May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1409 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/05/09 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. O Lord, guide us so that we may use the privilege given us as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently and the courage to think and to speak with clarity and conviction and without prejudice or pride. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly His Excellency Dr. Yuri Scherbak, ambassador of Ukraine to Canada. Accompanying him are his wife, Mrs. Maria Scherbak, and Mr. Taras Malyshevskyi, second secretary. Mr. Speaker, Alberta has had a long relationship with Ukraine. People have come to Alberta from Ukraine for over a hundred years. They have helped build our province, making it such a great place to live. Today there are over 250,000 people in Alberta of Ukrainian descent contributing in many ways to the culture and economy of our province.

This visit is an excellent opportunity for us to explore ways to build on our relationship with Ukraine and to discuss areas where we can work together. This is the ambassador’s first official visit to Alberta, and I hope the first of many. We’re pleased to welcome him to our province. I would ask that our honoured guests please rise in your gallery and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have quite a list this afternoon, so let’s be a little patient. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to table petitions from several hundred residents asking for the reinstatement of front licence plates. Many of them are from Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan but from across the province as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to table a petition signed by 210 Albertans urging the government to reinstate front licence plates. They’re from Fort Saskatchewan, Vegreville, Boyle, Athabasca, Waskatenau, Tofield, and the Edmonton and area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. MR. THURBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to present today a petition from over a hundred good citizens from rural Alberta, including Rocky Mountain House, Stony Plain, and Parkland county, asking the government to reinstate front licence plates. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to present a petition that calls for the reinstatement of Alberta licence plates on the front of vehicles.

The petition has been signed by 280 Albertans from the town of Beaverlodge, the town of Wembley, the county of Grande Prairie, and other locations throughout Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to present a petition signed by 172 committed and informed Albertans from Spruce Grove, St. Albert, Leduc, Sherwood Park, Alberta Beach, and Edmonton, and they are urging the government “to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to be able to present this afternoon a petition signed by 140 Albertans residing in Calgary, Okotoks, De Winton, and Black Diamond urging “the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to present a petition this afternoon. It is signed by 141 Albertans from Spruce Grove, Gunn, St.

Albert, Onoway, Morinville, Drayton Valley, Cold Lake, Sherwood Park, and Edmonton, and this petition is ur ging “the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gives me great pleasure this afternoon to present a petition on behalf of 223 well-informed Albertans. They want the government “to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” They are from Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove, and Edmonton. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to present a petition this afternoon on behalf of 49 individuals from Lethbridge. They are urging the Legislative Assembly “to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to table this afternoon containing 135 signatures from Albertans residing in Edmonton, Mundare, Fort Saskatchewan, Stony Plain, Tofield, Leduc, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert.

They are urging the Legislative Assembly to “stop promoting private health care and undermining [the] public health care [system].” Thank you.

1410 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have two petitions to present to the Assembly. The first is signed by 76 residents of Edmonton, and it reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that all residents requiring long term care are able to access this service in an equitable manner within the publicly funded system. Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a petition supporting public health care in Alberta.

It’s signed by another 37 residents of Edmonton, and it reads: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased today to rise and table a petition signed by 136 citizens of Alberta from the communities of Sherwood Park, Stony Plain, St. Albert, Calmar, Ardrossan, Devon, and Edmonton.

These citizens are petitioning “the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition from some 216 Albertans primarily from Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Beaumont, St. Albert, Spruce Grove, and Stony Plain. They “urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermin- ing public health care,” sir. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition signed by 152 people. They are from Carvel, Spruce Grove, Sturgeon, St. Albert, Stony Plain, Devon, St. Paul, and Edmonton, and they are urging “the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would present a petition signed by 107 citizens from Lamont, Chipman, Bruderheim, Sangudo, Mayerthorpe, and Wetaskiwin urging the “Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare.” Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions to table with the Assembly this afternoon. The first is on behalf of 137 residents of Bruderheim, Ardrossan, Tofield, Beau- mont, Leduc, Millet, Fort Saskatchewan, Sherwood Park, and Edmonton. The citizens petition “the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to protect, support, and enhance public health care in Alberta and to ban for-profit, private hospitals from receiving public dollars.” The second petition, Mr.

Speaker – and I’m very proud to present this to the Assembly – is on behalf of Calgarians. The Calgarians are asking the Assembly “to urge the government to use its legislative powers to help resolve the labour disputes” that are divisive and disruptive at the Calgary Herald. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to present to the Assembly that states: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.

It is signed by 146 citizens of this province from Grande Prairie, Peace River, Grimshaw, St. Isidore, St. Paul, Elk Point, Ashmont, Glendon, Lac La Biche, Iron River, and Wembley. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition supporting public health care in Alberta. This petition is on behalf of 124 Albertans from Fort Saskatchewan, Bruderheim, Sedgewick, Lamont, and the metropolis of Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table petitions from Calgary, Edmonton, Spruce Grove, Leduc, St. Albert, Bon Accord, Egremont, and Stony Plain. That brings today’s total of Albertans who have signed the petition opposing the undermining of public health care and the promotion of private health care to 2,518, bringing the total to date to almost 72,000 Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table a petition signed by 201 Albertans who are calling on the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to “disallow further development of the Spray Valley,” to “maintain Kananaskis Country in natural state,” and to “create a Wildland Provincial Park which protects the whole of the undeveloped parts of the Kananaskis and Spray Valleys.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today and with your permission ask that the petition I tabled yesterday be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that the petition I had presented the other day be now read and received, please. Thank you.

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1411 THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the [Legislative] assembly to urge the government to use its legislative powers to help resolve the labour disputes at the Calgary Herald. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition standing on the Order Paper under my name concerning working night hours now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government . . . to introduce legislation requiring a minimum of two people on shifts from dark to daylight. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented on the divisive and disruptive labour dispute at the Calgary Herald now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the [Legislative] assembly to urge the government to use its legislative powers to help resolve the labour disputes at the Calgary Herald. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented yesterday from 156 residents from Calgary and Cochrane requesting that the promotion of private health care and the under- mining of public health care be stopped be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned c itizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to stop promoting private healthcare and undermining public healthcare. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that the petition with respect to public health care that I presented yesterday be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party.

DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to request that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received. THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of the province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places. I am also giving notice that tomorrow I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 33, 34, 35, 40, 44, 45, 48, and 49. Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased today to table five copies of a letter and the appropriate amendments to the Prime Minister.

The amendments address issues raised by Albertans over the course of discussions on the Health Care Protection Act. Among the amend- ments approved include a strengthening of the sections prohibiting conflict of interest and queue-jumping. Charges for enhanced services were capped, and the process for withdrawal of approval was clarified. This is a follow-up letter to the letter that was sent by the leader of the Liberal opposition. MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise and table eight copies in response to government questions to written questions 17, 18, 19 and 20. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Resource Development. DR. WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table responses to questions raised at the March 6 review of Treasury’s 2000-2001 budget estimates by the Committee of Supply. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to table today a letter responding to Written Question 16. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table five copies of Manifesto 2000: For a Culture of Peace and Non- violence.

This is crafted by Nobel peace prize laureates on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights at the United Nations. THE SPEAKER: The leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to make three tablings today. These are three letters: one from former MLA, Marie Laing, opposing Bill 11; one from Red Deer resident Dorothy Corney opposing Bill 11; and a third from the Seniors’ Alpine Ski Club in Calgary opposing the proposed Genesis development in the Spray Valley. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR.

WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one tabling today with the appropriate number of copies from John Olson of Camrose, who is very, very much opposed to Bill 11. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

1412 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got four tablings this afternoon. The first is a

summary of Donna Korchinski’s second installment on Calgary Lab Services, where she indicates that the Calgary regional health authority changed their accounting numbers on the lab services to reflect the increased savings that were supposedly going to occur. The second is a news release from NetNews wherein it is stated that Calgary Lab Services have been operating since November 1, 1996, without approval.

The third is a news release from Barry Robinson, the Alberta Liberal candidate for Grande Prairie-Smoky, indicating that the health minister is shirking his responsibilities with regards to the long surgery waiting lists in the Mistahia regional health authority. The fourth is from the International Express from England wherein it’s indicated that doctors now have to be provided with a ^60,000 bonus – that’s about $120,000 – in order to be enticed back into the public health care system from their private practices. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to first of all table a letter from a constituent of Edmonton-McClung, Ms Dorothy Almas, talking about the inhuman waits for cancer treat- ments because of being on the waiting list. Ms Almas’ story is very poignant reading for members of this Assembly who are concerned about public health care in this province. Secondly, I would like to table a copy of a letter to the editor of the Edmonton Journal from David King, a former Member of this Legislative Assembly, beginning with: “Bill #11 is bad law, bad public policy, and bad politics. It should be withdrawn or defeated.” MRS. SLOAN: Mr.

Speaker, another child has died while in the care of this government. I am tabling today a letter I have written to the Ministry of Children’s Services, seeking information relative to the ministry and child welfare’s actions and omissions in the placement of two-year-old Corvette Crier. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings today for the Assembly. The first is a document titled Calculating Your Taxes under the 10.5% Klein Flat Tax, 2004.

It refers to an Albertan named Ralph and another Albertan named Steve, both earning over $100,000 a year and both receiving more than 20 percent tax cuts. Yet another Albertan earning half that salary would only receive a 10 percent tax cut. 1:50 Mr. Speaker, the second is a petition – unfortunately, it’s not in the right form – that is signed by 20 residents of Dewberry, Clandon- ald, and Heinsburg. The petition is opposing privatization of health care in Alberta. We, the undersigned citizens of Alberta, strongly oppose the privatization of health care services in Alberta.

We do not wish to see for-profit services used in our health care because we believe that this will lead to a two-tier system. Mr. Speaker, the third tabling is titled A Message to Ralph Klein. It reads, “We, as residents of Polo Park, High River, Alberta, protest the content and the intentions to legislate ‘Bill 11’ by the Klein Government.” And finally, Mr. Speaker, a letter from myself dated today to Mr. Carl Roy, the president of the Caritas Health Group, in which I correct the record regarding the comments made by the Member for St. Albert at a public meeting and my comments made in Hansard on page 779.

Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have only four tablings this afternoon. The first one is the

summary of the poll on Bill 11 at www.misterpoll.com showing 75 percent opposition. Secondly is an e-mail from Cinda Chavich, formerly of the Calgary Herald, urging government action to end that nasty dispute. The third item is a document entitled Our Chosen Land produced by the Calgary Chinese Cultural Centre talking about the 100 years of development of the Chinese community in this province. Then the final document is a copy of the principles and policies for the protection of health information. This is an April 1999 publication produced by CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

It may assist the minister of health in drafting regula- tions to Bill 40. Thank you. MR. WHITE: I have but one tabling today, sir. It is on behalf of some 200 citizens of Edmonton-Calder in res ponse to a question- naire that their member put out, and it has to do with the health care system in the province of Alberta. I’ll recite just one question to you, sir: should the minister of health in the province of Alberta “have the power to approve public funds for private hospitals?” The answer, sir, is 95 percent against and 5 percent for. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR.

MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would table five copies of a Harvard study entitled Medical Errors Higher at For-Profit than Not-For-Profit Hospitals, Harvard Study Finds. My second tabling, Mr. Speaker, is five copies of the May 2000 edition of the Asian Times, featuring citizens from Edmonton-Mill Creek on the steps of the Legislature saying no to Bill 11. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of a letter from the president of the Central Alberta Women’s Emergency Shelter.

She’s asking why, despite promises from the minister, the Alberta Mental Health Board has done nothing to assist this organization replace the f unding that was cut by the Alberta Mental Health Board. Thank you. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View. MS HALEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real pleasure for me today to rise and introduce to you and through you, sir, to the Members of the Legislative Assembly on behalf of my colleague the MLA for Lesser Slave Lake 105 grade 8 students from the Roland Michener secondary school in Slave Lake.

They are accompanied by two t eachers, Miss Tracey Crain and Miss Karen Brace, and nine parent chaperones: Mrs. Smears, Mrs. Savage, Mrs. Olsen, Mrs. Noel, Mrs. Norberg, Mrs. St. Martin, Mrs. Properzi, Mrs. Garon, and Mr. Bohn. They are seated in both the members’ gallery and the public gallery, and I would ask that they all stand and receive the very welcome of this Assembly.

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1413 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, my guests aren’t coming in until 2 o’clock, and I’d like to do it after if it’s okay. THE SPEAKER: That’s fine. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my privilege to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a resident of Calgary-Buffalo. In addition to his other volunteer work John Burgener has recently been named to the Calgary

chapter of the United Nations as a youth co-ordinator. John is involved in promoting the Manifesto 2000: For a Culture of P eace and Non- violence in preparation for the general assembly of the United Nations this September. He is seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask my son John to rise and receive the warm recognition of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you and to all the members of the Legislative Assembly Shannon Sampert.

Shannon has just completed her master’s degree in communications at the University of Calgary and has been awarded over $53,000 in scholarships and will enter the U of A PhD program in political science this fall. She is currently the vice- president of communications for the Alberta Liberal Party and employed in the Edmonton-Norwood constituency office for the summer. If she would please rise and receive the warm welcome. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Voting on Bill 11 MRS. MacBETH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. So let’s see now.

First he was a Liberal thinking about the leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party, and then he was a Progressive Conservative federally and provincially, and now he’s thrown his hat behind the Canadian Reform Alliance party. Presumably he is taking his provincial party along with him. [interjections] Given the applause, I’d say they’re all going along with him. But guess what?

The constitution of the Alliance party reads: “We will move to restore democratic account- ability in the House of Commons by measures such as allowing free votes.” Will the Premier be true to the values of his new party and allow a free vote? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’ve answered that question before. Again, I will ask the members of this caucus. Do you support the government’s position on Bill 11? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. MR. KLEIN: Could I ask the question, Mr. Speaker? Are there any of you opposed? That is a free vote. Mr.

Speaker, we run a far different caucus than the one that was controlled by the former member of Priorities and Treasury Board in the old Conservative government. This is a free and open caucus where we have good and free and open discussions on matters. I don’t run my caucus like a dictatorship like the leader of the Liberal Party. I don’t stamp my foot and say: this is the way you’re going to vote. That’s what’s happening over there in the Liberal Party.

Speaker’s Ruling Questions about Party Activity THE SPEAKER: Actually, hon. members, Beauchesne 410(17) says the following: “Ministers may not be questioned with respect to party responsibilities.” Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, pro ceed with your next question. 2:00 Voting on Bill 11 (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is: why would the Premier be supporting democracy and free votes for Ottawa, but he appears to be treating it as if it’s a nuisance here in Alberta? MR. KLEIN: Not a nuisance, Mr. Speaker. I will explain once again. There was a caucus meeting.

I didn’t attend that caucus meeting. I’m very, very proud of members of the Progressive Conservative caucus who had a good discussion, as I understand it, about how they were going to vote on Bill 11. The decision was – and it was a caucus decision – that they would support the govern- ment’s position. MRS. MacBETH: Will the Premier concede that the real reason that he is not allowing his members to reflect the majority position of Albertans in opposition to this bill is that he knows that his private health care bill would go down in flames? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, there is no private health care policy. Perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at the opposition leader’s stand on health care, because she’s questioned my motives so many times. This hon. leader of the Liberal opposition is on record many times as saying that she supports privately owned, privately operated private hospitals that are opted out of medicare; in other words, a classic for-profit, two-tier health care system.

When this member was a Conservative at one particular time, or a suspected Conservative at least, she did nothing to stop the expansion of private surgical clinics when she was the minister of health. In fact, she allowed them to charge patients a facility fee, something that is against the Canada Health Act. She did absolutely nothing to stop it. So, Mr.

Speaker, one could ask her the same question she has often posed of me: which of her friends or relatives would stand to benefit from a policy that allowed opted- out, for-profit private hospitals that could charge people directly whatever they like and service clients from the U.S. and other jurisdictions? Limiting Debate on Bill 11 MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s not just about freedom of voting. This government’s flagrant use of closure has set a new low for parliamentary behaviour in Canada. The Premier’s reliance on closure betrays his true feelings about this Legislature.

For him the Legislature has become an inconvenience and democracy a nuisance. My questions are to the Premier. Why did the Premier break his word that closure would not be used on third reading? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, closure is not being used on third reading. If we were to invoke closure on third reading, the debate would end at midnight tonight. We have introduced a motion, Standing Order 47, which allows every Member of this Legislative

1414 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 Assembly to debate the bill one more time. That is not closure. That is part of the democratic process. Now, relative to reaching new lows, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Liberals have reached a new filibustering low. They have cost the taxpayers thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars through their delaying tactics, and if they want to be critical of closure, then I would ask them to look to their Liberal cousins in Ottawa. This

article in the Calgary Herald dated May 4 says: By next Monday, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s Liberals will have stifled parliamentary exchanges on government bills 67 times since January 1994, when the Liberals convened the 35th Parliament. THE SPEAKER: It would be helpful, hon. the Premier, if you’d table that document as well. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, why did this Premier mislead Albertans yesterday afternoon when he promised in his news conference that he wouldn’t resort to closing off this debate, yet moments later the Member for Leduc was rising to do just that? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, the question was asked: would we use closure? The answer was: no, we would not use closure. And we didn’t use closure. The hon. Member for Leduc intr oduced a Standing Order 47, which basically says that the bill can be debated by all members of the Legislature at third reading. What could be more democratic than that? I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms relative to closure, and basically I don’t know what the fuss is about, b ecause when I refer to

section 518, “The House has adopted a number of procedures to limit debate, or to preclude the moving of amendments, and to provide for the wise management of its time.” The Liberals have no concept whatsoever of the wise management of time. All they can think about is wasting taxpayer dollars. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier admit that he has had to resort to shutting off debate at every single step of the debate on this legislation because he’s afraid that the majority of Albertans oppose him? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the majority of Albertans do not oppose me.

As a matter of fact, the latest poll shows that we have about 66, 67 percent support. That’s slightly more, if not a signifi- cant amount more, than the Liberals have right now or than they will ever have. THE SPEAKER: Third main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Representing the Public MRS. MacBETH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I want to quote something that I read, and it says: The little dictator in Edmonton has ignored Albertans’ collective cry not to tear the heart out of our health care system and replace it with one that most of us are opposed to and afraid of.

Actually, not my words but the words of the Fairview Post. Now, opposition to the Premier’s health care policy has also been voiced in the Coronation Review, the Drayton Valley Western Review, the Canmore Leader , the Lac La Biche Post , the Ponoka News , the Eckville Echo, the Lethbridge Herald, the Red Deer Advocate, the Grande Prairie Herald-Tribune, the Cold Lake Sun, the Cochrane Times, the Brooks Bulletin, the High River Times, the Edson Leader, the Lloydminster Meridian Booster, and more. My questions are to the Premier.

Why is the Premier ignoring the views and the voices of these local papers who so accurately reflect the views of their communities? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there has been editorial comment on this issue on both sides of the issue. I just happened to pick up some- thing from May 3, the Calgary Herald. It says . . . [interjections] I hear a lot of yipping and yapping over there. Are they saying that the Calgary Herald is not a reputable newspaper? [interjections] Will they stand up and say that the Calgary Herald is not a reputable newspaper?

The Calgary Herald says with Bill 11, Klein has done something far more important than simply pen a new law. He’s activated a national debate on health care that is long overdue. . . . If Klein lost his nerve and killed his health care bill, the national debate would continue but it’s doubtful the political will would exist in this province to fully participate. 2:10 I mean, there have been all kinds of comments in all kinds of different newspapers relative to this issue, some against, yes. Right.

You know, the Liberals go to great pains to bring out the negative in everything in this province, but there has been a lot of positive comment in editorials in weekly newspapers and in major daily newspapers. I would allude to some of the comments that have been published by Neil Waugh, the columnist for the Edmonton Sun . I could table column after column after column. He makes a lot of sense.

Speaker’s Ruling Questions about Media Reports THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, Beauchesne 428 says that a question must not “inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.” So what we’ve really got here is a debate over “My

article says this and somebody else’s

article says that.” Let’s deal with policy. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Representing the Public (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, first Gerry Amerongen and now Dave King. Is this Premier so arrogant and so out of touch that he doesn’t realize that his own party members are opposed to his private health care legislation? THE SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I’m glad that the leader of the Liberal opposition asked that question and alluded to Dave King, because I understand that Dave King said yesterday that Bill 11 shows that the government does not know how to run the public service properly and that it has failed to address the real issues facing health care, such as staff shortages and rising drug costs. He also said that the bill would foster a two-tier health system. The point I want to make is that, first of all, he has insulted a very strong and very proud public service. The Alberta public service leads the nation in efficiency.

In recent years the government’s administration has won numerous awards for public service. For instance, they won the silver award for innovative management from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada last fall. Now, Mr. Speaker, compare that to the time when Dave King was the minister of education, when Alberta had 181 different school jurisdictions and 40 of them didn’t even have a school. And he wants to talk about public administration.

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1415 Our six-point health plan addresses all of the concerns that were raised by Mr. King, by the way a suspected Liberal now, not a Conservative. Speaker’s Ruling Seeking Opinions THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. The purpose of question period is to basically deal with government policy. If someone wants to introduce a person and then someone else wants to respond regarding the person, this violat es all the rules of the question period. Representing the Public (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier finally come clean and tell Albertans who or what is so important that he has turned a deaf ear to ordinary Albertans, even to members of his own party? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’ll turn that question around. Why is the leader of the Liberal opposition so intent on defeating a bill that protects public health care? Is it because she wants private, for- profit opted-out hospitals?

Again, she has stated on numerous occasions that she s upports privately owned, privately operated private hospitals that are opted out of medicare; in other words, a classic two-tiered, for-profit health care system. Who is she trying to protect in terms of the doctors and other medical practitioners or businesspeople who’d really want to profit from medicare? I think that’s her real agenda. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. Court Referral of Bill 11 DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the government’s private, for-profit hospitals sche me lurches toward third reading approval aided by the use of closure at all three stages, many questions remain unanswered. Among the most serious are whether the government’s approach violates the Canada Health Act and its ramifications under the North American free trade agreement. A referral of Bill 11 to the Alberta Court of Appeal would be a cost- effective, timely, and prudent way to address these outstanding questions. My questions are to the Premier.

As president of Executive Council why doesn’t the Premier, prior to seeking royal assent and prior to proclamation, use his powers under the Judicature Act to refer Bill 11 to the Court of Appeal to settle once and for all whether it violates the Canada Health Act? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, this policy statement and the bill have been sent to the federal Minister of Health – I think they have a bevy of lawyers there in Ottawa, thousands, lots of lawyers – to pore over, and we have received no indication whatsoever from the federal minister or the Prime Minister or any of his officials that the bill in any way, shape, or form violates the Canada Health Act or violates the rules of NAFTA. Nothing. DR.

PANNU: Why is the Premier unwilling to or afraid of letting the Court of Appeal of this province address the ramifications of Bill 11 under NAFTA even in the face of two eminent legal opinions which say that the government is courting NAFTA disaster? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, if there is something in Bill 11 or any other act of this Legislature that is deemed to be unconstitutional, there is recourse to the courts.

Once the law is passed, if someone feels that it violates the Canada Health Act or it violates NAFTA or that in some way it violates the principles of health care, then they’re free to challenge that act just as any citizen is free to challenge any act of this Legislature or any act of Parliament. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why doesn’t the Premier exercise prudence and refer Bill 11 to the Court of Appeal for a determination of its vulnerability to costly challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? MR.

KLEIN: I don’t see how there could be a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially since the

preamble to the bill upholds without question the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act. What I find amazing is that this hon. member would like the referral now, after voting against upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act, voting against, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to emphasize that. This hon. member along with his Liberal bedmates voted against upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Summer Temporary Employment Program MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday’s labour force statistics for April 2000 indicated that the number of youth job seekers was higher than the number of new jobs created for youth. My questions today are to the Mini ster to the Minister of HR and Employment. With the end of the school year at hand what is this government doing to help unemployed Albertans gain some work experience during the summer months? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, of course, we continue to help Albertans with our Youth Connections program all year round, but we also have what is called the summer temporary employment program. It’s referred to as STEP. We have this in place to offer work experience to unemployed Albertans, primarily students, from the end of April to the beginning of September. We’re contributing 9 and a quarter million dollars to nonprofit and publicly funded community organizations to help them hire students to develop skills and enhance long-term employability. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, can the same minister please explain how the process works when an organization applies for the funding under STEP? MR. DUNFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. STEP employment applica- tions are of course sent out at the beginning of the year. They’re completed, and then they’re returned to our department. We look for those by the end of February. The applications are reviewed, and the employers notified when they’re approved. In this regard, our STEP program is similar to a federal program that is called SKIP. Basically, employers apply, and then of course they’re notified if it is approved.

Once the employer has been approved for the STEP program, they hire, they pay the employee,

1416 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 and then they submit a claim to the STEP or SKIP co-ordinator for reimbursement once a month. 2:20 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. With this process in place can you tell us how many Albertans will be able to participate in the STEP program this year? [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, 2, 479 community groups actually applied for the STEP program.

With the placements through the provincial government partnership we think this will translate into 3,540 full-time equivalent positions for unemployed Albertans between April 25 and September 1 of this year. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Bill 11 Publicity MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take the Premier in earlier answers today as indicating that he thinks it’s important that Albertans have accurate information.

Well, the Premier’s $8 million Public Affairs Bureau seems to be under strict instructions to deliberately underestimate the cost of the govern- ment’s propaganda campaign to sell its private health care policy. Now, despite the government’s misguided decision to ram its health care policy through this Legislature, Albertans aren’t buying the policy nor the Premier’s attempts to minimize the costs of propa- ganda. My questions are, of course, to the Premier this afternoon.

Will the Premier keep his previous promise to release today, before we make a final vote on Bill 11, all the invoices, all the receipts, all the contracts from his $2.7 million taxpayer-backed propaganda campaign to sell the government’s private hospital policy? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is anticipating a question that is related to Bill 11, which is up for debate this evening, so it’s inappropriate. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that silly, dumb, question is quite simple. It is very hard to provide intelligent answers to stupid questions.

To exemplify the stupidity of the question, there is no propaganda campaign; there is no private health care policy; therefore, there are no invoices related to what the hon. member alleges. Nothing. Because there’s no propaganda campaign, and there is no private health care policy. [The Speaker in the chair] MR. DICKSON: Speaking to the policy and certainly not to the bill and speaking to government practices as well, Mr.

Speaker, how much of the true cost of the Premier’s private health care propaganda campaign is hidden away in the vault of the Public Affairs Bureau, buried in the Ministry of Health and Wellness, or perhaps inciner- ated in the Premier’s $440 million waste treatment plant? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is, first of all, nothing in any vault anywhere related to a private health care policy or a propaganda campaign. It simply doesn’t exist, because this government hasn’t been involved in any kind of activity.

The only person who has been involved in the promotion of private, for-profit, opted-out, two-tiered health care is the leader of the Liberal opposition. MR. DICKSON: This is more and more like Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Speaker. Before the Premier rams his health care policy through the Legislature, will the Premier confirm right now, this afternoon, that the Official Opposition estimate of $2.7 million is in fact the true cost of the taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign? Will he do that? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no cost associated with a propaganda campaign.

There will be some costs associated with a program to mail out a bill that purports to become law, and there’s nothing more truthful than the law. There will be some costs associated with that, and there w ill be some costs associated with telling the truth about a pi ece of legislation that is now before this Legislative Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Beer Marketing MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituency of Calgary- Fort includes a large industrial park.

Alberta’s midsized and small brewers have recently expressed concerns to me. According to these brewers, the Gaming and Liquor Commissions’s new policy allowing buy/sell agreements and product promotion will benefit the big brewers who already have almost 90 percent of the draft beer market in Alberta. My question is to the Minister of Gaming. Can the minister explain why this new buy/sell policy is not harmful to Alberta’s smaller brewers? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Gaming. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the new policy that includes the use of buy/sell agreements is a creation of the industry themselves. It was a group of brewers, distillers, merchants, and liquor store owners that came up with the buy/sell agreements, so it includes all the breweries. The buy/sell agreements, Mr. Speaker, provide for the normal trade and commerce to take place in an above-the-table, open, transparent manner and one that can be fully disclosed. What has happened in the past we have found to be in violation of regulations at the time. We took actions. Fines were levied.

The new policy, if the industry decides to comply – and the onus of res ponsibility of compliance lies completely with them – will allow all of them to participate in this marketplace that is growing because of population, because of increase in disposable income, because of a healthy growing economy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. Can the minister explain why the product promotion aspect of the commission’s new policy is not harmful to small brewers? MR. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, we have a competitive marketplace – that’s been the foundation of the marketing of spirits and alcohol in this province – and also privatization. Suppliers and manufacturers need to be able to promote their products. It’s taught in every business school. It’s taught to everybody who goes through the great institutions like SAIT and the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta. Clearly it is not government’s role to prevent those types of activities as long as product promotion benefits the

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1417 consumer and does not exclude artificially some competitors from the marketplace. I think, Mr. Speaker, that a smaller brewer, like a small person in the oil industry, as my own experience indicates, always has challenges in the marketplace when we take on the large employers. I know from experience that for a company with the reputation of Big Rock in Alberta its quality of product, its quality of service and consumer choice will prevail. After all, Mr. Speaker, the quality of good taste lingers long after the price is forgotten. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR.

CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is also to the same minister. What can the minister do to ensure that small brewers continue to have a fair opportunity in the Alberta market? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know the member is concerned and interested because he is in a constituency where Big Rock Brewery is located. In fact, there’s one building where they started out as Big Rock, and then a second building that expansion of the marketplace caused, and it became known as Bigger Rock. Mr.

Speaker, the government recognizes that these 84 to 100 jobs are critical to the marketplace, critical to this member’s constituency, and in fact over a year ago the government took action and reduced its markup by $15 million on beer. That reduced annual cost was primarily aimed at benefiting the small and midsized brewers. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the job of government in the liquor industry is to control the product. We’re not there to control the marketplace. We know that all of us are committed to a level playing field.

All brewers have equal access to the market, and success or failure is the result of consumer choice, not government intervention. 2:30 Private Health Services MRS. SLOAN: The greatest legacy of private health care in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, will be the accompanying legacy of deception and deceit. The Premier risks contributing to such a legacy by continu- ing to withhold the contents of 30 blank pages outlining his govern- ment’s beliefs on private health care. My questions today are to the Premier. When does the Premier plan to permit Albertans to see the private health care document their tax dollars paid for?

MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness indicated on a number of occasions in this Legislative Assembly, that information is being prepared as we speak. But speaking of missing documents, why has the opposition leader put a 15-year prohibition on the public release of 150 boxes of her documents from her time as minister of health? MR. DICKSON: Point of order. MR. KLEIN: What has she got to hide, Mr. Speaker? Is she afraid of something? Is there something in those documents that alludes to her promotion of private, for-profit health Care? I wonder. MRS. SLOAN: Let me amend that.

A legacy of deception, deceit, and desperation, Mr. Speaker. Why enact closure, Mr. Premier, before you release your govern- ment’s own position on private health care policy? Why enact closure before the public has had an opportunity to read those 30 blank pages? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again I allude to the 150 boxes of documents that have been secreted away, squirreled away someplace under lock and key b ecause the leader of the Liberal opposition is afraid there might be something in those documents that might put her in contradiction of her position today.

Relative to the question, this government has not invoked closure on third reading. We introduced a motion under Standing Order 47, which allows full and complete debate on third reading. That is not closure. But this is typical of the kind of malicious misinformation that is being spread by the Liberal Party. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier stop his desperation antics and table the documents in this Assembly: pages 31, 34, 41, 44, and 47, all speaking about private health care? When will those documents be tabled in this Assembly so Albertans can read them for themselves? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, they will be tabled in due course, as soon as the documents are prepared. I understand that that work is under way right now. You know, you might have to wait days or weeks, but the rest of us are going to have to wait 15 years – 15 years – to see the docu- ments that have been secreted away under lock and key by the former minister of health, who is now the leader of the Liberal opposition. What has she got to hide, Mr. Speaker? I thought she said that she would stand up to her record on health any day. Well, we are waiting. What has she got to hide? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St.

Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Computer Viruses MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week a virus dubbed the Love Bug spread across computers around the world causing many companies and governments to shut down e-mail systems and networks. The virus traveled by e-mail with the subject line I Love You. My question is to the Minister of Innovation and Science. Can the minister please tell us the effect of the I Love You virus on government systems? DR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say that government takes IT security very seriously.

All ministries were affected by the I Love You virus, but it was isolated to the e-mail systems by 9:30 a.m. In spite of what Dave King might say, this was isolated by our excellent public service professionals. We have assessed the impact and cleaned the e-mail system to ensure that the viruses have been removed and any data that was lost has been repaired. THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the reference to an individual outside this House was absolutely inappropriate. The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you. To the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: while the media have reported that several copycat viruses have been released since the I Love You virus first hit, what is the government doing to protect systems from other similar viruses? DR. TAYLOR: Well, we’ve been taking proactive steps, Mr. Speaker. Last winter we improved our e-mail security status. We rolled out some antivirus security issues last winter, and we now have the availability of screening incoming e-mail for viruses. With that availability and with that ab ility we can look at viruses that

1418 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 might be similar to the I Love You virus, and they will automatically be screened out. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: No, Mr. Speaker. It’s been answered. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Private Health Services (continued) DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A report on a recent Harvard study reaches the conclusion that patients at for-profit hospitals are two to four times more likely than patients at not-for-profit hospitals to suffer adverse events such as complications following surgery or delays in diagnosing and treating an ailment. My questions are the Minister of Health and Wellness. Given the Harvard study, why is the government pursuing a policy of health care privatization and placing Albertans at increased medical risk? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the government is not pursuing a policy of private hospitals. We have stated that very clearly.

The legislation is very clear with respect to that. Therefore, although I’m not familiar with respect to the Harvard study, it may be very interesting, but it is not relevant to our particular legislation or policy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: given that the study also speculates that adverse medical events may increase as money is redirected to facility shareholders, why has the government chosen private profit over the health of Albertans? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I assume that if the study is from the Harvard source, it must be a credible one. I do note that the questioner is referring to it as speculating, which is hardly scientific basis on which to place a question. I repeat that we are not promoting private hospitals. We have banned them in the legislation. The research may be quite interest- ing and quite thorough – I don’t know – but it is not in my view relevant to the particular initiative we’re taking. DR. MASSEY: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: what liability will the government assume when things go wrong at for-profit surgical clinics? MR.

JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to repeat something that is a fact but that the opposition can’t seem to acknowledge, and that is that within our health care system right now we have in various roles a very important private sector, whether we’re talking about doctors’ offices and clinics or we’re talking about, yes, laboratory companies or we’re talking about some of the mainte- nance firms that repair and maintain the equipment in the health care system.

I think that overall the record of the whole health care system in terms of major mistakes and faults and liabilities has been very, very good in this province. If there is something that occurs to which liability can be assigned, there is a judicial process in this country to sue, to recover money, and that does occasionally regrettably happen in the health care system. The process is there. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. 2:40 Pigeon Lake Fishery MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve received a number of calls from constituents regarding the opening of the fishing season a month ago, particularly in relation to Pigeon Lake and its commer- cial fishery. Within the fishing regulations this year there are a number of Alberta lakes that are under pressure related to fish population and that have been closed to fishing during spawning. Since this is the case, can the Minister of Environment tell my constituents why the commercial fishery on Pigeon Lake is allowed to continue once the lake is open to recreational fishing? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I have certainly heard of the piscatory concerns of not only the constituen ts of this hon. member but of others throughout the province, and I can assure the hon. member that the concerns that are expressed are taken seriously. The decision to close a number of lakes during the spawning season is not one that is lightly taken. I’d like to point out that when we do make such decisions, we work with the best science available.

We work with biologists, but we also work with the various advisory committees with lakes to make determinations as to how manage- ment plans can be put in place for various lakes throug hout the province to manage this valuable resource. I’d like to emphasize that we look at each lake on a lake-by-lake basis to take into account the unique situation in each lake and the pressures that are on those lakes. In the case of Pigeon Lake, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different user groups that we had to listen to and work with.

It not only supports commercial fishing but also domestic fishing and also, of course, recreational fishing. I wish to assure this House that I am monitoring issues related to the commercial fishing industry, and I want to assure members of this Assembly that immediate steps will be taken by the department if the health of Alberta fisheries is ever threatened. MR. JOHNSON: More specifically, to the same minister: what is the amount of fish allocated for the commercial fishery on Pigeon Lake, and what is being harvested? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the quota for whitefish for Pigeon Lake is 100,000 kilograms.

Over the last 10 years the average harvest of whitefish from that particular lake has been 88,000 kilograms. I would note, though, that for the species of walleye and pike, their tolerance limits were reached before the quota for whitefish was reached. Just to be clear, the fishery is closed whenever the tolerance on any particular species is reached or the quota is met. So the lake is closed to commercial fisherfolk when either the tolerance on a species is reached or the quota is reached. MR. JOHNSON: My final question is to the same minister.

What is the status of the environmental and commercial viability of Pigeon Lake’s fishery? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to emphasize that our main priority is to devise mechanisms and strate gies to ensure that this valuable resource continues not only for those who are involved in commer- cial fishing now or for domestic use or for recreational reasons but for the benefit of those in the future as well. Based on public input and sound science, we will make decisions that are necessary to conserve Alberta’s fishery.

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1419 With respect to Pigeon Lake, Mr. Speaker, that lake has whitefish resources that will support a very important commercial fishery here in this province, but I want to point out that the challenge will be to find the mechanisms and the strategies to sustain this commercial fishery without harming the interests of other users of the lake, specifically recreational and domestic use. We will continue to work on those strategies for Pigeon Lake but also for a great number of other lakes throughout the province for the benefit of all users of Alberta’s lakes. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-South. Calgary Laboratory Services MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1996 the Calgary regional health authority began a partnership with a private labora- tory service with the goal of decreasing the cost of lab services by 40 percent in the Calgary area. While this government claims that the new partnership has meant big savings to taxpayers, Albertans deserve to know what the numbers really are and how the money was spent. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Can the minister provide a public explanation as to why the amount spent on laboratory services before the creation of Calgary Labora- tory Services was reported as being $80 million but then later changed to $97 million? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the increase in the overall contractual payment to the laboratory company in Calgary, I think it is reasonable to expect that the number of tests, the amount of work that is being done – there’s actually been the addition of a new spectrum of tests as well as an increase in the volume.

It is quite logical to expect that the overall contracted amount according to the volume of work done would increase. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, again, to the same Minister of Health and Wellness. In reality, was this an attempt to create the illusion for Alberta taxpayers that the savings from the Calgary Laboratory Services were greater than they really are? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the overall contract between the Calgary regional health authority and the laboratory firm is a very comprehensive one.

As I’ve indicated, the contract would, I think, logically provide for the accommodation of an increased volume and increased variation or variety or new tests that come onstream. In fact, Calgary Laboratory Services, as I understand it, is very sophisticated. It does a very, very wide range of tests, which would compare to any large centre, certainly in Calgary. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unrealistic to think th at a contract would not have a provision to be adjusted in terms of payment for increases in volume and in the nature of the tests that are done. MR. WICKMAN: My final question, Mr.

Speaker, is to the same minister. Will the minister provide evidence to Albertans as to why there was a $17 million discrepancy in the budget prior to the contract being awarded? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the implication of the question in terms of a discrepancy. I’ve provided the description of the overall way that the contracts operate.

I think there has to be an understanding that contracts will be adjusted according to factors which develop in terms of the nature of the services to be provided, the breadth of the services to be provided, the volume of the services to be provided, and that will occur. Those things will occur. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, three members today will partici- pate in Members’ Statements. We’ll call on the first of these in about 30 seconds. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. International Year for the Culture of Peace MRS.

BURGENER: The year 2000 has been proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations as the International Year for the Culture of Peace. On the 50th anniversary of the UN universal declaration of human rights a group of Nobel prize laureates drafted a document they call Manifesto 2000. This manifesto will be presented to the General Assembly in September 2000 as part of the International Day of Peace. It is not an ordinary petition, Mr. Speaker. It is expected that 100 million people from ar ound the world w ill sign this manifesto.

It will represent their personal commitment to the values, attitudes, and behaviour that inspire the culture of peace. So many will sign because they know that a culture of peace is required to permit sustainable development around the world and to enhance environ- mental protection and the well-being of every person. 2:50 What are the values that so many individuals will be pledging their support to? They’re pledging to respect all life and the dignity and worth of every human being.

They are pledging to reject violence in all its manifestations, particularly against children, who are the most vulnerable, to share with others th eir time and resources, to listen and understand without defaming and rejecting others, and to preserve the planet by respecting all life and preserving the balance of nature. They’re pledging to rediscover solidarity by contributing to their communities. Mr.

Speaker, it is my hope and the hope of my son, who is here today, and the hope of this Assembly that this manifesto will help transform the culture of war and violence where it exists to a culture of peace and nonviolence, that will benefit all of us. In order to give us a wide scope of the possibilities of this campaign, the organizers are hoping to spread the word and collect signatures through the Internet. Anyone who wishes to sign on can reach the Internet through www.unesco.org/manifesto2000.

By signing your name to the peace manifesto, you will be included with the citizens of the world who are devoted to sharing the culture of peace with others, and you will be participating in an historic and worldwide celebration of peace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Democracy in Alberta MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to speak about democracy in Alberta. Alberta’s democracy has been compared to corporate statism. This government has become, to quote a former columnist at the Herald: a government by CEO.

The Premier with his business cronies for MLAs believes all Albertans should support legislation like Bill 11, even though it will only help the wealthy in the province. In this province it appears that anyone who dares to question the CEO is in line to be fired or at best derided, branded as a left-wing nut, and personally attacked for not buying the latest of the so-called advantage.

1420 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is supposed to do what’s best for all citizens, not just the wealthy elites. Democracy understands that opposition is important and supports alternative points of view. Democracy does not cut off debate, does not artificially invoke closure, and does not denounce people’s concerns. Democracy does not paint the oppositional voice in this province with red menace overtones, insulting the people who have worked so hard to build this province.

I’ve watched every night as people gather at the Legislature to speak out against Bill 11. This government just isn’t interested. It has ignored these protests with a top-down managerial view of the world. With a Premier as chairman at the helm this government sneers at the underlings, those who dare to just say no to Bill 11. You know, he should be careful. CEOs have been known to topple, and the people you stepped on on your way up will be waiting for you on your way down.

You can legislate until you’re blue in the face, but people have memories, and they’re going to remember how this government ignored them, how this governme nt insulted their intelligence and patronized the opposition. They will remember. One day Albertans will stop the Premier and his company and once again embrace democracy in this province. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to recognize this year’s inductees to Canada’s Aviation Hall of Fame, located in Wetaskiwin.

The induction ceremony will be held at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum in Wetaskiwin on Saturday, May 13. [interjections] Speaker’s Ruling Interrupting Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: One of the great tr aditions in this House is this opportunity for free speech that was brought in a number of years ago, when major amendments were made to the Standing Orders. This

section of the Routine is called Members’ Statements, and members should have the right to express themselves on any subject they want regardless of the content. The content is their own content, and they may choose to say what it is they want to say. There should be no interjections, and we’ve ruled out points of order and points of privilege and everything else with respect to this in the past. Those who don’t like the message today, well, get ready because there’ll be another opportunity in the next number of days for additional members’ statements, and it can go back the other way. Now, hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, I invite you to start at the beginning. Aviation Hall of Fame MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to recognize this year’s inductees to Canada’s Aviation Hall of Fame, located in Wetaskiwin. The induction ceremony will be held at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum in Wetaskiwin on Saturday, May 13. Canada’s Aviation Hall of Fame was founded in 1973 and pays tribute to men and women who pioneered and advanced aviation in Canada. The hall of fame has 160 members, including this year’s five inductees. Mr. James Tocher Bain will be posthumously inducted at this year’s ceremony.

Mr. Bain is widely known as the man responsible for the development of the Canadair North Star, and he oversaw construction of the Air Canada jet base in Dorval, Quebec. Another inductee, Mr. Albert Baker, earned his pilot’s and engineer’s licences at the Moose Jaw Flying Club. He’s credited with turning around the troubled Fleet Manufacturing Company in Fort Erie, Ontario. Mr. Paul Bernard Dilworth studied jet engine technologies in the U.K. He went on to set up the cold-weather ground test facility in Winnipeg and conducted the first ever test on a jet engine in Canada in 1943. Mr.

Reginald John Lane joined the RCAF in 1940 and became a distinguished wartime Pathfinder and bomber pilot with three tours of duty over Europe. In 1943 Mr. Lane flew the first Canadian-built Lancaster KB-700, the Ruhr Express, to England. I’m particularly proud to mention the induction of Ms Vera Elsie Strodl Dowling of Edmonton. Ms Dowling worked extensively in the area of test flying, and after World War II she was a flight instructor with the RAF. She was also the first female flight instructor in Alberta.

This year’s Belt of Orion award of excellence will be awarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police air division. For over 60 years the air division has performed essential support for the RCMP and service to Canadian citizens. Congratulations to the air division and the five inductees into Canada’s Aviation Hall of Fame. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today in the routine the chair called on the hon. Member for Wainwright for an introduction, and the hon. Member for Wainwright indicated he wanted to do it a little later. Now is the time, sir. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR.

FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce for the record a group from the Provost school in the Buffalo Trail school division. This group consisted of 36 grade 6 students and 10 adults. They were accompanied by teachers Sherri Smith, Julie Bouma, Vern Tessman, Roxy Reinhart. They were here to visit the Legislature and observe our government in action. Unfortunately they have left now. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order Provoking Debate MR. DICKSON: Actually, Mr.

Speaker, I raised two points of order, but they relate to exactly the same comment made twice by the hon. Premier. My authority would be Beauchesne 408(2) about the enjoinder against answers “should not provoke debate.” I’ve had some Blues delivered to me, but they haven’t caught the question- and-answer exchange in question. The Premier on two different occasions referenced documents that had been in the possession of the Leader of the Official Opposition when she was minister of health and at the end of her time as minister.

What I heard was a clear indication that the Leader of the Opposition was in some fashion trying to withhold documents, delay their publication, their availability to members of the public. Now, this is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. We have a provincial archivist in this province. Members will appreciate that under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

section 3, the act

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1421 (

b) does not affect access to records (

i) deposited in the Provincial Archives, or (ii) deposited in the archives . . . that were unrestricted before the coming into force of this Act. The act came into force on October 1, 1995. Then, further, the act (

e) does not prohibit the transfer, storage or destruction of a record (

i) in accordance with [any other] enactment of Alberta or Canada, or a bylaw of a local government body. In this province we do have, in fact, a regulation that deals with the destruction of public documents. You will be well familiar with it, all ministers, because those records that a minister has with respect to ministerial function are public property, not personal property. 3:00 Well, we can argue the law, but the point is this. I’m talking about papers that a minister had in the execution of a ministerial function, that those records have been turned over by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

She r eceived advice from the provincial archivist in terms of the policy of the provincial government, and she has neither sought nor obtained any special protection, remedy, or treatment with respect to those records. They have been treated, as I understand, no differently than the records when the Member for Wainwright left cabinet or the Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne left cabinet. Those records were treated the same way.

For the Premier to suggest, as I heard him do, that in some fashion the Leader of the Opposition was trying to have those records that had been in her possession treated in some different way is more than mischievous. It’s inaccurate, and it’s just plain wrong. I trust I’ve not distorted the meaning of the words I heard from the Premier, but it’s clearly a concern.

If we have an existing set of policies in terms of the way we deal with ministerial records, let’s r ecognize that that is, in effect, uniform treatment and not something that in this case somebody has tried to have records protected for a longer time period. You might recognize, sir, if you look at the amendments to the FOIP Act, that there are specific provisions in terms of records like this from this point forward, but I think the insinuation and implica- tion, if not the express comment made by the Premier, is inflamma- tory as well as inaccurate and in my view offends 408(2).

I’d ask the Premier to withdraw the remarks he made and in fact apologize in the House for the insinuation that he made. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo is rising on, that being a proce- dural issue under item 408(2), where it says that “answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.” However, if he reads a little further, he will also see under Beauchesne 409, where the issue of question period is discussed in greater detail, that Beauchesne also says: A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific Minister to whom it is ad- dressed, is in order.

It goes on to say in

section 409(2): “The question must be brief.” Then the real crux of the matter is 409(8), where it says: “A question that has previously been answered ought not to be asked again.” Now, on this issue of a certain page of documents that is being sought by the Official Opposition, the Premier has answered this question numerous times in this House and has very openly said that he would bring that forward as soon as it was ready, and he has directed the minister of health to research it and bring it forward. Not only has he said that to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, but he has answered that same question or questions to that same effect, seeking the same information, from other members opposite. Therefore, I would say that there is an issue of redundancy here under 409(8), which may well be another point of order. Nonetheless, the issue of what the Premier has been asked to provide will be dealt with. There is an undertaking to do that, and that work is in motion as we speak.

In view of the openness with which that particular question had first been asked and the openness with which it had been responded, I don’t think there is any point of order here, but I’ll leave it up to the valuable judgment of the chair to decide. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of International and Intergov- ernmental Relations on the point of order. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I will be brief on the point of order. I would like to clarify my understanding of the issue of ministerial documents.

It is my understanding that ministerial documents are the property of the minister and that it is in the minister’s purview as to the handling of those documents. Those documents are different from departmental documents or documents that the department of health might hold during a minister’s time. On the issue of the disposal of those documents. You may hold those documents for any period of time as a minister. You may dispose of them as you wish. However, if you choose to dispose of them by providing them to the Provincial Archives, then the rule of closed documents for 15 years comes into effect.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, the time when you put those documents in the hands of the Provincial Archives dictates the time and length of closure. I do want it on the record and I want it clearly understood by members of this Legislature that ministerial documents are the property of the minister, and it is the minister’s responsibility as to how he or she wishes those documents handled. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Opposition House Leader, do I take it that the two points of order were then wrapped into one? So this is it, and we’re not going to do this again? MR. DICKSON: That would be my intention, sir. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: There was a concern raised by the hon. Opposition House Leader under Beauchesne 408(2): “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.” Then we went on to discuss the ministerial documents. What the Hansard Blues say is the following: the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview: The greatest legacy of private health care in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, will be the accompanying legacy of deception and deceit.

The Premier risks contributing to such a legacy by continuing to withhold the contents, 30 blank pages, outlining his government’s beliefs on private health care. My questions today are to the Premier. When does the Premier plan to permit Albertans to see the private health care document their tax dollars paid for? Then the hon. the Premier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness indicated on a number of occasions in this Legislative Assembly, that information is being prepared as we speak.

1422 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 But speaking of missing documents, why has the opposition leader put a 15-year prohibition on the public release of 150 boxes of her documents from her time as minister of health? The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo: “Point of order.” The hon. the Premier: What has she got to hide, Mr. Speaker? Is she afraid of something? Is there something in those documents that alludes to her promotion of private, for-profit health care? I wonder. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview: Let me amend that. A legacy of deception, deceit, and desperation, Mr. Speaker. Why enact closure, Mr.

Premier, before you release your government’s own pos itions on private health care policy? Why enact closure before the public has had an opportunity to read those 30 blank pages? The hon. leader of the government: Mr. Speaker, again I allude to the 150 boxes of documents that have been secreted away, squirreled away someplace under lock and key because the leader of the Liberal opposition is afraid there might be something in those documents that might put her in contradiction of her position today. Relative to the question, this government has not invoked closure on third reading.

We introduced a motion, Standing Order 47, which allows full and complete debate on third reading. That is not closure. But this is typical of the kind of malicious misinforma- tion that is being spread by the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview: Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier stop his desperation antics and table the documents in this Assembly: pages 31, 34, 41, 44, and 47, all speaking about private health care? When will those documents be tabled in this Assembly so Albertans can read them for them- selves? Then the leader of the government goes on: Mr.

Speaker, they will be tabled in due course as soon as the documents are prepared. I understand that that work is under way right now. You know, you might have to wait days or weeks, but the rest of us are going to have to wait 15 years - 15 years – to see the documents that have been secreted away under lock and key by the former minister of health, who is now the leader of the Liberal opposition. What has she got to hide, Mr. Speaker? I thought she said that she would stand up to her record on health any day. Well, we are waiting. What has she got to hide?

So under Beauchesne 408: “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.” And then 428 says: A question . . . must not: (

a) be ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain epithet, innuendo, satire, or ridicule. (

b) be trivial, vague, or meaningless . . . (

f) contain an expression of opinion . . . (

h) contain inferences. (

i) contain imputations. Then the Deputy Government House Leader basically said to refer to 409, a series of things with respect to this. 3:10 The whole subject matter of the boxes is a rather interesting one, and the hon. Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations certainly gave her views with respect to this matter. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of Executive Council at, interestingly enough, the same period of time in which the Speaker was a member of Execu- tive Council.

The Speaker has had particular experience with respect to documents, and it is exactly as the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations has said: such records are the property of the minister in question, to be released, disposed of, reviewed, made public in any way or form that the minister of Executive Council at the time so chose to do. Since that time there have been some modifications to that, but in the time frame which we have at hand, these documents could be made available to anyone at any time, and they are the total responsi- bility of the minister in question.

Quite frankly, that should not be the basis of any point of order or discussion thereof. The use of inflammatory language from one will bring back inflammatory language from another, and if someone wants to throw out “legacy of deception and deceit” and “withhold,” then I guess it comes back: “But speaking of missing documents,” why would somebody put a “prohibition on,” and what have you. It violates all the rules that we’ve just talked about under 408 and 409 as much in the question as in the answer, as much in the answer as in the question. I’m not sure where this comes in on government policy.

These are debatable questions that just go on on a daily basis. I guess every- body looks for the bite on TV and is hoping to get it. That’s what it’s down to. What is that expression, hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo? The pot calling the kettle black? Is that what it is? head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 208 Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 2000 [Adjourned debate May 3: Mr. Zwozdesky] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make some comments on the private member’s bill that was brought forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] Now, I want to relate this b ill in terms of the key recommenda- tions of the report that had been prepared by the Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Madam Speaker, I have to be very careful in my language, I guess, as you’re now wearing two hats. In that particular report that I refer to – and I want to talk about the highlights – it proposes the establishment of a gaming secretariat to advise the minister on gaming policy.

It requires that all gaming supplies purchased by the gaming commission be purchased via public tender. It creates an all-party standing committee on gaming to review the gaming act on a regular basis, to report the separation of the administrative enforcement functions of the commission, to review and report on funding the police with lottery money to prevent and fight organized crime, to review and report on funding gambling addiction and treatment with gambling revenues, and requires municipal approval for new or the expansion of existing gaming operations.

Those highlights relate very, very specifically to the report that was done by the Member for Lacombe-Stettler called Gaming in Review. Let me just say in my opening comments that it surprises me – and I don’t want to put you in an awkward position, Madam Speaker – that we have a Member of the Legislative Assembly who takes it upon herself to work very hard and to develop expertise in a particular area, even to the point where the Premier will say: I want you to head up a special task force or a commission to review gambling throughout the province and come forward with recom- mendations.

I go back to the first report that was done by the

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1423 Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Many of those recommendations were in fact acted upon. That particular member has a better understanding than I think anybody else on the government side in terms of gambling in this province, the implications of gambling and steps that could be taken to minimize the negative impact of gambling. We accept the fact that gambling is now a part of life in Alberta and throughout Canada, but it doesn’t have to escalate out of control.

In the particular report that the member came forward with, Madam Speaker, the government chose to ignore it completely, which really, really surprises me. Every recommendation was ignored. There was no discussion. Nothing came forward, even though the Canada West Foundation in their report that was tabled a few weeks later more or less concurred with the recommendations of the report Gaming in Review.

Madam Speaker, the first point I would make is that government has a responsib ility to heed advice, to heed advice when it comes from opposition but par ticularly when it comes from their own members that are asked to create a certain task and then are shut out when that task is completed because, for whatever reason, it interferes with the objectives of the government or the minister, which may very well be to use gambling as a cash cow and forget about the implications, the negative effects that gambling throughout the province may have.

In that report that came down from the Member for Lacombe- Stettler – I want to refer to some of them, because they’re directly related to Bill 208. There’s no question about that. I don’t make any bones about it. It’s unusual for opposition to be trying to assist a member of government in implementing recommendations, but in this particular case there is every rationale in the world as to why it should be done. The government has refused to do it.

We have a member that has done something good, and the government refuses to act upon it, so the Official Opposition then has a responsibility to try and push government in the proper direction. Now the recommendations just briefly.

The first recommendation in that report was that the Ontario gaming model be studied with emphasis on implementation; secondly, a gaming policy secretariat should be re-established in Alberta; thirdly, a national gaming presence or direction should be considered; fourthly, the province of Ontario did not reinvent the wheel when it came to implementing new strategies on gaming; Alberta did some and so on and so forth; fifth, net lottery dollars should be appropriated to two key priority areas; sixth, gaming is an extremely lucrative industry, it points out; seventh, if serious consideration is given to large destination casinos, many factors must be taken into account.

In Ontario it relates to the policy decisions that were made and later rescinded following public discord. Now, in the actual bill itself, Madam Speaker, when I look through the specific sections, first of all

section 2, clause (i.1), the amendment is: “‘Gaming Secretariat’ means the Alberta Gaming Secretariat established under

section 42.01.” Then we go to

section 3(2), where we would add: 37.1 Prior to the board issuing a gaming licence or a facility licence under

section 37, (

a) the board must, within 30 days of receiving an applica- tion, forward the application to the municipality in which the activity prescribed in the licence would occur, and (

b) that municipality must pass a resolution approving the new facility licence or gaming licence. The reason that is done, Madam Speaker, is that municipalities know what’s best in their particular area. We’ve seen municipalities throughout this province that have said, “We do not want VLTs,” for example, “in the hotels.” We’ve had other municipalities that say that they don’t object to them, and they’ve voted in favour of allowing them in the bars, as that was one of two options that was given at that particular time.

Nevertheless, the municipality must have the right to be part of the decision-making process as to what’s good for their community. Then we go into the next section, where we would add: “All acquisitions of gaming supplies by the Commission must be made by public tender.” I think that’s self-explanatory. To ensure that we get the best goods at the best price, a public tender is the only way to go. 3:20 Now, the purposes of the Alberta gaming secretariat itself. It would be established (

a) to advise, report to and to make recommendations to the Minister on matters relating to [gambling], (

b) to conduct research and public consultation on the social and economic effects of gaming, (

c) to foster awareness and to encourage public discussion on matters relating to (

i) gaming addiction, (ii) organized crime and [gambling], (iii) the effects of gaming on children and families.

(3) The Gaming Secretariat shall make its recommendations to the Government through the Minister. We look at those purposes, “gaming addiction” for example. We’ve had $1.5 million allocated towards the research institute on addictions. What has come of that $1.5 million? What has come of this research institute? I know there is a board of directors in place. I know that they’ve had at least one meeting. I don’t know how many after that, and I don’t know what’s come out of that. We’ve seen no reports. We’ve seen absolutely nothing that would justify that $1.5 million being allocated.

Maybe it hasn’t been spent yet. But if it hasn’t, what is the holdup? Why isn’t the government reporting back to this Legislative Assembly as to what activity is going on, if any activity is going on? We talk in terms of “organized crime and gaming.” Now, government has denied any fear of organized crime in gaming. However, again the Canada West Foundation report, the report from the Member for Lacombe-Stettler, numerous reports throughout the United States, throughout Canada, throughout the world state that widespread gambling can encourage organized crime. There is absolutely no question.

The potential is there. What do we have? I think we have one-fifth of a police officer’s time that is allocated towards crime that may be associated to gaming in this particular province. [Two members rose] Are they standing for me? Oh, I thought maybe it was a point of order. Then the third was “the effects of gaming on children and fami- lies.” Madam Speaker, we’ve all heard stories – at least we should have heard stories – about the effects of gaming on children and families. As the critic of Gaming in the Liberal caucus, the Official Opposition, I’ve heard countless ones.

I’ve heard ones where people have felt that suicides were committed because of a gaming addic- tion, a gambling addiction. Now, there’s no way of proving that certainly, but the evidence was there, that the gambling addiction led them to actually take their own life. We’ve heard about broken marriages. We’ve heard about people going to jail, stealing money from their employers because they had this gambling addiction and they had to feed these machines. We’ve heard of people losing their homes, their jobs, their businesses. We’ve heard of, I think in the Lethbridge area, a businessman losing $800,000.

The member that was appointed by the minister to the Gaming Research Institute board of directors is himself now a member of the Canada foundation on gambling addiction. He himself is one that was worth $1 million at one time, who opened up a restaurant in Fort Saskatchewan. He’s gone on TV – I’m not saying anything that

1424 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 hasn’t been said publicly before – and he’s told his story about how it’s cost him virtually everything in life. He’s fought that addiction fortunately, but it’s cost him everything in life. But of all the stories I heard, the one that touched me the most was this mother, a grandmother, that phoned me and said that her daughter was so addicted to the VLTs that she would do virtually anything to get money to put into those machines.

One Christmas, when the grandmother bought the grandchildren a bunch of gifts and went over to the house and put them under the Christmas tree, the children never got those gifts because the mother, who was addicted to the VLTs, took those gifts down to a pawnshop, pawned them off, took the money and blew it on the VLTs. The grandmother then applied for court action to take custody of those children. The family is in turmoil now. They’re not speaking to each other. It has just totally destroyed that family. So the rationale for an Alberta gaming secretariat to fulfill those purposes outlined speaks for itself.

Now, we talk in terms of this gaming secretariat and how it would function. 42.02(2) At least one member of the Gaming Secretariat shall be . . . (

a) Members of the Legislative Assembly who are members of the governing party; (

b) Members of the Legislative Assembly who are members of the Official Opposition; (c) [a member of] the general public; (

d) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (

e) the Alberta Gaming Research Institute; (

f) the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission; (

g) the Child and Family Services Secretariat. Then we talk in terms of how the appointments would take place and such. We talk in terms of the standing committee on gaming which is recommended in Bill 208. Now, the standing committee on gaming would be a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly called the “Standing Committee on Gaming” consisting of 9 Members of the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The membership of the Standing Committee shall include 3 Members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the governing party, but if there is (

a) an insufficient number of non-government members to fill the 3 positions on the Standing Committee, or (

b) an insufficient number of non-government members who are willing to fill the 3 positions on the Standing Com- mittee, the resulting vacant positions on the Standing Committee may be filled by Members of the Legislative Assembly who are members of the [party in government]. The purposes of that are (

a) to hold public meetings . . . (

b) to complete a comprehensive review of this Act within 1 year after the coming into force . . . and every 3 years after that . . . (

c) to study and make recommendations regarding (

i) the separation of the administrative and enforce- ment functions of the Commission and the creation of an independent body . . . (ii) the introduction of a statutory requirement to provide a proportion of revenues from the Commis- sion or Lottery Fund for the prevention and treat- ment of gaming addiction. Again, that gaming addiction.

We recognize that there is roughly $3 million that goes to AADAC, but there is still a very, very serious problem out there. (iv) the economic, social, regulatory, enforcement and addictive implications of Internet gaming, which is spreading and continues to spread and which is very, very difficult to control. Now, when we look at the rationale for this bill coming forward, for the members of this caucus supporting this type of legislation, let’s keep in mind that revenues from gambling businesses are approaching $1 billion in this province. That’s a far cry from 1989, when I was first elected.

I think it was in fact a year or two later when the first dollars sort of spit themselves out of VLTs, I believe down in the Medicine Hat or Lethbridge area. When the former minister responsible for gaming, who is now the Speaker of the House, shifted $25 million into general revenues, that was consid- ered a big, big deal. Now, that’s chicken feed in terms of what the province produces in terms of its cash cow, close to $1 billion, and there’s no indication to believe that figure is going to decrease.

There is a freeze under way, yes, until this summer sometime, to review gaming totally, but we don’t know what the outcome of that review is going to be. We don’t know what direction it’s taking. Is it a review to see if electronic gaming should be allowed in the bingo halls, for example? Is the review going to look at the minicasinos that the Hotel Association would like to see?

Is it going to allow for what we call the creation of destination casinos in areas possibly like Banff in an attempt to lure dollars from the United States from tourists that may come up and want to gamble in some nice country like Kananaskis? So we don’t know the purpose of the review, if it’s to better the lives of Albertans in terms of gambling or if it’s to look at ways to create more revenue; in other words, to enlarge upon that cash cow.

When we look at the revenue streams being created by gambling, we then have to recognize the po ssibility that we’ve got to make a commitment to fight any organized crime or potential organized crime and addiction associated with gambling. That has to be done, and as gambling escalates, as the amount of revenue escalates, of course the addictions and the potential for crime are going to also escalate accordingly. I think that’s a given. I’ve talked in terms of gaming addiction in the past, about how devastating it is to families, to individuals, to communities.

We’ve seen that happen, and that’s why a number of communities who had plebiscites and asked for those machines to be removed don’t want the widespread gambling that we see in some of the municipalities at the present time. We now see $3.6 million, a rough figure, that goes towards addiction, but when we look in terms of the percentage, that’s less than one-half of 1 percent of total net revenues going to addiction. When I studied the model in Texas . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, I hesitate to interrupt you, but the time limit for consideration of this item of business has expired for today. 3:30 head: Motions Other than Government Motions Vehicle Front Licence Plates 509. Mr. Lougheed moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to reinstate the requirement to display front licence plates on all vehicles registered in the province. Mr. Tannas moved that the motion be amended by adding “in conjunction with a licence plate reissue” after “province”. [Debate adjourned May 2: Mr. Fischer speaking] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to complete my remarks on the amendment to Motion 509, as last

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1425 Tuesday we did run out of time, but my position has not changed any, and I’m still strongly in favour of the amendment and the motion. It is important to note that many of the petitions that have been filed in the Leg. on this issue are from rural residents from Small Town, Alberta. Many of these residents are good people who work with Rural Crime Watch, Neighbourhood Watch, Citizens on Patrol, and other groups, and these people have experienced firsthand the disappointment of not being able to identify a vehicle because of no front licence plate.

Madam Speaker, these people volunteer their time. They expose themselves to substantial danger, sometimes even risking their lives to help keep our communities safe, and I believe we should give them all of the tools that we can to make their job easier. Passing Motion 509 is something that this Legislature can do to improve the safety and the well-being of our communities, and reverting to the two licence plates concept is a very, very positive step for us here in Alberta. I want to urge all of the members to support this amendment and Motion 509. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: Ready for the question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to add a few comments. I’d like to congratulate the Member for Clover Bar- Fort Saskatchewan for bringing forward this issue. I remember when licence plates on the front of vehicles were lost. Sometimes policemen are not very complimentary of governments, and it doesn’t matter what government. Sometimes they’re a little cynical, and I remember a comment, somebody saying: whose stupid idea is this anyway? It really did impede the law enforcement efforts of police officers.

Criminals are not very bright, and sometimes, you know, they’ll do things, and they think they’re going to get away with something. I recall many times when I apprehended a thug for stealing a vehicle. He would exchange the rear plate on a car, but he forgot about exchanging the front plate on the car, and the front plate was how we were able to determine that the vehicle was stolen as it drove by you or if you found a vehicle in an alley or someplace with two different plates.

Of course, it was obvious to you that if the front and rear plates didn’t match, there was a problem here. [The Speaker in the chair] I know that the removal of the plate was an effort to save about $700,000 or $750,000 to the government on a yearly basis. Well, I would suspect that that amount of money was spent investigating crimes that did not likely have a good conclusion as a result of removing the front plate and on insurance costs and insurance investigations as a result of that. The initiative, I know, came out of Rural Crime Watch groups.

I have spoken with them in the past couple of years in relation to this. I think it’s a great initiative. I think it’s important to bring back the front licence plate. Certainly, with the advent of technology, for those who don’t like photo radar, I think this is maybe another way, of course, of getting the most out of your cameras. I suppose we could look at that as well, intersections with red-light cameras, photo radar.

Those are just by-products of having a front licence plate, but I think the more pressing issue is the issue of being able to identify vehicles that may or may not be involved in crimes in rural areas and certainly, as well, in the city. I think it will help police officers and those folks who are on community patrols trying to help police members out in communities. I urge all members of this Assembly to support this motion. Hopefully we’ll see it come back, and we’ll have front licence plates back on our vehicles soon. Thank you. [Motion Other than Government Motion 509 as amended carried] Urban Renewal 510.

Ms Olsen moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish a special task force in conjunction with federal and municipal authorities to examine ways to preserve neighbourhoods affected by school closures and business relocations. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One might ask: why does this belong here in the Alberta Legislature, and why would one want the federal authorities involved in this as well? My thought is that we need to be looking at the big picture when it comes to communities, and that doesn’t take just one level of government.

It takes all three working co-operatively and moving forward. The intent of the motion is to get people thinking about the big picture of neighbour- hood denigration and moving forward to some solutions. We have all of these little pockets of things happening. We have, you know, the policy framework on homelessness. That might be one issue. We have the Safer Cities Task Force and the safer cities initiative, and we have changes that the hon. Minister of Children’s Services worked out with myself when she was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that’s another piece of legislation that’s helpful.

We have business revitalization zones that council is working on, but we need to bring it all together. Then there’s the National Crime Prevention Council, that looks at the big picture and says: well, what can we do here? Let’s not see crime prevention just as target-hardening programs, those programs such as Neighbour- hood Watch or Stop Thief or Block Parent. It’s much bigger than that. Crime prevention is a very big picture perspective. We talk about safe and affordable housing and the homelessness issue, and we talk about health issues and education issues and safe communities.

You know, we’ve heard lots of that discussion in here. I guess what I’m looking for is some way to have all of those groups that are working together from the municipal, provincial, and federal levels get together and look at how we can preserve some of the neighbour- hoods that exist. Some of the highlights.

Schools, in my view, are the heart of a neighbourhood, and once a neighbourhood in a large city such as Edmonton or Calgary or in a smalle r rural area starts to lose the schools in older neighbourhoods, it becomes harder if not impossible to retain and attract young people and families and businesses to that area. We’ve had a number of those things happen in Alberta. We’ve seen downloading at all levels of government. We now see that it’s very difficult for any municipality or any one government on its own to deal with some of these issu es. So I think there’s a shared responsibility.

I think about a school in my own neighbourhood. You know, part of my constituency is inner city. It’s a great community, and it’s got great community action, if you will. Those folks really love their community and are trying to make it a better place. Again, I go back

1426 Alberta Hansard May 9, 2000 to the Municipal Government Act change that the hon. Member for Sherwood Park assisted to usher in. 3:40 You know, we’ve had a number of houses, I think somewhere near 40, that were boarded up, declared unsafe, and those kinds of things. They have been knocked down as a result of – I think it was more the threat of the city being able to do something through that new legislation, not because the city actually went out and did something, that finally all these homeowners who had these buildings that needed to either be restored or bulldozed did in fact get rid of them.

Now there’s a lot there where a new home can be built that new people can move into. So you start to regenerate your community and gentrify that community, and that’s okay. Gentrifi- cation of a neighbourhood isn’t a bad thing, and there are lots of communities that could certainly use that kind of change. So there are those issues. Businesses don’t want to locate in areas without schools, espe- cially in the rural centres. I think that’s an issue as well. If your kids are on a school bus ride for, you know, an hour or an hour and a half a day, that’s not only a long ride for the kids.

But how do you build up your community? How do you attract businesses when they know that there is no school and there are no services in the area? I think we have to also pay attention to the notion of suburban decay. We’ve seen that happening. The U.S. is going through that phenomenon right now. What’s happening is that all of these areas that people moved out of – they moved out of the inner city because they thought that was denigrated. Then they moved out to the suburban areas. Now they’re getting farther and farther out.

So what’s happening in the suburban areas that they moved out to to offer them sort of the middle-class life is that those areas are now becoming decayed. Those are the areas losing their sc hools. We haven’t paid enough attention to those kinds of issues as well. We know that construction and servicing costs for new subdivi- sions are very high, and the infrastructure exists in the inner city in those cities that could make a comeback.

One of the things that I am concerned about, I guess, is that we have areas within our constitu- encies, in the downtown core of, say, Calgary or Edmonton – even Lethbridge and Grande Prairie will experience some of this, some of the growing cities – where we’ll see people moving out, as I talked about, sort of that suburban growth. Then what happens is that we only have a few people in the inner city, and oftentimes those people that are living in the inner city don’t have a lot of money. They may be people on assistance. They’re not always.

In fact, I would suggest that my constituency has a number of people who have been there for many, many years and a number of people who have moved to the area because housing is affordable. We also have a group of people who have some high needs or are transitional. They’re transient. They’re moving more often than others.

What happens is that if you close a school that’s offering specific needs to a child whose family is suffering in some way, be it poverty or dysfunction, and the child needs some specific care and is getting it at a school, well, b ecause the utilization rate at that sc hool isn’t what the government wants it to be, then the threat of closing down that school becomes a problem. So now where does that kid go? Where does that child go who’s already suffering maybe some serious issues at home, suffering from poverty and maybe some other serious behavioral problems or learning disabilities?

Now we’re going to put that child on a bus – and we see that happen all the time – and the child is now bused to some other school, creating a little more stress for the family and a little more stress for the child. I have some difficulties with that when we have these existing spaces in inner cities. We should be looking at rebuilding those spaces. It is far more cost-effective to do that than it is to keep on with urban sprawl. I’ve visited some great communities throughout North America and, in fact, England. They’ve gone through these transitions. I remember one community in London.

They built these huge, tall 40- storey housing complexes. You know, they built two or three of them side by side. This was all low-income housing. Then they built this great, huge park in the centre. They expected the mom who was 20 storeys up to be watching her kids in the park that was 20 storeys down. This whole concept just didn’t work, you know, the stacking. There’s this whole notion of public private space, and that whole idea was to feed it in this particular project. So they blew up those buildings. They redesigned the area, and they built it on a crime prevention model.

It’s a pretty active area now, and it’s a pretty vibrant area. We’ve seen those in communities in Louisville, Kentucky; Savannah, Georgia; Atlanta; Toronto. Toronto and Vancouver have some great communities and some great co-operation with all three levels of governments, that we should be looking at, tapping into the resources that exist but also having an overall community as well and an overall plan that all three levels of government are involved in. Edmonton’s safer cities initiative is one of the best in itiatives in this country, to be quite honest. The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Glenora was one of the founding members on that particular committee, and in fact that’s where we came to know each other. He’s done some tremendous work, and so have all the other players involved in that, but we can’t let all of that just die. I’m looking for at least some thought to examining, as I said, ways to preserve these neighbour hoods. It doesn’t come from just this city. It needs to have a big focus. The federal government was in a housing co-op plan at some point. Should we be re-evaluating that? There are all sorts of other initiatives that we could look at.

In fact, I think the development community has a role to play and would like to develop safe neighbourhoods and preserve the existing communi- ties. I’m looking for some sort of support in that respect. We have to accept the fact that bigger is not always better. So moving out, just expanding the walls of the cities, isn’t always the best thing. Is that sustainable development happening? As I suggested, you know, the whole notion of suburban d ecay is something that we have to focus on. We do know that there are programs out there. We do know that all levels of government are working in some way.

The National Crime Prevention Council is looking at community projects and safe communities. The business revitalization zones are established in order for business strips to become more sustainable, so it’s not just as 118th Avenue – there’s some frustration in relation to the prostitution issue and the businesses that tend to pop up on 118th Avenue. They tend to be pawnshops. Let’s see; I think there are some triple X movie places up there and all sorts of liquor stores. In order to rebuild, we need goodwill at all levels of government.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m asking all levels of government to throw a whole pot of money at this. I’m looking at ways to ensure that our neighbourhoods remain active and vital. The communities are generally fighting to keep their neighbourhoods alive, and I’m hoping that we have that kind of will to put together an overall plan as well and look at what we can do. 3:50 I think there are steps, as I say, that have been taken, but there doesn’t seem to be one overall strategy.

You know, we would even want to look at the whole notion of not just development in terms of housing but certainly in terms of sc hools and community plans. I know that the city of Edmonton has community plans and ARPs, but how do they feed into what the provincial government is doing, and

May 9, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1427 how does the provincial government feed into what the federal government is doing? Is there a happy medium in relation to that? I put together an initiative in relation to prostitution and put it forward to the Minister of Infrastructure and the Justice minister. You know, it was a bylaw within the municipalities at one point that we now figure is just not workable at that level and needs to be moved up to the provincial level. If we can get that bylaw moved to the provincial level, then that’s great.

However, because it has to do with prostitution, maybe we should find out what the feds are doing in relation to that. So there are all sorts of things that need to happen, and I feel that it’s better to work co-operatively than it is for everybody to just go their own different way. We know that that doesn’t work. We know that we need to look at the big picture. I guess the other thing I look at is that when there’s political will and there’s an overall strategy that’s developed out of that political will, we’re doing a couple of things.

We are providing safe commu- nities, and we are providing for new development. We are looking at safe housing initiatives, and we are looking at the crime and safety issues. I think that’s critical. We’ve seen at this stage in many communities that it can’t happen with just one level of government trying to deal with the issues, so I would like to see the kind of good work that all levels can do. I know that there are ministers in here who are willing to work towards this type of initiative, and it’s a matter of co-operation.

It’s not a matter of “Well, we can’t get involved because we don’t have the money,” or “We don’t want to get involved b ecause we don’t want to work with that level of government.” We’re not very productive when we do those kinds of things, and the people who lose are the citizens of the province. Mr. Speaker, I’m hoping that we can see some support for this. This is not something that’s going to cost money. It’s just great to have a number of different-thinking views around a table to come up with a plan. With that I take my seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clare- view. MR. YANKOWSKY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak to Motion 510. This motion proposes to set up a special task force to consider the decline of neighbour- hoods resulting from business relocations and school closures. I would like to consider, first of all, what Alberta statutes currently say with respect to business relocations and school closures. Under the Municipal Government Act,

part 1,

section 3(c), one of the purposes of municipalities is “to develop and maintain safe and viable communities.” Furthermore, under

section 7 of the act municipalities are given jurisdiction to pass bylaws in matters respecting “businesses, business activities and persons en gaged in business.” Business relocations, as outlined in Motion 510, are very much within the jurisdiction of our capable municipal governments. For the province to pass this motion and get involved in directing where businesses are to locate would be a violation of not only the statute but also the jurisdiction of our municipal counterparts.

The role of the Alberta government has been to work diligently to ensure a hands-off approach to business activity in the province and to create an economic climate that facilitates the growth and success of businesses. This policy has worked very effectively to foster viable businesses within our local communities and attract new business investment to our province.

This government’s new economic development strategy, Get Ready Alberta: Strengthening the Alberta Advantage, released in February this year, outlines very specifically the direction of this government in ensuring sustainable economic development and prosperity within our pr