August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2361 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, August 26, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/08/26 [The Deputy Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us pray. Heavenly Father, as our members gather to begin a new week in our Assembly, we are reminded of the blessings which Y ou have bestowed upon Alberta, and we thank Y ou for this bounty. May we conduct ourselves in our deliberations in ways that honour Y ou, our province, and all its people. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MRS. BALSILLIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table a petition signed by 1,300 people opposing the privatization of the Pine Ridge nursery in Smoky Lake. The nursery is a world-class facility which was constructed with money from the heritage trust fund. Consequently, it is an asset and an investment and must be held in public trust by the citizens of Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I'd like to have read the petition which I tabled in this Assembly on August 21 regarding the support of many Albertans for Bill 214. Of course, this was before the Bill was taken off the Order Paper. THE CLERK ASSISTANT: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to support Bill 214, The Victims of Domestic Violence Act. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. MR. KLEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. One is a letter that was faxed to my home.

It came from a constituent of the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly. It pertains to the treatment that was received by her son at the University hospital. If in fact the allegations are true, it's unacceptable. I will table four copies of the memorandum along with instructions to the Minister of Health to have this matter immediately investigated. That tabling is at the constituent's request. The other tabling, Mr. Speaker, is four copies of the communiqués that were issued at the annual Premiers' Confer- ence, which concluded in Jasper over the weekend and, I might add, a very successful conference indeed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I'd like to table with the Assembly four copies of the new surgical and nonsurgical management of cataract guideline as well as the news release and the patient information guide that were issued on August 22, 1996. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three different documents to table, all health related. The first one is a letter from Dr.

Thomas Rich, a Calgary General and Lougheed hospitals physician, an outspoken advocate for retaining an inner- city hospital in Calgary. That letter is dated July 19, 1996. The second document is a copy of a July 4 paper authored by Professor Chris Bagley and Pierre Tremblay explaining the incidents of depression and sexual orientation. The third one is a copy of an August 16 paper soon to be published in a book entitled Suicidal Behaviours in Adolescents and Adults, by the same authors, Bagley and Tremblay. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. head: Introduction of Guests THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly a couple of visitors in the public gallery. I'd first of all like to introduce John Bethel. John Bethel worked for the Liberal caucus for a number of years, and he's now pursuing a higher education at the University of Alberta. John is accompanied today by Kelly Dyke, administrative co-ordinator for the prairie centre of excellence for research on immigration.

I'm sure, as they stand, we will again see John Bethel in the forefront, following in his mother's footsteps. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce three Calgarians from the constituency of Calgary-West. I'm introducing them on behalf of my colleague from that constituency. The three women are Jo-Ann Hrynyk, Rebecca Vincent, and Jessica Gowling. I'd ask these three women to stand now and receive the customary warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. Thanks very much. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This introduction will be a little b it unorthodox in that it w ill be on behalf of both myself and the Minister of Labour. So in fact Labour can work together on different issues. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce John Miller, who's the councillor for labour affairs, embassy of the United States of America, and Kimberly Klassen from the economic section, the U.S. consulate general. They've had their plans changed this afternoon, so they are able to partake in the proceedings of the House.

Would they please rise and receive the warm welcome. Thank you.

2362 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always a pleasure to introduce a Leduc constituent to you and to the others in the House this afternoon, particularly one as gracious as Grace Leclerc. I would ask Grace to stand and please receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a budding young entrepreneur from the city of Calgary, a friend and a constituent. Mr.

Leigh Sullivan is here visiting the Legislative Assembly, and I would ask all members, as he rises, to give him the warm welcome of members of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period China National Petroleum Corporation MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the waiting list for home care in Calgary has gone from 33 people to 345 people over the past year. At the same time, I have here copies of two government purchase orders for $100,000 worth of cars, four Buick Regals and a minivan, which this government sent to its staff in Beijing, China, last year in the midst of cuts to our health care system.

To the Premier: what kind of priorities has the Premier set when this kind of money is spent on Buicks for China while 345 Calgarians are now being forced to wait up to 12 months for home care? MR. KLEIN: Well, you know, oftentimes people try to compare apples and oranges, but I think that this is really stretching the situation. There's no relationship at all to that particular invoice. As a matter of fact, I don't know about it. I would like to get to the bottom of it, and I will ask the hon.

Minister of Economic Development and Tourism or the Minister of Energy, because the China National Petroleum Corporation is a joint venture between the Alberta government and the government of China. As to the invoice for the automobiles, I have no idea, but I will investigate it. Relative to home care we're in a state of transition. Certainly the policy of this government is to shift as much as we possibly can – understand, there will always be a need for acute and tertiary care in our hospitals – hospital care to home care where people feel more comfortable amongst their friends and their relatives.

I will have the hon. Minister of Health supplement. 1:40 MR. JONSON: Earlier this year there was $1.3 million added to the 30-plus million dollars with the Calgary regional health authority. Further with respect to the situation in Calgary, on Friday I met with the chairman o f the R HA in C a l ga ry . W e discussed the whole area of funding, and I expect that there will be a set of proposals coming to us in the very near future. It's not, as I understand it, in its final form; they're still doing some revisions. So certainly we will have a look at that when that particular proposal comes forward. Mr.

Speaker, certainly we do not want to see these waiting lists mount at this particular pace, and it should be reviewed. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, there is a relationship between these cars and the effect on sick Albertans. How much shorter would the waiting list for home care in Calgary be if the $100,000 had gone to home care instead of to Buicks for China? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I can tell you a little bit about China, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition can visit there if he wants.

We do have a very significant office in China that is a joint venture between the Alberta government and the China National Petroleum Corporation. The function of this office is to facilitate, not to do deals but to facilitate, the literally thousands and thousands of businesspeople who travel to China each and every year particularly to seek opportunities in the petroleum industry. This office is in the far north end of Beijing.

If anyone has been to Beijing recently, you will find that it is a very, very busy place, and anyone would be taking their lives in their hands to even attempt to drive or even to ride a bicycle in that city in this day and age. Therefore, there has to be some form of transportation. It's either buying the car there, which is very, very expensive indeed, probably three or four times the North American price, or buying the cars here and getting them over there so that we can facilitate the kind of business that we're carrying on in conjunction with the China National Petroleum Corporation.

That, we believe, is a function of government. As I said before, we will have the hon. Minister of Economic Development and Tourism examine that particular invoice along with the Minister of Energy. At the same time, we will still fulfill our commitment to home care. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development and Tourism to supplement the question. DR. WEST: Y es, a little supplemental on that, because the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to draw a correlation between our health care and what's going on in Beijing and in China.

For the people of Alberta there definitely is a link between what's going on there and our economy, because what's going on in the export industry is what fuels our revenues to this province to help us put on the great services that we have. Health care is one of them. Over 2,500 companies in this province export every year. Our fastest growing area is the Pacific Rim, and China is one of them. Y es, we're going to focus over there, because it takes years to build confidence in that marketplace, and we're doing it.

I'm going to review it in the review of everything else, but with what I see as the facts and figures going on right now, our exports are one of the fastest growing. In fact, the exports grew by 66 percent, or $10.5 billion, in the last four years alone. Aren't you a free-market party sitting over there? MR. MITCHELL: Free-market parties let business do it, not government offices, Mr. Speaker.

Given that last week in Public Accounts the minister of economic development's deputy minister indicated that there is only one full-time staff member and maybe some money for a part-time support staff member in this particular office, who exactly would be driving these five cars? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I was in Public Accounts, and we were dealing with the 1994-95 budget, if any of your members who were there would have told you. The essence of the question was about the Leduc training centre, which we had one person in.

We didn't say that about the office in Beijing, and if you'd just communicate with the people that were at Public Accounts, you'd know that. International Offices MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, just last week a woman was

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2363 forced to wait 55 hours on a gurney in an emergency department hallway with a blood clot in her leg before she was admitted to a proper hospital bed. Fifty-five hours. While he slashed funding for essential health care services, the Premier still managed to find $22 million for foreign offices. To the Premier: why did he send so much money out of this province when it is clearly desperately needed for health care services right here at home? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, the steps that we have taken recently and certainly since I became the Premier relative to the foreign offices has been absolutely dramatic: London is all but closed; New Y ork is all but closed; Hong Kong is all but closed now. We still have a presence in Beijing because that is a partnership with CNPC, the China National Petroleum Corporation. Indeed they have a staff here in the province of Alberta, and they operate full time in the city of Calgary to facilitate Chinese delegates who come here to explore business opportunities in Alberta.

So it is a good example of relationships becoming very solid between two countries where there are economic benefits to be gained. When the Leader of the Opposition talks about foreign offices, if he wants to be honest, which would be a very refreshing change, he would first demonstrate what we were spending on foreign offices four or five years ago and what we are spending today. It is considerably less, believe me. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder whether the Premier could answer this: when exactly are all these economic benefits which his offices are purportedly establishing going to come back to benefit Albertans, whose health care system is in crisis? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have the hon. Minister of Economic Development and Tourism – I can't be more proud of this government, of this caucus in terms of its economic development record.

We said that we would create the environ- ment, that government wouldn't create the jobs but that we would create the environment for the private sector to create 1 10,000 new jobs by the end of fiscal 1997. We have already ex ceeded that target. How did we exceed that target? We didn't exceed that target by going out and getting involved in business deals. As a matter of fact, we suspended that policy.

What we did is we created the economic climate, first of all, by balancing our budget, by paying down our debt, by keeping in place probably the most competitive tax regime, one of the most competitive in North America and certainly the most competitive in Canada. That's why people are moving to this province.

That's why the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition said on a radio show, oh, I think about a year ago that the future was – what he said to David Rutherford was: well, we're always being told, yet, David, I think one of the reasons business comes to Alberta is probably the tax regime; they also come to Alberta because this is a wonderful place to live. This is attributed to the Leader of the Official Opposition. This comes from the Leader of the Opposition. Do you know what else he said: it's got excellent health care; it's got excellent education; it's got a great environment; it's got a great . . .

And at that point the host had to cut him off because he couldn't believe what he was hearing. 1:50 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Economic Develop- ment and Tourism, I thought the Premier had covered the question very well. Very briefly, please, hon. minister. DR. WEST: I would like to give some information, because the leader asked about what the effect had been of the expenditures of money through economic development. That's a good lead-in, because I'm giving a talk tonight to some students at the univer- sity to point out exactly that. When I'm through, maybe the Treasurer could supplement a bit too.

At any rate, let me lead-in by this – and you said keep it short, but I have to give a little lead-in to it. The Department of Economic Development and Tourism three years ago had a budget of $104 million, and under the previous minister, who did an excellent job in bringing it over, we got it down to $66 million. The changes that I just announced will bring it down another $10 million to $15 million. As well, we're going to phase in certain areas with the private sector to enhance their role in it.

At least when we're down to $40 million from $104 million, we're still getting a good bang for the buck in the province, and we're not spending that type of dollars. That $60 million goes off to health care, which we just put $250 million back into, and we'll continue to look at it. Let's just look at what that money did, and now we're doing it with this kind of dollars in economic development. Alberta is leading western Canada's emergence in the economic power in Canada. We had the fastest growing economy in Canada over the last five years.

Alberta's economy grew by 2.5 percent in '95, and Alberta Treasury forecasts an additional 2.5 percent in 1996. Alberta had approximately $18.6 billion in new capital invest- ments in 1995. We consistently record the highest investment capital in Canada. The international exports have been the driving force of Alberta's economy over the past four years. During that period exports increased by $10.5 billion, or 66 percent. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister did give warning to the Assembly that he did have a speech. The Chair did not realize that we were going to be the rehearsal for that. Perhaps the hon.

Provincial Treasurer could have an opportunity to respond in supplementary to the third question on this one, the second supplemental. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, given all of that, why is it that Alberta now has the lowest per capita funding for health care in the entire country, behind New Brunswick, behind Newfoundland, behind Saskatchewan, behind Manitoba, all of which have balanced their budget, none of which has a $1.5 billion surplus, none of which has $180 million of unallocated budgeted funds, none of which raise $600 million in medicare payments every year? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Premier. [interjections] I'm sure the succinct question was caught by the hon. Premier, who wants to respond. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm think it's interesting to observe what is happening in other provinces as they try to come to grips with health care costs that are going through the roof, but I think that what is more important is to challenge the system to find newer and better and more effective and more efficient ways of doing things.

I think that what is more important: do all of these jurisdictions, even the jurisdictions that are spending the most, the absolute most per patient have a healthier Ontarian, a healthier New Brunswicker? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Y es.

2364 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like them, if they're saying yes, to prove it. Prove it. I don't think they can. Y es, it's a matter of spending money, but it's a matter of spending money in the right places and for the right reasons and to achieve the right outcomes, and the right outcome in this province is a healthier Albertan. MR. DINNING: To supplement the hon. Premier's answer, I would make two comments.

One is that maybe what the Liberal leader ought to do is ask his Liberal Prime Minister in Ottawa why Ottawa is reducing its spending on health care in this province by 31 percent over a period of two years, Mr. Speaker. I would simply also add, Mr. Speaker, to supplement the previous question: where are the benefits and where are the returns for the kind of economic development that has occurred in this province?

In fact, I would note that for the first time in Alberta's history, in 1995-96 corporate income tax revenue from manufacturing was as high as it has ever been, and for the first time it exceeded corporate income tax revenue from oil and natural gas. It grew by 90 percent in '95-96. That's the kind of news that the Liberals don't like to tell Albertans, but those are the facts because that's what Albertans, residents, citizens of Alberta, have done to help this economy grow because they're confident about our future. The Liberals, the naysayers, the gloom and doomers across the way, don't want to talk about that.

We will. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. Cataract Surgery MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Medical Association and its partners have issued a clinical practice guideline for the treatment of cataracts. The guideline is a tool for physicians and their patients to use when making the decision on whether or not surgery is required. It looks as though this government, however, has got different plans. They're about to use this guideline as an excuse for deinsuring some eye opera- tions.

Will the Premier please make it clear that his government will not use this clinical practice guideline as an excuse for deinsuring cataract surgery for some Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have the hon. Minister of Health supplement on this particular question. [interjection] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark, when the Speaker is standing, you stop talking. The hon. Minister of Health to respond. MR.

JONSON: I think it's important, first of all, for the hon. member to understand that clinical practice guidelines are something being worked on at the national and, in fact, at the international level to establish the best practice of medicine, standards for that, and the point at which certain surgical interven- tions should be made is the case here. I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that it's been possible here with the Alberta Medical Association for government to be part of the further development of clinical practice guidelines.

In the case of cataract operations I think it is a very important measure that the public of this province would want to know is there, that cataract operations are performed in the proper way and at the proper state of their condition. I think that would be the case. The public of the province, I am sure, would want there to be a basis, in this case a set of clinical guidelines, which guides, and it's the best pool of advice that patients can have available to them when they're undergoing treatment. MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Speaker, how will the Premier guarantee that all Albertans will have equal access to fully f unded eye surgery regardless of where they live, given that the guideline cautions about regional variation? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, somehow the hon. member across the way doesn't seem to think that the public of this province wants to have medical treatment when they need it, according to the knowledge and a set of guidelines that the physicians of this province work with. That is what clinical practice guidelines are. It is not a matter of insuring or not insuring.

I mean, if you are not having a particular medical decision, then you don't need the treatment, and of course there doesn't need to be the expenditure of money. But if you do need the treatment and you want to have it done the best way possible, these clinical guidelines are quite helpful. 2:00 MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, the depth of misunderstanding is quite astounding. Mr. Premier, would you please explain this government policy that your Minister of Health just suggested, that some Albertans will be able to pay for surgery and get it quicker, other Albertans won't, and it'll vary based on where they live? MR.

JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I thi nk this matter in the area of cataract surgery was covered early in July, end of June, when the agreement was reached with the federal government with respect to the arrangement for funding cataract surgery and other types of procedures in private clinics across this province. Procedures such as cataract surgery will be funded according to clinical guidelines, just as are other medical conditions that are already within the system. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just emphasize that this is an agreement that has been worked out with the Alberta Medical Association.

I am sure that they are interested in the best care for people in this province as well and want to be operating according to these very good directions. Premiers' Conference MR. LANGEVIN: Mr. Speaker, Canadian unity and devolution of power is on everyone's mind these days, especially when we have the best country in the world. Albertans and most people across this land are very, very proud to be Canadian and would like solutions to be worked out. My question today is to the Premier.

Regarding the recently concluded a nnual Premiers' Conference in Jasper, would you outline your position regarding the Courchene report, released by Premier Harris of Ontario just prior to the conference? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of media coverage and a lot of talk about the Courchene report, but the Courchene report was never tabled at the annual Premiers' Conference and never became part of the agenda. This report was commissioned by the government of Ontario, and it made certain recommendations. The Premier of Ontario, Mr.

Harris, has indicated that that report will be part of the overall consideration of Ontario as we start to

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2365 address the overall situation relative to rebalancing the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and the federal government. Certainly, there was some interest in the report. I know that Premier Bouchard of Quebec said that that report was more in keeping with what he would like to achieve for the province of Quebec. Other Premiers had so me difficulties with it in the context of establishing national guidelines, and as a result it was decided that this wasn't part of the agenda initially and it ought not to be part of the agenda at this particular time.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Lac La Biche-St. Paul. MR. LANGEVIN: Y es, Mr. Speaker. My supplemental question is also to the Premier. Would the Premier summarize the concept of rebalancing as discussed at the Premiers' Conference in Jasper? MR. KLEIN: Basically, what the Premiers decided to do was to direct the Premiers to work with the federal government and the territorial councils, of course, to develop a three-year work plan for rebalancing federal, provincial, and territorial roles and responsibilities.

This applies not only to health care, although there's a focus on health care here in Alberta, but it applies to social policy reform. We would perhaps like to work a bit more quickly on social policy reform, and we've asked with respect to that particular issue that guidelines be prepared no later than November 1 of this year and that we start to put in place an implementation program by April of next year.

Overall, what we are saying quite generally and what we unanimously agreed as provinces, save for Quebec, which wants absolutely no part of any negotiations with the federal government because of their political circumstance, is that, yes, there's a role for the federal government and there's a role for the province and that as a matter of fact the role of the province, in light of severely declining transfer payments, should probably be en- hanced. Well, perhaps not enhanced, but certainly the provinces should have more flexibility to deliver services, but, yes, there ought to be national guidelines.

I think that what the provinces objected to was that in light of declining federal transfer payments there should be a new mechanism for implementation and that there shouldn't be this notion of enforcement. I'll give you a good example, the example we all know in Alberta vis-à-vis facility fees, where the federal government fined us arbitrarily. There was no judge. There was no jury. The federal government became the enforcer. They became the judge. They became the jury.

In British Columbia, where they've imposed a three-month residency requirement for welfare recipients, the federal govern- ment arbitrarily has said: we don't think that that's right; we're going to fine you. There is no process to have this adjudication. Again, the federal government has become the enforcer, the judge, and the jury. I understand that they're being penalized to the tune of some $40 m illion a year, yet their welfare programs are improving because they have been able to put in that residency requirement and get the dollars to where they really are needed.

So basically what we are saying is that, yes, we need national standards, we need consensus, and we need to talk about a joint effort to achieve compliance instead of this unilateral and arbitrary enforcement that we now experience through the federal govern- ment. MR. LANGEVIN: Mr. Speaker, my final supplemental is to the minister responsible for federal and interprovincial affairs. Can the minister advise the House as to what follow-up there will be in the coming months? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, certainly there will be a lot of follow- up work relative to the communiqués with respect to rebalancing roles and responsibilities and social policy reform and renewal. But some individuals, including Ovide Mercredi, representing the First Nations leadership in this country, approached me following the meeting. I had a good meeting with them for about 45 minutes and assured them that I would invite all the Premiers to meet with them relative to their concerns vis-à-vis some of the items we discussed at the Premiers' Conference, and that meeting will take place sometime in October.

We'll be inviting represen- tatives from all the First Nations organizations and indeed all the Premiers and territorial leaders. MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps should s upplement, as well, on the follow-up. Alberta being the chair of the Premiers this year has been designated to co-chair the minister's forum, and that will necessitate naming a minister from Alberta to act as co- chair. The federal government has already named the Hon. Doug Y oung and the hon. Mr. Dingwall, Minister of Health, as co- chairs for the forum.

The idea is that the provinces will get together with the feds to set out an umbrella arrangement under which the sectors of the social por tfolios can get together to set out a game plan on how we can sort out who can do best. It isn't a matter of taking anything from the federal government. It might even be giving something to the federal government. It's looking at how we can deliver our social programs in the most effective and efficient manner and then, once that's determined, determining how the financing of that should happen. So the officials are already looking at agendas and how we can structure that.

On the nonsocial side, also as the Premier mentioned, there's this work plan that is to be looked at, including work on national standards. National standards don't mean federal standards, but they also don't mean provincial standards. They in fact mean that all levels of government will get together and sort out what kind of standards and what kind of policing mechanism can be brought forward on those. The officials are also looking at the structure of that committee so it can get to work, because they've asked for the report by November in terms of national standards. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark. 2:10 Glenrose Hospital MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Capital health authority is hiding behind a secretive employment screening exam to justify eliminating 12 long-term food service employees from the Glenrose hospital. These employees who were not rehired had a total of 183 years of experience. As the Capital health authority has refused to justify why they did not hire these employees, it's now the minister's responsibility to obtain the answers to the questions these employees and their families have. My questions are to the Minister of Health.

Will the minister investigate why for an average of 15 years 12 long-term employees were well qualified to do the job one day and unqualified the very next? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the inquiry that has come into my office. I've not had the opportunity to get the

2366 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 details on it, but it is certainly being investigated. I think it also may be an area in which I may need to use the services of the hon. Minister of Labour. Certainly that's being followed up on, but the specifics of this case I'm not able to comment on at this time. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Edmonton- Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will either one of the ministers, then, commit to obtaining and investigating the appropriateness of the exam which was so critical to refusing employment for these workers?

The Capital health authority has refused to release it. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I perhaps spoke too generally because I think there seem to be many aspects to this case, but in terms of the examination itself and its purpose, yes, we would inquire about that. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final supplemental, Edmonton- Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister also commit to producing the results of that examination and making those public? MR.

JONSON: Well, certainly in terms of a general investigation we'd look at that, but I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we would produce the results that individuals had on that particular examination, whatever its nature. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. Grain Marketing DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Grain marketing and the compulsory nature of the Canadian Wheat Board is being debated across the prairies. Here in Alberta producers voted in a plebiscite last fall and expressed their desire to have more freedom to sell their products to whomever they choose.

Alberta farmers told this Assembly that they wanted the option to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board or to others. Recently media reports have suggested that the Alberta government is anti Wheat Board. To the minister of agriculture: is this the position of the govern- ment? MR. PASZKOWSKI: The Alberta government is not anti Canadian Wheat Board.

However, what the Alberta government does advocate is that the producer should have the ability or the option to market his wheat or barley in whatever manner he chooses, just as he markets beef, just as he markets clovers, just as he markets any other commodity that he produces. The Alberta government supports the views of the producers. The producers spoke very clearly during a plebiscite when 66 percent of the barley producers in this province asked for the opportunity to have the option of marketing barley or wheat in whatever manner they so choose. Alberta supports change as well.

This is critical, and it's important that indeed the marketing process meets the changing environmental needs of the world marketplace. The one component that the Alberta government totally supports the Alberta producers on is that they should have the ability to achieve the highest price at the farm gate that is available to them. No one should dictate that to them. They should have the option and they should have the ability of obtaining the highest price at the farm gate. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Bow Valley. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has launched two court cases regarding grain marketing and producer choice. Could the minister explain how these cases will lead to the implementation of the Alberta producer plebiscite results? MR. PASZKOWSKI: One case has referenced a particular procedure to the courts to basically clarify whether indeed this is a procedure that fits within the criteria of the laws of the land. The other, of course, is a direct challenge to the federal court, and that is an issue of contracting.

The Alberta government feels that the clarification and indeed the justification of the contracting process are very critical and very important to the future planning of the producers of this province. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister confirm that the federal government sent investigators to interview the security services of the Legislature to determine their capabili- ties in identifying Wheat Board demonstrators à la U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, just to remind you that part of this question does appear before the court, so you should of course judge yourself accordingly as to how you'd answer. The hon. minister of agriculture. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y es, I have been advised that federal investigators have engaged in discussions with security regarding their abilities to identify. This is something that is of concern to us of course. However, there have indeed been federal investigators in discussions with our security officials. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead.

Rural Health Services MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're all aware of the shortage of physicians in rural areas these days and the resulting restrictions on emergency services. On August 14 the Minister of Health mentioned the rural physician action plan, on which the government is spending approximately $2.8 million this year. Now, these days the town of Milk River is supporting a large, yellow mobile sign on which it says: we want a doctor. So my question is to the Minister of Health. Is that sign so far the only visible result of your new plan? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the rural physician action plan is being successful across this province. I know that in the area of Cardston, Elk Point, Bonnyville, just to use two or three exam- ples, they are, as I understand it, in the successful stages of recruiting the needed physicians. In the case of this particular sign, I have not seen it, but certainly if they are making the proper contacts with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and utilizing that program, I'm sure there would be assistance provided.

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2367 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Premier to supplement. MR. KLEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to have this opportunity to supplement. The Member for West Y ellowhead raises a very, very good point. What we've been saying all along is that there are wonderful, marvellous opportuni- ties for doctors to practise in the rural areas, but the doctors prefer to be in Calgary and Edmonton. Certainly these are tertiary care centres and so on.

Y ou look at the hospitals that have been built in wonderful, beautiful towns like Milk River, the magnificent hospitals with good operating theatres. MR. SAPERS: Why are you closing them? MR. KLEIN: We are not closing them, Mr. Speaker. We're converting some of these to reflect long-term needs. As a matter of fact, in Milk River people like that hospital. Moms come up to have their babies. People come up from the United States to have surgery. There are gorgeous opportunities. It is a beautiful part of the world for doctors to go to. There's Writing-on-Stone provincial park.

There's a spirit and a life that is probably the most hospitable. This is a great opportunity for a bright doctor to go down and take advantage of a beautiful, marvelous facility. I'm glad that the Member for West Y ellowhead has brought this to our attention. 2:20 MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: I thank the Premier for a quick promotion here. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the Premier's commercial for rural Alberta and in view of the fact that this big sign by the way was put up by the town council for Milk River – it's not a tangible result of the new plan – could the Premier, then, tell me, can he give any tangible evidence to the people of Milk River, of Valleyview, of Smoky Lake: are there any doctors going there? MR. KLEIN: I don't know if any doctors are going there, but I can tell you that it is a great place to go. Mr. Speaker, my cousin Betty Lodermeier, who lives not too far from Milk River, nursed in that hospital for years.

She loves that hospital, and she boasts about the quality of care that she was able to give. This is a wonderful, wonderful part of our province, and any doctor would be proud to operate in that hospital. Mr. Speaker, it takes some courage to go out of the big cities, Edmonton and Calgary, and into a beautiful setting like Milk River, but by golly, once they're there, they will really enjoy it. They'll find a different kind of life altogether, a wonderful kind of life. MR. V AN BINSBERGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the Premier that words are cheaper than actions here.

Now, how does the Premier, then, explain the fact that since this plan has been in operation, since 1990, the situation has become more critical as far as rural doctors are concerned? MR. KLEIN: I will have the hon. Minister of Health supplement. Again, Mr. Speaker, there was an

article not so long ago – and this was a preference on the part of the doctors, to work in big cities, where, you know, relative to medicine it certainly is more exciting. There are more things going on. We have the cancer institutes. We have all the research centres in the big cities and so on.

Relative to just everyday medicine and looking after people, the opportunities in the rural areas are absolutely tremendous, and I would appeal once again to those doctors that might be thinking of a move to look at rural Alberta b ecause it is a w onderful, wonderful pl ace indeed, so diverse and so interesting and so caring. Mr. Speaker, there is an attitude of caring and sharing, and that relates in my mind a lot to what medicine should be all about. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health to supplement. MR. JONSON: If I might supplement, Mr.

Speaker, I think the hon. member will r ecall – I won't go through all the statistics from a previous day. Over the last decade, as I recall the figures, the number of physicians in the province had far outstripped in growth in terms of percentage that of the general population. So we do not have any crisis in terms of an overall supply of doctors that could work in rural areas. Secondly, there is progress being made with the various initiatives: loan forgiveness, what might be called package benefits for areas across the province, and on we can go with the list of different alternatives that they're using.

They are getting people to locate in the rural areas of this province, which in many cases, as the Premier has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, have well-equipped hospitals, good transportation systems, but it is a case where they already have a physician and they need someone there to share the load, give a person a period of time off, and so forth. So this is an area where I think we have a good news story. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge- West. Employment Standards Enforcement. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Labour.

Many of us as government members believe that any delivery system by the government has to be examined for its effectiveness and efficiency. Now, it is my understanding that officials of the Department of Labour have been meeting with employment standards staff of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees to discuss a new approach to service delivery for employment standards. My question would be: can the Minister of Labour indicate to Albertans why the employment standards branch would be moving to the private sector? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and thanks to the member for the question, because it is important. In one very simple word, the answer is delivery. The government maintains its role in setting policy and legislation to monitor and audit service delivery, but as we've said, not only in this particular instance but throughout as dramatic changes have taken place in government: we steer, and the private sector rows. So we see that there's been more and more opportunity for the private sector to become involved in delivering employment standards in the province of Alberta. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, we've talked about the Alberta advantage and the great increase in the economic benefits in this province, the fact that there are over 1.4 million people working today. The complaints to employment standards are only up marginally, and

2368 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 of the 10,000 claims only 5,000 in fact go through the registration process and are brought to conclusion. This is not new. It was put forward in the Alberta Labour business plan in February '95 and then again in the business plan for employment standards, which was released 15 months ago. So, Mr. Speaker, the “why” is strictly delivery. It's strictly to be able to provide better service to both employer and employee, the customers of the Department of Labour, at a better price. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: First supplemental, Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Labour, then, assure constituents of mine that should they run into difficulties with employers in our area, they will be able to continue to have access to a quality service? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, absolutely we can assure that, because that's going to be the job not only of the department, which will continue its role in setting policy and ensuring compliance in going through the necessary audit functions, but the fact that there'll be better access, that employers and employees will be able to access this system in a far more efficient manner.

In fact, last week my office personally handled two issues: one that came from Red Deer that took 10 months and one that came from Grande Prairie that took 10 hours. Clearly that discrepancy in level of service can't go on. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final supplemental? Question period is over. Points of order. I think we had one point of order from last week, which we'll deal with after, and we'll take today's points of order. Edmonton-Glenora. Point of Order Offending the Practices of the Assembly MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

I rise under Standing Order 23(l), which has to do with the Speaker calling a member to order if that member “introduces any matter in debate which offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly.” I rise under that point of order b ecause once again today we had the Treasurer take out his favourite script and read from it, speaking about a matter on which he only half tells the real story, in which he in fact misinforms the Assembly by leaving a tremendous amount of information out of his words. 2:30 What the Treasurer has done time and time and time again – and it's getting very annoying, Mr.

Speaker – is that he tends to forget his words when he was cautioning the federal government and expressing to them that Alberta wanted the federal govern- ment to get their House in order. He forgets that part when he says . . . THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the point of order as opposed to a point of debate. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. MR. DINNING: Y ou forgot yourself; right? MR. SAPERS: The Treasurer will have a minute to speak soon, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you could advise him of that. So, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this.

The Treasurer continues, as he does just now, by intervening from his seat. He introduces a matter into debate which does offend this Assembly, because it only tells half the story. The fact is that the Canada health and social transfer protected all of the dollars for health care. The Treasurer knows that, and he should apologize to the Assembly for misinforming the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. the Provincial Treasurer, who will speak to the point of order. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak directly to the point of order that the Member for Edmonton-Glenora has attempted to put forward.

The fact to support this point of order is that Ottawa has acknowledged that its reductions to the province by way of transfers under the Canada health and social transfer will drop by almost $457 million by '97-98 over '94-95. I said: $457 million. That by my calculation is pretty near – well it's almost a third. So, Mr. Speaker . . . THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that the point of order raised by Edmonton-Glenora has been an opportunity perhaps for clarification. However, I think the point does bring us back to answering questions.

Beauchesne 417 reminds us all that “answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.” So that's a reminder. We clearly have a difference of opinion between hon. members as to what all of the story will be, and I think that can be debated at the appropriate moments, and it's not now. No point of order. The hon. member for Edmonton-Rutherford has indicated a point of order. Point of Order Brevity MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order when the minister responsible for economic development was respond- ing to a question.

In my point of order I, too, refer to Beauchesne 417. Beauchesne 417 of course clearly states that “answers to questions should be as brief as possible.” Mr. Speaker, it is very, very difficult for our side, very offensive to our side when we conduct question period in a very professional and businesslike manner, and then we see the government sort of make fun of it and provoke debate and play a little game over there where they actually try at times to burn out the clock. They try to burn out the clock as they advance down and they're responding.

In this case in particular, you motioned, you signaled that minister several times to hush up, and he would intentionally look away from you, pretending that he didn't see your signals. Mr. Speaker, it's very, very important for us to utilize our opportunity to the fullest so that we can get answers that the public is demanding from this government. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we got . . . THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Sorry to interrupt. I think you've made your point. In fact the Chair, perhaps in unknowing anticipation of that, had dealt with it.

We are asking for succinct responses, and I don't think any further defence is needed. MR. DINNING: There's no point of order.

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2369 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No point of order other than the general admonition to all. Point of Order Disposition of Bill 214 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Thursday, hon. members, August 22, 1996, after the prayers and before the daily routine the hon. Member for Calgary-North West raised a point of order concern- ing what he believes was an omission on that day's Order Paper, specifically a reference to Bill 214 under Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders.

The hon. member indicated that there was neither a motion to remove 214 from the Order Paper nor unanimous consent to waive Standing Order 8(5)(a)(ii) and that therefore B ill 214 should be returned to the Order Paper to be discussed on the next private member's day. While the Chair is extremely reluctant to comment on what occurred in Committee of the Whole, a review of Hansard for Wednesday, August 20, 1996, indicates that when the Assembly was in Committee of the Whole debating Bill 214, the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie moved pursuant to Standing Order 64(1) that the Chairman leave the Chair.

Standing Order 64(1) reads as follows: A motion that the Chairman leave the Chair (

a) is always in order, (

b) takes precedence over any other motion, and (

c) is not debatable. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie's motion passed in the affirmative, and the Chairman left the Chair. The Standing Orders are not explicit as to what happens to a Bill when the Chairman leaves the Chair, but both Beauchesne and Erskine May, which are the authorities most often consulted in situations that are not covered by the Standing Orders, deal with this matter.

Beauchesne in paragraph 905 explains that a Member wishing to supersede a question, will move “That the Chairman do now leave the Chair”, and if this motion, which is not debatable, is resolved in the affirmative, the Chairman will at once leave the Chair, and with no report having been made to the House, the bill or question disappears from the Order Paper. Erskine May on page 499 is to a similar effect.

Thus in partial answer to the hon. member's point of view the Chair would advise that a motion to remove Bill 214 from the Order Paper was not necessary because the Bill automatically disappeared from the Order Paper when the Chairman left the Chair. The hon.

Member for Calgary-North West also indicated that Bill 214 cannot be removed from the Order Paper unless there's unanimous consent of the House to waive Standing Order 8(5)(a)(ii), which says that a public Bill other than a Government Bill shall retain its place on the Order Paper until such time as the Bill has been given . . . (ii) 120 minutes of debate in Committee of the Whole.

What the hon. member failed to mention, however, were the closing words of Standing Order 8(5)(a), which reads: “unless the relevant motion is voted upon sooner.” In the Chair's view a motion under Standing Order 64(1) is a relevant motion for the purpose of Standing Order 8(5)(a)(ii). Indeed, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1)(

b) it's a motion that “takes precedence over any other motion.” Accordingly, once a motion that the Chairman leave the Chair is affirmed in the positive, that ends debate of the Bill. In short, the Standing Order provisions concerning the amount of time to be spent on private member's Bills are not absolute. They are subject to the normal rules of debate and the motions that have marked parliamentary practice at least since 1905 in this province. Finally, the hon. Member for Calgary-North West referred to Standing Order 41.

Standing Order 41 enumerates the motions that can be received when a motion is being debated. It is true that there is no motion under Standing Order 41 to remove a Bill from the Order Paper. However, Standing Order 64 takes precedence over any other motion and is always in order. Consequently, Standing Order 41 is not applicable under these circumstances. In conclusion, the Chair wishes to thank the hon. Member for Calgary-North West for his concerns and comments, but the Chair finds that there is no point of order.

Bill 214 was properly removed from the Order Paper in accordance with the Standing Orders and the usages and precedents of this Assembly. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call the committee to order. 2:40 Bill 46 Electoral Divisions Act THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We're on government amendment A1. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you. MR. DA Y: Question. MS LEIBOVICI: Pas aujourd'hui, je pense.

It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak to Bill 46, the Electoral Divisions Act, and in particular to the amend- ment to Bill 46, which reads as follows: The

Schedule is amended by replacing the names of the electoral divisions set out in column 1 with the names set out in column 2 and by rearranging and renumbering the names of the electoral divisions and their boundary descriptions accordingly: Column 1 Column 2 Calgary-East Calgary-Fort Calgary-Forest Lawn Calgary-East Airdrie Airdrie-Rocky View Bow Valley Strathmore-Brooks Cardston-Taber Cardston-Taber-Warner Olds Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills The last two ridings become quite a mouthful, and the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert has jokingly said in our caucus: I guess some of the other members were jealous that there was only one grouping of names in their boundary divisions, so that's why we're now getting boundary divisions that have more than one jurisdiction within them. What's surprising is that here we have a Bill that's been put together in conjunction with th e report that the commission had put forward and what we see now in front of us, when we're not even four days into the debate on this particular Bill, are amend- ments already.

I wonder how many more amendments the government side is planning to bring forward, especially given that there seems to be a wish to fast-track this Bill. What I would urge the government to do is to take their time, not be in a rush, to look at consultation, much as what they've requested to be done with Bill 214, so that there be the time to consult, that there be

2370 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 the time to take it out to the particular constituents and constituen- cies that would be involved. In fact, the example they've set with Bill 214 we should see set with Bill 46. There are models that the government could look at. For instance, when I worked with the municipality of the city of Edmonton, there's a whole process to naming. One doesn't just go about and willy-nilly pick a name out of the air, but in fact what ends up happening is that there is a process.

There is a committee that's set up of citizens and government officials, and there may even be an elected official on that particular committee. What the committee does is it looks at suggestions for names, looks at the history behind particular names, puts forward to the public, to see what the decision should be, an example of what the names for a particular area or a park or a street or what have you could be, and then, depending on the public input, makes a decision as to what in fact the name for a particular area should be.

Now, I would imagine that in the report, the document that we all received on the electoral boundaries entitled Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta, those names and those divisions were in actual fact based on the discussions that the commission had with people across this province. But in fact when one looks at the amendments that are before us, there's no explanation as to how these amendments came about.

There doesn't seem to be any willingness on the part of the government to go back, maybe request the commission to go out with these new names – because they in fact did not put forward these names – and get a feel for what the constituents of the proposed new boundaries would feel about, for instance, becoming Calgary-Fort as opposed to Calgary-East or Calgary-East as opposed to Calgary-Forest Lawn.

Now, if we were in normal times, when boundaries have been relatively stable over a period of time, perhaps it would be easier to do that, but as our history has shown with regards to the electoral boundaries, over the last three sets of elections – if you look at the 1986 election, the 1989 election, and the '93 election – what has happened in the period of 10 years is that we've had the boundaries change at least three times. This will be the fourth time. One of the members of the government had indicated that people don't know who their MLAs are.

Well, it's difficult to keep track of that when the government insists, almost on an annual basis, on changing the boundaries, which in effect then changes who the MLA is. This is, I think, particularly distressing to the voter who is trying to establish a relationship within a particular constituency based on a number of factors and also with their MLA.

In fact, in the decisions that were made within the Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta report, there was a matrix that was put forward which indicated that one of the reasons for putting particular areas together was of course population. It was also a commonality of interest, and it also suggested what certain names were. But here in front of us we've got an amendment that again, as I indicated, does not tell us why the names have been proposed the way they have and whether the constituents of those particular new areas will in fact be amenable to that name change.

Now, when I started my address to the amendments, one of the things I indicated was that there seems to be an undue rush by the government to push forward the boundaries as indicated. When we look at the flurry of advertisements that are coming out in either the Calgary Herald or the Edmonton Examiner or perhaps in today's Edmonton newspapers – I haven't seen them – we've already got, before this Bill has even been passed, founding meetings of constituency associations by the Conservatives. The first founding meeting, I believe, will be with the Minister of Education on September 3 to found Calgary-Nose Creek.

I can see why in fact the government would be in a rush and would not want to consult with constituents as to the names. But again the government has put forward a very high standard. What they have said, when one looks at Bill 214, is: we're not willing to pass legislation unless there has been adequate public consultation. There is, of course, no definition for adequate public consultation, but I think it's a standard that's been set by this particular government. Point of Order Relevance MR. SEVERTSON: Mr. Chairman, Beauchesne, relevancy. I thought we were talking to the amendments on name changes.

We've hardly heard anything about the name changes. 2:50 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, hon. member. MS LEIBOVICI: Of course I'm talking to the amendment. What the amendment is doing is changing the names that were put forward after considerable consideration by the commission. What this amendment is doing is putting forward, without any consultation, without any notice to the public, that there are going to be changes of names.

What I'm doing is drawing the parallel in the process, which deals directly with the amendment which says that there wishes to be on behalf of the government – it's a government amendment – a change of six constituencies in column 1 to be changed to column 2. Y ou can see it right here. This is without any public discussion. This is without any public consultation. The report has been put forward. That's the parallel that I'm making.

Now, I can understand why the member would be sensitive about not wanting to draw the parallel between Bill 214 and the fact that the government then said that consulta- tion was a good thing but does not want to see that same standard being put forward to this amendment. So I believe that I'm right on the amendment. Thank you. I await your ruling. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. This is a topic that is always a difficult call.

As I sit here, not just today but many days, unless the member specifically gets totally off the topic, I never call them to order, and certainly the member is at times going to at least the amendment. I know that the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark will stay closer. It is a difficult call, and if the hon. member gets blatantly off topic, I w ill call the member to order. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you for that very wise ruling. Debate Continued MS LEIBOVICI: Now, when we look at the actual constituencies, Calgary-East is going to become Calgary-Fort.

Calgary-Forest Lawn will become Calgary-East. Again, there does not seem to be any rationale that's been put forward for these particular amendments. We see that the Calgary–East that's proposed in this particular report is composed of 61 percent of the former population of

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2371 Calgary-East, yet what we see in the amendment is that the Calgary-East which, if you can remember, composed the majority of Calgary-East is the old Calgary-East. That's 61 percent. For some strange reason that will become Calgary-Fort. Calgary- Forest Lawn, which has only 7 percent of the former Calgary-East – now, if I'm losing anyone, I can repeat this so it's a little bit clearer. But if you follow in the book, you'll see that Calgary- Forest Lawn is going to become Calgary-East.

Now, I find that very confusing in that the new Calgary-East we're going to call Calgary-East even though it only has 7 percent of the old Calgary- East, and again there's no rationale. I would think that people who live in the Calgary-East area, the majority of those – because it's 61 percent of those in the current Calgary-East, which is going to become Calgary-Fort – that 61 percent of the population would think, “Well, I should be part of Calgary-East.” So again, based on rationale and percentages, when I look at it, there doesn't seem to be any reason for these changes.

That's why I think it's very important that there is some kind of a consultation that would go on to try and make people appreciate and under- stand the reason for these changes. [Mr. Herard in the Chair] The reason I know that this is an issue is that at one point I was nominated to run – and this might have been in the '86 or the '89 election – in a constituency that was named Edmonton-Jasper Place. In 1993 Edmonton-Jasper Pl ace became Edmonton- Meadowlark.

Now, you would think, much like the people who have put forward this amendment, that that's not a big deal, that people don't have an affinity towards a name. In reality, what I heard on a number of occasions was an affinity towards the old town of Jasper Place, that the people who had been part of the old town of Jasper Place, which, as you know, did become part of Edmonton, felt disaffected, did in fact feel that they should have been consulted before that name change was made.

They didn't quite understand how one day they could be Edmonton-Jasper Place and at another time all of a sudden become Edmonton- Meadowlark. Before that, in '8 6, they were something else; I forget. There was another riding. So there is a lot of confusion out there with the electorate. Unless there's some way to communicate that to the electorate, unless there's some way to actually indicate why these changes are made and to get input – because I do believe that what's important is to have input into the process – in fact we may have more disaffected voters out there.

Now, I'm sure that if I go down the list to, for instance, Bow Valley, it might be interesting to look at what has happened with Bow Valley, where the name has completely changed. Perhaps the Member for Bow Valley will get up and indicate as to what his feedback has been from his constituents now that it will be renamed to Strathmore-Brooks and whether that indeed is appropriate, to rename it to Strathmore-Brooks, or whether it's more appropriately named Bow Valley. We must, of course, believe there was a reason that those names were put forward in the first place.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Bow Valley is rising on a point of order. Point of Order Questioning a Member DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would the speaker entertain a question on the matter that she has referred to in her speech? MS LEIBOVICI: Well, I'd actually prefer an explanation. If you can let us know . . . THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Y es or no. MS LEIBOVICI: . . . what the history is, and whether your constituents agree with the name change, then please feel free to join in. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes. Debate Continued DR. OBERG: I'll take that as a yes as well. Mr.

Chairman, one of the mysteries of the naming of the constituency is the term “Bow Valley.” As everyone here knows, the Bow River is there, but there's actually no valley at all, and indeed it's very flat. DR. TA YLOR: How about Bow Coulee? DR. OBERG: That's right. The proper term actually would be Bow Basin, because that is what it is, the Bow Basin. Y ou could have the Brooks-Bow Basin, but then that would be the BBB, and they would get it mixed up with the Better Business Bureau, Mr. Chairman. So we couldn't do that.

More to the point, the mayors of Strathmore and Brooks – and I have had numerous people comment that the term “Bow Valley” does not identify them, and they wanted the name changed, after extensive consultation, to Brooks-Strathmore or Strathmore- Brooks. For obvious acronymical reasons Strathmore-Brooks was put forward as opposed to Brooks-Strathmore. MS LEIBOVICI: Well, I quite appreciate that explanation. I think this kind of interchange is very valuable. It's very valuable in helping us understand the consultation that you have had with your constituents.

I wonder if perhaps the new Cardston-Taber, which is going to become Cardston-Taber-Warner, could let us know what your constituents have said a bout that or the Olds- Didsbury-Three Hills to be a nd whether there is that same unanimous approval of the name change. 3:00 What's interesting, when one looks at the books, as to Bow Valley – what the old Bow Valley had and what the new Bow Valley will have – is that Bow Valley will take into account Drumheller. There will be a larger representation from Drumheller.

In the proposed electoral division Bow Valley is 60 percent, Drumheller is 32 percent, and Little Bow is 7 percent,

whereas in the old electoral division . . . Nope. The other way around. Sorry. The current electoral division is that. The proposed electoral division will be Bow Valley, Cypress-Medicine Hat, Drumheller-Chinook. In effect, we see that there are other areas – such as Drumheller, Little Bow, Chinook, Medicine Hat – that have been affected. It would be interesting to know what their response is as to whether or not they think this is an accurate description of what the new boundaries will be.

The effects, as I indicated earlier, are such that there is confusion at times within the electorate to know who is the appropriate representative for a particular area, and it becomes difficult at times for the electorate to know where they are. That's why I think it's important that there is this consultation process to go on around the names. Even though you may think that all we're doing is discussing a name, in fact what also

2372 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 happens is the process of elections gets discussed and other related issues, not only the boundaries issue but the broader issue of elections within Alberta. I think that's a good starting point to try and get citizens of Alberta interested in elections. As we know, less than half of the citizens in Alberta do, on average, go out to vote. Perhaps one way to get them more involved in the whole process is to try and get them involved from the ground up.

The boundaries commission did try to do that, and they did in fact, based on their consultations, suggest certain names, but here we are again. There's an amendment. Again, if I may bring a parallel to 214, there was a Bill that was presented, it was voted on unanimously by this Legislative Assembly . . . THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, excuse me. That issue has been ruled on by the Chair, and I wish that you would keep your discussion to the amendment that we're currently working on. Thank you. MS LEIBOVICI: I am.

As I was saying, with Bill 214 the Bill was ruled on at second reading, we got to the Committee of the Whole stage, and there was a decision made by the government that there wasn't enough consultation on the amendments that were put forward in consultation with the government departments and us. In fact, what the parallel is is that this is a Bill that was passed in second reading. We're now in Committee of the Whole. There are amendments that have been put forward by the government side, and what I'm basically saying is that there hasn't been enough consultation and it should go back. Thank you.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury. MR. BRASSARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in favour of this amendment. I'm not going to reiterate the discussion that was held concerning the boundary change to the Olds-Didsbury area because that's passed and it's been agreed upon in principle, but all of my comments would still apply. Dealing specifically with the six lines of amendments to this Bill and specifically to the Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills portion of that amendment, I would just like to point out that in the past Olds- Didsbury did indeed represent that riding.

It was in the very heart of the riding, surrounded by Sundre and Crossfield and other areas, and it did embody the trading pattern, the community of interest, if you will, in that general area. The addition of Three Hills and Trochu and Acme of course changes that considerably. As you likely know, Mr. Chairman, Three Hills is over an hour away from Olds or Didsbury and embodies a different trading pattern altogether. Their area of interest primarily is to the east.

While I'm opposed to this calculator approach to deal with people and people representation, I think it's imperative that if indeed that's what has to happen, then we make certain that those communities are still represented in this Legislature. The Three Hills-Airdrie riding, at least the Three Hills portion of that riding, has been identified in this Assembly for years and years. I think it would be a terrible injustice, after having applied simply a numbers game to change that representation, to remove that representation in this Assembly.

So that is why I'm speaking to the inclusion of the name Olds -Didsbury-Three Hills instead of just Olds. I feel that the name Olds, while it's a very admirable name, doesn't represent the entire riding. I'm speaking in favour of this amendment, and I think it's a very brief amendment to a very complex Bill and a very sensitive debate. With that, I'd like to call the question, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a few observations in support of the House not voting for these amendments.

There are a number of reasons that could be put forward, and I'd like to address a few of those, if I may, right now. First of all, if you go back to the commission itself, this was a movement in our province towards the depoliticization of the drawing of electoral boundaries. We heard earlier in the debate on the Bill from one of the members from Calgary who'd been part of the past Electoral Boundaries Committee and the difficulty that the last commission had in trying to bring forward a report. I think there were five members. They had five minority reports.

So this has been an attempt in this round to depoliticize the whole process. What this amendment does is to start and interfere in that again. It has members of the Legislature making the decisions about the names. It may be put forward as unimportant, and I think the mover of the motion indicated that he thought they were unimpor- tant. When he introduced the amendments in the Legislature last week, he said that they were minor in nature, so I assume that he thought they were unimportant.

But I see the principle here as being very important; that is, MLAs, active politicians, being involved in the naming or the drawing of electoral boundaries. Again, I think it's a retrograde step in terms of what this commis- sion had accomplished. So, first of all, I think we s hould vote against it, because it does violate that principle of noninterference in something that affects us personally as elected representatives. The second reason I think we should vote against the amend- ments is that I'm not quite sure how much sense they make. In the stated reasons in Hansard from August 22, 1996, the hon.

Minister of Justice says, “Mr. Chairman, these amendments of names are consistent with the input that MLAs have received from their constituents.” Y et if you go back, for instance, to the changing of Olds to Olds-Did sbury-Three Hills, I note that in appendix D on page 93 of the Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names that that member actually made a submis- sion to the boundaries commission. I don't quite understand. Was the submission that member made on November 23 not sufficient?

What happened between his submission to that boundaries commission and now that would cause an amendment to be introduced in terms of the name change? So the stated reason of the involvement of MLAs doesn't seem to be reason- able. It doesn't seem to make sense. 3:10 I believe we should vote against the amendments for there is no rationale given for the changes. It was indicated that they were minor and that there was input from MLAs and that's why the changes are there. But name changes are really a very important part of voting and a part of the electoral process in our province.

If you look through the list of the names that we have, many of them are place names. We'll have Rocky M ountain House and Mill Woods and Gold Bar and Whitemud and Fish Creek and Nose Creek – there's a whole association with the place where people live – Chief Mountain, Lesser Slave Lake. Geography and the cardinal directions – north, south, east, west – have been used in trying to determine place names. So there is a rationale sitting

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2373 behind the names as they appear in the report. Often the names have some historic association for people in the area: Fort Saskatchewan, St. Albert; Avonmore and Glengarry with their roots in Scottish lore. There is an association they have histori- cally with many of the names that appear there. Some of them are associated with institutions, Calgary-Varsity being a case in point. Certainly there are a number of them that are associated with people, historic people in our . . . MR. SMITH: What about Calgary-Varsity? DR. MASSEY: Associated with an institution.

That was an interjection. A number of them are associated with historic figures in the province: Manning; Nellie McClung, who was a heroine in our history; Rutherford, the first Premier of the province; in our city, Roper; in Calgary, McCall and Currie; and again in our city, Strathcona. So a number of the names have specific historic people references. Then there are other rationales. I guess what's missing from the amendment and what the mover of the amendment didn't do as a courtesy was to give us a rationale. Why are the names being changed?

Did the boundaries commission hear those same arguments that are being heard today from a couple of members about their constituencies? Did the boundaries commission hear those arguments and reject them? We're left in the dark as to what's actually proceeded. I think another reason why we should vote against these amendments is that the commission didn't make any attempt to justify or not justify names in the report that they put forward. For some reason they didn't see that there was any reason to address the names in the same sort of systematic fashion that they put forward that matrix.

I guess I was somewhat surprised, because if it isn't in this electoral bo undaries report, I would assume that somewhere down the road the whole notion of names and how they are arrived at would be an appropriate subject for the commission to address. If you look at the whole business of names, they can be very controversial and they can be very political. I think back again to my experience on the school board here, where one of the things that we did was to try and put forward a sound policy for the naming of schools. We looked at the local neighbourhoods.

We looked at Albertans and Canadians and the contributions that they had made to provincial or national political, social, or civic affairs. We looked at people and their contributions to cultural affairs in the country. We came up with an ordering of naming schools that we thought would make some sense and tried to avoid the kind of pressure we were constantly under by people who wanted a facility named after their uncle or their aunt, or they wanted their family name to appear on a facility.

So I would think that if for some reason the commission had addressed the problem of names and decided they weren't going to regularize it or propose a rationale for the name changes, that must have been deliberate. Or if it wasn't deliberate, they must have for some reason thought that it wasn't important or that maybe it was beyond the scope of their power or their task as they saw it. I think at some point it's going to have to be addressed. Why we called electoral divisions or changed them from Calgary- East to Calgary-Fort is going to have to be made explicit.

The rationale for arriving at names and some guidance for those charged with naming constituencies is going to have to be given. I go back to the major reason and I think the most important reason for voting against the amendments – and then I'll conclude my comments, Mr. Chairman – which is that the principle of noninvolvement of politicians, sitting politicians, in the process is being violated by these amendments. For that reason I would urge that they be defeated. Thank you. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill 46, the Electoral Divisions Act. I've been here in the Assembly throughout the debate on this Bill at second reading. I spoke to it at sec ond reading, highlighted some of my concerns with the Bill, and I was here when the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government introduced the amendments which are before us today and which are the subject of debate. Recalling what the hon. Minister of Justice said when he introduced these amendments, he said: Mr.

Chairman, these amendments of names are consistent with the input that MLAs have received from their constituents. They are minor in nature of course, and I would so move. That was on August 22, 1996, page 2354 of Hansard. Mr. Chairman, when we propose Bills in this Assembly, when we propose amendments to Bills in this Assembly, I would expect some detail from the mover or the sponsor of a Bill, if that's the case, or if there are amendments, then I would require more to be put forward. DR. TA YLOR: Peter, don't lower yourself. Y ou're above this. MR.

SEKULIC: These are just questions and concerns – and in response to an hon. member's comments, I will be concise because I do not want to hamper the progress of this Assembly. I do want to say that when I listened to the debate throughout its stages, when I heard the amendments introduced, I picked them up, and I do thoroughly go through every single piece of legisla- tion that comes before this Assembly and every pertinent amend- ment that we as legislators face. One element struck me, and one question I immediately had.

I took those amendments and I referred back to the 1995-96 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission report, the final report that was presented to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in June of 1996. I looked at those boundaries. The specific ones that I had a question on were in column 1, where we go from Calgary-East and the name becomes Calgary-Fort, and then the second one in the order there, where Calgary-Forest Lawn becomes Calgary- East. What I did was refer to the map found on pages 168 and 169 of the document, the final draft that was presented to the Speaker of this Assembly.

What struck me as interesting and perhaps curious was the fact that what used to be Calgary-East now becomes Calgary-Fort, and what used to be Calgary-Forest Lawn becomes Calgary-East. It was interesting that out of the five constituencies that border the east side of Calgary, the to-be Calgary-East wasn't one of them.

I was just curious – and I won't take up too much more time of the Assembly – why we would rename such a large constituency as Calgary-East, which in fact borders the eastern boundary of the city of Calgary's limits, to no longer be Calgary- East and rename Calgary-Forest Lawn to be Calgary-East, and the new Calgary-East then wouldn't in any way border along the eastern municipal boundary of the city of Calgary. So that was one that I found interesting and perhaps curious, and I would appreciate if the mover of these amendments would

2374 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 get up and respond to that question b ecause I think it's a legiti- mate question. I think many residents in the other constituencies that border the eastern boundary of Calgary would perhaps wonder why it is that they're not Calgary-East and a constituency which is more central is called Calgary-East. Those were the questions that I wanted to raise, because I do think that whichever points, whichever amendments, or whichever Bills we propose in this Assembly, we need to back them up. We need to explain why we're bringing them forward, and why they are of such importance.

When I hear that MLAs in some of these constituencies had their constituents come to them and ask for changes, well, was it three constituents that came forward? What was the motivator? What initiated such change, or what initiated the need for such change to be proposed? So with those few questions, Mr. Chairman, I will take my place and hopefully look forward to a response, b ecause I think a response is warranted. Thank you. 3:20 THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lacombe- Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say that I find it rather strange that so many members opposite would question name changes when the name changes within the amendment are all constituencies that they do not represent. I really believe that the changes are reflective of the contemplated boundary lines. I do know myself that many of my constituents, during the hearings when it was first thought that my boundaries would change, asked me specifically about a name change.

So I believe that many, many constituents that live and reside in many of these particular areas feel very strongly that the names should better reflect the changes in boundaries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Redwater. MRS. BALSILLIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm privileged this afternoon to speak on the amendments to Bill 46. As you know, I'm relatively new, so some of the comments that I may be saying may have been brought up before. First of all, the comments that I just heard from across the floor are quite appalling to me.

I thought that at this Legislature we had the privilege to talk and to speak on any Bill that comes to the floor. And that with such a serious change as this we would be told that because we don't live within that constituency or represent that constituency, we have no comment – it's appalling, actually, to listen to comments like that. What they might not know is that they may not be representing that constituency next time around. [interjections] The other comments that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, if I may do so without this

section over here, is to talk in regards to name changes. I disagree with my colleague across the floor saying that some of her c onstituents understand and know the reason for the change. Most of the constituents don't even know they're being changed. This is a concern for me, that many of them have not been able to come forth and give what there opinion is on the name change. I look at column 1 and I look at column 2, Calgary-East to Calgary-Fort: how confusing is that going to be to constituents? Have they gone out and have they spoken to these people, or is it a decision made by the MLAs on a whim?

One morning they wake up and decide to make a change. The other, which upsets me considerably, is Calgary-Forest Lane to Calgary-East. AN HON. MEMBER: Calgary-Forest Lane? MRS. BALSILLIE: Forest Lawn. I'm sorry. MR. GERMAIN: Take it easy. She's a brand-new member here. Shame on you. Shame on you guys. MRS. BALSILLIE: Well, thank you very much, Adam. Okay. What I'd like to say to the colleague across the lane here is that I don't have my glasses on. I'm sorry that I didn't have my glasses on, but thank you very much for correcting me. I would just like to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I am upset about some of these changes. I feel that the people on the other side don't realize what it means to the constituents to have the name and then all of a sudden to have it changed without any rationale. As I hear from the discussion, no one on the other side is going to give us any rationale on why these changes have been made. MRS. FORSYTH: Y ou weren't listening. MRS. BALSILLIE: I've been listening and listening. I didn't hear any history or rationale. Well, why don't you tell me about it, if you've been listening? It would be nice to hear you say something once in a while.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, through the Chair, please. MRS. BALSILLIE: So, Mr. Chairman, I ask if there will be rationale explaining to us, telling us why the changes. I think it is very serious when a change of name comes about, and it should not be done on a whim. That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. BRUSEKER: Mr. Chairman, I too do want to make a few comments about the amendments before us today as proposed under amendment A1. Amendment A1 proposes a series of half a dozen potential name changes, some of which indeed are name changes for the current boundaries that we have.

The first one that I want to address is the issue of Calgary- Forest Lawn. Now, you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, that that particular name has some history within this Legislative Assem- bly. A constituency called Calgary-Forest Lawn was one of the constituencies represented – or that name, at least, was used – as recently as the 22nd Legislature. Of course, you know that we are in the 23rd Legislature right now. So the name Calgary- Forest Lawn as a constituency within the city of Calgary has some historical basis to be used as the name for a constituency.

From that point I must say that I liked the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission that proposed that Calgary-Forest Lawn be used once again as a name within the city of Calgary. Indeed, I in a previous life spent some time working in that area as a schoolteacher in a junior high school in the community of Forest Lawn, located within the constitu ency of Calgary-Forest Lawn. So when the commission put forward the proposal to reinstate the name Calgary-Forest Lawn as one of the Calgary constituencies, indeed I was pleased to see that.

Now, I have no objection to the use of Calgary-East constitu- ency – as a name, that is – but when I look at the name Calgary-

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2375 East and I look at the proposed location of Calgary-East as a constituency in the city of Calgary, indeed there are a couple of constituencies that will be farther east than the proposed constitu- ency of Calgary-East under amendment A1. I'm disappointed, first, at the proposal to eliminate the name Calgary-Forest Lawn and rename it Calgary-East, and therefore simultaneously, because we couldn't have two constituencies named Calgary-East, to rename Calgary-East as Calgary-Fort.

Calgary-Fort is a name that will not necessarily have a lot of significance to a lot of people who live in that area. When you look at the map proposed for all of the constituencies in the city of Calgary, one might propose a number of other names rather than Calgary-Fort for that area. Geographically Calgary-East is going to be a very large constituency within the parameters of the city of Calgary; it's certainly going to be much larger than some of the other constituencies that are proposed. Y ou've got a number of major roadways that go through there: Deerfoot and Barlow trails.

Y ou might pick one of those as a name. Certainly Deerfoot I think would be a name that would have a considerable significance to our First Nations people. There are all kinds of proposals one could come forward with rather than Calgary-Fort, because when one looks at that, again parts of the proposed new Calgary-Fort constituency will in fact be farther east than the proposed Calgary-East constituency that is in this amendment. 3:30 MR. AMERY: It's a small part. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, the member who currently represents Calgary-East says that it's only a small part.

I would suggest that geographically it's a large area. Now, it is a large industrial area out there, and the resident population in the east part of what is now Calgary-East is probably quite small. Of course, I could say the same about my own constituency in that it's fairly large geographically, I suppose, compared to other Calgary constituen- cies. I want to emphasize that, lest my rural colleagues take some exception to my reference in that regard, Mr. Chairman. Of course, much of the population in my constituency, again, is in one area. The same thing applies to the Calgary-East constitu- ency. Mr.

Chairman, I would prefer that Calgary-Forest Lawn remain as a constituency name within the city of Calgary. I think that is very clear to the residents in that area. I think it is a name, as I said, that at least in the 22nd Legislature – and I have to be honest; I haven't referred back to Legislatures earlier than the 22nd Legislature. But I'm sure that as a Calgarian yourself you're aware that Forest Lawn was once upon a time a town unto itself, and that, I think, is part of the reason why it was preserved as a named constituency within the city of Calgary. So, Mr.

Chairman, just on those two constituencies I think the report as put forward by the Electoral Boundaries Commission more accurately reflects and more aptly describes those two Calgary constituencies in particular. Just briefly with respect to the other constituencies that are proposed in the amendment, Mr. Chairman. We've heard the Member for Olds-Didsbury suggest that he was pleased with the proposal for changing Olds to include Olds, Didsbury, and Three Hills, and if that's what his constituents have asked for, then I suppose that would be appropriate.

I would only raise the concern that I've seen respective members sitting in the Chair, either the Speaker's Chair or the Chairman's Chair, that have stumbled over the name Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, being a rather lengthy name. I would echo the concern that if we add more names to constituency names and get them longer and longer, it becomes more difficult for both members in the Legislature and those in the Chair who have the duty of maintain- ing order to call members to account. As names get longer and longer, pretty soon we might have all kinds of constituency names.

Then people will say, “Well, wait a minute; if you named that constituency because it's got these two or three communities in it, how come you didn't add the fourth community or the fifth community?” or what have you. For example, I've got six different communities within my constituency right now. Calgary- North West encompasses them all, so it's a nice short name in that regard. We certainly wouldn't want to see names get longer than necessary. So I guess if the residents in the other four constituencies are happier with those names, then so be it, Mr.

Chairman, but I would just echo the concern that we don't want to see names getting longer than is comfortable or necessary in this House. Thank you. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be brief but positive. When I'm speaking to the amendment to Bill 46, I would suggest the names of the constituencies are but a small concern. The real concern, in my view, is the essence of this Bill, and that of course is constituency parity, an equal voice for all Albertans.

I would, by my submission, suggest that in fact we will never arrive at a position where we will satisfy all constituents with the name of their constituency. I would make also a further submission that as I can find fault with the names, I can also find justifications for the names. Mr. Chairman, I'm fortunate, coming from the Leduc constitu- ency, that that is a very short type name. There was a concern expressed that the names are becoming a little too wordy. That's not a large concern that I share. I think there are ways to appease all constituents.

When I'm in a parade in Beaumont, I have magnetic signs so that I can put Beaumont-Leduc constituency. I can take the same situation out to Devon and call it the Devon-Leduc constituency. Everyone seems to be pleased with that little gesture. However, it's not lost sight of that in fact I'm their representative, and they know in the fullest technical sense that the Leduc constituency is what it's called, that it's basically the centre of the constituency. It's the largest urban component of the constituency, and the county itself is named Leduc, so I'm blessed with the simplicity of it all.

I would suggest, when I look at the names that are being proposed here, that there will be those who aren't pleased with the change from Calgary-East to Calgary-Fort and there will be those who are not going to be pleased with Calgary-Forest Lawn over to Calgary-East. So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we can spend a lot of time here chatting about what is the right name or what is the wrong name, but we will not appease and we will not please some constituents. Mr. Chairman, I would leave the House with those particular comments and look forward to hearing other members speak. MR.

GERMAIN: Mr. Chairman, there has been some very interesting debate on this particular Bill during the second reading, and that interesting debate carries through to committee stage. Now, you might well ask why the Members of this Legislative Assembly are so engrossed or so engorged with excitement and

2376 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 enthusiasm about this particular piece of legislation and this first government amendment, the first of many amendments, I understand, in relation to this particular Bill. Y ou know, some members of the public asked that same question, Mr. Chairman.

There was an interesting letter to the editor of one of our leading newspapers awhile back asking why the Legislative Assembly was so wrought up with special sessions and wrought up with energy and enthusiasm to talk about where you draw boundary lines on a map and that it seemed to be an overwhelming concern, even overriding school funding and even overriding health care. Y ou know, one of the nameless members of the government cabinet was overheard to say, “Well, you can vote for Conservatives anywhere.” That was his learned assess- ment of the boundaries of this particular province.

That's an interesting observation, Mr. Chairman, and it begs the question of why there has been so much anxious debate on this amendment and why there has been so much anxious debate on the Bill itself. So I want to get into this from an amendment philosophy point of view, and I want to ask my colleagues in this Legislative Assembly this very interesting question.

I want to ask my colleagues in this particular Assembly, several of whom spoke so aggressively and so ferociously against this particular Bill and then concluded by saying that they would support it anyway because it had an aura of independence about it, that it emanated from an independent commission: if we are not prepared to tinker with the pith and substance of the Bill, not prepared to delve into the fundamental issues of what constitutes democracy in the province of Alberta, why are we prepared to tinker with the names? Why are we prepared to pick and select name choices, and why these particular names?

Now, I wasn't going to talk particularly to this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, until the hon. Member for Lacombe- Stettler had the temerity to allege that in this Legislative Assembly you couldn't speak on issues unless they were directed specifically to concerns of your constituency. Well, I don't believe that is the policy of the Legislature, I don't think that is the government approach to amendments, and I don't think it is the style of the Legislature.

Surely, for example, if there was a toxic spill in southern Alberta, even though I represent northern Alberta I'm entitled to get up and speak to that particular issue. Even though a name might not affect the ridings that I'm involved in, I should surely be able to get up and speak to these particular issues. 3:40 I think that underlining the name changes in Airdrie, Bow Valley, Cardston, and Olds are fundamental community politics.

I think what has happened is that the government of this province, rather than focusing their attention on education and health care in the province of Alberta, is prepared to say to those folks who are in some fashion seeing their riding change or who may be sitting back there perceiving that they are losing political clout in the province of Alberta: “We're not going to solve your problem, folks, but what we're going to do is what the Premier likes to do best, and that is to say that you don't have a problem, that it's a public relations or communications problem.” Y our hospital isn't closing; it's public relations.

Y our school isn't closing; it's public relations. Y our riding is not shutting down; it's public relations. So that's why in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we have public relations. We're not prepared to tinker with the philosophy, but we're prepared to make it clear to those good folks in Warner that they haven't been forgotten, because now the name of their community is going to be enshrined in the title of their MLA. So when the Speaker stands up, he will say, “I recognize the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner,” or when the Speaker stands up, he will recognize the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.

Well, by way of rhetorical debate on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I ask: why have we stopped there? What about the communities near and around Fort McMurray, the area that I represent? So many of those folks from Fort Chipewyan phone me on a regular basis when they come to the community of Fort McMurray to do their shopping. They phone me and they want to discuss and deal with government matters. They use our constituency office as a vehicle for information on the govern- ment. And I'm happy to be of that service, but why are we not including in the riding our native brothers in Fort Chipewyan?

They're part of Athabasca-Wabasca. Why isn't there on this list Athabasca-Wabasca-Fort Chipewyan? Better yet, Fort Chipewyan-Wabasca has a nice round name to it. MR. ADY: Why is there Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert? MR. GERMAIN: Well, the hon. minister of advanced education you see is now invigorated by the quality of this debate this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. He wants to get right in here and he wants to respond to that challenge. He points out that we have those names in Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. If I might dialogue with the hon. minister further, I think the reason for that is that we have two St.

Alberts, so we have to break them up in some fashion to identify which pa rt of the community they are. It's quite common to have that hyphenated constituency, but we have here simply an exercise in inclusion. That's what we have here, Mr. Chairman. As the Premier would say and as actor Paul Newman said it best in Cool Hand Luke – remember that guy? I think, Mr. Chairman, you may just be old enough, just old enough to remember that show, Cool Hand Luke, with Paul Newman in it, where the big burly warden comes out with his big gut and he says to Paul Newman: what we have here is a problem of communication.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Lack of communication. MR. GERMAIN: Oh, lack of communication. Some of the hon. members say I got the quote wrong. It was a cheap lawyer trick, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to psych out that they, too, saw that movie, that they, too, saw that movie a hundred times. What we have is a . . . MR. DUNFORD: A trick of a cheap lawyer: is that what you're saying? MR. GERMAIN: That's right. That was a reflection on the reasonableness of my fees, practising 20 years in rural Alberta, Mr. Chairman. So by way of humorous example, Mr.

Chairman, we have now acknowledged in this Legislative Assembly that this amendment is simply an amendment to create the public relations of inclusion, but not all of it. Y ou see, if you just did that, if the amendment just did that, if it was just the public relations of inclusion, you wouldn't need the opportunity to tinker with those two Calgary ridings. Y ou wouldn't have to try and explain to the good folks in Calgary that their riding which is Calgary-East today is not going to be Calgary-East tomorrow, because Calgary-East is going to shift farther in the directional compass of the province of

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2377 Alberta and be a new Calgary-East, so what we'll do is we'll call Calgary-East something different. That's why you have these two oddball Calgary name changes. Y ou couldn't go on the politics of appearance, couldn't go up the line and add Fort Chipewyan to Athabasca-Wabasca, which would make eminent good sense and would make those folks from Fort Chipewyan, the oldest settlement in the province of Alberta, part of inclusive politics, part of that failure to communicate. So what we have to do is create a couple of artificial changes in the c o m m u n i t y o f C a l g a r y .

I t ' s t r u e t h a t I ' m n o t a n M L A f r om Calgary, but it seems to me that you do not have to be an MLA from Calgary to appreciate that if you have a riding called Calgary-East and a week later you have a new riding called Calgary-East but it's different, that will create confusion. Now, the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West the other day stood up . . . MR. DOERKSEN: Where is the Member for Lethbridge-East? MR. DUNFORD: With the Speaker. MR. GERMAIN: Y eah, with the Speaker. So you wish you'd bit your tongue on that, my friend. AN HON. MEMBER: How much is that costing? MR.

GERMAIN: It's costing the taxpayer zero. I know you'll want to direct that same question to the Speaker in your enthusi- asm for information. Y ou'll want to direct to the Speaker of this Assembly how much it's costing the taxpayer, since you want to comment on some member sitting and working here. In any event, why would you direct that question to somebody who's right here, working hard to create vision? Here's a guy who's trying to ask people to look, and what you're doing is kicking sand in his eyes. MR. DUNFORD: No. I was trying to encourage you to talk for 20 minutes. MR. GERMAIN: I'm happy to do that.

I don't know whether your colleagues would want to have you take credit for that. In any event . . . THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but debate takes place through the Chair and not across the benches. Please, hon. members, let's respect the rules and have the hon. Member for Fort McMurray continue with his debate on the amendments. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you for bringing those Members of the Legislative Assembly that were unruly to order, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Getting back to the hon.

Member for Lethbridge-West, Tuesday last week he stood up here and said that nobody in Calgary and Edmonton would know who their MLA was. I know the Premier was offended by that, but I won't go into that today. He said that they would know who their member was in Fort McMurray, and I agreed with that. He said they would know who their member is in Pincher Creek and in Grande Prairie and in Peace River. What the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West was saying was basically this. As an MLA it is easier to become known on a first name and visual recognition basis in small town rural Alberta than it is in Calgary.

I accept that, and for those MLAs in Calgary who are struggling for recognition, including the Premier, I sympathize with them. But you know, Mr. Chairman, in light of that very astute and very fair comment, why would we add to that confusion? Why would we do that? Why would we tinker and why would we intermeddle in a report that was not prepared to make name recommendation changes as it was? Obviously because it was felt that they would create confusion. Why are we now tinkering with the names if it is simply not a public relations gesture? If we are going to tinker with the names, I'm sure that the hon.

Member for Athabasca-Wabasca will himself want to stand up in a moment and urge us to include Fort Chipewyan in the name of that particular riding, because it represents a very diverse and very interesting area of the province and is not otherwise recog- nized with a name, a recognition of the community here in the Legislature when their hon. member is called on. So I want to urge all Members of the Legislative Assembly to vote against this particular amendment, and by doing so, you will be further legitimizing the legislation on electoral boundaries.

Then you can with fair and open consciousness decide whether you are going to accept that report and accept the Bill or reject the report and reject the Bill, but you w ill not be in the pos ition of tinkering with the fine print and then paying lip service to the independence of the commission otherwise. I know that the hon. Minister of Community Development . . . MRS. McCLELLAN: . . . is shaking her head. 3:50 MR. GERMAIN: She now wants me to get it into Hansard, Mr. Chairman, that she's shaking her head.

I like to always stand up here – and I will want her to – and express in a clear and cogent way my reasons and the evolution of my thought process for why I'm going to vote in a certain way. That's what I understand legislative parliamentary debate is. When the hon. Member for Redwater invited the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek to stand up and get her points known, she was reacting to her naiveté here in expecting that that's what debate is: that the hon. Member for Redwater would express her point of view and then others would express their points of view and maybe change her mind.

I mean, that is what she thought happened here. Now, the only other advice that I would give to all Members of the Legislative Assembly on the amendment is that you never want to have your glasses off in this particular Assembly. I think the hon. Member for Redwater has now learned that lesson. This is a dangerous place to sleep in, a dangerous place to have your eyes closed in, and of course, by extension, a dangerous place to have your glasses off. So back to the amendment, Mr . Chairman, to the interesting debate on this amendment. It is the politics of visual inclusion only, and we should reject that.

Those folks there in Warner and those folks in Three Hills are either able to have a constituency or they aren't. We shouldn't be paying lip service to them. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that I could go on, but I believe that there are other Members of this Legislative Assembly that are getting ready to speak and are anxious to speak. I will now take my place to hear the balance of the debate on this very important issue. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford.

2378 Alberta Hansard August 26, 1996 MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to make a few comments on the amendments. I'll make it very, very clear, first of all, that I do intend to restrict my comments to specifically deal with the amendments and the nature of the amendments, and that is name changes and proposed name changes, which sort of opens the amendments to that field of generalities in terms of names of constituencies. [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] Before I do that, I again want to put it on record that I am one that does support Bill 46.

I do intend to vote in favour of Bill 46 as I believe that the intent of the Bill, the guts of the Bill is a move in the right direction in narrowing somewhat, as minor as it may be, that discrepancy between the populations of rural and urban ridings and at the same time, again, respecting the fact that that report was put together by an independent commission jointly appointed by this caucus and the government caucus and that a commitment was made at that time that this caucus and that caucus would support the recommendations of that independent commission.

Now, of course that independent commission didn't get into advocating changes to names and so on and so forth. I guess one could ask: what's in a name? A name does mean a great deal. A name reflects geographical location. A name can give a perception of what a constituency is all about. Edmonton- Whitemud, for example, is a na me of a constituency that will always be dear to my heart.

People in Edmonton-Whitemud demonstrated very clearly that the democratic process does work and that the electorate have the ultimate right to control the nature of political representation, regardless of how extreme their move may be. So from that point of view Edmonton-Whitemud has a history of its own, and I was delighted that I was able to have my name attached to it for one term.

I'm sure Edmonton-Whitemud is a name of a riding that we will not see disappear, Edmonton- Whitemud of course now being represented by an extremely talented, bright member that I know the Provincial Treasurer would give his right arm to try and lure over to that side. But that member, being committed to good Liberal philosophy, would not entertain a cup of coffee, quite frankly, with the Treasurer. Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment that's in front of us and what's in a name, I look now at the name of my constituency as it's currently defined: Edmonton-Rutherford. What does Edmonton-Rutherford tell you?

What it does tell you is that it's located in the city of Edmonton, but it doesn't tell you whether it's on the north side of the city or the south side of the city. It doesn't tell you whether it's a constituency that houses a large facility, that houses a health care facility. It actually tells you nothing in terms of trying to identify what the riding is all about: the population of the riding, the geographical location of the riding, people's perception of the riding. It tells you absolutely nothing.

One thing it does is it reminds all Albertans – it's something that all of us can be proud of – that Edmonton-Rutherford is named after the very first Premier of this province, a very fine Premier at that, the history books tell us. I don't r ecall specifi- cally what party affiliation he was involved with, but I do recall him being probably the most outstanding Premier this province ever saw. Could somebody help me? What political party was it? MR. BRUSEKER: I think he was a Liberal. MR. WICKMAN: Oh, he was a Liberal. Well, that should surprise me, but it doesn't surprise me. Mr.

Chairman, I look at the way that some of these name changes are being proposed. We have Olds, for example, that goes into Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. There has to be a more simple way of identifying a riding than by saying: the Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. It's like our silent one that sits over here. I call her the three S's: Spruce Grove, Sturgeon, and St. Albert. All Speakers of the House at times have difficulty remembering whether it's Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert or St. Albert-Sturgeon-Spruce Grove or Sturgeon-St.

Albert-Spruce Grove and so on because of the complexity of that particular name, containing three identifications, three centres housed in that one particular constituency. That does cause some confusion; there's absolutely no question about it. Does she represent Sturgeon? Does she represent Spruce Grove? Does she represent St. Albert? No. There's another member of the Liberal caucus that represents the majority of St. Albert. So as to how that particular name came to be in the beginning is very, very questionable, and the rationale behind it, again, would be very, very questionable.

Why would we go into two more situations where we have Cardston–Taber–Warner and Olds- Didsbury-Three Hills when there have got to be much simpler ways of doing it? If I say, “the Member for Fort McMurray,” we instantly know who that is. We instantly know where that riding is. We instantly know it's represented by an excellent Member of the Legislative Assembly. I can look at the Member for Sherwood Park, the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, the Member for Calgary-North West, and so on and so forth. The same holds true.

We can readily identify where that particular member comes from, what geographical location that member's riding is in. When people ask what the name of their riding is or want to remember what the name of their riding is, it makes it that much easier. So why we have some of these name changes here now being proposed, that are going to make things much more difficult than they are at the present time, I don't know. Nevertheless, these amendments are just a very, very small part of the overall Bill, with limited association to the report that came down by the independent commission. Mr.

Chairman, if we are to proceed in an orderly fashion, in a fashion that makes some sense, we would allow to remain intact what is there, Bill 46, which fu lfills the objectives of the task force, and not start to tinker with the process or tinker with the Bill and start taking away from it. That's what these amendments do. Possibly an amendment to this amendment may help.

Possibly streamlining this amendment, making it more acceptable by changing one, two, or three of these to something more reasonable or leaving them what they were originally going to be called or have been called in the past could very well do the trick. Mr. Chairman, as we head down towards the finalization of Bill 46 in the next few days, we want to see Bill 46 passed. I see that on the other side of the House there are members that will stand up and speak very negatively about the Bill, leaving the impres- sion that they don't intend to support the Bill.

Maybe it allows them the opportunity to go back to their ridings and say, “Look; I fought for you; I fought for you,” not telling the constituents, though, which way they voted. I would suspect that on this particular Bill on that side of the House the whips will come down. Every member on that side of the House is going to vote yes for the Bill, even though they themselves have spoken against it.

August 26, 1996 Alberta Hansard 2379 I would venture to guess that more people have spoken against the Bill than in favour of the B ill, and when they spoke against the Bill, it wasn't because they didn't like the name of their riding. It was because of the reduction in the two rural ridings, which has created some problems over there. That's unfortunate to a degree, but that happens during every redistribution.

We see it happening in the proposed redistribution of the federal constitu- encies, where we have the member Deborah Grey, a very respected Member of Parliament incidently, now going to be left without a riding and l ooking at the possib ility of having to shift into a riding that is not that appropriate for her. But that's the downfall of redistribution, and I guess nobody said that politics is perfect from the point of view of trying to make things as pleasant or always as beneficial as possible to individual elected representa- tives.

So as I conclude my remarks on this amendment – I'm sure there are going to be some government members who'll want to speak on this – again it is not my intent to vote yes on these amendments unless I see some changes occur, unless some member in their wisdom has another amendment ready to go, an amendment to this amendment. I will continue to support the thrust of Bill 46, and that's the pi ece of legislation as originally introduced. On that note I'll conclude. Thank you. 4:00 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In picking up where my colleague from Edmonton-Rutherford left off, I do indeed have a subamendment to the amendment to put forward to you this afternoon. We have heard much this after- noon in debate about the various changes that are being proposed in government amendment A to six of the ridings as proposed in the electoral divisions report from the commission. I listened to the debate from the Member for Three Hills- Airdrie and also from the Member for Olds-Didsbury in speaking specifically to the changes that are being suggested for their particular areas.

Also, the Member for Calgary-East spoke about the changes that were contemplated for the change from Calgary- For