introduce Bill 213, the Loan Guarantees Statutes Amend- ment Act, 1994. This Bill provides an opportunity for this government to actually do exactly what it said it's going to do: to take an initiative, to take a step forward, and to prove to the people of this province that they really will enact the kind of legislation that they said they would. What this Bill does is remove the authority of the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism to grant any further loan guarantees to businesses.

Existing loan guarantees would continue to be honoured for legal reasons through a transition clause. The three department Acts that were amalgamated to form the Department of Economic Development and Tourism would be amended by repealing the loan guarantee provisions in each of them. The Official Opposition has long taken a strong stand that the economy should not be diversified by government providing direct financial assistance to individual companies, because this unnatu- rally skews the private business sector and provides an unfair advantage to some businesses. Therefore we're introducing this Bill.

Since 1985 the Conservative government has written off or made payment of $2.1 billion due to bad loans and loan guaran- tees. Agreements with only 10 companies account for 80 percent of these losses. Now, if that didn't provide an unfair advantage in the marketplace for some businesses, then I can't possibly think of another example that would display that to such advantage. The names of these companies have become household words in this province, and the losses are just incredibly staggering.

We've seen NovAtel at $646 m illion; Gainers, $209 million; Myrias Research, $20.5 million; the export loan guarantee program, $22.1 million; Nanton Spring Wa ter, $20.8 million; Ski-Free Marine, $2.8 million; Golden Gate Fresh Foods, $1 1.3 million; Northern Steel, $1 1.2 million; and the list goes on and on. Future losses can also be anticipated on other companies such as MagCan and the North Saskatchewan River Boat company. In Seizing Opportunity this government promised to reduce or eliminate direct financial assistance to business.

In the Speech from the Throne they promised a major shift in economic development policy, in that government would as much as possible get out of direct business subsidies. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe legislative changes are needed to ensure that these promises are in fact kept. We should point out that we got this Premier on December 15, 1992, and that it was on D ecember 18, 1992, just a mere three days later, that a $50 million loan guarantee was ann ounced for Pacific Western Airlines. Members from the government side are applauding the decision of a $50 million loan guarantee.

I don't believe the people of this province believe it's a proper thing to have done. Under this Premier's stewardship on March 25, 1993, the government approved $9,247,000 in funding to su pport Gainers Inc. for working capital requirements. Again this is a government that says that they're getting out of business, but the captain of their ship is the very person who has encouraged this kind of behaviour.

I believe this Premier's commitment to get out of the business of being in business is cold comfort to the people of this province and that nothing short of legislative changes will stop the government from continuing to dabble in the practice of picking winners and losers in this province. Our position on loan guarantees is endorsed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who stated that the govern- ment should eliminate all grants, subsidies, and loan support programs to business.

In fact, in their January 1994 members' opinion survey when asked, "What priority would you place on cost-cutting measures in busine ss grants and subsidies?" 72.8 percent of their membership indicated that it was a high priority, with an additional 15.3 percent listing it as a priority. This means that a total of 88 percent of their membership believes loan guarantees should in fact be completely eliminated. I'd like to speak for a moment to some good reasons for eliminating loan guarantees because of their ongoing costs to the taxpayers of this province.

This isn't a matter of all those dollars that I read off a moment ago having been finished and over with. This government has an ongoing liability and responsibility, and that means the people of this province have an ongoing liability and responsibility. In fact, we're still on the hook for millions of dollars. I would refer to the February 8, 1993, provincial budget shortfall based on oil and gas revenues and exchange rate shortfall. Now, these projections were based on 1993-94 results ended January 31, 1994. Point F on this page predicted losses re

1998 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 loans and loan guarantees, $130 million. What this refers to are interest payments for the 1993-94 year on the $102.7 million loan guarantee provided to Magnesium Company of Canada, which was taken over by the province of Alberta in April 1991 and was subsequently mothballed to the tune of $15 million. This also refers to interest payments for the 1993-94 year on the accumu- lated operating deficit of 354713 Alberta Ltd., another $10 million. This also refers to payments made pursuant to loan guarantees provided to Gainers Properties and Gainers Inc., $23 million.

So not only have we in fact here been on the hook for the promised loan guarantees, but there are additional requirements for this government to uphold when they make this kind of a commitment, and in effect it is a good portion of the reason why we have to see such drastic cuts to core programming now. I would like any member of this government to stand up in front of the people of this province and explain in particular why they had to cut funding to kindergarten so that they could give away money to a company like Gainers.

I find that any member would have a very tough time defending that position, yet in fact it's exactly what has happened and the course of action we have had to take because of irresponsible decisions on behalf of the government. 3:20 This Bill in sections 1, 2, and 3 is actually an amalgamation of three former departments here: economic development and trade; technology, research, and telecommunications; and tourism, parks, and recreation. Therefore, in order to make this Bill work, the loan guarantee provisions need to be repealed from each one of these Acts.

I would like to point out that by amending just these three Acts, acceptable loan guarantee programs such as those to farmers or to those that come in the form of student loans will not be affected in this process. It's business loans that need to be rejected, business loans that skew the marketplace and give one person an unfair advantage over others, which then affects employment in the province, affects job security, affects the way people in this province can live and provide for their children, and it affects their hope for the future.

So it's long been our position that government should just simply get out of these kinds of transactions.

Section 4 in this Bill ensures that current commitments for loan guarantees made under these sections will not be affected. Without this

section the government on your side may try to argue that they can't repeal the loan guarantee sections because they've got some legal commitments, but in fact that's not at all true. I hope that when you're speaking to this Bill, members on that side of the House will properly address this.

Section 4 in fact ensures that this Bill will only have the effect of preventing any future guarantees from being granted. I'd like to turn to the Alberta Financial Review Commission and their Report to Albertans on March 31, 1993. They had some very, very serious concerns about the direction of this government in terms of loans, guarantees, and investments.

In fact, four full pages of comments arose from their discussion about the problems that the government has had in terms of how they have addressed loans and guarantees in the past and with the expectation that some significant changes would be made in the future. The scope of the review of the commission was to review the process of initiating, authorizing, valuing, monitoring and acting upon the loans, investments, guarantees or indemnities issued by the province. They had some pretty significant major findings in their report.

There was a great concern that loans and investments had been accelerated in recent years: "Over the years, the government has made a series of investments, loans and guarantees for a variety of public policy reasons." Many of those reasons have not been shared with the balance of this province. In fact, since 1985, the Alberta Government has accelerated a program of using loans, guarantees and investments as an economic diversification instrument.

I would suggest to this House that had they been successful, we would be facing a much different deficit reduction program than the one they're currently putting forward. It seems that in particular this government should not have been in business. The government made, as of March 31, 1992, outstanding loans, guarantees, and investments in the amount of $12.2 million compared to $7 million in '81-82. So that's a pretty significant rise. We have to really wonder about the reason for them having done so, b ecause those reasons have never been tabled in this House.

The high degree of risk [involved in these guarantees] is illustrated by the fact that the government has written off or provided for $2,100 million in loans and guarantees since 1985 . . . It is apparent that the government has been very active in the economy . . . and certainly with very, very mixed success. Again, they have caused one of the major reasons for us to be in the economic downspin that we're in now where we have to cut core program- ming beyond any reasonable feasibility in order to maintain their goal of trying to achieve a balanced budget.

Had they stayed out of business, I have every belief that we would have had balanced budgets many years ago. By the very nature of the tran sactions that the government's been involved in, their role has been that of a "`lender of last resort', taking on risk that the private sector was not prepared to, or could not, take on." This commission stated, therefore, that they were "concerned that such risk may not be fully reflected in the financial statements" or that in fact the government was not adequately prepared or had the knowledge or the background to enter into those situations at any point in time.

There was also a grave concern raised by the commission that an issue [here] for the future will be whether Alberta can [actually] realize the book value on some of its major investments, should the government implement a liquidation strategy to reduce its debt. We don't know in fact if that's true, because these investments are not booked at a net realizable value. So what we see reported in the financial statements for this province are distorted numbers that may not in fact have anything to do with the reality of the financial situation.

The commission also found that there was real lack of consis- tent procedures. They were "concerned that the monitoring of loans, guarantees and investments is not consistent from one department or agency to another." We have seen that emphasized and reinforced on a daily basis in this House. If you can't have any consistency, how can you ever expect to have any results that turn into tangible results that would be for the benefit of the people of this province? We've never seen any indication that that'll be forthcoming because of the inconsistent acts.

In addition, something that we've seen on a daily basis in this House is a lack of adequate debate on these issues. Guarantees, which are all provided for by statute, are approved by a minister or by Cabinet and are not normally debated in the Legislature, regardless of the facts that the dollars spent by this Legislature are the dollars of the people of this province and that the people of this province have every right to have an open and full debate on all types of issues where the government spends money and, I think, particularly on loan guarantees.

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 1999 MR. SPEAKER: The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, but the time provided for consideration on this item has now concluded pursuant to Standing Order 8(2)(b). We must move on to the next order of business. head: Motions Other than Government Motions 3:30 High-speed Chases 514. Moved by Mr. Woloshyn:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Justice to implement a high-speed chase policy whereby a person found guilty of initiating a high-speed chase would be subject to a mandatory two-year operator's licence suspension and a person found guilty under this policy who does not possess an operator's licence would have their suspension take effect immediately upon that person's being issued a licence. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to initiate debate on Motion 514, which deals with the issue of stronger penalties for those who initiate high-speed chases by trying to evade the police. This would be in addition to any other charges which might have evolved out of the incident, such as careless or dangerous driving and whatever have you. High- speed chases are far too numerous and very dangerous to the people in the vehicle that's being pursued, to the police that are doing the pursuing, and to the public in general who should have a high degree of comfort in using the public roadways in safety.

A couple of examples that have occurred that I would like to relate to the Assembly are as fo llows. For example, in April of last year police initiated the chase of a stolen vehicle at 3 o'clock in the morning in downtown Edmonton. They had followed the vehicle for a few blocks to confirm the identification of the vehicle, then turned their lights on to pull over the vehicle. The chase wound through Edmonton reaching speeds of 1 10 kilometres per hour. The car then headed west on Highway 16X, where speeds reached 160 kilometres per hour. That, Mr.

Speaker, for those of us who are still on the old system, is a hundred miles an hour. The stolen vehicle ran over a spike belt placed on the road by the Spruce Grove RCMP and still didn't stop. It was finally boxed in by RCMP cruisers in Stony Plain. The car collided with a police car, hit another one trying to escape, causing several thousand dollars' damage to the cruisers. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the people in the car were all young offenders. The passengers were two girls aged 12 and 13. They were charged with possession of stolen property and went to court.

The question then leaves: what happened to the driver? The answer is: nothing. The driver of the stolen car was an 1 1- year-old boy. Police could only take him home to his mother, because he could not be charged under the Y oung Offenders Act. Unfortunately, this was not the boy's first run-in with the law. When the police were asked about the chase, the spokesperson said that for an 1 1 year old to have total disregard for the danger he's placing other people in is frightening. No social conscience at that age is frightening to think about. It's a sad, sad story.

I think perhaps that young fellow would not be ready to have a driver's licence at age 14 or 16 or perhaps even 18. In Edmonton last week a young man on a motorcycle led police on a high-speed chase. He was unfortunately killed when his motorcycle crashed into a police cruiser that had set up a roadblock to prevent the motorcycle from getting onto the Whitemud freeway. His friends said that the reason the 20 year old fled police was because he didn't have a valid licence and he didn't want to be caught. Mr. Speaker, high-speed chases, as I indicated, put everyone at risk.

The driver of the vehicle is risking his life as he tries to avoid the police. Passengers, who may or may not be willing participants, are at risk. The law enforcement officers who have the responsibility of protecting the public are at risk. The general public, the unsuspecting motorist traveling down the road, is also at risk.

I've only mentioned the two cases: one involving a young boy who wanted to experience the thrill of a high-speed chase just for the fun of the thrill; the second case was a young man who was afraid he would get caught riding his motorcycle without his licence during a program by the Edmonton Police Service to target those riders who do not have valid licences. Neither case involved a hardened criminal fleeing a bank robbery, as the movies normally portray and sometimes even glamorize high- speed chases. These are what you would call normal young people. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to emphasize very strongly that I do not propose a change to the motor vehicle pursuit guidelines that were drafted in 1990 by the former solicitor general. I feel that those guidelines strike a necessary balance between allowing police to apprehend suspects and protecting the safety of the general public. I don't think the activities occurring during a chase itself are the problem. I do, however, propose that we need to develop a policy that will be much tougher on those who endanger the public by staying involved in high-speed chases.

The problem with the current po licy is that there is no single charge for high-speed chases. The suspect may be charged with a variety of related charges under the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act: dangerous driving, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop for a police officer, speeding, plus a host of other related offences. Motion 514 suggests a penalty of a two-year licence suspension for a high-speed chase. This is not at all an unreasonable penalty. Perhaps we should look at this one if this motion passes.

Ontario, for example, has a three-year suspension for failure to stop for a police officer. New Brunswick has implemented a specific high-speed chase offence with a licence suspension of one to three years. Obviously, a two-year suspension is nowhere near too harsh for this type of activity. The second part of Motion 514 is directed towards cases such as the 1 1-year-old boy who was caught in Stony Plain. The two- year suspension will be placed on the c onvicted person when he or she receives a valid driver's licence.

I think that just because a boy in a car is under 16 he shouldn't get away with a lesser sentence. Perhaps in some manner he should be dealt with more firmly. Since I drafted this proposal, I've received some concerns about the process proposed. There may be difficulties with imposing a future sentence, as the motion suggests. In addition, I've been an advocate of speeding up the judicial process so young offenders are able to recognize a vital link between crime and punishment. I am concerned that my own motion to some degree would not allow this connection to exist.

Given that, however, I'd be open to suggestions for a more efficient way to administer the punish- ment, for I feel it is extremely important that some form of consequence for all offenders be in place. I would leave that in the capable hands of the Minister of Justice as he develops this policy. Perhaps a more feasible solution would be to incorporate a penalty whereby the young offender would be prohibited from applying for or receiving a driver's licence for a two-year period,

2000 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 until he was 18 years old. If these young people were aware that their actions would delay them receiving the privilege to operate a motor vehicle, perhaps that would serve as a deterrent. That would be the whole intention, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. minister were to make a suggestion of that nature as a part of his new policy, I certainly would be supportive. Mr. Speaker, I think it's equally important to recognize that the two-year suspension would also apply to adults.

For example, I would like to see that the case where a person on suspension for an impaired driving conviction tries to outrun the police. I feel strongly that a two-year suspension would apply to that person. His suspension for the high-speed chase would not be concurrent with the other suspension but would be consecutive. It would be over and above the penalty.

So if he was suspended for whatever period of time and in order to try to avoid being caught – he would know before he even initiated the attempt to avoid being caught that that would be an automatic two years. 3:40 I would also like to address the other side of the public safety issue this afternoon, and that is the question of whether stiffer penalties will provoke more chases. People have come to me with concerns that once a person has initiated a high-speed chase, it is in his or her best interest to keep running if penalties are made tougher.

I acknowledge that point, but I respond by saying that the primary purpose of our justice system is to punish those who contravene the values and morals of society and to protect the public interest as well as to act as a deterrent. Stiffer penalties do punish those involved and I believe will act as a deterrent once people see the effects on their friends of being without wheels for two years. They benefit from knowing that a person who totally disregards public safety by speeding through a neighbourhood will be dealt with severely and will not be on the highway for the next two years. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask all members of the Assembly to support Motion 514 to allow the Minister of Justice to develop a policy to deal with those who have total disregard for the safety of our roadways. This motion may appear to be a strong one, but it is one that I feel will go a long way to creating safer highways for us and for our families and for all Albertans. I would close by emphasizing to the Assembly that by supporting this motion, they are opening the door to the Minister of Justice, with some direction, to address what I think is a very serious problem that is not diminishing at all. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. There can be no question about the seriousness of high-speed chases. They represent a very real risk to members of the public whether they're pedestrians or other motorists on the highway. They certainly represent a risk to the police involved in a high-speed chase, and certainly not least they also represent a risk to passengers in the vehicle involved in the chase itself.

I think the last speaker is quite right in terms of identifying the high level of public concern about motor vehicle chases, high-speed chases. As the law now stands, although there's provision both in the Criminal Code dealing with dangerous driving, in the Highway Traffic Act dealing with careless driving, there's really only one specific

section that deals with an offender avoiding apprehension, not stopping for a policeman. That's

section 169 of the Highway Traffic Act. That offence now has a maximum, not a minimum but a maximum, penalty of $500 or six months in default. Now, the member who has just spoken introducing Motion 514 talked about some of the recent cases that Albertans will be mindful of when they're considering this motion, but I think it would be worth while to spend a moment talking about some of the background to this whole business of high-speed chases and the way we as a community respond to them. This isn't a new concern.

I had been involved with some people in Calgary that had concerns about high-speed chases in the early 1980s. In fact, it was the former Member for Calgary-Buffalo, Sheldon Chumir, who had been instrumental in encouraging the city of Calgary to develop a high-speed chase policy. There had been none before that time. In fact, my predecessor had continued that campaign when he came into this House. I think it was in 1989 that he raised the matter of the need for the province to deal with high- speed police chases at a provincial level.

What my predecessor urged on the Legislature at that time was that the province adopt the same types of standards and policies that Mr. Chumir had been involved in seeing brought in in the city of Calgary when he chaired a citizen panel on regulation of high-speed chases. So this isn't a new issue. It's an issue that's been of concern to Albertans, to police, and to legislators for some time. What happened was interesting. When the government that had been elected in 1989 dealt with it, they did it in an interesting fashion. The solicitor general then was Mr. Fowler. Mr.

Fowler set up a task force to look at the problem of high-speed chases. His task force came up with three specific recommendations. What was interesting was that Mr. Fowler, then solicitor general, and the Conservative government of the time adopted only one of the three recommendations. What were the three recommendations? Well, the first one was that there be a policy developed, a policy that set out very clearly minimum standards to all police services involved in high-speed chases. In fact, that has been adopted.

I'm delighted that the Legislature at that time saw fit to urge the solicitor general and that the solicitor general then implemented a policy which is now followed by RCMP on a provincewide basis. That was the only recommendation that was accepted. The second recommendation, that was not accepted by the government at the time, had been to impose a minimum penalty, not a maximum but a minimum penalty, for failing to stop for a police officer and that that minimum should be set at $500. The decision of the then Conservative government and the then solicitor general, Mr.

Fowler, was as the previous speaker indicated: if a young offender or an adult offender is in the process of being chased by police, knowing that if he's caught he's going to have a heftier penalty, is that going to encourage that offender to then tromp on the accelerator and attempt to elude apprehension, or is it going to deter the chase before it begins? On this one I think I favour the view of the last speaker: that while that may be an element, I'm not persuaded that simply having a stiff penalty for being involved in a high-speed chase is going to encourage other chases.

Unlike the recommendation from the 1990 task force or advisory panel to the then solicitor general, what this motion talks about isn't fines; what it addresses is suspension of the operator's licence. What makes sense to me about that is we're dealing with the very instrument involved in the offence, and it's a more direct kind of public response than looking at minimum fines and maximum fines and so on. So I think that makes some sense. Just for the sake of completeness, the third recommendation from the 1990 panel, that was not accepted by the government, had to do with the immediate suspension of a licence.

The

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2001 moment the police stopped an offender, the offender's licence would be suspended for a period of time, without any judicial process or any finding of guilt. I think that recommendation wasn't well founded, and I think it was appropriate that that recommendation not be pursued at that time and it wasn't. It seems to me, with respect, that what we come down to is this: the issue is whether the prospect of a two-year suspension is going to deter more high-speed chases. That really is the issue.

I think that reasonable men and women in this Chamber and reasonable Albertans may have different views on that. I'm prepared to support the motion, b ecause I think that while there may be members in this Chamber that take a contrary view – and I understand that – my inclination is that imposing a stiff suspen- sion, letting Albertans and particularly Alberta youth know that that stiff sanction exists hopefully will deter some of the high- speed chases that I think all members want to see deterred. But I qualify that and say once again that the issue is: is this going to make our streets safer?

I understand, I think, why Mr. Fowler at that time took the view that it may encourage more chases rather than discourage them. So I guess all I could invite members to do is to exercise their own best judgment on the basis of their own life experience in terms of whether that's going to make our streets safer. I think the one observation I'd ju st make is that this isn't uniquely a problem of young offenders, although clearly, I think, the highest number of police chases involve youth. I take issue with the last speaker when he says the purpose of the criminal law is to punish.

I always thought the purpose of the criminal law was to make our community safer; that's the number one issue. 3:50 DR. L. TA YLOR: And punish. MR. DICKSON: Well, if we get into a situation where some- times we're too preoccupied with punishment, in some cases certain kinds of punishment have a boomerang effect, Mr. Speaker, and end up making our communities less safe. So I just want to express that concern. And while I may be voting for this motion, I'm not accepting necessarily all of the analysis and all of the reasoning set forward by the previous speaker. I think we want to move on.

I think we want to show Albertans that this Legislature is responding to the legitimate concern in terms of high-speed chases. I think the motion is a way of expressing that collective concern, if indeed I'm accurate and a majority of members feel that concern. The last speaker talked in terms, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not it's problematic to in effect suspend somebody's operator's licence before they're eligible for an operator's licence. I think there are legal problems, constitutional problems with that sort of deferred punishment.

I think the previous speaker spoke aptly when he said that one of the things we often talk about in terms of punishment for young offenders or any other offender is swift punishment, and the closer the tie between the offence and the punishment, the more effective that punishment is likely to be. It seems to me that this is only a motion we're voting on, members. This isn't a piece of legislation. I think what the motion does is simply send a signal that we treat this, firstly, as being a serious matter. We suggest a way that it can be ad- dressed.

I agree with the previous speaker that hopefully the Minister of Justice and his policy advisers will look at this and look at how this type of a policy could be incorporated into the Highway Traffic Act, into provincial legislation, and achieve what we all want to achieve, which is safer streets and safer communi- ties. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. DR. L. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in the relatively unique position of agreeing with the member opposite on two issues in a row.

I think that means his viewpoint has certainly become considerably more Conservative, and I'm sure it's my good influence on him. MR. SMITH: It means the session's been too long. DR. L. TA YLOR: No, I don't think it means the session's been too long. I think it's just that the member opposite is learning. As my colleague from Stony Plain mentioned, high-speed chases are a threat to public safety. I personally spend a lot of time on the highways. I have a constituency of about 10,000 square miles, and the only way to communicate in that constitu- ency is in my truck.

As well, I drive back and forth to Edmonton consistently. So I spend a lot of time on the highway, and I'm certainly concerned about high-speed chases. I'd hate to run into one someday. Although it is recommended that police generally refrain from participating in high-speed chases, in some cases the assailant is found to be more dangerous than in fact the risk of a chase. It is in these instances that we need to find a method for punishing and dealing with those individuals who jeopardize the safety of our communities, our citizens, our police officers, and other drivers on the road.

Punishment such as Motion 514 advocates is necessary in order to preserve the safety of the community and to justifiably punish those who disrupt it. What I would like to see come about is an addition to the Highway Traffic Act. Currently Alberta does not have any legislation that deals with high-speed chases, nor do we have legislation which adequately outlines the penalties for failing to stop for a police officer.

A person guilty of initiating a high- speed chase in Alberta may be charged under the Criminal Code with dangerous driving, criminal negligence, criminal negligence causing death, resisting arrest, or obstructing a peace officer. The individual would also be in violation of several sections of the Highway Traffic Act. That would include careless driving, failing to stop for a peace officer, speeding, and any other related offences such as signal violations, and you can be sure people in high-speed chases wouldn't signal. [interjection] That might be the signal they give, all right, hon. member.

I don't think these charges adequately address the severity of the problem which high-speed chases create. If a clause were developed to deal solely with th e issue in addition to the provi- sions already in place, the punishment would more adequately reflect the crime. New Brunswick has a clause in their motor vehicle Act which I think is worth considering. The beginning of the New Brunswick clause is similar to Alberta's stopping for a police officer clause. It begins by outlining that every driver shall immediately stop when requested by a police officer.

The New Brunswick clause, however, goes on to address what would happen if in fact the driver fails to stop. It reads as follows: every driver who, having been signaled or requested by a peace officer to bring his vehicle to a stop, fails to stop or wilfully continues to avoid a peace officer who is recognizable as such and who is pursuing him commits an offence. The clause also states the immediate punishment for such an offence. If a person is convicted, he or she will have their licence revoked for a period

2002 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994 of one to three years automatically, and that's an appropriate punishment. If their licence is already suspended, the subsequent suspension will begin on the day the reinstatement occurs. The individual is also subject to penalties under other clauses, which may include a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 180 days. This punishment in New Brunswick is similar to that in other provinces. In British Columbia, for example, failure to stop for a police officer requires a mandatory court appearance.

The fine is from $100 to $2,000, and the jail term is from seven days to six months. Ontario has similar penalties for failing to stop. Those found guilty may lose their licence for up to three years. In addition, they may be fined between $500 and $5,000 and jailed for up to six months. So Alberta is sadly lacking. Alberta would not be in a unique position by calling for mandatory relinquishment of licences in this sort of situation. Two y ears, as seen in relation to the policies of other provinces, does not seem like an unreasonable time.

I realize that some people feel that if you impose a stiffer penalty for instigating a high-speed chase, the assailant will just drive all the more dangerously to try and get away. However, I'm not sure this is a legitimate concern. The assailant must already feel it is in his best interest to outrun the police because of other consequences he will face on apprehension. It does not seem reasonable to avoid punishing someone so they do not try to get away. We don't try to avoid punishing drunk drivers because they may try to drive much faster to avoid losing their licence, so there's really no difference here.

I would suppose that someone who is already endangering public safety because he doesn't want to get caught is not going to drive any faster if he knows that his licence is going to be revoked. It may be that in some cases he or she may already have committed an offence and will face punishment at least as severe as mandatory licence suspension. Furthermore, if we had an actual high-speed chase clause, we would be able to effectively monitor their incidence and adjust our policy accordingly.

As it is, it is difficult to determine how often high-speed chases occur because we do not have a specific clause which refers to high-speed chases. In 1992 over 300 people were charged with failure to stop, but is this high speed or not? We can't determine that. Motion 514 is not calling for an unreasonable or unwarranted degree of punishment. It is a privilege to possess a driver's licence, and that privilege should not be abused. Someone who's unwilling to follow the rules and regulations of the road does not deserve access to a driver's licence.

It would seem to me that licence suspension, in addition to penalties resulting from violating other sections of the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, would be a just punishment for those who risk our safety. For these reasons, I urge all members to support this motion in the House. Thank you. 4:00 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to follow up that spontaneous comment from the Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat that was just delivered to the House very well. I, too, want to just mention a few comments about this Motion 514.

The motion talks about a mandatory two-year operator's licence suspension, and while I have no difficulty with that, I do have some concern with the enforcement of such a proposal. The member that introduced the motion talked, for example, about a young lad of 1 1 years who is well known, I guess would be the way to describe it, for going out and about and driving without a licence. What this motion proposes is that he be delayed from getting a licence for an additional two years when he finally is of an age where he could qualify for such a licence. [Mr.

Deputy Speaker in the Chair] So I guess the question that begs to be asked when reflecting upon a case of that type is: how much of a deterrent is a two- year suspension going to be to an individual who has probably been driving at that point for five years without a licence anyhow? From that standpoint, I think the concept of enforcement becomes very, very difficult.

Now, fortunately there are not many such instances where young offenders or, for that matter, not necessar- ily young offenders but someone over the age of 18 has been guilty of this situation, driving without a licence for whatever reason, either because they've never gotten a licence, they're not of age to get a licence, or they've had a licence and it has now been suspended. I'm concerned about the difficulty of enforcing that.

I know that we had discussion in this House on that issue not long ago in the 22nd Legislature wherein stiffer penalties were proposed, which would include impounding the vehicle regardless of who in fact owned the vehicle, whether the driver was driving his own vehicle or someone else's vehicle. Certainly that could be given consideration, but the concept, I guess, of licence suspension would certainly work and is a valid proposal for those individuals who are inclined to follow the law anyway.

I guess the difficulty that I have with this motion is that it proposes to have a mandatory two-year operator's licence suspension for those people who are found guilty of being involved in a high-speed chase. Most individuals, I suspect, who are involved in high-speed chases are not going to be overly concerned about having a two-year licence suspension. So, on one hand, I agree a hundred percent with the Member for Stony Plain that high-speed chases are certainly a serious issue, but I'm not sure that the two-year licence suspension logically follows as a sufficient deterrent.

Certainly the former solicitor general had a policy, which was created in 1990, I believe it was, that dealt with the issue of high- speed chases. It was interesting that in there one of the original concerns which was raised with respect to the issue of high-speed chases was that certainly we need to be concerned about public safety. It says: The guidelines stipulate that pursuits must be undertaken only when a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe the seriousness of the offense and the necessity of immediate apprehension outweigh the level of danger created by the pursuit.

That was the announcement that came out which accompanied the news release that accompanied the official release of October 1990. When I reviewed controlling factors that guide peace officers in the operation or facilitation or however you want to put it of a police chase, there are, in total, 1 1 general controlling factors that are listed. In all cases the controlling factor says that a police unit shall or unmarked vehicles shall not and that police officers shall not, and there are some pretty strong guidelines.

But then in many of the controlling factors that are listed, there is an "except" or an "unless" or a "however" and another "unless" and so on and so on. I thought to myself that it's one thing to have guidelines, but if the guidelines and the policy are written in such a loose fashion, then the end result could be that you could have a serious police chase where individuals are put in danger. I think many members think back to only a couple of nights ago, where there was a situation on the TV news about a tractor trailer unit carrying all-terrain vehicles that was roaring through

May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2003 Edmonton at high speeds and damaged, as I heard, three police vehicles. I'm sure that one was marked, at least one was unmarked, and I'm not sure about the third one. I thought to myself that something clearly has gone wrong if a situation like that can occur over a huge distance and a huge amount of time. By a huge distance, I believe the distance that was indicated was 80 to 100 kilometres in terms of distance that the unit traveled, and the chase occurred over several hours, as I understand.

For a chase to continue a long – and of course in the statement from page 3 of the policy that came out of the solicitor general's department, the motor vehicle pursuit guidelines, it says that public safety is the paramount consideration in any decision to initiate, to continue, or to terminate a motor vehicle pursuit. I guess on one hand I certainly agree that we need to clamp down on high-speed chases. There's no question about that.

Calgary recently had the unfortunate situation where a police officer, in attempting to put down a spiked belt on Deerfoot Trail, was killed by a young offender, and that was absolutely wrong. There's just no other way to describe it. Certainly, from that standpoint I think we need a tougher approach to what goes on and what happens to the individuals who are involved in high- speed chases. This is a serious issue, and the member is to be commended for raising it. I certainly agree with him in that regard.

I will support the motion not b ecause I'm a hundred percent in agree- ment with the two-year suspension, but because I think the intent of what the member is raising in this motion is worthy of support. For that reason I will vote in favour of it. I guess on one hand we have a policy that was put forward by the solicitor general's department. It's one thing to see a nice little policy in black and white on paper, but I guess it's some- thing else when you're out there on the front lines.

I must say that I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for the police officers that find themselves in what must be at times a very frightening situation, when they're involved in a high-speed chase. So if passing Motion 514 causes the Justice minister and causes our police forces to review and relook at what it is that happens during and after a high-speed chase, and if it can in turn save the life of even one young individual who is in the car or a police officer who is attempting to st op that car, then Motion 514 will have been worth it, Mr. Speaker.

From that standpoint I would encourage members to support Motion 514. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Three Hills- Airdrie. 4:10 MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak in support of Motion 514, sponsored by my colleague from Stony Plain. High-speed chases have the potential of ruining lives, not only the lives of the people involved but the lives of the innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In his opening remarks the Member for Stony Plain mentioned the tragedy of the young man who lost his life after his motorcycle crashed into a police car after he had tried to avoid being stopped. The very next day police had to handle another dangerous situation, also a high-speed chase, but at the end of this chase in St. Albert two cars burst into flames when the vehicle being chased crashed into a second uninvolved vehicle. Four people were sent to the hospital because