April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 955 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/04/14 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Hon. members, welcome back. Would you please remain standing after the prayer for the singing of our national anthem, and then would you remain standing for a memorial. Let us pray. Though we as legislators of this great province and its people are taken from among the population and selected by You to be architects for our history, give us wisdom and understanding to do Your will in all that we do. Amen.

Now wou ld you plea se join in in t he singing of our nati onal anthem. We’l l be led tod ay b y Mr. Paul Lorieau, and please participate in the language of your choice. Hon. Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Mr.

William Ernest “Ernie” Jamison February 27, 1924, to April 11, 2003 The Speaker: Hon. members, it is w ith sadnes s that I inf orm you today of the pa ssing of forme r mem ber Willi am Er nest “Ernie” Jamison on Frida y, April 11, 2003, at the age of 79 year s. Mr. Jamison was first elected to the A lberta Legislature in the general election of Au gust 30, 1971, and served until February 14, 197 9. During his years of s ervice he repres ented the c onstituency of St. Albert for the Progressive Conservative Party. During his years in the Legis lature Mr.

Jamison se rved as the chair of the Special Committee on C ensorship and se rved on the select s tanding committees on Law and Regulations, Private Bills, Public Accounts, Public Affairs, and Workers’ Compensation. With our admiration and respect there is gratitude to members of his family who shared the burdens of public office. Our prayers are with them. In a moment of silent prayer I ask you to remember Ernie Jamison as you have known him. Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introducti on of Visit ors Mr. Jonson: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased t o introduce to y ou and through you to m embers of the Assembly Her Exc ellency Shashi Uban Tripathi, high commissioner for the Republic of India. Alberta and India ha ve had a long and close relationship. Alberta has a strong and active Indo-Canadian community with more than 61,000 people of Indian descent now calling Alberta home. Bilateral trade between Alberta and India amounts to more than $150 million per year, and with i ts pop ulation expe cted to ex ceed China ’s by the middle of this century, India represents a huge potential market for Alberta goods.

I would ask that our honoured guest please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I’m also privileged today to introduce t o you and through you to members of the Assembly Marie Bernard-Meunier, Canadian ambas sador to the Fed eral Rep ublic o f Germa ny. Germany is one of Alberta’s most important economic partners in Europe. Just last year Alberta opened a trade office that is colocated in the Canadian office in Munich. We appreciate the co-operation of the Canadian government in making this possible.

Also, last year Alberta signed a co-operation agreement with the German state of Saxony in the former East Germany. The ambassador and her staff play a vital role by a ssisting in our provin ce’s relationship w ith Germany, and we appreciate their efforts as Alberta actively seeks further German investment, trade, and tourism. Besides Alberta’s close business ties we share close cultural ties with Germany as well. One in six Albertans is of German ancestry. I w ould ask tha t our honoured guest please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head : Introduction of G uests Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Prem ier I’m pleased to i ntroduce to y ou and through y ou to mem bers of t he Assembly six members of the Public Affairs Bureau who are in the building today on their public service orientation tour. I’ll ask them to stand as I call their names so that you can all recognize these very valuable employees. With us today are Sarah Burghardt, Ke vin Donnan, Robin Fielding , John Lea r, Kathy Reinhardt, a nd Jane Trotter. I ’ll ask them to ri se again, and we will ac cord them our usual very warm welcome. Mr. Lougheed: Mr.

Speaker, seated in the me mbers’ gallery is a young man, a resident of Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, who needs no introduction. He was our head page last year, recently retired and attending university. I’d ask Brent Shewchuk to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakem an: Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to all member s of th e Assembly a constituent of Edmonton-Centre.

This gentleman is a member of the Central Lions Seniors organization and was a very active volunteer with Meals o n Wheels until about 16 months ago when a pinched nerve in his back sidelined him. Don Perdue is here today to see his letter tabled, and I would ask him to now please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Mr. Johns on: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. It’s my pleas ure to introduce to you and through you 25 ener getic st udents who a re visiting the Legislature today from the village of Gwynne.

They are accompanied by their teachers Char Fraser and Janice Nemec and by parents Marilyn Zielke, Shelley Ohman, and Carol Senz. I’d like to ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and introduce to you and through y ou four ve ry special community leaders who work within Community Develop- ment d eveloping and deliv ering community programs.

They are Lloyd Bentz, g eneral m anager of the Albe rta Sport, Re creation, Parks & Wildlife Foundation; Pat Blakney, acting executive director

956 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 of the Wild Rose Foundation; Clive Padfield, executive director of the Alberta Foundation for the A rts; and Les Hurt, dir ector of the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation. These four foundations are all managed by volunteers in our community, and these are the professional staff who work with them, and we’re very pleased to distribute approximately $76 million annually through their g ood graces and thanks to Alberta’s Department of Gaming for important projects throughout our communities. Would you four all please rise together so we can salute you and thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming. Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to y ou and through y ou to other m embers of the Assembly this afternoon a very special member of Alberta Gaming, Mr. Carl Royan. Carl is the director of lottery funded programs, and he and his staf f mana ge th e com munity fac ility enhancement program, some 38. 5 million dollars, and the co mmunity initiative program, $30 million. This pas t yea r C arl and his staf f we re responsible for in ex cess of 1,700 successful grant applications.

Carl, please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40head : Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition ma in question. T he hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. School Construction Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Last Wednesday f our new schools were announced for Calgary-Shaw by the local MLA. The next day when the Infrastructure list was released, it showed only three new schools for Calgary-Shaw. Then the list was revised with four new schools for Calgary-Shaw, but the Minister of Infrastruc- ture said that his department would not fund the fourth school.

Then the Premier’s office said that the fourth school would get funding. To Albertans it looks like an extra $6 million that was not originally part of the government’s capital plan will be spent as a re sult of a Tory MLA’s initiative. To the Premier: who issued the order to put the Chaparral school back on the list, a nd where w ill the money come from to fund it? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition is absolute ly right. There was a flip; the n there was a flop. Then there was a flop and then the flip. But the good news is that Chaparral is gett ing a s chool.

I d on’t know h ow it al l came about, but I’m trying to get to the bottom of it. The $6 million, I guess, will have to be found somewhere, but we can’t have an MLA announce a school, then take it off the list, so we decided to do the right thing. [interjections] I’m so happy that the Liberals would be pleased that we did the right thing and put the sc hool back on the list. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, all Albertans are happy when we get a new school. To the Ministe r of Inf rastructure: wh y will you now pay for a project you said you wouldn’t fund? Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, I t hink it’s extremely important that we understand what w as going on. The fact is we were very busy working with the Calgary board of education and someh ow there was some information that got out that was only partially accurate. You’ve got to recognize that the last time that there were a number of announcements, it was about a month t hat we worked with the boards to get things right. The problem we have with this short time frame – we were working on old information within the department.

It was a year old, and of course with the growth and the things that are happening in Calgary, there were changes and there are changes. We are continui ng to work with the board, and I believe that everything will turn out okay in the end. Dr. Nicol: To the Minister of Finance: is this the kind of long-term stability you envisioned for your new capital plan, where your plans change in a heartbeat, or is this the first use of the new stabilization fund? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, the capital plan that we filed last week in the budget was to put $5.5 billion of investment in this province.

In that $5.5 billion there was $450 million allocated for new schools and renovated schools. That’s a lot of money to meet the needs of Albertans. I don’t think one Albertan is arguing about the priorities of this government. Government Capital Assets Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, before the government’s new capital plan was even a week old, a bungled decision-making process forced the government to deviate from the plan. A d hoc-ery describes the government’s infrast ructure pla n, and the plot t hickens a s the government considers selling off its capital assets.

Each and every time this government sells off assets, the taxpayers of Alberta lose money. To the Premier : why are you even con sidering selling needed capital assets when it can’t be proven to be cost-effective? Mr. Klein: First of all, Mr. Speaker, relative to the

preamble this is really what interests the Liberals. You’re talking about an item that is one-twelfth of 1 percent of the total capital budget, and they get all excited about it. That shows you where their priorities lie. Mr. Speaker, relative to the issue of selling capital asse ts, this is nothing new. This is nothing new. During the early to mid-90s we sold millions of dollars’ worth of liquor stores, government facilities.

What the Minister of Finance is saying is that if there is a building that becomes surplus to our needs – and I don’t know what kind of a building that might be – then it sta nds to reason that r ather than hold onto it and pay the maintenance on that building, we would sell it. That’s all she’s saying. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, I’ll look after every penny of Albertans’ dollars.

To the Premier: given that Alberta taxpayers are on the hook for billions of dol lars b ecause thi s gover nment sold off their power plants at fire sale pric es during e nergy deregulation, why has t he government announced that more taxpayer-owned assets are for sale? Mr. K lein: Mr. Speake r, it’s too ba d that all of Alberta isn’t listening, because we never owned any power plants, so we had none to sell. Dr.

Nicol: To the Premier: will the Premier use the H oly Cross hospital in Calga ry, which was so ld for a qua rter of i ts value and then leased back to the government at a great loss to taxpayers, as a model to follow when selling other facilities? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, all of these items w ill be co nsidered on their merits. The minister is not talking about willy-nilly going out there and selling off government assets. The minister – and I’m sure she will expand on the answer – is talking about possibly se lling

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 957 assets that are surplus to the needs of the government, and I’ll have the minister respond. Mrs. Nelson: Mr.

Speaker, when the question was asked of me last week, after the release of the budget, during an editorial board about the capital pl an and som e of the alternative funding optio ns tha t could be available, I made the comment that, you know, we have to accept that the government really isn’t in the business of real estate, that in fact other people could own real estat e and we could be an anchor tenant in that piece of real estate, that we didn’t actually have to own th e building. So th e question came: would you sell off a piece of real estate? Well, the answer is yes, if it made sense.

But I did say very clearly that any propo sal that came fo rward would have to have a full business case analysis attached to it, and it would have to be beneficial to Albertans for us to dispose of that asset. A recommendation from the outside r eview pane l wou ld come to government, and we would assess it. If in f act it made sense, we would proceed. If it did not, we would not. That’s all that conversa- tion involved, and th e hon. leade r opposite is building this into a case that is not, quite frankly, there. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods.

Education Property Taxes Dr. Massey: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. Edm onton schoo ls fi nd themselves in the worst of all worlds. Increases in the market value of property find the city contributing more and more to the provin- cial education pool while at the same time Edmonton public schools are being forced to cut staff a nd to increase class sizes. My first question is to the Prem ier. Why , when st udents need f unding stability, does the province predicate the educat ion budget on volatile property values that do not change equally ac ross th e province? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, we try to be a s equitable as we possibly can. Market rates for property, the asse ssed value of prope rty is predicated on the evaluation set by city asse ssors. We have abso- lutely nothing to do w ith assessing the v alue of pr operty. We do have something to do with the distribution at least of the education portion of property tax, and it was decided that we should collect an amount in accordance with the growth in this province. The simple fact is that unless an individual’s property value goes up as the result of reassessment, their education portion of the property tax should remain the same.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: when will the government follow the recommendations of ASBA and end its reliance on education property taxes? 1:50 Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, everyone has an opinion on what should be done, what poss ibly can be done, but the se are m atters of major policy decisions, and that sit uation will have to be dis cussed thoroughly by caucus. It would have to go through the SPC process, perhaps a public cons ultation. You k now, unlike t he Liberals we don’t think that money just falls from the sky.

If you eliminate the education portion of the property tax, that money will hav e to be replaced. The Liberal s are say ing, “Spend, s pend, spend, spe nd more,” but they’re saying: collect, collect, collect less. So I don’t know, unless they are magicians over there, how you balance what they say and what we try to put into practice. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: how can communities like Edmonton fund their own municipal priorities when the government has downloaded so much onto their shoulders for education funding? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, the mayor of Edm onton is somewhat happy. He was happy last night. I was with him at the hockey game; he was very happy. He didn’t mention anything to me about any downloading whatsoever. As a matter of fact, he in dicated to me that everything was sort of tickety-boo. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Redwater. ATCO Electricity Rates Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. ATCO Electric’s 110,000 residential and far m customers are going to be hit w ith a double whammy of rate hikes in their electricity bills this month.

For the first 10 d ays of April the new flow-through electricity rate ATCO customers are being forced to pay is about 60 percent higher than the rate they paid last month. In addition, ATCO customers will soon have new ra te riders added to thei r bills. My question is to th e Minister of Energ y. Can the minis ter confi rm that t he rates for ATCO Elect ric’s residential and farm customers hav e increased about 60 percent s ince flow-through pricing kicked in on Apri l 1, exactly as predicted last month by the New Democrat opposition? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, just as ATCO has had the lowest prices since the new market structure has been implemented, I assume that they’re responsible under EUB rulings for their own charges. They file, and they follow the regulations as set out by the regulated rate option. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, I’ve never seen a minister wash his hands of a problem like that before. Can he confirm that ATCO Electric will soon make an application to the EUB to add rate riders to residential and farm power bills due to a financial shortfall ATCO incurred on their electricity purchases in the first quarter of 2003? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, no, I can’t. There would be no reason for an electri c utility company to be infor ming m e of this or no t informing me of this. In fact, we have a regulated market structure for the regulated rates, and then we’re moving towards contract rates, and we’re moving towards a fully competitive market structure. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, given that the minister seems to believe that it’s now just a question of the market setting the rates, what is his responsibility to protect consumers from high electricity bills, or is he just going to completely wash his hands of the whole issue? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the

preamble is so erroneous that it makes the question hypothetical and therefore unanswerable. Bingo Industry Mr. Broda: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commis- sion is in the proc ess of upda ting the te rms and conditions of the operation of bingo. Som e of the charities in my constituency are worried that these changes will have a n egative impact o n bingo revenues. My first question is to the Minister of Gam ing. Wil l charities suffer as a result of these policy changes?

958 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the proposed chan ges to the terms and conditions are in fact meant to revitalize the bingo industry and to enhance the returns to charities. Over the past several years across North America and certainly here in Alberta attendance at bingos has been going down, and as such the returns to charities have been declining. The terms and conditions that are proposed add flexibility to the bingo industry and, as such, an opportunity to take advantage of the flexibility and enhance the returns to c harities.

I have no doubt that these proposals w ill in fa ct enhance the returns t o our charities. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Broda: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Ag ain to the Mini ster o f Gaming. A nu mber of bingo assoc iations think that they cannot meet the proposed g uaranteed rate of return for their char ities. If bingo associations think that the charitable return criteria is unattain- able, why is it that this is in the draft terms and conditions? Mr. Steven s: Well, Mr. Speaker , bingo is v ery much about the charities. It’s not just simply about the prizes.

What’s important at the end of the day is that the charities do receive a reasonable rate of return. The l icensing po licy revi ew th at was loo ked at b y this government in 2001 and approv ed b y t he gover nment had a provision that there would be g uaranteed returns to the charities. The average returns last year were 17 percent. The proposal is for a range, depending on performance of the individual association, of between 15 and 24 perce nt and, as s uch, would a ppear to be a reasonable range. Mr. Broda: The second supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is to the same minister.

Why has the A GLC proposed that registered bingo workers cannot play in the bingo halls where they work? Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, integrity is a key to Alberta Gaming. It’s important to be honest, but it’s also important to appear to be honest. On a number of occasions there have been issues raised with Alberta Gaming regarding bingo work ers actua lly pl aying bingo in the facility in which they work. This policy is consistent with the policy we ha ve wi th respect to casino w orkers. In other w ords, casi no workers cannot play in the casino in which they work.

There are a number of bingo associations which in fact have already voluntarily prohibited their em ployees from playing bingo in the f acility in which they w ork, and this particula r pol icy has been in pla ce in Saskatchewan for the last 10 years and is also in Ontario and appears to be working well. Health Care Labour Relations Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the message f rom t his gover nment to regional health authorities is loud and clear: we don’t fund labour settlements.

If a lab our settl ement c osts RHA s more than the government budget covers, the RHAs will have to cut services and compromise care e ven if t hat settle ment is forced on RHAs by binding arbitration. As a result, RHAs could soon be in the sa me bind school bo ards are in today. To the Prem ier: how c an the Premier assure Albertans that the government’s ref usal to cover future labour sett lements won’t f orce RHA s to lay off st aff a nd reduce beds and services? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, that question is highly speculative. The hon. member makes some assumptions.

We don’t know what those settlem ents are going to be . We hope t hat they will be reasonable, and certainly we have indicated – and we have to budget – what we’re willing to accommodate relative to overall operating for regional health authorities, and included in that overall operating, of course, are salaries, which consume, I would suspect, the majority of the operating costs. We set down in the budget what we think is an appropriate amount to accommodate the regional health authori- ties to offset their operating costs, which include salaries, and they take it from there. Dr.

Taft: To the Minister of Health and Wellness: is it government policy to allow regional health authorities to sell off hospitals and health care facilities to finance s ettlements for nurses a nd techni- cians? The Speaker: The hon. minister. 2:00 Mr. Mar: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you, sir. I just want to go back to Monday, April 7, to a CBC newscast when the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, was a sked to comment on what he expected out of the health care budget on the following day, which was budget day, being the 8th of Apr il.

His comment was that in health care we need to look for something in the neighbourhood of 6 and a half to 7 percent. The budget that was actually tabled is 7.2 percent. So, clearly, on the iss ue of the sufficiency of funding in health care what we provided as a govern- ment in our budget is even surpassing what the expectation of the Leader of the Opposition was.

Out of that 7.2 percent, a global amount of something that will be in the range of $7.35 billion or nearly $20 million a day, we think it’s perfectly reasonable that the allocation given to regional health authorities will be appropriate for them to come up with a good, solid arrangement with nurses. We have had good experiences in the past. W e know that both nurses and their employers, the regional health authorities, struck an agreement that was in the range of 22 percent the last time around. There was s ome catch-up, and I t hink that the public well knows about how large this agreement was.

In this round of negotiations I don’t think that t here’s the same expecta tion on th e part of the Alberta public that we would be a ble to fund an agreement of that magnitude. Expect ations are much mor e reaso nable thi s time around. We do value our nurses. W e th ink that the re gional hea lth authorities are doing a good job. Nurses a re wel l paid in this province, and there a re many issues that w e need to de al with i n terms of their contract. The regional health authorities are moving forward on th at, and that is what we should expect to see in this province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr.

Taft : Thank you, Mr. Speak er. He c ompletely dodged the question, so let’s try somebody else. To the Minister of Innovation and Science, who chairs the cabinet committee on labo ur relations: will he and his com mittee agree to meet with representatives of the United Nurses, the Health Sciences Association, and other health care unions? Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would a sk your direction on this matter. The legislation to do with labour and health is not under my purview, so I would request your advice in respect to answering this question.

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 959 The Speaker: The protocol is very simple, hon. minis ter. W ith questions directed to the government, anyone in the government may choose to answer. The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Mr. Dunford: Yes. We’ve already met, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Automobile Repair Industry Mr. Lord: Thank y ou, Mr. Spe aker.

Over the past w eekend a national consumer pr otection agency repor ted on th eir findin gs regarding their c ross-country investigation into the i ntegrity and competency of the automobile repair business. The results nationally were mixed, with some excellent and some not so excellent results. Of disappointment to Calgarians was the finding that the two most expensive incorrect auto repairs in the country were both in Calgary shops.

This small investigation seems, however, to have touched on some issues that are very big issues with my constituents in Calgary- Currie, at least the ones that I discussed this with over the weekend. My questions are to the Minister of Government Services. Does the government of Alberta send out undercover investigators with car problems to test automobile repair shops in a similar manner to what this consumer protection group did? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the automotive repair business, particularly in Calgary, has not just 10 automotive repair shops in it. There are literally thousands in that city. To pick out 10 and accuse those 10 and make the assumption that 60 percent of the shops in Calgary are doing bad things is wrong because there are thousands of shops that are doing a really, really good job, and they have employees that do a very, very good job. But it is unfo rtunate t hat there a re individua ls and there are corporations and there a re companies out there that do unethical things.

So to mitigate that, we have in Alberta the Fair Trading Act, which has an automotive business regulation component to it. That is adminis tered by the Albe rta Motor Vehic le Industry Council, known as AMVIC. AMVIC is an agency that reports to Albertans through m y depar tment, a nd it’s desi gned to prote ct consum ers against illegal and unethical business practices. AMVIC also has a consumer alert p rogram where they can desi gnate and n otify consumers about the businesses and the individuals who are doing unscrupulous things.

I would encourage the hon. member to ask any of his constituents who may believe that they have been treated badly or less tha n fairl y in the automotive repair business in C algary to phone our Government Services call centre at 1-877-427-4088 f or the AMVIC phone number. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. My s econd question to the same minister: what trends has the government identified in terms of numbers and type s of com plaints em anating f rom consum ers in regard to automobile repairs? Mr. Coutts : Mr.

Speake r, the Al berta Motor Vehicle Indus try Council takes very seriously every single complaint that comes into its offices. The council is currently working on a trend analysis and is compiling statistics based on science rather than hearsay. I want to share with the hon. member, since he asked the question, that last year, from the statistics available, AMVIC fielded 6,600 complaints. A hundred and forty-two of those cases were resolved by mediation. Another 244 led to formal investigations.

One business was closed as a result of AMVIC action, thre e businesses had their licences revoked, and 97 had criminal charges that were laid against them. So considering the numbe r of bu sinesses and the number of employees that we have, this legislation works for Albertans through the AMVIC investigations. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Could the minister explain what else the gove rnment d oes pro actively to e nsure h onesty, integrity, and accountability in the automobile repair industry? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

After more than two years of consultation with the industry and with consumers the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council has assumed responsibility for administering and enforcing the portions of the Fair Trading Act that apply to consumer prot ection for the automotive field. Busi- nesses involved i n all aspe cts of the automotive sector, including repairs and maintenance of automobiles, trucks – and recreational vehicles are even included in this – as w ell as the people that sell them and the people that work on the automobiles involved must be licensed by AMVIC.

AMVIC provides a level playing field not only for the business but for cons umers, and they strive t o make a fair marketplace. They are also involved with education, training, and consumer satisfaction sup ports to make su re that th e automoti ve business and the sa lespeople are leg itimate in the provinc e of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Private/Public Partnerships Mr. Bonner: Mr.

Speaker, last T hursday I asked the Minister of Infrastructure to explain what m ade him think that us ing P3s for financing infrastructure was a good idea. The m inister responded that groups like Bethany Care, Ca ritas, and the Good Samaritan Society have made P3s work in this province, but the minister knows full well that these nonprof it organizations are not the ones w ho would be financing provincial capital projects. To the Mini ster of Infrastructure: why did the minister cite the examples of Caritas and Bethany Care when asked about the wisdom of financing infrastruc- ture with private dollars?

Did th ese companies become for-profit financial institutions without telling anyone? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, it’s very interesting that the member would ask that question today, because just this morning I met with two of the mentioned groups talking about their financing, not us financing but their financing. So they, in fact, do finance facilities. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: given that P3 financing has failed in every other jurisdiction in which it has been tried, what evidence does this minister have that it will work in Alberta?

960 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, we’ve just finished demonstrating to the member how it worked so well in these othe r cases. If the hon. member wants to go have another look, maybe you could go down to Olds College and watch down there what P3s can do. Mr. Bonner: The private sector, Ty. Mr. Lund: The hon. member says: well, that was the private sector. Well, what do you th ink we’re talking about? The private sector getting in with the public and in fact it having facilities built that are very effective in t he delive ry of a serv ice: that’s what this is all about. Mr. Bonner: Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: given that the Minister of Infrastructure has repea tedly failed to ta ble any of the m yriad of evidence he claims to have showing the effectiveness of P3s, will the Premier table these documents for him? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of tabling any docu- ments for the hon. minister. We ha ve a system set up to eva luate whether in fact P3s should be used.

That system involves a private sector, people a lot more knowledgeable than the L iberals in financing, in real estate, to evaluate the worthiness of a project and whether or not that project should be submitted to a P3 process. It’s a fair a nd unbiased ev aluation, and while th ere ha ve been some failures relative to P3s, there have been some tremendous successes. We want to make sure that whatever we undertake relative to P3s is indeed succ essful, that it w orks. T hat’s why there will be this independent, unbiased ev aluation by experts, no t Liberals, in the private sector. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Old s-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Livestock Industry Review Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of my constituents are involved in the cattle industry, so they’ve got a great deal of interest in all the ongoing activities related to that industry. My questions today are for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop- ment. Why a re the liv estock m arketing and br and ins pection processes being reviewed at this time? Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, I thin k that a number of members would recall that prior to this change in brand inspections the brand inspections were actually managed by government. A wise decision, I bel ieve, was made in 1998 to turn it ov er to the indus try, and they’ve been ma naging that process since. So me parts of it have gone very well, and some have had some bumps along the way, but when we m ade that de cision, we agreed that there would be a legislative review, and the time is coming to do that.

This involves four acts and 14 regulations that are administered by LIS on behalf of our government, and it’s important, I think, that we take the time now, prior to the f ifth anniversary of this relatively new entity, to ensure that it is really meeting all of the expectations of the industry stakeholders. It’ll give our industry stakeholders an opportunity to have input into the future of livestock marketing and brand inspec- tion and related legislation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. S peaker. To the same minister again. I’m sure many of my constituents will welcome this review.

Could she tell me what the status of the ongoing review is and how my constituents and other industry stakeholders can participate? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, early in 2002 there was a legislative review working group convened and a legis lative review steering committee. We have representatives on that from our department, as does Livestock Identification Services. The first round of industry consultation is under way. About 300 packages have been distrib- uted.

They contain some discussion papers and questionnaires, and to give an indication of the importance and the size of this industry, they have been distri buted to about 225 indus try organizations. I might also say that for people who a re not a par t of that w ho are interested in accessing this information and making comments on it, it is on the LIS web site as well as Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development’s Ropin’ the Web web site. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary to the same minister: how will this review process be of any benefit to the livestock industry? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that certainly we have great expectations of the review process, and the industry also has responded in ki nd. In fa ct, as of April 7 w e’ve had about 200 questionnaires returned to us, so it is a n item of a grea t deal of interest. Mr. Speaker, livestock transitions need to flow efficiently, and this will, I think, improve that where it’s required.

It’ll, I think, increase confidence in the integrity of the industry, create standard rules that allow all industry stakeholders to structure future business plans. As we have noted over the past years, the issue of food safety is of great importance to people, and it’s interesting that we are one of the few jurisdictions that really do have a livestock identification service that can provide trace backs and identification in a very prompt and secure manner. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Energy Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Sparks flew at an all- Tory standing poli cy committee meeting on ene rgy last Monday night after Aquila made a pre sentation much to the int erest of a reporter from the St. Albert Gazette. Confusion a nd frustra tion about ener gy deregulation have now spilled ove r from Alberta consumers into the d ivided Tor y caucu s. A high-ranking Tory cabinet ministe r p resent stated, a nd I quote: I c onsider m yself fortunate that only 25 percent of my constituency is serv ed by Aquila; for some of my colleagues with almost 100 percent of their constituencies covered by Aquila, this must be just killi ng them.

End of quote. My first question is to the Premier. Given that Aquila claims that its b illing system is 9 9 percent accurate, is energy deregulation to blame for the endless number of complaints that are coming to the constituency offices? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, is ener gy der egulation to blame ? My answer to that is no. Of c ourse, you can’t go back and you can’t reregulate ener gy to know w hat the rate s would be today. Y ou know, that is the problem. So it’s so easy for the Liberals, because it’s a good 15-second sound bite, to say that it’s all due to deregula- tion and to this g overnment.

That’s a good 15-second sound bite,

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 961 and they don’t have to justify it. They don’t have to do any compari- sons to a regulated environment. They can’t because we don’t have a regulated environment. So my a nswer would be no, and if they want to say something to the contrary, then I guess it’s up to them to prove it. You know, I can recall 2000, I guess, when deregulation came in, January 1, and the pric e of pow er shot w ay up. O f course , the opposition at that ti me said: well, it’s all because of deregulation.

They purposely failed to mention to the Alberta public that a number of power plants were down at that particular time, that the price of gas shot to an al l-time high, that the economy of the province was growing at an unprec edented rate. They forgot to point out all of those things, Mr. Speaker, because the simple thing, at least for a Liberal, was to come up with a 15-second sound bite saying: oh, this is all due to deregulation. That is the simple thing. That is the way they find sol utions. Tha t’s the way they present s olutions to problems: through a 15-second sound bite. 2:20 Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: given that energy deregulation is the cause of high en ergy bills, not Liberal policy, the Liberal policy that he is free to take, what constituencies besides Cypress-Medicine Hat are continuing to hear about problems of billing accuracy and poor consumer relations from Aquila? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, without doubt – and I’ll concede this to the hon. member – there have been some billing problems.

The Minister of Energy and the M inister of Government Services have been dealing with this particular situation, the situation as it specifically relates to Aquila, and I will have the two ministers res pond as to what they are doing relative to this situation. Mr. Smit h: Mr. Speake r, the com panies that are in volved with respect to the billing inaccuracies – namely, Aquila and an electricity provider by the na me of EPCOR – we re on th e consultation team prior to the introduction of the new market model.

They were involved from 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, so they were supposed to have been prepared to deliver commercial solutions to commercial problems. In e ffect, these a re commercial problems. In order t o hasten that improvement, we put an order in, a deficiency regulation, such that the EUB will upon review of a customer’s file and finding out that there’s an inaccurate meter reading refund the customer $75. Now, to this point it’ s my understanding tha t ou t of 350,000 customers billed about four times, the EUB has in fact delivered in between 250 and 400 refunds. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: will the Premier consider a suggestion from a frustrated rural Tory backbencher, this t ime from the D rayton Valley-Calmar constitu- ency, and implement a $75 fine for Aquila, si milar to the one that was legislated for EPCO R, or are y ou going to continue to pick winners and losers? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, relative to the sit uation as it pertains to protection of the c onsumer, I’ll ask the ministe r responsible to respond. Mr. Coutts: Mr.

Speaker, we had all five companies, including rural electrification units, sitting at the task force table, and every single solitary one of those people ag reed with the outc omes of the task force in term s of sim plifying bills, m aking th em easier t o read, making them more understanding of what was being charged.

When we came around to the issue of billing accuracies in terms of what is on the bill and whether it is actually accurate according to what the meter may have put forward, the y all agreed that customer service organizations within each of their companies, not just one company but within each of their companies, would do two things. The first thing was to work better together between the wire service provider and the billing agent. Secondly, as an individual company they would make sure that those billing accuracies would be looked after by their customer service people.

The Speaker: The hon. l eader of the third party , followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Education Property Taxes (continued) Dr. Pannu: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, two years ago this government promised to cap the amount they collected in property taxes at $1.2 billion. It’s not the first time this government has broken its “the only way taxes are going i s do wn” pr omise. This is the sa me government that raised health care premiums and added over 70 new fees last year.

Now, according to the city of Edmonton the govern- ment’s latest tax grab will add close to 9 percent to the provincial tax bill in the for m of s chool levy for Edm onton homeow ners. My questions are to the Minister of Finance. Will Edmonton homeown- ers be paying more in provi ncial p roperty taxes because of her budget? Yes or no? Mrs. Nelso n: Well, Mr. S peaker, last week in o ur bu dget we announced tha t we w ere fr eezing t he mill rate for the property assessment for school taxes, a move that we had done the previous year.

What we said, though, was that with the number of people that have come t o the provinc e and sett led he re and built or bought homes, we would cap ture the gr owth wi thin the provi nce. The market value assessment on their homes will be based on the current market value assessment that their city has put out to them. If there has been no increase in the market value assessment of their homes, there’ll be no change in their property tax insofar as school tax goes. So it’s on an individual ba sis.

Some communities have seen their assessments flat, others have seen them go up, and some communi- ties’ within the larger cities have actually gone down. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Given that this minister has broken her promise, why should Edmonton homeowners care about the mill rate if the end result of this broken promise is an 8.9 percent increase in their taxes? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speak er, the only part of t he equation tha t the province actually sets is the mill rate assessment for education on the property assessment.

Now, w e don’t do the market value assess- ment; we don’t do the city side of the equation. We only set the mill rate for the e ducation component. That ’s all we do, and th at has been frozen. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister again: why did she break her promi se to cap – to cap – the total amount of revenue collecte d from the provinci al property tax? T hat’s the question she hasn’t answered.

962 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, only someone who doesn’t realize that this province has an economic cl imate t hat is making it grow would ask such a silly question. We’ve frozen the mill rate. With more people coming here, there are more people contributing to tax. You just have look at our f inancial statements and realize that we have kept our personal income taxes low. We’ve in fact indexed the increase on it to make sure it’s the lowest, but we receive more. Why? Because there are more people in this province paying into the pot, so there are more dollars coming forward.

I don’t know why this is so hard for him to understand. We froze t he mill rate. [interjections] The Speaker: Hon. members, actually, you know, if somebody asks a question and s omebody agrees to answer the question, we really shouldn’t heckle either the que stioner or the re sponder to the question. Let’s try now the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Low-income Support Programs Mr. Ce naiko: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . As par t of Budget 2003 governm ent announced a n increase for some people receiving supports for independence, or SFI.

Families with children will receive an additional $20 per m onth increase effective June 1 and keep the projected $15 per month increase per child from the national child benefit starting in August. For the people on SFI who are not expected to work, they also get a $20 per month raise starting June 1. My question is for the Minister of Alberta Human Resources and Employment. People receiving AISH are also not expected to work, but many do and in some cases have children to support. Why didn’t the AISH, or the assured income for the severely handicapped, recipients also get an increase? Mr.

Dunford: We were looking at two situations, Mr. Speaker: first of all, of course, our supports for independence program and also AISH. In terms of AISH this is a program that is recognized as probably the most generous across Canada; if not, certainly at the top of the list. S o it was felt that w e would conc entrate more on the supports for independence side as we move forward. Now, we didn’t forget about AISH altogether. Many members here in the House have for a long time had concerns with constitu- ents of theirs that are on AISH that are also receiving income from the Canada pension plan, and of course, Mr.

Speaker, as we are all aware, the CPP is indexed to a cost-of-living measure. Sometimes it does happen where a minor increase in the consumer price index can actually move them above the $850 and then take them off o f AISH. In recog nizing that, then , Budget 2003, of course is now extending health benefits to those AISH clients that run into that experience. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplemental question is to the same minister. What can AISH recipients expect down the road and into the future? Mr. Dunford: I’ve made the commitment, Mr.

Speaker, to AISH stakeholders here in the province to be having a look at how we can make sure that this program ca n continue and c an continue on a sustainable basis. We’ve increased the budget within Budget 2003, but frankly that is to take the anticipated growth in the program. The Speaker: Hon. members, before I recognize the first of several members, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a longtime friend and constituent and probably most im portant of a ll a trail -riding partner, Mr. Pat James. He’s seated in the public gallery. I’d like to note also that Pat in addition to hi s duties as a county of Mountain View councillor also is a director with the AAMD and C. I would ask Pat to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head : Recognit ions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. 90th Anniversary of Olds College Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Las t Friday a number of colleagues joined me in Olds to celebrate and recognize the 9 0th anniversary of Olds College at a very gala event. Olds College is a v ibrant educational centre in th e heart of my constituency. The primary focus of the college is promoting a strong agriculture sector in Alberta by educating students in all aspects of agriculture, whether it be the business side, the research si de, o r practical applications of new technologies.

One of the greatest things about Olds College is that it takes all these innovations, some of which ar e made a t their ve ry own Centre f or Innovation, and shows Alberta farmers how to apply them on the farm. Albertans appreciate the practi cal skills an d know-ho w, and Olds C ollege excels at getting that know-how to rural Alberta. Mr. Speaker , it’s no se cret that Albert a is moving towards an increasingly diversified ag se ctor, and the search for new ways to make money on the fami ly farm knows no bounds.

It’s largely because of the skills that students learn at Olds College that agricul- ture is growing so quickly. I want to commend Olds College and ask this Assembly to join me in wishing them the very best of luck and success in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Leigh Goldie Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recent ly the H on. Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Community Deve lopment, announced Alberta’s first annual athletes and volunteers of the year.

One of this year’s volunteer recipients is longtime Grande Prairie resident Leigh Goldie of the Alberta Volleyball Association. Leigh has been avidly involved in the volleyball com munity for 25 y ears. In 1984 he formed the Wolves Volleyball Club in Grande Prairie, and since then he has remained as a director of the club and has helped it to grow and flourish to become one of the largest clubs in Canada. At the p rovincial level Le igh h as bee n a lo ngtime e xecutive member of the Alberta Volleyball Association and was also chair of volleyball for the 2000 Alberta Summer Gam es in Grande Prairie.

Currently Leigh i s the vice- president in charge of finance and administration for the Alberta Volleyball Association. Mr. Speaker, he has received numerous awards including the 1998

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 963 builder of the year for the Grande Prairie Multi-Sport Development Centre, coach of the year for ACAC men’s volleyball in 1989, and the Routledge award in 1997 from the Health and Physical Educa- tion Council. I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Leigh Goldie. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Excellence in Teaching Awards Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to recog- nize six finalists for the 2003 excellence in teaching awards whose schools are in the Edmonton-Gold Bar constituency.

These teachers are six of the many great educators in this province and hav e been chosen with 122 other fine educators by a selection committee of representatives of stakeholder groups and education partners in early childhood services to grade 12 learning comm unity as finalists for the 15th annual excellence in teaching awards. These finalists for the exce llence in t eaching award s ha ve de monstrated crea tivity, innovation, and effectiveness in teaching.

I would lik e to recog nize Jennifer Prestash and Ran dy George Radmanovich from l’école Kenilworth school; Errol Valentine Johnson, Mary Kelsey, and Diane Gayle Smarsh from McNally high school, Sharon Goulet from the Suzuki charter school. Transmitting the collective knowledge of our community from one generation to the next is the most important job in our society, and our teachers do it very well. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Canadian Men’s Curling Team Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today in the Assembly to recognize an outstanding sporting event and a rem arkable group of a thletes, t he Canadia n men’s curling team. On Sunday, April 13, the Canadian skip, Randy Ferbey, and his teammates defeated Switzerland 10-6 in nine ends of curling to win the gold medal at the world curling championship in Winnipeg. The Canadian team consists of lead Marcel Rocque, the pride and joy of St. Paul, w ho threw 96 pe rcent for the fina l match; second Scott Pfeifer; third Dave Nedohin; skip Randy Ferbey; fif th Dan Holowaychuk; and coach B rian Moore.

Al l are re sidents of Edmonton and Sherwood Park playing at the Avonair Curling Club in Edmonton, the city of champions. Curling combines strategy with skill, and Canada has dominated, winning eight cur ling world cham pionships since 1992 including 2003 and a rec ord 29 since t he Scotch Cup started i n 1959. Canadians may not have invented curling, but we sure have made it our own. I would ask that the Members of the Legislative Assembly join me in congratulating all members of the Canadian curling team for their extraordinary talent and their gold medal win at the world champion- ships. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Calgary G-8 Organizing Committee Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure and honour to rise today to recognize the Calgary G-8 Organizing Committee for winning the Whit e Hat of the Year award in Calgary last Tuesday. All eyes were on them and Calgary and area to successfully execute this event, the most significant international occurrence here since 1988.

The event’s success not only helped secure our reputation as a safe world-class destination and host for major diplomatic events, but it gener ated 1,500 f ull-time jobs and an e stimated econom ic impact of $193.1 million for Calgary and area businesses. Mr. Speaker , Calgar y and ar ea enjoy ed extens ive reg ional, national, and internat ional med ia coverage before and during the event. Our city ’s promotion as a w orld-class destination for both business and leisure travel was unmatched by this opportunity.

The organizing team’s contribution has helped to establish a legacy for Calgary as an international host, and political leaders and intern a- tional media responded w ith praise and sugge stions that f uture events be modeled and measured based on this team’s successes. Congratulations to Mayor Dave Bronconnier, Police Chief Jack Beaton, Fire C hief Wayn e Mor ris, Calgar y eme rgency medical service’s chief Rick Stanger, city of Calgary G-8 project manage r John Chapput, and city of Calgary CEO Dale Stanway for represent- ing Calgary and the province of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton Highlands. Action for Healthy Communities Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to recognize a program of the Edmonton Healthcare Citizenship Society that was established in 1993. The Acti on for Hea lthy Com munities is committed to building stronger and healthier communities through a community-building process that fosters citizen participation and advocacy for public policy that improves the health of the commu- nity. Example projects include collective kitchens, tai chi lessons, and development of a mental health awareness video.

Under the direct ion of co-ordi nator Debbie Chaba they are currently working on an energ y retr ofit projec t partnere d with Michael Kalma novitch and the Ecology Syste ms Inf ormation Society, assisting homeowners in central Edmonton on limited budgets who a re intere sted in reduc ing energ y consumption and saving money. Action for Healthy Communities exists to improve the well-being of their community, and I applaud their work. 2:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to beg your forgiv e- ness, sir, for my breach of protocol in my just-passed recognition. I inadvertently mentioned the member’s name in the House. Speaker’s Ruling Referring to Members by Name The Speaker: Hon. members, perhaps just a bit of explanation why this is rather important. It’s not one of those rules that j ust sort of kicked in out of the blue.

Two things can happen, and hon. members can see the use of names in this Assembly where some hon. mem- bers, unfortunately, have a difficult time dealing with a certain name from a certain culture, and sometimes there’s a slurring, which is an embarrassment to the member and an embarrassment to the person whose name is mentioned. So in the Assembly itself there may be names which, de pending how you pronounce them, m ay lead to some considerable degree of embarrassment for everybody. Now, we have no current member called Paquette. Now, you can play some unfortunate games with that name.

We have no member called Foquette. The rule is very clear. We mention the member’s constituency and not the name.

964 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present five copies of 18 letters addr essed to the Minister of Health a nd Wellnes s and myself requesting that the Didsbury health services be located in the Calgary regional health authority. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table a letter from St. Rita’s parish in th e community of Valleyview urging the provincial government to deinsure the practice of abortion.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakem an: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . I’ m v ery pleased to rise today and table five copies of a letter from constituent Don Perdue, who’s asking if it’s true that “medicare is being slow in delivery to seniors in the hope that they will pass away and thus the governments will save money ” since they no longer have to pay pensions. This constituent notes that money being spent that’s paid into the medical system “does not appear to be used t o relieve the patients who pay for it in taxes and premiums.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I have two tablings t oday. T he first is a lett er on behalf of the Liberal caucus signed by ou r leader con gratulating the tea m of R andy Ferbey, Marcel Rocque, Scott Pfeifer, and Dave Nedohin on winning their second world curling championship in a row. The next letter is again signed by the Le ader of the Official Opposition on behalf of the Alberta Liberal caucus to Mike Weir on being the first Canadian to win the Masters championship. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr.

Massey: Thank you, M r. Speaker. With your concurrence I have three tablings this afternoon. Fi rst are five copies of a study entitled Teachers’ Instructional Practice s i n Small C lasses by Haughey, Snart, and da Costa, soon to be published in the Alberta Journal of Educational Research, volume 49, issue 2, in the summer of 2003. The study details how small classes facilitate a variety of instructional strategies, effectively moving children to the li teracy goals of the grade 1 curriculum. The second study – and I have five copies of it, Mr.

Speaker – is entitled Enhancing Literacy Achievement in Small Grade 1 Classes in High Poverty Environments, soon to be p ublished in the Cana- dian Journa l of Education, June 2003, by Haughey, da Costa, and Snart, concl uding that sm aller cl asses, a focus on li teracy, and continued professional development was successful in helping grade 1 students in high poverty, high transiency environments make solid gains in their academic and social abilities. The third tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a l etter from Melanie Shapiro indicating how the 2003 budg et cuts w ill mean larger classes in Edmonton schools and that the impact of that on children will result in behaviour problems and less individual attention. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first one is the market surveillance administrator’s annual report for the year 2002. This is dated the 10th of February of this ye ar, and it’s the ma rket surveillance administrator, again, from the Power Pool of Alberta.

I would urge all hon. members who are nervous about energy deregulation to please read this. My second tabling is copies of a petition, and it states, “We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to demand the government fund education adequately and equally across the province.” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, M r. Speaker. I rise to table a document. It’s an editorial in the Alberta Doctors’ Digest March- April 2003 issue.

T his document is called Lies, Damned Lies and Politicians’ Promises and mentions how the Alberta government’s ideology of privatization is harming consumers and how Albertans have felt scorned from remarks in this House that they can afford to pay greatly increased costs of natural gas and electricity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tab ling a document today from ATCO Electric showing the steep rate hikes being incurred by its residential and farm customers as a result of the Tory government’s flow-through electric pricing scheme. This i s consistent with New Dem ocrat opposition predictio ns made las t month. head : Orders of t he Day head : Written Ques tions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Proper notice having been given o n Thursda y, April 10, it is my pleasure to move that written questions appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 11 and 12. [Motion carried] Transportation Achievement Bonuses Q11. Ms Carlson moved on behalf of Mr. Bonner that the follow- ing question be accepted. What is the amount of each bonus and aggregate amount of all bonuses awarded to senior officials within the Ministry and Department of Transportation over the 2001-2002 fiscal year broken down by the identity of and amount paid to each official?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to accept Written Question 11 with amendments, and the amendme nts have been distributed to all members, shared with the opposition before 11 this morning. I’d like to move that Written Question 11 be amended by (

a) striking out “amount of each bonus and,”(

b) striking out “senior officials” and substituting “employees, and the number of employees who received a bonus,” and (

c) striking out “identity of and amount paid to each of ficial” and substituting “range of bonus dollar

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 965 amounts and the number of employees who received a bonus within that range.” Mr. Speaker, the am ended written question would then read as follows: What is the aggregate amount of all bonuses awarded to employees and the n umber o f empl oyees who re ceived a bonus w ithin the Ministry and Depa rtment of T ransportation ove r the 200 1-2002 fiscal year broken down by the range of bonus dollar amounts and the number of employees who received a bonus with that range?

The rationale for this amendment, of course, is to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that Written Question 11 be accepted as amended. 2:50 The Speaker: On the amendment, the hon. Member for Edmonton- Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak against this amendment. This is part of a manner of operating that I see this government increasingly using that I have to object to.

The changes as outlined by the minister in thi s amend ment to the original motio n are so thor ough as to m ake the original question meaningless. When you change almost every word and every clause in here to take out all of the information that is pertinent, it makes the original request meaningless. For a government that claims to be open and accounta ble, open and tr ansparent – we’ll give you any information you want – it’s making a mockery of this process. We’re not getting the information that we’re requesting, and this is information that’s widely available inside the g overnment.

The government knows exactly how much percentage of bonus it’s going to offer to each le vel. T here are supposed to be targets set and achieved by these senior officials in order to receive the bonus. Why is this information not available to the p ublic? The public’s tax dollars are paying for these bonuses. Why do they not get to hear? The Offi cial Oppos ition and the hon. Member for Edm onton- Glengarry didn’t ask for people’s names. It just said various senior officials that wer e in the particular positions, and that’s now been watered down so much that it’s meaningless.

I will note that this government makes the school boards and the regional health authorities publish the amounts of bonuses that the superintendents of the school boards and the CEOs of the regional health authorities get – makes them, requires them, or publishes for them – but what’s good for the goose doesn’t seem to be good for the gander he re. So I ques tion what the big secret is.

If you’re proud enough of these employees and their work is exemplary enough that they stand to have earned an ach ievement bonus, then fine: let’s see what the positions are; let’s see what the targets were that they were to achieve and how well they achieved them. But this level of disguise and obfuscation and smoke and mirrors that’s now going on with this governmen t is utterl y unacceptable to m e. If you’re so open and tra nsparent and accountable, then let’s see it. These kinds of shenanigans are totally unacceptable to me. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Eller slie on the amendment. Ms Carlson: Yes, Mr. Spe aker. I , too, am speaking against the amendment. Thi s amendment eff ectively neuters the original question as put on the Order Paper and doesn’t give us any kind of comparative . . . [interjection] No. I’m speaking about government members, hon. minister. It doesn’t give us the kind of information that we require to make good comparisons. We have a government who continually talks about how they like to parrot the practice of industry.

Well, industry does report bonuses and information of that kind to their shareholders and often makes that public in public documents. So for this government to continu- ally hide behind legislation when it doesn’t need to is irresponsible and certainly does not meet any of the parts of its mandate that i t continually talks about having in terms of openness and accountabil- ity. So I definitely will be voting against the amendment. [Motion on amendment carried] The Speak er: Now on the main motion as amended, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie to close the debate. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We asked for this informa- tion about bonuse s and aggr egate a mounts of bonuses to the department so that we could start to do what this government should be doing in its business plans, which is monitoring compar ative figures and taking a look at relating actual performance . . . Dr. Taylor: Monitoring? Ms Carlson: Yes, monitoring. And you talk about it, Minis ter of Environment, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, he doesn’t do it. So this is a way of putting into place one of those kinds of reporting practices so that we can actually see if performance ties in to dollars paid. We believe it doesn’t.

We believe that if it did, this government would have no problem disclosing that amount, so that’s why we asked for this particular question in the first place. [Written Question 11 as amended carried] Municipal Affairs Achievement Bonuses Q12. Ms Carlson moved on behalf of Mr. Bonner that the follow- ing question be accepted. What is the amount of each bonus and aggregate amount of all bonuses awarded to senior officials within the Ministry and Department of Municipal Affa irs over the 2001-2002 fiscal year broken down by the identity of and amount paid to each official? The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly am prepared to accept Written Question 12 with amendments, and the information has been shared with the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry in accordance with the procedures. I would like to also move at this time that Written Question 12 be accepted as amended.

I would like to add, though, that, you know, in keeping with the spirit and the intent of freedom of information and protection of privacy and the points that were made earlier in terms of accountability and transparency, the bottom line is that what taxpayers should know is simply how much thei r tax dollar s are going towards.

Certainly, with the new amendment that I’m putting forward, it would read as such: What is the aggregate amount of all bonuses awarded to employees and the numbe r of e mployees who re ceived a bonus w ithin the Ministry and Department of Municipal Affairs over the 2001-2002 fiscal year broken down by the range of bonus dollar amounts and the number of employees who received a bonus within that range? This certainly keeps to the spirit and the intent of accountability and transparency. So moved.

966 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 The Speak er: But, hon. minister , you’re not moving anythin g. Now, we’re on an amendment. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. He’ll learn the rules eventually, I’m sure. On the amendment, once again this one does the same thing as the other amendm ent does, w hich does not g ive us the inform ation which make s people ac countable for the dollars that they are receiving, so we do n’t like this amendment either.

In fact, once again I’m sur prised that this minister wants to hide behind that legislation, because there are many cases and many other circum- stances where bonuses and dollars paid out to i ndividuals in high- ranking decision-making positions are completely transparent and are available for public scrutiny, and we would expect that same kind of behaviour from this government. The Speaker: Okay. So the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has moved an amendment. This is now what’s before the Assembly. [Written Question 12 as amended carried] head : Motions for Retur ns The Speaker: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Again, proper notice having been given on Thursday, April 10, it is my pleasure to move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 12 and 13. [Motion carried] 3:00 Sustainable Resource Development Liability Claims M12.

Ms Carlson moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the 62 contingen t liability claims against the Department of Sustainable Resource Development in the 2001-02 f iscal year as m entioned i n responses to supplementary questions from the Committee of Supply, April 16, 2002, and attached to correspondence code DM02-KC-0671 from the Hon. Mike Ca rdinal, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. The Speaker: Now, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Mr. Cardinal: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker.

I m ove that Motion for a Return 12 be rejected, and the reason for this is because the information requested is protected by sections 25 and 27 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or FOIP.

In fact, as stated in the legislation, disclosure of this information could possibly, one, harm the eco nomic interests of the gove rnment of Alberta; two, result in financial loss to the government of Alberta; three, compromise or i nterfere with neg otiations with the gov ern- ment of Alberta; four, prejudice the government’s legal position on matters in question; and five, result in the loss of leg al privi leges attached to some of the information in question. For these reasons we will not be accepting this motion. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie to close the debate. Ms Carlson: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. We have a real problem with the rejection of this motio n. At least we cou ld have exp ected some amendment to give more general information about this. If you take a look at responsible financial reporting and any kinds of accounting principles used by any governments worldwide or any corporations worldwide, you will see that they have rules in place for disclosing contingent liabilities on financial statements.

Even if we don’t get w ho the continge nt liabilities are w ith or the individual amounts that could be outstanding, at least we nee d to get a b est estimation of what this government ex pects to pay out over time, because that does impact the financial viability of the province and is an outstanding liability that does need to be recorded. So we find these to be quite ir responsible accounting practices, never mind governing practices or revenue projection practices.

We would urge the mini ster to c onsider releasing some sort of information in and around thes e contingent liabilities so that good decisions can be made by all those reviewing the statements, because we need that information to be re flecting accurate liabilities in all cases. The Speaker: The Assembly will only be voting on the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, not the motion put forward by the hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. [Motion for a Return 12 lost] Kyoto Accord M13.

Ms Carlson moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing all correspondence between the Minis- ter of Environment, the Premier, Public Affairs Bureau, and the Minister of Energ y rega rding the Ky oto accord a nd Alberta’s anti-Kyoto campaign. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Environment. Dr. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is my privilege and pleasure to respond to this motion. Simply put, this motion cannot be accepted.

Not only does the motion ask for inf ormation that is privileged under FOIP – and the member and her caucus so strongly support FOIP, so th ey should know that – but it certainly makes assumptions about last year’s climate change discussions. It talks about an anti-Kyoto campaign, and I just want to make very clear to this member that our campaign was a pro climate change campaign on a national basis. It was not about anti-Kyoto; it was about pro climate change and a national pl an.

As w ell, if our plan was anti anything, it was anti federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and certainly I would say strongly still that we must stand up and protect Albert a’s interests from the anti federal intrusion into our jurisdiction, which is something that the members opposite don’t seem to understand with their close connections to the government in Ottawa. So I clearly – clearly – urge all members not to accept this motion. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie to close the debate. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What this government truly is is anti openne ss and ac countability, as cer tainly shown by t he amendments and rejections of motions today. [interjection] That is certainly true. The Member for Edmonton-Centre’s comments are very accurate. How this member can stand here with a straight face and say that they h ad a pro climate change agenda – w ell, I see he’s not so

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 967 straight faced now that he’s sitting down in his seat. A pro climate change agenda: what was that about? I must have been out o f the province during that debate, because I certainly didn’t hear it. What I saw was a lot of money being spent on a s tance which they have subsequently had to soften, I’m happy to see, in the new bill that we see coming out on climate change and the co mmitment of some dollars to moving forward on this particular item in the budget.

So it’s nice to see that perhaps he’s moving from his before Christmas anti-Kyoto stand to this stand now which is going to be working in some co-operation. So it isn’t all bad, bad feds. I t’s also unin- formed provincial government on the iss ues and on wh ere in fact their liabilities do lie and what they do have control over in terms of the province. It’s important for people in this provi nce to k now wha t this government is doing, and I would remind this minister, who aspires to being well read, that other jurisdictions do make available these kinds of documents.

I would refer the minister to Australia, where they do ha ve certain rules that impose a d egree of openness a nd accountability on governments. I have seen this minister in the past cherry-pick those idea s from Australia that he likes. So I would encourage him to take more ideas than just those that he likes, and some of them inclu de maki ng public thes e kinds of pieces of correspondence which help the voters know where their money is being spent and the kinds of filters their gov ernment is using f or decision-making, particularly when they’re making poor decisions.

So we would urge all mem bers in this Assembly to vote for the acceptance of this motion. [Motion for a Return 13 lost] head : Publi c Bil ls and Orders Other than Governm ent Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 204 Insurance (Accident Insurance Benefits) Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate April 7: Dr. Taft] The Speaker: Hon. members, there are 72 m inutes left under the Standing Order agenda. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the Assembly today to debate B ill 204, the Insurance (Accident Insurance Benefits) Amendment Act, 2003. I’d li ke to take this opportunity to comm end the MLA for D rayton V alley- Calmar for bringing this legislation forward. It raises some important issues that need to be addressed regarding

section B benefits. Bil l 204 would am end the Insura nce Act to accomplish two primary goals: alter

section B benefits and include a dispute arbitration mechanism. First, Bill 204 would increase the limit of

section B medical benefits to $25,000 over four years from the current level of $10,000 over two years to individuals who have been involved in an automobile accident. Second, this bill would include initiative s for a dispute arbi tration for um betw een the insurance companies and claimants receiving se ction B medical benefits. In conjunction w ith this dispute mechanism the amend- ment would introduce the use of independent medical examiners. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of Bill 204 our province would be on the same payout level of

section B medical benefits as Nova Scotia, New Brunswic k, New foundland, Nuna vut, and the Northwest Territories. Currently Alberta ranks a s the low est jurisdiction in Canada with regard to payout limits on

section B benefits. Mr. Speak er, having mentioned Alberta’s low limit on those benefits, I feel it’s also important to highlight that the aver age

section B payout is wel l below the set lim its. Ove r 2001 the Insurance Bureau of Canada reported that Alberta’s average payout for

section B benefits was $3,320,

whereas the average all-inclusive payout was $5,967 for the same year. It must also be recognized that Alberta’s low payout of

section B benefits is not a true indicator of benefits available. If a claimant is involved in an accident that is not their fault, the y are not entitled t o a dditional benef its. Ac cident victims can recover medical costs t hrough third-party liability insurance of the dri ver at f ault. Addi tional benef its include a minimum of $200,000 in th ird-party liability, $2,000 in funeral expense benefits, and maximum disability benefits of $300 per week, or 80 percent of gross wages over a 104-week period. 3:10 Mr. Speaker, difficulties arise when comparing Alberta insurance benefits to other provinces.

We are basically comparing apples and oranges. These are two separate and distinct types of processes. The essential difference is between no-fault and tort systems. In Alberta we have a t ort system,

whereas provinces like Quebec have a no- fault system.

Section B benefits limits are high in no-fault systems because claimants do not have the choice t o sue for pain and suffering. In Alber ta’s tort system those at f ault pay.

Section B benefits allow f or insurance benefits on a no-fa ult basis to those injured in an accident, while those not responsible for the accident are eligible for third-party liability benefits. Mr. Speaker , I would li ke to shif t my focus a nd address t he remainder of my remarks to the dispute arbitration mechanism. This is the portion of the bill I find most important and highly valuable. By providing the provisions for dispute arbitration, greater clarity, honesty, and impartiality w ould be brought to the process of resolving ins urance clai ms.

I ackn owledge tha t by i ncluding an impartial arbitrati on pane l, th e gover nment w ould have a more extensive role in regulating the insurance industry. Some may argue that this rol e is an example of g overnment overregulation in the insurance sector, but I feel that the benefits of an impartial arbitra- tion panel and the inception of independent medical examiners far outweigh the costs of this additional regulation. With the passage of Bill 204 an impartial arbitration mechanism would be established to settle disputes that arise between insurance companies and claimants.

This legislation would introduce inde - pendent medica l exam iners. T he Col lege o f Physic ians and Surgeons and either the Finance minister or the supe rintendent of insurance would supply a list of approved doctors to be selected as independent med ical examiners. Both civil trial and insurance lawyers feel that the current system is unfair to individuals involved in automobile accidents, in particul ar with r egard to their h ealth assessment.

As the system stands currently, an insurance company wanting to stop paying medical benefits to a claimant can send this individual to a medical professional of the company’s choice. If this doctor deems that the claimant no longer needs medical benefits, the injured individual can be cut off from their me dical benefits. By providing a mec hanism f or dispute re solution along with the introduction of medical exam iners, enhanced clarity and fairness would be brought to insurance c laims. Mediati on and arbitra tion involve an esse ntial, im partial, obje ctive thi rd party in settling disputes. Mr.

Speaker, I feel that in regard to the impartiality and dispute settlement and independent medical assessments it is important to highlight recent provisions that were made to the Workers’ Compen- sation Board. Rec ommendations outlined from reports on WCB service delivery and the app eal syste m we re institute d with the

968 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 passage of Bill 26 in May of last ye ar. These provisions w ere brought forth to ultimately improve the clarity, fairness, confidence, and accountability of the sy stem. Within thes e recommendations there was a call for the use of independent medical examiners. I feel it is important to look at the merits of this recommendation and how independent medical examiners and a similar process relate to Bill 204.

The seventh recommendation in the WCB review report called for a medical resolution committee to be established under the auspices of the Appeals Commission to review all cases where a difference of medical opinion betwe en the m edical ex aminer and the tr eating physician arises. It outlined that the committee’s decision would be final and binding on all parties as it relates to the medical facts of the case.

This recommendation states that the members of the Committee are to be chosen from a continually updated list of [medical professionals] selected by a medical body that is independent of the WCB and Appeals Commission, such as the College of Physicians and Surg eons o r the Albe rta Medical Association. The WCB has introduced independent medical panels to resolve medical disputes. These panels have specific guidelines for defining medical positions and di fferences in m edical opinions .

The provisions adopted for the WCB were brought forth to improve the structure of di spute re solution a nd t he s ystem as a whole. T he dispute mechanism proposed in this amendment is along the same lines as changes made to the WCB to improve its operations. This bill hopes to achieve the resolution of benefits disputes due to automobile accidents in a timely fashion. An impartial arbitration panel would ensur e quality and establ ish un iform standards of competency for physi cians performing independent medical assessments and appr aisals of tho se invo lved i n a motor vehicle accident.

This impartiality allows for fai rness and neutrali ty in a conflict. Parties inv olved a re not work ing towa rds a spec ific outcome to benefi t one side of the dispute; instead, the y work to solve the conflict as quickly as possible. Independent medical examiners are an important component of workers’ compensation systems a nd are also used to clarify other liability cases. Impartial appraisals are often used to provide a more objective understanding of the impact of an injury or illness.

Whenever an individ ual or his or her physical condition is under scrutiny in any case in which compensation is sought, an impartial medical appraisal must be given. Mr. Speaker, the establishment of independent medical exam iners benefits the public good. They provide objectiveness and reduce bias.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and either the Finance minister or the superintendent of insurance w ould choose cre dentialed phy sicians c ompetent in their specific fields of expertise which they feel have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, experience, and abilities required to perform independent medical evaluations according to the outlined medical performance standards. An amendment to the Insurance Act allowing for the establishment of impartiality in medical assessments will prove to be more just to those who have been inv olved in an autom obile acci dent. Mr.

Speaker, I feel that a dispute arbitration mechanism and the inclusion of independent medical examiners are important features that would improve the cur rent system. T hese measures would increase impartiality and fair ness for claim ants involv ed in autom obile accidents, and for thi s reason I sup port and en courage all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill 204, the insurance amendment, auto insurance

section B benefits act, 2003. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to join in the debate on Bill 204, sponsored by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Bill 204, as everyone knows, is a subject with which each of us is all too familiar, some more happily than oth ers, that being insurance and the insurance i ndustry in Alberta. We’re familiar with it because it’s not something that we have a choice in. If we drive, we must carry insurance, and therein lies the problem.

Because it’s necessary to carry insurance, we a re pretty much obligated to pay whatever we have to pay in order to get it, and many individuals sometimes feel that they’re being taken advantage of one way or another. If you buy insurance and if you have to use it, God help you the next time you have to have your insurance renewed, because your premium ref lects what might have been a once in a lifetime acciden t.

If you do have that accident and you have been paying insurance premiums for a long period of time, the next time you come to the bar, you’ll find that your insurance premiums will reflect that accident. I think many Albertans and many Canadians wonder why it is that our insurance pre miums never s eem to go down.

N o matter how good we may be, they always seem to go up, and if you happen to be younger, they happen to go up ex ponentially, which results in the unhappy circumstance of an increasing number of Albertans driving without insurance, which is against the law , whi ch is absolutely wrong, but then that put s those who find themselves in a collision with someone that d oesn’t have insurance under double je opardy because it’s even more difficult for the person who is one hundred percent blameless in any particu lar ac cident to find their interest being served. I think that this, Mr.

Speaker, is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of individuals w hen they deal with insurance companies. When they have f ound themselves in an accident and they need the protection and the assistance of the insurance company that has their policy, they find themselves almost in an adversarial position not only with the other ins urance company but with their insurance company as well. The net result is that Albertans have had an increasingly difficult relationship with their insurance carriers over recent years.

This is in part because the insurance companies, as everyone knows, have taken a tremendous hit in the equity markets, as most of us have as individuals and certainly anyone, including the province, who has an equity position. The insurance c ompanies, as y ou know, Mr. Speaker, have informed us that they have for years been offsetting the cost of t heir premiums through f unds generated through the ir equity investments and their other investments, and their premiums have not kept pace with the cost of claims. 3:20 It’s really inter esting when we look at stati stics of claims.

In general terms over the past 10 years we all know, Mr. Speaker, that cars are more expensive than they’ve ever been. Thus, intuitively one would expect that the cost of fixing cars would be more than it has ever been. There are m ore cars on the road, and the cost of fixing those cars, one would expect, would have increased. Well, the reality is that the cost of repairing damage to automobiles has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years.

At the same time that cars have been becoming more expensive and the num ber of accidents has increased and the cost of t hese repairs has remained constant, the cost of bodily injury has gone up 3,000 percent. An Hon. Member: How much? Mr. McClelland: Three thousand percent. You don’t have to be Dick Tracy or a detective to be able to figure out that there must be some relationship between the costs incurred

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 969 by the insurance companies for bodily injuries and the increased cost. This is what has led many people to que stion the insurance industry and the associated lawsuits by the legal industry. I think it’s also fair to say that if you look in the phone book of any major city in Albert a today, there ar e quite a num ber of adv ertisements for injury lawyers. This is something which was not part of our culture until fairly recently . So there m ay or m ay not be a connecti on between these two.

As has been m ade evident in many conversa- tions that I’ve had with both the legal industry an d t he insurance industry, we have a responsibility to hold harmless from the cost of the acci dent th ose inj ured in acci dents, and tha t cer tainly c ould account for a large part or a proportion of the very large increase. The question also, then, has to be addressed: does it make sense for a person who may have been injured in an automobile accident to benefit from that automobile accident?

That brings into question that even if you pay premiums on an insurance policy to protect one from the effects of an accident, if you had three insurance policies all covering the same thing, should one be eligible to collect on all three policies because in fact you’re paying for it? [interjection] Now, the Member for Edmonton-Centre is remarking on the fact that she’s trying to find the relevance of this to this particular bill. Well, the relevance is t he part B m edical and whether or not this should be increased. The relevance, Mr.

Speaker, is that we should not – we could, but we probably should not – look at one particular aspect of the insurance industry in isolation beca use the insurance industry is far broad er. Ther e are m ore intrica te and fa r more complex and complicated issues, and the more one delves into it, the more one notices or un derstands that ther e are two sides to e very story. So insurance companies have had an increasingly difficult time meeting the pre mium demands as the situation e xists now . The Insurance Act, as members know, is being carefully considered by the government now.

So the question then before us, Mr. Speaker, is: is it appropriate for this Legislature at this time to consider Bill 204, or is there a better way to consider the elements of Bill 204? I submit that there is a better way. According to Statistics Canada as of December of last year automobile insurance premiums in Alberta rose 57 percent in a one- year period, so it’s very obvious tha t the need to address this has been established.

It’s been further suggested by the insurance community that if s ection B bene fits w ere to be increased, they would immediately apply pressure to limit the amount of money that a claimant could sue for due to pain and suffering, and that seems to defeat the entire reason for offering

section B benefits. Insurance companies offer

section B benefits in order that t hey w ork in conjunction with a whole range of benefits that are available to those who are involved in an automobile accident. Mr. Speaker, this government is taking action on addressing rising insurance premiums. It has been acknowledged that Alberta Finance will be reviewing and examining insurance consumer issues during the automobile insurance review this calendar year, 2003. In light of this and the Alberta Finance review I move that the motion for second . . . The Speaker: I think, hon. member, we’ve passed the time. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr.

Luk aszuk: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . Ha ving reviewed th e b ill and its c ontents, I de finitely will be urging al l members of this A ssembly to vot e in support of hoisting this particular bill now before the House, and I would like to move the amendment to hoist Bill 204, that it not now be read a second time. The Speaker: We’ll await the circulation of such document so that all members will have an opportunity to review this. Then do I take it the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs is proceeding? Mr. Lukaszuk: That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m sure many of us have heard stories from constituents who had a tough time filing claims and accessing fair benefits for injuries due to automobile a ccidents. The pr ocess of ten involve s lawy ers squaring off against insurance companies, and one has to wonder if all sides hav e the best interest of the vi ctim in mind. Bil l 20 4 attempts to alleviate some of the factors that tend to heat up conten- tious claims by modifying the Insurance Act to include an independ- ent medical examiner. Mr. Sp eaker, the proposal for creating an independent medica l examiner is a very intriguing aspect of this bill.

Obviously, one of the most important aspects when settling automobile insu rance claims is the role of the medical adviser. Usually there is more than one doctor involved in an insurance claim. The lawyer representing the injured party has some doctors, and the insurance company has a dif ferent s et of doct ors. Both side s argue that their m edical examiner is right a nd that the othe r o ne has fai led to properly evaluate the injured party. Mr.

Speaker, setting up a list of independent medical examiners that each must choose from will bring more openness, fairness, and accountability to contentious disputes ov er automobile insur ance claims. I believe this bill, Bill 204, will benefit the injured party the most. I see no problem with a list of independent medical examiners that each side must choose from, and I hope this idea is taken under consideration in the futur e.

I also suggest that these medic al examiners be certified and proficient in their use of ap proved guidelines of assessment for clinical impairment. 3:30 However, there are parts of Bill 204 that really trouble me. These parts involve the changes to

section B benefits. Increasing the limit and the am ount from $10,000 to $25 ,000 over four years may actually result in a les s fl exible system that is le ss respons ive to change. Moving forward on this part of Bill 204 would also get in the way of the work already being done by this g overnment. The Department of Fi nance is already addressing this issue through a discussion guide released some time last year. Mr. Spe aker, in December 2002 the Department of Finance released a document entitled Automobile Insurance: We Want Your Feedback. This guide covered two broad areas.

The first area deals with situations where expenses exceed the injured person’s income. The second area discusses the fair level of benefits available for catastrophic injuries. This second area covers a great deal of what is discussed right now in Bill 204. Th is discussion guide asks the government and stakeholders to review limits established in other provinces, seek stakeholder feedback, and consider the possibility of setting higher benefit limits for catastrophic injuries. Mr. Speaker, the goal of this discussion guide was to take the first step to develop ne w reg ulations under the Insur ance Act.

The document welcomed feedback to the proposed amendments and also asked if any change i s needed. T his is an important point to remember. In our zeal to pass legislation, we need to make sure that changes are necessary in the first place. More importantly, legislative changes must be consistent with the policy direction of the act. This discussion guide is only one part of the process to review the Insurance Act. Obviously, car insurance is important to every driver on Alberta’s roads and highways. If this Assembly is to debate any cha nges, w e must be sure tha t the

970 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 proposed amendments will benefit drivers and those who actually get injured. A comprehensive review which encourages all affe cted parties to provide input is a more logical solution than a priv ate member’s bill. Because the Department of Finance is looking at this issue, Bill 204 may confuse the impending review process. Mr. Speaker, we must also be very careful when making amend- ments to the act when a hug e impact on the day-to-day lives of Albertans could be ca used by s uch legislation.

Membe rs of this Assembly are compelled to be part of the discussion-making process and therefore pa rt of the sol ution. Bill 204 s eems to be based on very little feedback from the insurance industry or stakeholder input. Based on these c onsiderations, I believ e that Bill 204 would be against the best wishes of Albertans. The funding for increasing the level of

section B benefits would incr ease the actual cost of insur- ance policies. Mr. Speaker , Alberta ranks low est am ongst provinc es in the maximum limits it has se t on secti on B medic al benef its, and if claims set for

section B benefits hardly ever exceed the limit we have right now, why would we consider inc reasing the limi t to b egin with? I don’t seem to understand the upside of raising the benefits if many of the stakeholders in the insurance industry haven’t raised the issue. Lower rates for

section B benefits may prevent insurance fraud in this are a as w ell. L ower ra tes may also se rve insurance companies or premium money. We don’t know if this is the case, because the result of the Department of Finance consultation is not yet available to us. The mem bers in thi s Assembly are charged with the j ob of representing their const ituents to the best of t heir ability. This representation is accomplished in par t thro ugh careful study a nd critical an alysis of legislation.

I don’t believe we hav e had an opportunity to critically analyze this legislation by way of generating feedback from the industry and the stakeholders, being Albertans. The Departm ent of Finance regulate s the insura nce industry in Alberta and monito rs availabil ity, affo rdability, a nd fairnes s of insurance to Albertans. There is no doubt that the automobile aspect of the Insurance Act needs to be reviewed. The policy promoted in Bill 204 would encourage more lawsuits, making litigation more attractive for people injured in car accidents.

We should be w orking tow ards curbing the am ount of litig ation rather than crea ting an env ironment t hat increases

section B insurance claims. If people see lucrative awards for injury claims, they may be easily persuaded to se ek legal action. An increase in

section B benefits would only help out the driver who was at fault in the accident. The person who was n ot at fau lt can rec over up to $200,000, which is the minimum for third-party liability. One has to wonder if there is a real need for concern for the at-fault driver. The average paid for

section B benefits between 1997 and 2001, Mr. Speaker, was $3,094, far le ss than the current $10,00 0 limit . Also, a national auto owners survey in 2001 revealed Edmonton as the second lea st expensive place in Canada to own and operate a vehicle. Increasing the threshold may cause a ripple effect that will have a dramatic impact on Alberta drivers. Although the number of automobile accidents has decli ned, the number of injury claims, which are m ore costly by fa r, has gone up drama tically. Thi s combined with an increase in medical claim costs plays a large

part in the overall increase of the claim. Increasing

section B benefits will only make this pr oblem worse by enco uraging more accident fraud. The number of injury c laims continues to i ncrease, bringing us closer to the situation of our neighbours down south of the border. In 2001 Alberta drivers spent $877 on premiums on aver age, but drivers in New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and New York pay over $1,100 per year for premiums, and that’s U.S. dollars. Mr. Speaker, vehicle premiums c ontinue to rise, which has concerned many Alberta drivers, especially those on fixed incomes. The early stage of the review process has already started.

The risk in making these changes is too high at this point in the pro cess. Therefore, incr easing the am ount and tim e period f or

section B benefits would also encourage people to not return to work following an accident. I’m not satisf ied that the proper consultation has been done to proceed with the changes to the Insurance Act at this time. Mr . Speaker, althou gh I str ongly support the idea of an inde pendent medical examiner, I cannot support the other elements of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker’s Ruling Relevance The Speaker: Hon. members, we ’re on an amendment. The last discussion seemed to focus on the bill, not t he amendment.

T he amendment is very clear: “be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.” That is the subject of the debate. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Debate Continued Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking directly to the hoist, which is one o f those nice little legislative tricks that can be slid into a Monday afternoon when they hope that ev erybody is sleeping, interestingly brought in by one member w hen it was actually written by another. [in terjections] Well, I certainly am paying attention. Don’t worry.

I would encourage the member who brought in the h oist to also pay attention and to read the information that was provided to him by one of the stakehol der groups, being the Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association, who specifically addressed one of the points that he finds particularly abhorrent in this particular bill, subse- quently making it necessary to hoist.

I would refer that member to page 5 of that stakeholder feedback information, which was given to all MLAs i n thi s Assembly, where they ta lk about cha nging “the criteria for medical examinations to allow the medical examiner to be agreed upon jointly by the insurer and the injured.” The original problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the standard Alberta automobile policy allows for an auto insurer to appoint their medical examiner to determine if the insured person requires further treatment. Often the accident victim’s own doctor’s advice is not properly considered.

In the best light it is perceived by Albertans to be unfair. Often it is very unfair. This association states that the solution to that is: Change the criteria for the insure r’s medic al ex am to al low the medical exami ner to be agr eed upo n j ointly by the insu rer a nd insured. This proposed amendment is the subject of Bill 204 sponsored by the Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. 3:40 This is a very real issue that we have heard discussed often that is left out of the legislation in Bill 33, as one of the other members was speaking about earlier.

It’s a good reason to have the vote on this bill and a debate and a discussi on now, not six months hence, Mr. Speaker. I think tha t the member who introduced this amendment needs to go back to the infor mation that was provided to him and read it, and then he would not hav e been so hasty in bringing in a hoist to this particular bill. We will be interested to see what other members have to say about this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan on the amendment.

April 14, 2003 Alberta Hansard 971 Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Ke eping in mind your admonishment somewhat earlier, I ce rtainly intend to speak to the hoist and offer some comm ents about Bi ll 204 as it e xists and provide some good reasons why it should be hoisted. Mr. Sp eaker, as Albertans we live in a province that’s a v ast territory, broad landsc apes.

It’s a provinc e where the citie s and towns and communities are all separa ted by long stretches of road and highway, and unlike other countries or perhaps even other places in Canada here in Alberta we definitely have to ha ve some sort of motorized transpo rtation in order to go abou t our daily lives. We don’t have to look too far in order to see this.

The geographic and the economic trends are shaping the city of Edmonton in such a way that most people who work in the downtown area live in the outskirts of the city or perhaps even in the c ommunity that I repr esent, the constituency of Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. So many Albertans are dependent on their vehicles – their cars, their personal vehicles – to get back and forth, to and from work. Other citizens who live within Edmonton still rely on those cars and their other vehicles for work, other activities that they find essential for daily living, and the rest of the province isn’t much different.

We’re a nation, we’re a province of commuters, and our vehicles are not a luxury but a necessity. Since so many of us spend so much time of our life out on the road, w e invest many dollars in a uto insurance in order to ensure compensa tion in case we get into an accident. Taking into consideration that there are so many vehicles on the road and the fact that there are so many potentially deadly or disabling accidents waiting to occur – and I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that one member of my constituency claims that we should not call them accidents.

I agre e with him, b ecause so many of these are preventable, and there a re concer ns in the re search a rea that we should prevent and avoid these incidents as much as we can. These crashes are potenti ally the re to occur at any time , and the law stipulates that for liability reasons all Albertans must ke ep them insured. However, Mr. Speaker, Albertans have paid and continue to pay a hefty premium on automobile insurance in this province. Over the past several years we’ve seen our insurance rates rapidly increase. Last year the rates rose by 57 percent. We wonder what can justify this unprecedented rise.

Well, if we listen to the insurance compa- nies, they say that the jump is a result of the rising number of false or fraudulent claims that are being put forward by certain members of the community. They say that it’s not them who are responsible for the astronomical increases in the premiums but rather those that are taking adva ntage of th e system. If we listen to the insurance claim lawyers, they in turn tell us that the insurance companies are purposefully milking more money out of Albertans in order to either fatten t heir pockets or perhaps pay for som e poor inves tment decisions.

Whom do we trust then, Mr. Speaker? I would argue that the truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle. Ms Blakeman: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre on a point of order. Point of Order Relevance Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . I’m c iting Standing Order 23(

b) and Beauchesne 459. I’ve listened to the member for some five minutes now, and I’m seeking desperately to see how his comments are specific to the hoist that is before us, which is that t he bi ll be “not now read a s econd time but that it be read a seco nd time t his day six months hence.” What I hear is him speaking off his speaking notes to the bill but not to the hoist. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan on this point of order. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I wasn’t so sure she was listening attentively for the full f ive minutes because when I glanced over there, I was not sure. I sort of thought she was looking for some reference in Beauchesne to rise on a point of orde r and disrupt my flow of thought here and the argument that I was trying to put forward.

In fact, I would encourage the hon. member to listen for a f ew more minutes, and as the argument is fully developed, she will see what the reason is that’s being pres ented and, in f act, why I’m advocating – well, she’s presuming, I suppose, that I’m speaking in favour o f the h oist, but she will se e the arg ument bei ng fully developed, and I’m sure that she’ll agree at the end of that time that the argument is complete and comprehensive and convincing, and she’ll vote along with me on that hoist. The Speaker: Well, relevance is a ve ry important criteria in this Assembly.

The chair would have some empathy for the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre because the chair too has bee n listening very attenti vely for well beyond five minutes. So presum ably now with the five minutes plus the t ime spent on the point of order, probably within the next minute or two the hon. member will bring this argument to a conclusion, that will become very clear with respect to how the hoist amendment fits into this. Mr. Lougheed: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t know if I can accomplish it in just a minute or two because there are quite a few points to be m ade here, but I will do my best, as you have admon- ished further, and I feel chagrined. Debate Continued Mr. Lougheed: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned previously, it’s really important that we have our vehicles to drive and go about our daily lives. We have no choice. We will continue to pay these high premiums even though the vast majority of us are responsible drivers. Many A lbertans are tired of spending more of their hard- earned money on auto insurance premiums, which seem to increase every year.

Certain aspects of Bill 204 could be useful to Albertans in future reference. The bill at the present time appears to be a wrong policy for this province to follow. The reasons are twofold, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, the parameters of Bill 204, particularly the proposal to limit

section B medical benefits from $10,000 over two years to $25,000 over four years, would be potentially useful to some Albertans, but the end result of such a policy would be a further increase in rates. In its very nature Alberta’s insurance industry is profit-oriented. There- fore, if this government forces the industry to provide an increased service or compensa tion limit s uch as the proposed incre ase in

section B medical benefits, the industry could very well not enjoy the same prof it margin that it has previously enjoyed. The insurance agencies will undo ubtedly compensate fo r the lo ss of prof it by further increasing the insura nce premiums, and this wil l re sult in Albertans paying even m ore for a uto premium s. In the future, perhaps six months hence, it may be prudent to increase the limit on

section B medical benefits. It w ould not be wi se to do so at thi s

972 Alberta Hansard April 14, 2003 present time, especially considering the fact that the rates are at an all-time high. The second rea son, Mr. Speak er, why I cannot suppor t t he proposed increase in

section B benefits from $10,000 over two years to $25,000 over four years is because currently the vast majority of Albertans are not coming even close to the $10,000 limit. According to the Insurance Bureau, over the past five years, as was previously stated, as th e other ho n. member speaking in fa vour of the hoist amendment commented, claimants’ average amount paid out was $3,094. The same statistics indicate that in 2 001 th e ave rage payment was about $3,385 p er clai mant, two-thirds less than that maximum. These figures indicate that there’s currently no reason to increase the

section B medical benefits coverage. If in future time withdrawals by a . . . 3:50 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Point of Order Relevance Ms Carlson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It’s Beauchesne 459, on relevance. We still haven’t heard anything pertaining to the hoist, and it’s another three minutes into his argument. Mr. Lougheed: Well, Mr. Speaker, I really feel poorly about this assault by the opposition, complaining perhaps that they don’t like to listen to some speeches from this side.

Over and over again they comment on how they want more involvement from the government members on speeches on different bills, and we could contribute at great length, of course, because that’s what we could do. It’s our opportunity to speak, just like theirs, but we don’t. The Speak er: Hon. member, I expec t tha t the speaki ng time allocated to the hon. member is coming to an end pretty quickly. Let’s just wrap it up. Debate Continued Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been occur- rences where there have been outright refusals for these payments.

The amendment that I’m speaking to, to delay the passage of this bill or the discussion for another si x month s, is appropr iate for several of the reasons that I’ve put forward: the c oncerns that the industry has, the concerns that the people that are paying those premiums have. Sometimes we’ve found that insurance companies have kept their clients on these benefits for o nly short p eriods of time. The reason why this happened is beca use th e current rules regarding

section B outline t hat the insurance companies can discontinue paying the benefits. Mr. Sp eaker, everyone in this Hous e can se e the fl aw in th e arrangement. Under such favourable arrangements it’s no wonder that some insurance companies will shortchange their customers for profit. It’s true that within the current automotive system we don’t have a general insurance ombudsman service which is designed to provide mediation. However, the rulings would not be binding, and the vast majority of claimants would not even be aware of its existence. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, it’s clear that when it comes to conflict resolution b etween insurance companie s and the c laimants with regard to the payout of

section B benefits, the companies h old th e advantage. Many use this advantage . . . [Mr. Lougheed’s speaking time expired] Some Hon. Members: Question. [The voice vote indicated that the am endment to the m otion for second reading carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:54 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abbott Hutton Melchin Ady Jablonski Nelson Amery Jacobs Oberg Boutilier Johnson Renner Broda Klapstein Shariff Calahasen Knight Stelmach Cenaiko Lord Stevens Danyluk Lougheed Strang Doerksen Lukaszuk Taylor Dunford Lund VanderBurg Haley Magnus Yankowsky Hlady McClelland Zwozdesky Horner Against the motion: Blakeman Massey Nicol Carlson Totals: For – 37 Against – 4 [Motion on amendment to second reading of Bill 204 carried] Bill 205 Citizens’ Empowerment Act The Speaker: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. It’s a real ple asure this afternoon to rise and move second reading of Bill 205, the Citizens’ Empowerment Act. I guess the purpose behind this bill is to in effect provide a tool or a mechanism for Albertans to become involved in their democratic process a little more than what is available to them at this point.

The purpose behind it, I guess, again, is to make sure that democracy has different mechanisms for messages to be sent to the Le gislature about, in effect, the wishes of Albertans, whether they are wishes for change or wishes against change. If we do that, we have to provide the tools. We’re always hearing that Albertans want to do something a little bit differently, a little more direct with their MLAs. If we do it this way, we should make sure that the messages that get sent at an election time are not built around only one concept or one issue because that vote at an election time shouldn’t be issue based.

It s