Alberta Hansard — 4 November 1993, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 1)

19931104

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1259 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, November 4, 1993 1:30 p.m. Date: 93/1 1/04 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition signed by 104 people in my constituency who are concerned about education cuts and how it will affect the Catholic school system. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present to the House a petition signed by over 400 students and parents asking the provincial government “to cease cutting f unding for education . . . in Alberta.” MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. MR. SOHAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition signed by 317 ward 5 residents in Calgary.

The residents are requesting a review of the Local Authorities Election Act as it relates to candidate eligibility. Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave of the Assembly that the petition dealing with secondary highway 830, tabled by myself on behalf of constituents on November 1, be read.

CLERK ASSISTANT: We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government to halt plans for the proposed upgrading of secondary highway 830 and make better use of the money in these times of economic restraint. head: Notices of Motions MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give oral notice that following question period today I'll rise under Standing Order 15 to discuss an issue of privilege that arose from a discussion I had last night with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 40 that I expect to present at the proper time giving congratulations to our new cabinet ministers. I'll have copies distributed. I don't know where it is right now. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table four copies of a letter to the Minister of Education from the LaPerle Parents Advisory Association in my constituency. This letter outlines the parents' concerns on topics raised in the education workbook Meeting the Challenge.

The parents are looking forward to the minister's response. head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted that today in the Assembly we have 35 visitors from River Glen school. There was a group from River Glen yesterday and another group today. They're with their teacher Mrs. Audrey Brattberg and parents Sharon Edwards, Jerri Kopores, Lori McLean, Kevin Taylor, and driving the bus for them is Mrs. Irene Kozowy. I hope I pronounced all the names correctly. I'd ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present to you and through you to the members of the House 59 grade 6 students from one of St. Albert's finest schools, Bertha Kennedy community school. They are here with their t eachers and parent helpers Mrs. Sonia Reid, Mrs. Heather McKay, Mr. Rick Moss, Mrs. Marlene Skulsky, Mrs. Deb Martyna, Mrs. Mary Anne Gamble, Mr. Ed Spaans, and Mrs. Shaunne Letour- neau. They are located in the public gallery. I'd ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West.

MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legisla- ture this afternoon two residents from the city of Lethbridge that are seated in the members' gallery. They are Greg and Joanne Weadick. Greg is an alderman with the city of Lethbridge, and Joanne is the able assistant and a community worker and activist. I'd like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's with great pleasure and honour that I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 38 students from the public board of education, continuing education branch. These students are studying English as a Second Language. Although they study in my constituency, they live all over Edmonton, and they come from diverse places all over the world: Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Hong Kong, China, as well as Central and South America and the east European bloc. I would ask the 33 individu- als who are seated in the members' gallery and the public gallery

1260 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 with their instructors Jeanette Flesher and Karen Markel to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. MR. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly the eight recipients of the 1993 outstanding adult learner awards. These eight students are extremely dedi cated individuals from our four Alberta vocational colleges and have been recommended by their instructors for this award.

My self and some of the members of this Assembly had the pleasure of meeting these fine students earlier today. I would like them to stand as I call their names: from A VC Lac La Biche, Celine Gauthier and Wayne Nelson; from A VC Calgary, Lina Rousselle-Chan and Debbie Bowen; from A VC Edmonton, Sheila Klatt and Cliff Tomkulak; and from A VC Lesser Slave Lake, Alfred Schmidt and one member who is not able to be with us today but I would like to mention him, Darrell Auger. Would all of them please stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly Lois Sampson, who is a student at Grant MacEwan in public relations and advertising. She's following me around today to see what a day in the life of an MLA is all about. If she would please stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. N. TA YLOR: I'd like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the House – I don't know where she's sitting – a woman from Calgary that's been very dominant in English education in Japan for some years and has just returned: Edith Jesswein.

If she would stand and receive the welcome of the Legislature. head: Oral Question Period Day Care MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start by tabling four copies of a letter from Page & Associates management consultants written to day care centres in Alberta. The letter that I'm tabling, which in fact was sent to day care centres, is a letter from a company hired by the provincial government. In the letter it makes it clear that the government is preparing to strip away protective day care regulations.

It is also clear that the govern- ment intends to pull away its financial support to day care in this province. My questions are to the minister responsible for day care. Mr. Minister, why would the government even consider threatening the welfare of some 40,000 children in day care centres in Alberta by reducing or eliminating the very regulations that protect them? 1:40 MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to advise the hon. leader that I'm still waiting for their participation in the welfare reforms, which includes day care. I'm still waiting for that.

I had asked for that Apr il 1, '93, and I still haven't seen anything. Specifically to day cares, Mr. Speaker, as I've mentioned in this Assembly before, Alberta probably has the best day care system across Canada. We are spending $70.7 million on day care. We have 32,000 spaces in day care in Alberta, 644 centres. We do have some changes that have to be looked at in the whole system, because in the profit day cares right now we have a 36 percent vacancy.

A review has to be done somewhere, but there is no indication from this minister at this time that there will be any financial adjustment now in that particular program. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would listen to questions and then try to answ er the questions that are put to him. Let me try again. Why would the minister flip-flop? It was just a year ago that there were extensive consultations and new regulations put in place to protect children in day care. Why flip- flop now? MR. CARDINAL: The only person that's flip-flopping here, Mr. Speaker, is the person asking the questions.

There are no changes in the day care system. We are spending $70.7 million on day care today. Close to half of those dollars go to operating subsidies, and the other portion goes to subsidies for lower income families that participate in this very important program. One thing I've always indicated when the reforms were put forward is that a high percentage of the people that will be put back into the work force through training and hopefully to employment in private industry will require the services of day care support and other supports of that nature.

When I review the whole plan of the reforms, I am reviewing all components, including day care, to make sure that those supports continue to be provided to the people that need them. MR. DECORE: Mr. Minister, how on earth could you authorize a letter like this to be sent by a consultant to day care centres that calls for deregulation, that calls for a reduction of government support? How could you allow that to be sent out? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member is talking about is not a plan that's going to move forward.

It's a review of the whole process of various components of my department, which includes day care. There are at this time no changes in that particular program. There are also requests from parents out there that use for an example private babysitting services or day care services who want less regulation in that particular system. This is what this minister is willing to review to make sure we provide a high quality of service, the number of spaces that are required in Alberta, but on the other hand do away with some of the regula- tions that are not required at this time. MR. DECORE: Wow. Education Funding MR.

DECORE: Mr. Speaker, parents, teachers, and students have told the government that its education consultation process was all wrong. The government responded by calling those people agitators. Now the message is coming from a group that the government calls friends, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has called for the efficiency audit concept to be used to cut waste in government ministries. My first question to the Minister of Education is this: does the minister agree with the Chamber of Commerce when it says that the minister has ignored new ways of delivering education in his frenzy to cut costs?

MR. JONSON: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that the Chamber of Commerce was represented on the advisory

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1261 committee planning our roundtab les and planning the workbook that was provided for the roundtables across this province. Indications seemed to initially be from the Chamber of Commerce that we were to be congratulated on our roundtable process. So I have some concern with recent representation from the chamber, although I always welcome representation from organizations as important as the chamber. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of looking at the whole area of the delivery of education and alternatives and some new approaches, the workbook was a prominent feature and took a great deal of attention, and many recommendations came forward at the roundtables. So this has certainly been a focus of Alberta Education and of this minister. We had some time ago made many proposals as to how the delivery of education might be changed, and we are looking for people's responses to that particular set of proposals. MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, the minister is always defending, because the system hasn't been set up right from the beginning. Mr. Minister, now that the Alberta Chamber of Commerce president is turning out to be a critic, will the minister agree . . . I don't think this is funny, Mr. Treasurer. Y ou may think this is funny. I think for the record we should put down that this is not a laughing matter, Mr. Treasurer. Y ou may think it's funny. The people of Alberta and I don't think it's funny. I don't think it's funny, Mr. Treasurer. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he will agree to redo this consultative process now that even the Chamber of Commerce is on his back and agree to look at education into the future and do all of the other things that the other critics are saying are wrong with this consultative process. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the very focus and the very issue that the Chamber of Commerce seems to be wanting to reinforce and was indicated, as I understand, at their press conference yesterday is an issue which was very thoroughly considered at the roundtables: the whole area of alternatives in terms of delivery of education and funding for education, the issue of delivering the resources that are available as close as possible to the student and to the teacher and to the classroom across this province.

That was certainly a theme that came out of the roundtables and other representation that we have received, and I have so indicated previously in this Assembly. MR. DECORE: My last question is to the minister that thinks this is so funny, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Treasurer if he would agree with the Alberta Chamber of Commerce and institute and commit to putting efficiency audits in place so as to cut the waste from all departments so that we don't have to cut with the kind of frenzy that is being contemplated in education. MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted to get a question from this gentleman across the way. The Alberta Chamber of Commerce said yesterday that they were fully in support of this government's deficit reduction plan. It says so right here in this paper, and for the hon. gentleman across the way to suggest otherwise is a major fertilization of the truth. What they have also suggested is exactly what the Minister of Education has been talking about. May I read from the document?

The focus of the debate should . . . be on re-thinking the delivery of education, just as we are compelled to re-think the delivery of all government services and programs we consume. The education debate should be drastically different from other debates. That's exactly what this government has been saying, exactly what the Minister of Education has been saying, and that is why we have a plan, we have the people, and we've got the will to make sure it happens. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. 1:50 Gainers Inc. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gainers is costing us $22,000 a day, and we're spending another $75,000 a month in finder's fees. After four years of legal wrangling, we're no closer to recovering the $61 million in loan guarantees that this govern- ment so generously gave Mr. Pocklington. My question is to the minister of economic development and trade. Will the minister admit to this House that immedi ately after this session ends the government is planning to announce the closure of Gainers and subject the taxpayers to yet another multimillion dollar disaster? MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Liberal caucus does not believe that Edmontonians are rubbing their hands in glee about the possibility of another job loss in the city. That is indeed a sad situation. This government has indicated that Gainers and the resolution of Gainers was before it. It has been talked about for many, many months. Consistently the Liberals have said: shut down; shut down; shut down; shut down Gainers. They talked about it in the spring election of 1993, Mr. Speaker. They said months ago: eliminate jobs. I know sometimes they say: well, you know, that was then and this is now.

This government is working through the issue of Gainers, is trying to find a buyer for Gainers, and will not leave any sheet unturned in attempting to resolve this issue in a positive way. If it does come about that we're unsuc- cessful in that regard, then it will be I think a sad day for the economy of Edmonton. MR. CHADI: Mr. Speaker, if it's indeed true that they're not planning on shutting this thing down, then please explain to Albertans now, Mr. Minister, why it is that Gainers is offering to buy out the contracts of senior employees rather than pay out severance packages when Gainers is shut down. MR.

KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, Gainers is run with a manage- ment team. I've not been in consultation, and I don't know if other colleagues have been in consultation, but we'll certainly look into the matter and report back to the House. MR. CHADI: It's clear that no one over there is in charge. Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary is to the Provincial Treasurer. Will the Treasurer immediately seek an injunction to prevent the only tangible security that we may have, being the Edmonton Oilers, from leaving this province until the matter is resolved by the courts? Speaker's Ruling Sub Judice Rule MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a supplemental to the question, and there's also the question of the pending lawsuit. MR. DINNING: May I respond? MR. SPEAKER: Well, you may respond if it does not infringe against the sub judice rule.

1262 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 MR. DINNING: I respect that ruling, Mr. Speaker. Gainers Inc. (continued) MR. DINNING: What I find so disappointing and frankly what I find so shocking is that here is a member representing Edmonton- ians who is literally rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of shutting down . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That also demonstrates the Chair's concern about the relevancy of that second supplemental to the main question. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Liquor Sales MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Concern has recently been raised regarding the possibility that private liquor store operators may not be stringent enough in the enforcement of laws as they relate to the sale of liquor to minors and persons under the influence. While I do not necessarily share these concerns, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Alberta Liquor Control Board a question regarding these. Does the minister's privatization plan include provision for additional liquor inspector manpower to enforce regulations due to the increased number of retail outlets? DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, since about 1990 there has been an expansion of the private sector in the distribution of liquor products. About 600 additional outlets have come on stream since 1990. Previous to that, we had about 225 outlets through the ALCB plus the hotels and other licensees. To enforce that till now, we had about 45 inspectors.

When the rest of the class D licences come on stream – and by the looks of it those 600 plus about 400 to 500 more would make about 1,000 of these types of licences that would be out there, along with about 6,000 restaurant and other type licences that would be used – we will have to look and see if the number of inspectors we have is adequate. We will bolster those inspectors to the leve l that's adequate to ensure the enforcement we have today. MR.

RENNER: Can the minister advise this House what the penalty would be should a private operator breach the regulations regarding sale of liquor to minors and persons under the influence? DR. WEST: We have various levels of penalty depending on the offence, right from the fact that you could have your business shut down for a period of time to the complete extraction of that licence. We are going to ensure the utmost enforcement of our regulations at this time while this new model comes on stream.

Those that are caught abusing, selling to minors or to those that are intoxicated or any other form, will come under the most severe scrutiny that I can enforce. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplemental question: how will the recent amalgamation of li quor inspector services from Medicine Hat to Lethbridge ensure that our regula- tions are enforced in all of southern Alberta? DR. WEST: We are in a process of streamlining some of the inspection divisions. The point of having an inspector absolutely on location in your community isn't the essence of enforcement.

These inspectors will move around the province from location to location and listen to complaints from the public. We must have the public giving complaints, if they identify that something is going wrong. Therefore there should be no effect whatsoever on amalgamation of these inspectors to one location in the future. If it's deemed that the intensity of complaints or some of the problems we have in a location has increased, we will move inspection in there quickly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Studies have shown that privatization of liquor sales will lead to an increase in crime, an increase in family violence. In Calgary and Edmonton police and community leaders continue to be concerned that we do not have and they will not have the resources to handle more crime. My question is to the Minister of Justice. What will the minister do now to respond to these legitimate concerns of our police and community leaders? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, what I'll do now is ask the hon. member to provide me with the information that privatization will in fact result in that. MR.

DICKSON: Well, I'm happy to provide that information to the minister. I would have thought he would have had it already. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. What are the plans of his department to deal now with increased family violence? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to indicate again to the Assembly that on April 1 I asked the Liberal opposition to assist us in the development of a long-range plan in welfare reforms.

In the plan, of course, we can incorporate any informa- tion they may have in relation to processes that may occur because of the changes that we are making in the department. I am still waiting for that plan. Mr. Speaker, the overall welfare reforms we're doing I believe are very successful. The second phase of the reforms, which the opposition members no doubt have been wa iting for because they're not participating in making the changes, will be announced in the very near future and w ill identify some issues of that nature.

If the opposition members have any information that we don't have that will help us in designing a better system for Albertans, I would ask them to provide that information. Y ou will be guaranteed that if it's good information, it'll be incorpo- rated in the plans I'm moving forward with. 2:00 MR. DICKSON: Well, if that minister has no current plan, I'll then go to the minister responsible for AADAC, Mr. Speaker. How will that minister address the needs of the larger number of Albertans who will require help with their alcohol addictions? MRS. MIROSH: Mr.

Speaker, I think the chair for AADAC should respond to that question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time there is some concern among the police and some of the agencies about late hour problems with people. At this point in time consumption has not gone up; it has gone down. I think with the

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1263 proper, responsible habits that people have developed in Alberta, this should not lead to any sudden increase. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by Edmonton-McClung. Urban Transportation MR. SOHAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Transportation is important to all Albertans, but most people only consider rural areas when they think of transportation. Safe and efficient transportation systems are extremely important to those of us who live in cities as well. My question is to the Minister of Transpor- tation and Utilities.

In light of the current fiscal realities in this province will there be a reduction in funding from your department to the cities, and if so, when will you advise them? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, on June 15 the people of Alberta gave this government a mandate to balance the budget, and I want to assure Albertans and I want to make it very clear that the minister of transportation will be reducing his budget by 20 percent effective the new budget year. I have communicated this to some of the mayors across the province, to some of the counties, MDs, and I'll be meeting with the city mayors shortly.

I'll also be meeting with AUMA next week, and I'm sure I'll get the message out to them. MR. SOHAL: I understand that the basic transportation grant allocation to cities has already been reduced from $40 per capita last year to $25 per capita this year. Are you now proposing to reduce this basic capital grant even further? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, there are five areas that the cities receive funding for from this government in regards to transporta- tion concerns. They are the basic capital grant, which is at $25 per capita, and four others.

I would look to meeting with the cities, meeting with the mayors, and meeting with councils across the province to see where out of the five programs we have available to them we can best reduce the funding by 20 percent without hurting some of the more important projects that they wish to develop. MR. SOHAL: In light of the millions of dollars that have been provided to the city of Edmonton in recent years, as witnessed by yesterday's opening of the Whitemud freeway, are there any major projects in Calgary that have received funding that you can tell us about? MR. TRYNCHY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is correct: yesterday we did open the Whitemud freeway. It's unfortunate that while I was there, I did not see one Edmonton MLA to help participate. [interjections] As I've said, I did not see one. If they were there, then of course they were hidden from my view. There are a number of projects that I will be participating in opening tomorrow in Calgary, where the funding is some $27 million. I would invite the Calgary MLAs to join with me so I can fully explain the type of funding we've provided to the city of Calgary over the last year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung.

Heart Surgery MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I wrote to the Minister of Health to ask her to investigate why an Albertan who requires urgent heart surgery has been kept waiting for more than two months. I'm not expecting the minister to address this issue in the Assembly today, but it does raise the broader issue of lengthy waiting lists for critically needed heart surgery. In fact, there are as many as 150 people waiting for heart surgery in northern Alberta alone.

Could the minister please tell us how much shorter this waiting list would be had she not imposed arbitrary across-the-board cuts to hospitals based upon political considerations but instead had set real priorities for hospital funding based upon health care needs? What a novel idea. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the hon. member that hospitals manage their waiting lists. There are a number of reasons for waiting lists. Many of them are because of the surgeon's schedule. The member is perfectly correct: I am not going to comment on one particular person's circumstance.

However, hospitals priorize with the surgeons on the basis of the most urgent need. I can say that in heart surgery in particular our waiting list has decreased significantly, and it would be our hope that that would continue to happen. The lists are managed by the hospitals working with the surgeons and the patients. MR. MITCHELL: How can the minister stand in this Legislature and try to establish that there is no relationship between her arbitrary, unplanned, across-the-board cuts and what the hospitals are left to work with, which in turn results in ever lengthening waiting lists for things like heart surgery?

How can she stand here and keep denying that? MR. SPEAKER: We assume that is the question. The hon. Minister of Health. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, what I was outlining to the hon. member – and I hope he listened carefully – is that there is a number of reasons that we may have waiting lists. In fact, in heart surgery we have dedicated funding for that specific area to ensure that our waiting lists do come down. There are a number of factors that cause a waiting list: surgeons' schedules.

The hospitals, the surgeons, and the patients manage their waiting lists on a priorization, and I think that is most appropriate. MR. MITCHELL: No matter what the minister says, she still has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that Albertans' health care needs are met. What monitoring has the minister put in place so that she can assure Albertans that patients requiring urgent heart surgery aren't dying while waiting on a waiting list and that others who eventu- ally get this surgery aren't put at greater risk because they have had to wait too long before receiving it? MRS. McCLELLAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member wants to discuss just cardiovascular surgery, I can tell him that the waiting list has decreased significantly. I can also tell him that it is co-ordinated through the Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiovascular Services. I think that is most appropriate, and I am assured that the needs of any Albertan who requires urgent surgery are met. That is sometimes why a person may be scheduled for surgery and have their surgery time changed: because of an urgent case that has come forward. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have every confidence in the people that sit on the Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiovascular Services to manage that waiting list in consultation with the hospitals, with the surgeons, and with the patients.

1264 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Advanced Education Institutions MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has come to my attention that the instructional staff and employees of the University of Lethbridge may have their children's tuition paid by their respective institution. If this is a fact, would the minister of advanced education indicate if this is a policy or directive of his department or the government of Alberta? 2:10 MR. ADY: Mr.

Speaker, to answer the last part of the hon. member's question first, no, it is not a policy of this department or of this minister. To more fully answer his question, my under- standing is that in some cases, yes, that is part of the collective bargaining process that has taken place, and through that the faculty and staff have been able to negotiate that as part of their benefit package.

I frankly was not sure the University of Leth- bridge had that as part of their negotiated settlement, but I would advise that perhaps the hon. member will have to get the definitive information from the institution itself because that's where it takes place. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister in this upcoming budget year specifically direct a 5 percent reduction to the institutions under his department in respect to the salary and the benefits portion of their operating budget? MR. ADY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think all of us are aware of the press release that the Premier issued relative to a voluntary 5 percent rollback. Indeed it was targeted and focused towards the benefit package. A significant portion of our budget goes directly and indirectly into salary and benefits, and currently we are examining that area. So to answer his question, yes, it's focused on the benefit package. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. McF ARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister of advanced education, then, take it upon himself to discuss with his institutions as soon as possible the public concern over tuition payments to staff children and salary reductions? MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to be cognizant of the collective bargaining process that is certainly a proper process and one that we respect in this province. I'm not at all sure that as minister I have a proper right to interfere in that process. My understanding is that if that has been negotiated in a fair negotiation under the labour Act, there's nothing illegal about it.

It's not too different from similar benefits that are negotiated in the private sector. Many employees in this province, through the companies that they're employed by, negotiate educational benefits for their families. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Social Assistance MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Roughly 140,000 Albertans are currently unemployed, an increase of 10,000 unemployed Albertans over the same period last year.

Despite this continuing growth in unemployment, the Minister of Family and Social Services has made a commitment to move 40,000 people off social assistance and into the work force. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Where in the work force does the minister intend to place the additional 40,000 Albertans? Where are these long-term jobs going to appear? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, part of our overall plan of course is to create jobs as much as possible in Alberta, and this Assembly has talked about it.

The member in charge of economic development and trade indicated that part of our plan is to create jobs. The other part of the plan is to make sure that as many Albertans out there of the 92,000 or so cases I had in early April, when the reforms were announced, are given the opportunity to get back into the work force in a number of ways, through training or through pl acement in private i ndustry or through placement in short-term job-creation programs created by municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and the government. That is what this minister has done. As of November 1 the caseload has dropped by 23,600.

Close to 7,000 of those are taking training right now and hopefully will continue training until they graduate and go back into the work force either in Alberta or elsewhere. I believe that is what this minister is doing. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplemental is to the same minister. Mr. Minister, by your own admission the department has no ability to track the reasons for closure. How will Albertans know whether clients are returning to the labour force or simply being put out on the street by this government? MR.

CARDINAL: I'd just like to indicate to the member, Mr. Speaker, that the programs that are designed are there to assist people that are in the high-needs area. That is why we've increased the budget in that area by $28 million this year. Y ou can be assured that anyone in Alberta that is eligible for assistance and needs assistance will get it. On the other hand, I will not be tracking the 50,000 or so individuals that are employable, young, healthy, single, that are able to get back into the work force and training. I believe they will look after themselves. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR.

SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, how do you account for a caseload reduction of 23,600 files when your $9 million worth of employment and training initiatives are just getting started? How can the outcome precede the plan? MR. CARDINAL: I believe part of it is good management, good planning even without your input. Mr. Speaker, this minister of course has always indicated that we will be looking after and transferring dollars to the high-needs area. In the initial transfer to student finance of course we committed $32 million.

As of yesterday, because there's such a high need in the training area, we transferred an additional $5.3 million to that particular area. When you're talking about job creation and where the jobs should be, I have a press release here from the Liberal opposition, June 28, that says that we're on the hook for $1.3 billion in the forestry industry, which is creating thousands of jobs right now. I'm glad we didn't listen to those people. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie.

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1265 Liquor Sales (continued) MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue of privatization of liquor stores and the ALCB has raised a number of concerns expressed today. Beyond the alcohol abuse issue that's been raised, we have concerns about what will maybe happen to the retail market. There's concern in Calgary particularly and in my constituency, which includes 17th Avenue, about the number of licences that have been issued in that particular location.

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: have you participated in any way with city officials with respect to the issuing of these licences from a zoning perspective? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, in the beginning we said that any Albertan could apply for a licen ce. [interjections] Divine governance. I was getting to the point that in the beginning we said that we would allow a class D licence to go to any Albertan that met the criteria.

In that application it also said that this licence would be granted in principle alone to you and that you would have to go and seek a location in a municipality that had an area that was zoned and where regulations allowed this to happen, and that is what we've done. We did not say whether there'd be 10 in this area or 20. Those decisions will be made by the municipality with those licensees, as well as a business decision. I don't believe that seven liquor stores can set up in a row. In fact, I know they can't But that will be a decision made by the investor and by the municipality.

Second of all, as a government or as the ALCB I do not want to get into the business of picking the location of every restaurant, every discotheque, every hotel, every larger centre that does this. We have 6,000 licences out there, everything from the major restaurant chains right down to that small corner restaurant that only has a cooler with beer and a bit of wine in it. If we get into the picking and zoning of thos e licences, it will be a planning nightmare. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. 2:20 MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplemen- tary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be: if a morato- rium on zoning is developed in a city like Calgary, what would be the effect on the privatization model that we're looking at? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe, again as I said the other day, that this is a privatization issue. The privatization model will go ahead. Alberta is a place where business has evolved. We've zoned businesses in different areas and will continue to do so. I don't see the privatization model being jeopardized whatsoever. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to Munici- pal Affairs: are you prepared at this time to meet with the municipalities and set up some guidelines with respect to zoning? DR. WEST: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I have talked to some individuals at a municipal level: Mayor Jan Reimer. I have indicated that Bob King, the chairman of the ALCB, and the AlCB are willing to sit down anytime to discuss any concerns that they have. I do not intend to sit at council meetings and pass bylaws and get involved at the municipal level of government. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. Special Education MRS.

SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Parents of children with hearing difficulties, parents of children with special needs are living in fear at this moment. They are living in fear because of the questionable actions of this government, which deals with rumours about education cuts and not facts. They are worried because the Premier's Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities has given the Department of Education a failing grade. My question is to the Minister of Education. When will the minister come clean and tell the parents of children with special needs exactly how his cuts will affect them? MR.

JONSON: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated and would like to reinforce, we have put out a considerable amount of informa- tion. We have put out a number of alternatives for discussion and invited other ideas and recommendations with respect to the future direction of education in this province. We will carefully consider the recommendations and the input that comes to us.

As I have indicated – and the Provincial Treasurer has as well – in terms of the decision-making, it'll come out in the regular and properly planned fashion of the grant announcements to school jurisdictions and the provincial budget, and that will only be after very careful consideration of the input that's being received. MRS. SOETAERT: So we have to wait till the budget to allay these fears.

How can the minister even consider further cuts to special education and program unit grants when on August 24 of this year he made a commitment, and I quote, “to improve the qua lity of life for all Albertans with disabilities”? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, what does not seem to be under- stood or acknowledged is that in the open process that we're involved in, we are welcoming also recommendations, priorities being identified.

In the area of special needs students I would like to acknowledge that subject to our overall assessment of input certainly funding for special needs students has been identified as a very significant matter in terms of our overall plan. Secondly, there have been some excellent suggestions and recommendations about how this money could be applied differently or more effectively. Those things have to be considered. MRS. SOETAERT: Still too vague, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can explain, Mr.

Minister, to the parents of children with special needs exactly how your proposed cuts will improve the children's quality of life? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention two things. First of all, in terms of the delivery of education – and it was brought up earlier today – and, very importantly, the delivery of funding and services to students and to special needs students we have already undertaken an initiative under our co-ordination of services initiative to look at better co-ordinating departmental activities and serving students with special needs.

So there is an initiative and a recognition of that already. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there have been no decisions made on cuts to education funding. There was an increase in education

1266 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 funding this year, and we are considering very carefully the representation that is being made to us as we go through fulfilling our budget plans. MR. CARDINAL: I have a supplement. MR. SPEAKER: To augment the answer, the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much. I would like to advise the hon. member also that through the handicapped children's services area, the '93 budget in my department alone provides over $19 million to this particular area, Mr. Speaker. We do serve over 6,231 children, and 96 percent of those children are at home.

That is additional support that's provided from by department for that particular area. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Edmonton Oilers MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the word “Pocklington” is said in my area, some people start to grab hold of their shirts and their wallets. Now, I understand that the Alberta Treasury Branch is the banker of the Edmonton Oilers. Can the Provincial Treasurer inform the Legislature as to whether taxpayer dollars are at risk if the Oilers move? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, but I know you'd want to hear a lengthier explanation.

The short answer is no. But let's be clear that the provincial government, at least the government side of this House, does not want to see the Edmonton Oilers leave the city. They are an important part of the province of Alberta. I don't know where the Liberals stand. The hon. member should know and Albertans should be reminded that the only taxpayer dollars that ever went into the Alberta Treasury Branches were some $200,000 in 1938. Not one single taxpayer dollar has gone into Treasury Branch ever since.

In fact it is depositors' dollars, Albertans who deposit their savings and have confidence in Alberta Treasury Branches that have made it the 20th largest financial institution in this country today, a deposit base of some $8 billion. So I can assure the Assembly that there are no taxpayers' dollars at risk, and we have every confi- dence in the management of Alberta Treasury Branches. MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Provincial Trea- surer. Will the Alberta Treasury Branches continue to be the banker for the Oilers if they move? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do my very best and will continue to not get into matters of relationships between clients of the Treasury Branches and Alberta Treasury Branches themselves. I don't think that's a proper thing for the Treasurer to do in this Assembly or in any other forum. I can say that the mandate of the Treasury Branches is on Alberta. It focuses on individuals and businesses in this province, and I can assure the hon. member that the superintendent of Treasury Branches has made it clear that it is not interested in adding an out-of-Alberta hockey team to its client list. MR. DUNFORD: Mr.

Speaker, can the Provincial Treasurer assure the Assembly that we the taxpayers will not contribute any dollars to keeping the Oilers in Alberta? MR. DINNING: Most assuredly so, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. head: Members' Statements MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow V alley. [interjec- tions] 2:30 Health Care System DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess they don't want to hear what I'm going to say.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on a recent series of health roundtables that I was fortunate enough to co-chair along with the hon. minister responsible for the Health Planning Secretariat. The first roundtable was held in Grande Prairie on September 10 and 1 1 before 450 people at the open forum and 150 at the second day workshop. Several messages came from that meeting; namely, that we have a pretty good health care system at present, but costs are out of control, and there's a great deal of inefficiency in the system.

Regionalization under one health board with governance and funding decision-making powers was extremely desirable. When challenged that this concept carried a great deal of responsibility and that no longer would the local people be able to blame the central government for mistakes, they wholeheartedly endorsed the concept and categorically stated that local decision-making is best.

Over the next nine weeks, with an attendance of over 5,500 people at the public forum and over 1,000 people at the work- shops, the same basic idea emerged: local decision-making leading to increased flexibility, efficiency, and ultimately cost saving while keeping a high standard of patient care. Numerous other valid ideas were aired, such as a multiple gatekeeper system, alternative forms of medicine, and various funding models. In the final

summary all of these will be addressed. On a personal note, one of the criticisms of the process was that the government had no plan for health care. Over the period of 10 meetings it became extremely obvious that a plan that worked in one area would not work in another. As a government our job must be to enable regions to develop a plan of their own and not to enforce an overall plan from the top down. The health care system must cater to the consumer and not the provider. Changing the structure of health care delivery in Alberta is an extremely difficult task.

The government, bureaucracy, and provider groups must keep in mind one basic principle if this is to be achieved: Health's mission must be to promote and provide for the physical, mental, and social well-being of all Albertans and not for the propagation of a system. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Health Care Funding DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to address the health care forums. During the past few weeks I've had the opportunity to attend the public sessions on health care, the roundtables in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat.

I would like to congratulate the Albertans who attended and presented their views. They presented good ideas that focused on the necessary increase in effectiveness of our health care delivery, and they showed good control, with only a few using their time for criticism. However, today I want to comment on a concern that developed at each of these public meetings. I was uneasy about the introduc- tory remarks presented as the rationale for the needed changes in expenditures. The audiences were presented with a simplified economic model of Alberta. Y es, Mr. Speaker, it was simplified:

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1267 simplified to a point of being deceptive, simplified to a point of being self-serving. The participants were told that wealth and infrastructure were the basis of our economy; expenditures on health, education, social services, and interest on debt were drains on the economic system's capacity and were wastes as government expenditures. Mr. Speaker, what happened to economic models which show education and a healthy work force as major contributors to income generation, income which is used for expenditures, investment, and taxes?

In this system expenditures circulate to create other incomes, investments contribute to wealth and subsequent increases in productivity, and taxes contribute to, among other things, infrastructure, education, and preventative health to promote a productive labour force. I propose that not all expenditures on health and education are necessarily drains on our economic system, and presentations by the government to the people of Alberta should reflect a more realistic view.

Based on my background as an economist and a management professor, I would grade these presentations in an introductory course in economics as an F . In an advanced course in effective promotion and marketing the presentation would have been an A. In ethics, Mr. Speaker, I leave this grade to the Alberta people. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Water Management MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this year an oil field company named Petrorep Resources received approval to conduct exploration drilling into a potable water source called the Valhalla aquifer.

The proposed use of the potable water is for oil field injection. The Valhalla aquifer is located in a narrow strip of green zone in the Saddle Hills. It is the major source of potable water for a very large area that comprises established farms and many communities, such as La Glace, Hythe, Wembley, Beaver- lodge, and Sexsmith. There are literally hundreds of oil wells in the area and over a dozen oil field companies. All of the existing operators, with no exceptions, use the saline water from the deeper Cardium formation for oil field injection.

The Petrorep feasibility study is now complete, and they have applied for a licence that will allow them to use a maximum of 55,000 gallons of potable water per day. If Petrorep receives the licence, it will establish a precedent for every oil field company to utilize potable water under the same conditions. That precedent, Mr. Speaker, would apply throughout Alberta. Assuming the utilization level within the app lication conforms to existing provincial policy, then the licence will be issued and, sadly, without the element of due process as provided by a structured public hearing.

On behalf of the people of my constituency and indeed on behalf of the people of this province I plead and beg the minister of the environment to immediately establish a moratorium on any applications that would utilize potable water for oil field injection. We must take the time to examine all alternatives, to listen to arguments from all affected parties, and to develop a long-term policy that will ensure the protection of drinking water for our children. This is a critical issue to all Albertans. Mr. Minister, please implement the moratorium now, before it is too late. head: Projected Government Business MR.

MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request that the Government House Leader outline what he is proposing for the legislative agenda next week. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, today will be the final day in terms of discussion and resolution of all the estimates associated with the government of Alberta, so in essence what we will be doing beginning Monday is focusing and concentrating on the Bills on the Order Paper. Those Bills are clearly identified. We will be advising and moving on them in sequential order, in essence, on Monday after noon.

This now is all going to have to be very flexible because we don't know how much time will be addressed on a particular Bill or what stage it will arrive at and the like. The Order Paper clearly identifies, and Monday we'll be dealing with the Bills that we have, 19 and 21; as well, government motions 19 and 21. We'll be dealing with second reading on all of the Bills identified other than for Bill 1 and will be taking them through the various stages. Later in the afternoon today we'll be reverting to the appropria- tion Bills: 13, 14, 15, and 16.

We'll be then moving on them starting Monday, and it's difficult to say what level of progress we'll reach on M onday, Monday evening, Tuesday, or Wednes- day. That will be the directive: to take all of those B ills and move them to conclusion. That same kind of

schedule will carry through on November 15, 16, 17, and 18 as well. Privilege Intimidation MR. SPEAKER: The hon. deputy leader gave the Chair notice more than two hours before the House met this afternoon of a question of privilege that she wishes to raise. The hon. deputy Leader of the Opposition. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 15 concerning an exchange that occurred last night during the Committee of Supply meeting when they were considering estimates of the capital fund. I reference citations under Beauchesne 1 and 99 and in Erskine May, the 21st edition, pages 126 and 128.

Beauchesne 1, the very first principle, states: “to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority.” Mr. Speaker, 99 then speaks to privilege and states that “direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege.” Erskine May, page 126: That the assaulting, insulting or menacing [of] any Member of this House . . . upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is an high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.

Page 128 of Erskine May: “To attempt to intimidate a Member in his parliamentary conduct by threats is also a contempt.” It goes on to list a number of items. Finally, the last one is: “threatening to end investment by a public corporation in a Member's constituency.” 2:40 The exchange was between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself. The Member for Redwater was recognized by the Chair and had been speaking for several minutes when he introduced an amendment. This amendment was being circulated, and the Member for Redwater continued speaking.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs rose and walked over to sit next to me and asked what the amendment said. I handed him a copy of the amendment, which he read and then stated, in my terms angrily, that he would cut my women's shelter. I responded by requesting that he return to his own seat and make that same statement from that place. He reiterated that he would cut the women's shelter, and I responded that he should not threaten me. The minister

1268 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 returned to his seat, and I again enjoined him: don't you threaten me. I submit that the minister threatened not only my conduct and participation in the House, but also by his choice of what he would cut, he threatened the women and communities of our province. The minister knows of my long-standing support, Mr. Speaker, my commitment to women's shelters, and this was a clear expression on his part that he could and would use his power to reduce support to women's shelters because of the amendment presented by the Member for Redwater. This was not a casual conversation.

This was not a casual comment. This was a threat and was repeated and reinforced. There was no doubt on my part that it was his intention to carry through with it. Bullying and intimidating and menacing and threatening members: those are all unacceptable behaviours. They are clearly out of order in this House and a breach of the rules. Mr. Speaker, I believe it's reprehensible when any member of the House threatens another member and particularly so when that member is a minister who has the power to take action.

This infringes on my privileges in this House, my capacity to serve my constituency and the citizens of this province, and on the privileges of every member. I submit that the minister has committed a breach of my privilege by his actions in this Chamber, and I ask that you give this matter your most serious consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates what has been said, but the Chair feels that because of the heavy

schedule for today, under Standing Order 15(6) this matter could well be deferred until Monday for continuation without prejudice. MR. DECORE: We want to hear from that side, Mr. Speaker. This is serious. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Chair is not taking away the seriousness of the allegations made by the hon. deputy Leader of the Opposition. The rules do provide that these matters can be deferred and they are in no way prejudicing. The Chair is willing to listen. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, rather than have it hang for four days, maybe he'd like to have a chance to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Okay. DR.

WEST: Could I appeal to your judgment that I make a statement in reference to this allegation? I feel that it's damaging to my reputation in this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I've noticed an increasing level of privilege motions brought forward to this House. Before I state what I'm going to say, I would hope that in the future we get some level of understanding from the Chair as to what constitutes privilege and what constitutes a frivolous and vexatious attack on another member for political reasons.

Last night the hon. member stated that there was an amendment before the House, one that stated that the capital fund estimates be reduced by $15.5 million. We had to have unanimous consent to allow this to come in because it wasn't a properly worded or signed introduced amendment. For months and months and even years in here I've heard members of the Liberal Party say that this type of cutting, cookie-cutter cutting, is unacceptable. There were five departments up last night, including my department, in the capital fund.

They had forever stated that you just don't go across and indiscriminately cut a mass of money without making priori- ties. Now, up until that point in time the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar is correct. The debate was on, I did go around, and I sat down. But that is where the story is skewed. What I said was that this is a blanket-type cut. Where do you want them cut? Would you indicate to me whether it was the women's shelter in Edmonton? I said: I can't just stand here and support an amendment. [interjections] That is correct.

But if selective hearing takes it that it was only directed at this individ- ual, then I appreciate that she may have heard it wrong. I repeated myself: you can't just indiscriminately level an amendment like this. I said: where do you want it cut? Would it be the women's shelter in Edmonton? Where would you selectively cut?

Y ou charge the government with an amendment like this, that I consider ridiculous, and then turn around and charge privilege against this member for asking for a clarification of an amendment that is ridiculous and that took unanimous consent of the House to introduce because it wasn't due process. I ask this House to consider that not only is leveling privilege against this minister's reputation frivolous and vexatious; it is also poor conduct to bring in such amendments when indeed nobody can address them in a common voting procedure in here without clarification.

When I asked for clarification – and, yes, I was irritable – this is the response. MR. N. TA YLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's got nothing to do with the fight; it's just to do with the filing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. Member for Redwater. We are now discussing a point of privilege raised by the hon. deputy Leader of the Opposition. We've now heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the hon. Member for Redwater has something germane to point out concerning this point of privilege, he will be recognized.

The Chair won't recognize the hon. member on a point of order while we're discussing a point of privilege. MR. N. TA YLOR: I think what I wanted to say was that the motion that was passed out was decided in conjunction with the Chairman of Committees. We must remember that last night they wanted to finish early because of the snow and rain. I had four amendments. I was requested by the House leaders of both sides and also the Chairman. We put the omnibus motion together in order to convenience people so that they wouldn't have to take four votes, at the request of the government Chairman. MR.

SPEAKER: Anything further? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a statement made that offends me as a member of this caucus. It was implied that we tend to rise too often on breach of privilege. There's a reason for it. When the conduct of government members is such that it's intimidating, that it's threatening, we have no choice but to do so. We've had it from not just one member; we've had it from the front benches on more than one occasion. They've got to shape up. They have to shape up or ship out. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I rose only because the hon. gentleman from Edmonton-Rutherford was making comments which are totally ungermane to the matter at hand. It would seem to me that the most operative clause that the Speaker might want to refer to in assessing the merits of the argument and the counterargument with respect to this point of privilege will be found in Beauchesne 31(1).

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1269 2:50 MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, simply to clarify. As I made my statement regarding privilege, I referred to the amendment that was presented by the Member for Redwater. I did not read it because the size and shape of the amendment had little to do with the threat that was made. I believe those were two separate issues and should be considered separately. Certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs came to me for an explanation and to speak his thoughts about that amendment.

To try to suggest that it was because the amendment was incorrectly presented, that that had anything to do with the threatening or intimidating manner, is simply not the case. I hope you'll consider that. MR. SOHAL: Sir, whatever we say in this House is recorded in Hansard, and if there's a private conversation between two individuals, it shouldn't be a concern of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not prepared to make a ruling at the present time. This matter did happen in committee. I suppose the weather was one of the reasons why it wasn't raised in committee last night.

Nevertheless, the rules do provide for the hon. deputy to bring it forward today. The Chair wants to consider the representations and arguments that have been put forward today and will make a ruling on Monday. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 Federal Cabinet Appointments MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to ask for unanimous consent – I'm not so sure with the fractious House here whether we can get it – to send a rather personal message. I'm speaking to the urgency.

I hope we don't get off on a political debate like we did the other day, just a very short congratulations to two people we're very proud of that have entered the cabinet. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the request by the hon. Member for Redwater, all those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. Carried. Moved by Mr. Taylor:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly recognize the appointments of both Anne McLellan and Joyce Fairbairn to the cabinet of the federal government and that the Assembly send its congratulations to the two new cabinet ministers as well as its expectation that the interests of Alberta will be well served around the cabinet table in Ottawa. MR. N. TA YLOR: In speaking to it, I'll just take a moment because we have a very crowded agenda. Two people, one of them an Albertan by birth, another one an Albertan by choice.

Joyce Fairbairn was born and raised in Lethbridge and took her degrees in English and journalism. She worked for newspapers, almost a who's who of the west. She worked for the Winnipeg Free Press, Calgary Albertan, Lethbridge Herald, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times, and finally the Ottawa Journal. From there she went into political work with the administration of the day in the '80s. Anne McLellan was born in the other end of the country, Nova Scotia, where there are of course great energy developments today.

She moved west and was a law professor since 1980 and acting dean of the law department of the University of Alberta. So she comes well equipped to her position as minister of energy, you might say combining the old and the new. We have the old energy in Alberta, from tar sands to oil; off the east coat, the new energy, the new gas and everything offshore. So she indeed will be a great help. I would hope the House will just approve without further ado sending them congratulations. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, this is an important date for two individuals from the province of Alberta: the Hon.

Joyce Fairbairn, who is now appointed to the position of leader of the government in the Senate and the minister with special responsi- bility for literacy; and the Hon. Anne McLellan, who is now the new Minister of Natural Resources. All citizens in the province of Alberta would want to extend congratulations to these two individuals and wish them the very best. We would sincerely hope that in the days and the weeks ahead consultations will occur in terms of the expectations of the people of Alberta in terms of their positions around the cabinet table of the federal government.

It also should be noted that there are now 22 members of the new federal cabinet, and to have two individuals from the province of Alberta around that cabinet table perhaps is pos itive in the sense that some would have made the argument – and some have tried to make the argument today – that Alberta should never have expected that. From the point of the government I think this is a pleasant development and a positive development. The government would also like to congratulate both individuals.

I know there's always danger when one talks about the gender position, but we're also very pleased that both of the cabinet ministers from the province of Alberta are indeed women. Mr. Speaker, we would ask all members of the House to join in this congratulations. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. DECORE: Just a moment. We've had ministers of energy in Canada that have not been involved in the energy sector. One I can remember from Manitoba was a schoolteacher. Another that I remember from Saskatchewan was involved in agriculture.

We have, I think, a day to be proud of in the fact that Ms McLellan has been named the Minister of Natural Resources, which includes responsibility for oil and gas, coal, for Alberta's natural re- sources. This is an Albertan. That's a big positive for Alberta. This is an Edmontonian. Th at's a positive for Edmontonians. The fact that there are two ministers when there are provinces that don't have – I think the hon. Deputy Premier is right in making note of that. When there are provinces that have but one minister, having two – albeit one of them is the leader of the Senate – is also a plus for Alberta.

I don't know how anybody could construe it any other way than that a woman who has been exceptional in terms of her accomplishments at the university will learn quickly and be a good minister of energy, issues that involve and affect Alberta. The minister responsible in the Senate, who is well known in southern Alberta, will be a good representative for southern Alberta. We gain two. We don't have one; we have two. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion proposed by the hon.

Member for Redwater, please say aye.

1270 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Let the record show the motion carries unanimously. head: Orders of the Day head: Private Bills head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the committee to order. 3:00 Bill Pr. 2 The Y outh Emergency Services Foundation Amendment Act, 1993 MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Pr. 2 be amended as follows. The following is added after

section 1:

Section 1(

g) is repealed. This is merely a housekeeping matter, and everybody on both sides of the House and the people involved with this Bill are aware of it and have requested it. I see that there should be no problem with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, and I believe they've been circulated as well. Any comments or questions? [Motion on amendment carried] MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Y ou are. Good. [Title and

preamble agreed to] [The sections of Bill Pr. 2 as amended agreed to] MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Pr. 2, The Y outh Emergency Services Foundation Amendment Act, 1993, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill Pr. 5 Canadian Union College Amendment Act, 1993 MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Pr. 5 be reported. MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be in due course, but just move it. MRS. GORDON: Mr.

Chairman, I move third reading of Bill Pr. 5, Canadian Union College Amendment Act, 1993. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right; if the committee will give me a little further indulgence in this, what we need is a motion that the question be now put to the committee on Bill Pr. 5, the Canadian Union College Amendment Act, 1993. I think that's what you were intending. Is that so? MRS. GORDON: Y es. [Title and

preamble agreed to] [The sections of Bill Pr. 5 agreed to] MR. CHAIRMAN: Now you can have it reported. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Pr. 5 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill Pr. 6 Mennonite Mutual Insurance Co. (Alberta) Ltd. Amendment Act, 1993 MR. BRUSEKER: Mr. Chairman, the committee has done such a marvelous job on this Bill that I would move that the question now be put. [Title and

preamble agreed to] [The sections of Bill Pr. 6 agreed to] MR. CHAIRMAN: Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that Bill Pr. 6, the Mennonite Mu tual Insurance Co. (Alberta) Ltd. Amendment Act, 1993, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill Pr. 17 Canadian Health Assurance Corporation Act MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that Bill Pr. 17 be amended as follows: firstly, that

section 4 of the Bill be deleted, and secondly, that in

section 5(1) the words “Subject to

section 4” be deleted. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this item was discussed by the Private Bills Committee. The amendments were agreed to. A brief background is that the original Bill under

section 4 dealt with certain powers that the petitioners had sought for the corporation, and the superintendent had some concerns. He was present at the meeting. The petitioner was there. Subsequently the petitioner came back and agreed to delete the

section entirely and also to amend

section 5, which referred to

section 4, and indeed those amendments were also concurred with by the superintendent. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Any comments on the amendment? [Motion on amendment carried] MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. [Title and

preamble agreed to]

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1271 [The sections of Bill Pr. 17 as amended agreed to] MR. JACQUES: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill Pr. 17, the Canadian Health Assurance Corporation Act, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] MR. DINNING: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration certain Bills. The committee reports the following: Bills Pr. 5 and Pr. 6. The comm ittee reports the following Bills with some amendments: Bills Pr. 2 and Pr. 17.

I wish to table copies of all amendments considered by the Committee of the Whole on this date for the official records of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report by the hon. member, all those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed, please say no. Carried. So ordered. head: Government Motions 3:10 Heritage Savings Trust Fund Investments 20. Moved by Mr. Dinning:

Be it resolved that this Assembly, pursuant to

section 6(4.1) of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act, authorizes for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, the making of investments under

section 6(1)(

c) of the Act in (1) the Alberta Opportunity Company in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 in aggregate, and (2) the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000 in aggregate. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, there is often some query as to why such a motion is required before this Assembly, and I would refer hon. members to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act,

section 6(4.1). No investment shall be made in a Provincial corporation after March 31, 1984, unless the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, has first authorized the making of investments pursuant to subsection (1)(

c) in that Provincial corpor ation and has approved a maximum investment in that Provincial corporation for the fiscal year. So, Mr. Speaker, the heritage savings trust fund out of the Alberta investment division is seeking the concurrence, the agreement, of the Legislative A ssembly in loaning these dollars from the Alberta heritage savings trust fund to AMHC and to AOC. These loans will be delivered or made to these two Crown corporations at rates of interest that prevail in the market at the time that the loan is made.

That is a process that is as transparent and open as we possibly can make it, and that is why we stand before the Assembly today to seek the Assembly's concurrence in this important investment by the Alberta heritage savings trust fund. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always a pleasure to speak on a motion that's presented by the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Mr.

Speaker, the Treasurer asks this Assembly to concur in granting some funds: that being a total of $25 million in two different batches, $10 million to the Alberta Opportunity Company and $15 million to the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corpora- tion, to be transferred from the heritage savings trust fund. This may come as a surprise to the Treasurer, but I don't intend to support this motion. The reason that I don't intend to support this motion is based primarily upon the record of the government, number one, and, number two, the Alberta Opportunity corpora- tion. Mr.

Speaker, when I look at the Alberta Opportunity corpora- tion in particular, what this is probably going to be used for will be for funding the operations of the Alberta Opportunity Com- pany. Now, curiously earlier on today in question period the Treasurer said: well, the Alberta Treasury Branches were funded out of a small amount of money – I believe he said $200,000 – in 1938 by the government. I listened carefully, didn't I?

The rest has all been supported by the depositors, who indeed are taxpay- ers of course of the province of Alberta, but that's where the bulk of the funding for the Alberta Treasury Branch comes from. The Treasury Branch since 1938 has been operating with some success, but now we have the Alberta O pportunity corporation coming to the well once again, this time for a $10 million dip. Now, Mr. Speaker, we think back to previous occasions. This House has in fact done motions of this type in the past: $30 million in AOC in the 1992-93 fiscal year.

My concern with actually both of these corporations, Alberta Opportunity Company and Alberta Mortgage and Housing: neither of them are self- sustaining corporations. When I look back to the annual reports, for example, of the Alberta Opportunity Company – and I could only go back a decade because that was as long as I could bear I guess would be the way to describe it. Just putting it into perspective: from 1982 to 1990, eight years, $82 million in grants to the Alberta Opportunity Company. Out of that they lost $51 million. That's not a particularly good record.

Quick arithmetic tells you that's about 66 cents on the dollar that they lost based on the operations of the corporation. In 1991 they were granted $26 million, and I remember the former Member for Sherwood Park who was at that time the minister of economic development and trade saying: gee, they turned a profit. Well, turned a profit by only losing $21 million out of the $26 million, and they said: gee, we turned a profit. Then the year after that they were granted $16 million, and they only lost $14 million out of the $16 million and said: gee, we turned a $2 million profit again. The problem, Mr.

Speaker, is that the interest that these corporations, particularly the Alberta Opportunity Company, draw in from their investments tends to be equally offset by the cost of operations and the interest they pay out. So the net effect is that these corporations will only survive as long as we, we being the taxpayers of the province of Alberta, continue to put money into these corporations. The Alberta Opportunity Company, in particular, when we look at the most recent annual report, shows a net deficit or an accumulated deficit so far of $33.4 million.

So the Treasurer comes to this Legislative Assembly today and says to this member and other members of the Chamber that we should give another $10 million to the Alberta Opportunity Company that has over its 20-year history accumulated a $33.4 million deficit. That to me does not make sense. It just does not make sense. I look at that request from the Treasurer and knowing him to be an honourable gentleman know that he makes this request in all

1272 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 sincerity. On one hand, the government says that we have to balance the budget and we've got to get our finances under control, yet on the other hand we're going to give $10 million to an entity that hasn't been able to get its own finances under control. That to me just doesn't make any sense. So when I look at that, I say to myself: I cannot support that.

The other thing that I have to look at with respect to where we are with the heritage savings trust fund and AOC and the relation- ship between these entities is the record that as of March 31, 1993, the Alberta Opportunity Company owed the heritage savings trust fund $128.4 million in addition to its $33.4 million deficit in addition to the losses that I referred to earlier on.

I say to myself, based on all the good information that this open and accountable government pretends they provide to us: is this a decision that I can support, is this a motion that I think is a good motion, and, most importantly, is this a motion that will assist Albertans to help them get out of the financial hole in which we find ourselves? Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is clearly no, and that's why I cannot support Motion 20 before the Assembly today. Thank you. MR. WICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the portion that pertains to Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the housing division now in Municipal Affairs. My colleague from St. Albert had the opportunity to address similar concerns during the capital budget process. I'm sure the minister would in all likelihood agree with me when I make the statement that the government should not have been involved in the business of providing housing that the private sector was very, very capable of providing. That did occur a number of years ago. The government tended to buy up every piece of land that was in sight.

A lot of the projects that were developed, a lot of the government enrollment, was very, very directly with the private sector and did duplicate tasks that the private sector could do. However, there is the one area I feel that the provincial government through its division of housing still has a responsibility to be involved with, to be a partner in that process, and of course that's with social housing. Questions were asked that pertain – and these are very, very applicable, because we are talking in terms of dollars that will be going to the housing division within Municipal Affairs.

So we have an obligation to try and determine how these dollars that are being funneled over will end up being utilized. I have to refer, Mr. Speaker, to documentation the minister sent out on October 22 to chairpersons, board members, foundations, housing authorities, and so on that makes it very, very clear or leaves a message that there's going to be a new way of doing things. It has already started to cause concern in the communities.

The concern in the community is that these projects that have been developed with money from the provincial government through Alberta Mortgage and Housing, that have had a very close link with government and have felt that certain sense of security, will now somehow be left out on their own to have to link up with the private sector. Possibly we may see total privatization of these types of projects.

We may see them simply turned over to the municipalities, to the local authorities without the dollars follow- ing, very similar to some of the comments the minister made in Calgary. 3:20 Nevertheless the directors, the management, the staff of many of these housing projects are becoming alarmingly concerned. I know a meeting is scheduled where somebody from the depart- ment is going to attempt to give some further elaboration as to what is anticipated.

Possibly because the minister did not have the opportunity – or chose not to, whatever – to address the concerns that are very, very similar to the concerns raised by the Member for St. Albert during the last two evenings and possibly in conjunction with this particular motion, the minister responsible for Municipal Affairs could stand up in the House and tell us very, very clearly: what does the government intend to do with its social housing that it has supported in the past, that it has a direct link to? Is it going to privatize?

Is it going to leave these projects to nonprofit gr oups to kind of look out for themselves without that direct assistance from the government that they've been accustomed to in the past? The s ooner the minister can address those concerns, the sooner he'll start to possibly put a stop to the growing concern that's occurring in the community. I guess the concern is multiplied, Mr. Speaker, by the minis- ter's own actions. When it comes to privatization, he is develop- ing a reputation as being one that's relatively gung ho on privat- ization, and of course that filters down as well.

When it's this particular minister that is sending out the documentation, it's sort of like waving a red flag in front of a bull. It does cause a bit of concern. Some other minister may not create the same type of anxiety, but the community is saying that it is possible, based on the minister's past actions, to certainly privatize virtually any- thing. So I'd like the minister to stand at the first occasion and clarify what the intention is going to be. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak against this motion, being Motion 20.

I've got some grave concerns, not so much with the AOC or Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation or MPI or Municipal Affairs Sales but with the fact that we're going to put more money into Alberta Opportu- nity Company at the present condition that Alberta Opportunity Company is in. Now, when I look at what has been happening with Alberta Opportunity Company for a lot of years, I see a corporation that can do wonders in this province. Initially it was set up to do great good for corporations, small businesspeople who needed some seed money or some capital to get their ideas going. That's a wonderful idea.

I mean, it was a great concept. I don't want to see that end, to be quite frank with you. I do have a problem with us putting more money into the same sort of setup that we already have. Initially it was a good going corporation. It did well. Today I think the approval rate is 1 in 6. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the banks are probably approving 1 in 6, and I don't see us having another bank in this province. We don't need another government bank.

We've already got the Treasury Branches, we've got the credit unions, we've got North West Trust, and we've got Bancorp Mortgage, which North West Trust bought. For the life of me I can't figure that one out. Nonethe- less, we've got these banking institutions that are controlled by this government and by the province of Alberta. So why yet another one? That doesn't add up for me, and that's the reason that I speak against this at this point in time. I would speak in favour of this motion if I knew full well that reforms were going to happen within the Alberta Opportunity Company.

I want to give you an example of what's happening now with the Alberta Opportunity Company. Not so long ago – and my background is in financing to some degree – I had a fellow come to me who wanted some financing on his property in a northern Alberta community. It was a good idea. It was a good invest- ment. It was probably one that would make money, and it was probably one that would employ Albertans, but it was marginal in

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1273 *This spelling could not be verified at the time of publication. terms of its success as far as a lender like myself would have been concerned. I suggested that they go and speak to the Alberta Opportunity Company, b ecause I really feel strongly that the Alberta Opportunity Company can play an important role in this province, particularly in rural Alberta. It seems to me, though, that the bankers today and our conventional lenders don't really care to lend in rural Alberta.

They find that if they are investing or putting their money in loans, they want to put those loans in the cities where they think or feel that the security would be a bit more secured, if you will. Within the rural parts of the province we have the Treasury Branches, and the Treasury Branches have been quite good in functioning within the realm of loans to small businesses. This fellow came to me, and I suggested the Alberta Opportu- nity Company. He went over to speak to the Alberta Opportunity Company, and he was turned down. Mr. Speaker, after two months he was turned down.

He came back to me and he said, “What a waste of time.” Let me tell you that I did assist him in the financing, and once I did that, today it's a functioning corpora- tion that he's got. He's employing Albertans, and he's doing well. The fact is that the Alberta Opportunity Company should have been there for him. Now, that's only one example. There is another fellow that had come to me at one point in time, and he wanted to buy something very simple. He needed a measly $25,000 to start a bus line service. That's all he needed to finish off the financing that he already had.

I again sent him to go see the Alberta Opportunity Company, because he had an idea. He had something that would work. He had an idea that would employ Albertans. He had an idea which I felt fit into the criteria that AOC would require. Again this fellow was turned down a lousy $25,000. DR. WEST: A lousy? MR. CHADI: Y et we have no problems putting $400 million in loan guarantees to people like Al-Pac to employ 400 people. A measly $25,000. The Minister of Municipal Affairs makes some comments about a lousy $25,000.

Y es, I feel it is a lousy $25,000 in comparison to the $400 million into Al-Pac and the hundreds of millions of dollars that we've put into Gainers and the $200 million that we've set aside for Vencap, which we're receiving very little benefit from. I'll suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs should agree that it is lousy. We look at what Vencap has done, another corporation that was set up almost identical to what maybe AOC was set up to do, on a larger scale perhaps.

Here the province of Alberta put $200 million into this corporation; $50 million more came from some private sources for a total cumulative amount of about $250 million for which there were no set terms of repayment on our $200 million. So here we were. After 10 years we received, I believe, in the range of about $60 million, which represented somewhere around 3 percent on our investment of $200 million on this company. Y et the private placement, if you will, on the $50 million received somewhere to the tune of 15 percent return on that investment. It's just not right, and it's not fair.

Albertans put that kind of money into a corporation that was supposed to do good for Albertans, similar to what AOC was supposed to do, yet we're not reaping the benefits of it as we should. When we look at the amount that has been wr itten down today in Vencap – and I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what I'm doing is making an inference here: we have a corporation already, so why are we putting more money into Alberta Opportunity Company?

So when I relate my comments to Vencap, please bear with me, because I'll bring it all around, and it will all make sense to you in short order. 3:30 When we have a corporation like that, that apparently has to be paid back to Albertans with in 20 years but no set terms of repayment, if you take the $200 million today or even at 1983, when we put out that money, and you calculate the future value of that money, say, at an interest rate of 9 percent, which was really modest at that time, it amounts in the year 2003 to about $1.3 billion.

If you calculate the $200 million that we're going to get back on Vencap in the year 2003 and if you figure out the $60 million that we've already gotten and the $60 million that we'll probably get again at the end of the 10-year period . . . Point of Order Relevance DR. WEST: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs rising on a point of order? DR. WEST: On relevancy, Mr. Speaker. We seem to be a fair ways away from AOC and Alberta Mortgage and Housing on this request for financing.

I just wonder if you'd make a comment on the relevancy of a detailed discussion on Vencap. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper saw some of the Chair's discomfort a few minutes ago and said that he was going to make this relevant. The Chair has been rather lenient in that. The Chair would urge the hon. member to fulfill his undertaking to bring this together very quickly. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will. Debate Continued MR. CHADI: We have a net loss here, in my opinion, in Vencap if we take it to the year 2003 to the tune of about a billion dollars based on those calculations.

Today, incidentally, in the public accounts we've got it written down to $127 million, which is the present value of that $200 million investment. I don't have any problems with that. All I'm after here is a level playing field. If we can put out funds to large corporations and we can put out loan guarantees and loans, let's do it with small businesspeople too, and let's do it through AOC. Let's look at reforming AOC. Let's look at pu tting money, if we have to, in AOC – that's not a problem with me – but before we do that, let us look at reforming it. I'd submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that we'd be much better off assisting small business, particularly rural Albertans, because they need the assistance in small business, and they need the Alberta Opportunity Company and the like. With respect to the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which the hon. minister would dearly like me to get into, I had the opportunity to meet with a fellow by the name of Gil Cox,* from New Zealand, not long ago. This fellow was head of the chartered accountants institute, similar to our Institute of Chartered Accoun- tants of Alberta here. He heads that.

What he told me about the housing market and the portfolio of housing that they had in New

1274 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 Zealand was startling. It's not really different from what we've got here in Alberta. I started to press him on it, get more information as to what they did, because I think that they've really got their house in order, that entire portfolio of housing in order. That's something that perhaps the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs should be interested in. I would strongly recommend, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. minister consult with su ccess stories like New Zealand's instead of perhaps maybe unilaterally making decisions without the benefit of debate in this House.

What they did in New Zealand was take all of their social housing and housing of all sorts and put it, in terms of rental, in used market rates. They did away with subsidies. If people needed subsidies – if you needed $600, for example, to rent the house and, before, it had been subsidized at $200, what they did through their social services department was increase that so that a recipient could receive more social assistance if need be just to pay the rent on the accommodation that they had. What they did was bring it in line with market values and market rates. There's nothing wrong with that.

I think that would perhaps eliminate things like slums, because an ybody who had the opportunity to receive a certain amount of money in terms of housing allowance would be able to go and get housing at their discretion. They could go to different parts of a city. They could go wherever they wanted to find housing within their budget but not n ecessarily within a certain category of housing designated for low income. So I would strongly recommend that perhaps what we ought to be doing is having the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation look at that.

When we're talking about pumping more money into it and $15 million – and the hon. Provincial Treasurer made mention that this $15 million that we're putting into Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation is indeed a loan, nothing more, and we're going to get a return on our investment. Goodness, we've heard that time and time again. These corporations are bleeding us. I can't imagine why we would be putting it in as a loan. Why don't we just come clean and say that we're granting more money, that we're putting more money in this? Do we honestly believe we're going to get that money back?

I'm going to leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, for my comments. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise also to speak against Motion 20. The reason that I speak against this motion is clearly the failure of this government to give Albertans an opportunity to assess the assets of the fund through the public review process.

Given the fiscal realities that we face as a province – the deficit, the growing debt burden, the debt servicing costs, and the erosion of our health care and educational programs – it's time to acknowledge that the heritage fund can no longer be a security blanket. The Auditor General and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta and also the Alberta Financial Review Commission, Mr. Speaker, have also made this point very clear.

It is time that the government reassesses the buildup of the internal debt held by the fund and the Crown corporations such as AOC, Alberta Opportunity Company, or indeed the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation before it manages the fund's assets into oblivion. I firmly believe that that's what's going to happen if we don't stop this. The Auditor General recommended that the Treasury Depart- ment initiate a review of the heritage fund to determine whether the assets are being used in the most effective manner in relation to the province's overall financial objectives.

That's the differ- ence between the Liberals and this government. We should be fiscally responsible in ensuring that we look at how we are expending our moneys. That's why we should be doing efficiency audits within every government department, with every publicly funded, whether it be a hospital, whether it be an educational institution. That's not happening yet. There's no accountability or credibility to the process.

The Alberta Financial Review Commission stated that the retention of the heritage fund in its present form may indeed be creating a false sense of security among Albertans and recom- mends that the investment of the fund be transferred to general revenue funds. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has recommended that the government initiate a comprehensive analysis of the fund, including an independent evaluation of the Alberta HSTF portfolio.

They feel that such an analysis would result in the inevitable conclusion that the fund be liquidated to pay down the debt, something that we would support, that differs substantially from the members across the way. However, the fund must be liquidated in an orderly fashion. This should be undertaken once government expenditures have been brought under control. Something that this government has not learnt to do well is to plan and think out indeed how you're going to get our fiscal house in order.

We just need to look at the privatiza- tion of ALCB to see the fiasco that's developed and the questions even coming from the government members' side on that whole privatization, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Liberal opposition agrees wholeheartedly with these experts, once again seeing that the retention of this fund does indeed give a false security to Albertans. We feel the assets of the fund must, as I've said, be liquidated. We also oppose applying the proceeds of these funds to the annual deficit. That certainly was not the intent of the heritage trust fund when it was founded.

This is simply a quick- fix solution and does not deal with the structural nature of our deficit. 3:40 In light of the request made under the government's Motion 20, we indeed are disturbed that the government continues to stall on its promise to establish a mechanism to conduct a public review of the heritage fund. This was originally promised in the May 6 budget, reiterated in the throne speech of A ugust 31, and men- tioned once again in the September 8 budget update. This review was to take place in the current fiscal year, with the recommenda- tions indeed being implemented starting in 1994-1995.

I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is very selective when they're talking about being open and accountable and indeed doing the reviews that are essential to get our fiscal house in order. The Treasurer suggests that there is money set aside within the Treasury Department's '93-94 budget under departmen- tal support services to conduct this review, but he has not given Albertans any idea on the composition of the review, whether it'll be public or in-house, its timetable, and its mandate.

The government has made a number of decisions with respect to the assets of the fund without consulting Albertans. Syncrude and the Alberta Energy Company come to mind. Now the Treasurer is asking this Assembly to make further decisions with respect to investments of the assets of Albertans once again without consulting us. These decisions should involve all Albertans, and I would like to put forward to you, Mr. Speaker, that the standing committee on the heritage savings trust fund plays a significant role in this review process.

In opposing this Bill, I would suggest to you that there are four good reasons why it should not be supported: the government's

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1275 mismanagement of the heritage fund and certainly the significant decline in the value of its assets; two, the failure of the Klein government to give Albertans an opportunity to evaluate the assets of the heritage savings trust fund through public review. Where is the open and accountable government that has been promised to Albertans? Three, the fact that AOC and AMHC continue to rely on grant loans from the general revenue fund on an a nnual basis in order to pay down the debenture debt held by the heritage fund is just going around in a circle.

We're on a merry-go-round, and we're not getting off. Four, the fact that the government may be counting on an unrealistic turnabout in operations of the Crown corporations such as AOC and AMHC in order to balance the budget of 1996-1997. The suggestion is that these two organiza- tions will become self-sustaining in the near future despite evidence to the contrary. I just want to stress once again, Mr. Speaker, to all the members of this government: please learn that secrecy leads to disaster. This is exactly what we're seeing again: blind faith, with no evidence to suggest that anything has changed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to offer just a few comments as well with regard to this request for funds in the amount of approximately $25 million from the so-called heritage savings trust fund. I fully recognize what the purpose was regarding the establishment of this trust fund: to protect against a rainy day, to protect our future, the future of our children as well, and so on.

While I applaud these very, very worthy and noble intentions, I do think that before we allow it to be tapped yet further, we should take a look at what I think taxpayers are telling us about loans and loan guarantees in general. With no direct disrespect intended to AOC or to AMHC, in spite of some of the misgivings that have been uttered, I really think that a straightforward, uncluttered, and simplified explanation should first be offered to taxpayers regarding the entire business of the heritage trust fund.

I think that there are a lot of misconcep- tions on this matter that are perhaps well founded, and I would like to see the government come straightforward and clean with regard to what these investments are yielding. How far away are we from our projections, or are they really close? What are we getting in return? Are these good investments or bad? Who's accountable for the bad ones, Mr. Speaker? What is that process that we have in place that would see an evaluation for the success or failure of these kinds of loans, and what are we doing about them?

I think that we see from time to time a lot of the answers buried in some clever type of accounting, which is perhaps understood by very precious few, and I would like to see that also cleaned up. I don't think it's fair to be giving money with the left hand, seeing it go through some channels of use or misuse, and when that money is not returned in terms of an investment, the other hand comes in to bail it out. There's some circuitous thing going on there that I think needs to be clarified. That's what leads and prompts the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan to ask for efficiency audits.

I would ask for accountability audits as well. There is a tremendous misunderstanding about these obscurities, and I don't see much of an attempt, quite honestly, to see that situation clarified and/or corrected. Today, for example, we again read about yet another company that received a loan of some six figures. I think it was the badlands hovercraft, was it not, Mr. Speaker? It, too, looks like it's going under or perhaps already has, and taxpayers are again being asked to account financially for it.

But who's actually being held to account for the decisions leading up to that loan being given in the first place? Obviously this is not the first occurrence of such an unfortunate situation. It looks like these loans that are going bad are not being dealt with and headed off at the juncture, which they could be. Here when I look at Motion 20 I see an opportunity to perhaps at least call a halt and, I would hope, have some kind of a review performed. I therefore have to question the entire process, Mr. Speaker, of how these and other loans are reviewed and even awarded.

I would like to ask: is that process not in need of major overhaul- ing, given the poor track record that we have seen? I think entrepreneurship is quite obviously one thing, but wild risk-taking at taxpayers' expense is clearly another, especially in these difficult economic times. I guess it goes without saying that these economic times were precipitated by this kind of bad loan-making, what with NovAtel, Ski-Free Marine, and so on. I would stress again that this type of backroom, secret, or quasi-secret decision- making that allows such disasters to occur must be questioned.

Some of these business plans that are presented by some of these organizations or companies asking for these loans surely have to be put to a greater scrutiny in many cases. I realize that some work – I understand that – but the obvious disasters I think could have been foreseen had a little deeper investigation perhaps been done.

Nonetheless, if this government is bent on giving out such loans and making requests for the use of heritage trust fund dollars such as this motion would see, I would like to see that they are secured by something much more solid so that we can see that this fund is actually being restored from time to time, not just depleted over and over again. I wonder what kind of evaluation measures or controls we might have on companies like AOC and AMHC, Mr.

Speaker, that would give Albertans at least some level of comfort surrounding the entire business of loan-making, which the government opposite seems bent on proceeding with regardless of what we on this side might be saying to the contrary. Crown corporations, I firmly believe, must be more accountable for their actions and their decisions, unless of course they are being dictated to, and/or interfered with, or overly directed by the government itself in their reviews and decision-making, in which case it must be that government itself would become truly accountable.

So far there has been little if any evidence of accountability on the opposite side even as of today. 3:50 So my concerns, in

summary, Mr. Speaker, are that we have an internal debt being held by the trust fund that is increasing, not decreasing. I'm concerned that both the Financial Review Commission and the Auditor General have cautioned us about how this government and the previous government have handled and/or referred to the heritage savings trust fund. Along with this caution I sense there's a potential for even greater misrepresenta- tion of information, so I throw that flag up as well.

If we're not going to heed the advice of the commission and of the Auditor General, then why have we given those two entities the power and indeed the responsibility, the requirement, if you will, to flag concerns when they do arise on our behalf? Why can't we take those concerns a little more to heart? I'm concerned that the trust fund and any call on it must, first of all, Mr. Speaker, be very clearly understood by Albertans. In fact, I would say that Albertans even want some direct input into how that gets done. I think Albertans want to be better informed on matters relating to the heritage trust fund.

It's their trust fund. It's our trust fund, and some consultation in that regard surely wouldn't hurt. I'm concerned that a review has been advocated,

1276 Alberta Hansard November 4, 1993 but so far I don't even see any evidence of it having been started. There are numerous write-offs and write-downs that we're all worried about. It brings into question the entire ethics surrounding loan guarantees versus the funding of people's needs, which this would have the potential to do if it were brought on stream a little better. The track record of these loans by the government is less than enviable, Mr. Speaker, and more of the same creates nervousness in the hearts and minds of Albertans. I think there's a potential here for more debt to occur.

Climbing into a deeper hole is almost inevitable, and I wonder very, very seriously whether this poor money management would lead to any kind of recoverable loans, which would strike even more fear into our hearts, because we see that as being a problem that we didn't create, that was not created by the majority of Albertans. It's a $29 billion problem, Mr. Speaker; we call it the debt. Again, we did not create it, but we seem to now be all held responsible for it. In the process we're compromising some very, very important things, such as we have seen in the case of the education cuts that are before us.

Government should not be in the business of giving out these loans and loan guarantees, and I would hope that members opposite would begin to take that a little more seriously to heart. Thank you for your attention. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak against this motion. Throughout Alberta and especially around the Edmonton and Calgary areas people are very concerned with what happened to our heritage fund. It was something we were proud of, something we had for a rainy day, for our future generations, our children and our children's children.

The mismanagement or whatever happened has been of great concern to all Albertans. We look at the amount that was in there and what is there now, and people are wondering what has happened to it. They want to know exactly how much is in it and what it has been used for. So they want an accounting of the heritage fund. Speaking of the $15 million going to AMHC, we would like to know exactly where that's going. First of all, is it going to prevent more losses in AMHC? The government, we believe, should not be in the housing market. The private sector could look after it.

We look at the losses from AMHC, and I think they total close to $882 million, close to a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to believe that could happen with a government that claims to have a business sense, business ability. The deficit at this time is apparently $302 million. Now, how do we put $15 million into an area where the deficit is $300 million? The losses for '88-89 to '92-93 have been $265 million, and the losses for '92-93, we're looking at $104 million. So all we see is loss, loss, loss.

We'd like to know if this $15 million that we're putting in will help to stop the losses, turn things around, and help the government get out of the housing market. As of March 31 the AMHC has IOUs outstanding to the heritage trust fund of $1.6 billi on. We would like to know how much of that could be paid back, the realistic figures. It is a concern: putting more money in when we're not sure what's going to happen. The more money you put in the more money you lose. If that's the case, it's difficult to support this motion. So I will not be supporting it for those reasons. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. [Motion carried] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 20 Public Safety Services Amendment Act, 1993 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River. MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish that the topic I am going to bring up were going to generate as much interest as the motion that was just before us, but I think the topic is going to be much less successful in that regard. I would like to move second reading of Bill 20, Public Safety Services Amendment Act, 1993. Mr.

Speaker, the proposed changes are more of a housekeeping nature, so my remarks are going to be only explanatory. I don't think high-pressure salesmanship is going to be necessary. For example, under the present Act payments made to individuals for property damage or to local authorities for emergency operation costs cannot be recovered from third parties who cause or contribute to such damage. These amendments would allow the government to pursue recovery of such costs through the courts or perhaps through third-party insurance. The amendment in

section 2 simplifies the definition of “disaster” so that it does include damage caused by third parties. The amendments in

section 3 enable the government to assume the right to take legal action against third parties who cause or contribute to damage for which disaster assistance payments are made and permits legal recovery regardless of when the actions of the third party took place. It is about as simple as that, Mr. Speaker, and I'm w illing to answer any questions that are necessary. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 20. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Peace River has won respect on this side for his integrity and forthrightness.

We accept him at face value in the sense that it's a housecleaning manoeuvre. We've canvassed the minds on this side of the House, those sharp Liberal minds. We saw nothing there that would jump out and cause us concern. If this Bill as it is simply enhances the government's position to recover costs that are a result of a third party or some other party causing a disaster, we certainly don't have any difficulty with that. We would support it wholeheartedly. We do not have any reluctance to letting it go to Committee of the Whole, where we can have a look at it one more time. I would call for the question, Mr.

Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 20 read a second time] head: Committee of Supply [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] Chairman's Ruling Decorum MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Before we begin the Committee of Supply, considering the lottery fund estimates, I would ask for your indulgence. Sometimes in Committee of Supply or even in Committee of the Whole, if we have a number of people standing and talking to one another, it's hard to tell whether they wish to speak or whether they don't. Obviously, if they're standing away from their seats, they are in fact speaking.

It does sometimes pose a problem for the table and the Chair to determine who it is that's wanting to speak on a particular item. That isn't to say you all

November 4, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1277 have to crawl around or anything like that. Y ou can walk around, but it does pose the occasional problem. With that admonition and the whispering admonition you've heard 33 times, I would now call the Committee of Supply to order. head: Lottery Fund Estimates 1993-94 4:00 MR. CHAIRMAN: We would ask the hon. minister responsible, the Deputy Premier, to make comments. Then we'll open it for discussion. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Chairman, we've had some opening remarks on the 1993-94 lottery fund estimates.

I gave them when I had two opportunities in the past to deal with the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. It seemed there were questions raised at the time, so some remarks were made. I would point out that for the first time we do have them in a separate estimates document. This is something this minister has been hoping to have for a great number of years, but in the confines of the time and the days of the time, it never came about. So I'm very, very pleased that for the first time we do have this individual estimate. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the estimates clearly define some segmented areas where

definitions provide for agricultural initiatives, cultural initiatives, recreation initiatives, tourism initiatives, community facility enhancement programs, and other initiatives. Of course, other initiatives includes expenditure levels, including those which the government has already committed to, for Education Equity. In addition to the separate estimates document we have, we also have page 49 of the 1993-94 budget, which has an updated listing of all the expenditure levels under the Alberta lottery fund.

Some statements were made erroneously in the past by some individuals basically saying this is just a slush fund for one particular individual. Such, of course, is not the case. If you take a look at the administration of these particular areas, the particular portfolios, a number of my colleagues are here this afternoon to comment on expenditures in particular areas.

I believe the Minister of Community Development would like to make a few comments with respect to expenditure levels in the cultural and arts community in the province of Alberta, and the minister of agriculture would like to make similar comments as well. Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point in time it would be appropriate to hear from them, and then we'll go forward with questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Community Develop- ment. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to speak in support of the 1993-94 lottery fund estimates.

Alberta Lotteries are truly the source of many great benefits in this province, and two areas that benefit from the voluntary generosity of many thousands of Albertans who purchase lottery tickets are culture and recreation. Indeed, I should note for the House that culture and recreation, including sport, are specifically identified in the legislation setting up the lottery fund as primary beneficiaries of lottery revenues.

This is an important point, because when we stop and think about the severe financial and fiscal pressure we have faced in recent years, the importance of lotteries in sustaining high-quality recreation and cultu

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19931104
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S1 19931104 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ca223819e5a82cb28b7cd0a4cb171b52369dd45e

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