March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 733 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 21, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/03/21 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give oral notice that the following Bills will be introduced on Monday, March 25, 1996: Bill Pr. 1, Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1996; Bill Pr. 2, Covenant Bible College Tax Exemption Act; Bill Pr. 3, Evangel Bible College Act; Bill Pr. 4, Bethesda Bible College Act; and Bill Pr. 5, Farmers' Union of Alberta Amend- ment Act, 1996. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to give oral notice that it is my intention pursuant to Standing Order 40 to present the following motion later in the Assembly:

Be it resolved that the Assembly recognize March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Thank you. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. the Provincial Treasurer. Bill 25 Alberta Corporate Tax Amendment Act, 1996 MR. DINNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Alberta Corporate Tax Amendment Act, 1996, and would move its first reading. [Leave granted; Bill 25 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased in the interests of continued openness and accountab ility of this government to respond to Written Question 235, Order for a Return 237, and questions 241 and 242. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to table with the Assembly responses to questions asked during the Department of Municipal Affairs' appearances before Committee of Supply subcommittee C on February 29 of this year and Committee of Supply of March 12 of 1996. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, during question period on March 1 1, 1996, in response to the hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo I indicated that I would provide statistics on emergency visits to the Holy Cross hospital, which I have since done. I'd like to file those statistics with the Assembly showing a decrease in visits from 57,775 in 1981-82 to 28,330 in 1993-94, which is the latest year that I have statistics for. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my privilege to introduce to you today and to the members of this Assembly 95 students from Eastview school, which is located in Red Deer. Eastview is one of my favourite schools b ecause all of my children have attended it, although it could use an upgrade. I'd like to introduce teachers Mrs. Charese Jones, Mr. Milton Williams, Mrs. Eleanor Cohen, Mrs. Karen Moon, and parents and helpers Mrs. Deborah Brown, Mrs. Jennifer Hardy, Mr. Ken Pozzolo, Mrs. Carol Cundal, Mrs. Laurie Valin, Mrs. Janet Baker, and Mrs. Shirley Kimmitt. They're seated in both the members' gallery and the public gallery.

I would ask them all to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. EV ANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions to make today. Firstly, seated in the members' gallery is Mr. Volodymyr Holovatenko. He teaches constitutional law at the Taras Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine. He's presently at the University of Alberta, Faculty of Law, as part of the legal training and curriculum development in Ukraine project.

He's one of several law professors from Ukraine who will come to Canadian law schools as part of this project. The object is to train Ukrainian law professors in market-oriented legal principles and to assist them in the development of new curriculums and the adoption of western teaching met hods to local needs. Mr. Holovatenko is currently studying constitutional law at the University of Alberta, and he's preparing a curriculum which he can then use upon his return to Ukraine.

As part of his legal experience in Canada he's also spending three days a week with the constitutional law branch of the Department of Justice. This practicum allows him to observe the operation of the Department of Justice as well as to observe the handling of specific constitutional issues. As I mentioned, he is seated in the members' gallery along with Nolan Steed from our constitutional branch in the Department of Justice. I would ask that they both rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assem- bly. I'm also pleased today, Mr.

Speaker, for actually the second day in a row to be able to introduce constituents of mine from the Banff-Cochrane constituency. Seated, again, in the members' gallery are students Brendan Mahoney and Steven Kaczmer, who are grade 9 students at Cochrane high school. They are accompa- nied by their teacher Wayne Gearey. The entire 218 students in grade 9 at Cochrane high are out on what amounts to a work experience practicum, going about southern Alberta and some are even moving this far into northern Alberta to take a look at how others work in various professional and other business fields.

I'm really pleased to have them here. I'd ask them to rise as well and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

734 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased and honoured to introduce to you and thr ough you to all members present two very fine individuals who happen to own a business in the lovely constituency of Edmonton-Avonmore. They are Frank and Kristie Farberman. They are still enjoying that wonderful period that accompanies the honeymoon aspect of one year of marriage. On behalf of the hon. members for Edmonton- Meadowlark and Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan and Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert, I would ask Frank and Kristie Farberman to rise and receive the proper due of this House. Welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm privileged today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly four students from the Forest Heights elementary school in Gold Bar. They're here today because they have earned the privilege of visiting this Legislature. They've earned that by interviewing various MLAs as a class project. These students were at the top of their class in that assignment.

They are Laura Raboud, Cristina L'Heureux, Tina Wild, and Stephanie Skinner. They're sitting in the public gallery. I'd ask them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the Assembly Mr. Greg Fedor, an instructor at the Leduc composite high school. He's in the members' gallery accompa- nied this afternoon by a group of very enthusiastic students and one parent, Gail Froland.

I would ask them to rise and have the Assembly give them a very warm welcome this afternoon. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege to be able to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly several representatives of the Alberta Registered Dietitians Association. They are here to help focus our attention on Alberta Nutrition Month. This is an opportunity for us all to reflect on the old adage that we are what we eat.

Joining us today in the Assembly is Mary Anne Yurkiw, the president of ARDA; Jacquie Rusk, who is a dietetic intern; Kelly Tappenden, the chair of Edmonton Nutrition Month; Kathryn Howden, the co-chair of Alberta Nutrition Month; and Corilee Watters, the co-chair of Alberta Nutrition Month. I've had an opportunity to meet with the registered dietitians on several occasions, and I can tell you that we could all take some advice from them. I would ask them to please rise and enjoy the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's with great pleasure this afternoon that I introduce to you and through you Clayton Wick. He's a grade 10 student at Jasper Place high school, and he's very interested in the political process. He's been job shadowing me all day today, and he had the privilege of having lunch with you as well, Mr. Speaker. He has most recently participated in the model parliament as the sergeant-at- arms and as a page. He is involved in a pilot project at JP high school, one of the first that'll be looking at implementing a youth justice committee.

He's also very involved in scuba diving, he's on the student council, and he's in Crime Stoppers. If that doesn't fill up his day, he's also a volunteer in the Meadowlark constituency office. It's with great pleasure that I introduce Clayton Wick, who is a very busy and energetic young man. If he'd please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege this afternoon to introduce two Alberta women who have a very keen interest in the activity of the Legislature and a particular interest in health care.

One is Jacquie Dunnigan from the city of Calgary, and accompa- nying her is Mrs. Bewley from St. Albert. I'd ask each of those women to stand and receive the usual warm welcome from members of the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination MR. MAR: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, March 21, is International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The United Nations proclaimed this day 30 years ago, in 1966, to commemorate the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, where peaceful demonstrators against apartheid were gunned down in a horrific display of racial discrimination. I would like to commend all the communities, schools and postsecondary institutions, cultural and multicultural organizations, churches, and other groups who are organizing events during the week and this month of March aimed at reducing discrimination and honouring this day.

I also wish to acknowledge the cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Red Deer, and Grande Prairie for officially recognizing the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination through proclamations. Mr. Speaker, as you recall, we both attended last Thursday's ceremonies that kicked off the activities organized by the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations. It was an honour for all in attendance to meet His Excellency Billy Modise, the high commissioner for the Republic of South Africa, and to listen to his keynote address at those ceremonies.

His Excellency spoke very personally and very movingly about the South African struggle to heal the wounds of oppressive racism. He said that one of the most healing things his country has done is to create an environment in which people can talk to each other across colour. I think we were all touched by His Excellency and also the comments made by the hon. member across the way the MLA for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, who shared her family's encoun- ters with racism. Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government is committed to eliminat- ing racism in this province in all its forms.

We accept that responsibility, but it is also a responsibility that is shared by every person who lives in this province. Every Albertan must look in the mirror and ask, “What difference can I make?” Albertans represent all races and all colours and all cultures, and as long as together we see each other as Albertans, I believe that we can eliminate racism. I call on members of this Assembly to join me in recognizing the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 735 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to add my comments on behalf of the Liberal caucus regarding this extremely important international event which targets the elimina- tion of racial discrimination. As a society and most certainly as elected officials we must use every opportunity to combat the hatred and oftentimes violence that is perpetuated by discrimina- tion based on such things as race, colour, creed, nationality, or country of origin.

Racism is not only like a disease; it is a disease, an extremely powerful and detrimental one capable of destroying an entire civilization if it is not halted and checked at every turn. We have seen racism in many forms and in many countries, Mr. Speaker, including apartheid in Africa, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, ghettoization in the U.S.A., and negative stereotyping in our own country, Canada. So it is naive to pretend that racism does not exist, and it is offensive and dangerous to stand idly by and do nothing but let it happen. That is our challenge today and every day.

Is it not the largest reason, in fact, why we sit in this Assembly, that being to help make Alberta a better place for everyone? Is it not in our best interest to promote and cultivate an Alberta society and a Canadian society based on dignity, respect, understanding, and acceptance, total acceptance, of each other as fellow human beings? Of course it is. Of course it is, because to do otherwise would be to run the risk of chaos, disharmony, and ultimately dysfunctionality as a society. Mr. Speaker, I too joined the hon. minister, yourself, and the hon.

Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan at the opening ceremonies of this particular Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination last week. I heard the high commissioner say some of the things that the minister has quoted him as saying, but I also heard him say something very, very powerful and very simple that I would like to share with the House. He said: it is good to be here in Canada, it is good to be the high commissioner for South Africa, and it is good and it feels good to be black. I would say that it feels good to be of any race, and we must perpetuate that kind of thinking. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations and numerous other individu- als and organizations throughout Alberta for their leadership in this fight to eliminate racial discrimination for the benefit and for the future of all of us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Oral Question Period Emergency Medical Services MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, Kevin Schmitz took his wife, who was pregnant and bleeding heavily, to the Foothills hospital on the night of February 12 and was told that there was no bed available for her.

His wife was forced to go through labour and experienced excessive bleeding with 15 to 20 onlookers in the lobby of the busy emergency ward. Unfortunately she eventually miscarried. How can the Minister of Health stick to her story that the quality of health care has not deteriorated since she and her government gutted the budget of Calgary hospitals? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I find any incident like the one that was just related unacceptable to the health system as it's been related.

Whenever an incident does occur – and they do, and they did five years ago and 10 years ago and 15 years ago, and unfortunately they may five years into the future – we investigate those incidents both through my office and through the regional health authority, one, for the sake of the person who has had the unfortunate experience and, two, to learn and ensure that no one else has to have a negative experience. Mr. Speaker, I've said before that a time of change is difficult. The change, the restructuring was necessary.

I believe we have to work together through this time of change to ensure that we have a better health system, one that is there for our children and our grandchildren into the future. That's what this side of the House is concentrating its efforts on. MR. MITCHELL: If this is what is happening now with overbur- dened emergency wards, can the Minister of Health please tell us exactly what she's going to do about emergency service delivery in Calgary when two more hospitals, the Calgary Bow Valley centre and the Holy Cross, will have been closed? MRS. McCLELLAN: Y es, I can, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the hon. member should know, if he were well informed, that the Holy Cross emergency is closed and has been. If the hon. member cared to get the information – and if he had been at my estimates, I'd have welcomed questions on this issue – he would know that there were expansions made to other emergencies to handle that. The hon. member would also know that none of those changes are made until the facilities are ready to accept those. So there has not been a downsizing.

There has been a transfer of resources and of beds, in fact in many cases much more up-to-date, state-of- the-art, first-class equipment in place. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, emergency services are important. I have had discussions with some of the emergency physicians, and we have talked about how we can work together to improve access to emergencies, even though the record in Calgary and in Edmonton and in many other places in this province supersedes that of anywhere in Canada. 1:50 MR.

MITCHELL: Will the Minister of Health commit to a full public consultation in Calgary on emergency hospital care before she shuts down any more Calgary hospitals? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, consultation goes on all the time in the health system, and I will continue as minister to have consultations with emergency physicians. I will continue to have conversations and meetings with any of the city administration or council. We have made a commitment to review all of ground ambulance, which is part of the emergency system.

The changes in emergency services in that city and in this city have been made with all of the information, the numbers of emergency calls, the types of emergency calls, to ensure that there were adequate emergency services. Going one step further, there will be a review with Public Safety Services, ourselves, and the regional health authorities across this province to ensure that our disaster services are current and updated. They are kept updated all of the time. Mr. Speaker, we have one of the finest emergency services in North America.

I encourage the hon. member to bring forward concrete ideas, not on status quo, not on doing things the old way, not on simply leaving things the way they are, but how do we improve that system within the dollars that we have to spend? Careful allocation of those dollars is important, and I really would sincerely look forward to constructive ideas from across the way.

736 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 Catholic School System MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, Catholic education is still under attack. This issue isn't about funding. It's about autonomy, about governance, and it's about democracy. Will the Minister of Education restore the ability of families of interfaith marriages to direct their property tax dollars to the Catholic education system when it's the Catholic education system that educates their children? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, first of all in terms of the tenor and the initial comment in the hon. leader's question, the only place in this country which is currently being viewed as possibly under attack is in a province ruled by a Liberal government. That aside, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the overall position of the government – and it has been consistently stated and consis- tently applied – we are respecting and continuing to respect and will respect in the future all of the constitutional guarantees and requirements upon us as a provincial government with respect to Catholic education in this province.

We have done that, we will continue to do that, and that is the position of the government. MR. MITCHELL: Will the Minister of Education restore the right of non-Catholic families to have their tax dollars follow their children when they attend Catholic schools? [interjection] MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a very contradictory type of second question b ecause it is unconstitutional, as I understand it at least, to direct non-Catholic families' money to a separate school board in this province. Therefore the answer is no, and that is what he asked about. MR. MITCHELL: Y ou said they are.

Y our Treasurer just said they were. Given that parents of alternative and charter school students sign agreements to abide by the philosophy of those schools, will the minister ensure that parents choosing to enroll their children in Catholic schools will make the same commitment? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I indicated to Catholic separate boards in this province that it is a clear under- standing that when a student enrolls in a Catholic separate school, they accept the overall direction and atmosphere of that sc hool. That's been stated before. There should be no question or concern about that.

Health Restructuring MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier won't take the time to develop a policy up front so that the taxpayers of this province can understand the true agenda for privatizing the health care system. Now, this government, which has had provincewide consultations on gambling, on gaming, on freedom of information, on how to spend the budget surplus, even on federal matters such as the Y oung Offenders Act, will still not engage in a public consultation regarding the privatization of health care.

Even the public meeting that was held in Forestburg recently regarding the privatization of the Islay and Galahad hospitals was not arranged for by the government. It wasn't even arranged for by the regional health authority. It wasn't arranged for by the local MLAs. It was arranged for by an ad hoc committee of very concerned citizens who could not get co-operation from the government. MR. DINNING: Is there a question coming? MR. SAPERS: Wait for it, Treasurer. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. Hon. member, your question. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Acting Premier please explain how it is decided which issues merit public consultation and which issues are dealt with in secret behind closed government doors? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague the Minister of Health would want to respond to the

preamble in the member's question. The bottom line is what this government stands for: quality health care for Albertans. That is our objective in absolutely everything that we are doing on this side of the House, and clearly the fuzzy member across the way can't quite get that straight. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I do have to respond to this.

For the hon. member to suggest in some way that it's inappropri- ate for concerned citizens in that area to arrange a meeting to discuss a methodology of delivering health care, one, is quite amazing and, two, is quite contradictory to what I've been hearing in the House in the past about who was involved in this meeting. I have met with that group, and I would like the hon. member to table something in this House th at states that those people were unable to access services from the Minister of Health, from this government, from their MLAs. That's a very serious statement. MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Speaker, the issue isn't what the citizens had to do; the issue is what the government wouldn't. Mr. Speaker, maybe the Acting Premier, instead of just standing in the Assembly and calling other people names . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question please. MR. SAPERS: Will, Mr. Speaker, the Acting Premier, instead of just calling people names, commit that not a single hospital will be privatized, not a single medical procedure delisted prior to a provincewide consultation regarding the government's agenda to create two-tiered health care in Alberta? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member knows that he's speaking nonsense. What this government stands for is quality health care for Albertans, and we will not compromise in any way our efforts to deliver quality health care for Albertans. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Premier please tell the Assembly, then, whose job he thinks it is to consult with Albertans regarding the fundamental change in the way health care services are provided? Is it not the role of government to do that consultation? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, there are 53 members of this Assembly who are consulting with Albertans every single day.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek.

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 737 2:00 Nurses' Input into Health Restructuring MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I attended a meeting earlier this week where presentations were made by the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, the Staff Nurses Association, and the United Nurses association. I was impressed by the presentations and initiatives the nurses are recommending on health care reform. What disturbed me were the comments made by UNA that nurses are afraid to speak out about their concerns in fear of retaliation and that they are in an environment which has been described as workplace terrorism.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. What recourse do these nurses have so that they are not fearful of losing th eir jobs when they have genuine concerns about what is happening in the workplace? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I'll say that from time to time I hear on this particular topic from some nurses who say that they have good ideas and want to raise them. Sometimes those ideas are related to management efficiencies; sometimes those ideas are related to improvements within their own union struc- ture. They have shared with me concerns. It might be related to management.

It might be related to a process negotiated by their own representatives, for instance, the whole process of bumping. I've said to them, you know, you have to take that to either the appropriate management channel or to your appropriate union representative. They've said at times – it doesn't happen a lot but I do hear – that they're intimidated from doing that, sometimes to approach management, sometimes to approach their own union representative. That's unfortunate.

All we can do is to really encourage a message, get that message out there that people who have good ideas in whatever framework they find themselves should be able to bring those ideas forward without fear of any kind of retribution. There are certain remedies that are in place for either an employer or in fact a union representative who would try and take some kind of retributive action against an employee for having a good idea. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister then: what are the repercussions to the employer for retaliating against an employee? MR.

DA Y: Well, I can say very clearly that if an employer were ever to retaliate against an employee simply because they had some good suggestions that they wanted to bring forward, then there are a number of remedies that could be pursued by that particular employee, not the least of which would be to take that as a grievance to their union representative and have that union representative go through the grievance process and have the particular action that had been taken reversed. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How many complaints have been lodged and what has been done about them? MR. DA Y: Complaints that have come to me, Mr. Speaker, have always been at the request that they are confidential, and they have come informally.

When they have come to me – you don't hear it a lot, but I know that it's out there – again it's an em- ployee who either is in fear of their employer and the reaction they might get because the employee's trying to bring forward some suggestions on improvement, or sometimes I hear the employee saying that there's some intimidation from their union representative because they want to bring forward suggestions on the union operation. I would say that it's not every day I do hear them. They're usually informal, and unfortunately confidentiality is usually requested just because of the nature of the fear.

In those cases I encourage them to take the necessary steps, to do the responsible thing: bring forward their concern and have it addressed. There are ways in which they would be protected if any intimidating action were to take place. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. Workers' Compensation Board MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table five documents this afternoon. These tablings will clearly show that the WCB contravened its own Act.

Quoting from one of those internal WCB documents: It should be pointed out that while Management considers newspaper carriers to be workers, there is . . . reluctance to assess them because of the ne wspaper's potential to generate adverse publicity for the Board. My question is to the Minister of Labour, responsible for the WCB. Does the minister condone the setting of WCB policy based on the board's concern of adverse publicity from the newspapers? MR.

DA Y: Well, let's first congratulate the WCB on the remark- able turnaround over the last three years in reduced rates to employers, rebates to employers, increased benefits to employees, and in fact increased and improved service to employees. The member opposite for Leduc is well known for making irresponsible statements. He's done it again here today. One of the things that's unique about WCB is that it probably has the potential of receiving more media attention possibly than any other operation in the province, because there was something like 33,000 different injuries and claims last year.

So the WCB is very familiar with media attention. What I think this member should do is go and speak to the board of directors of the WCB. That would be the union representatives, the labour representatives on that board, the business representatives, and the public representatives. He should go outside of this House and say to them face to face that he thinks they are afraid of the media, and that's why there's some concern about coverage of newspaper carriers. I think he should do that. MR. KIRKLAND: Mr. Speaker, information presented is factual and written. Mr.

Minister, how can injured Alberta workers be confident their due entitlement and protecti on are being addr essed by the WCB when policy is being set based on potential adverse publicity from the newspaper industry? MR. DA Y: I've just addressed that, Mr. Speaker, and I would again encourage this member to take these outrageous allegations that the board of directors – that's the labour unions represented there, large and small business, and the public that are represented around that table – are living in fear of the media, and therefore, they're classifying newspaper carriers in some specific category.

I would again say: take that to the board. I know for a fact that the board, the CEO, the chairman of the WCB, has extended

738 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 invitations many times to this member to come and sit down and discuss any area of policy at all. MR. KIRKLAND: I've availed myself of that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Minister, how many other employers have been able to exclude or sidestep employee coverage due to the potential to generate adverse publicity? MR.

DA Y: Well, by continually exposing himself to be a totally irresponsible critic of the WCB, I think we've just been signaled what indeed is behind this type of questioning, which makes it very obvious to the public that this is not a person that should be supported in an elected position. I think he's signaling that he's going to be following the other member. He's giving us a signal that he's finishing up his time in politics. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. 2:10 Economic Outlook MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the fact that the Liberal opposition have no economic development platform and choose instead to stick to a desperate policy of personally attacking every minister, minister's spouse, minister's associate, or any Albertan that contributes to public life in this province and despite their attempts to disparage every potential outside investor that the government meets with, despite all of that, the Alberta advantage is alive and well. My question to the minister of economic development. The Bank of Montreal predicted yester- day that Alberta's economy will be stronger than any other province's this year.

Can the minister tell us why and how they've achieved that reasoning? MR. SMITH: A biting question, Mr. Speaker, and a good

preamble too, sir. The Bank of Montreal indicated that they forecast growth for Alberta to be at about 2.75 percent. We have predicted it at about 2.5 percent, conservatively speaking of course, while the rest of Canada is at 1.9 percent. The Bank of Montreal attributed this growth to strength in the oil and gas sector, tar sands development strategy, increased consumer spending due to continued low taxes, and again Alberta's continued strong private sector in demonstrat- ing its export proficiency. In fact, it's 30 percent of our GDP.

It's so positive because of the Alberta advantage, because of a balanced budget, because Albertans have choices. For brevity, Mr. Speaker, I just will table Alberta Advantage for the benefit of members opposite and ask that perhaps other wealth-creating ministries in the government might wish to supplement. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we identify the contribution that agriculture is making to the economy of this province. Last year, for example, 16,400 new agricultural jobs were created, the largest gain among major industries in Alberta.

The employment in primary agriculture increased 18.1 percent. Increased 18.1 percent. Alberta's primary agricultural industry continues to maintain the lowest unemployment of any industry: 1.6 percent last year. That's very, very significant to the contribution. Alberta led all provinces in value adding in primary production in 1994, the highest primary producer in agriculture in 1994. In terms of agricultural products sold, Alberta farm cash receipts . . . THE SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order. [interjec- tions] Order please. The hon. minister was supplementing, not answering the main question.

Supplemental question. MR. MAGNUS: Mr. Speaker, proof of the Alberta advantage is given by . . . THE SPEAKER: Question, hon. member. MR. MAGNUS: My question to the minister of economic development, Mr. Speaker: can the minister inform the House of the reaction of outside investors to the Alberta advantage . . . Speaker's Ruling Seeking Opinions THE SPEAKER: Order please. This question has not been crafted right from the very beginning. He's asking for comments and opinions and not for government policy or responses. Hon. member, recraft your question. Economic Outlook (continued) MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Can the minister of economic development tell the House what other investments have been made in Alberta recently? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I can't speak for all the investments made in Alberta, and I know other ministers will again want to stand up and supplement this answer, but I will tell you that with Nova and Union Carbide and those major invest- ments and the investments in agriculture, forestry, and petroleum thankfully the Liberal opposition is bankrupting themselves and not Albertans. MRS. BLACK: Mr.

Speaker, just to supplement, the type of investment that is available for Albertans to visually see is the number of rig activity levels that are occurring from investment. In fact as of last week we had an 88 percent rig level activity within the province of Alberta. We also had on March 6, which was our most recent public offering of oil and natural gas bonuses, a $37 million land sale that occurred, which provides for confidence for investment and development within the province.

In addition to that, the recent CAODC report was that they anticipate drilling approximately 1 1,000 wells in the province this year. So those are all part of the factors that are leading to the Alberta advantage and are actually coming here because of the Alberta advantage. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental, hon. member. [interjec- tions] Final supplemental. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again . . . [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Hon. members are wasting the time of the Assembly with this noise. This member is entitled to a final supplemental question. AN HON. MEMBER: It's okay, Richard.

Y ou don't do this enough. Y ou get an extra one.

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 739 THE SPEAKER: It is not an extra one. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister of economic development inform this House of the r eaction of outside investors to the Alberta advantage? THE SPEAKER: No, he cannot. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Video Lottery Program MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is under increasing fire for exploiting Albertans who can least afford it by preying on people's weaknesses. Now we learn that the government may be misleading Albertans in terms of gambling payouts.

To the minister responsible for gambling: will the minister come clean and tell Albertans exactly what the percentage payouts are for the government slot machines? THE SPEAKER: Order please. Before the hon. minister commences, the Chair would urge the hon. member to clean up his description in his questions and not use terms like that. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked in various forms over and over. In fact, the previous Member for Redwater, that is now in the Senate I understand, asked Question 163 and several questions that relate to it.

I have answers, again, I'm going to file that have already been filed to Question 163 on the Order Paper. It said, “What are the detailed procedural steps used to determine the 92 percent payout level of video lottery terminals owned by the government?” I'm amazed at these questions, because they asked them on the Order Paper. They received the answer in due process, and it's on file already. So I would file them once again and ask the hon. member to look at them. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: is the minister prepared to establish an independent body to ensure that all gambling and lottery games in Alberta are fair? DR. WEST: I'll answer the question in two forms. We have, we'll continue to do so, and the answer is yes, yes, and yes. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my final question: will the minister do the right thing for Albertans and junk those machines now? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, we have an independent group in New Jersey that does North American standardization of these ma- chines. That's a supplemental to the last answer I gave them.

We've been using them and they use them across North America to set the standards on the payouts, the 92 percent payout. As far as getting rid of the machines, we have, through the Gordon report, ample evidence brought forth by the police, both the RCMP and city police, to say that removing these machines would be the worst thing you could do, that there would be an immediate underground movement of certain games across the province.

Provinces that haven't taken a stance as far as legaliz- ing them and then protecting the public against the misuse of them have found the gray machines exploded as B.C. did when they had 10,000 machines before they had to step in. I don't think the answer is removing them, but I do believe that taking the steps we have – and we'll always as a society have to revisit this issue. There are certain individuals less fortunate than the rest of us that get addicted to these machines as they get addicted to other things in our society, and we must show compassion and understanding and try to help those individuals.

It's not that we're here to promote this initiative of gambling, but you can't stick your head in the sand and deny that it's part of North America's societal policies at the time. People go out of this province to Regina at the present time on tour buses to gamble. They go to the United States and spend about $2 billion a year from Alberta, so denying that would be ridiculous. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod. 2:20 Tourism Education Council MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the great successes of the Alberta economy has been the tourism industry, and a great part of that success has been due to the work of the Alberta Tourism Education Council, or ATEC as we in the industry refer to it. It was established in 1988, and its purpose has been to improve education and training for frontline hospital- ity employees. ATEC has grown to the point where it is self- sustaining and does not need government involvement. My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. Can you inform this House as to the status of the privatization of ATEC? THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed the Alberta Tourism Education Council has been a great success and primarily due to dedicated staff and the work of a private-sector board, again a number of volunteers who were helping out government. Over 30,000 Albertans in the industry have taken

part in the program. It is an Alberta Best program, that has been sold to the city of Edmonton, the Manitoba Tourism Education Council, Northwest Territories council, and the Scotland Tourism Training Board. The program for hospitality employees has been contracted to seven provinces and two territories. Last year in September they were incorporated as a nonprofit society. Y esterday a memorandum of understanding between ATEC and the government was signed, and the new organization had their first board meeting. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then what are the responsibilities of the government towards ATEC now that ATEC has been privatized? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact the private company will receive the assets of the agency: the balance of the tourism education fund, which is about $450,000, all receivables that they have generated themselves, office space, telephone services, intellectual property – and I think that intellectual property comes from the fact that the present Minister of Labour was the first chairman of ATEC – and the benefits of the contracts the former agency entered into. MR.

COUTTS: My final supplemental to the minister: what are

740 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 the obligations of ATEC under this new agreement? MR. SMITH: Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Speaker, ATEC will carry out the mandate of the former agency, and that is to meet present and future education and training needs of Alberta's tourism industry. They'll carry on the business plan, and they will work towards profit and be acc ountable to the province by providing reports such as audited financial statements and quarterly unaudited statements. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, this is another contribution by the private sector to the private sector th at ensures that we will remain tourism friendly in the province of Alberta and that all Albertans and all tourists coming in will continue to receive a high level and a true Alberta welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. Group Home Fatality MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The personal hell that young John McKinnon went through was tragic, and just like all other child welfare tragedies, it was preventable.

This young child was so distraught that he personally called the Minister of Family and Social Services asking for help. Had common sense and compassion prevailed, this young life could have been saved and a family's terrible grief and loss prevented. My questions are to the minister. Why was John placed in the same group home as the young bully who tormented him and beat him up in his home town in Athabasca? It was negligent to place him in the same home. MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, of course the fatality inquiry report was just released yesterday on this particular issue, and it's again another very unfortunate issue that we have to deal with. Our department is responsible for such a very sensitive area. We do look after close to 9,000 cases of children's files right now, and we are putting processes in where communities will be involved in designing programs at the community level involving families in order to provide the preventative programs that are required. We will continue doing that. In this case, Mr.

Speaker, because of the Child Welfare Act and the confidentiality clause in that, I cannot release any information in that specific case. I am sure that if I were allowed to do that, the public out there would understand that this department tried everything possible to deal with that specific issue. If the member opposite wants to find out in detail what our department did to assist that family, all she has to do is phone the mother, who has the information, and I hope the mother would provide what our department tried to do to help that family. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Minister, I've had numerous conversations with the mother of that child. Did the minister seek a professional assessment about placing John in the group home, and on whose advice did the minister rely when he placed this child? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, this member knows well that I cannot specifically release information on individual cases, yet she asks the question. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the opposition today, their questions were first on health care, education, social services, as if they really care what happens in Alberta.

Just remember that the Leader of the Opposition just r ecently sup- ported the federal budget that cut hundreds of millions of dollars in social support programs. That is where they stand. MS HANSON: Mr. Minister, how could a boy who continuously threatened suicide be placed in a home where the department inquiry revealed, the inquiry of the department itself, that the staff had no training in identifying or preventing suicide? This was a 13-year-old boy. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, we have very competent staff out there, and they have the best training in North America to deal with various issues.

Again, incidents happen. It is very, very unfortunate. We look after close to 9,000 children at this time, and we are increasing the budgets. In fact, we just announced recently that as we redesign programs for children's services, not only did we increase the budget for that department, but we also hired frontline workers, an additional 50 frontline workers in fact, to work with issues of this nature. In addition to that, we announced a $50 million budget . . . MRS. BLACK: How much? MR. CARDINAL: . . . a $50 million budget, Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the normal budget to work on preventative programs, because that is the direction this government is going. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. Philip Environmental MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. Today an Edmonton court imposed a fine of $100,000 on a company for environmental offences and a jail sentence for one of the com- pany's employees. Can the minister please provide the Assembly with some of the details of this case? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR.

LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually this infraction occurred back in November of '93, and at that time the depart- ment learned that the company, Philip Environmental services, had delivered some hard hydrocarbons to the Clover Bar landfill in the city of Edmonton. Now, of course the landfill is licensed to handle certain material, but it was determined that these were materials that had been delivered with falsified documents. So the court today fined the company $100,000 and also issued a jail sentence of three months to the former employee who falsified these documents. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question.

MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Environmental Protection tell the Assembly: what is the signifi- cance of this case? MR. LUND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is very significant, because the policy of the government is that we will come down very hard on people that violate the regulations. We intend to

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 741 protect the environment. That's why we have such stringent regulations. I think it sends out a clear message that we are very serious about our role of protecting the environment and making sure that companies and individuals in fact do follow the regula- tions. 2:30 THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the residents of Edmonton and Albertans if the environment and human health are at risk due to the activities of this company? MR. LUND: Mr.

Speaker, any time that you're dealing with hydrocarbons of course there is a risk, so we will be monitoring, along with the city of Edmonton, the landfill very closely. If there's any indication of a rise in the hydrocarbons in the tests, then in fact there will be remedial action taken, but currently there is nothing at risk, the environment and/or public health. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mayfield. Interleukin-2 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to make a personal appeal to the Minister of Health on behalf of Mr. Richard Potter of Cochrane. Mr.

Potter has been diagnosed as having skin cancer. He has been given by his doctor less than one year to live unless he gets the use of a drug called interleukin- 2. He is not a rich man, and in fact the $2,800 per month his treatment costs will make him choose between his life and his life savings. Despite the fact that he has made personal appeals by letter, in writing, to his member and the Minister of Health, Alberta Health has refused to pay for this treatment. Madam Minister, with one word from you Alberta Health will pay for his service and his treatment. Will you say yes today? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, the first concern I have is that I to the best of my knowledge do not recall receiving this information from this hon. member. I believe that if a member has a concern from a constituent on a matter as important and grave as this is, it should be brought to the minister's attention at the first opportunity. Secondly, I have continually fielded questions in this House about the confidentiality of persons' medical information from across the way. Frankly, I am not comfortable discussing in this House persons' confidential medical information.

I hold that in the greatest confidence, and I will not discuss that in this House. The hon. member can pick up the phone – it's 427-3665 – or walk over to room 127, Legislature Building, and I will be happy to discuss this with him or the person involved. MR. WHITE: Arising from the answer, Madam Minister, will you commit today to meeting this man that has in fact delivered to your office by fax and by mail this request? As well, he has asked us, this office, to ask you the question, because he has not received an answer, and he's most in need of an answer. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I will answer a question on this matter only in one way and that is to deal with the use of the drug interleukin-2. Anyone who wants to meet or speak with the minister on a subject such as this does get that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, interleukin-2 has not been considered by the expert drug committee, because it has not been submitted by the manufacturer. We have an expert drug committee in this province to ensure that all important ne w drugs are scrutinized, investi- gated, and a decision is made as to whether they're added to our program.

It is also not covered under the outpatient cancer drugs, because it is not utilized in direct treatment. All members should know that we pay through the Cancer Board for cancer treatment drugs. Albertans do not pay for cancer treatment drugs. However, as this is not a drug that is used in direct treatment, it cannot be included in that program. There are some steps that must be followed for drugs to be added to our list. For it to be considered under Blue Cross, it has to be considered in this way. For it to be considered by the expert committee, it has to be submitted, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam Minister, despite all that you've said about the drug and about the letters, my question is simply this agai n: will you commit to meet with this man or his representatives before the week is out? MRS. McCLELLAN: My office will look after the scheduling of my meeting with people. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I will speak to and meet with any person who has a concern to raise with me. However, Mr. Speaker, I have laid out in the House today the reasons for interleukin-2 not being utilized in Alberta at this time. We have policies.

We hear consistently: where is your policy? Well, there is the policy. A policy is a policy, and when you put an expert committee in place to do a job, you let them do it. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of concern about ministerial author- ity, about the ability for ministers to make decisions on some basis that might not be in policy. We have a policy. There are hundreds and thousands of new drugs that come into play every day, every week, every month in the world. Every one of those drugs has to be assessed on the ability of it to contribute a positive income to the delivery of health services in this province.

We have a policy. We're following the policy. MR. SAPERS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MRS. McCLELLAN: I will endeavour to address this question directly with the person who has submitted it to my office in what is the very proper way. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Macleod. Hosting of Sports Tournaments MR. COUTTS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This last weekend the constituency of Pincher Creek-Macleod hosted two provincial final sporting events, not unlike other communities in the province which we heard about earlier this week in this Assembly.

The progressive community of Pincher Creek hosted the A boys basketball tournament at St. Michael's separate school, where eight teams from across the province participated in St. Michael's proud new gymnasium. The winners for the sportsmanship award were the Erle Rivers Comets from Milk River. The consolation went to the Calgary Heritage Hawks. Third place went to the

742 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 Erle Rivers Comets from Milk River, and second place went to the Vegreville St. Mary's Saints. The championship team came from Olds, the Koinonia Royals. The tournament chairman, Barry Leith, and his dedicated group of faithful volunteers ran a very successful event. Likewise, the historic community of Fort Macleod hosted another eight team provincial at om B hockey tournament at the local rec centre. The champions were from Lac La Biche, called the Lac La Biche Raptors. Second place went to the Three Hills Hawks.

The tournament chairman, Dwayne Skog, and the Fort Macleod Minor Hockey Association ran an equally successful event. Participants and families I witnessed and from all of the accountings I got really enjoyed the competition, the hospitality, the facilities, and our breathtaking part of the province. Some even made side trips to the Oldman River dam and to the Head- Smashed-In interpretative centre.

Besides an appreciation for coaches and family support and experiencing firsthand school spirit, I came away from the weekend very proud to know that small communities can do an excellent job of hosting provincial events. For all participants it becomes an exchange of ideas that friendships are built on. Communities get an opportunity to showcase to the rest of the province their fine facilities, truly a tribute to the elected repre- sentatives. Sponsorship support is always evident, and the business

section is very proud of that community spirit. To all the communities in Alberta: thanks for your efforts, your vision, your dedication. Y ou are a part of the Alberta advantage for our young people. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. 2:40 Registered Dietitians MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nutrition and proper eating habits are the expertise of members of the Alberta Regis- tered Dietitians Association. This organization under the Regis- tered Dietitians Act ensures public protection by maintaining high standards of practice and education for all of its members.

These professionals are graduates of a four-year nutrition program at an accredited university. Completion of an undergrad- uate degree is followed by one or two years of practical experi- ence in the form of an internship or advanced studies at the graduate level. March is Nutrition Month across Canada, sponsored by the Canadian Dietetic Association. As we all know, these are busy times we live in. We are running off to meetings, family commitments, and busy work schedules, which certainly take a toll on our eating habits.

While consumer interest in nutrition is at an all-time high, a recent poll from the Dietetic Association also points out that lack of time is affecting our food choices. I'm sure that many of us here today will confess to partaking in drive-through dining when rushed for time rather than having a well-planned meal. This is where the insight and expertise of a registered dietitian can be of great assistance.

Dietitians are often asked by individuals, “How can I eat well given my busy lifestyle?” The answer is: “Y ou can't afford not to eat well, especially when your lifestyle is busy.” Fruits are an excellent source of energy and better for you than chips and chocolate bars. Involve the family. Make healthy eating and meal planning a family event. This is both educational for the kids and quality time for family members. Health care of the future is moving towards a wellness-based model.

Registered dietitians are committed to helping Albertans maximize their health not only through disease prevention but also through health promotion. Nutrition pays a major role in people's well-being throughout all stages of their lives in sickness and in health, and we congratu- late the Alberta Registered Dietitians for their role in educating Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Three Hills-Airdrie. Terrorism MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is said that there are moments in time when the majority of people can remember exactly where they were when a particular incident occurred.

An example might be when President Kennedy was assassinated or when the space shuttle Challenger blew up. A day like that for me was in November of 1985. I was with my sons watching the Grey Cup game on television when a news flash cut in, and there on the screen were two of my very good friends, Harvey and Leah Uffelman of Beiseker. They were obviously distressed and trying very hard to control their emo- tions. We listeners were told that they were waiting to find out the fate of their daughter, Valinda Leonard, and their 16-month- old grandson, Andrew.

Twenty-four hours earlier it had been reported that Egypt air flight 648, destined from Athens to Cairo, had been hijacked. The plane had been diverted to Malta, where it was sitting on the tarmac of the airport. The reason for the news flash was that Egyptian commandos had stormed the plane, and as they had done so, the terrorists inside had detonated hand grenades inside the plane filled with hostages. It was known at that time that many had died. The news turned out to be tragic. Valinda and Andrew were two of 60 people that died that day in this totally senseless act of violence.

Eleven years have gone by, Mr. Speaker, and finally the terrorist in charge of the Abu Nadel terrorist cell responsible for the hijacking is going to court in the United States. It would appear that the trade-off for the extradition of this man was that he would not face the death penalty. His charge for the murder of 60 people is one count of air piracy, for which the maximum penalty is life in jail.

This justice is neither swift nor is it just, but I suppose at this time in our history as a civilization when the rights of people who perpetrate evil are much more important than the rights of the victims, it may be the most that we can hope for, that he will be found guilty and live a very long time in that little cell. It is my hope that the pain my friends Harvey and Leah have lived with for the last 1 1 years will be a little less as this man faces the charges brought against him.

But for all of us here in Alberta this is just a little reminder that no matter where terrorism occurs, it diminishes and hurts all of us. head: Projected Government Business THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order 7(5) I'd like to ask the Government House Leader what the plans are for next week. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, for next week, on Monday, March 25,

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 743 in the afternoon we'll be in Comm ittee of the Whole looking at Bills 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and, depending on pr ogress of those, possible consideration on second reading of Bills 15, 16, and 17. In the evening we'll be in Committee of Supply for the estimates of the lottery fund and then introduction of the Appropriation Act, 1996, which is Bill 22.

On Tuesday in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders we will be giving consideration and second reading to Bills 18, 20, 21, and 25, and in the evening we will continue second reading considerations, depending on the progress of Tuesday afternoon. I'll do that in consultation with the Opposition House Leader, in terms of which Bills to consider that particular evening. For Wednesday and Thursday that process would also be the same. We will look at progress, and in discussion with the Opposition House Leader in time for him to inform his caucus, we will look at the order of Bills to be taken.

Also on each of the days Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we would progress as per usual with each reading of Bill 22, the Appropriation Act. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we deal with points of order, we'll deal with the ruling on the matter of the privilege that was raised on Tuesday. But before doing that, the Speaker would like to apologize for losing track of the supplementals earlier this afternoon. There was just too much variety. Privilege Threatening a Member THE SPEAKER: On Tuesday, March 19, 1996, the hon.

Opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. The basis for the question of privilege is a letter dated March 16, 1996, from Mr. Robert Burgener, a lawyer in the city of Edmonton, on behalf of his client, a Mr. Robert Talbot, to the Leader of the Opposition. As a preliminary matter the Chair finds that the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity and that sufficient notice was provided. The March 16, 1996, letter from Mr. Burgener states in the first sentence that his client has been informed by a local media outlet that Mr.

Mitchell intends “to raise issues in the Legislature concerning him personally.” The letter then states: I am instructed to inform you that Mr. Talbot shall pursue his legal remedies in the event that he considers any statements made by yourself or your party to be defamatory. The second paragraph of the letter states: Mr. Talbot believes you may feel unaccountable for any statements that you make in the Legislature. Mr.

Talbot requests that I make it absolutely clear that he will pursue his legal remedies in the event that you make any misleading or derogatory statements which may impugn his character or reputation. It seems that Mr. Burgener is only concerned with comments that may be made in the Assembly. There may be some ambiguity over what is meant when he says that his client will “pursue his le gal remedies,” but this is fairly well-known legal language which includes the possibility of initiating a court action. The basis of the question of privilege brought by the hon.

Opposition House Leader, as reported at page 662 of Hansard, is that the letter is “a clear threat to the Member for Edmonton- McClung.” The Chair notes the references by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

The classic statement on contempts is found in Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 1 15, where it is stated: Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt.

Griffith and Ryle in their book Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures state the following at page 92, after citing the above-noted quotation from Erskine May: Such obstruction or impedence is essentially restricting freedom of speech in the House (for example by intimidation of those who might speak) or freedom of its proceedings. 2:50 The prohibition against threatening members is clearly a contempt or a breach of privilege in Alberta.

Section 10(2)(

b) of the Legislative Assembly Act lists as one of the acts that consti- tutes a contempt or a breach of privilege (

b) obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a Member in any matter relating to his office. The issue becomes, then, whether the letter from Mr. Burgener to the Leader of the Opposition was a threat. In this regard the Chair has some hesitation. The letter from Mr. Burgener could be classified as putting Mr. Mitchell on notice, but of course the question is: on notice for what? Under the protection of freedom of speech, statements made in the House cannot be questioned in any court. Not only has that been part of Parliaments' privileges at least since the English Bill of Rights in 1689, but it is codified in

section 13 of the Legislative Assembly Act. To take a proceeding against a member for what is said in the House is a breach of privilege or contempt of the House as demonstrated by

section 10(2)(

k) of that Act. The Chair would note that the statement of claim that has been filed in this matter does not directly refer to comments made in the House, nor could it. The Chair tabled a letter from Mr. Burgener in the House yesterday that indicates that it was not his nor his client's intention to stif le free debate in the Legislature. If, however, that was the intention, then the March 16, 1996, letter could have referred to comments that might have been made outside the House. There was no such reference.

The Chair has been concerned for some time that while freedom of speech is perhaps the most cherished of parliamentary privi- leges, there must be a correlative duty for members to act responsibly in exercising that privilege. As the Opposition House Leader indicated on March 19, 1996, Erskine May states at page 126 that “threatening a Member with . . . trial at some future time for a question asked in the House” has been held to be a contempt in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.

Reference was made to a Speaker's ruling in Saskatchewan on April 26, 1984, where there was held to be a prima facie question of privilege. In that case a lawyer had written a letter to a member and issued a statement of claim which referred explicitly to comments made in the Assemb ly. In that case the member claimed that the letter and the statement of claim were threatening to the member and served to obstruct him in the carrying out of his duties. It should be added that the Chair has been unable to locate any previous Speaker's ruling in Alberta on this matter.

The Chair finds that there is technically a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair would add that the Assembly may wish to consider the subsequent documentation by Mr. Burgener and that it appears there is no allegation in the statement of claim about remarks in the House. The Chair would also note that the

744 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 Saskatchewan matter was essentially cleared up when the lawyer sent a letter which was considered an apology for his offending letter. The Chair would like to make two other points. This ruling does not affect the action that has been launched against certain members, as it is the Chair's understanding that the action relates to comments made outside the House.

Joseph Maingot states in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 96: While it is clear that the member is afforded absolute privilege in law for acts done and words said during a parliamen- tary proceeding, he speaks outside the House at his peril without the protection of parliamentary privilege.

The Chair would refer members to a ruling in the House of Commons on June 10, 1993, where it was said at page 20694 of Hansard that what a member says outside the House about anyone is subject to the laws of the land relating to libel or slander as it would be for any other Canadian – if indeed the comments are actionable. Finally, the Chair wants to st ress to all members that the protections that have been developed over the centuries to ensure freedom of speech in Legislatures are really a gift from the electorate to ensure that members can effectively represent their interests.

Members must be aware that the extraordinary privilege that we have in this Assembly carries a duty to act responsibly. Any misuse of the privilege of free speech may cause people to question its necessity, which would be a sad day for all legislators and the people of this province. The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Beauchesne 11 8 requires that “a complaint of . . . privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action.” Would it be appropriate to now make such a motion? I have a motion ready to table. THE SPEAKER: No.

It would be appropriate to give notice of motion. MR. BRUSEKER: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will give oral notice of motion that such a motion to conclude this matter will be intro- duced in the Legislature at the appropriate time on Monday next. THE SPEAKER: Thank you. Points of order. The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Point of Order Confidentiality MRS. FORSYTH: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on a point of order.

Section 23(

l) states: “introduces any matter in debate which offends the practices and [procedures] of the Assembly.” The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mayfield asked a question pertaining to a specific person. Ministers are not free to publicly discuss a personal matter, and I'll refer you to Beau- chesne 41 1(2): “seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of Cabinet or advice . . .” I submit that personal medical details in their nature are secret, and if they are, it offends the practice of the Assembly to pry into personal details.

On this particular point that I have called, there are probably 83 members in this Assembly who have all had constituents come to them with some sort of personal matter, whether it is cancer treatment, suicide, drug addiction, or whatever. I have always found that when I have gone directly to the minister involved and talked to them on a personal note, they have done their best to help this person. I find if offensive. I find it disgusting to come in front of this Legislature and plead for a case when he can go to the minister and ask her, because she's very kind and consider- ate in doing all of that. MR.

WHITE: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the minister is kind and considerate, yes, and I do believe that this Assembly is the place to raise issues as they relate to an individual citizen of this province. It is their right. This is the court of last resort. This is the place it has to be raised, sir, and to have the member all indignant and tell this House that it is not the place – I expect that she should probably contact that person we mentioned earlier and tell him that he does not have the right to have it raised here, particularly when he has written and faxed his member.

Perhaps his member didn't have time to get to talk to the minister; I'm not sure. I don't chide him for that at all, but the minister has received in her office faxes and letters from this man. Now, I don't have any difficulty with being chastised. If I had done something wrong, I would freely admit it, but this man has been on radio, on television. He's been interviewed to no avail. This man is dying of this cancer. I'll tell you again. He has the choice between his life and his life savings. He is going to choose to spend his life savings on this, and we're merely asking, if you listened carefully, to say yes.

She didn't. She had the other option. The second question in the supplementaries was: will you meet with him? Now, is that wrong? If that is wrong in this House, would the member please – please, please – tell me what this member's job is, if it is not to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford wishes to participate, but the Chair feels that it has heard enough to make a ruling, and that is that citation 41 1(2) does not apply to what happened here this afternoon. The Chair did not hear the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mayfield ask for any information that was secret, and the Chair believes the questions asked were in order and there is no point of order. The hon. Member for Leduc. Point of Order Allegations against Members MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rose earlier in the Assembly on a point of order. It was 23(

h) and (j), and (

h) is “makes allegations against another member.” When I advanced a question this afternoon, I took great care to table legal docu- ments associated with that question which substantiated those allegations. Now, the hon. Minister of Labour in his usual self- righteous method accused me of being irres ponsible. I would suggest that if in fact he is accusing me of irres ponsibility by tabling legal documents, he also suggests that the legal profes- sional that prepared the documents and the court system have to be covered by that irresponsibility charge that he leveled at me.

I did not advance any false information regarding the question that I put here in this Assembly this afternoon. Now, the hon. Minister of Labour will often stand and give you one side of the picture, his usual selective tirade about the Workers' Compensation Board. There are two sides, Mr. Speaker. He speaks to the financial side, and I acknowledge that they've done an admirable job in seeking that bottom line. As you know, there's another side to that story, and it is incumbent on me as an opposition member to advance that particular other side.

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 745 Now, in the last 10 days I've received three individuals that have approached his office for assistance to no avail. Clearly the minister knows that in fact the system is not working as it is intended or expected to, and when you look at the financial aspect – and it's a good, sound line – one has to ask: who paid the price? As he knows by the injured workers of Alberta calling his office, it's the injured workers that have paid that price. So his accusa- tion that I'm advancing false information – clearly, he is guilty of that very accusation. Mr.

Speaker, he has continued to make that allegation on several occasions in this particular House. As I indicated, this is a researched question. If he would take the time to read the legal documentation, he would know that in fact the information he is giving to this House is not correct, nor is it accurate. Y ou can continue to bury your head in the sand, Mr. Minister, but there was nothing irresponsible about that question I asked this afternoon. It's been a 10-year problem, it will be resolved very shortly, and it's not with the assistance of the Labour minister. Clearly it isn't.

It has to be forced outside the issue. Take the time to read those documents, Mr. Minister. Y ou'll find that in fact what I advanced to this House is very accurate, so I would ask you to retract your comments about my irresponsible behavior. MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, you will certainly rule as you see fit. My guess is that you'll probably rule this is not a point of order; it's a point of clarification between members, which actually does not exist in Standing Orders or Beauchesne, but members, when they've been stung, especially publicly, do feel a need to try and recoup some of the losses.

I will go on to say, as it is my right to say, that I feel the Member for Leduc is absolutely, completely irresponsible in his actions, and he talked about selective hearing.

There is rarely a time when I am discussing WCB and the financial turnaround that I do not also mention, and many times mention first, as I did today – and what was wrong with his ears, I do not know – the turnaround in service capabilities to the injured workers and also the fact that there has been a turnaround in terms of increased benefits to injured workers, shortened time lines by which those workers receive their moneys, considerably shortened time lines, many improvements, including injured workers' surveys that even say – this isn't me saying it – that service has improved. Mr.

Speaker, talking about selective hearing, I said that today as I do every day. I do not only talk about the remarkable financial turnaround. Then the member opposite uses the phrase “legal document.” Does that mean any letter written? What we have here is a memo that is almost 1 1 years old written by an individual in the WCB to somebody who would be – and I don't say this disrespectfully – at best middle management in assessment management giving an opinion. He tables it and he calls it a legal document. Using a euphemism like that is an attempt to build credibility into what is already a very shaky case.

The member knows, as do a number of members across the way, that the public in general, listening to or watching question period, know there is a long process that's been developed over the years of propaganda. It's called the big lie. The big lie. Y ou can see it in the middle years of this century, and I won't start naming which political party in Europe used it, but it's called the big lie. Members opposite know that if you repeat a lie often enough, some people will start to believe it. They are in a very desperate situation. They are panicked about their state in the polls.

They are bolting from the party like flies, and that is why we get this irresponsible – absolutely irresponsible – behaviour. I challenge the member to take those statements to the board in public. THE SPEAKER: We've just heard a little continuation of question period with clarifications from both sides. I think we should move on. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora has a point of order as well. Point of Order Offending the Practices of the Assembly MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say it's with a little bit of hesitation that I rise, because I don't want to give the hon.

Government House Leader yet another platform for him to espouse his theories of truth. Nonetheless, under Standing Order 23(l), introducing a matter which offends the practice of the House, I feel compelled to provide some information to th e Assembly. I believe that in answer to a question put by my colleague from Edmonton- Mayfield regarding the availability of the drug interleukin-2, the Minister of Health did in fact provide some information which I believe was false.

I don't know whether that was deliberate or not, but I would ask the Minister of Health, in a manner to resolve this point of order, to provide some documentation to the Assembly which would indicate that in fact the U.S. pharmaceuti- cal manufacturer of interleukin-2 has not applied to have that drug listed. My information is that as a matter of fact interleukin-2 was applied for listing and that the official response from Alberta Health was not anything to do w ith the applicability of the drug but was instead a budgetary issue. So, Mr.

Speaker, under 23(l), which states that a member may question a matter which was introduced in debate which offends the practice of the House, I believe that giving an incomplete and what could in fact even be a false answer does offend the practice of this Assembly, and I would ask the Minister of Health to clarify the situation. THE SPEAKER: Well, the Minister of Health may wish to, but the Chair is not going to order her to or suggest that she should.

The Chair does not recall the events that happened in the same manner as the hon. member has and does not really feel that there is a point of order under this heading. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination THE SPEAKER: Now, the next item for decision is whether the hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore will receive the unanimous consent required to propose a motion under Standing Order 40 after he has made his argument for leave of the Assembly to do so. Mr. Zwozdesky:

Be it resolved that the Assembly recognize March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise briefly just to speak to the matter of urgency, as defined in the parliamentary text, with regard to this motion going forward, and I'll just make

746 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 a couple of very quick points. Number one, today of course is the official day to mark the attempt to eliminate racial discrimina- tion as we know it. It is also the 30th anniversary of this particular proclamation by the United Nations, which means it is a significant milestone for us. Thirdly, we, the Speaker and the hon. Minister of Community Development and the Clover Bar- Fort Saskatchewan MLA and others, of course joined the high commissioner of Africa in the official announcement last week that this day was forthcoming.

We extended the full privileges of the Legislature Grounds for that purpose, and it would be shameful to not allow this to go forward for a few brief comments from myself and a few other colleagues. 3:10 Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we have the entire world represented here through the skating championships and through visitors to the province of Alberta through the magic of television, and this does touch international waters and have implications beyond our own province.

I would ask, therefore, in the spirit of co-operation, which I have extended already to the Government House Leader by promising that we will curtail our speakers to only three on this particular day for this particular issue – I have sent him that note. I hope he will th erefore allow it to go through. We only have three speakers; we've all promised to be brief. The urgency is well outlined through those few comments. So I would ask for unanimous consent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Is there unanimous consent in the Assembly to allow the hon. member to put his motion? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

THE SPEAKER: Opposed? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. head: Orders of the Day head: Committee of Supply [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call the committee to order. head: Main Estimates 1996-97 Justice THE CHAIRMAN: We would now call on the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to make some comments about his depart- ment's estimates. MR. EV ANS: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very pleased to be before the committee for the third time with these estimates. The first time was March 5, as I recall, and then last Thursday, March 14, and today, the 21st.

There was a great deal of interest in these estimates, and I'm sure that is for good reason. Resulting from that interest were over 100 questions, by my count, from the March 5 estimate review. What I've done over that period of time, from the 5th, including the 14th and today, is try to get answers for members of the committee as best we can, and I would like to begin by filing six copies of an accumulation of answers that we've been able to come up with up to this point in time for the Chair.

As well, I have specific copies for members who asked questions either on the 5th of March or on the 14th of March, and those could be passed on to them directly. Most of the answers that I'm supplying today, Mr. Chairman, are from March 5. We're still working on some of the additional questions that came up on the 14th, although I must say that there was a bit of a connection with so me of the questions that were asked on the 5th.

I know there are some additional questions that hon. members want to ask, so rather than spending what little valuable time we do have this afternoon trying to anticipate some of their questions or giving more specifics on some of the answers that are included in the information I've tabled, I'll take my chair and allow hon. members to ask questions. Mr. Chairman, whatever questions remain outstanding at the end of today, at the end of this estimate, I'll be more than pleased to provide answers to in writing and will get them to hon. members just as soon as we can. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for St. Albert.

MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to asking questions. I was unable to come to the last one. There were two meetings at the same time, which made it awkward. So I'm lucky to be able to do it at this time. My first question has to do with the victims' services boards. First I want to thank them: the victims' services board s, the co-ordinators, and the many volunteers across the province. As I've said before and I will say again, volunteers are the heart and soul of our communi- ties. There are 55 victims' services boards across this province.

Each one is staffed by a paid co-ordinator who works from 10 to 35 hours a week. I don't believe there's a full-time co-ordinator in the province. They have from 10 to 40 volunteers per board. They do a very essential service. Very essential. They work with victims of crime. They will meet at any hour of the day or night to be with these victims. Any hour of the day or night – it does not matter to them – they are there, willing to serve their fellow citizens and their communities with from one to several visits, and it may take from one to several hours of working, supporting these victims.

It's probably one of the most cost-efficient ways of delivering a service, one paid staff and many volunteers, and the funding comes from Justice. We realize that crime is down, and that's good. People are choosing to go to prison instead of paying fines, so there are less funds for these programs. My questions. What research has your department done to show that there's less need for these pro- grams? If you are cutting back, why are you cutting back on these programs without doing the necessary research, if it hasn't been done?

In other words, why are you downloading the cost to the communities instead of where it should be, with the Depart- ment of Justice? The next question is: how much more is it going to cost taxpayers in the long term because of funding cuts to these programs? What does your research show? If the needs of the victims of crime are not met, how much more is it going to cost the province in the long run? Rural Alberta. The long distances, the small populations: the need is there. Why does this government continue to ignore the needs of rural Alberta by cutting services like this to rural areas?

The cities many times may have their own pay for these services, but it's in the country that it's needed. My next question is a follow-up on the previous concern. Why

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 747 are you penalizing the taxpayer when more people can't pay their fines? They're going to jail; this is penalizing the taxpayer. When they may not be a threat to society, why are you not allowing them to do community service instead of going to jail for their fines? Make some requirements to upgrade their educational skills. They should be taking courses to improve themselves. They're not going to improve themselves in jail. This is a good program there, so instead we need to upgrade their skills so they can fit back into society, if that's a need.

Why isn't this part allowed? [interjection] The minister of transportation is across to get me annoyed, and I have to be meek and mild when he doesn't get me . . . Next question. We have thousands of computers in our schools across this province, and postsecondary institutions should be utilized 24 hours a day, not the five and a half or six or eight hours a day but 24 hours a day. Why don't you do something proactive to allow these prisoners who may not need to be in jails, which are very costly, to be forced to upgrade as part of their sentence? What are you doing in this area?

My next question is: of the prisoners in Alberta prisons, what percentage are dangerous to society through violent means, not through nonviolent means? What is the cost per year of providing for a prisoner? Are prisoners given some incentive to upgrade their skills so they can fit into society, so they would benefit, so it's a positive thing instead of a negative? When you work with students, it works. Y ou spend the time. They have the support systems.

They can really improve their skills and abilities and become part of the grade and be successful. 3:20 What are the different programs for prisoners and the success rate of these programs? Which ones are working? Which ones are not working? Which ones have you looked at in the past and found they weren't working so you brought in new ones or other programs and discontinued them? What is being done to make prisoners responsible for their actions? How is this being done in the justice system? Has there been a reduction in the number and percentage of aboriginals in jail?

I've asked this question in previous estimates. Has their number decreased? Are there more efficient ways of dealing with it? They have a very high rate in comparison to the number of aboriginal people in our province. [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] Another concern is that the Justice Department I feel should be working with economic development to eliminate some of the discrimination that is maybe out there. I know native groups, aboriginal groups that have bought a building in the community, but the people in that community blackballed that business.

In other words, they're not allowed to informally deal with this community, so the native community has no chance of being successful. Have you looked at this situation where it occurs across the province? If not, why not? This needs to be done, working with the minister of economic development, so it gives them a chance. It's very difficult. Y ou go to some of the reserves and there are no businesses on the reserves. It's difficult for them to set up businesses, and there's high unemployment. So we need to know what's happening, working with economic development to make sure that this happens.

Again I'm asking you to meet with the Minister of Education. The aboriginals have told me that they have sent their students to other schools off the reserve and have not had one, not one, student graduate from that high school. Have you checked with the minister and found out what the reasons are? There are solutions – and this is for us all – to make sure that this doesn't happen so it won't be so costly to the justice system. What has been done in this case? I mean, it's unbelievable that not one aboriginal person has graduated after many years of being in high schools or junior highs off the reserve. MR.

LUND: That's false. Where are getting that from? There were two in Rocky just last year. MR. BRACKO: Two? Oh, that's big numbers; isn't it? This is told to me. I'll give you the information if you want to debate it. Y es. Let the minister get his facts straight. Go out and visit. I'll take you by the hand and lead you down the road and show you where it's happening. [interjections] Y es, I'll take you. I'll take the little boy. He can come. [interjections] No, no. It's facts. Y ou shall know the truth, and the truth shall hurt. Y ou know, it's unbelievable.

The truth sets you free also, another way of looking at it. Open your ears. God gave you two eyes, two ears, one mouth. Keep your eyes and ears open, your mouth closed, and learn. I'd appreciate that. MR. McFARLAND: How old is your truth, Len? MR. BRACKO: Y ou'll get your chance to speak too. More mouth than brain. Again, the Minister of Justice working with the minister of aboriginal affairs so the Métis colonies can have bylaws, the same as in any municipality, that they can follow in order that they know what's happening, so there can be proper procedures for the way they conduct their businesses.

Is the minister willing to work with the minister of aboriginal affairs to set this up? Even a generic one that they can work with to make things work more smoothly. The other one. What is your department doing with young offenders? They say it's a joke. In some places it's a competition to see who can get caught and what happens with the sentences. From a provincial perspective, from Alberta. I don't want to hear you blaming Ottawa for this. Maybe it's time we started to make people responsible for their actions.

Vandalism cases: they pay for it if they're convicted of doing it or maybe by means of not allowing them to have a licence until they start to pay for it. Work some system out. It's time we all are responsible. Everyone here, whether they're old or young offenders, is responsible for their actions. Also, the liquor violations have gone up. What action is your department taking to look at what can be done in the community to improve the situation, with community support to allow it to come down? It has gone up in the cities, the towns around the province. With that, I conclude, Mr. Chairman.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'd say to the hon. Minister of Justice that this a little bit like walking into a 10 o'clock chambers application in the Court of Queen's Bench and getting a 56-page affidavit from the opposing counsel. The first thing you'd like to do is say to the judge: “I'd like a brief adjournment. We can bring this case back the next day, so we

748 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 can go through it and be able to respond to the material in there.” Now, we don't have that luxury, and I understand that it represents probably a Herculean task by people in the Department of Justice to respond to those requests. I'm mindful of that and I'm appreciative of it, but I have to make the observation of how much more useful it would be if we were able to ensure that once we got a voluminous res ponse such as the 56-page package that has just been submitted now by the Minister of Justice, we then commenced the Committee of Supply a day or two days after.

It seems to me that there must be a way of managing this. I guess I continue to be frustrated that we can't seem to find a device to ensure that the responses come in and that it's at least 24 hours before we're then into talking about them. In any event, this is the opportunity that the House

schedule seems to afford us, so we'll deal with it on that basis. I just say parenthetically that if I'm asking some questions that have been covered in the last batch of responses, I'd ask the minister to recognize that it's only because I haven't had time to go through and read it in detail. One of the things I didn't see responded to was this, and it was a question that I thought I'd asked the minister before.

In the spring session of 1993 in this Assembly this member, who was not then the minister and was simply a member of the government side, had said – I just paraphrase this, because I don't have the exact quote in front of me – that the matter of legislated access enforcement was such a high priority issue it could not wait. He used words similar to that – Mr. Minister, I hope I'm not being unfair to your comment – when he introduced his CARE Bill, as it's sometimes called, the Children's Access Rights Enforcement Bill. So here we are.

The minister has been the person driving the Department of Justice and controlling the agenda for the Depart- ment of Justice for about a year and a half now, I think, and I have to ask the minister: why is it that this i ssue that was so important and cried out for immediate relief in the spring of 1993 still hasn't made it to this minister's legislative program, hasn't made it to the government's legislative program three years later? I'd invite the minister now to respond and tell me: where's that sense of urgency that he spoke of so passionately three years ago?

I wanted to afford the minister an opportunity to respond to that specific question, Mr. Chairman, before I proceeded. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Justice. 3:30 MR. EV ANS: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. There is no question that when I was sponsoring the Children's Access Rights Enforcement Act, I said that we have to do something to provide a more ready access to noncustodial parents to the courts or, preferably, an alternate method of dealing with issues arising from a court order that had been granted by a court in good faith allowing access to a noncustodial parent.

What I was proposing with the CARE Bill was a system that would have a very quick method of getting into court, not a separate court but a faster method of getting into court, and then looking at other ways of dealing with this issue, such as through mediation. Well, I've found, since I got into the portfolio, that I certainly have to deal in the portfolio with a budget. I have to deal with the fact that we have only so many funds that are available to us for our courtrooms.

I have to deal with the fact that as I have talked to both parents who were involved in this and other individuals who are dealing with the issues of custody and access in reference to other jurisdictions, I'm finding that having a court process is really not a very effective way of dealing with this.

Calgary-Buffalo I think is well aware that you can bring people into court and you can have a court say, well, we're going to do this, that, and the other thing to enforce this particular order, but as soon as the parties walk out of court, if they haven't changed their mind-set, they're going to be back into court as long as somebody has the money to bring them back into court. In talking to both custodial and noncustodial parents, I'm firmly of the view that we have to find a better way.

I want to again publicly compliment Justice Trussler for the parenting orientation course that's going on as a pilot program here in Edmonton that tries to give parents, before they start filing these very negative affidavits against each other in a divorce action, a sense of what the long-term implications of these kinds of affidavits and these kinds of applications, that we are trying to address in the CARE Bill, are for the children. They're very negative. Those children can often end up extremely dysfunctional and in terms of mental health will be a burden to themselves and a burden to society.

That creates many, many problems that come from that. So what I'm focusing on now is not just another process of getting people into court and having huge gobs of money being spent on applications to court to enforce orders but rather trying to change the mind-set of the parties to a divorce action when there are children involved so that they do understand what the implications are, not so much to their personal health and well- being but to their children, who should be their param ount concern.

That's the reason that the CARE Bill as it was intro- duced into this House has not been endorsed, because I think in hindsight there was too much focus on just the courtroom procedure. I hope that answers the hon. member's questions, and I'll take my seat so he can continue. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the candour of the Minister of Justice, but it seems to me that if we go back to what he said in 1993, he said that it was urgent, a matter of top importance, to deal with access enforcement.

He now says that he's not persuaded that more court remedies are the answer. Then, Mr. Minister, why wouldn't you do what we proposed in Bill 219, the Family Law Reform Act? It takes a highly successful model in the province of Manitoba, creates an access enforcement co-ordinator who attempts to do the very thing the minister has just said is important in terms of facilitating a mediated response, and only when that's unsuccessful does that access enforcement co-ordinator have the power to go to court on behalf of the legitimately aggrieved parent, either custodial or noncustodial. Mr.

Chairman, I'd be interested in that specific response from the minister. I accept what he says are his reasons for abandoning the notion of a CARE Bill, but t hose would all seem to be very powerful reasons why we should look at what was done in Bill 219. So I'd like his specific comment on whether he's prepared to support the concept of an access enforcement co-ordinator, and if not, why not? If he'd indicate those reasons. Now, moving on, I'm looking at Hansard, starting at page 595 on March 14, and responses had been given by the minister then.

He indicated his target of 21 percent in terms of reporting being a victim of crime, and I just suggest to him, with respect, that it's unacceptable that this province would only target the national average. In so many respects I hear government ministers talking

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 749 about wanting to be the best in the country in other areas, and I don't know why we wouldn't strive to be the best in the country in those areas as well. There are a number of women in Calgary who have been unable to get satisfaction through the maintenance enforcement program, have been unable to get satisfaction through their MLA, through the Minister of Justice, or through the office of the director of the maintenance enforcement program.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice: would he be prepared to arrange a tour for a number of these women, who represent a large women's organization of custodial parents in the city of Calgary – when I say large, we're talking about a delegation of perhaps six or seven – to facilitate an opportunity for that gr oup and this member to tour the offices of the director of maintenance enforcement to have a sense of the physical process that's involved in mainte- nance enforcement? I'd undertaken to those women when I met with them that I'd ask the minister for an answer, and I'm looking for it.

Now, the minister was asked in the past a number of questions about the Cawsey report and the specific recommendation that we should have an aboriginal justice commission. Now, the minis- ter's come back, I think, in his 54-page book of additional responses – sorry; it's a 56-page response. Thanks, Mr. Minister. He's talked about some of the questions asked by Cawsey, but he hasn't responded to the very specific question: why don't we have an aboriginal justice commission? The steering committee and the aboriginal working group, as I think it's called, are doing excellent work, Mr. Minister.

I salute what they're doing, but there's nobody in the driver's seat other than I think an ADM. When I remember reading Cawsey, what the Cawsey commission argued for was a driver, somebody who could mobilize with a degree of credibility, that only comes from someone at least a bit off-distance from the minister and his department, in some cases to frankly challenge the minister to implement not just 50 percent, or approximately half, of the recommendations of the Cawsey report but to implement all of the recommendations of the Cawsey report.

As best I can tell from a quick scan of all of the responses we've received and Hansard from March 14, we don't have a specific response as to why no aboriginal justice commission. There was a working document prepared by a consultant I think one or two years after the Cawsey report, and it suggested maybe two different justice commissions. So whether one or two, I want to ask the minister to tell me specifically, in real detail: why don't we have an aboriginal justice commission?

It's not to deprecate or to minimize the good work done by the steering group, but there's nobody in a high-profile way challeng- ing the minister to do something about the fact that in the Peace River provincial jail often we have 70 percent of the offenders being aboriginal. That still continues to be a blight on the human rights record in this province. It's got to be a top priority, and I don't see it happening with these modest little incremental steps being taken, because it's supervised in part by people within the same department. Sometimes it takes a bit of a fire underneath the feet of all of us, Mr.

Minister, to get things done that should be done, and I'd like a specific response in terms of why that's not happening. 3:40 Now, in terms of the responses given on March 14, you have to salute this minister, who is a standout among his colleagues in terms of response to questions. I can barely think of a question I've ever asked this minister, informally or in correspondence, that he hasn't responded to. It's another question, though, whether the response I get is the kind of concrete response that I was hoping to get.

In terms of working my way through his questions – this is the booklet of 13 pages of responses dated March 14. He was asked a question by the Member for Fort McMurray, who said: why wouldn't we look at designating some provincial court judges as masters to be able to provide a degree of service to remote parts of Alberta? Now, the response is very much couched on page 1 in terms of what should or shouldn't happen in Fort McMurray and whether it would work there or not. Am I to take it, Mr.

Minister, that this is your policy statement with a provincial focus, and you only referred to Fort McMurray because it was that member who asked the question? Because there are lots of other parts of the province, what we'll call remote areas, where I'm told by counsel there are difficulties in terms of accessing Queen's Bench orders, interlocutory or interim orders. It seems to me that the suggestion from my friend from Fort McMurray would be a helpful one. So what I'd like his response to is: is his position the same with every other remote part of this province? That's on page 1.

There were a number of other questions. I'll move into a somewhat different area. Mr. Minister, I'm continuing to get notes from some church groups that are soliciting members of their congregation to provide soap and toiletries and some basic kinds of materials to inmates in provincial jails. I've written the minister about this. I've raised this before. I suggested to him that this is a public responsibility. His response to me was that there's no problem, that people are getting soap and shampoo and the things they require.

I wonder if he can shed some light, then, on why is it that there are still groups that are receiving informa- tion in terms of inmates indicating they don't have basic toiletries, they don't have access to basic toiletries. I wanted to raise that concern again, and these people who have contacted me, these church groups, I see them as being credible and with a legitimate Christian charitable interest in assisting people in the institutions.

I'd ask the minister whether he's in a position to send some kind of a reminder or directive or something to frontline staff in provincial jails to ensure that these basic kinds of needs are being met and that this doesn't have to fall on church groups. Moving on, there has been a decision by the minister, after receiving a report from a group set up to find cost savings in the Department of Justice, that he would accept some of the recom- mendations and not others. I had asked for a report on trying to economize on costs in provincial jails, and, Mr.

Chairman, what I got back was a report done by the Department of Justice. What I didn't receive was the report done by this ad hoc group of correctional officers and others. The minister has indicated he wouldn't accept all of the recommendations, but I'm w ondering why he hasn't made public the full report so that all Albertans would at least be able to see the full extent of the recommenda- tions, because what we're doing now is res ponding to bits and pieces. I'm told, for example – and part of the report has come to me in a circuitous fashion.

What it talks about is that the TA program, or temporary absence program, as it is today may soon be eliminated as a result of C-41. That would eliminate the need for many beds in community residential centres. So then the recommendation was to eliminate the community residential centres, the CRC contracts. Well, is that a recommendation that's been accepted by the minister? Does he plan on eliminating community residential centre contracts? If he does, what are the specific reasons why he's doing that? Does he accept the

750 Alberta Hansard March 21, 1996 suggestion that because of B ill C-41 at the federal level, the TA program will have no useful purpose? It seems to me like it still would. Now, there's a recommendation that came from this ad hoc working group trying to shave dollars in the correctional service that found that there were “inconsistent per diem rates between the group homes.” The finding was that the group homes didn't utilize full-bed capacity, and what came from that was a recom- mendation that a number of agencies reduce their capacity and consequently the average revised per diem rate be reduced as well.

So I'm wondering, to the Minister of Justice: has he accepted those recommendations about reduced funding, firstly in terms of reducing the number of beds? Secondly, does he plan on reducing the average per diem rate? If he does, to what amount? And if so, when would that take effect? What's the reason for doing it? Does he accept holus-bolus the reasoning from the ad hoc committee? The pages I'm looking at are pages 171 to 177, and the report that I was given unfortunately has deleted in it all of the dollar numbers, so I'm having to ask these questions to find out the information.

The cost-benefit analysis that was done by the ad hoc working group showed that the contracts, if eliminated, for community residential centre beds would mean a saving of $144,864. Does the minister accept that potential saving? What costs would result? Would there be any costs thrown away if we were to eliminate those contracts? What would happen if there was an increase in terms of the number of qualifying offenders? Because these things tend to go up and down, and we tend not to have a constant number of offenders requiring placement in community residential centres at any given time.

That is depend- ent on circumstances the Justice department really can't control. The proposal would be that $55,616 could be saved from the correctional services budget by reducing those annual budgets of the community residential centr es. I guess I'd ask: which residential centres is he looking at? What's the breakdown in terms of how those beds would be saved? 3:50 Now, I'm interested in, firstly, the Kochee Mena House in Edmonton. There are 10 contracted beds in that facility. Is there a plan to reduce the number of contracted beds in the next fiscal year?

At Howard House in Edmonton there's an in-house school program there and 10 contracted beds. Is there a proposal to reduce the number of contracted beds? The Red Deer Y outh Residential Centre, run by the John Howard Society, has 10 contracted beds. Is there a plan to reduce that number? At the Sam Laboucan centre, Slave Lake, there are eight contracted beds. Is there a plan to reduce those? The Catholic Social Services Group Home, Edmonton, offers a sc hool/life sk ills program. Is there a plan to reduce the 12 contracted beds? Enviros has run a wilderness camp outside of Calgary with 12 contracted beds.

What change would there be in that service? These are all young offender facilities, Mr. Chairman. I guess the other question is: what are the other specific recommendations from the efficiency report that are going to be accepted by the Minister of Justice? He has said publicly that he's rejected half of them. By implication that means he's looking at accepting the other half. What are they, and what's the dollar factor for each of those? I'd ask the minister to provide us with that information. Now, I have some questions that relate to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Canadian Paraplegic Association had requested the Minister of Justice to consider amending the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, specifically

section 20, by raising the benefit level for payment of allowable expenses beyond the current ceiling of $95,000 to $200,000. My question would be, Mr. Chairman: what is his position on that? Is he going to accede to the request from the Canadian Paraplegic Association? There had been a proposal to expand and define allowable expenses to better reflect the individual's total rehabilitation needs. Does the minister plan on moving on that recommendation?

There was a request again from the Canadian Paraplegic Association Alberta for the Department of Justice to institute formal written policies to ensure consistent administration of the Act. Does the minister plan on responding to that? Does he plan on responding favourably? Does the minister plan on accepting the recommendation to amend

section 21 to expand the training aid to include the injured person and raise the level of financial sponsorship? There's an acknowledgment by the Canadian . . . [Mr. Dickson's speaking time expired] Well, I'll pick it up in a minute, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman's Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the Government House Leader, I've had a few complaints. Certainly we want to be lenient, but the noise level is just too high in some corners. Some corners of the House are too loud, so if you'd just calm it down a little bit. Some members are having difficulty hearing. Debate Continued MR.

DA Y: I have just a few points briefly to address to the Minister of Justice. When we were having our estimates consid- eration in subcommittee and as the debates were drawing to a close, I was bringing to the attention of the Minister of Justice concerns related to the judiciary reading into their judgments certain pieces of legislation that they would want to see and trying to use their ability as judges to in fact exact some legislative or policy changes rather than just dealing with the law and the facts and figures before them.

There's been a growing tendency over the last 10 or 15 years for some judges to do this. I had asked the question, and I'm still waiting for the reply in terms of: how do we as elected people legitimately communicate to judges the concerns that we are hearing from our constituents on these types of issues without breaching the sanctity that should be there of protection of judges from political influence?

It's a fine line that we need to maintain as legislators, but the message needs to go to the judiciary that it is a very dangerous thing for them to presume to take upon themselves powers of policymakers and legislators in coming up with their decisions. I quoted from Justice McClung in a recent ruling, Justice McClung being an individual who appears to very clearly understand that difference and is warning other judges against that tendency. So I leave that question with the Minister of Justice.

I'd also like to highlight the fact that many Albertans have concerns, a long list of concerns, about the legal system and the justice system. In their minds and, I must admit, in my mind at times it's really hard to tell which areas are areas of federal jurisdiction and which areas are of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, as I talk with constituents, I find that most of their frustrations and concerns with the justice system and the legal system have to do with areas that are actually in federal jurisdiction. I would like to ask the minister if he could institute a series of vigorous discus-

March 21, 1996 Alberta Hansard 751 sions with the federal government – and it might have to be on a national scale with other ministers of Justice – in terms of allowing for more flexibility in terms of areas of jurisprudence, federal and provincial. In some provinces the people, the population, the electorate, may not have the same concerns with the federal system as we do in Alberta, and there needs to be, I believe, more flexibility. We hear concerns under the broad title of rights of the criminal that they are greater than the rights of the victims.

We hear concerns about what is perceived to be, at least in the public mind, in some cases hopelessly inappropriate sentencing. We hear concerns that, yes, there should be incarceration especially for violent crime but maybe not, strictly speaking, for nonviolent crime. A lot of these areas are areas, as I've said, of federal jurisdiction, and we need to be able to take up some vigorous discussions with the federal government where they do not seem to want to move federally to ch ange some of the policies which Albertans chafe against quite intensely.

I don't think that different provinces having greater say is going to lead to a mosaic which would cause confusion or the destruc- tion of the legal system. In fact, looking south of the border, which we can from time to time to learn some lessons, not all lessons – I don't want to draw a hundred percent just from everything that's done in the United States – you see, for instance, that with 50 different states, each state even has a decision on whether there should be capital punishment within that particular state.

Some people in their states choose not to have capital punishment, and other states do make that choice. It doesn't result in chaos in the system. I think that's just one other case where Albertans would like to have a say, for instance, on whether there would be times where capital punishment is exercised in certain cases. The vast majority of the population of Alberta would like to see that in some cases. Y et we are frustrated in our attempts to have that kind of control over our own system.

So I'd ask the Minister of Justice to pursue that series of discussions which could give more jurisdiction, more autonomy to Alberta in terms of having a say over legal matters which occur within its boundaries. There are also concerns that we hear broadly related to what the electorate would refer to as technicalities in the law that seem to deny justice being delivered. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he would put a group of peo