June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 353 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, June 19, 1989 2:30 p.m. Date: 89/06/19 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRAYERS MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which You have given us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, under

section 4(3) of the Election Act it is my pleasure to table four copies of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the Stettler by-election, held Tuesday, May 9, 1989. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm tabling four copies of the 1987-88 annual report of the Agricultural Development Corporation. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of this Legislative Assembly a very longtime and dear friend of our Assembly. She's seated in your gallery.

She served as a Conservative member of the Legisla­ ture from 1979 to 1986 for the riding of Calgary-North West. I'd ask that Mrs. Sheila Embury stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 21 students of the Calgary Christian school in Calgary-West, and who knows, sit­ ting up there in the members' gallery, how many future MLAs we have with us today. With them is their teacher Mr. Kevin Francisco.

I would ask everyone to give them the traditional warm welcome of the House, and would you please rise to re­ ceive it. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Kingsway. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the pleasure of introducing two groups today. The first is a group from the Covenant Community Training Centre, some 20 stu­ dents in the group. They are sitting in the public gallery, and they are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Margaret Sloan and a parent Mrs. Bonnie Ashton. I would request that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Family and Social Services. MR.

OLDRING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly 36 bright and enthusiastic students from the Mountview school in the constituency of Red Deer-South. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Colette McDougall and Mr. Greg Atkinson and by three parents Dave Weir, Brcnda Heemsrerk, and Sharida Sawyer. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm reception of this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Kingsway. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The second group is a group of students from St. Pius X school in my riding.

There are 20 students in the group, and they are in the public gallery. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ron Huber. I request that they rise also and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today, accompanied by a former member of the Edmonton city council, Olivia Butti, is a guest visiting from China. She is a student who has been here in Alberta who will be returning to Beijing next week.

This young lady served as an interpreter for a delegation which visited China some time ago, and I'm sure we would wish to wish her well as she returns to her homeland. I would ask the members of the Assembly to welcome Olivia Butti and her guest, Bin Lin. Would you please rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I know that direction has been given by the Chair with respect to the House leaders that we would try to refrain from introducing family guests, but I won­ der if on this occasion you would be good enough to allow the Chair to deviate from its own ruling. HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. First, I would like to introduce in the Speaker's gallery my sister from Selkirk, Manitoba, Anne Ward -- if she would stand, please -- a very good friend of mine from Port Colborne, On­ tario, Jake Reeb; and a very interesting person who started out in Newfoundland, but thank goodness we found each other here: my wife, Jean. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Department of Health Act MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. We in the Official Opposition are still very concerned about the De­ partment of Health Act, Bill 5.

We remain concerned about this government eventually fundamentally trying to change our health care system by privatization. We don't believe this gov­ ernment can be trusted; we believe one of their goals clearly is privatization down the way. I can only refer again to what the Premier said last Tuesday: that further privatization of health care remains an option on this government's agenda.

Now, not in the House but outside to the media, the minister said that ba­ sically this is just a housekeeping Bill and all she really intends to do is transfer three extended care facilities in Raymond, Cam­ rose, and Claresholm. Mr. Speaker, if this is the case, then,

354 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 could the minister explain why the two Acts which now restrict transfers to hospital boards and nursing home operators are being replaced with a Bill which allows transfers to any person or any organization? MRS. BETKOWSKI: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have to correct some of the lead-in to the Leader of the Opposition's question. At no time have I ever referred to Bill 5 as a housekeeping Bill.

In fact, it's a very important Bill, which pulls together both the institutional side, which was traditionally under the former De­ partment of Hospitals and Medical Care, and the community side, the former Department of Community and Occupational Health. In that sense, it is anything but housekeeping; it is very much substance. There is no effort by this province, as described by the Leader of the Opposition in his question, of a fundamental change by way of privatization of our health facilities. This par­ ticular section,

section 11 in Bill 5, currently before the Legisla­ ture and which I will look forward to discussing in second read­ ing and committee and however else it proceeds through the House, is in no way a fundamental change with respect to privatization. The facilities which are referred to in the

section are meant to refer to four facilities, in fact, in the province, which are really primarily psychogeriatric facilities -- and leaves open, certainly, the potential of them moving from being oper­ ated and managed by the Department of Health to some other option, including board option. But to describe it as a move to privatization is, I think, a statement which frightens more people, which the Leader of Opposition should not be doing to the people of Alberta, because it's clearly not the province's intent. MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, why put something in a Bill if that's not what you mean? Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to come back and ask again spe­ cifically why the wording changed to "any person or organiza­ tion" from the previous wording, if it isn't an attempt at some point down the line to privatize. Why are you doing it then? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm very much aware that the opposition have never liked the fact that included in our de­ livery system in this province is the potential of and the exis­ tence of privately run nursing homes. I know that the members of the opposition do not support that option. We believe it's part of a continuum of health care in our province.

What we are not referring to, however, are hospitals in this province that are run by board-governed institutions. But for me to agree with the concept that there should not be a move from being operated and managed by the Department of Health is something I will not agree to. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, what we're looking at is legisla­ tion that's going to be here with this minister and other minis­ ters. My question, then, to come back to the minister with the ridiculous proposal for killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer.

If she wants to deal with the four institutions, why did she have to bring in this Bill, which gives herself sweeping power which could lead to privatization down the way? Why is that necessary? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, it does not give sweeping power. It certainly does refer to the government health care facility. I am looking to ensure that the intent of the govern­ ment, which I have attempted to express here today, and the leg­ islative wording are in fact consistent. I have no reason to be­ lieve at this moment that they are not consistent.

Nonetheless, I am reviewing it, and I will look forward to dealing with the mat­ ter further at the appropriate time, which would be second read­ ing on Bill 5. MR. MARTIN: We've had Bills before for medicare that we had to fight back, Mr. Speaker. We want to do it before it's too late. To continue with this minister then. The minister says she just wants some legislation to change three institutions. We're suggesting there are ways to do that without having all- sweeping legislation that she proposed. Mr. Speaker, the three facilities meet the Hospitals Act's definition of auxiliary hospi­ tals.

If they require new hospital districts, the Hospitals Act says right now that the minister can make an order to create them. So even if Bill 5 was worded the same as the previous Acts, allowing transfer only to local boards, she could do the same thing, transfer these sites to existing boards or the new district boards that she creates. She could do that. My question, then. Is this not true, that if Bill 5 specified local boards, she could use that Bill and deal with these institutions adequately without the legislation that she's proposing now? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Well, really, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to give a legal opinion, which I am unable to do. I would be happy to take the question under ad­ visement and deal with the issue further at second reading and, presumably, committee. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, this government gets bullheadcd when it gets to second reading. We want to help this minister out right now. Remember the labour Bills. My question, then, going from the minister's answer to the previous question.

Will the minister commit today to withdraw­ ing the Bill and bringing back one that specifics local boards; in other words, to go back to the language previously used? MRS. BETKOWSKI: No, I will not, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, then we all have worries about this Bill. Is it not true, then, that this minister wants this all- encompassing legislation so that in the future this government can bring any privatization they want, including hospitals down the way? That's why they want it. MRS. BETKOWSKI: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.

And I think it is really important to tell the people of Alberta that when the issue of privatization is referred to by this government, we are referring to nonmedical privatization. There may well be some ways that we can effect some efficiencies in our health system through things like laundry services and disposal of medical wastes, but to say that this is a province that wants to give over to private interests the delivery of health services: that will not be accomplished by this Bill and is certainly not the intent of the province. As I indicated to the hon. members, I am ensuring that in fact

section 11 is declaring what we have as our intent as a government, and I will review that to ensure that that is the case. But to allege that this moves to privatization is irrespon-

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 355 siblc and, frankly, is frightening to the people of Alberta and is not the agenda of this government. Federal Participation in Environmental Assessments MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, last week we had the incredible spectacle of one minister of the Crown going around threatening the federal government with lawsuits and another minister of the Crown acting as if nothing had happened; in fact, berating news­ papers in Alberta for building a story where none existed and saying that no legal action was even contemplated against the federal government.

One thing appears to be clear and one thing appears to be uncontradicted at this moment, and that is that this matter will be discussed at the upcoming First Minis­ ters' Conference. My question to the Premier is this: does Al­ berta recognize the right, any right, of the federal government in protecting the environment? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member hasn't been listening in the Legislature when we've dealt with this mat­ ter before.

As I recall mentioning to the House, there are certain areas in the Constitution that the federal government has respon­ sibilities for -- such things as navigable waters, fisheries -- and therefore has a role to play in environmental impact in those areas. MR. DECORE: Well, I wonder if the hon. Premier would out­ line the official position of his government with respect to Al­ berta's position and the federal government's position vis-a-vis the pulp mills. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, as I've also said before in the House, the province has jurisdiction over development of natu­ ral resources and certainly the forestry matters, and we will con­ tinue to insist on that jurisdiction. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the Premier is this: does he believe that there is anything that the federal gov­ ernment is doing in singling out Alberta, using Alberta as sort of the precedent with respect to coming into a province and involv­ ing itself in environment in a bigger way than was up till this time known or expected? MR. GETTY: As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, there has been a discussion and explanation for the House already in this ses­ sion provided by the Minister of the Environment and the Minis­ ter of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, where they pointed out that we've had an agreement for years with the fed­ eral government. That agreement provides for co-operation in the areas of environmental matters because there are certain ar­ eas that are the responsibility of Ottawa and certain ones that are provincial responsibilities. Then there was the matter of the Rafferty dam decision, which has caused some legal problems for the federal government.

I don't think there will be in the long run, unless the federal government changes its way of thinking, a problem of again having an agreement which covers this matter. It's worked very well in the past, and I think we can do it in the future. I think there is nothing inconsistent at all in what the two ministers are saying. We are going to work in a co-operative way to come to an agreement with the federal government, but at the same time we will not, we will not, allow our jurisdiction to be invaded. MR. SPEAKER: Cypress-Redcliff, followed by Calgary- Mountain View, Calgary-North West, then Smoky River.

Dominion Glass Plant in Redcliff MR. HYLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of economic development. On Friday last the resi­ dents of Redcliff received a notice that very few communities are ever subject to, and that's the closing of a major plant in the community and the loss of 500 direct jobs in the area. I met with a group of union and town citizens on Saturday relating to what we could do at the plant. My question to the minister is . . . [interjection] You'll have your chance too.

Are there any more steps that he is considering taking to­ wards achieving any more operation of that plant? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset and in­ dicate my appreciation to the hon. Member for Cypress-Redcliff and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat for their thoughtfulness as we did proceed through this very difficult stage of negotia­ tions with Consumers Packaging, whereby we did offer them a substantial amount of support.

The letter was released by way of a news release from two individuals from this Legislative As­ sembly that indicated that we would offer up to $7.5 million by way of a capital grant to the restructuring. We also indicated that we stand ready to offer any type of support they deem ad­ visable so that we could retain what we considered a very, very important industry to the Cypress-Redcliff constituency and to the Medicine Hat area. Recognizing the importance of this, Mr. Speaker, after I have further consultations with the hon. Member for Medicine Hat and the hon.

Member for Cypress-Redcliff, it is my hope later today to have further communication with the president of Con­ sumers Packaging, Mr. Thomas Tinmouth, so that we can hope­ fully find out if the decision is final. If not, we wish to proceed with further negotiations. We've received the telex of the news release indicating that it would be closed down late Friday. We hope to have further communication with them with the extent of having them change their minds, because we recognize again the importance that this does play to that particular region of the province. MR. HYLAND: Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is: will the minister, after he has contact with the chief executive officer of Consumers Glass, then consider meet­ ing or having staff meet with the committee that was formed by myself and others on Saturday to discuss the future of the plant? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, we are more than happy to work with individuals in the community, recognizing the serious im­ pact that this is going to have, to see if we can't spur additional economic development.

But I also wish to leave the hon. mem­ ber with the assurance that we're going to work with the group that is there to develop further economic development activity. We wish to have further communication with Consumers Pack­ aging, plus we have had extensive discussions personally, by telephone, and through correspondence with Consumers Pack­ aging.

We wouldn't want anybody to think we didn't put every effort into making sure that the plant was maintained in the Redcliff area, and even acknowledging the release that was put out on Friday, we're going to continue with our work because we don't wish to leave any stone unturned.

356 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the minister of career development. I wonder if the minister can assure the Assembly if her department is prepared to take any action necessary and work with this local committee in the near future. MRS. OSTERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a program in such unfortunate circumstances, and that is the province work­ ing with the federal government and the workers at any given worksite in this situation, as well as companies. So the four groups get together and form what we call an industrial adjust­ ment committee.

We will make every effort to provide what­ ever services to each and every individual employee, should they find themselves unemployed. MR. SPEAKER: Calgary-Mountain View, followed by Calgary-North West. Funding of World Blitz Chess Championship MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On June 8 the Minister of Tourism claimed in this House in regards to funding for the World Blitz Chess Championship in Calgary, and I quote: "At no time was my brother involved with refer­ ence to the grant or grant application." Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated July 22, 1988, addressed to J.

Sparrow, Sparrow Group, Nisku, Alberta. Dear Jim, Following is a letter which meets Calgary's requirements . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Order. If indeed you are about to file this with the Table so that all members of the House have a chance to look at it . . . The other thing is that if you are quoting from a letter, I trust that you've had the per­ mission of the person who wrote the letter to release it, and the other

part is that perhaps you'll be much more succinct about getting to the punch line. Thank you. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite happy to leave a copy with you. Attached is a draft letter for the minister's signature which outlines proposed procedures for paying the Tourism department grant. To the minister. How did Mr. Jim Sparrow appear to come to be involved in the proc­ ess of drafting correspondence for the minister's signature, when according to the minister's own words, his brother was "at no time . . . involved with reference to the grant or grant application"? MR. SPARROW: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to see a copy of what he's talking about. I have no knowledge of what the issue is with reference to that letter, so I cannot comment on what other people outside this House do. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, given that the letter, which eventually came back from the Tourism department, re­ sembles closely the draft which Mr. Hamilton sent to Mr. Jim Sparrow, will the minister then explain why it was that a key organizer of this chess tournament appeared to turn to the minis­ ter's brother for assistance and advice? MR. SPARROW: Mr.

Speaker, as I stated earlier, in May of last year, well before what the Member for Calgary-Mountain View is talking about, we received a proposal that was being sent to the city of Calgary, made by Mr. Robert Hamilton from Global Chess Group Inc., which was involved in New Brunswick the previous year in putting on a similar event. My first involvement with that was a call from a Mr. Brian Foster, who called to notify me that this proposal was coming to us and being sent to Calgary, and I immediately looked at the proposal when it was dropped off at our office and, as we do in many other instances, called Mr.

Al Richards, who works for the Calgary Tourist and Convention Bureau in Calgary, to inform him of the project and that we had received a copy of it. Proponents continually work with everybody they can, and in this instance it looks like they knew my brother. Definitely at no time, I can reiterate, did my brother be involved with us or the department with reference to the grant. We met, as I stated earlier, with the proponents, Mr. Robert Hamilton of Global Chess, in August, with my deputy minister, my executive assistant, and another department member.

The department then took that presentation and worked with the group along with the city of Calgary and later in October agreed to get into a contract with Global Chess, trying to put on an event similar to what was handled the year before in New Brunswick. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now admit that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and a contradiction with the minister's earlier statement with respect to his brother's involvement in this grant application? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is any con­ flict of interest whatsoever.

What I sec in front of me here is a letter that the member had, dated in July, which is well after the discussions that took place and the approval of city council in Calgary and the May date that we had received the proposal. We had officially received the proposal months before this. MR. SPEAKER: There is also another difficulty with the mate­ rial as filed. The second letter is without letterhead, and it's un­ signed. It's written on a blank page, so that raises other questions. The Chair recognizes Calgary-North West, followed by Smoky River. Dominion Glass Plant in Redcliff (continued) MR.

BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On June 12 in this Assembly the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, regarding the Dominion Glass plant mentioned earlier, stated that this government would "do everything within our power to ensure that those jobs are kept within the province of Alberta." He further stated that there is a plan developed to save the plant and save those jobs. On Friday of last week, as we've heard, the officials announced that the plant will be closing. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Why hasn't this minister made more effort to keep this plant, which is environmentally sound, when Daishowa, which is questionable in terms of its environmental impact, has been offered more than 10 times the amount of money that this plant has been offered? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 357 concern as it relates to this, because it's a common concern that we all share. That's why I indicated to the hon. member that we were working so closely with Consumers Packaging. I'm sure the hon. member will have made available to him, if he hasn't already received it, a copy of the release that has been put out by the hon. Member for Cypress-Redcliff and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat indicating the steps that we had taken, the plan of attack that we had involved ourselves in with the hopes of main­ taining the plant in the Redcliff area.

I reinforce what I in­ dicated to the hon. Member for Cypress-Redcliff, that we did offer a substantial grant to the tunc of some $7.5 million to the plant for refitting purposes because we did recognize the impor­ tance of it. I am going to have further discussions with the president, Mr. Thomas Tinmouth, with the hopes of them giving reconsideration to the statement that they did issue on Friday. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, $7.5 million is chicken feed compared to Daishowa. My second question is also to the Minister of Economic De­ velopment and Trade.

How can this minister say that this gov­ ernment has a commitment to economic diversification when this company, which is the largest secondary industry employer on the prairies, is closing up and moving to B.C.? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how the attitudes can change. In the event that the grant would have been given and would have been accepted, the $7.5 million, I'm sure they wouldn't have indicated at that time that it was chicken feed. They would have been critical of us for offering that type of money in support of a company within Alberta, as they have done in the past.

But we recognize that we do have to support some segments of the industry. We're going to continue to do so, because our first priority is job creation within this province so that we can continue with that strong economic climate that we presently enjoy. MR. BRUSEKER: My third question, then, is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Since the government in volume 1 of its throne speech made a commitment to recycling, what does the Minister of the Environment propose to do with the 40,000 tons of glass that this plant had recycled in the past? Shall we have them delivered to your office, Mr. Minister? MR.

KLEIN: I would think not, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully not, anyway. But certainly if there is a problem there, I'd be glad to discuss this with the minister of economic development and other appropriate government officials, including those in my department, to see how the problem should be dealt with. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Smoky River, followed by Edmonton-Jasper Place. Drainage of Potential Agricultural Land MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our govern­ ment has a good record of supporting the need for adequate water through the irrigation projects in southern Alberta, and this helps, of course, in the economic viability of agriculture. My question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. There are many parts of the province that have large tracts of very flat land that require drainage to assist the economic viability of these regions. What steps is the minister prepared to take to enhance this needed program? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there are two programs: the water management and erosion control program and the water services development plan. Both of these programs are ongo­ ing, and the department is continually monitoring these pro­ grams and continually trying to enhance these programs. It's a program we hope to continue for some time. MR. PASZKOWSKI: To the Minister of the Environment. Is there a long-range plan for the continued development of drain­ age programs to assist in allowing better productivity of this vast area of agricultural land?

I'd just like to point out that I'm not referring specifically to the drainage of wetlands; it's just the agricultural land. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this situation of drainage of agricul­ tural lands and water management projects refers more specifi­ cally to the northern regions and the Peace River region in par­ ticular. There will be a program developed this summer. There will be public hearings -- and those public meetings are sched­ uled for July -- as to how the total program should be in effect without affecting specifically the wetlands. MR. PASZKOWSKI: My final question.

What sort of funding are we looking at, Mr. Minister? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the total program is somewhat in the area of $5 million. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Jasper Place, followed by Edmonton-Whitemud. Forestry Industry Employment Potential MR. McINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Foreign corporations have been allocated perpetual control over almost the entire green zone, 30 percent of Al­ berta's land mass.

The foreign-owned companies propose a me­ chanical clear-cut logging operation in support of a mechanized pulp mill that's going to ship raw pulp out to Japan and the United States. I wonder if the Premier is concerned that these forest projects create jobs at only one-quarter of the rate of an average forest project in Canada. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, those projects are a very important part of the diversification of Alberta's economy. We have a tremendous forest resource, and in the past it's not played a great role in the development and broadening of our economy.

We're determined that the forest resource does play a bigger part, that it provides opportunities: job opportunities for young people, opportunities for communities to grow and expand in a healthy way. But the projects will proceed on the basis of sound environmental controls and regulations. The hon. member may want to go into further detail with the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife when he's in the House.

But to make it clear: the government believes these projects are important to the future strength of our economy, will be handled in an environmentally sound way, and every­ thing possible will be done to make sure the development works with the people's desires.

358 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 MR. McINNIS: Well, there aren't very many jobs; that's the point. In view of the fact that the taxpayers have placed a billion dollars at risk in these projects, I'd like to know: why pay these foreign companies to rape our lands and pollute our rivers? MR. GETTY: Of course we don't, Mr. Speaker, and that's a foolish allegation from the hon. member. MR. McINNIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the En­ vironment.

I'm wondering if in view of the fact that the govern­ ment ignores the environment in these matters, the minister has complained to the Premier that his department has been reduced to the status of a bystander in these forestry projects in that there's no environmental impact assessment federally or provin­ cially on the forestry aspect of these projects. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, to my knowledge there is a very, very comprehensive, very, very extensive forest management agreement which addresses all the questions related to the forestry aspect of pulp mill development and other forestry de­ velopment in northern Alberta. I would think that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Jasper Place should know that by now. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Whitemud, followed by Edmonton-Kingsway, Calgary-Millican, West Yellowhead, Edmonton-Meadowlark, Calgary-Fish Creek, Edmonton- Highlands, Clover Bar, Edmonton-Gold Bar -- otherwise known as let's pick up the pace.

Industrial Waste Site in Edmonton-Whitemud MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has leased out an area of land at 109th Street and 9th Avenue in the Edmonton-Whitemud constituency. The tenant, Mayer Metals, has used the land as an industrial waste site and dump. I point out that this site is fenced in with barbed wire fence on top. There's a fellow in a brown uniform who inspects it every day. In any case, complaints and concerns have arisen that this site has been used to store hazardous industrial waste, possibly in­ cluding PCBs. My question to the Minister of the Environment.

Can the minister confirm what toxic or industrial waste material has been dumped on this Crown land, which is at 109th Street and 9th Avenue in the Edmonton-Whitemud constituency? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, no, I can't, not at this particular time, but certainly it's the kind of question I can take under notice. If there has been a pollution situation at that particular site, then I'm sure the pollution control division of my depart­ ment was on the scene. If they weren't, then obviously they would have some answering to do.

But it's certainly one of the things I can check down with the department and get an answer for the hon. member. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environ­ ment. Is the minister not aware that staff from my office con­ tacted his office three weeks ago, with no replies; that residents who contacted the previous elected representative in Edmonton-Whitemud were assured that action would be under­ taken? Is the minister saying that he has not received any of that communication? Has the minister not taken any action on that communication? MR. SPEAKER: Two questions in one.

We'll settle for the first, thank you. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I get a lot of letters every day rela­ tive to specific issues, and I try to deal with those issues the best that I possibly can. It could very well be that if that issue was brought to my attention, it is now in the department. If it isn't, I have given an undertaking to the hon. member to find out for him and to act in a responsible manner. That's precisely what I will do. Thank you. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Is the minister not aware that there were assurances given that this site would be clean by the end of May, that the city bylaw enforcement has issued orders? Is the minister's office, is the minister himself, not aware as to what is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We're now up to the third question in this supplementary. Mr. Minister, please. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple -- no -- and is quite honest. No, I am not aware, but I will check it down. I will check it down, and he will get some action almost immediately. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Kingsway. MR.

WICKMAN: [Inaudible] you didn't answer my phone calls. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Kingsway, not Edmonton- Whitemud, thank you. Dominion Glass Plant in Redcliff (continued) MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The announcement by Consumers Packaging of the closure of the Domglas plant in Redcliff is more proof that the Getty govern­ ment cannot be trusted to look after the workers and the indus­ tries of Alberta.

Contrary to what the Minister of Economic Development and Trade said last week, the chief executive offi­ cer of the parent company, Enfield Corporation, a Mr. Michael Blair, said that the closure was part of a rationalization of pro­ duction to accommodate increased competition from the United States because of the free trade deal. Will the minister now ad­ mit that the free trade agreement that this government so strongly supported is the reason that Domglas is going under, striking a major blow to the Redcliff community? MR. ELZINGA: No, Mr. Speaker. MR.

McEACHERN: Well, a loss of 500 jobs to a town of less than 4,000 is a major blow, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister realize that even with a monopoly in glass manufacturing in Canada, Enfield Corporation will not be able to compete with the two U.S. giant companies that with a series of mergers and takeovers now control two-thirds of the U.S. industry?

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 359 MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to reinforce what I indicated to previous hon. members: the concern that we do have as it relates to the plant in Redcliff. We are going to work very closely with the individuals concerned -- as the hon. minis­ ter of career development indicated -- and our department so that in the event that they do proceed with their plans that were announced on Friday, we can involve our department and other departments in spurring economic development in that area so that we can create additional jobs. MR. McEACHERN: Mr.

Speaker, he just lost the bidding war with B.C. But in any case, the American companies will just cannibalize the industry, whichever one wins. Mr. Speaker, recycled glass is piling up around here in Al­ berta, and the Environment minister was not even aware there was a problem. Will he promise to get on this problem promptly, and is he going to continue to let his colleagues push him aside again and again on matters of the environment? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the recycling program in the province of Alberta was one of the first of its kind in this country, as a matter of fact.

It's a reasonable program; it's working well. I don't see glass piling up all over the province. As far as I know, the return on deposits and all the other things associated with glass recycling are working very, very well indeed; as a matter of fact, have served as a model for other provinces and other jurisdictions in this country. Entrepreneurial Immigration MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal gov­ ernment had a program to encourage immigration of businesspeople to Canada a couple of years ago.

It was called the entrepreneurial immigration program, and it was to encour­ age people to come to this country who had expertise, capital to create jobs here, create industry. Lately I've had some calls, and I'm very concerned. I understand that under this program Alberta often approves business applications and then we get rejected by the federal government, yet I read that most of the business immigrants coming into Canada are going to Ontario. I wonder if the minister could please advise the Assembly. Is Ontario getting itself preferential treatment over the province of Alberta? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately I'm not able to answer that question. We have not got the statistics from the federal government. As a matter of fact, there have been some people raise concerns because it was the province of Quebec that they understood were having quite a few of their particular applications approved and not Alberta. MR. SHRAKE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Then there's another concern, and that's that even though many of the midsized immigrants have been rejected, as I understand it, some of the very, very wealthy immigrants have got approved by ministerial approval because they're extremely wealthy. Have any of these been approved in Alberta by this route? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, the only route for business immigration in Alberta would be an immigrant visa. As to how the federal government or the minister responsible, the Hon. Barbara McDougall, may use ministerial approval, I obviously can't answer that question. MR. SHRAKE: Final supplement, Mr. Speaker.

As I under­ stand, the federal government has put a moratorium on immigra­ tion out of Hong Kong due to the events in Beijing. It's a six- month moratorium, and at the end of that six months there will be, as I understand it, a deluge of applications, a lot of good people there that would like to come, probably, to Alberta. Could the minister please advise: are you getting your depart­ ment geared so that if we do get a large number of applications, we can process these fairly expeditiously? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the hon.

Mem­ ber for Calgary-Millican, in terms of the processing in the prov­ ince of Alberta I think most business immigrants would indicate that they've been handled very fairly and that the processing has gone quickly. The problem is that something like a year ago the federal government centralized their approval process to Hull. In that space of time there has been a giant backlog in the ap­ provals that have gone forward from the province of Alberta already having received the province's approval, and they have met some kind of a blockage with respect to the federal govern­ ment.

The hon. minister, in her favour at least, has struck a committee to examine this situation. There is an Alberta indi­ vidual on that committee, and I have discussed at length with him the particular problems vis-a-vis the province of Alberta. I hope that message will be drawn loud and clear. It's been com­ municated at every level of the department including the minis­ ter's office. VIA Rail MR. DOYLE: Mr.

Speaker, town councils from Wainwright to Jasper, Medicine Hat to Banff have actively been lobbying eve­ ryone from VIA officials to MPs to the Prime Minister in an attempt to halt the massive cuts proposed on passenger rail serv­ ice in our province. The federal Transport minister has asked for a special report on rail abandonment from the National Transportation Agency as a result of the pressures from the Con­ servatives of such eastern provinces as Quebec and Nova Scotia but none from Alberta. My question is to the Minister of Eco­ nomic Development and Trade.

Since the government is obvi­ ously lagging behind not only other provinces but other levels of government in our own province when it comes to opposing the VIA cuts, how can we now take the minister seriously when he tells us he has expressed his strongest concern to the federal government on this issue? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to indicate to the hon. member, as I have done in the past, that we have communicated both to the federal Transport minister plus to the individual Members of Parliament from the province of Alberta, plus we have made a submission to the National Transportation Agency. MR.

DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to say that you're concerned or that you're looking into an issue, but could the Minister of Tourism then tell us today that he has a real and spe­ cific strategy to pressure the federal government into commit­ ting itself to saving such obviously viable routes as Edmonton- Jasper and Calgary-Banff? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, along with the minister of eco-

360 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 nomic development -- our staffs are working on strategy, and yes, we do and are concerned about the loss of that service and have expounded it many times in the public. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, in 1986 the federal Transport min­ ister stated quite frankly that transcontinental services would never be abandoned. Would this minister, even though he was a Conservative MP at that time, take the federal government to task on this specific broken promise? To the Minister of Eco­ nomic Development and Trade. MR. SPEAKER: Time for question period has expired.

Might we have unanimous consent to complete this series of questions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Minister. MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. mem­ ber let me reinforce and underscore what we've indicated on a number of occasions in the Legislative Assembly. We are going to involve ourselves in a very forceful way to maintain what we consider an essential service. As the hon. member is aware, we do not know for a fact what segments of VIA Rail are going to be cut back, because they're still going through that manage­ ment decision.

But we have placed on record with the individu­ als I mentioned earlier in response to his initial question our forceful position, recognizing the importance that it does play to the province of Alberta. Question of Privilege MR. SPEAKER: Time for question period has expired. I won­ der if perhaps we could have the attention of the House for the next few minutes as the Chair hands out the ruling with regard to the purported point of privilege as raised a number of days back by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View.

For future reference the Chair would like to give the House a few guidelines on presenting a prima facie case of privilege. Number one, the member should confine his statement to one of facts of the case and little more. Two, the member will have an opportunity to make his presentation to the House only once. Three, the member's presentation is limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Four, if a member's allegations involve another mem­ ber of the House, that member affected will be allowed to respond, again limited to a maximum of 30 minutes.

Finally, I hope the House will entertain the Chair's request to allow it some time, in some cases considerable time, to examine and rule on cases of privilege presented before it, as the Chair must consider and research many sources. Privilege is a very serious matter indeed. The Chair would like to thank all hon. members for their patience while dealing with matters in this regard. The Chair has had under consideration a complaint based on a purported point of privilege brought forward in the House by the Member for Calgary-Mountain View.

The facts of the case, as the House will recall, involve the alleged actions of a land­ lord against certain tenants taken in response to the tenants' con­ tacting their Member of the Legislative Assembly. The member has claimed that this constituted an impediment to his function as a member. The Chair has looked very carefully at this issue.

After consulting numerous authorities and precedents from both the United Kingdom and Canadian Houses of Parliament, it is clear that for privilege to be claimed, a member must be im­ peded in a part of his duties that fall within the definition of a "proceeding of parliament." This raises the question as to what is a proceeding of parlia­ ment. Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada explains: As a technical parliamentary term, "proceedings" are the events and the steps leading up to some formal action, includ­ ing a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity.

All of these steps and events, the whole process by which the House reaches a decision (the principle part of which is called debate), are "proceedings". He further states at page 74 that there may well be work carried out by members in an official capacity but which extends be­ yond parliamentary work and which receives no protection of privilege. In essence, the authorities clearly state that while a member may do any number of official things, not all are di­ rectly related to proceedings of parliament and therefore are not entitled to the protection of privilege.

Assistance in establishing whether or not the Member for Calgary-Mountain View was involved with his constituents in a proceeding of parliament has been given by Canadian House of Commons Speaker Jerome in November of 1978 when he stated: [Privilege] has always been interpreted very strictly by this House, because there is no reason why a general privilege or right to some kind of special treatment should surround a mem­ ber of the House of Commons or any other citizen before our boards or commissions or in the everyday work we perform as citizens in this country, except in so far as it relates to the basic or essential function of carrying out our obligations as elected members in assisting in or participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons itself . . .

As I indicated earlier, parlia­ mentary privilege is that which surrounds us here and ensures that we are able to carry out the basic function of participating in the proceedings of this House. Maingot goes on the say further: The duties for which a Member of Parliament can claim the protection of privilege are his parliamentary duties, particularly in his primary duty or service to this House of Commons here. At times the line distinguishing these duties as a representative on one side and parliamentary duties on the other side is very fine.

In July of 1980 Madam Speaker Sauvé addressed this very question, and I quote from her ruling: While I am only too aware of the multiple responsibilities, duties, and also the work the member has to do relating to his constituency, as Speaker I am required to consider only those matters which affect the member's parliamentary work. That is to say, whatever duty a member has to his constituents, be­ fore a valid question of privilege arises in respect of any al­ leged interference, such interference must related to the mem­ ber's parliamentary duties.

In other words, just as a member is protected from anything he does while taking

part in a pro­ ceeding in Parliament, so too must an interference relate to the member's role in the context of parliamentary work. There is no doubt that the Member for Calgary-Mountain View was acting in an official capacity. That he was acting in a parliamentary capacity is not so clear. Beauchesne, sixth edi­ tion, citation 92 clearly states: A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties and not to the work the Member does in relation to that Member's

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 361 constituency. In the case as presented to the House by the hon. member, a dispute occurred between two or more strangers to this House, which indirectly involved a member in his constituency work. A similar case, involving an individual who attempted to pre­ vent third parties from contacting their Member of Parliament, was brought forward in the House of Commons June 2, 1981. In respect to the alleged breach of privilege at that time, the case is comparable with the matter at hand.

In the ruling of Madam Speaker Sauv6, the fine line between a member's constituency duties and his parliamentary duties was recognized. The Chair was reluctant, it seems, to rule that the member's actions were within the definition of a proceeding of parliament, and there­ fore no case of privilege could be claimed. It is with the same reluctance that the Chair observes that the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View was undoubtedly act­ ing in an official capacity and in a sensitive way. However, it cannot be established that his duties within the narrow confines of a proceeding of parliament were affected.

I compliment the member on his obvious concern and efforts on behalf of his constituents. However, remedies do not seem to be available from this House through the claim of privilege. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. SPEAKER: Member for Stony Plain. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to intro­ duce a group of 61 people to you and through you to the mem­ bers of this Assembly.

It is made up of students from two schools, Queen Street immersion school in Spruce Grove and St. Damien school in Bedford, Quebec. They are accompanied by seven parents and two teachers, Mrs. Carmen Mykula of Spruce Grove and Mme Gisell Fontaine from Bedford, Quebec. I would ask the people in the public gallery from these two schools to rise and receive the traditional welcome of this House. [On motion, the Assembly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Mr. Schumacher in the Chair] Bill 2 Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 1989 MR.

CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it Bill 2, Ap­ propriation (Interim Supply) Act, 1989. Are there any com­ ments, questions, or amendments to be offered in connection with this Bill? The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Chairman, thank you for recog­ nizing me this afternoon. I guess the remarks I'd like to make this afternoon may not be the ones that the hon. members are expecting. I believe it's the one opportunity that we have to de­ bate the individual clauses of Bill 2, which is the interim supply Act. Mr.

Chairman, included in the interim supply Act is funding for the special warrant approved by the Alberta cabinet earlier this year to set aside $13.3 million for the acquisition of land on Nose Hill. I don't want the opportunity to pass by without mak­ ing comment about that particular decision in this House. As members who have previously been here with me as a member of the Legislature will recall, on numerous occasions I've spo­ ken in favour of acquiring the remaining privately owned lands to help the city of Calgary establish a park on Nose Hill.

It was just yesterday I had the pleasure, with a couple of my colleagues from the House and from Calgary city council, to enjoy Father's Day with a kite fly, the third annual event that's been sponsored by the Nose Hill park communities board. There was a real feeling of celebration there yesterday that after many, many years of hard work and lobbying by many citizens in Calgary and throughout southern Alberta, that park has finally become a reality.

I use this scat many times to criticize the government, but I think it's only fair that at times when they do things that I feel strongly about and that I approve of, I also use the opportunity to say thank you or to acknowledge the good work that's been done. I don't know what all the decisions and discussions and ne­ gotiations were that went on behind closed doors that led to the provincial cabinet approving that money for the city of Calgary, but I would say that there are some people that worked on the task force leading up to the decision being taken.

I'd like to pay tribute to those people this afternoon and just publicly acknowl­ edge, Mr. Chairman, the fine work that they did. First of all, our colleagues in the Legislature: the hon. Member for Calgary- North Hill, the Minister of Technology, Research and Telecom­ munications, as well as the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek, who are two elected representatives that sat on the Nose Hill task force. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of two former colleagues of mine who are still members of Calgary city council: Alderman Teresa Baxter and Alderman Dale Hodges. As well, Mr.

Chairman, I think they were quite ably supported in their work by two administrative people: one from the province, I believe, Mr. Tom Forgraves; and on behalf of the city of Calgary, the former chief commissioner, Mr. George Cornish. This decision taken earlier this year by the provincial cabinet and confirmed by Calgary city council in essence caps or cul­ minates the hard work of many thousands of volunteers and citi­ zens in the city of Calgary on an issue that dates back close to 18 years.

It's a realized dream for many people, and the sense of excitement and celebration yesterday was testimony to the fact that politics can often achieve and ought to always achieve the best things that people desire for themselves and for their community. I honestly believe that that is the highest calling of politics, and so when an occasion presents itself, when I can see that that has occurred, I just like to make note of it. Mr. Chairman, many never believed that it would happen, and it may be that the decision was taken as a calculated politi­ cal hard-nosed manoeuvre.

For all I know, that may have been the argument that eventually persuaded the cabinet to support

362 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 this special warrant. But I also recognize in politics that the right things sometimes get done for the wrong reasons, and whatever the reasons might have been as to how the provincial cabinet reached this decision, nevertheless this decision was taken. As a result of that, the city of Calgary also joined in in approving their contribution towards purchasing the remaining lands on Nose Hill.

So I'd just like to acknowledge and salute those people who worked very hard on the task force, those who brought unwill­ ing partners to the negotiating table and concluded this acquisi­ tion. I appreciate their work. I know that on behalf of many of my constituents, and many in Calgary who are not my con­ stituents, they're saying today, "That's a job well done," to eve­ ryone who was a part of that process. So, Mr.

Chairman, having been highly critical at one time or another of this government and having criticized strongly what I saw at one time to be inaction and wrong action, I now wish to also warmly congratulate the provincial cabinet for that decision. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, presumably in the future when I tell the member from across the way to go fly a kite, he won't take exception. I will pass on the comments to my colleagues.

There are from time to time opportunities for us to be, I think, forthright with some of the criticisms and also some of the accolades, and I appreciate the Member for Calgary-Mountain View making those statements. I'll make sure that my two colleagues who are away from the committee right now will be aware of it. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 2, Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 1989, be reported. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have to have agreement on the title and

preamble first. Are there any further comments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, the motion for reporting. MR. JOHNSTON: I'll make the same motion, Mr. Chairman. [Motion carried] Bill 3 Appropriation (Alberta Capital Fund) Interim Supply Act, 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments to this Bill? [The sections of Bill 3 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 3, Ap­ propriation (Alberta Capital Fund) Interim Supply Act, 1989, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 4 Appropriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Projects Division) Interim Supply Act, 1989-90 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments as to this Bill? MR. McEACHERN: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman, and that's to ask the Treasurer if he'd perhaps take this opportunity to ex­ plain why he decided not to count the heritage trust fund expen­ ditures as part of his

summary financial plan on page 23 of the budget speech. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not we combine the expenditures reflected in the Heritage Sav­ ings Trust Fund of course can be fully debated when we deal with the Bill or when we deal with the heritage fund estimates. But I'm at your direction, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not it would be appropriate when we talk about the interim supply to deal with the disclosure or the way in which we display the heri­ tage fund and the General Revenue Fund. Nonetheless, it is up to each member.

He can go back and calculate the way in which he wants to calculate the numbers. We have, from time to time, used different displays, going back to 1973-75. There's no need for us now to combine the General Revenue Fund and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund expenditures because, in fact, they are different forms of expenditures for our own considera­ tion, in that the heritage fund is one fund, a fund which has its own capital projects division, as the member well knows, and we think those are properly disclosed in the heritage fund esti­ mates as they come forward. At the same time, Mr.

Chairman, it is also true that when we form or provide the consolidated statements for the government as a whole, in fact those capital expenditures which take place in the capital projects division of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund are disclosed together. So it's a question of how you want to proceed, how you want to disclose the amount. We have varied the disclosure from year to year, including this year over last year but also including 1983-84 over the previous year, when in fact we stopped the transfer of money from the General Revenue Fund to the heritage fund on the basis of royally transfers. MR.

McEACHERN: Well, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Treasurer has conveniently chosen to change the format, considering -- we've been through the arguments before about whether the capital expenditures under the capital projects divi­ sion of the heritage trust fund are expenditures or assets. That's one question, and that's not the one that we're raising at this lime. But the fact is, he counted them in his financial plan, his

summary financial plan, in previous years and has now suddenly switched. Of course, Mr. Chairman, the reason is because it makes the deficit look $141 million better to not count them. It's funny that he counts the revenue from the heritage trust fund as part of his

summary financial plan, but it's odd that the ex­ penditures don't count as part of the

summary financial plan. So the Treasurer is trying to have it both ways, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think he should be let off the hook on it without somebody pointing it out.

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 363 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions with regard to this Bill? [The sections of Bill 4 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 4, Ap­ propriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Pro­ jects Division) Interim Supply Act, 1989-90, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 7 Farm Credit Stability Fund Amendment Act, 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments as to this Bill? MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. Provincial Treasurer has some response for the questions raised by my col­ league for Edmonton-Kingsway during second reading. He's probably got those all lined up and ready to roll.

But I did want to ask him a couple of questions myself. The Farm Credit Stability Fund Amendment Act, Bill 7, pro­ poses one very straightforward, simple amendment which we certainly support, and that is extending the terms for issuance of these loans by two years, so the program will in fact terminate June 30, 1991, instead of June 30, 1989. I'm hoping that the Provincial Treasurer will indicate to the farmers of Alberta that he's prepared to make this an ongoing commitment, in fact a permanent entitlement to farmers, because that sort of stability I think is important.

But I would like to ask the Provincial Treas­ urer a couple of specific questions about the existing Act, which may open up the possibility for further amendment.

Section 10 states: The Provincial Treasurer may enter into agreements with lend­ ing institutions for the purpose of this Act.

Section 12 says: Subject to the regulations, the Provincial Treasurer may, for the purpose of this Act, make guarantees to lending institutions in respect of loans made in accordance with this Act. Now, I'm wondering if the Provincial Treasurer will tell the House if there is any place I could go or any place that he'd be prepared to send me to look at copies of the agreements that he's entered into with lending institutions for the purpose of this Act and if I and other members of the House can see the guarantees that he's made to lending institutions with respect to loans made in accordance with this Act. MR.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the member of course is rais­ ing an issue which is far beyond the scope of this particular amendment. I'd be glad to deal with this, either through the es­ timates of my department -- but I seek the direction of the House, because in fact we could raise many things and many issues. But, unfortunately, as I look at this piece of legislation,

section 10 in particular has not been touched upon. Should the House decide that it wants me to carry on, I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman. MR. FOX: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lethbridge-East has been around long enough to know that when you introduce

an Act to amend an existing Act, that opens up the possibility of further amendment. The Act is before the committee now, open for amendment. We're discussing the particulars of his amendment, agreed, but I'm just giving him the opportunity to spare me the effort of asking a motion for a return on a particular item in respect of the Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. Member for Vegreville, I would think that if you had an amendment as to

section 10, then we might be able to discuss it. But if there's no amendment regard­ ing

section 10, I don't think we can ask the hon. Treasurer to discuss

section 10. MR. FOX: I'm just seeking information from the hon. Provin­ cial Treasurer. Being one who has an eye for efficiency, want­ ing to streamline the operations of this House, I don't want to trouble hon. members with amendments that may not be neces­ sary if the appropriate information is available. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments with regard to this Bill? MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Chairman, I asked a number of ques­ tions on second reading, and the minister did indicate to me that he would have some answers for me at this time. I haven't heard them yet to date.

I wonder if the Treasurer would care to elaborate on some of the information that he indicated he would bring to this Assembly at this time. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the request for information during second reading is an unusual request, as the Chairman I'm sure is aware. The member has an opportunity to raise questions that weren't dealt with when I summed up in second reading. I'd be glad to deal with them. MR.

McEACHERN: I specifically asked some of those ques­ tions at second reading so that at Committee of the Whole, when we are supposed to be dealing with a certain amount of details, it would be appropriate for him and he would be on notice and have time to get those answers. He in fact at that time indicated that he might answer them right then, except that it would be best to wait until Committee of the Whole. Now, here we are at Committee of the Whole and . . . MR. JOHNSTON: Now you've got your chance. MR. McEACHERN: Well, you just were on your feet. You could have answered the questions then.

You're just playing games. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments with regard to Bill 7? MR. FOX: I'd like to ask the Provincial Treasurer if he has made the appropriate changes to Alberta Regulation 339/86, the regulations that put the meat on the legislation that's before the House with respect to loan limits. I understand that part of their commitment was to increase the limits of loans by $50,000, from $200,000 to $250,000, I guess much in line with comments made by the hon. Member for Vegreville in the course of debate in 1986.

I'm wondering if he's had a chance to make the appro­ priate changes to the regulations which increase the aggregate

364 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 amount of money to be lent out under the program from $2 bil­ lion to $2.5 billion. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Treasurer, then, of a couple of the questions I asked. I pointed out that the 1987-88 public accounts documents show that the Alberta government borrowed something in the neighbourhood of $1.4 billion for funds for this program.

It was my under­ standing when they first intended to set it up -- and we asked a lot of questions and there was a lot of give and take in the House about it, although the government didn't always give us the straight answers that we might have liked sometimes. Nonethe­ less, it was clear from the discussion at the time the Bill was introduced that the banks were expected to put up a fair amount of the money. Now, the other day the Treasurer told us that $1.9 billion has been loaned out to farmers.

I'm saying to him that $1.4 billion of that, at least, has been borrowed by the Alberta government and put into the scheme. I asked him to update whether or not the remaining $0.5 billion that has now been put in -- is that money that he has also raised, since the public accounts only show up to March 31, 1988. Has the government actually put in the rest of that money too, or have the banks put in some of that money? I asked him also to think about and explain, perhaps, how the guarantee process worked.

If I remember right, it was some­ thing like the first year, 20 percent of a loan to a farmer would be guaranteed by the Alberta government, the second year 40 percent, the next year 60 percent, and the next year 80 percent. I'm wondering what sense that makes if we have put up the money in the first place and not the bank. Are those kinds of loan guarantees still in place for a bank that's using not its own money but the government-raised money, so that the banks are in fact being guaranteed for money that isn't their own that they are lending to farmers? I thought he might explain a little bit about that. MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the process by which the Farm Credit Stability Fund operates was in fact explained to the members during the 1986 debate on this Bill. I'd be more than glad to sketch the mechanics for it one more time. That is a very reasonable question, I think, and everybody probably needs to have their memory refreshed. First of all, this was a program whereby, as we said in the 1986 election, there would be all government money involved in this program; that is to say, we would use our own funds.

We would pass on to the farming community the borrowing power of the province, and the government would put up all the money for these loans. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we have had to borrow money in the capital markets, and we have advanced money to the banks, to the fund at least, based on the need for the demand for money as a function of the number of loans that are processed. Accordingly, as well, the banks charge a fee for that, and we have also pushed out some of the traditional loan­ ing programs a little further.

By pushing it out I mean we have changed the fundamental character of the terms of credit, and that's essentially what this program was to do. We did say that if there was no cash flow in the farming entity, they would not be satisfied. The numbers that I quoted yesterday show that a very small number of farming entities did not qualify; I think only 29 of the total were rejected totally. So, Mr. Chairman, we can say that this has been a very effective program, using gov­ ernment money entirely, and we have borrowed offshore, in par­ ticular, to put this money into the fund.

Now, from time to time, to reconcile the money that's in the fund with the amount of borrowings that the government has advanced to the fund, you also have to look to the Heritage Sav­ ings Trust Fund, because for some accommodation we used some money from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund on certain term loans. Certainly three- to five-year money, I think, was advanced from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and the heri­ tage fund received a reasonable rate of return for those invest­ ments. So that reconciles the money. But the reason we had to provide an additional guarantee, Mr.

Chairman, is that in some cases the banks are on line for the money as well. We used a sliding scale both with this fund and with the small business credit fund so that we would not be tak­ ing the bank's total loss record into our own for our own ac­ count. As the loans are obviously on a short-term basis, you can tell whether or not they're more critical or more risky. So over a period of time we agreed that we'd backstop some of these loans based on the term. I don't think there have been a whole lot of calls on that guarantee.

In fact, I think because the money has been put out at 9 percent, it has allowed, I would say, essen­ tially 99 percent of the farms to become viable, meet the cash flow returns, the cash flow calls upon them to pay the loan down. And I think that as a fund, an amortization fund, it's working very effectively. MR. McEACHERN: There was one other question on that. I was asking about the other $500 million, the difference between the $1.4 billion -- the $1.4 billion I quoted I believe also in­ cluded the heritage trust fund borrowings.

So I'm wondering where the other $0.5 billion has come from to make it up to $1.9 billion. In terms of the guarantees, the Treasurer related that to the idea that they didn't want to end up -- that is, the government didn't want to end up -- sort of taking over the bad loans of the banks, so to speak. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in the first year or so of the operation, they did; 90 percent of the loans under this pro­ gram were in fact rewrites of loans that farmers had with banks. The same was true of the Small Business Term Assistance Fund Act.

So I don't know; the banks sure must have thought the guarantee was a good one or that this was a good move for them. We didn't get a lot of new farm loans under this program. Most of it was a rewrite. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can agree with the member. There has been a significant amount of new farm loans; there's been consolidation of farm loans. The intention of the program, Mr. Chairman, as all members well understand, is to ensure that farmer entities become viable, and I think the proof of that pudding is, in fact, in the statistics that I have presented to the House. Already, Mr.

Chairman, I think 25,000 total number of requests, 21,823 active loans, a total of $1.94 billion. I don't know where the $1.4 billion comes from that the member talks about. I mean, the plan has been successful. But what we have done is moved in and taken the banks' position. The banks have to go through the normal process should the loan be in default: the call against the property. And in many cases, because we are taking a little more risk -- that is,

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 365 we're extending the credit decision out a bit -- in fact the banks said to us, "Well, if you want us to do that, then you have to share some of the risk with us; that is, you have to go on the pa­ per as a guarantor." And that's a reasonable request, Mr. Chair­ man, if you're changing the way in which the private sector, the marketplace, responds with respect to its credit decision. And we did that. We pushed the credit decision considerably. We pushed it because it becomes more viable at 9 percent.

There­ fore, the banks have to get their rate of return, so they charge us for the difference. They're the ones who have to take action should something go wrong on default, and then they say: "Look, we've done the following number of foreclosures," -- if there are any -- "and these are the losses. Here's your portion of that loss share." Now, over time we will take more of the loss relative to what the bank is taking because we're going to start with zero. Right now in the first year of the plan, as we indicated in '86, our ex­ posure would be roughly zero on most of the loans.

So the banks couldn't put a bad loan into this deal, get our money up front for it, and then turn around and say: "Well, we had to foreclose the next day. Guess what? You owe us 50 percent or 60 percent of the loss." It didn't work that way, Mr. Chairman. We took the safeguards, the necessary precautions, to ensure our position. And we pay a fee for that, of course; I think I said the fee was somewhere around two and something last time, and that's a fee. We pay for it. So, Mr. Chairman, I can't reconcile the dollar amounts. That's how the process works.

It is unique; it took some time to negotiate, as you well know. But we are in the process of ex­ tending that again. We'll use essentially the same process. We want to deliver it to the banking system wherever possible, and I think we can, and we will find the $500 million if and when needed.

On a short-term basis, should there be a demand or a call upon us for money for the fund, we'll transfer on a normal, formal relationship from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to the fund the amount of money required, and then when the interest rates or the capital markets are responding appropriately -- as a matter of fact, they are right now, today -- then we would sim­ ply replace that with long-term borrowings. Now, we have made some very good moves on the funding of that fund. As a matter of fact, those are generating profits within the fund, by the way, because of the foreign currency changes in our favour.

So, Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you more. I can't guess what the member is meaning. I can only explain what in fact is tak­ ing place and what will take place over the next two years ahead. MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Chairman, the $500 million I was talking about was not the new money you're putting in. I realize that will happen in due course. I was talking about the differ­ ence between the $1.4 billion as of March 31, 1988, and the pre­ sent time, which you indicated was a $1.9 billion investment. So if you could still please answer that question. But I want to go back . . . MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, it would be from the heritage fund. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you. I want to go back to the other aspect of what we were just talking about too, though, the guarantee. It is true that the banks get a 2.375 percent administration fee on any loans they handle. It is true that in the first year or so of this program, 90 percent of the loans were rewrites of moneys that farmers had borrowed from banks, of those kinds of loans.

So while the Treasurer is saying that the guarantee was only a gradual one of zero percent in the first year, 20 percent in the next and so on, nonetheless we have put ourselves in the position of taking over the risk, be­ cause we've borrowed the money outside of the country and outside of the banking system and brought it into the bank and said, "Here it is for the new loans," and in fact to take over the loans the banks had with farmers.

Now many of those banks are in a position where they have insisted that the farmer that took the loan rewrite all his loans to that bank, and if the farmer gets himself in a cash flow problem, that bank has the right to take over that farm. We in fact have put up the money to, in effect, help them do that. Now, I'm not saying that's going to help them a lot, but any time it happens, it seems to me the bank has had it both ways, and the farmer, in some cases, certainly has not been the winner. If the Treasurer is skeptical, I would outline a specific case that I know of.

A farmer who wanted to borrow a couple of hundred thou­ sand dollars to buy two new quarters decided not to do so be­ cause he had a few other outstanding loans and the bank was insisting that if he was going to get into this program through their bank, he would have to put all his loans into that bank. I think his total loans were something in the neighbourhood of $250,000 or $280,000.

His property, with the two new quarters added and his machinery and spread, was worth over half a mil­ lion dollars, and yet he was expected to put that all at risk to the bank for a price that he might not have been able to meet if he would have gotten two or three crop failures in a row.

The gov­ ernment's program would have, in fact, been putting up the money, not the bank itself, and yet they were forcing on this gentleman the kind of terms which could have forced him into bankruptcy and they could have taken over his farm, which was worth certainly at least twice as much as what the total loan was going to be. They would give him the loan on no other terms. He could not just finance the amount he actually still owed by guaranteeing with property equal to that amount. He was not allowed to do that; he had to put up the whole farm.

So he fi­ nally decided not to risk the rest of his farm and buy those two quarters and, in fact, backed away from the whole process. So I would suggest that the Treasurer should look closely at how that program works and exactly what we are doing for the banks: what a good deal the banks got and how maybe the farmers in some cases didn't get all that good a deal. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the farmer in question would change banks. I mean, we can't dic­ tate what he does and doesn't do. It's a free market economy. He can move to another bank. The only other comment, Mr.

Chairman, deals with what happens to the money you put at the banking system. I'm hope­ ful that the member isn't suggesting that the chartered banks in particular are some sort of risk. If he is, he has a different view of them than I do, certainly. Our view is that the banks are in very good shape. Our money is secure; it's sitting there. I don't know quite what the problem is. Of course, we put the money up because it's our money, as we've indicated. We want the program to run with government funded credit rates, and that's essentially what's happening.

366 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. MR. TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little remiss with my homework. I would have had the amend­ ments in a written form that the Treasurer could look at and the House could vote on, but I thought maybe I could just bring up two suggestions that I think would improve the farm stability loan plan immeasurably. I suspect he knows the line I'm taking, because the two improvements I've talked about sometime in the past.

One has been added some more credibility lately in that the former minister of agriculture of the British Columbia govern­ ment, now director of the Farm Credit Corporation, also came out, I noticed, and suggested a general assignment of all farm income -- he was suggesting 12 percent, but I would think something like 12 or 15 percent of gross income -- very much as the oil companies. I don't know if the minister is familiar with the old

section 82 under the Bank Act where, in fact, when you sold a barrel of oil they didn't give you the dollar; they sent it to the banker directly. This would be the same type of thing with the farmers, that they would have a choice. This would be op­ tional. It's a bit of a gambling choice, but farmers love to gamble, and the government would not lose money, I don't believe. They should have the option, say, within the first five years, or right at the beginning if they wished, to convert their 20-ycar loan to a loan that would be a general charge -- the payments would be a general charge -- on all farm income.

That's every­ thing from eggs through to cattle to wheat, in the 12 or 15 per­ cent gross. Naturally, in good years that would go way up, and in bad years it would go down. But I think it would average out, and it would go a long ways towards easing the question we al­ ways have of farmers getting behind in bad years and govern­ ments catching hell from the opposition and everybody else, and they say, "Oh, well, wait till a good year comes." It's a floating charge against the land like a caveat or like a

section 82 under oil and gas, and it would be, I believe, con­ ducive to certainly a lot more peace on the part of the farmer when he knows that the income would be tied to his gross pro­ duction receipts. Over a 20-year span surely the government will come out all right, because of the high years with the low. The second aspect -- it's bothered me for some time and I'm sure I've brought it up to the minister three times or so in the last few years.

He has sidestepped me each time, but that does­ n't frustrate me from trying to grab the watermelon seed once again in suggesting and pointing out that the reason for this is the fact that the interest charged on a loan to somebody that's got nontaxable income is a pretty heavy interest charge, as I think the minister, who's familiar with business, will know,

whereas the interest charged to someone who's rolling along in high gear and maybe in the 50 percent tax bracket literally is half, because all interest is deduction from taxable income. So we get the rather peculiar basis here of a loan that costs the farmer that's in financial trouble twice as much in interest as the farmer that's really doing well. Consequently, it seems to me that the government could balance that out. Now, this is a fairly major change, I'll admit, but if the farmer had no taxable income that year, his interest rate could be in the area of 6 per­ cent.

If he had taxable income that would put him in the 50 per­ cent rate, then his rate should go all the way up to 12 percent. So we'd get the 9 percent rate for all those farmers that are in the zero to 25 percent tax range, but it would go up to 12 percent after he got past 25 percent, which is doing fairly well, and it would drop to 6 percent when you get down to a zero taxable income or less.

I think those are two financially fairly well-thought-out amendments or thoughts the minister should look at, backed up by experience in various areas around the globe, and various corporations and countries operate the same way. So that is all I wanted to throw in for the time being. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt there are several ways in which you can pattern repayments, but I doubt very much a traditional market response would be very acceptable of the first recommendation the member gives to us.

Obviously, he put his finger on the problem with the idea of tying the amortization of repayment to the income stream, be­ cause of course the farmer could opt for doing nothing for five years -- or in fact could do nothing for five years and have a catastrophe, no crop at all, setting aside provision for insurance, I agree -- and therefore the repayment would obviously not be made and there would be some other sort of cascading of the interest, presumably, if it wasn't paid.

So I think in my review of repayment ideas based on a struc­ ture which is a debt structure, the one base we have provided probably is as good as any. Not perfect -- I know there are al­ ways good ideas -- but what we have done here is reduce the cost to the farmer to 9 percent, and therefore we think it's quite bearable in terms of what the cash flow of the average farm is and given the prospect that we see ahead.

So while there are a series of options and a series of financing mechanisms that are available, I would have to disagree with the member that tying it, as he suggests in the first point, to the question of income flow would probably not satisfy certainly us, and I think you'd probably have a larger number of failures as a result of that step. With respect to the taxable income problem, yes, of course, Mr. Chairman, that is a fairly accurate assessment. But let's hope that these farmers do have profit in the future.

Whether or not the marginal tax rate will be 50 percent for all farmers is not sure, but I can say that in 1988, for example, total farm income was up. I think when the numbers come in, you may well be surprised at the number of farming entities that are going to be reporting taxable income, and therefore there will be some relief from the 9 percent interest costs for various farming entities as they deduct it from their taxable income. It won't be the 50 per­ cent that the member talked about, but it may well be 50 percent in some cases and something less in oilier cases.

Nonetheless, the point is that the 9 percent in the marketplace compared to what traditional borrowing costs would be at 15 percent, say, is a massive advantage to any farmer, particularly since it's 20-year money and it can be repaid at any point he wants. I think it has maximized the flexibility. It has certainly transferred a major benefit to the farming community. It's working satisfactorily, in our view, and I think the sheer demand upon the program, both for loans as we've indicated and for more dollars as we've promised, must be the final measurement of its success. The farmers like it.

We've changed it, as the Member for Vegreville indicated, to change the limits, to do a few other nominal things, but I think, in essence, this program is now well accepted. It is, I think, un­ derstood by the farming community. The numbers are there. I won't go so far as to say, Mr. Chairman, that it'll be a perpetual program, but obviously it'll be under review from time to time. Now we've made a commitment to extend it for two years, and I

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 367 think that's the second major step in this program. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Vegreville. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad the hon. Provincial Treasurer introduced the notion of interest rate for the program.

It's not my intention to indulge the House with an extensive debate on the matter of interest, because my Motion 205 will likely be before members of the House sometime later this week or early next week, wherein we propose in a very spe­ cific way the program outlined by our leader during the recent provincial election, that we move towards a 3, 6, 9 interest rate program which I think, and I'm sure hon. members opposite will agree, is a much more thoughtful and dramatic program in terms of having a positive impact on the farm community, and we'll discuss it at that time. But I do hope the hon.

Provincial Treasurer pays a little closer attention during that debate than he did the other day in second reading on this Bill, because I did talk about our desire to see the interest rate on the first $100,000 lent out under this program lowered to 6 percent -- that's the first $100,000. Now, the Provincial Treasurer interprets that, and I quote: Now, [I know] the Member for Vegreville would rather have this operate as a full grant. . . . I know the Member for Vegreville rails and rails and rails about giving the money away to the poor farmers at zero cost, but I don't think the farmers want it.

I want to make it very clear that we're talking about a program that farmers borrow money from and pay interest for. I want to make that very clear, because it's this Provincial Treasurer and his buddy from Stettler that like to beat their collective chests and rail about how this is a $2.5 billion commitment to the agri­ cultural community, a benefit to the farmers of Alberta. In fact, it's money they're willing to lend at 9 percent, and farmers pay it back.

If they want to describe the true cost of the program in terms of its impact on the agricultural community, they should be referring, in fact, to the figures in the hon. Provincial Treasur­ er's budget which, depending on the year, are anywhere be­ tween $17 million and, I think, $40 million actual out-of-pocket cost to the Provincial Treasury for this program. And that's cer­ tainly money that's welcome and needed. The point I've tried to make over and over again is that it's not a significant benefit to the farm community.

If we wanted to really do it right, we could have offered lower interest rates, and we'll have time to have that debate hopefully on Thursday next; if not, the follow­ ing Tuesday, Mr. Chairman. The other thing the hon. Provincial Treasurer seems to not understand as a result of second reading of this Bill -- I ex­ pressed the concern that there are a number of farmers provin­ cewide, in every constituency represented by rural MLAs, who have been denied access to this program. That's a fact, hon. Provincial Treasurer. I didn't say they were rejected.

I didn't say that the applications had come forward, in fact, for a pro­ gram number from his department. He refers to 29 rejections. But there are a number of people who never make it that far. Their applications are rejected out of hand by the banks. AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a break. MR. FOX: Oh, well? [interjections] No, no, no. I could bring 29 people here tomorrow who were denied the benefits of this program by the banks.

You can laugh if you like, but the inten­ tion of the program was to provide a benefit for farmers, and I'm telling you, there's a number of farmers in rural Alberta who need the help, who could establish viable farm operations with this help and would make very good use of it, and they've been rejected out of hand by the bank -- not by the Treasurer but by the bank.

I think if he was as concerned as I about making this pro­ gram available for farmers in Alberta, he would take a serious look at some of those denials from the banks and see what kinds of changes we might be able to make to the lending guidelines that would facilitate the lending of a little bit more of this money to farmers who could really make use of it, because there are indeed farmers who are carrying extensive loan portfolios with the banks at 13, 14, 15 percent. The banks seem to be will­ ing to carry them at 13, 14, and 15 percent yet continue to deny them access to the program at 9 percent.

I know his advice is well taken: walk across the street and go to another bank, be­ cause competition makes the world go around. And that's ad­ vice I've given to farmers on occasion as well. But the fact is, the banks collude with each another a lot more than they com­ pete with each other, and oftentimes that isn't an option. I think that if this is a government program, then the government could take a little bit more care to make sure that the guidelines are in place. We do have provincial lending institutions, the Treasury Branch for one, that could have facilitated this sort of arrangement.

So I just wanted to bring these misinterpretations to the min­ ister's attention in the hopes that he may pay closer attention when we debate interest rates in more detail in the context of Motion 205. But in terms of Bill 7, we support it. [The sections of Bill 7 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. JOHNSTON: You're lucky, Mr. Vegreville, that I didn't get back in. My apologies, Mr. Chairman. Bill 7: I move that the Bill be reported. [Motion carried] MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress. [Motion carried] [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration and reports Bills 2, 3, 4, and 7. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Having heard the report by the hon. Member for Lacombe, is the House prepared to agree to same? All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. Carried.

368 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 1 Family Day Act MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second read­ ing of Bill 1, the Alberta Family Day Act. I urge hon. members to support this legislation. I believe they are familiar with it. It's pretty straightforward. If the legislation is successful, I think it will provide an opportunity for all hon. members to see the family play a bigger and bigger

part in the future of Alberta. I know that the values that our pioneers built this province on were the values of home and family, and as we get into the speed of modern society, I think sometimes we forget about those foundations that helped us to build such a magnificent province. I'm looking forward to seeing communities all across Alberta make Family Day an important part of the tradition in the future. I urge members to support this legislation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Avonmore. MS M. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we welcome this proposal for a midwinter holiday.

Indeed, we had such a Bill on the Order Paper in 1988. It was debated, and in fact many of the government members spoke and argued against it. But I believe we do need a holiday in the winter to break up the long, dreary days of work and dark­ ness, so a holiday in the middle of the winter would give people a chance to regroup. Certainly in the winter we see a drop in productivity as people face a long, unbroken stretch of working days and they become exhausted and often depressed. Such a holiday would allow for winter carnivals and festivals and for those interested to plan and participate in such activities.

For others it's a time to get caught up on their reading, their resting, to see a movie, or clean their house. We also applaud the recognition of the importance of the family and the need to find ways to promote and facilitate heal­ thy family life, for it is a concern for all of us. Certainly a holiday that recognizes and promotes family life is welcome, but this Bill does not do that. It does not acknowl­ edge the great variety and diversity of family constellations in this province or the variety of needs of Alberta families.

This family holiday Bill, as it is presented, may be an advantage to the middle-class, financially secure families, but it does little for the one in six Alberta families living in poverty. These families certainly do not have the funds or the wherewithal to be in­ volved in recreational activities. Moreover, this Bill does not legislate the closing of retail outlets, and therefore it ignores the position of those families where the person who is the source of family income is em­ ployed in the retail sector.

Unless this Bill is amended, these families cannot have a family holiday, because one or both of the parents will be working. This phenomenon has particular significance for women. We know that 75 percent of women with school-age children and 58 percent of women with preschool-age children are in the paid labour force. Of these, 60 percent work in clerical, sales, and service-sector occupations which, of course, include the retail outlets which are not pro­ tected or would not be closed under this legislation. Forty-two percent of workers in sales jobs are women.

Many of these are in part-time positions, and again we know that 72 percent of part-time workers are women. These women are the ones most likely to be working and thus not at home with their children on holidays and on this holiday. Coupled with their low economic status -- and we know that one in six women, or 60 percent of families headed by women, lives in poverty -- a significant number of Alberta women will not bene­ fit from this Bill.

Indeed, many may face difficulties in finding child care for their children on a holiday, never mind dealing with the cost of such child care, which might well mean that the mother of the children will receive only marginal economic gain from a day's work on a holiday. Mr. Speaker, we must applaud the government in accepting our commitment to creating a winter holiday.

However, calling it a family holiday without the constraints that will make it a holiday in which all families can participate reflects this govern­ ment's inability to recognize that not all families are middle- income, two-parent families who will benefit from this holiday.

For families other than middle-income families, it demonstrates the emptiness of the government's rhetoric about families and demonstrates that although the government pays lip service to the diversity of families and the difference of circumstances, it really does not understand that diversity or those different cir­ cumstances and what is really needed by those families and what will really benefit those families. In addition, we need more of a commitment to families than having a family holiday. We need to address the issues and the realities that impact on families, that weaken family life.

Such considerations include labour legislation that is responsive to the needs of families. We need consideration as to how to eradicate poverty, particularly the poverty experienced by women and children in this province. We need to determine how to eradi­ cate unemployment and how to provide services to families that will facilitate healthy family functioning, including marriage preparation courses, communication and problem-solving skill development, parenting courses, and counseling and support for families experiencing difficulties.

When talking about strengthening families, let's turn our at­ tention to all families, and in creating a family holiday, a winter holiday, let's include insofar as possible all families. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Associate Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. WEISS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I did­ n't intend to get involved or speak towards the Bill, but I felt I must in view of some of the remarks I've just heard from the Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. Mr.

Speaker, I find it very interesting that the member would support the Bill but would bring out some glaring examples of what I would call nonconstructive and certainly nonpositive atti­ tudes towards the Bill or what the Bill reflects in itself. But I am pleased that she would support the Bill. In particular, though, I would like to point out that it would not be just a day to have winter carnivals and to have the day off, that we're con­ cerned about care for the children and who'd be working and who wouldn't be.

I hope it would become a special day, a spe­ cial day for the families, of rededication for the families to start with, not to encourage winter carnivals or recreational events that would be taking people away from the family but hopefully

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 369 would be involving the family in total. [interjection] If you don't mind, Member for Edmonton-Avonmore, you had your opportunity; I'd like to have mine now as well. AN HON. MEMBER: It was Edmonton-Calder. MR. WEISS: My apologies. I'd like to also indicate that the member referred to the cost. Well, I think that's the intent of what the Premier is doing with regard to the introduction of the Bill: to ensure that all families from all areas, whether it be any level of income or any age, would be able to participate and be involved. That's the full intent of it.

I know there was reference made to the retail sector, and I know some people in the retail sector don't honour such special days as Remembrance Day or Christmas Day, but we do find there's some other spin-off in economic benefits that others look at. I hope we'd see such things as family cards for family days, as we see for Valentine Day and Father's Day and Mother's Day and instances like that. So there will be some ancillary benefits that I'm sure one doesn't even look at or think of at this time.

I'm very pleased the hon. member would refer to the in­ volvement of the women, because of course they play a very, very important part of it, and I think this Bill is sensitive to the needs and is certainly going to be involved. I say "involved" because I would like to make mention and reference to the Lieu­ tenant Governor's conference that will be held on the family, a very significant one that will be bringing people together from North America and perhaps abroad as well. That conference is projected to be held on February 21 and 22 in 1990.

So I would hope there'd be some constructive comments and suggestions made toward that conference, that we would all be on the right track as it comes to dealing with the family and family issues. If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, the Bill has made people more aware, involved, and caring. And this government does care, and that's the purpose of the Bill. The poverty aspect that was referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore I think is a weak one. She talks about child care.

I think that's where we should all readdress our priorities, and if at all possible and wherever possible, we would be involved with our families. That might be just one day of many during that week that we'd be able to dedicate our family needs to be sharing and caring and to whatever it may be. I cer­ tainly suggest it's not emptiness, as the member has indicated, but positiveness and the commitment to family. I do believe it was a typical ploy, though, to throw in such references to labour, to unemployment. These aren't the issues we're talking about in the Bill.

We're talking about the impor­ tance to the family and getting back to the meaning and the caring and the responsibilities that we all know and share. No­ body on any side of this House or no member in this Assembly can say they don't care. We all care. Nobody, certainly, has any other priorities in that degree. I'd like to talk about the positives and not the negatives, to build upon the family by strengthening it. I believe that is what the intent of the Bill is, and it certainly can do that.

I would urge all hon. members to support the Bill without looking at the other aspects of it but the positive things the Bill brings out. Because I certainly intend to be there, involved in family week, and I'm sure all hon. mem­ bers will do so. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I do be­ lieve in emphasizing the positive, in response to the minister, but I think there are some things in this Bill that are wanting. Mr. Speaker, I have no question about the thoughts ex­ pressed here about the need to strengthen family life.

Nobody in this House takes exception to that. I think the idea that fami­ lies through this Bill would have an opportunity to share a day together is a lovely one. However, the reality of the cir­ cumstances of families in Alberta and elsewhere in this country is often quite different from what has been expressed here. Mr. Speaker, there's merit to a winter holiday. What we are talking about here is a statutory holiday in February. I expect service clubs in our various communities will get going to try to promote events that will include families, and that'll be grand. All of that's okay, Mr. Speaker.

That's fine. But will families spend the day together, and will they get together? Probably not, unless the Premier is prepared to introduce legislation to maintain total closures and make sure families do have an op­ portunity to spend one day together in a given year. As it cur­ rently stands, any employee can be required to work on this day, thus robbing the holiday of any real meaning for many in­ dividuals.

If the Premier is truly serious about giving increased consideration to families, he should ensure that all Alberta em­ ployees are allowed to take Family Day off from work with no threat of penalty from their employer. I'd like to ask the Pre­ mier and the Minister of Labour if they are going to take imme­ diate steps to amend the Employment Standards Code to ensure that Albertans are guaranteed that legal right to spend Family Day at home. Otherwise, the objective becomes somewhat shallow. Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to know if the Premier or others in the cabinet have had any discussions about this particular piece of legislation with business organizations, large and small, and what their response to it will be. What will really happen? Well, people who have a real de­ sire to spend a day with their families and need the time off may, in fact, not be able to do so. They'll be compensated with money but not with time. If that's the objective of the piece of legislation, Mr. Premier, it's not working. It's an okay idea, but it doesn't fulfill it. Mr.

Speaker, I have some thoughts about what really needs to happen to strengthen family life in Alberta that I would hope the government might put their minds to.

I'm afraid that their understanding of a family is perhaps different from mine and the reality of today, although I'm pleased to note that in the govern­ ment's own document Caring & Responsibility there is a com­ ment that acknowledges that family life has changed in Alberta, that a family isn't necessarily the usual two parents, two chil­ dren kind of configuration but it could reach out to being a dif­ ferent kind of mix of people: foster families, people who live in group homes; a mother, father, his, hers, and theirs; different arrangements of family life.

In fact, my consideration is that it's two or more people living together in a supportive, nurturing relationship. I hope the government thinks about Family Day within that context. But if Family Day is intended to strengthen family life, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what those elements are about our society, our environment, that weaken family life that we can put our minds to, along with things like a day off. What would Family Day do to alleviate some of these kinds of stress, for in-

370 ALBERTA HANSARD June 19, 1989 stance poverty. One of the major causes of problems in families, of family breakup, of divorce, of stress and strain in families, of children running away, and so on, is poverty. One in six families in Alberta are in poverty, 96,000 children, many of them operating at the minimum wage or only slightly above it, maintaining themselves, attempting to be good parents and good children but experiencing immense difficulties. Mr.

Speaker, some of us pleaded with the government when the Employment Standards Code and the labour Act were devel­ oped to deal with the problems of part-time workers who achieve no benefits. So the circle of poverty goes on and, in fact, deepens. We've had some encouraging statistics recently about employment in the province but very little detail on what kind of employment that is or at what level of wage those jobs exist.

Most of us know that many people who are heads of households are underemployed, are existing at only minimum wage, unable to achieve any additional training, many of them suffering from different forms of illiteracy, indeed many of them young people that we have begged to complete their education and who now cannot find work that in any way uses their skills and talents. Mr. Speaker, we have included in our province the wonder­ ful idea that we are a high divorce rate province -- highest in the country, I guess, still -- and we have, of course, many single parents.

I'm pleased to see that in order to reduce family stress for many of those single parents, mostly women, we've in­ creased our maintenance enforcement. We haven't yet been able to do too much about providing access for the noncustodial parent. I look forward to that legislation coming forward later in this session. Mr. Speaker, back to poverty. The social assistance rates haven't changed. In fact, since 1982 they've decreased for many people in this province who still consider themselves family, and we're faced with increasing numbers of food banks in our province, a shocking situation.

Hungry children in schools are common in the inner cities, and our communities are rallying as best they can to deal with that situation and eliminate it if at all possible. The government has consistently declined to consider the possibilities of pay equity, which would relieve some of the situ­ ations for single mothers who, on average, are paid only 65 per­ cent of what a man in a comparable job would achieve. These are women in family situations, Mr. Speaker, supporting one, two, three children at home, but we do not see any need to pay them equitably. Mr.

Speaker, troubled teens are another source of immense stress. The Premier has indicated his intent to move regarding treatment centres for alcohol and drug addiction among young people, and I commend that. Sorry to see that the budget does­ n't quite fulfill what we had all anticipated from throne speech one and son of throne speech two, but in any event we do have a gesture in the budget of $250,000, and it appears we're going to look at it. We don't in any promises yet see any evidence of improved circumstances for those families who have troubled teens with mental illness.

This could be approaching a scandal in our province, but we don't seem to have addressed ourselves to the needs of teenagers who are suffering serious disabilities with mental illness. We still are beset with runaways, with dropouts, with an increase in teenage pregnancy. Yet it doesn't seem to me our Family Day will in any way help those problems that are a consistent source of stress in family life in Alberta and an increasing source of stress. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier and the members of the Leg­ islature what Family Day will do to alleviate the need for respite for young families who've been encouraged to keep mentally or physically handicapped children at home. In fact, we often have calls in our constituency offices about the closure of the various respite facilities in our communities that make it possible for those people to have any family life at all.

They constantly live in fear that they will never be able to have any time, any holiday, any break from the care of that loved one who is men­ tally or physically disabled, or both, in their family. This also applies to the older-age family caring for an elderly parent at home or an adult menially handicapped person. Respite care we talk about from time to time, but it doesn't exist in any kind of comprehensive form in this province. Family Day, I suggest to you, will do absolutely nothing to ease that situation. Mr.

Speaker, I have talked often in this House about child care, an absolutely essential service to many of our families in Alberta. The government appears to be moving now to improve standards -- years overdue -- and subsidies, and I'm grateful for that. However, the qualification limit for subsidies has not in­ creased, and no steps have yet been taken to ensure safety in personnel in our child care centres. Mr. Speaker, the government has at its hand a piece of legis­ lation and a service system available to support and strengthen family life, and that's family and community support services.

One wonders, when you see the budget this year, what on earth the government can be thinking of. This is a very important methodology to support our communities and our families, yet the increase has been almost nil.

I'd like to know from the Premier, when he has an opportunity to answer some questions on this Bill, if in fact those people who are operating family and community support services, those hundreds of volunteers across our province who do thousands of hours of work to strengthen families, have been consulted about this kind of ac­ tivity and what it could mean in their communities, and how they might have preferred to see such a day as this developed so that it truly would serve to strengthen family life. Mr.

Speaker, we've made no mention yet of immigrant fami­ lies and their special needs to be integrated into our com­ munities, the special needs for English as a Second Language and for support in particular to the women in those families who have a great deal of difficulty making their way in our style of life. Let me get on to a few more of them that I see Family Day in no sense easing whatsoever. Family violence: yes, we have some increase to shelters, and I'm pleased to see that. As yet, no programs for the abusers. In fact, they've been withdrawn. Mr.

Speaker, how on earth do we have any way of supporting family life if we allow this circle of abusers to continue? We make no major effort in this province whatsoever to intervene in that circuitous kind of activity the abuser can avail himself of, or herself -- rarer but I understand it does happen. I think the prov­ ince has at its hand all the information necessary if it will but act, if it will have the political will do some intervention with the abusers. The foster family situation I've spoken of before. Children have been taken away from foster homes unnecessarily.

Chil­ dren have been allowed to stay in foster homes without the sig­ nificant support to the foster parents that they desperately need. I asked last week about the Thomlison report and the need for a special team for high-risk children, to identify them and to help foster families to deal with them. It's not there in our province,

June 19, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 371 yet we believe we can take the time to create legislation to have family days and leave those people bereft of the kind of backup they need. Group homes in our province need a lot of assistance and support to exist. They, too, are family life. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are expectations raised in this legislation that will not be fulfilled, with regret. I think a February holiday is a great idea. It's a long, dark month, and we're weary and need some fun at that point. I hope our communities will respond by creating some fun.

I think it's fine to call it Family Day, but let's not fool ourselves. Hundreds of families in this province will never be able to take advantage of this unless the Premier and the Minister of Labour will act to change their legislation and unless all members of the govern­ ment will act to change some of their methods that are at hand, that are known and understood to support families. This gov­ ernment's commitment to strengthen family life has yet to materialize. With regret, Mr. Speaker, this particular family Act doesn't accomplish it in any way. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville. MR.

FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to discuss briefly the principles of the Bill as proposed by the hon. Premier, the Family Day Act. It's not an idea new to this As­ sembly, it's fair to say. Indeed, much of the guts, shall we say, of this piece of legislation was embodied in a previous Bill, the Mid-winter Holiday Act, introduced by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, Mr. Martin. I think, in fairness, the Bill was drafted by a former researcher in our Official Opposition shop who is now the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

The Mid-Winter Holiday Act was introduced by me last year and debated in this Assembly on June 16, 1988. For members who are new to the Assembly, you might find it instructive to go back to the details of that debate, where we in the Official Op­ position proposed that a midwinter holiday be created in the third week of February.

We thought it important that the efforts of Albertans be recognized, the fact that they go for three and a half and sometimes four months between recognized public holidays, the first one of the calendar year being New Year's Day and the next one being Good Friday, which occurs some- time in March or April, depending on the year.

We felt that was a long time to go between holidays and that there would be some important benefits to our society and our economy overall if we brought in a midwinter holiday that not only gave the peo­ ple in the workplace, the women and men who work for a living, something to look forward to in terms of a holiday that would beat the midwinter blues or dissipate the doldrums of a long midwinter but would also enhance the productivity of the work force. Because as members opposite recognize, a happy work force, a well-rested work force is indeed a productive work force.

So we thought there were a lot of reasons for bring­ ing forward this Bill. I was interested to follow the debate on the Bill from mem­ bers opposite and pleased to see my good friend the Member for Lacombe here, because he's one of the most incisive debaters on the government side and had some interesting comments to make that day on the holiday Act. I'll quote, Mr. Speaker, if I may, page 1788 from Hansard. In reference to the estab­ lishment of a midwinter holiday, a holiday in the third week of February, the Member for Lacombe said, and I quote, "I don't know whether we can afford it." Another quote: "No way.

I'm not in favour of it anyway." Another quote: "Why would we legislate another holiday? I just can't understand it." And here's the best one of all, Mr. Speaker, the best quote, the most incisive judgment of the member opposite: "Everybody likes a holiday. It's great. It's just like motherhood, till you think about it." Well, Mr. Speaker, I've thought a lot about mother­ hood, and I think motherhood is just swell. I hope the hon. Member for Lacombe has had a chance to think a little bit more about the comments he made on the Mid­ winter Holiday Act.

I don't know whether the Premier has had a chance to make some compelling arguments in caucus that will bring that member on side, because it would certainly be an embarrassment, hon. Member for Lacombe, to see the Premier's flagship Bill of this session have a dissenting voice in his own caucus. So I do hope you've had a chance to think about it. Beyond just speaking against the