Alberta Hansard — 15 July 1986, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 1)

19860715

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 537 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, July 15, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today is a truly outstanding Albertan. This person is Mr. A. C. Anderson, the mayor of Lethbridge. The Member for Leth bridge East and myself have had the honour of serving with the mayor since 1975.

I would like to very briefly — because the mayor has announced he will not be seeking re-election this year — outline to the members of the House and to yourself a comment or two about the mayor's background. Mayor Anderson was elected to the school board in Lethbridge 36 years ago, was elected to city council in 1964, and became the mayor of Alberta's largest city after Calgary and Edmonton in 1968. He served in that office for the past 18 years, being re-elected four times, twice by acclamation. Mr. Speaker, he's an honorary colonel. He's a Paul Harris Fellow.

He was citizen of the year in 1985 and received the Queen's medal. This past year he received the Order of Canada and was a recipient of a Doctor of Laws at the University of Lethbridge. I think I can say that Mayor A. C. Anderson is truly an outstanding Albertan. I would like to have the members of this House join me, along with yourself, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mayor for his accomplishments and wishing him a very happy future. Thank you. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. SIGURDSON: Mr.

Speaker, in the public gallery today are two people that are very dear to a number of us on this side of the House, the 16 of us. They are Marion and Graeme Thomlinson. They have served our movement for a long period of time. In fact, they've served it since 1933 when the party was formed. I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Government Purchasing Policies MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the minister of public works. I have information which indicates that a tender call was issued in March at the Walter C.

Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre for parking control equipment which was specifically limited to a par ticular line of equipment only made in the United States, even though an equivalent type of Canadian equipment is available and can be supplied locally at a price of $25,000 less than the U.S. product. My question to the minister: could the minister indicate why government projects would encourage using a United States firm rather than a Canadian firm which presented a lower bid? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, all I can say at the moment is that it's normal within our procurement policies to buy Alberta as much as possible. We have approximately 350 projects under way. The details of this particular tender I am not familiar with, but I will certainly look into it and respond further. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to give the minister the information on this particular tender.

But to follow up on the policy, in answering questions in this general area on Friday, the economic development minister indicated that the policy — I understand that as long as all other factors are equal, the province leans toward Alberta suppliers. I think I'm generally quoting the minister right on that. My question to the minister: is there any similar procurement policy which states that we should at least use Canadian rather than American products, especially if Canadian ones are cheaper? MR. ISLEY: I think, Mr.

Speaker, it would be safe to say that the general policy is that all other things being equal, we would prefer to buy Albertan; secondly, all other things being equal, we would prefer to buy Canadian. I underline "all other things being equal." MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, flowing from that. Has the minister, since taking on his new portfolio, given any specific instructions to his depart ment regarding the use of Albertan and Canadian products? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think if you check the pur chasing records of Public Works, Supply and Services, the percentage of dollars going to Alberta manufacturers and Alberta suppliers over recent years has increased substan tially. I've investigated the purchasing procedure since becoming the minister of the department; I have found that the track record is quite good. MR. MARTIN: I guess that's a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. My question was whether he had issued any instructions regarding this matter.

By the nonanswer I'll take "no." I come specifically back to this and ask: will the minister as a matter of policy undertake that he will direct that this sort of thing should not happen again, that for Crown and government projects we buy Alberta and we buy Canada ahead of American companies, especially where all other things are equal? Will he issue it as a statement? MR. ISLEY: I think I answered that one earlier, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think the hon. leader listened too closely to my last answer. I look at the growth of purchasing in the last three years.

We have moved from buying 57.8 percent of our products from Alberta manufacturers up to 65.8, a total of $198 million out of approximately $300 million spent in these types of purchases, and we're pur chasing another 25.6 percent or $77 million from Alberta distributors. So I'm not going to start hammering a depart ment that appears to — by my investigations they have a very good track record for buying Alberta where it's possible to buy Alberta.

538 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 MR. TAYLOR: As a supplementary and along the same question, Mr. Speaker, but it's to the minister of economic development. Could he tell the House what he is doing to help co-ordinate the Alberta government's buying power as a proactive means of developing Alberta industry in areas of diversification? MR. SHABEN: We've been very active in terms of encour aging the optimum maximizing of Alberta content in our industrial development permits. All of the permits require that the developers, those who receive the industrial devel opment permits, maximize Alberta goods and services.

Another area we've been working actively in, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to specifying on various projects that the consultants who work very closely with developers, whether it's a Crown agency or otherwise, in undertaking the specifications ensure that the specs are designed in such a way that Alberta companies who are in the business are able to respond to those tenders. In the case of hospitals, the hospital boards are responsible for issuing the tenders, and the bulletin that requires a maximizing of Alberta content has been circulated to all the hospital boards. Fort McMurray Refinery Project MR.

MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Premier. It flows from some of the Premier's intriguing remarks during his estimates last Thursday night. On page 483 of Hansard the Premier said that the government is looking at the establishment of a huge utility-type refinery near Fort McMurray which would deal with bitumen from smaller mining operations. My question is to the Premier, because I was not aware of this. To follow up on this idea, does the Premier have a ballpark figure of the cost of such a facility in current dollars? Are we looking at $2 billion or $3 billion?

Could he give us a rough estimate? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that figure in my head currently, but it would be easy to obtain it and provide it to the Leader of the Opposition. MR. MARTIN: Flowing from that, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at the planning stage: at what stage is the government in the planning for this facility? The funding — are we, for example, looking at provincial financial support for it? MR. GETTY: We're not planning it, nor are we thinking of funding it at this stage, Mr. Speaker. We are investigating the feasibility of it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Mr.

Speaker, I might bring the investigation we're looking at back to some reality. I noticed today the spot prices for Brent oil are now in the range of $8.75 or below $9. Appallingly low, I think we'd all agree. My question is: in his investigations does the Premier have information he could share on how any new tar sands ventures are feasible without some sort of guaranteed minimum price for the product? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that there is a variety of prices for crude these days on the international market. West Texas crude, for instance, is selling above $11.

While there may be the odd sale of Brent crude at a lower price, I think we have to consider all of the various selling prices. When you go into a venture like a major oil sands plant, you're not talking about the current price, you're talking about the price of oil in the year 1990-1991, when these projects would come on stream. Our estimates — Mr. Speaker, we believe they would not only be very economic in those years but they would be needed badly by the people of Canada. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Premier.

Recognizing that we are looking ahead in terms of the price, is the government looking at a minimum price when they investigate this project or any other project? Are they looking at the fact that over the life of that project there would have to be some sort of minimum price? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, over the years and, yes, since November 1 when I was sworn in as Premier, at least one organization talked to me about the potential for the federal and provincial governments' sharing the risk of future prices with that company in order that they might proceed with a potential oil sands plant.

At the time, though, the discussion didn't go very far. I think sharing the risk, which is not necessarily a minimum price but can fit a variety of options, is not something to be discarded easily and is something that would be worth taking a good look at. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is federal input anticipated in this dream of the Premier's, or is he going to carry on with his past threats to do it himself, go it alone? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it hasn't progressed to the point of involving other governments.

But it might well be that if the province of Alberta is the only one that feels the need of Alberta and Canada for this type or project, should it turn out to be something that should be done, we would certainly take a look at its being done with Alberta alone. I believe, though, knowing the interests of the federal government in this regard, that should the project look feasible, they would be willing to participate. Government Expenditures MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this is also to the Premier.

During this period of economic downturn of $8 or $9 oil and even cheaper wheat, it is critical that the government provide leadership for Albertans by implementing cost-cutting initiatives. Will the Premier and his government demonstrate his commitment to cost cutting by setting up a task force similar to the Nielsen Task Force — I know it's a very familiar name — to identify areas where costs could be cut? MR. GETTY: It's an interesting proposal, Mr. Speaker. I'd certainly think about it.

I should point out that the Treasury Board, in reviewing budgets, is alert to the matters of cost cutting at all times, balancing it off, of course, as I said earlier, with the need to provide the services to the people of Alberta which they require and ask for and also with the need to provide a certain amount of economic stimulus during a period when some of our industries are facing tough times. So it's all a balance. Nevertheless, I would not discard out of hand the hon. member's suggestion. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. I'll continue to be positive.

Is the government in the near future going to be encouraging creative attrition such as re-education,

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 539 early retirement, or job sharing initiatives as a means to compassionate cutting of government staff? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might know that the number of government employees has been reduced for several years. It's either three or four years that there has been a constant reduction. That reduction is accomplished in each case with, I believe, compassionate and thoughtful sensitivity to the people who are being reduced. I think that's a responsibility of any enlightened employer. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. He's a whiz in math.

He's cutting staff, but the cost has been going up every year. Somebody is pocketing some money. Has a cost/benefit study, for example, been conducted? What indi cators are used by the government to measure the return on taxpayers' dollars spent in international offices such as Houston, Los Angeles, New York, London, Hong Kong? Need I go on? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, those are matters of judgment. We're always assessing the investment of dollars in such things as increasing trade and increasing industrial devel opment in this province.

We can't just talk about diversifying our economy and then when we make moves that assist in that regard start to worry or complain about those expend itures. We will always try and use the best judgment possible, in that our dollars that are being invested are in the best interests of all Albertans. MR. TAYLOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. How can the government claim to be fiscally responsible when Albertans hear about first-class travel for cabinet ministers, limousines, clothing allowances and, finally, representatives at Expo living in the style of a Middle East caliph? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that if the hon. member has some specific cases he feels are misuses of government funds in some regard, he draw them to the attention of the government, and we will pursue each one. MR. TAYLOR: It's not misuse; it's excessive use. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. If I may be specific, one area that keeps going up significantly is travel and hospitality costs. Would the Premier at least consider cutting that this year? At least it would send a symbolic message to ordinary Albertans. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, if there are wasteful hospitality and travel costs, definitely they would be considered for cutting. But I have to say that when we are facing problems — we've had members opposite who say that diversification is important, support for our industrial development is important, all of these matters tied together — I think you have to be looking for trade arrangements with other nations. You have to be looking for industrial development oppor tunities. You have to be attracting investors to this province. All of it is a package.

But again, if there are wasteful hospitality and travel matters, they would certainly be cut. Agricultural Trade DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the recent continuing trade wars between the United States and the European Economic Community, Canada recently lost a traditional large sale of barley it has had with Saudi Arabia. The European market took it at $65 a metric ton. To the minister: what effect does this loss have on the Alberta producers at the present time? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon.

Member for Vermilion-Viking, I've had the opportunity on a number of occasions in the Chamber to indicate our concern as it relates to the ongoing dispute between the European Economic Community and the United States and our hope that something will be resolved in the very near future. What we can do is continue to make representations to our federal counterparts, as the hon. minister responsible for the Wheat Board has done in bringing together the major grain producers, with the hope that it will be resolved. DR. WEST: A supplementary.

In view of that, is there any indication of an end to these senseless trade wars? Has there been any input, and what influence does this government intend to add in helping to stop them at the present time? MR. ELZINGA: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the minister at the federal level has gathered together the major grain producers of the world to try to reach some consensus as to how best a resolution to this problem can be achieved.

I should share with the hon. member also that this government, as was indicated when the western Premiers gathered, has suggested to the federal government and has pushed in a strenuous way the proposal whereby a deficiency payment would be paid to our grain producers to offset some of the detrimental impact of it. DR. WEST: A supplementary. In view of this stress being put on our producers economically, in discussions the min ister has had with his federal counterparts, has he had any representation made to him to participate in the federal farm debt review boards at this time? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, I think it was some weeks ago that we received a letter from the federal Minister of Agriculture asking if we would collaborate with him in the establishment of the farm debt review boards. As I indicated to this House some time ago, we are more than happy to participate in any area that is beneficial to the agricultural sector. I threw back the suggestion to the federal minister that we thought it would be much more helpful in the event that they reduced interest rates from the Farm Credit Cor poration to 9 percent, much like we are doing with the farm credit stability program. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, as a supplement to the hon. Minister of Agriculture's reply, I have had discussions on this matter of the trade war between the United States and the European Economic Community with the Prime Minister, who has been working very hard. As you know, he raised this matter in the meetings in Japan, and he's raised it again.

We've discussed it on several occasions recently with Prime Minister Thatcher, because she will be the incoming chairman of the European Economic Community and will therefore be in a position to try and influence a turning down of the trade war between the United States and the European community. We're looking forward to the efforts the Prime Minister is making in that regard, and we are pleased that he is working in this way. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the Minister of Agri culture. I note the recent report by the federal government

540 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 that they are pushing for a base price of $10 per bushel for domestic wheat. Does the hon. minister have a stand on whether he supports that recommendation or not? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, quite some time ago when hearings were being held, we submitted a paper to the federal government endorsing that position for the domestic wheat price to be set at $10. Free Trade MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask some questions of the Premier on the matter of bilateral free trade. They flow from comments he made in his estimates last Thursday evening.

On page 485 of Hansard the Premier indicated: "This Legislature would have to agree to this province entering into any agreement." I'd like to ask the Premier whether he was saying that this Legislature has the right to opt out of any free-trade deal proposed by the federal government. MR. GETTY: I don't think using the term "opt out" is necessarily the correct one, because we have not yet fully determined what the ratification process might be of any free-trade arrangement. But it would be my desire, Mr.

Speaker, to bring to the House for debate and for approval any agreement we would be entering into in the free-trade area. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If it's simply a matter of opting in or opting out of an entire agreement, that's one possibility. Would the Premier consider a process whereby we could opt out of certain provisions of such an agreement and accept the rest of the agreement? MR. GETTY: As I said, it isn't a matter of opting in and opting out.

Since we haven't determined the ratification process yet, the idea of taking just part of an agreement is not one we've considered, and I just won't discard it lightly. As most members know, when entering into an agreement, you enter into the agreement, not just one part of it. Normally, it would not be possible, but I say again that I wouldn't discard it lightly. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I take it this is a way of protecting provincial rights in Alberta.

I'm wondering if this is a personal policy only of the government of Alberta, or is it also the policy of the other 10 provinces, such that all provincial Legislatures in the country would have the same opportunity to ratify a free-trade agreement. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, those provinces' provincial governments would have to speak for themselves on that matter. MR. HAWKESWORTH: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of protecting provincial rights through a ratification process, why is it the Premiers lightly gave up their insistence on having an observer's seat at the talks?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member quoted from the Hansard of my estimates remarks the other night, that very matter I referred to and answered in those same remarks. Basically, it was — and I'll repeat for him now, although he can check it against the written word — the fact that the 10 Premiers and the Prime Minister discussed that matter. Some of the provinces felt that with federal initiatives and trade matters they didn't want to in any way be part of those negotiations.

As a matter of fact, if there was a provincial representative there, they did not want to in any way endorse free trade negotiations even starting. Obviously, I can't get into all the arguments because amongst all the provinces and Premiers there were a variety of views held on the matter.

In order to allow the federal government to start their negotiations with all of the provinces supporting them, we said that for a trial period we would work with the proposal of having constant weekly meetings at the officials' level, monthly meetings at the ministerial level, and meetings every three months at the First Ministers' level. For some three months we are going to follow that process and judge whether or not we are receiving the information we require. It is something the jury is still out on, and we will be watching it carefully.

We do have, as an Alberta Member of Parliament who is also a member of the federal cabinet, the senior minister involved in these matters. We have a very close relationship with the Hon. Joe Clark, and it may well be that we feel a greater sense of trust in that regard. Nevertheless, we shall watch it carefully. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier considered what his statements or views or plans on going it alone on upgrader plants and tar sand plants will do to the free-trade talks? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, the ability of the province of Alberta to determine the development of its resources is not a matter for any free-trade talks. Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. There are clear problems with our federal/provincial relations. We have lost $600 million in the established program funding; we have lost the funding associated with the Husky Oil upgrader; we have not lost the PGRT.

Why has the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs been downgraded in its priority by combining it with the Attorney General's department under a single minister? MR. GETTY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have not lost the Husky funding. As a matter of fact, we have had additional Husky funding, and the project is proceeding. We have not lost $600 million in transfer grants. As I pointed out in the House before, the grants are increasing, albeit under the current proposal at a slightly lower rate. We will receive hundreds of millions of dollars, increasing annually.

Also, because of our share of federal taxation caused by the federal government's reducing their indexing, we will probably be receiving almost as much by increased tax points. So the hon. member has his information wrong. We have been successful in reducing dramatically the PGRT, and we have been successful in eliminating entirely all other parts of the national energy program. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in those areas he raised and in many others, I feel a very high level of confidence in our Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. The fact that one minister has a responsibility for both

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 541 Attorney General and Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs reflects to some degree my desires to have a downsized cabinet, but also reflects to a great degree the high level of confidence I and the members of our government and caucus place in the Hon. Minister of Federal and Inter governmental Affairs/Attorney General. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, to the deputy House leader, the Attorney General, the MLA for Medicine Hat, and also the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs: could he please tell us what portion of his time he will allocate to the development of a sophisticated federal/provincial relations strategy consistent with today's demands in that area? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, that would take me far too long to answer in the question period. Suffice it to say that the estimates of my department will eventually reach the floor of the Assembly.

Those would be appropriate times to discuss those issues with the hon. member and others. However, I have been the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs since November 1982 and in that respect have a fair degree of experience relative to the issues which are facing the department. Those consist of amongst other things the constitutional negotiations which will be facing us. As hon. members are aware, constitutional issues were not settled.

We have the issue of Quebec and the Constitution; we have aboriginal rights; we have the subject of possible amendments to the Constitution relating to the role of that august body, occupied by so many friends of the Liberal caucus, called the Senate and its major reform facing us. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and I agree as to what should be done with those people. Those are just a few items that face the department. I could go on and on, but Mr. Speaker has risen, so I shall sit. MR.

MITCHELL: I wish you had placed on your list a priority on energy and agriculture, neither of which were listed by the minister. Could the Premier please tell us whether the minister really has the time to co-ordinate complex areas of nego tiation with the federal government — for example, energy negotiations — because it's very clear they're not working. MR. GETTY: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I believe they are working. My judgment is that the minister does have the time.

It will always be something that's reviewed, but what I've observed up to now is that he is not only providing the time but is doing an excellent job in both responsibilities. MR. MITCHELL: A final supplementary to the Premier.

Since federal/provincial relations over the past decade were given such an important priority by having that department report to a single senior minister, is the Premier telling us that today's concerns in the federal/provincial relations arena — energy, agriculture, free trade, established program fund ing; I could go on and on — are less critical and are not deserving of a full-time minister's attention? MR. GETTY: No, I'm not saying that, Mr. Speaker. Health Care for Refugees REV. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, many churches throughout the United States and Canada and particularly here in Alberta have taken the lead in providing sanctuary for numbers of refugees who have come to our lands from other oppressive countries. Since these refugees are often in need of medical attention, why does the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care continue to turn his back on these refugees by refusing them access to health care in this province? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I understand at all the import of the hon. member's question.

As far as I'm aware, we are probably providing within this province a substantially better medical care than might exist in the countries those people came from. But I'd be pleased, if the hon. member has instances where people came here from other countries and are suffering a great deal through the lack of a health care program, to take it under con sideration to see what can be done. REV. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, letters I have from the St.

Barnabas society and others in Edmonton suggest that refugees who are claiming for status in Canada are not eligible for health care in this province, are not eligible to the Alberta health care insurance plan. They have written the minister and others on this matter and have been told that such refugees are not eligible for assistance. MR. SPEAKER: There was no question, hon. member. REV. ROBERTS: The question is: with that kind of infor mation why does the minister continue to refuse to grant them eligibility? MR. M. MOORE: I haven't noticed that the minister has refused to do anything.

If the hon. member has a concern with respect to the health care of one of his constituents or others, if he would bring it directly to my attention with some details, I will look into it. I frankly don't understand, Mr. Speaker, the approach during question period. I'd be pleased to look into it if the member will give me some information, but surely I can't look into an individual problem with a broadly based question like the member provided. REV. ROBERTS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Minister of Manpower following up in any way the depart mental recommendations in his department to negotiate an arrangement with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission so that special documentation confirming resi dency is provided to refugees, as is done in many other provinces in Canada? MR. ORMAN: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, we are in touch on an ongoing basis with the federal Department of Immigration. I have just traded cor respondence with the new minister. We have talked about a number of issues that involve immigration.

Certainly, the point the hon. member makes will be subject to further discussion. REV. ROBERTS: A final supplementary to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Is he saying on record, there fore, that refugees in Alberta are eligible for the health care insurance plan in the province? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta health care insurance plan does pay benefits to people who have landed immigrant status in Alberta. It's not possible nor would I want to suggest that the Alberta health care insurance plan, which the people of this province pay for, is going to cover

542 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 every single person who might arrive on a doctor's doorstep in Alberta. Obviously, there are illegal immigrants in every country, all kinds of people who may want medical care who are not recognized as either citizens, landed immigrants, or residents of a particular jurisdiction. What we do in Alberta in this regard is no different than they would do in any other province in Canada, I believe, and probably no different from anyplace else in the world where they have a medical insurance program.

If the hon. member has a specific instance or case of individual people who are lacking in medical attention in this province, I'd be pleased to look into the details as to why and whether or not there is any way we can expand our system to help them. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Bow Valley. REV. ROBERTS: A supplementary to the . . . MR. SPEAKER: One brief supplementary. There is con fusion in the House because of a very long statement earlier, so a brief supplementary, please, Member for Edmonton Centre. REV.

ROBERTS: Since Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba all provide full health care protection to refugees, is there something unique about this province which precludes change to our residency requirements for refugees who, as I am aware, are still not able to have eligibility under the plan? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing particularly unique about Alberta. As I said earlier, I'd be pleased to look into any cases where people are not receiving medical attention who do need it.

The question of whether or not people who are illegally in your province or country should be provided with medical care is not one I'm prepared to give an answer to by simply saying, yes, they can be. In my view that would significantly alter the concept of medical insurance coverage as we now know it in this province. MR. CHUMIR: A supplementary to the minister of hospitals, Mr. Speaker.

I was wondering whether or not the minister is prepared to take steps to make it easier for immigrants to Canada who have medical training to obtain internships in order to be able to practise in Alberta so they can treat other immigrants, who may have language problems, in their own languages. MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, that's a very important question. Yesterday I had a meeting with the registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, Dr. Leroy le Riche. He and I did discuss that very matter.

His concern that there are not enough internship places in Alberta and Canada for doctors who come here from other countries has been expressed publicly. On the other hand, there are a number of opinions which suggest that simply because you arrived here by way of travelling with a spouse and have a medical degree from some other country shouldn't entitle you to a place ahead of, for instance, some native-born Albertan who is looking for the same spot in an internship program. So the issue has two sides to it, Mr.

Speaker, both of which can be argued quite successfully by individuals, depending on what their concerns are. I conclude by saying that yes, it is a concern. I personally would like to see us have an opportunity to provide opportunities for more of these people to get their licence to practise medicine in Alberta, because we often find they are the ones who will serve smaller communities where medical doctors are often times in short supply. European Beef Imports MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and it's regarding imports from the European Economic Community.

There have been some hearings going on regarding the countervail on Euro pean beef into Canada. Are these hearings completed, and if so, what is the result? MR. ELZINGA: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and in response to the hon. member, it is our understanding that the Canadian Import Tribunal is going to report by July 25 as to whether there is any material damage to our Canadian cattle production by the European subsidized beef. We look forward to the results of that hearing by the Canadian Import Tribunal. I underscore: hopefully they are to report by July 25. MR. MUSGROVE: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. Are we still importing European beef into Canada? MR. ELZINGA: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member is also aware, though, when the Canadian Import Tribunal reported in mid-June, they indicated that Canadian cattlemen did have an alleged concern related to subsidized European beef. Because of that the Department of National Revenue imposed a tax on beef coming into Canada to somewhat offset this detrimental situation as it relates to our Canadian cattlemen. North West Trust MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Provincial Treasurer.

The minister refused again yesterday to answer my questions about the extent of the Treasury Branch involvement with North West Trust and its associated companies. Was the Treasurer saying that he doesn't know the extent of that involvement? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question, I guess, on three different occasions, indicating quite clearly that when it comes to commercial confiden tiality, I must maintain the confidence which the Treasury Branch has with this client and with all clients.

To do anything else would be an affront not just to the citizens of Alberta who deal with the Treasury Branch but to the Treasury Branch itself. While I am on this point, Mr. Speaker, it is regretful that the sudden position taken by this member with respect to the viability of the Treasury Branch is now causing some concerns to the system. I hope he would think carefully about his choice of words with respect to the future of the Treasury Branch in this province. MR. McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The question was: is the minister on top of it, and does he know how much the loans and debentures are to North West Trust? MR. JOHNSTON; Again, Mr. Speaker, that question of course has been answered. For me to give any different

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 543 answer or to vary my position would of course be difficult for both the Treasury Branch and the clients of the Treasury Branch. MR. McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer said the other day that the Treasury Branch alone makes decisions upon the merits of investment. Does the Treasurer mean by that that he does not believe it is his responsibility at the very least to know the extent of the Treasury Branch risk or the nature of its loan portfolio? Is he willing to reveal this to the Assembly? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my . . . MR.

SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. minister. I believe the order of questioning is truly out of order. The matter was raised yesterday. The minister's answers have been consistent with regard to the relationship between his office and the said institutions. Therefore, the Chair recognizes the Member for Calgary Millican. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: We are almost at the end of question period, so I'll take the point of order. MR. MARTIN: On the point of order. He can refuse to answer; I'm well aware of that. But that doesn't mean we can't keep asking the questions until we get the answers.

There is public involvement here, and it could affect back in terms of the budget in this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As long as the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway is prepared to accept the fact, it's well within the purview of the minister to keep answering in a similar way and saying no. A sup plementary. MR. McEACHERN: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I have here a statement of the Treasury Branch, and they indicate: On behalf of the Management and staff, I would like to extend an expression of gratitude to our Minister, the Honourable Lou Hyndman, Provincial Treasurer [it's now a new minister] and to his Advisor on Treasury Branches, Mr. A. F. Collins . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. This is a supplemental. MR. McEACHERN: The point is that it shows that the Treasurer is responsible to the Treasury Branches and should know what is going on. So why does the Treasurer have a policy of not providing vital information about public dollars to this Legislature?

MR. JOHNSTON: I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the member raises the question of responsibility. First of all, there's no doubt that the members on this side recognize fully their responsibility to manage the resources of this province and to accept the responsibility given to us by the legislation under which we operate. I hope this member recognizes his responsibility to the citizens of Alberta with respect to negative comments with respect to the Treasury Branch, which I think is irresponsible. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired.

The Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services wishes to give supplementary information to an answer earlier in the question period today. Is that agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? MR. TAYLOR: Yes. No. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if the House would indulge me, I thought I would advise members of the House that I took the liberty of representing their views today in a way that normally would have involved my checking with them first.

However, travel and phone connections and time differences with Europe made that difficult, so I have personally conveyed on their behalf by telephone the best wishes of the government of Alberta, this Legislature, and the people of Alberta to Miss Gail Greenough on her tremendous victory in the world horse jumping champion ships in Europe. She made a remarkable achievement as both the first Canadian and the first woman to accomplish this feat. I also invited her, on behalf of the House, to visit the Legislature when she returns to Canada and receive the reception of the House in person. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, it's nice when the Premier and I can agree totally, as we did yesterday with PGRT, on matters in the Assembly, and I, representing the Official Opposition, would like to also extend with the Premier our congratulations. It's always great to see Albertans achieving worldwide excellence; it gives us all hope. I would second what the Premier said. MR. SPEAKER: For purposes of the Hansard record the Chair notes that we have unanimous concurrence with respect to this issue. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 149. Mr.

Wright asked the government the following question: What considerations of policy and what other considerations led to the decision to demolish the former premises of the University of Alberta Hospital? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, we would accept the question, and I would like to provide the answer. The decisions with respect to the demolition of buildings on the University Hospital site were recommended by the board to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Approval of the board's recommendation was based on age and condition of the buildings, cost efficiency and utilitization of older buildings, and space requirements for new con struction. I'll provide written copies of that. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 208. Moved by Mr. Fischer:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to request the government of Canada to hold a national plebiscite on capital punishment.

544 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I have sponsored Motion 208 to debate today because I believe Albertans deserve a chance to have their views heard. They deserve to have a say in the protection of their own lives. In 1976 the House of Commons in Ottawa held a free vote and by a narrow 130 to 124 margin decided to abolish capital punishment in Canada. This decision really just confirmed what was already being practised, since all death sentences since 1962 had been commuted anyway.

Every poll and survey since that last execution in 1962 clearly show that Canadians favour the return of the death penalty. The June '86 Gallup poll was 56 percent for capital pun ishment over 33 percent in favour of life without parole; some polls were as high as 75 percent. But despite public opinion and rising murder rates, federal governments have refused to seriously deal with this issue. During the 1984 federal election, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney promised that the issue of capital punishment would be debated in Parliament during his term of office. Mr.

Speaker, Motion 208 serves as a reminder to the federal government of this election commitment and to encourage a national plebiscite on the issue. I know this issue's importance to my constituents, to Albertans, and to all Canadians, and it deserves to be raised in a national plebiscite. The current situation is unacceptable. It seems that every couple of weeks we are reminded of the inability of our legal system to adequately address violent crimes.

I noticed in last weekend's paper that a Spruce Grove man, who cruelly shot his wife in the back six times, was given an eight-year sentence and a lecture from the judge: You shot your wife . . . you will eventually be released from prison, and you will have a second chance to put your life together. Your wife will never have that chance because of your despicable . . . act. Mr. Speaker, this man will be eligible for parole in two and a half to three years. When we were youngsters we were taught that life was one of our most precious possessions; respect and protect it with utmost care.

In my lifetime I have watched the value and the respect of a human life slowly diminish to the point that it is now worth two or three years in jail. Mr. Speaker, is your life or my life or that woman's life only worth three years in jail? I hate to think of what is in store for the future if this trend continues. What are we telling our children? That we place the value of life as worth three years? Surely we must place more value on the taking of an innocent human life. Your life or my life or any Canadian's life must be given more respect.

Many other countries treat innocent lives as expendable, but is that what we want here in Canada? Our heritage is one of placing a high value on life and security, but now our laws do not reflect this heritage. If laws continue to be perceived as too relaxed and inadequate in protection, people will increasingly take meas ures to protect themselves. It is not just in the New York subways; there is fear here in Alberta. I do not agree with the vigilantes who take the law into their own hands, but I can understand their frustration with the current legal system and their fear.

In a number of provinces we have policemen taking out their guns each time they stop a car, to protect themselves. They know that their life is only worth a couple of years in jail. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the public as well. Can you blame a policeman for being nervous? I wonder how much this reduces the effectiveness of our police force. The entire legal system is under considerable strain. When average citizens begin to have sincere doubts about its effectiveness in serving justice, we have lost that respect.

We have the sickening spectacle of Clifford Olson, an unrepentant serial killer who will kill again if he ever escapes, receiving money for giving information about his own crimes. If this is the value we place on 11 young lives, no wonder homicide offences have increased by 14 percent since 1976, when capital punishment was abolished. During 1984 there were 699 homicide offences. Mr. Speaker, it is time for all politicians to take a stand, let their constituents know their views, and equally important, let's listen to their views. Let the public decide how to reinstate faith in our legal system.

A national plebiscite should be held on this issue. My views are strongly in favour of capital punishment for premeditated murder. There are many opinions on whether capital punishment is a deterrent. It would obviously be a deterrent to Clifford Olson, because he would never be able to kill again. A number of statistics we hear about deterrents show mixed results. The proof would have to be in the long term, when the attitude of society would slowly change — not one year, three years, or 10 years but a whole generation.

I would only support capital punishment if I believed, as I do, that it would truly benefit society. Capital punishment is necessary to restore balance in our courtrooms and to stop serial repeat offenders. Although only a very few people seriously contemplate murder, I believe capital pun ishment is a deterrence to a small but potentially violent minority in our society. I would like to relate to you a little personal experience, Mr. Speaker, that has convinced me of the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent.

In my high school drama days, if we can go back that far, we put on a short play one year that involved a prisoner on death row. I don't remember the name of the play, but the setting was a jail with a prisoner in ball and chains, two prison guards, the padre, an administrator, and the prisoner's lawyers. The prisoner had admitted he was guilty of a cold-blooded murder. He was to hang at midnight, and everyone anxiously watched the clock and waited for a reprieve from the governor. The phone would ring at different times but always for someone else.

The clock finally struck 12, and the two guards took the prisoner off to be executed. The reprieve never came. You will never guess, but I was the prisoner. It may have just been a high school play, but every time we practised, I felt uncomfortable and I was sure that I didn't ever want to get into that fellow's predicament. My neigh bours came to that play with their six-year-old boy. Ten years later that boy came and talked to me in detail about that play and how badly he felt for me that night. He said he would never forget it.

As I am not Laurence Olivier, it is obvious that the power of capital punishment had a strong influence on that boy. This is the kind of deterrent we need entrenched in our society. The death penalty is shocking and should be dis cussed with reverence, but I believe it is also necessary to protect life. I can assure the Assembly that I find no joy in a wasted life. My sole concern is to reduce the number of wasted lives. I don't think capital punishment is a cure-all for all of society's troubles.

Overcrowded courts, inconsistent bail and parole policies, and the huge overall public expense of the justice system: these and other problems will remain. But

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 545 society is clearly asking for more protection, and I support their concerns. Mr. Speaker, Parliament must pay attention to Canadians' views. Decade after decade polls have proven that Canadians favour the death penalty under certain circumstances. But we must begin to protect victims' rights every bit as much as we are currently protecting criminals' rights. Our laws must reflect our moral order. Our society continues to hold the crime of premeditated murder as deserving of the penalty of death. Poll after poll show this to be true.

My constituents have made it plain and clear: they want protection and they want revision. We all want more security and fairness within our legal system. What is the role of government if we are not adequately protecting the lives of Albertans on the street? Canadians have made it clear how they feel. We are not responding. As public representatives we owe it to the public to make and enforce laws that ensure peace and security. By supporting this motion, we can send a clear message to Ottawa, whether personally for or against capital pun ishment.

Let Canadians hold a national referendum on this issue that is important to all Canadians. As Alberta MLAs let us represent Albertans' concerns and make sure their voice is heard. I urge members to support Motion 208. I look forward to hearing other members' views on this important issue, and I hope members will pass this resolution so we can hear views of our Members of Parliament on this issue. We owe it to all Canadians. Thank you. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to Motion 208 by striking out "to hold a national plebiscite on capital punishment" and substituting: to introduce a Bill in the Parliament of Canada that would reinstate capital punishment and permit a free vote on the Bill, enabling Members of Parliament to vote on the issue independently of party position. Mr. Speaker, this amendment was circulated on Friday. I believe all members of the Assembly have received the same. The amendment is straightforward and self-explana tory.

It would be my recommendation to members of the Assembly that we pass the amendment so that the debate may then focus on the amended motion. AN HON. MEMBER: Question. MR. SPEAKER: There is a call for the question on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment . . . The Member for Edmonton Strathcona. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the idea is that we will substitute for a national plebiscite a free vote request to the Members of Parliament. I think it's cheeky, for want of a better word, of us to suggest what Members of Parliament should be debating.

Alberta is in the strongest possible position to make representations to Parliament, because all the federal Members of Parliament for Alberta are members of the same party and that party is the same party as the government of this province. Why members of this Assembly should be required to debate a motion such as this, over which we have no jurisdiction at all, substantively, when there are so many other things in this province that deserve debate at this time, is beyond my comprehension.

I understand the motivation, but surely that is something the hon. members interested in this motion and the results of it can take up with our Members of Parliament or indeed their caucus can take up with the caucus in Ottawa. I understand they're going to have a meeting very, very soon on this, caucus to caucus. Surely this is something they can put on the agenda without trespassing on our time for a matter not substantively in our jurisdiction.

They must know that there are substantial numbers of Members of Parliament who are committed to the point of view rep resented in the motion and that they themselves must have been investigating the ground, Mr. Speaker, for a free vote in Parliament and for furthering their own ideas on this matter. It seems to me that to have this Legislative Assembly give its opinion, which in the nature of things would not be a unanimous opinion, I'm sure, on what they should do is quite unnecessary and beside the point. It's not as if the matter hasn't been debated and ruled on before in the House of Commons.

Of course it has, and invariably it is the case that once the members are confronted with the actual evidence which shows that the death penalty is not in fact a deterrent to murder, the case crumbles because it is surely based on that simple idea which, reasonable as it may seem on the face of it, is not borne out by the evidence. In order for us to sensibly pass a motion such as this, Mr. Speaker, we would have to go into that evidence; otherwise, we would be making fools of ourselves.

We would be spending an enormous amount of time on a matter which I say again is not substantively within our jurisdiction, and there are better things to discuss which are. I'm not for a moment saying it is not an important issue, but it's an important issue for another place, Mr. Speaker. So I urge hon. members not to vote for this motion. MR. SPEAKER: The amendment to the motion? MR. WRIGHT: Well, for the motion to amend is what I'm talking about and, indeed, for the motion itself when we come to speak about that, if this amendment is passed.

The whole argument that the motion substantively seeks to put, and which I submit is no more likely to commend itself by way of a free vote as by way of a plebiscite, is one which the evidence does not support and for which the arguments are simplistic. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the deeply felt feelings of those who propose this motion to argue in the manner that is necessary to show that the feelings, however well- intentioned, are misplaced in the remedy they seek is not something we should be talking about in this Assembly.

It is for another place, and yet we cannot urge that other place to talk about it without going into matters which are not within our jurisdiction. I urge hon. members not to pass the amendment and, in due course, the motion, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the amendment, the Member for Stony Plain. MR. HERON: It's with some interest that I note the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona's remarks, for when I look at the Order Paper, and in particular Motion 216 by the hon.

Member [for Edmonton Avonmore], I note in the same context that they are urging the Government of Alberta to encourage the Government of Canada . . . to advance forcefully and consistently an international policy in favour of . . . peace . . .

546 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 Again, there is the same argument under Motion 218; there we're talking about Chernobyl. So in the context of this motion I really question the hon. member's right to infer that we do not have the right to draw matters to the federal government's attention. I would like to go on record as being in support of capital punishment and the death penalty for premeditated murder. I represent a constituency where in excess of eight out of 10 favour capital punishment. I take this opportunity to speak to, and in favour of, the amendment.

In doing so, I represent my constituents and the strong view shared by them and members of my family who have worn or presently wear Her Majesty's uniform. Canadians have consistently polled over 50 percent in favour of the death penalty. The 1953 figure, which is now over 30 years old, showed that 71 percent of Canadians favour the death penalty. That hasn't changed very much, for today it stands at 75 percent. I note that even in the extreme points of view represented in society, by far the majority favour capital punishment.

I'm speaking now of the New Democratic Party; when they're consistently polled, the majority represented are in favour of capital punishment. When we speak to this motion, consider the mass murderer who has nothing but time on his hands to break out. We have examples of that in our society. Take the case that the hon. Member for Wainwright brought up or the case of Harvey Andres, who escaped the penitentiaries for a siege of shooting and robbing before he was captured again.

I think the peaceful citizens of society have a right to be protected from mass murderers the likes of Olson, Bundy, and Lucas, who have engaged their severe personality dis orders in the killing of numerous people. Can anyone argue that these men should not be allowed the remotest chance of escape? I add that five out of six, or approximately 85 percent, of Canadians favour that a referendum be held at the time of the next federal election. Ten percent are opposed and 5 percent cannot say. To me this is pretty conclusive evidence that Canadians want a free national vote.

This topic has been under review since 1914. I think this is healthy and that it should be reviewed again nationally in light of the horrendous acts of terrorism, piracy, and mass murder and an increase in psychotic behavior. Even in our own community we're reminded of the increase in homicides by the headlines in the papers in the last few days. I emphasize that our citizens have rights. Often the argument takes the perverse opposite direction, sacrificing the citizen's rights in favour of the criminal.

This amendment only asks for a display of the collective wisdom of our Members of Parliament so that we can democratically exer cise our point of view from time to time by asking for support on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I have contained my remarks to the need for review and the holding of a vote on the issue. I have not elaborated on the strong pro arguments such as the deterrent effect and others. I trust that my colleagues in this Assembly will present these other facts.

I have not gone into specific cases of abuse where respect for human life is dismissed through ridiculous judicial decisions which give illogical rights to the criminal or the murderer. I have simply presented a case where by far the majority of Canadians favour the death penalty. I feel it is the respon sibility of my colleagues in this Assembly to represent their views to the Members of Parliament. Thank you very much. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr.

Speaker, in addressing the amendment to the motion, I understand that what is under consideration is whether to request either a free vote of the Members of the House of Commons or whether to call on the government to have a national plebiscite in order to determine what ought to be done in the area of capital punishment. I'd like to address my comments this afternoon simply to the amendment that is on the floor. I think there are a couple of trade-offs by going one route or another.

First of all, if the decision on capital punishment is to be made by way of a free vote of the Members of the House of Commons, that can work both ways, Mr. Speaker. Those people in the House of Commons, by voting with their conscience, can determine that capital punishment would be reinstituted in this country. That also allows the issue to keep being brought back at other times in the future. Those who are not happy with whatever decision might be made by the House of Commons on capital punishment can always press to have that vote overturned.

Regardless of what that vote is, those who disagree with it can keep pressing to have it brought back. In some regards that is healthy, Mr. Speaker, and that is the best possible way of dealing with capital punishment or any other issue, in that it allows for a matter to be readdressed as attitudes change over a period of time or as different views become prominent. It allows matters to be opened up at some future date.

That can work both ways, so that those who are unhappy with the decision that was previously taken by the House of Commons in 1976 can keep pressing and encouraging that matter to be reviewed and readdressed. Perhaps they will be successful in the next couple of years in having that free vote in the House of Commons. Even if they should succeed in getting capital punishment reinstated, those who disagree with that particular point of view themselves can continue to press, so that in essence this matter would be continually in the forefront of public debate. Mr.

Speaker, the other alternative — and one that I personally don't favour, but it is the motion as presented by the hon. member — is that a national plebiscite on reinstating capital punishment be held. First of all, I don't know why we would choose to have a plebiscite on this particular issue. We didn't have a national plebiscite on the Constitution, which had a far greater effect on individual Canadians than any discussion of capital punishment would have on the vast majority of ordinary Canadians.

So I don't know why we would call for a national plebiscite on capital punishment when far more important issues are dealt with in a different way and in a different form. There is one thing that could be said about a national plebiscite: that would decide the issue. I would submit to hon. members that a decision on the basis of a national plebiscite could likely only be overturned by a future plebiscite to overturn that same issue. Perhaps to some degree that's only speculation on my part, Mr. Speaker.

But having dealt year after year with the city of Calgary on an issue that was determined many, many years ago by a plebiscite in that city, I know that we were continually told that that matter could only be reversed by a similar plebiscite being held and by the people changing their minds in a similar manner. The matter was not nearly of the importance of capital punishment; it simply had to do with whether the city of Calgary could enforce the metering of residential properties for the use of water.

We were con tinually told that the plebiscite that had been conducted many, many years ago could only be overturned by having

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 547 the people of Calgary overturn it in a similar manner. So I submit that if a national plebiscite were held and approved for the reinstatement of capital punishment, it would firmly and in a final way settle the issue for many, many years and perhaps for several generations, in that it would take a similar national plebiscite to overturn it. Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the preference of having a free vote versus a plebiscite, my second point is this: I believe that more free votes should be the norm in the House of Commons and in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, with less emphasis on the importance of party caucus and party discipline in making members vote on one side of any issue or another. I think that what the hon.

Member for Edmonton Strathcona was saying earlier is: why are we telling the federal government that they should have more free votes in the House of Commons in Ottawa if we ourselves are not prepared to conduct the same kind of reform in our own Assembly over which we have direct jurisdiction?

It's fine for us to point fingers at the federal government and say that they should have more free votes and should have a free vote on this particular issue and to call on the federal government to conduct their business that way, but we have not taken similar steps ourselves to allow the same opportunity and privilege to members of this Assembly to vote as a matter of conscience on those items over which this Legislature has direct jurisdiction. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that what goes with us as an Assembly taking the step of adopting this particular amendment calling on a free vote in the House of Commons is an implicit understanding that we are also prepared to extend the same privilege and opportunity to ourselves as members of this Assembly on important matters affecting the province of Alberta. I know that that was the stated position of the Premier in the recent months leading up to the provincial election last May 8.

I welcomed and applauded that statement on his part, and I would ask the members of all parties in this Legislative Assembly to consider very, very seriously in the next few months, or certainly during the life of this Legislature, adopting similar kinds of rules over important matters affecting the life of this province and extending those to ourselves here in this Assembly. I can think of free trade as being one we talked about earlier this afternoon that affects the economy of this province in a direct way.

Is that the kind of issue equal to capital punishment in importance on which we as individual mem bers of this Legislature should be allowing ourselves a free vote? What other matters of substance coming before this Legislative Assembly could we extend the same privilege to? I think one of our standing policy committees could perhaps look at that.

In a way, I think this is a significant amendment, not for the fact that it deals with capital punishment — I think we can get into those particulars later — but because of what it says about the way we ought to be conducting our business not only in the House of Commons in Ottawa but here in the Alberta Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I would mainly like to address the amendment to Motion 208. I'll take issue with the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View on this.

We're spe cifically talking about one order of capital punishment, in direction to the federal government, and I by no means want to put the importance of other issues that you just mentioned in the same bracket as capital punishment or to state to the people of Canada that murder is on the same degree as trade. By no means do I ever want to insinuate that. I hope that today is not doing that. It says:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge . . . the Government of Canada to introduce a Bill in the Parliament of Canada that would reinstate capital pun ishment and permit a free vote on the Bill, enabling Members of Parliament to vote on the issue inde pendently of Party position [on one occasion only]. We are not trying to imply that we're changing their order of rules. I am convinced that if we look at this question objectively from a logical, public-policy point of view, we must conclude that capital punishment should be reinstated for once and all.

This subject has always erupted in many debates, discussions, and emotions over the decades. The problem arises when we do not address the reality of this question in our present times. The reality is that people do murder other people; for example, as stated, 699 did so in 1984, 44 of which were manslaughter and seven infanticide. We must remember that murder, the taking of someone's life other than your own, has permanent results in time and place on one side of the issue, namely the victim. The victim is dead by definition, and their sentence is permanent. The time and decision is 1986.

If we look back to 1962, the last time that capital punishment was enforced, at that time 1.27 per 100,000 inhabitants were murdered. Now it's 2.74; it's over double. The total murders in this country from 1961 to 1984 equalled 10,659. That's total murders, not homicides. If you put that in perspective . . . I come from a town of approximately 3,800. Let's remove them by death three times in '61-84. Let's look at it in those perspectives.

The Canadian people, since the removal of capital punishment in 1962, have demonstrated by poll that 60 to 70 percent are in favour of capital punishment and 85 percent are in favour of taking a vote to decide this. This history of our attitude over the years for government to play a father/protectorate role in such matters and avoid addressing society's demand for such a decision has perhaps brought it to a head at this time in our generation. Regardless of one's emotions and reasonings that could be listed as pros and cons forever, the major issue is justice.

As I have noted, the victim has immediately been given an ultimate sentence — death — not by choice. Therefore, the offender must address society, which must not only deliver justice but be seen to do so. Obviously, by our previously mentioned statistics, justice in murder cases is not perceived in today's system as having been done. Concern has risen recently when sentences in murders of categories less than first degree are seen to be too light. In this society we may have been lulled into this situation because the sentence for first-degree murder has had a maximum of 25 years, with or without parole.

Using the above as a base in judgment in cases of less than first-degree murder, we see individuals with parole serving three, four, or five years, and that's substantiated by statistics. Actually, first-degree murder expectancies have ranged over the last 15 years between 13 and 24 years; that's the maximum sentence. Again, is this justice?

I am sure that if we could interview the some 13,000 people murdered from 1961 to 1986 and ask them five minutes before they were murdered how they would vote on capital punishment if someone were to murder them, specifically — and I'm talking about the victims, not the relatives, because as time goes on relatives or associates of people that have been murdered traditionally tend to ask

548 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 for clemency. Let's specifically ask the victims; their answers might amaze you. What do you think those answers would be? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair hesitates to interrupt, but perhaps in the course of your debate you are soon coming to your references with respect to the amend ment. DR. WEST: Very good. I was saying that in real life we must make a decision on this. We are all potential victims in this issue, and I think some of us are just not dead yet; think of that.

If this decision is not to be a plebiscite or referendum, then the next best thing is a freestanding vote in Parliament. Our elected officials then have the liberty to vote, hopefully on behalf of the people who elected them, with full knowledge of their constituents' wishes, hopefully uninfluenced by party policy. There are those in this situation that are afraid to vote on such an issue for fear that we may encroach on human rights and representation of freedom. In 1986 with our Constitution and Charter of Rights, I know my fear is the direct opposite.

Defending explicit rights by our justice system beyond reasonable self-responsibility as a society in itself may remove the rights of the majority. I believe that a freestanding vote on capital punishment would address that. We may well end up with a just society, as declared by Mr. Fuddle-Duddle a few years ago, but in the transition we are going to lose mankind. The death penalty has always caused confusion between those who address it as an emotion embodied in revenge and those who wish to call it straight justice.

Justice must be our paramount concern in society, and we must always guard against drifting to the righteousness of the rights of the offender and in so doing fail to address the rights of those victimized. A freestanding vote partially addresses society's right in a democracy to have the access to discussions that affect and impact total justice. Therefore, I support the amendment to this motion in both its intent and physical direction. I urge all of you to consider this, and if in doing so we save but one innocent life, we have accomplished a great deed. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Ponoka-Rimbey.

Excuse me, the Member for Lacombe. MR. R. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this amendment. It's nice to know that Ponoka and Lacombe are one and the same; we live side by side. They're very synonymous and very good places to be recognized in this House. This amendment challenges this Assembly to confront an issue that, quite frankly, too many politicians are not willing to face. The capital punishment debate has raged since civilization first began, but throughout the last 30 years Canada's federal governments have decided that it is a debate that does not merit their serious consideration.

The last free vote, and I use that term loosely, was held in 1976, and only six votes decided the issue at that time. Mr. Speaker, repeated polls and surveys show that the federal government has been wrong in its assumptions. Gallup polls show that whether they are for or against the issue, about 75 or 85 percent of Albertans and Canadians believe that a free vote on this issue should be held in Parliament. The federal people are not responding to Canadians on this issue. As provincial politicians we have an obligation to see that concerned Albertans are heard in Ottawa.

Contrary to the Member for Edmonton Strathcona, that is one obli gation we have: to make sure that Alberta's concerns are heard and listened to in Ottawa. This motion today gives us a chance to fulfill this obligation. There is a crisis of confidence in our legal system. When Albertans see Clifford Olson and others like him receiving money to show us where he left 11 victims' bodies, it is clear that something is terribly wrong. When an unremorseful serial killer's rights have been given prec edence over victims' and society's rights, something is terribly wrong, Mr. Speaker.

When over the last 40 years the Canadian public has consistently been polled in favour of capital punishment in certain cases and the government consistently treats this issue as a low priority, something is again terribly wrong. The issues of deterrence and repeat offenders, victims' rights, and judicial fallibility should all be put front and centre. While we're talking about being for and against capital punishment, I'd like to point out that we have those who are against capital punishment saying that we as humans have no right to take another human life. But let me point out, Mr.

Speaker, that I don't classify as human Mr. Olson or the Browns down at High River and the other chap who was with them who killed those two young ladies and left the burned bodies in the ditch. They are the lowest form of life, and I don't think they have indicated through their actions the right to live on this earth. My personal view is that capital punishment certainly has its place. I mentioned one prime candidate, Clifford Olson, as have other colleagues in this House. There is not one iota of doubt about his guilt.

He is a serial killer who shows no remorse and has been psychologically pegged to kill again if given half a chance. Here we have society today spending money to keep him and protect him from other inmates in the institution where they would mete out the justice he should have received through our judicial system. We see him there, and over time he will be paroled under our present system and will strike again. I fully endorse this motion, and it would ensure that Albertans' views will be heard. For or against capital punishment, no one is served by ignoring this issue as if it doesn't exist.

I strongly urge this Assembly to urge the federal government to hold a free vote on capital punishment. It is in Alberta's interest and the interest of society generally. MR. EWASIUK: Mr. Speaker, my approach to this par ticular issue is perhaps going to be somewhat different than most of the people who have spoken up to this point. When I look at capital punishment, I think of something much more than simply someone who picks up a gun and kills another person. If you're going to talk about capital pun ishment, I think you have to expand it to a greater degree.

I'm going to point out some areas in which I feel killing occurs, yet we never make reference to it when we talk about capital punishment. Let's talk about industry, where workers are subjected to conditions which affect their lives. They may suffer, maybe not immediately, but sooner or later they will. They are killed because they worked in that industry. Let's talk about the people who pollute our rivers and our environment. Are they killers? I think not. When we talk about capital punishment, we must think about those who pollute. Are they criminals?

Should they be addressed as if they were criminals and subjected to capital punishment? How about

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 549 you and I in the Legislature, who have the prerogative to legislate against pollution of our environment and our water? Are we then also in the same category and subjected to capital punishment? I think that when you talk about capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, it needs a much broader base than simply an individual killing someone else in a fit of anger or whatever. I suppose I could support a resolution that would call for a free vote, but I don't think I can under the circumstances in which it is before us today.

As has already been men tioned, when we talk about a free vote on this issue, let's have a free vote in this Legislature as well. Let us not simply pass the buck to someone in another level of government. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I guess I'd like to imitate a member of this Assembly who, prior to dissolution, got up from his seat and said, "Well, aren't the tables turned?" It seems to me that in addressing the amendment in front us, we have a very sudden change of heart with respect to democracy and the procedures of democracy on behalf of the government side.

It's very interesting that we'd like to go for free votes in Parliament. May I humbly inquire: what about free votes in this Assembly? Have we suddenly changed our minds about this? I would point out to you that for several years in this Assembly there was practically a wall of silence when it came to the issue of extra billing. Extra billing affects thousands and thousands of Albertans, but for some reason there was caucus solidarity on extra billing because it was the government's position, and the government's position was the most important thing.

I saw it; I was up in the gallery watching this going on. [interjections] Oh, I'm speaking to the amendment all right. Unfortunately, I'm speaking against the amendment, to the hon. member. I'm speaking against the amendment because I think it's time this particular Assembly cleaned up its own act when it comes to a free vote. I think it's time this Assembly started looking at the effects of caucus solidarity in this House.

Year after year when it came to people issues that affected thousands of Albertans, ordinary Albertans, not murderers or victims, ordinary people whose incomes may not qualify them even for premium subsidies when it comes to Alberta health care coverage, ordinary Albertans who have children who need medical or dental attention and can't afford the extra bills from the doctors, ordinary people who have inadvertently been affected by this government's lack of gumption to go for seat-belt legislation — people have died because it was never deemed important to go for seat-belt legislation.

After all, we're a province of individuals, and we wouldn't want to infringe on individuals' rights, would we? Hundreds of people die from those little events that never came up because this government didn't see fit to have free votes. Now, it may be that things were decided in cabinet and we were never told that you people in fact have free votes. But I can tell you what it looks like from the outside. It looks like democracy was considerably limited in this Assembly and on issues that affected a lot of people.

Labour legislation is also brought to mind in this regard when we want to talk about going for free votes. There was a hue and cry from one end of the province to the other upon the introduction of one famous Bill, known at that time as Bill 44. This Bill, as members who were in the Assembly at the time may recall, was the most incredible rigging of the arbitration process that one could possibly imagine in all of Canada. So there was a call from one part of the province to the other to have public hearings, and so-called public hearings did occur, Mr.Speaker.

Yes, select groups out of lots that applied were allowed to come to this very floor, this red carpet, and present their written briefs in an oral fashion. The Assembly listened to all sides, very carefully, I'm sure, and then clearly, like a herd, voted 75 to 4 in favour of passing Bill 44. Now I'm not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there was ever such a thing as a free vote. Every time a controversial item came up on the floor of this Assembly, I saw 75 Conservatives vote identically. It didn't matter how many people were being adversely affected.

It didn't matter if 100,000 people lost their right to Alberta health care cov erage because their premiums were lagging. So 100,000 people lose their little blue cards — did I see a Conservative member exercise his or her right for a free vote? I didn't. I think it's very interesting that we, the Conservative side of this House, the government members, now think we don't have to exercise democracy, we don't have to live by free votes, but it's quite all right for us to ask our federal counterparts to do the same. I argue, Mr.

Speaker, that it's much more important to clean up our own act in this provincial Assembly. I've even written down a little note . . . MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the member, because I think her remarks are helpful in the debate, but I would like to ask the Speaker to consider a remark that was made a few moments ago by the member. The member said words to the effect that the Legislative Assembly, or possibly the government, had made amend ments which rigged the arbitration process. I'm concerned about the use of the words "rigged" or "rigging".

There may be an opinion as to the impact of those decisions, but I do question the word "rigging", since a number of courts have made decisions that do not agree with her opinion that it has been rigged. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would voluntarily like to read into the record that it is absolutely my view as an MLA and as an ordinary citizen that the effect of Bill 44 was to rig the arbitration process; however, I would never under any circumstances like to impute that motive to any government member. May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

The amendment which is in front of us deals with free votes in Parliament, and I was about to say before the member from Banff-Cochrane rose on his point of order that I had casually written down: democracy when it suits the Tories, not when it doesn't. I have to say that I still believe that that's the case. I would like some response if members think that I'm wrong in my

interpretation of the effect of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, some other members have risen to speak to this amendment, and they have pointed out a number of items. With respect to capital punishment — which as far as I'm concerned is not really what we're talking to right now; we're talking to the amendment which in substance is saying: let us request our federal counterparts to go for a free vote as opposed to conducting a national plebiscite — I noticed that a couple of members keep citing the fact of murder. Murder is dreadful, no doubt about it.

However, I don't see the word "murder" in this amendment or, as a matter of fact, in this motion. I would argue that there seems to be some deficiency with respect to how government members are arguing in favour of this amendment when it

550 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 comes to continually citing the instance for which capital punishment ought to be levied by the judicial system. Perhaps it's a weakness in the amendment or in the original motion, but it seems to me that perhaps a subamendment to clarify it a bit more might do in this regard. This is pretty wide open. One is left to ask: how are the Members of Parliament who may have to accept this if it's ever passed — they would do it as a matter of courtesy, I'm sure, and not as a matter of necessity. Under what circumstances are they supposed to have this free vote?

Are they supposed to look at, for example, the passing of a law which would require capital punishment for the offences of sexual assault or robbery? How about the offence of pinching a loaf of bread? This is pretty wide-open stuff, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure who drafts the government's motions, but I would say that we're into some pretty complicated territory here. How on earth can we expect our federal counterparts to deal with a motion as wide-ranging as this? Is it that we're going to deal with another motion later on to give specific instructions? It's pretty wide-ranging.

I would think we would owe it to our federal counterparts if we were going to give this kind of instruction. Please have a free vote even though we don't bother in this Assembly; please have a free vote on the matter of life and death, but don't define under what circumstances. Big stuff. I note that a member also talked about the event of the Clifford Olson serial killings. I think I'm safe in saying that none of the members of this Assembly at any time would ever condone any such hideous activity.

However, it was noted in the member's remarks that the events surrounding the capture and subsequent imprisonment of Mr. Olson struck a crisis of confidence in our legal system. This doesn't speak directly to the amendment, but I'm going to ask that I be accorded the same privilege that that member was and be allowed to elaborate on this particular little instance. It seems to me that here in this Assembly we caused a crisis of confidence in our own judicial system with respect to the Dial Mortgage collapse.

I would like to point out that through that whole process, we had a number of instances in which the Attorney General's depart ment simply could not keep pace for one reason or another with the investigative procedures as enacted by a quasi- judicial body under legislative authority from this Assembly. It was a funny thing; the time kept expiring, the government couldn't keep pace and neither could the prosecutors, and pretty soon the two years had expired and it was too late to make a real official inquiry. Mr.

Speaker, I would argue that that caused a crisis of confidence in the Alberta judicial system much greater than that which the member is referring to with respect to the desire for capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to return briefly to the point of the concept behind the free vote as compared to that which underlies the initial motion. I intend, by the way, if we get to that point, to speak to the initial motion as well, or its revised version, whichever might be the case. Probably I can warn the Assembly I will speak against it.

How ever . . . [interjection] Yes, I'm sorry to surprise the caucus members around me. When we talk about asking our federal colleagues to act in a fashion in which we ourselves — and I would like to say "we ourselves" not meaning the Official Opposition caucus, at minimum. Perhaps I should extend that courtesy to the other opposition caucuses, because I believe that we do operate under free votes, in a fashion, when it comes to matters of conscience. When we do this, why don't we ask ourselves why we're not going to ask the public itself?

I have to wonder what the purpose is of going for a free vote in Parliament as opposed to going for a national plebiscite. Is there an underlying assumption that if we stack the deck in terms of who gets elected, we'll be able to determine the outcome, as compared with letting people themselves decide on the vote? Again, I have to ask the question: under what circumstances would people decide the vote? It's not clearly stated in this amendment. Technically speaking, it's not stated in this motion either. It's not a very thought-out motion or amendment, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to return briefly and finally to the item of free votes, because I pointed out how important it would have been to have had free votes in this Assembly prior to the 1986 election and how many ordinary people's lives could have been affected in a less adverse way had we had free votes in this Assembly, and talk about some issues related to that. For example, the issue of privatizing public services: it would appear that we would charge the public purse more and get less for our money.

Either that would be the case or the people who are entitled to the services, the taxpayers and those who don't earn enough income to pay tax — and of course those who are really rich and don't pay taxes — would suffer the short end of the stick when it comes to privatization. But whenever the issue came up in this Assembly, I didn't see government members hop to their feet to oppose privatization, just as I didn't with respect to extra billing and with Bill 110. I recall, Mr.

Speaker — and I'm absolutely confident in my recollection — that all the Conservatives in the House at the time voted in favour of Bill 110, no doubt the most controversial bit of labour legislation that ever hit the floor of this Assembly since its inception. I think we talk out of both sides of our face if we're not prepared to go for free votes on issues that directly affect the quality of our lives in Alberta, prior to asking our federal colleagues to do the same. There are many in front of us right now that qualify like that, Mr. Speaker. I would put out, for example, the continued debate on extra billing.

I would put out, for example, the matters which pertain to social services, particularly with respect to budg etary considerations which keep those who cannot find work at substantially below the poverty line, as recognized by Statistics Canada in what are called the low-income cutoff statistics. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the Chair appreciates your ingenuity with respect to debate on the amendment, but perhaps you could narrow the focus, please. MS BARRETT: Actually, the Speaker's intervention at this point couldn't have been much better timed. I was almost concluding my set of remarks. Mr.

Speaker, before considering passing this amendment — and believe me, I intend to get to my feet after the amendment either passes or fails to deal with the actual issue at hand, which no doubt is capital punishment — I think we have to drive home that we who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We had better be prepared if we — and I mean the government members — pass this amendment that this member and this caucus are going to be absolutely vigilant in making sure that free votes come to the floor of this Assembly on the issues which affect the ordinary people in this province. We intend to do it.

We will do it. On that note, I object to this amendment. I urge members not to pass it.

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 551 MR. SCHUMACHER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express a few remarks in response to the those of the Opposition House Leader. I rise today as one of two members of this Assembly who did have the occasion, the opportunity, the privilege, or the burden — whatever you wish to call it — of voting in 1976 in the House of Commons on that occasion when capital punishment was abolished, as my hon. friend from Lacombe mentioned, by six votes. I also think the Opposition House Leader should realize that this is private members' time we're dealing with this afternoon; it's not government time.

This is not a government motion, as she indicated. This motion was prepared by the hon. Member for Wainwright, and the amendment before us has been produced by the hon. Member for Taber- Warner. It certainly has no connection with any member of the government. I suppose like most things in life, we have different points of view when we're in different positions. I guess it's a question of applying the old cliche, "Whose ox is being gored now?" as to what the hon. Opposition House Leader's point of view might be on other things.

But this is not a government motion, and the amendment we're dealing with is an amendment to remind the government in Ottawa of a pledge that it made in the 1984 election. The Prime Minister of this country did campaign for success in that election on the basis that during the term of this present government he would bring forth legislation that would be decided by a free vote, and the matter would not be dealt with on the basis of party discipline, as was the abolition of capital punishment in this country. That was dealt with on the government side on the basis of party discipline and the whips being laid on.

Of course I think it's quite clear, when we note that the measure only succeeded by six votes, that action by the government of the day was the reason for the law being changed. We've heard reference this afternoon to the strong desire of Canadians in general to have this matter dealt with. I believe they feel it should be dealt with by their elected representatives who had a chance to campaign on the matter in 1984 when the Prime Minister made it one of the issues that he thought was important.

The reason I support the amendment in particular — and I don't think anyone will have any doubt as to where I stand on the general question of capital punishment in view of the fact that it is a matter of public record and has been for over 10 years now. The fact is that plebiscites cost a lot of money.

In this day and age of horrendous deficits in this country, I don't think we need to be launching a national plebiscite which would cost several millions of dollars, when we have elected representatives in Ottawa who know what their people want and should be expected to stand in their place and express that point of view on behalf of their constituents. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the discussion this afternoon that many members had difficulty expressing their total point of view because they were confined to the amendment before the House.

Therefore, I would like to close my remarks at this time by suggesting that we dispose of that amendment. I would like to move that we deal with the amendment at this time. MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion that the question be put on the amendment. All those in favour of the motion? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make some comments with respect to the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was involved in this one earlier time, and I believe I must put the question without debate. I await further advice. The previous question being put therefore means that the question should be put without debate. AN HON.

MEMBER: Shall the question be put? MR. SPEAKER: May I entertain what your question is. MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, could I speak to the point of order of the question of whether or not you should put the question? MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed. MR. M. MOORE: My understanding is that an amendment to the main motion has been introduced. The members are in a process of debating the amendment. I was unaware that a member could call for the question on an amendment when there were still other members who wish to speak, and I had risen to speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know to what extent those who are learned about the rules, including yourself, can help us. But I don't recall another previous case when an amendment like this has been stopped in terms of its debate because an hon. member requested the vote be called. MR. SPEAKER: I understand that in Beauchesne there is a reference . . . The Member for Calgary Fish Creek. MR. PAYNE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm hardly an authoritative source on such matters, but in the absence of the Member for Kingsway's predecessor, I would like to draw, if I could, the attention of the Speaker and members present to our Standing Orders, with specific reference to

section 17(2) which indicates that all other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment. The preceding section, prior to the reference to all other motions, lists debatable motions, and the one that I infer from the Member for Drumheller's concluding remarks would preclude any further debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the comment, but with respect to Standing Orders, I have 17 but no subsection. However, in Standing Order 18, it mentions: "The following motions are debatable: every motion" and then under that "(

c) for the previous question." And following on a previous learning experience, a "previous question" really does mean to put the question. However, the Chair has also received communication with respect to Beauchesne 459, and in this regard, this occurs: that the previous question cannot be put with respect to an amendment. This is a citation from Beauchesne 459: The previous question [being the motion to have the question now put] has been moved upon the various stages of a bill, but it cannot be moved upon an amendment . . .

Therefore, the question as put by the Member for Drumheller is inappropriate, and I would order that the debate continue with respect to the amendment. The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amend ment to Motion 208, I want to make some comments with

552 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 respect to the involvement and the jurisdiction of our Legislative Assembly and myself, as one of those legislators, and the government of Canada and make reference in particular to my Member of Parliament and others who are involved there. Firstly, I've always regarded laws which are, by way of our federal Constitution, the responsibility of the federal government, particularly ones in the nature of a situation regarding capital punishment, as matters that ought to be dealt with by the federal Parliament. The debate should occur there and the decision should occur there.

There are always exceptions to that. We, of course, get into the area of things like trade and commerce, where we may well look at the British North America Act and realize that trade with other countries is a federal prerogative, but it has such a major economic effect on a provincial government that we involve ourselves from time to time in those debates.

But I have taken the position, since I was first elected to this Assembly in August 1971, that matters for debate with respect to capital punishment belong in the House of Com mons, and its members, who are elected by the same people that elected me, should be making those decisions. Following that line of thinking, I find some difficulty in supporting a motion that purports to have this Legislative Assembly and me, as a member of the Legislature for Smoky River, tell the federal Parliament or my federal member of Parliament, Mr.

Albert Cooper in this case, what they ought to be doing, or tell the leader of that particular party what they ought to be doing. The federal leader of government today and previous leaders know full well the very difficult problem with respect to a resolution, if there is one, of the issue of capital punishment. Successive Parliaments have dealt with it over the years, and many of us have read those debates with interest and have been swayed by those debates, first one way and then the other way, depending on the kinds of points that the individual is making.

I believe it is a matter that at some point in time has to be considered again by the entire Parliament of Canada. I understand that the Prime Minister, in com mitments he had made at least prior to his election to that office, had indicated as leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party that he was prepared to entertain a debate and a discussion in Parliament and that his members would not be bound by party policy with respect to this matter. I believe therefore, Mr.

Speaker, that it would be appropriate for us as members of this Legislature, if we feel strongly about this matter, to contact our federal Mem bers of Parliament. That's what I usually do when I think there's an issue to be dealt with at the federal level.

I call my Member of Parliament whether that member be of my own political stripe or some other — fortunately in Alberta usually a Progressive Conservative member — and say to him, "We've got a concern here; it's been brought to my attention by my constituents and yours" and simply express my viewpoint that it's a matter that he or she should attend to at the earliest opportunity.

So on that particular point, whether or not a Legislature ought to be saying to another Legislature or a Parliament to another Parliament, "Please take some action, that's in your jurisdiction" by way of a motion such as we're debating today, I think I would have to weigh fairly heavily on the side of saying that is the business of the Parliament of Canada, of people who are elected as Members of Parliament, and not of the provincial Legislature.

If I could just conclude with some remarks about the issue and say this: it's terribly unfortunate when murders and other loss of life is taken by willful actions of people in our society. But I'm not sure that a strict move back to capital punishment, without somehow or other placing all of those checks and balances in that system that are demanded in a society like ours, is necessarily going to be the answer.

Perhaps one could be persuaded that capital punishment or a return to capital punishment is the way to go if one could be persuaded that that would suddenly eliminate a high percentage of the crime that exists in our country today. I believe there are other reasons. We talked about some of them perhaps in this Assembly when we were discussing even last week matters of mental health and so on. There are other reasons aside from the lack of capital punishment that result in the crimes that are committed on other people's lives.

Perhaps our Assembly ought to spend a great deal more time thinking about those other causes and reasons for the kind of situation that exists in Canada today. The only area where I have some discomfort in suggesting that a return to capital punishment is not the appropriate thing is the area of people we ask to protect us and put on the front lines.

Certainly those who are asked to be guards in our criminal system, those who are asked to be law enforcement officers in this country, do have in my view some right to protection from someone who believes that there's no way that they can lose their life by taking another person's life. I find that to be an untenable situation. My recollection is that the Parliament of Canada took that into consideration in a very major way when this matter was last debated and amendments were made.

The unfor tunate thing, perhaps, is that the actions which need to be taken with respect to those who are in our penal system as guards and law enforcement officers are oftentimes over shadowed by the larger issue of whether or not there should be capital punishment involving everyone in our society. Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion I believe that it's necessary for our Legislature to think very carefully about the extent to which we want to direct the Parliament of Canada and that in so doing we recognize we have specific jurisdictions in this Legislature as well and we may not often want the Parliament of Canada or the federal Members of Parliament advising by resolution how we ought to be conducting ourselves with respect to our responsibilities. So I conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by suggesting that while there may well be some reason to vote for the amendment, the motion itself, whether it's in its original form or amended form, does cause me some discomfort in getting into an area that clearly is a federal responsibility. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment to Motion 208, I'd like to congratulate the hon. minister on some of his comments. I think the benefit of many years of experience in this sort of thing often shows in his remarks.

I think what we have to look at in debating this amendment is not the issue of capital punishment itself, which is a very emotional topic and something that we, if it were the place of this House, could debate at great length, but we're looking at the amendment and what the amendment instructs us to do. I appreciate the remarks from the Member for Drumheller that it's not a government motion. It's a private member's motion, and I can understand the sentiment with which the Member for Wainwright brings forth the motion.

Indeed, I'm sure all of us at some time are pressured by conscience or by constituents to discuss this sort of thing. But looking

July 15, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 553 at the amendment and what the amendment asks us to do, I have to speak against it for two reasons, both of which were eloquently stated by my colleague for Edmonton High lands. In the first place, I have a great deal of difficulty with our Assembly here instructing members at the federal level what they should and shouldn't be doing in terms of procedure.

We have recommendations for them often on things that they should be doing, but in terms of procedure, especially since we have not had a free vote in this House, I have some great reservations about our feeling that we're quite right in recommending that they do the same. The other thing that my hon. colleague tried to bring out and I want to emphasize here is that in advancing these arguments we're not trying to compare the act of committing murder to the act of extra billing or introducing punitive labour laws. We're not comparing those as issues.

What we're comparing is the fact that there have been things that the government or governments generally advance on occa sion that can have direct and negative effects on people in society. This Assembly has not been allowed to vote on those things in a free way in the past. I don't mean to trivialize the kind of emotions that my hon. colleague and friend for Vermilion-Viking feels on this issue of capital punishment, but looking at the terms of the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, we're being asked here to instruct the federal government to introduce a Bill to reinstate capital punishment without any instructions about what capital punishment would be administered as punishment for. We have to be very careful as a Legislature to bring forth motions that we can stand behind, defend, and explain to people in general. I just think that regardless of what the intent of the motion is, the motion and the amendment are poorly conceived and we'd be getting ourselves into a great deal of trouble if we went ahead and voted on this.

I might suggest that by whatever procedure this amendment comes to a vote we experiment with a free vote on this very issue in this House now, and that would allow the hon. minister to deviate perhaps from the sentiments expressed by some of his colleagues. MR. SPEAKER: Might the mover of the amendment sum up on the amendment? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good oppor tunity for me to express a personal view with respect to the proposed amendment.

First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I have very strong reservations about whether this Assembly should be dealing with a matter which is really not the jurisdictional prerogative and responsibility, certainly in a constitutional sense, of this Assembly. Equally, Mr. Speaker, I defend vigorously the right of the hon. Member for Wainwright to bring forward his motion and his views in this Assembly. I guess if I feel strongly that they are inappropriately presented here, I will find myself in the final analysis voting to advance my particular point of view on that matter.

Having said that, I want to say that I have some little difficulty with both the motion and the amendment. My reason for expressing a personal difficulty is that I think we tend to view the question of capital punishment in a very simplistic way. It's either all one way or all the other, and I have come to the conclusion that life isn't quite that simple. Certainly a question of this magnitude, which for many is a question of conscience — for others it's a question of the maintenance of public safety, which is a very, very important issue in our society. For still others it is a question of cost.

If one is a prison guard or working with condemned prisoners — condemned in the sense that they may not be condemned to execution but they may be condemned to life imprisonment. One has to realize just how difficult those kinds of individuals are to protect the guards who have to deal with them and see to the security of those kinds of individuals.

There is also a distinction which could be made between the murderer or the person who is found guilty because they have, possibly in cold blood, knowing that they are being chased by the security forces, taken the life of a member of the security forces who are out there trying to protect us. I really think that is at that stage a different grade of crime than perhaps a murder in a fit of emotional passion. I suppose one can say that when one is being hunted and fearing for one's life, there is a lot of emotion involved. I'm sure there is. But, Mr.

Speaker, I make those very brief observations about either one of the suggestions that is before us because I'm not sure that they really address the complexity of this particular subject, at least as I would see it. In concluding my very brief interjection in the debate, Mr. Speaker, I am having a great deal of difficulty about the interjection in this Assembly and the recommendation to this Assembly that it address a matter which is clearly the constitutional jurisdiction of another body.

I feel the same about that as I would if a city council decided to tell this Assembly what we should be doing or if, for that matter, the federal Parliament decided to tell us what we should be doing. From time to time each of those august bodies does verge into our area of jurisdiction. I want to put on the record my discomfort with dealing with a matter which isn't of our jurisdiction and my equal discomfort with what I regard as a somewhat oversimplified proposal, both in the amendment before us and in the original motion on this matter. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this briefly.

I agree with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs that if I have a concern about what my Member of Parliament is doing, I just get on the telephone and tell him fairly straightforwardly what I think is bothering me and what we probably could work out together. I would like to suggest to the hon. members that we've got enough challenges of our own to occupy our debates in this Assembly. We have falling oil prices, we have rising unemployment, we have an increase in suicides, we have the concerns of the mentally ill, we have battered spouses and children, and on and on.

The list of those things that we could concern ourselves with is almost endless. As I suggest, I would have difficulty supporting this amendment. There are many members pressing in the House of Commons for a vote on this issue. I suggest that for us to get involved is at worst presumptuous, but at best it certainly weakens our pressing of the federal government on issues of far greater concern to many more citizens in our province.

Objectively, in my view, it would mean that if we really wanted to pass the amendment and the amended motion, first of all we should make a study of those countries that have brought in capital punishment and then compare the statistics as to what actually has happened as far as murders of violence. Then we should compare the statistics of the periods of time when we've had capital punishment in our own country and what the results have been.

554 ALBERTA HANSARD July 15, 1986 If, as some suggest, it would curtail murder, then I would suggest to those members — and I feel that it's not a matter of justice, it's more a matter of revenge — that it should be on prime time television. Not at the midnight hour with few people in attendance, but on prime time in living colour so your children can watch. I think that if this motion is to go to the federal government, it should be amended to suggest that to make it really effective it should become a national spectacle on national television, on prime time and in living colour.

I have a simple question that I would like to put to all those who support the amendment: why kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong? Mr. Speaker, to return to the amendment, we have not sent a similar message on other issues. It obviously has a low priority with many people. It obviously is a very divisive issue. That perhaps explains why our Prime Minister is trying to postpone it as long as possible, to do the other things that he feels are more pressing in the interests of the nation. For us to tell him how he should have Parliament operate is something I cannot support.

Thus I could not support the amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest to some members who have suggested that because the huge majorities of their constituents, 80 or 90 percent, are in favour of capital punishment they should automatically vote — I'd just like to read a very brief item from a speech given in 1774 to the electors of Bristol by Edmund Burke.

He says as follows on this issue of who you represent and how: Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unre served communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs, — and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, — no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, the very, very important debate before the Assembly today — we're now on the amendment to the motion.

I think the amendment, if one looks at it very, very carefully, really has several components attached to it. One deals with the involvement of the Parliament of Canada, the mother of all Parliaments in our great democracy. The second aspect of the motion basically deals with the whole question of reinstating capital punish ment. The third part of the motion deals with the question of a free vote on the Bill and of course, associated with the peripheral side of that, whether or not individual Mem bers of Parliament would have an opportunity to vote on the issue independently of party position. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's really important that we are having this debate in the Legislature of Alberta today. This is a matter that has been before the attention of countless numbers of men and women in every constituency from the far north to the deep south and from the east to the west in our province. This is a matter that is discussed periodically in coffee meetings and as people gather and meet in social functions and the like. As hon. members so far this afternoon have indicated, the matter of capital punishment has been on the national agenda for a rather long time.

The hon. mover from Wainwright is to be congratulated for bringing this matter to the attention of this Legislative Assembly in the province of Alberta. Be that as it may, hon. members, no matter where they sit in this Assembly, may argue that this is a matter that is solely within the jurisdiction of the national Parliament. There's some validity to that argument. They may argue as well that this whole question of capital punishment was dealt with two decades plus ago. There's some validity to that argument.

They might also point out the fact that there really hasn't been a great tradition in this Assembly with respect to hon. members being involved in a free vote. There's certainly some validity to that argument. I think it's important that we recognize all of those arguments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as we deal with this amendment and this motion. I think it's really important that we all ask ourselves one question: what is the responsibility of an elected person in our society?

Is the responsibility of an elected person in our society to simply get elected, come to this Assembly — or for that matter go to Ottawa — then return three or four years later and say: "Hey, good to see you, Mary. Good to see you, Hank. I'm back. Remember, you voted for me some time ago. I've trotted off to Edmonton, or I've trotted off to Ottawa, and during that time I have made decisions on your behalf, and I want you to know what all those decisions have been." You pull out the Hansards and say, "Look, I voted this way." Little Mary or Hank or Henry might periodically want to ask the question: "Well, Mr.

MLA or Mr. Member of Parliament, did you consult with me? Did you ask me what my views are? Did you ask me what my thoughts are on a particular issue, on any particular question?" I frankly believe that if the hon. members of this Assembly truly looked into their own hearts and truly looked into their own minds: how many have basically asked the people in this province what views they want expressed on this particular matter? We haven't heard yet from the hon. Member for Westlock- Sturgeon, a delightful fellow that I had a grand opportunity to run against in 1979.

I had a grand opportunity once again to run in 1982. I didn't see him in 1986, and I was looking forward to it, but I do happen to know quite well the people who live within the constituency of Westlock- Sturgeon. I have a great familiarity with what their views are on the question of capital punishment. I happen to be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the various mechanisms and forums that have been used in that constituency over the last number of years to elicit from the individuals who live in Westlock- Sturgeon their views with respect to this very important question.

I think it's extremely important that an hon. member must come here and represent those views. The first and major question that all hon. members have this afternoon in this Assembly is to ask themselves: have they simply been elected to come here and ignore their constituents and go back in four years and say, "Hey, re elect me again," or is it to ask their individual constituents what their views are on this particular question of capital punishment. I think if the

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19860715
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S1 19860715 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c49acfdf199724b2cb8a5d1094154b75ec8b31e2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).