December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1355 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, December 9, 1997 1:30 p.m. Date: 97/12/09 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Today's prayer is taken from the Legislature of the Northwest Territories. Let us pray. Our Father, may Y our spirit and guidance be in us as we work for the benefit of all of our people, for peace and justice in our land, and for constant recognition of the dignity and aspirations of those whom we serve. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. HANCOCK: Y es, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to this Legislature a very special guest, the U.S. consul general. Lisa Bobbie Schreiber Hughes, the newly appointed U.S. consul general, has recently arrived in Calgary to undertake her duties. I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome her to Alberta and to wish her a most enjoyable two years in our province. Alberta enjoys a very positive relationship with the U.S. consulate, which not only works diligently to manage issues on a day-to-day basis but strives to strengthen and enhance Al- berta/U.S. relations.

The U.S. is of course our most important trading partner. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Canada now reaches $1 billion a day. Miss Schreiber Hughes is accompanied today by Ms Kim Klassen. They are here today as they take a particular interest in Canadian unity issues. I would invite hon. members to join me in welcoming them to this Assembly. They are seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I would ask them to please rise. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of petitions.

The first one is signed by 61 residents of Calgary- Buffalo urging the Legislative Assembly “to convert the Holy Cross Hospital into a facility to house the Homeless.” The second petition is signed by 71 Calgarians and those in other parts of Alberta as well concerned with the lack of long- term care beds in Alberta. The next petition is one that explains and expresses a protest over hospital closure in the city of Calgary, signed by 1 18 Albertans.

Finally, one other petition signed by 259 constituents asks that the Lang house in the Cliff Bungalow-Mission community be designated provincially as an historical site. Thanks very much. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have two pe titions that I'd like to present to the Assembly.

The first, signed by numerous residents throughout the Capital health region urges the government of Alberta to ensure that “all residents requiring long- term care are able to access this service in an equitable manner within the publicly funded system.” The second petition I have is signed by 35 residents of Edmon- ton urging the government of Alberta to add the Truquant BR RIA diagnostic blood test for early detection of breast cancer recurrence to the

schedule of medical benefits under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Y ellowhead. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table two petitions. One is on the aspect of taking school tax off the property tax. The other one is on the Calgary education declara- tion submitted from the town of Hinton and the town of Grande Cache. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege today to present a petition containing over 8,000 signatures which is the result of a tragic circumstance in Red Deer this summer.

The petition asks to make it illegal “for a person or persons to ride in the rear of any pick-up truck, or other open bed vehicle without secured seats and approved seatbelts.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition here signed by 24 people urging the Assembly to deinsure abortion and to “use community-based resources that are already in place . . . [for] positive alternatives to abortion.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have three petitions I'd like to submit this afternoon. The first is a petition signed by 170 people from various towns and villages across Alberta requesting an end to public funding for private schools. The second is a petition signed by 86 Albertans, again from various rural communities across Alberta, asking for a freeze on public funding of private schools. The final petition is a copy of a group of signatures from 2,162 people of southern Alberta asking for an environmental review on increasing livestock production and the proposed plant in Leth- bridge. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I'd present two petitions this afternoon, the first from 188 citizens in Sherwood Park, Vegreville, Cold Lake, and Lamont asking that public funding for private schools be frozen, and the second from citizens in Irma, New Sarepta, and St. Paul asking for an end to public funding for private schools. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the two petitions that I tabled yesterday in the House be read and re- ceived. One states that the Legislative Assembly be encouraged

1356 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 to freeze private school funding at $1,815 a student. The other urges the Legislative Assembly to do away with private school funding altogether. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student.

We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I think there were three petitions that I would ask be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to reduce the $25.00 application fee to access government records, to be more in line with the other provinces, as legislated under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regulations. We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that all residents requiring long term care are able to access this service in an equitable manner within the publicly funded system.

We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that all residents requiring long term care are able to access this service in an equitable manner within the publicly funded system. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert, then followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask now that the petitions I presented yesterday be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission, I'd ask that the three petitions I presented yesterday now be read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to limit the financial support of private schools at current levels (1996/1997) of per pupil funding. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student.

We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 1:40 MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the two petitions I presented yesterday on funding for private schools be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request that the petitions I presented yesterday to freeze private school funding and to eliminate private school funding be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. MR.

WHITE: With your permission, sir, I'd like the petitions that I presented yesterday pertaining to public funding of private schools to be read and received today. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask at this time that the petitions I presented yesterday on private school funding be read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1357 grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would ask that the petitions that I tabled in the Assembly on December 8 pertaining to the public funding of private schools now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the two petitions I presented yesterday now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per f unded student. We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MRS. PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I would like to have read and received the two petitions that I placed in the House yesterday. Thank you. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to freeze per pupil grants of public money to private schools at $1,815 per funded student.

We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to end any and all payments of public money to private schools from revenues collected by or for the Province of Alberta. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: Hon. the Premier. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Just recently Albertans were involved through all constituencies in the province in a very interesting exercise. That exercise was really to identify the things that are important in this province, the culmination of which was the Growth Summit, co-chaired by Dr.

Mike Percy, who is dean of the school of management at the University of Alberta. Today I'm pleased to table the final report of the Alberta Growth Summit, and I would ask that members pay special attention to pages 7 through 19. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Barrhead-Westlock constituency I am pleased to table the results of the response to the unity questionnaires from your Barrhead-Westlock constitu- ents.

Of the 400 constituents who responded to the questionnaire, 321 were generally supportive of the framework; 105 of those were students. Seventy-nine constituents responded that they were not supportive; 2 of those were students. Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to present on behalf of the Member for Rocky Mountain House, who is currently representing us at the Kyoto conference in Japan, 343 completed unity survey questionnaires received from constituents of the Rocky Mountain House constituency.

I might mention that given that the average number of responses received from a constituency was 250, Rocky Mountain House constituents have taken up the challenge and have been active in expressing their views and in helping shape their province. The results are summarized as follows: 72 percent yes, 17 percent no, 1 1 percent no opinion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table six copies of the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Board 1996-97 annual report and the 22nd annual report of the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings this afternoon. The first is a press release from the PARTY program in Red Deer, PARTY standing for prevent alcohol- and risk-related trauma in youth. These people do a tremendous job educating our youth as to the dangers regarding alcohol and particularly vehicle use. Their letter is in support of the petition I presented.

The second letter I want to table is also from the PARTY program, but this is from Calgary. They make reference to an 18-year-old in Calgary who also died last year and six brain- injured young people, injured from falling out of the rear of pickup trucks. My third tabling is from the Red Deer city traffic service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who also want to document their support of the petition which I presented earlier with respect to riding in the back of pickup trucks. My fourth tabling and last one, Mr.

Speaker, is a letter from the city of Red Deer indicating the city council's support for this initiative with respect to riding in the back of pickup trucks. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first are memos from 146 citizens asking the

1358 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 government to end public funding for private schools. The second are 96 letters from citizens opposing public funding for private schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table 71 letters from parents at Princeton elementary school opposed to any further funding for private schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table this afternoon four copies of the resolutions that were presented by the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties at their meeting in the city of Edmonton November 18 to 20. I would like to bring to the particular attention of this House resolution 31, which states that Albertans “do not favor a private health care system.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table four copies of letters received from professionals working in the field of community rehab.

These letters magnify the long- standing issue of inadequate government funding to support the provision of services to people with disabilities. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table 163 submissions on the Dialogue on Unity. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MRS. PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to submit about 198 pieces from the unity dial ogue as well. I would also like to table four copies of excerpts from the Longwoods Interna- tional poll which was commissioned by Alberta Treasury.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first is a copy of a report submitted to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs on November 20. The report is of a unity consultation held in the constituency of Edmonton-Meadowlark and co-sponsored by the member for that riding, myself, and the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was well attended, and the

summary has helped inform the debate. Mr. Speaker, my second tabling is results of a survey which was circulated in the constituency of Edmonton-Glenora, receiving a couple of hundred responses. Amongst the survey results was an answer to the question: should there be a fall sitting of the Legislature? Ninety-five percent said yes, there should be. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table with the House today a report on the unity debate filed by Mr. Bob Lickacz.

It's a report of 24 citizens of Canada that have come together to review the situation as it currently stands and to make recommendations to all Canadians, reduced down to a cogent two pages. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to

section 61(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

chapter F- 18.5 of the 1994 Statutes of Alberta, I am pleased to table with the Assembly the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This report covers the activities of the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner covering the period April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. A copy of the report is being distributed to all members. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: Hon. Deputy Speaker, would you kindly introduce our special guests in the Speaker's gallery? MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly a group of special guests who are officers of the Alberta-Northwest Territo- ries Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. They are seated in your gallery. They are here because they are deeply concerned about Canadian unity and care about the debate that they're going to hear this afternoon. They are Mr. Tom Barton, president; Mr. Peter Teichrob, past president; Mr. Kerry Wittkopf, vice-chair- man; Mr. Ron Rivard, executive director; Mr. Bert Sharp, past president; Mr. Hugh Green, past president.

I'd ask them now to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the ND opposition. MS BARRETT: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce to members of the Assembly today 13 students from St. Michael school, located in the riding of Edmonton-Highlands. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Lawrence Allarie and Mrs. Lorraine Schmaltz, and as well parents Mrs. Stella Gluwchynski and Mr. Terry Lester. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce five visitors. They are Mr. and Mrs. Omerzu, who home school their children Kristen and Jeff. They have Taylor with them this afternoon as well. If they could please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MRS. O'NEILL: Mr. Speaker, with pleasure I would like to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly Aaron and Lynn Zelmer, who are seated in the members' gallery. Aaron assisted me in the Dialogue on Unity throughout the community. I would like to express appreciation to him.

I'd ask them both to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly two gentlemen who make advanced technologies work in this province: the president of Westaim, Kevin Jenkins, and the CFO of Westaim, Drew Fitch. If you could please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1359 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly four of my constituents. Three of these constituents had excellent questions for me over lunch. They are Tyson, Graedon, Carissa, and their mom, Janelda Cornfield. Please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure today for me to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly two very special friends of mine as well as neighbours from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Brian and Merilyn Tetz. They were also very hard workers on my campaign, so please welcome them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you're aware, a consultation process such as the one we just completed is a tremendous undertaking, and while all members of this House have worked very hard, today I am pleased to present three people who have made an enormous contribution to the My Canada Is public consultation.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly three individuals who are to be commended for their hard work and the long hours that they devoted to the process: Paul Whittaker from Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, who's worked on federal/provincial issues for many years, was the project manager; John McDonough, who was seconded for this project from Alberta Health, ran the research component of the project and designed the program that was used to code the responses; and Nancy MacDonald Lizotte, who's also from my department, has provided many long hours of assistance in organizing this process.

I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome and thanks of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my privilege to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Joe Gillis, a constituent of Edmonton-Norwood. He's seated in the public gallery, and with your permission I would ask him to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. DOERKSEN: It's my privilege to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, six people, the first being Mrs.

Dot Egan, who is largely responsible for the gathering of those over 8,000 signatures. It was her son that was tragically killed this summer. With her is her daughter Cari, and supporting them are people from the PARTY program: Patti Morris, Marlin Styner, Kim Gervais, and Mary Mann. I'd ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome, and Marlin can wave. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the Speaker's gallery today is a young man who's been sittin g in the Speaker's gallery for upwards of five years and has served three Speakers of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, the Hon. David Carter and the Hon.

Stan Schumacher. I'd ask Moses Jung to stand as this may very well be one of the last days in which he will be attending to this particular Assembly. [interjections] That's my feeling exactly. I have to say with regrets that Mr. Jung has decided to leave and pursue a new career in the United States and will be departing shortly. We all want to wish him the very, very best. I would like you to know, Mr. Jung, that there'll be a tear on my face when you depart. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition. Private Health Services MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is pursuing private health care with determination. Last year they turned the Grace hospital over to HRG. Now the minister is selling the Holy Cross for use as a private hospital, and soon the minister will be defining core services, which will potentially create a whole new market for private health care at the expense of the public health care system. To the Premier: why would the Premier be selling the Holy Cross hospital for $4 million just two years after his own government spent $30 million to renovate it? 2:00 MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, the Calgary regional health authority set up a process to receive proposals for that particular site. The proposal, I understand, involves some health care, long-term care facilities. It involves some ophthal- mology services. It involves some private residential accommoda- tion. It is a mixed-use kind of thing. It was put through the community. There was a tremendous amount of input into the process, as I understand it. It is deemed by the Calgary regional health authority to be a good deal for everyone. It's a win/win situation. MR. MITCHELL: It involves a $26 million giveaway, Mr.

Speaker. Will the Premier direct his Minister of Health to set up an all- party committee of the Legislative Assembly to undertake provincewide public hearings on the appropriate limits for private health care? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Health has indicated time and time again that as long as a facility or a practice doesn't violate the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act, then there's no reason why it should not proceed.

I have to stress that this government – this government in answer to the question, the principles – is committed to abiding by the principles of the Canada Health Act. It's as simple as that. MR. MITCHELL: Will the Premier ensure that each of the 17 regional health authorities will not be allowed to define their own set of core services to be paid by medicare, thereby defining all those other services that they'll simply dump into the private health care system? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard of anyone dumping anything into the so-called private health care system.

Y ou know, I would like to perhaps stress our commitment to public health in this province. It seems this day is a health day, and I will have a similar answer for education, if it becomes an education day.

1360 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, it's been 173 days since we last convened as a Legislature. During that time we spent $12 million a day on health services, or $2.1 billion in 173 days. That is some indication of our commitment to public health. THE SPEAKER: The second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Regional Health Authorities MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of commit- ments to health, the Premier made a solemn promise to Albertans in the March election campaign.

He very clearly represented that if his party were re-elected, Albertans would be able to elect two- thirds of the members of their local regional health authority commencing the fall of 1998. Now, sometime this summer the Premier decided to postpone elections until at least 2001. My question to the Premier: why did you breach your promise to Albertans? MR. KLEIN: We didn't breach a promise, Mr. Speaker; simply postponed a promise. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, why are Albertans smart enough to elect this government to spend $13 billion tax dollars but not quite smart enough to elect people to the regional health authori- ties to spend $2.2 billion? MR. KLEIN: It has nothing to do with it. Mr. Speaker, I don't have the communications here right now. I'm sure that the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo has received information from people involved with the Calgary health authority, on the board, and perhaps even from the Capital regional health authority, saying: “Lookit; we're just in the middle of restructuring.

We're coming along quite fine, thank you, and we need some more time as a board to bring everything relative to health in both of those regions into line.” We wanted to make it consistent throughout the province so as a caucus, as a government we decided to postpone, not to cancel but to postpone the election of boards. MR. DICKSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's just the point. Why have you chosen to ignore the views of all of those severely normal Albertans and listen only to your handpicked consultants and advisers? MR. KLEIN: They are not handpicked consultants and advisers.

They are volunteer members of hospital boards with a very serious responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind and maybe ask him to answer this question publicly. Prior to the regionalization of hospital boards and the reduction of 200 boards to 17 regions, you know, most of those 200 authorities were appointed. Very, very few in this province were elected. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Drinking Water Quality DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last few months and as recently as last week public health authorities ordered individual communities in southern Alberta to boil their water. The source of the cryptosporidium and giardia organisms is uncertain. We don't know whether it came from the livestock, the wildlife, or from some other source. My questions are to the Minister of Health. What are you doing to increase the confi- dence of southern Albertans that tap water is safe to drink? MR.

JONSON: With respect to events outlined in southern Alberta, first of all I think it's important to emphasize what the questioner has indicated, and that is that public health officials fulfilled their responsibility in southern Alberta and provided the warning to the citizens and also provided advice on how to cope with the situation. Also, Mr. Speaker, I've been in communica- tion with the minister of environment and minister of agriculture, and we are looking into possible changes and modifications that may be necessary for water systems in that part of Alberta.

Also, of course, the local government authorities are very much involved in this, and we are working to solve the problem. These events are regrettable, but they do occur, and I believe they've been acted upon expeditiously in this case. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to commend the people in southern Alberta and the public health authority for the work they've done, but I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he's doing to make sure that the mainte- nance and upkeep on the filtration systems in towns in southern Alberta are properly monitored and properly supervised. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, public health, through the regional health authority and Alberta Health, takes responsibility for monitoring the performance of our water systems in this province. They are working with, as I've indicated, the local government authorities involved and, to the extent that there is an impact or relationship, the department of environment and the department of agriculture, to see that the water supply will be safe in southern Alberta, as they do all across the province. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health if he would work with the minister of agricul- ture and the minister of environment and release the report that they have been completing on the quality of water in southern Alberta rather than postponing it. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake to determine the status of the report. I'm sure and will commit that any results of that report which indicate that there is corrective action necessary – I do not anticipate this, but further cautions to be exercised will certainly be done. 2:10 Registry Services MS BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, a few years ago when the govern- ment was privatizing everything that wasn't nailed down, it boasted about how Albertans were going to benefit by privatizing registries. In fact that was propaganda. The reality is that we've got an inefficient system of registries. They seem to have a monopoly on gouging the public. What they do is fax forms to the government, and the public employees do the work, but the markup that consumers pay for this service ranges between 27 and 87 percent.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who inherited this mess from her predecessor, and that is: how can this minister and this government justify markups on basic things like birth, marriage, death certificates of between 27 and 87 percent, gouging Albertans? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, very recently while we reviewed a

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1361 consultant's report on the profitability and viability of registry agents, we learned that we needed to go beyond the borders of Alberta and checked across provinces to find out in fact just exactly what our capped fees were in relation to other provincial governments. There is an advantage to being a part of Alberta registries, because our prices average on capped fees 30 percent less than they do anywhere else in Canada. MS BARRETT: This is the first I've heard that taxpayers are responsible for the profit levels of private agencies. This must be a new policy. Mr.

Speaker, since the government workers do all the work, the public employees do all the work, and all the private registries do is fax out forms and mark up the costs up to 87 percent, will this government now agree to allow people to go to public registries so they can save that money and they aren't being gouged for supporting the profits of the private registries? THE SPEAKER: Premier? Did you . . . MR. KLEIN: I'll have the hon. minister supplement, but surely the hon. leader of the New Democrats doesn't want to go back to the old system. I recall going for a driver's licence to the motor vehicles branch.

I mean, this was a one-day exercise if you were lucky. Y ou know, people were fortunate not to have to bring their sleeping bags. Mr. Speaker, under that system you weren't treated as a human being. Y ou were treated as a number: “Take a number. Go have a seat.” Under the system today you can walk into a registry. Someone will say: “Oh, Mr. Klein, how nice to see you. Could you just wait a minute? Please have a seat. Would you like to have a cup of coffee?” Y ou're treated like a human being. Mr. Speaker, there is more than dollars and cents involved in this.

It's a matter of providing good service and treating people like human beings. MS BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you know you've hit a nerve when the Premier wants to answer a ministerial question. Okay. If he's so smart, if he knows it all, then how about this, Mr. Premier? How about we allow Albertans to choose whether or not they deal with these private, for-profit, gouging registries, which also make you queue up by the way, or allow Albertans the choice of sending their applications for birth, death, and marriage certificates directly to the vital statistics office? How about a little competition here? MR.

KLEIN: This is a good example of a two-tiered system. Mr. Speaker, I'll have the hon. minister supplement. MS EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier has certainly said it all. There is a 97 percent customer satisfaction out there with registry agents in the group that the ND opposition wants to provide. May I add further that I'm sure we're going to get a plethora of mail from those 229 registry agents who have been out there working on behalf of the public and really believe that they're providing a viable service but at a very distinctly advan- taged cost to Albertans.

THE SPEAKER: And to all of you, my only hope is that when I have to queue up for my death certificate, I'll be able to stand. The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Education Policy MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The declaration and report tabled yesterday indicated that the Calgary board of education is unable to provide a quality education to their students. On every front the Calgary board is clearly stating that the education system is in crisis.

My question is to the Premier: is it just the Calgary public board that is in a state of crisis, or is this a provincial situation? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the education system in this province is not in crisis, and I think it's time the people across the way had a reality check. The hon. minister yesterday alluded to the outstanding results of achievement tests and diploma exams that show that students continue to do very, very well in this province. Results from national and international testing demon- strate that Alberta students are among the best in the world. Among the best in the world.

The Liberals are so intent on going around this province talking about what is wrong with the education system that they really haven't taken the time to examine what is right, and what is right is occurring right here in this city. I find it astounding, where the Liberals have their base, that they would be criticizing what is touted to be one of the best education systems in the country, perhaps in North America, perhaps in the world. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago I had Steve Ramsankar in from Alex Taylor school.

Y esterday the Liberals alluded to the lack of care for inner city st udents, nutrition programs. Y ou know, Steve Ramsankar came to my office, and he said: I am so very, very proud of what my t eachers have done, what my students have done, what the community has done to really care for people and to educate people. We see examples throughout this province of people being innovative, of people finding new and better and more effective and more efficient ways of doing things. Mr. Speaker, I only see one board in this province – one board – working to rule. The others are working in the interest of the kids.

MS KRYCZKA: My second question is also to the Premier. The Calgary board of education has posted an operating deficit. Is this an indication that all school jurisdictions are not getting enough money? MR. KLEIN: As a matter of fact a number of school districts in this province, amazingly enough, posted surpluses. Y ou know, I look at the St. Paul education regional district, the Bonnyville school district. There are a number of examples of school boards that actually posted surpluses and, by the way, are reinvesting those surpluses in the education of their children. They have no problems whatsoever. Mr.

Speaker, there are, and the documen- tation is there. [interjections] Right. Y ou don't believe me? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. KLEIN: Will the hon. member believe me when I tell them about the good things going on here in the city of Edmonton, or is he going to criticize a person like Emery Dosdall, the superin- tendent of the Edmonton public, who travels the world, who was on the last Team Canada mission along with his colleague from the Edmonton Catholic, selling the Edmonton system, selling it with a tremendous amount of pride, saying: “Come to Edmonton.

Participate in our education system, because it's one of the best in the world”?

1362 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 These people are out there saying it's the worst. How can they say that? How can they possibly say that and criticize and undermine the tremendous commitment to education that takes place in this city, which is represented mostly, unfortunately, by Liberals? [interjections] 2:20 THE SPEAKER: Okay. Boy. Hon. Member for Calgary-West, talk about a group participation question. Those first two were. The third one, please. Briefly. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supple- mental also is to the Premier.

Given the degree of concern that Albertans are expressing, how can we continue to assure them that we support and provide a quality public education system? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, when I tabled earlier today the Alberta Growth Summit report, I asked all members of the Legislature, but I'll make it quite specific to the opposition Liberals, to turn to pages 7 through 19.

Those pages talk about people development, which rose to the top of the priority list, people development meaning this thing, diaper through K, K through 12, postsecondary education – university, colleges, technical institutions – and lifelong learning, skills upgrading, and job retraining. I'll say it publicly, and I'll say it to the Liberals, and I'll say it again and again. This government has identified people development – i.e., education in all of its forms – as the number one priority of this government. Sexual Assault of Psychiatric Patient MRS.

SLOAN: Patients involuntarily detained in psychiatric facilities are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Therefore, there is a greater responsibility on the custodian to ensure that these patients are protected. In September of this year a 27-year-old woman, a patient of Alberta Hospital, was forced to have sex with a hospital employee. Despite compelling evidence that prompted the firing of the employee, officials at Alberta Hospital refused to notify the police at the time of the incidents.

Further, the Minister of Health recently condoned these actions by indicating in correspondence that an internal and external review conducted solely by his department was sufficient. My questions are to the Minister of Health. Are you as a minister of the Crown not abdicating your oath and further perpetuating patient abuse when you do not clearly instruct your appointed boards to refer such matters to the police immediately? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my clear understanding that the officials at Alberta Hospital Ponoka followed proper procedures. The parents were involved.

They were advised of their proce- dures relative to laying charges with the police, which is the way such things are done. Secondly, with respect to the reference to Alberta Health doing the investigation, this was not the case. There was a third party involved in doing the review of the entire case. A very compre- hensive report was provided which found that as wrong or as difficult as this type of situation is, the matter had been addressed properly by hospital officials. MRS. SLOAN: Since when does a psychiatrist take the place of a police officer in investigating a criminal offence? Why did you cover it up?

Did it have anything to do with the fact that the patient was a woman, or was it because it occurred in your constituency? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, when I was made aware of this particular event having occurred, which was promptly after the incident, I followed up. I have made my own inquiries, made the appropriate inquiry, and got the overall report on the matter. As I've indicated to you, this was thoroughly reviewed, thoroughly investigated. It is taken as a very serious matter by myself and by my department.

As I indicated, it is a very, very regrettable incident, but the matter was deemed to have been handled appropriately. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What happened to this woman was unacceptable. She had to report it to the police. She had to go when she got out. If you're so committed and you've done your job, table in this Assembly the policy that shows Albertans that your regional health authorities and mental health boards know the proper procedures for reporting a criminal offence. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I certainly would be prepared to provide the members of the A ssembly with the policies and protocols which apply in serious matters of this type, yes. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glen- garry. Maple Leaf Foods Inc. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few months we have watched the Maple Leaf packing plant saga unfold. We watched intently as the union and management went through the negotiation process and consequently a strike vote, all without contravening the union contract.

Then we waited to see if the union would exercise their strike mandate under the threat of closure by the company. The rest of course is history. To the Minister of Labour: can the minister assure this House that everything that could be done was done to keep the Maple Leaf plant, located in my constituency, open, to keep it from closing? MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the member's question is timely, and I'm glad to take it. On December 15, 1996, the collective agreement expired. There were 10 days of bargaining between that time and June 3 and 4. On June 5 they applied for mediation.

The province, by legislation, appointed a mediator. The mediator released his recommendations for settlement, which I'll table, and it makes very, very intriguing reading. The task of the mediator in fashioning suitable recommenda- tions to settle a collective agreement is always daunting. In this case, it is particularly difficult because of the notoriously long and troubled labour relations history. Collective bargaining is difficult at the best of the times but here it is doubly so for historical reasons, the acrimony which continues to plague the parties and the overriding uncertainty of the times.

Given all of this, my inclination was not to make recommen- dations. But, if the parties continue in their present path, no agreement is possible. I have, therefore, decided to provide the parties with recommendations in an attempt to avert another lengthy labour dispute. Mr. Speaker, this was for the benefit of both parties. It was tabled with them, and it was read. I'll just conclude. The parties are at a new crossroads in their relationship. They can go forward to forge a new and enduring partnership or they can cling to their positions to the ultimate detriment of both.

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1363 I urge the parties to move forward by accepting these recommen- dations. The union then rejected the mediator's recommendations. Maple Leaf grudgingly accepted the mediator's recommendations and asked the LRB to conduct the vote. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Labour minister invited both parties to attend a meeting on August 5. Sixty percent . . . MR. Y ANKOWSKY: To the same minister: can the minister assure this House that the way this dispute was handled was consistent with how the government handles labour disputes in general? 2:30 MR. SMITH: Thanks, Mr.

Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence. During this time this particular union, the UFCW, was in a labour dispute in a place just outside of Calgary called High River with a plant called Cargill. That particular labour dispute was settle d after a short strike without the help of a mediator. Mr. Speaker, there also was a nine-week strike between the UFCW and Safeway. That strike was ultimately settled. There was again provincial mediation involved, and there was again compromise by both sides.

Then when we went into the Maple Leaf situation, the decision of the province in the way the situation was handled was entirely consistent. Edmonton, High River, Red Deer, Grande Prairie, Manyberries, Medicine Hat: it's a consistent, overarching framework of legislation that works effectively in this province, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that I'm very sorry to see those people on the picket line and not to have jobs. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary is to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

Would the minister please indicate what future plans he has for the now vacant site? MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to comment additionally by saying that I know the hon. member has done everything in his power to try to mediate the situation. Unfortunately, the outcome was not what we had desired, and some 950 jobs left the site. When the site becomes vacant – and Maple Leaf still has a lease on it – we will be looking at marketing the site. I do understand that the city of Edmonton is short of serviced industrial land. This is a 46-acre site of serviced land.

I've already met with the mayor on this matter. We will be setting up communications with Economic Development Edmonton as well as working within the government with the Economic Development department. I would like at this time to ask the Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview to take an active role in this whole process because we both want to see . . . MRS. SOETAERT: Oh, good. Set up a task force. MR. WOLOSHYN: Not a task force, but we both want to see the maximum number of jobs returned to this site for the citizens of Edmonton. I look for his support. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-South. Long-term Care MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Calgary's seniors and their families have seen waiting lists for long-term care beds almost double from 223 in 1993 to 385 this year. Edmonton seniors and their families worry as waiting lists have grown from 288 two years ago to 464 this year.

Because of this government's lack of support for long-term care in rural Alberta, the only choice left to seniors in Nanton, for instance, is to leave their community and be put on a waiting list for nursing homes in High River, Vulcan, and Claresholm. Even the Member for Highwood says: there's no doubt about it; we could use more. To the Minister of Health: why does this government's long-term care policy continue to take seniors away from their spouses, family, friends, and community? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt that all across this country and particularly in this province, where we have an increasing population of seniors both through the natural aging process and also because seniors from east and west of us find it very attractive to live in Alberta, we do have increased demands in terms of long-term care. As I indicated very recently, we are placing priority on the needs of our long-term care population in the year ahead. I have announced an overall review for looking at both short-term and long-term action to plan for this need within the system. Now, I would, however, Mr.

Speaker, like to point out that within the health care system – you can use Edmonton as an example – the regional health authorities are opening new facilities. We've had excellent co-operation from the voluntary sector too. I would refer in Edmonton to the very successful and innovative CHOICE program. I participated in the opening of the third centre, which provides support for people living in their own homes but provides health care and support services at a commu- nity centre. In Edmonton, as I understand it, that particular set of facilities is not yet at capacity in terms of residents.

There is the same effort in communities all across this province. Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge that there is a need in many areas for additional long-term care places, but the system is responding. We are coming up with more and innovative ways of serving the seniors in terms of their residency, and that is a priority for us. MR. BONNER: Again, to the Minister of Health: given that at the start of this year 442 seniors were waiting for home care in Calgary alone, some for as long as 15 months, how can this government say that it is providing adequate resources for home care? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have acknowledged that we do have a challenge, as do provinces all across this country, in moving as quickly as possible to meet the needs of our aging population, but with respect to home care, I'd just like to emphasize that even during that period of time when it was necessary to make budget reducti ons in this province for the overall fiscal health of the province, the amount of money going into home care in the health budget increased. Increased. It has continued to be an increasingly important part of our overall health care system in this province. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, just to supplement on that very point, it seems to me the Liberals are a little bit cross threaded on their messages today. At the opening of question period the hon.

1364 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 leader of the Liberal opposition was very, very critical of future uses for the old Holy Cross site. Well, one of the those future uses is for long-term care, very significant long-term care. Now, how can he be opposed to something that will help alleviate the problem the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry alludes to? MR. BONNER: To the Premier: if this government can come up with $130 million in immediate relief for billion-dollar Al-Pac companies, why is there no similar relief for seniors who built this province and who are still waiting for decent long-term care? MR.

KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again they have a complete lack of understanding. Y ou talk about mixed messages. How they can equate Al-Pac, which is a pulp mill, to a long-term health care centre, I don't know. Only the Liberals can sort of figure that out. But I'll tell you what: $260 million cash in hand properly invested over the same period of time would equate to another $280 million. That's what we're getting. We're not losing anything.

I would reiterate that the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition said in his opening question today that he was opposed to the creation of a long-term care centre in the city of Calgary. Y ou know, they can't get their messages straight. MR. SAPERS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Duly noted. The hon. Member for Red Deer-South, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Pickup Truck Safety MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question will reference the petition I presented earlier to the Assembly as well as the letters that I tabled in support.

Over 8, 000 Albertans signified by their signature that they agreed with the petition whereby the request is to urge the government of Alberta to make it an illegal act for a person or persons to ride in the rear of any pick-up truck, or any other open bed vehicle without secured seats and approved seatbelts. To the Minister of Transportation and Utilities: will the minister please advise us if he is considering this traffic safety initiative? 2:40 MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you to the hon. Member for Red- Deer South. First of all, I'd like to offer condolences to Mrs.

Egan from the Premier, from myself, and our colleagues on this terrible tragedy. This is an example of the difficulties that are created when there is an accident on our highways, when there is a fatality on our highways, one that really we have great concern for and one that we are working to address. This particular instance of riding in the back of pickups is something that we are considering and that is under review by the traffic safety initiative. The issue, of course, is one of: should or should not people be allowed to ride in the back of pickups?

At the present time there is a complete review that is being conducted. There has been a recommenda- tion that this particular element be studied, and indeed the recommendation at this time is that people should not be allowed to ride in the back of pickup trucks. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Are there any additional things that we can do to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future? MR. PASZKOWSKI: There's a very comprehensive review of the whole traffic safety initiative.

There are a lot of initiatives, including the drinking and driving initiative for example, the whole issue of speeding, the whole issue again of road design. All of those are under review at the present time. Certainly they are. There's consideration. With that in mind we've structured 30 stakeholder groups to bring forward recommendations. The 30 stakeholder groups have brought the recommendations to the committee. We're still reviewing. It will be coming to SPC ultimately to be dealt with in the form of legislation when it's been completed. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you for that response. Mr.

Speaker, I have no further questions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Health Care System MRS. PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the past two years this government has been telling Albertans not to worry about health care, that it is well on the way to being fixed. Well, if there is one thing that this gove rnment is famous for in health care, it is planning to be wrong.

A series of internal polls conducted for Alberta Treasury by Longwoods International and paid for by taxpayers reveals that Albertans still believe that our health care system is broken due to the government's callous and unplanned cuts. I tabled those excerpts in the House today. To the Minister of Health: how do you explain the fact that 51 percent of Albertans surveyed in the Longwoods poll believe that there is a serious problem with our health care system? What do Albertans know that you don't know? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think we have always acknowl- edged, certainly with respect to reinvestment in public services, that education and health are at the top of the list as far as Albertans' preferences are concerned. We have acknowledged that, and there is certainly indication that those factors, which were focused on at the Growth Summit, will be considered as we have funds to reinvest in the services of health and education in this province. MRS.

PAUL: My second question to the same minister: how can you claim that the Action on Health initiative has patched up the numerous holes your government created in health care when only 5 percent of Albertans in the Longwoods poll believed that the government is doing a good job in health care and 46 percent believed that the health care system is severely underfunded in all areas? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, in the very extensive survey that we do annually as part of Alberta Health's business plan and report- ing on the system – and I think the views of the total population are important, but I think particularly important are the views of those people who actually access and use the health care system in this province – if I recall correctly, the satisfaction was very positive, very high, and it was expressed in this comprehensive poll that we took, at the level of 86 percent in this province. MRS. PAUL: My last question is to the Premier.

If the govern- ment actually believes that the problem areas in health care have been addressed, will you commit to tabling later today in this

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1365 Legislative Assembly the November 1997 Longwoods' poll, which is now sitting on the Provincial Treasurer's desk? MR. KLEIN: Well, I'm sort of looking at the Provincial Trea- surer's desk, and I just don't see the poll here. Mr. Speaker, there are polls after polls afte r polls. I saw a poll that was conducted on March 1 1, and that indicated to this government at least that the majority of the people in this province were quite satisfied with the way this province was being run, including its health care system. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, and if there's time, then the hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert. Grain Transportation MR. DUCHARME: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, grain producers in my constituency are very concerned about the lack of grain railcar transportation. The elevators are full, yet there are few or no railcars. This is a recurring problem year after year after year. Cars are often allocated to elevators without grain while others sit idle on sidings, empty for days or weeks. These farmers have financial obligations to meet by year-end.

It's terribly frustrating and stressful for them to see this inefficiency, because they know that it is the farmers that have to absorb the costs of this inefficiency. To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development: what can you do in policy to help these farmers transport their grain to market? MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, What we are doing is pursuing a further policy of marketing choice, allowing farmers to either sell their grain traditionally through the Canadian Wheat Board or sell their grain to local buyers, that will add value to the grain.

One of the problems we have is that wheat has not moved up the value chain in this province, and as a result, we're losing tremendous value. Quite frankly, by allowing farmers marketing choice, we will no longer be depending on the Vancouver port for a price. MR. DUCHARME: Mr. Speaker, what is the Alberta government along with the federal government doing to push for a complete overhaul of the grain export system? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, this July when the provincial ag ministers and the federal minister of agriculture met in Trois- Rivières, we fought hard to put transportation on the agenda.

To the credit of the Hon. Lyle Vanclief, the federal minister of agriculture, he listened and he did respond. He called a meeting of ministers: the Minister of Transport, Dave Collenette, and also the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Ralph Goodale. The problem we're facing is that there is legislation under three ministers, and it's going to take collabora- tion to get that process going between the producers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain buyers, grain companies, railways, and port handlers. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker if I could supplement further on the excellent work that the agricultural ministers have been doing. The western provincial ministers of transportation have been meeting. They asked the federal minister to meet with them as well, and that subsequently happened in November. At that time, the western ministers stressed that there is indeed an acute danger of the reoccurrence of the terrible situation that the hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake had alluded to earlier. Indeed it is happening.

The ministers stressed to the federal minister at that time that some actions could be taken, and taken immediately, to deal with the threat of the danger of the situation that was arising. We were advised at that time that nothing could be done until an eminent person was chosen to head up the review. From our position we felt and still feel very strongly that there could be a lot of preparatory work done before this eminent person is selected. Now, to date we were assured that that eminent person would be selected very shortly. This is two months later and still no selection.

We can't even pick the person to head the commit- tee in any discreet time. In the meantime the farmers are out there with product in their bins, product in the elevators, and bills to pay. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you to the ministers. I have no further supplemental. head: Members' Statements 2:50 THE SPEAKER: We'll proceed today with three members' statements. The first will be from the hon. Member for St. Albert, then followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, and then followed by the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. The hon. Member for St. Albert. Holiday Generosity MRS. O'NEILL: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today during this special session of the Legislature to highlight the spirit of giving which surfaces and shines so brightly at this time of year. I wish to speak to the tremendous goodwill, the hard work, and the selfless endeavours undertaken by the many residents of my constituency of St. Albert and indeed to so many Albertans around the province during this Advent and preparation time for celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah. The event we are engaged in preparing for is particularly lightened by the actions of some junior high students in St. Albert.

For the past 1 1 years the school community of Elmer Gish school has collected used toys, washed and spruced up these previously loved toys and sent them on of course to the Bissell Centre. Likewise, the students of V.J. Maloney junior high have become the gathering centre for good toys in need of fixing. Then they send them on to the Society for the Retired and Semi-Retired, who do the restoration over the year and then present them to Edmonton city centres and to children in need in northern Alberta. Time doesn't permit me to mention all, but I'll conclude by acknowledging the Kinettes of St.

Albert and the Christmas Bureau of Edmonton, who gather the resources and focus the goodwill of so many people in our communities on giving to those who cannot afford to celebrate the holidays with food and gifts. I'd like to say thank you on behalf of all the people in my constituency for the goodness and the goodwill expressed by so many Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Human Rights and Violence against Women MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Three days ago we observed the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women, more commonly known as December 6, the anniversary of the murder of 14 women at Ècole Polytech-

1366 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 nique. Tomorrow is December 10, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, otherwise known as International Human Rights Day, celebrating the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. In Alberta we need to be reminded of these two important days and the issues they raise, because in Alberta, despite our many material riches, we do not have a good track record on these people issues. In Alberta we have witnessed the death of two women and the extreme torture of another woman in the last four months.

We the Legislature, the government, the justice system, and all other agencies who are charged with protecting women from violence did not prevent their deaths or injury. I for one do not want any more talk, any more task forces, any more studies, any more delay. I want legislation. I want commitment. I want action. We fare no better with human rights in Alberta. Alberta has gone from an independent, arm's-length commission to a secretar- iat. With human rights recently being amalgamated under the citizenship branch, the disappearance is complete, from a full- fledged independent commission to a desk.

And to whom do we look for leadership? To a Premier who indicated that Tiananmen Square was a distant memory and shouldn't stand in the way of economic trade with China, to a Premier who would meet only with appointed officials and not with democratically elected members. If ever we needed an independent Human Rights Commission, it is now. This province is about people, not just natural resources and $2 billion surpluses. We are failing women and those needing protection. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. International Volleyball Tournament MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize and congratulate coach Rick Sereda and all of the team members on the Thorhild boys Bulldog volleyball team, who just recently returned from Cuba after playing in a 16- team tournament and placing second to the upcoming members of the Cuban national team. I'd also like to recognize Devon, Alberta, for entering a team in Cuba. This tournament was organized by Canada/Cuba culture tours. Our boys not only enjoyed playing but also realized how fortunate we are as Albertans, as Canadians. The Cuban players lacked uniforms, running shoes, and those often had holes or were torn.

The playing surface was r ough, the buildings in poor condition. Our players left most of their clothing and runners behind for the Cuban players. Mr. Speaker, as we talk about unity in Canada, let's stop and recognize how fortunate we are. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. Presentation of Plaques THE SPEAKER: Before dealing with the points of order that we have before the Assembly today, I'd like to just pause for a minute or so and ask all members of the Assembly to join with me in honouring an event.

During the spring sitting of this Assembly we made note of an historic event that occurred in this House on April 23, 1997. That evening was the first time in the history of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta that the presiding officer and the table officers were all women. To commemorate that occasion, I would like all members of the Assembly to join with me in a presentation to the participants of that historic event. I would ask that the Deputy Chairman of Committees, Mrs. Judy Gordon; the Clerk Assistant, Louise Kamuchik; and the Parliamentary Counsel, Ms Shannon Dean, come forward and stand to my right.

I would ask that the senior pages come forward with the presentation items and stand to my left. What we have is a plaque to commemorate this very historic event. What it says is: Women at the Table, April 23, 1997. It's a picture of the three of them and from that day also a copy of the Votes and Proceedings. I would ask page Joel Scheuerman to present one to Mrs. Gordon. I would ask page Kathy Hagedorn to present one to Mrs. Kamuchik. I would ask page Melanie Ramsum to present one to Ms Dean.

Hon. members, there's also one additional copy of this commemorative plaque, and we will display it on an interim basis in the members' lounge, pending the identification of a more suitable location in the Legislative Assembly for the history of the province of Alberta. So congratu- lations to all three, and thank you all very much. [applause] Now, hon. Government House Leader, a point of order? Point of Order Abusive Language MR. HAVELOCK: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 23(h),(i), and (j). Unfortunately I do not have the Blues, so I am trying to recollect what was stated.

I believe that during her questioning of the Minister of Health, the Member for Edmonton-Riverview referred to a particular instance which was recently viewed by the Minister of Health. I believe she sug- gested that the minister had covered up the incident because either it had occurred in his riding or ultimately because the injured party was a woman. Standing Order 23(h), (i), and (

j) clearly covers this type of instance. In fact, having had some recent experience in withdrawing remarks, I suggest that the member demonstrate some leadership qualities and either publicly apolo- gize and withdraw the remark or ultimately under Standing Orders you request that she do so. 3:00 MRS. SLOAN: A woman was sexually assaulted not once but twice, and a minister of the Crown did not act. THE SPEAKER: The issue here is the point of order. The point of order. Speak on the point of order. MRS. SLOAN: All right.

The issue sparking debate had nothing to do with the references made by myself with respect to gender or constituency. The issue sparking debate had to do with the inaction and abdication of respons ibility by a minister of this government. THE SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader refers to subsections (h), (i), and (

j) under Standing Order 23. I'm not sure exactly which one he's referring to, but in no way can I find any

section in Standing Orders that would cover the question that was fairly put to the minister, a question that was very appropriate. If the Minister of Health chose to take offence at the suggestion, then I suggest that his opportunity to defend himself and to explain his defence would have been in the answer to his question. He chose instead to deflect it. When the Government House Leader stood on a point of order, I was wondering whether he was aware of some rule governing

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1367 question period that I wasn't aware of, and apparently he isn't. I would suggest that as Attorney General and Minister of Justice for this province perhaps he should be looking at how the justice system reacted to the incident that happened in Ponoka and what exactly . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that there is no point of order, just an incredibly sensitive question put to the govern- ment and answered in a relatively insensitive way. MR. HAVELOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to read 23(h), (i), and (j). “Makes allegations against another member.” Clearly, the allegation was of a cover-up which the member alleged that the minister had perpetrated. “Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.” She mentioned the fact that the event took place in his riding, and therefore that's why he allegedly covered the incident up. “Uses abusive or insulting language.” I can think of really no other language which could be more abusive or insulting than, quite frankly, suggesting a minister of the Crown covers up an event in his riding.

If this is not covered by the Standing Orders, then quite frankly 23(h), (i), (

j) are totally useless. I think it's a clear breach of that Standing Order. THE SPEAKER: Well, we do not have the official Hansard yet. However, we have something that's unofficial, and as best as we can determine, pending a further review of this, the Member for Edmonton-Riverview said the following: Since when does a psychiatrist take the place of a police officer investigating a criminal offence? Why did you cover it up? Did it have anything to do with the fact that the patient was a woman, or was it because it occurred in your constituency? Having heard the statements put forward by the hon.

Govern- ment House Leader, my assessment at this point in time basically deals with the phrase “Why did you cover it up?” Is this correct? MR. HAVELOCK: Well, it relates to “Why did you cover it up?” and also the allegation leading from that, that this alleged cover- up took pl ace because the victim was either a woman or alter- nately because the event occurred in his riding. So I think you need to read those statements together, Mr. Speaker, to arrive at the conclusion that 23(h), (i), and (

j) have been breached. THE SPEAKER: The only point, hon. Government House Leader, is that the conclusion that I will reach, though, will be the result of a petition from an hon. member to ask for a review on the point of order. So I want to make it very clear in my own mind that I understand exactly what argument is being put forward on this point of order. Y ou're saying the whole thing. Anything further to add, Opposition House Leader? Member? I'm going to review this matter when the Hansard actually comes out, because I believe that this is a rather interesting series of statements. One of the interesting things – if hon. members would take a look at

section 490 in Beauchesne, the phrase “cover-up” has been ruled parliamentary on occasion, and it's clearly identified in the document, 490. However, in this Assembly of Alberta previous Speakers have ruled the phrase “cover-up” to be most inappropriate and said so on December 10 of 1990, March 25 of 1992, February 1 1 of 1993, and May 4 of 1994. The circumstances will dictate the result of the point of order. So I'm going to defer dealing with this pending a complete review of the official Hansard of this Assembly, and we'll deal with it tomorrow. Official Opposition House Leader, a point of order.

Point of Order Allegations against Members MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate that I have to rise in the Assembly and do a point of order, particularly during this special session, but during question period in response to a question put to the Premier, the Premier indicated that the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he was opposed to the sale of a building in Calgary for the purpose of turning it into a long-term care centre. That clearly offends

section 23(h), which speaks of making allegations against another member. It could also be construed to offend subsection (

i) in regard to imputing false or unavowed motives. There was nothing in the Leader of the Official Opposition's question that suggested he was opposed to more long-term care beds in Calgary or elsewhere, where they're needed in this province, Mr. Speaker, and for the Premier to make that sugges- tion on the record, in Hansard, in front of the TV cameras leads me to question his judgment in terms of politicizing a response to a very serious concern.

The fact of the matter is that what the Official Opposition leader is opposed to is a donation of a tax- funded asset to a private interest for a profit, which is the only way you can describe what's happening to that particular hospital site. So there was nothing in the Leader of the Official Opposi- tion's question that suggested he was opposed to the transfer of that building to an alternate use, in this case being for long-term care beds, or that there weren't more long-term care beds needed in the province.

I would hope that the Premier would have an opportunity to check Hansard and come back into the House tomorrow and set the record straight, retract the remark, and make it clear to all Albertans that the Official Opposition's position is clear. We believe we need more long-term care beds in this province. MR. HAVELOCK: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely amazing that the member would first argue the previous point of order had nothing to do with 23(h), (i), and (j), yet this one falls within its parameters. The Premier in making his comments came to that conclusion based on his

interpretation of the facts and based on his interpreta- tion of the Leader of the Opposition's previous statements. It may well not have been related to the question that was raised; nevertheless, the Premier was putting together what he thought had been said previously in trying to respond to the question and, again, his

interpretation of the facts surrounding the matter. As such, it should be regarded simply as differing opinions regarding the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I also find it quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition House Leader to raise this as a point of order when in the House daily the opposition trots out its misguided

interpretation of government policy and the statements of this government. MR. SAPERS: Can I do a point of order? THE SPEAKER: No. I don't think we really need a point of order on a point of order. Having heard the petition brought forward by the Official Opposition House Leader and having heard his petition based on 23(

h) and (

i) and his greater explanation of the position of his leader and his colleague and then having heard the submission made by the Government House Leader, I think the conclusion

1368 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 here is simply a matter of point of clarification, that has now been exercised by the opportunity in the point of order to both mem- bers. I think all members are very clear now on the position of the Premier and the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to this matter. That point of order is now redundant and behind us. Now, before we get to Orders of the Day, there have been several members who have requested permission for the Assembly to briefly revert to the Introduction of Guests. Would the Assembly agree to this? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

THE SPEAKER: Thank you. I won't ask for the other side. head: Introduction of Guests 3:10 (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a privilege this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the Assem- bly a guest who is a member of the Francophone community in Calgary. She has dedicated a lot of service on the issue of unity for the government of Canada. She is a member of the board of my colleague the MLA from Calgary-McCall. I ask you to welcome Ms Susanne Sawyer. Susanne, please rise. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. MR.

SHARIFF: Mr. Speaker, my guest has just been introduced. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. My apologies. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie gave the introduction on behalf of the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, would you like to proceed, then, on your own behalf? MRS. SOETAERT: Say that again quickly. THE SPEAKER: Do I have to? MRS. BURGENER: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Enough has been said. Welcome, Susanne. THE SPEAKER: Do I take it that both of you members were introducing the same individual? MRS. BURGENER: That is correct. THE SPEAKER: Bonjour, madame.

Oh, this harmony thing is really good. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Motions National Unity 23. Moved by Mr. Klein:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta be guided by the input received from Albertans during the public consultation process, Dialogue on Unity, and on behalf of the people of Alberta concur with the principles embodied in the elements of the Calgary framework, recognizing that the Calgary framework is not an amendment to the Constitution acts of 1867 to 1982 and that the specific wording of any amendment to those acts must be approved by Albertans in a referendum in accordance with the Constitutional Referendum Act. [Adjourned debate December 8: Mr. Amery] THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off my remarks by thanking yourself, the two other House leaders, the Government House Leader and the third-party House leader, and the staff from all offices for helping facilitate and accommodate this debate. Working in a nonpartisan environment to make sure that this happened was, I can assure you, a challenging experience but one that I think was very necessary and one that was welcomed by my constituents.

Many of the comments that I heard during the Dialogue on Unity consultation included reference to the fact that the three parties were working together on something of greater importance than their own partisan political aims.

In fact, one constituent who attended the town hall meeting that myself and the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark and the Member for Edmonton- McClung hosted even went so far as to suggest that we should rearrange the desks here in th e Assembly when we have this debate and that we shouldn't be sitting in our partisan blocks and that we should somehow be working more in a theatre-of-the- round kind of environment. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that was a novel suggestion and perhaps one that we can try another time, but it wasn't to be for this debate, but that's the extent to which members of the public were pleased with the nonpartisan approach that we've adopted. Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country that stands for many things, in particular peace. We believe in this c ountry in freedom and fairness. The cornerstones of our society are equality, dignity, respect, and democracy. Now, a democracy depends on the participation of well- informed citizens, and the Dialogue on Unity consultation provided for both involvement and education.

The consultation revealed that Albertans loved Canada because Canada is a country that cares for the disadvantaged, a country that pursues p eaceful solutions, and a country that derives strength from its diversity. Accommodating diversity does not undermine unity, just as sharing of power does not breed weakness. Diversity promotes tolerance and has become part of the shared concept of equality that is uniquely Canadian. Canadian equality has no room for racism and intolerance and allows individuals as members of communities to participate fully and add strength to our shared and common values. Mr.

Speaker, in Edmonton-Glenora we undertook to do many things to facilitate the Dialogue on Unity consultation. We had a town hall meeting, which I referenced. I held two open houses in my constituency office that were both sellouts. I received many messages by E-mail. I sent householders out to the constituency and received many responses. As well, I had an opportunity to speak with many schoolchildren, particularly in grade 6 classes. Three of the schools that I visited took me up on a challenge, and they produced artwork under the theme Artwork for Unity.

This artwork, which has been produced by grade 6 students at the Brightview, Glenora, and Holy Cross schools in my constituency, is now on display in the pedway adjacent to the gift s hop. This

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1369 artwork is very instructive, Mr. Speaker, in that it pictorially displays the beliefs, the hopes, and the aspirations of these young people for our country. This all-inclusive approach in terms of the town halls, E-mail messages, meeting and talking with people in my constituency office, and the use of alternate media was very important, and it had to be done. We had to make sure that as members of the Legislature we did not repeat the mistakes of past consultations.

We had to make sure that this was seen truly as an opportunity for every man, woman, and child in this province who cared to express an opinion to have an opportunity to do that. Now, what ultimately doomed the M eech Lake accord and which led to the breakdown of the fragile consensus that sur- rounded the next attempt, the Charlottetown accord, is that governments failed to recognize that nation building and constitu- tion making are not the sole responsibilities of politicians and that they cannot be dictated by first ministers alone.

Discussions on how we will choose to relate to one another must be broadly based and held in the open. Constitutions define the essential character of a nation and as such must arise from the heartfelt desires of its people. Now, Mr. Speaker, what did I learn during these consultations, and what did the people bring to the table? What they said is that overall they liked the intent of the Calgary declaration, that they wanted to support anything that would get this issue dealt with, but they did have some concerns. They had some definitional problems.

People in my constitu ency spoke of their concerns regarding the definition of the words “status,” “equality,” “unique,” “gift.” For some people these were trigger words. Other people just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page, that they knew what those words meant. Other members in my constituency felt that the declaration was short on meeting the concerns of Canada's First Nations. Other people felt that it was very difficult to reconcile the expression of uniqueness with the expression of equality.

But what was very interesting to me is that in the discussions that I was a party to, we seemed to be able to build a consensus. I think that consensus came through most clearly when one participant said: you know, I have three children. Of course, that got my attention as I have three children as well. They said: “I have three children, and all of these three children are unique, but you know, I try to treat all of these children with equality.

All of these children are equal in the status of my family.” That helped me understand that these are not opposite notions, that there is a way to reconcile unique- ness and equality. Now, the declaration was also seen as something to aspire to. This declaration is not a statement of absolute truth. This declaration instead is a statement of ideals that needs to be pursued and needs to be pursued with vigour by each and every one of us in our work here and in our work in our constituencies.

It became very clear to me how important it must be to pursue these ideals of tolerance and equality and of shared values because of a couple of the submissions that I received. These submissions indicated to me that we have much work to do, not just about Quebec's place in Canada, not just a bout Alberta's pl ace in Canada but about our overall attitude about one another.

One of the more frightening submissions that I received – and this is from an individual who asked me to please include his comments on the record in the constitutional debate – said in the answer to question 6 on the householder: being Canadian to me means being free and white; unfortunately this is changing. I read that, Mr. Speaker, and it sent a shiver down my spine. That's on the record – I made that obligation to my constituent that I'd put that on the record – but I also want to put on the record that does not reflect my Canada. That tells me that we all have much more to do.

Luckily, that kind of a comment was in the minority. In fact, there were only two submissions that reflected that kind of attitude. Many, many more, the vast majority, well over three-quarters, had sentiments such as the following, also in answer to question 6: Canada is a model for the world in terms of its cultural and political diversity, of which I am proud; we cannot fail the world and ourselves for this reason. That sentiment, Mr. Speaker, I believe is far more powerful and far more representative of the people in Edmonton-Glenora. 3:20 Now, Mr.

Speaker, when I finished the consultation in my constituency, I helped produce a report. I tabled four copies earlier. In that report we summarized our conclusions as follows: There was wide agreement that the seven elements discussed provided a framework for a united Canada. This was tempered by concern that the citizens of Quebec might see this as another attempt to force an agreement on them. It was felt that the media and politicians of Quebec may [in fact] try to foster this feeling.

There was also a concern that the entire exercise was simply a framework for the provinces to gain additional powers at the expense of the federal government. On that point, Mr.

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that many, many people came up to me and made a point of saying to me: “Whatever you do, when you're talking about the relationship between the governments of Canada, the federal government and the provinces and the provinces with one another, do not give away the strength and the necessity for a strong central govern- ment in this nation.” “Particul arly” – and this is reflected in student submissions as well as in our roundtable discussions – “do not weaken the federal government's role when it comes to the provision of human services and particularly medicare.” Mr.

Speaker, one thing that was made perfectly clear to me during this round of consultations is that if you scratch a Cana- dian, they bleed medicare. This is something that has to be protected almost above all other of our institutions, because it is something that truly binds us together and that helps define us as Canadians. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just read into the record a submission made by a grade 8 student. In answering the question on what Canada means, he said: Canada is a place where I feel safe to sleep at night. I don't have to worry about bombs blowing houses and buildings apart.

We have freedom of speech, which many countries don't have, and in those countries you say the wrong thing and they kill you. I'm thankful for the education, health care, and job opportunities we have. Without that, we would just be another country in poverty. I can't imagine living anywhere else, because in my mind this is as good as it gets. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm privileged and moved to represent Calgary-Varsity and bring their views forward during this session on national unity.

I would like to thank the over 500 constituents who provided valuable contributions. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the role played by volunteers, particularly Jennifer Diakiw and Judy Wish, who organized our forum on unity. Mr. Speaker, Calgary-Varsity clearly supports the Calgary

1370 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 declaration. Calgary-Varsity is committed to Canada. Canada is a place where every individual can contribute their talents, their resources, and their ideals to a single country. The future of this country will be determined by Canadian individuals, not by a single province, and that is why this consultation process has been so important and necessary. People in Calgary-Varsity believe that this declaration represents the start of a dialogue on national unity. In the words of one of my constituents: I support the words; now let's put the words into deeds. [Mrs.

Gordon in the chair] Madam Speaker, many of my constituents appreciated the leadership of this government in reopening the dialogue. They also appreciate that this discu ssion transcends partisan politics. Again, to quote: “It is very encouraging to see Ralph Klein, Grant Mitchell and Pam Barrett united in their effort.” Calgary-Varsity had some important points to make. The most significant aspect of the Calgary declaration for my constituents is equality both of individuals and of the provinces.

I cannot state it any better than the constituent who wrote, “Canada is a country composed of ten equal provinces in which all citizens have equal rights and opportunities.” Calgary-Varsity often raised the issue of individual and minority rights both in Quebec and in Canada. Again, I cannot state it any better than the constituent who wrote: Protecting the French language in Quebec should not include the oppression of other languages. For example, you should be able to advertise in any language you want.

Madam Speaker, constituents in Calgary-Varsity clearly expect that any powers conferred on Quebec must be conferred on all other provinces; Quebec must not enjoy a preferred status at the expense of the rest of Canada. Madam Speaker, Calgary-Varsity believes that Senate reform is necessary to ensure equality among provinces. As one writer put it, “By equality, do you agree that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should have more Senators than Alberta and B.C.?”

Section 5. The issue of Quebec's unique character is one that provoked the most passionate debate in Calgary-Varsity. Not only was it passionate, but it slices through Calgary-Varsity just like the Crowchild Trail. On the one hand, you have people saying, “Face it, Quebec is definitely a distinct society.” Others argued, “Quebec is no more unique than Alberta with its diversity of cultures.” Madam Speaker, who decides? As difficult as it may be, this is a decision that must be made by every Albertan, that must be made by every Canadian.

Madam Speaker, Calgary-Varsity feels that any discussion regarding national unity should address the consequences of separation. It has to be made clear what Canadians can expect from Quebec and what Quebec should expect from the rest of Canada. To use a constituent's own words: I think we need to reassure [Quebeckers] that we respect their right to maintain their language, their culture, and their civil law. At the same time, I think we need to clarify the consequences of separation and the problems that would need to be addressed in attempting such a move.

Many of my constituents wanted to address issues not related to the Constitution. These issues were about making our current system better. Three main points were: one, a need to clarify the relationship between the various levels of government; two, a need to reassess the transfer payment system; and three, a need to reduce barriers between our provinces. Madam Speaker, the people of Calgary-Varsity support the Calgary declaration. Therefore I will support it. Today I have referred repeatedly to comments contained in many letters, questionnaire responses, phone calls, faxes, and E-mails.

Each of them described what “My Canada is.” They want a Canada where an individual's rights are respected and where no one's rights are elevated above another's. The views are summarized by one person who wrote about the declaration, “If it caters to equality, then it reflects the interests of Albertans and all other Canadians.” Let me conclude by saying the words of a man I deeply respect, a true Canadian. Monsignor Athol Murray was my teacher. He was born in Ontario, educated in Quebec, and taught on the prairies.

I believe that his words not only guide us but inspire us to work together to achieve a Canada that reflects the greatness that lies within each of us. He said: Chart your course and the courses of your children. These children of yours are going to be individuals of self-determina- tion, not state determination. I say to you, if that is achieved, then Canada will have self-transcendence on the most sublime level. The greatest country the world has ever seen. Madame la Présidente, c'est clair et facile pour moi à dire: je suis Canadien. Je suis fier d'être un citoyen de l'Alberta.

À ce moment, c'est plus difficile à dire au Québec: je suis Canadien; je suis Québécois. J'espère que la déclaration de Calgary rend ceci plus facile et clair à dire de la part du Québec. Madame la Présidente, it is easy for me to say: I am Canadian; I am proud to be a citizen of Alberta. At this moment it is more difficult to say in Quebec: I am Canadian; I am a Quebecker. I hope that the Calgary declaration makes it easier and clearer for Quebeckers to make this statement. Thank you. 3:30 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is an honour for me to represent my constituency of Calgary-Fort to speak on the subject of the unity of Canada. It is a very fortunate time that we are approaching, the new millennium, living in a blessed province in a great country. Before I joined the work in the Assembly of Alberta, I had spent time in many parts of the world – places in Asia, Europe, Australia, and North America – but none can beat Canada and especially Alberta. Not only is our economy resilient and doing well; our people have the tradition of compassion and care for one another.

Tolerance, acceptance, and respect for differences and the strong spirit of volunteerism are the traits of Albertans and Canadians in general. We are well known around the world as Canadians. We are now truly living in the global village that others outside Canada are dreaming about. We can aspire to become an example for the future of humanity. No Canadian doubts that the unity of our c ountry is being threatened, but the urgency of the fact has not yet been recognized by the majority. However, as elected members we are required to take on the leadership role and help chart out the course for those we represent.

Living in Alberta at the moment, we are very fortunate. We have the ability and the resources to lead the search for a solution. We have three choices: make things happen, watch things happen, or wonder what happened. We have chosen the challenging choice: the leadership role. We want to make things happen. The Calgary declaration is now a part of our nation's history. I congratulate the Premier and the two leaders of the opposition on this matter.

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1371 I want to thank the people who helped me to process the questionnaire returns, to organize the town hall meetings: Sandy Wilson, Tish Grusing, Marie Martin, and especially Sheila Cooper, who chaired all the meetings. I also want to thank my constituents who returned the questionnaires and attended the meetings, especially Roger Richard and Ray Muscato, who were born and grew up in Quebec, and Ed Spiteri, Kim Hoang, and Chau Truong. They brought valuable perspectives.

My thanks are also extended to my relatives now living in Quebec, especially my learned uncle Dan Nguyen Cao, who gave me the historical perspective. Some of my constituents debated that the Calgary declaration contained contradictions: unity, diversity; uniqueness, equality; centralization, decentralization. Some debated that the deficiency in the Calgary declaration was that current practices do not match the statement in the declaration. Different relationships exist between the federal government and the provincial governments. Different provincial rules and regulations apply to Canadians.

Some pointed out that this unity issue existed even before the formation of our Canadian federation and of our province. Some even attempted to interpret the statements of the Calgary declara- tion as support of the current local issues. I also heard extreme voices from both ends of the spectrum. But the general consensus is that Canadians have a lot of common ground. The common living activities and needs, which should strengthen this common ground, are a foundation for unity. We should emphasize the major similarities rather than the minor differences.

The Calgary declaration drew me into reading on Canadian constitutional matters, the development of the federal and provincial relationships. I even visited Kingston, the seat of Canada's first parliament, visited the home and the tomb of the first Prime Minister of Canada. There was never a single straightforward issue with a simple solution. However, Canadian leadership, both federal and provincial, has always navigated the nation successfully through difficult times. In my view, Canada is a federation of provinces. We have the challenging and interesting task of maintaining the two-dimen- sional balance.

The vertical balance is between the federal and provincial jurisdictions; the horizontal balance is among and across provinces. Canadians are also faced with two tasks at the same time: nation building and province building. As leaders we have to balance the two efforts. I want to share my view with Canadians at large. Let us recognize, understand, and accept the history and the reality of French-related culture. We cannot ignore it or legislate it away. Quebec French culture has been a strong part of Canada since the beginning and even before Confederation.

Let us seek out and maintain dialogue with the majority of Canadians living in Quebec, who want to be part of Canada, and accept the dominant French culture in Quebec. We should also ask ourselves a question: is promotion of French culture in Quebec a threat to our province, or is it an asset making Canada different from other nations? I also want to share a view with new Canadians. The contribu- tion of new Canadians to the recent su ccessful effort of keeping Canada together has been well known in Quebec. Canada needs new Canadians.

However, once we have decided to come to Canada, we should as a first priority contribute to building this nation. The nations on the American continent were successfully established by people who aspired to create a new type of nation, better and different than where they had originally come from. There was also an outdated attitude, that one came to Canada to make a good living, saved, and later went back to the old country. The recent trend, replicating from the old lands and recreating separate islands of nationality groups within the new country, should be questioned.

The attit ude and the behaviour as such could become the seeds of isolation and disunity. I also want to share my view with my fellow Canadians living in Quebec. On peut toujours apprendre du passé, mais ne vivons plus dans le passé. Demandez-vous même ce que c'est le présent? La culture Canadienne-Française du Québec est maintenant précisée et reconnue dans la Constitution du Canada. La province de Québec possède tous les pouvoirs démocratiques dont elle a besoin pour se gouverner sans porter atteinte ni aux autres provinces, ni aux droits de l'homme. Comme Canadienne, comme une

partie du Canada, la culture Québécoise est respectée et réjouie, protégée et propagée par tout le Canada, ayant une plus grande population et une plus grande superficie. Séparé du Canada, le Québec sera une petite enclave qui deviendra encore plus petite devant l'immense, puissante Amérique du Nord, qui s'accroît de jour en jour. L'union fait la force. L'isolement et la séparation sont la source de la faiblesse. [Translation] Let’s learn from the past but not live in the past. Ask yourself what the present is like. Quebec French culture is now specified and recognized in the Cons titution of Canada.

Quebec province has all the democratic powers it needs to manage the province without infringing on other provinces and human rights. Being Canadian, a part of Canada, the Quebec culture will be respected and enjoyed, protected and propagated by the whole of Canada with a larger population and a larger size. Otherwise Quebec will become a small enclave which gets smaller in relation to the much larger and ever growing North America. There are many more Canadians who can speak French outside Quebec than before, and the number is growing. In joining and growing, we find strength.

In protecting and separating, we find weakness. [as submitted] In joining and growing, we find strength. In protecting and separating, we find weakness. Statistics Canada indicated that we now have over a hundred heritages. No doubt the multiheritage individuals or population are becoming characteristic of Canada. Joining with the native aboriginal people to build the nation, we came to Canada from all corners of the world: from western and eastern Europe, from Asia, the Middle East, Africa.

People from eastern Europe, especially from the Ukraine, undoubtedly endured hardship in the early days developing the land we're living on. People from Asia also endured hardship contributing to the nation-building effort. This is the year, the 100th anniversary of the first arrival of people from India. People from Asia helped to build the railroad. I feel a personal urge to speak all the lan- guages of the people who helped build this nation, but my limited language ability cannot express this view. [remarks in Chinese Mandarin] Canada is the best country in the world.

Since 1867 Canadians of Chinese heritage have worked to help build this great nation. In the future Canadians of Chinese heritage will help build a better nation. [as submitted] [remarks in Vietnamese] When we eat fruit, we think of the growers. When we drink water, we think of the sources. Canadians of Vietnamese heritage always are grateful to the nation builders and are very proud of opportunities to contribute in the upkeeping and continuous development of our nation Canada. [as submitted] To conclude, Madam Speaker, I want to say something to the separatist leaders.

Oui, je suis pour la séparation, mais c'est la séparation des chefs séparatistes du peuple Canadien, qui aime le Canada. Y es, I am for separation, but separating the separatist leaders from the Canadians who love Canada. Thank you very much. 3:40 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and fellow members of the Legislature. I am very proud to stand in this Assembly to

1372 Alberta Hansard December 9, 1997 represent the constituents of Edmonton-Manning on the subject of Canadian unity. I want to declare to you my bias on the values that hold this country together. I do not want to see this country destroyed. With all my heart I want to see Canada remain unified and strong. Of all the world's countries Canada is one of the very few to officially recognize its founders in its initial stages of development while still under colonial rule. In 1760 the capitulation documents indicated a pronounced British recognition of and support for a continuance of French religious culture.

In that era religions formed the framework of communal life, education, and culture. Against the convention of the day, the Catholic religious practices and community involvement were encouraged to continue under British rule after occupation. In 1763 the Treaty of Paris formalized this act by further reinforcing that recognition. What is so very significant is that this constitutionally affecting docu- ment respecting the special conditions of the French culture in Canada under British rule was a collaboration by leaders of three major world powers: the King of England, the King of France, and the King of Spain.

Canada's constitutional beginni ngs began in Paris and were sanctioned by international leaders. These documents and their implications are continued in our present-day Constitution. The path to our present national understanding has many pauses for reflection and insightful input. This is what makes Canada truly distinct from other countries. We of all countries on Earth respect and acknowledge our founding cultures of aboriginal, French, and British and celebrate our many more recent immi- grants.

If one were to ask anyone anywhere in the world their opinion of Canada, what tops their list are statements of words such as fairness to all, openness, antidiscrimination, democratic, future for immigrants, haven for refugees. For the past 30-plus years Canada has been discussing national uniqueness, this special status, but all the while fully recognizing it. It's like two old friends both arguing that one is more wrong than the other.

As Canadians we are the envy of most other countries because of our personal security, our economic prosper- ity, our individual freedoms, our health, education, and social programs. These have been made possible by the strength and diversity of Canadian federalism. The Canadian experience has been an undeniable su ccess, and Albertans have told us that any changes to the national structure must be directed toward preserv- ing and enhancing a strong sense of nationhood, not dividing it. Albertans such as myself are concerned with Confederation and Canadian unity.

I'm a fourth-generation Albertan, with all four great-grandparents settling in the Edmonton region prior to Alberta becoming a province. My constituents in northeast Edmonton truly do come from a broad spectrum of multicultural- ism and pride themselves on cultural accomplishments. Multicul- turalism is about communal involvement and community participa- tion. Albertans have shown that they are patriotic Canadians who want a strong, united country. Albertans have a strong desire to protect the unique benefits that they enjoy as Albertans.

As I represent my constituents, I find that after reviewing the questionnaires, this becomes somewhat of a complex problem. Most of my constituents provided me with an argument that explains or defends the rationale for why Canada should stay together. The views given by many come from their sense of patriotic sentiment to federalism and the protection of western provincial rights or maybe just Albertans' rights. The views that I read in the questionnaires sent back to me was a very strong yes, an overwhelming yes, for number 1. The views of different constituents were in support of different numbers.

For example, they would support all, support 1, 2, 3, and 6, support 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, et cetera, or secondly, strongly not support number 4 or especially number 5. Some have stated in their comments that Ontario and Quebec have always dictated the country's policies. Others said: why does the federal government give so much money to Quebec? One said: I fought to be Canadian. Another said: I fought to keep the country free as a democracy. But many have said that an issue as important as this shouldn't have been sent out as a junk- mail item.

Very few were not proud to be Canadian and gave great explanation as to what Canadians are. Forces such as Quebec nationalism and regional disenchantment if left unchecked pose a threat to the future of a strong and united Canada. By the Calgary accord pr oposal and the provincial politicians consulting with their electorate, I believe that as Canadians we would be eager to examine ways in which the genuine and valid aspirations of different parts of the country could be reconciled with the needs of the country as a whole.

Hence, all proposals for change must be assessed on the basis of the overall impact on the ultimate survival of Canada. My experience with the unique difference in our country started in high school when I was one of 25 Alberta students able to travel across this great country by rail to Montreal on a student exchange. Many of us were from the rural area, myself a farm kid, and we found this experience fantastic. I lived with a French-Canadian family on the east side of Montreal, toured Montreal and Quebec City with great enthusiasm. In turn we hosted the Quebec students in Alberta.

I have since lost contact with these students but have taken numerous trips to Montreal, and I firmly believe that Montreal is still a very real and vibrant part of our country. If we are able to educate each other to the differences in our country, my belief is that we must educate our youth now. If we don't, we will still be listening to the media and politicians giving their political rhetoric another 30 years from now. This view was constantly emphasized to me in the two town hall meetings which I was involved in.

The great opportunity of developing a value statement along with the Premier's seven principles is that we have the chance to make a clear statement about what we believe Canadians' values are. It can become the basis of the case the federalists can make to the people of Quebec. If a federalist government can be elected in Quebec in the next provincial election, then the possibility for real reform in this country to make it work better exists. In all these discussions it is important that we keep in mind who we're talking to. We're not talking to the government of Quebec; we are talking to the people of Quebec.

What we have to fashion in this process is the means of communicating directly with the people of Quebec and a determination not to react to the state- ments made by a Quebec government designed only to inflame emotions and push the unity process off the rails. My hope is that we are able to determine a resolution that will reflect the values of Albertans as Canadians and embrace Que- beckers in a positive way.

If we pass the seven principles or part of the principles, then that resolution becomes the basis for communicating with Quebeckers and the rest of Canadians about those values that hold us together and about these things that make the country so very special. I'd like to thank Premier Klein and Grant Mitchell, Leader of the Opposition, and Pam Barret for working together in co- operation in this process. Madam Speaker, my vote is yes.

I would like to table 248 responses assimilated from Edmonton- Manning and the responses given to the people who attended the unity forum sponsored by myself, MLA Julius Y ankowsky, and MP Peter Goldring at this time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

December 9, 1997 Alberta Hansard 1373 3:50 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. MELCHIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege for me to rise today in the Legislature to speak on behalf of the constituents of Calgary-North West. I think we all feel very much the same when we get up and speak about Canada. None of us would be here if we didn't love this great country of ours. None of us would be putting in the time and the effort if we didn't have a great feeling about the freedoms and the tremendous things we're afforded, the privileges, by living in Canada.

I'd like to quote one of my constituents from the questionnaire here. He says: I believe it's always easier to take something apart than put something together. We therefore need to value our confedera- tion as one country, respecting all its parts but respecting its whole most of all. I think that's very true. As we debate and look at the issues with regards to the Calgary declaration, it is much easier for us to sit back and do nothing than to take the time to put it together and make sure that it's left together.

I applaud the efforts of our Premiers, our colleagues, and especially all the Albertans who have taken

part in this process. I have been most appreciative of the tremendous comments and the time and the efforts of my constituents as they've given diligent thought to the issues related to those seven elements in the Calgary declaration. I guess what I'd like to say in preference, though, is that originally Canada was a union of two nations, or peoples, of the French and English cultures. We did start from a difference, recognizing that we were different in law, in language, and in culture.

Today we've grown from that early start of Canada, and even in that context we have much to do and continue to build upon that union formed many years ago. In thanks to my constituents, I'd like to speak to the process, the involvement that we've had in our constituency of Calgary- North West.

We received over 543 responses from the My Canada Is declaration, from a brochure that I mailed out to all of the constituents of Calgary- North West, plus a number of telephone calls that we had organized at random to assess that the responses coming back through the unity questionnaire were representative of maybe the broader population. I'd like to speak a little bit more of that overall feeling that came back. I was quite amazed, actually, that out of those 543 responses, 85 percent of my constituents supported the overall framework.

I was surprised to see that level of support yet even within the 85 percent overall. I certainly will be supporting the Calgary declaration. My constituents have spoken fairly clearly on this matter, yet there was great reservation, as everybody suggested, with element 5. Though there might have been a very small percentage that had some good comments in relation to the other elements 1 through 4 and 6 and 7, the major concern came in element 5 with regards to the uniqueness and all those attributes related to uniqueness.

Forty-six percent of respondents in my constituency had reserva- tions with regards to this one element. Though the overwhelming percentage was in favour, a very large percentage expressed options and different things that we might consider. I'd like to take the balance of my time to literally just convey the comments of my constituents with regards to this process of My Canada Is. I thought I'd start first about the issue of how everybody feels about Canada, just like I do.

One says: In our travels (business and pleasure) to other countries, and experiences with other cultures, we consider ourselves extremely fortunate to be Canadians. Those foreigners who know of Canada praise it, and those who are less familiar generally don't have negative views. We have been asked on several occasions