Alberta Hansard — 9 November 1993, Evening sitting (20:00) (Legislature 23, Session 1)

19931109

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1365 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 9, 1993 8:00 p.m. Date: 93/1 1/09 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. head: Government Motions Auditor General Search Committee 22. Moved by Mr. Kowalski:

Be it resolved that

(1) A select special Auditor General search committee of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta be appointed consisting of the following members, namely Mr. Ron Hierath, chairman, Mr. Frank Bruseker, Mr. Victor Doerksen, Mrs. Yvonne Fritz, Mr. Gary Friedel, and Dr. Don Massey for the purpose of inviting applications for the position of Auditor General and to recommend to the Assembly the applicant it considers most suitable for appointment to that position.

(2) The chairman and members of the committee shall be paid in accordance with the

schedule of category A committees provided in Members' Services Committee Order 10/89.

(3) Reasonable disbursements by the committee for advertising, staff assistance, equipment and sup- plies, rent, travel, and other expenditures necessary for the effective conduct of its responsibilities shall be paid subject to the approval of the chairman.

(4) In carrying out its responsibilities, the committee may with the concurrence of the head of the de- partment utilize the services of members of the public service employed in that department or of the staff employed by the Assembly.

(5) The committee may without leave of the Assembly sit during a period when the Assembly is adjourned.

(6) When its work has been completed, the committee shall report to the Assembly if it is then sitting. During a period when the Assembly is adjourned, the committee may release its report by depositing a copy with the Clerk and forwarding a copy to each member of the Assembly. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper on page 2 is Motion 22. Oral notice was given yesterday, and when it was introduced by way of oral notice, I did read into Hansard the complete motion. Essentially what it does is set up a select special Auditor General search committee of the Legislative Assembly.

It's a multiparty bipartisan committee who has the instruction now to begin the search for a new Auditor General. The motion itself is all inclusive and covers all the details. So I would ask for support of the Assembly so that we might be able to proceed with this biparty approach. MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready for the question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is a step forward that the government has brought forward this motion, has set up an all-party committee to select a new Auditor General.

One would hope in the context of those discussions that the issue of value-for- service audits, efficiency audits would also come to the fore and that one of the issues addressed to any of the potential candidates would be their willingness to consider those audits, as we certainly view them as being a way of effectively saving taxpayer dollars without the necessity of some of the across-the-board cuts that we have witnessed. We view value-for-service audits as having had a very illustri- ous background.

If we look at the state of Texas, for example, and its performance reviews, we see there that it has saved literally billions of dollars, dollars that can then go to provide essential services without the necessity of cuts. As I say, we view this as a very positive step, that the government has moved forward with this motion and has made it an all-party procedure. But we hope, then, that the members of this committee will look with favour on the issue of value-for-service audits or efficiency audits and would use this as part of the criteria for choosing an Auditor General.

We would hope as well that the candidate that would emerge for Auditor General would have a feel that management letters, for example, should be available to the Public Accounts Commit- tee, because these management letters provide a pretty good overview of the problems that the Auditor perceives in various entities and within departments. These certainly, then, would provide the Public Accounts Committee with the background with which to address better perceived problems within departments or various entities.

We also would hope that the Auditor General would be very proactive in terms of assessing and measuring the performance indicators that will emerge with the business plans that have been proposed by this government. The ability of the government, then, to deliver with these business programs depends very much on the ability of the Auditor General to assess the efficacy of those performance indicators. Are they high enough? Has the department in question set goals that are really almost out of their grasp so they have to force themselves to reach it? Are they using their resources efficiently? Mr.

Speaker, we would hope that he would look at both the context of the departments, the performance indicators, and not only rely on the systems in place for assessing the performance of those departments, but it would also then assess the system itself; that is, value-for-money audits. So I certainly speak in favour of this motion, as I'm sure many of my colleagues will as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. BRUSEKER: Just speaking briefly to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting in support of the motion. I'm not sure whether this is a question for now or for later, but I wanted to flag the issue.

The issue that I think is of concern is that when we go to review individuals for this position, accept résumés and so forth, I hope that the committee will be able to work advertis- ing on a Canada-wide basis. I think that in order to get the best individual for this position, to be able to address the concerns that have been raised I think by a variety of Members in the Legisla- tive Assembly, particularly those that have been on the Public Accounts Committee in the past, we want to make sure that we have the best individual in the position. So from that standpoint I'm hoping that under

section 3, I guess, of the motion, we be allowed the opportunity to advertise not only in this province but right across the country so that we get the best individual. The issues of the past that have given rise to some of the difficulties that we've had I believe in part have been due to the fact that the Auditor General perhaps has not been as forthright – not as forthright perhaps but as aggressive – as necessary in the past by working through efficiency audits, as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud has referred to, by acting in a preventative fashion rather than in a reactive fashion.

1366 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 So, Mr. Speaker, I do support the motion. In fact, I must confess that I rather look forward to the situation. It'll be an interesting experience, I think, for those of us who are named as the six Members of the Legislative Assembly to be involved with this committee. I think it will be somewhat interesting. I've never had the opportunity to do this before and look forward to it along with my colleague from Edmonton-Mill Woods. So I look forward to this subcommittee, I guess, moving into action. MR. N. TA YLOR: This may be more of a question to the hon. member than anything else. The motion says that the select Auditor General committee be resolved, and

(6) When its work has been completed, the Committee shall report to the Assembly if it is then sitting. During a period when the Assembly is adjourned which will be a good likelihood the committee may release its report by depositing a copy with the Clerk and forwarding a copy to each Member of the Assembly. I was just wondering in closing the debate or maybe down the road whether the hon. Deputy Premier interprets that clause as saying that the Auditor General can be hired before the Assembly meets and a motion hiring the Auditor General is passed.

Will this government go ahead and hire the Auditor General and then ask the Assembly to bless it later, as we saw in agriculture with Bill 21, which already merged ADC and the hail and insurance board and then came along six months later and asked us to bless it? Does the Auditor General hiring have to wait until the Assembly is put together? It says here just to deposit a report, which to me means no hiring, but will it be assumed by this government that it's the same as hiring? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

This is probably one of the most important positions in the province of Alberta, because indeed it's through the Auditor General that we should be seeing full accountability of government.

The question I'd like to ask is: is there going to be a new job description developed prior to this selection committee being put in place, and if so, has it been developed, or is it going to be a responsibility of the selection committee to clearly reflect what should be a job description that reflects the next decade, indeed the next century and in keeping with the throne speech of open, accessible, and accountable government?

Addressing once again that accountability through the job description, will indeed the recommendations of public accounts for Canada be part of the responsibility of the Auditor General in the accountability process? Also, indeed will there be reporting by the Auditor General that will allow for, as my colleague has stated, efficiency audits to be part of the responsibility of the Auditor General and also the full disclosure of management letters? I'd certainly welcome hearing some comment back, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. 8:10 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking to this tonight, I can't help but recall the fact that each and every one of us campaigned vigorously prior to the June 15 election. We all campaigned on fiscal responsibility and accountability. We went to our constituents, and our constituents told us at their doors time and time again that what we need to do is be far more account- able. We have to be the best stewards that we possibly can be with the taxpayers' dollars. They are, after all, the lifeblood of the programs that we administer on behalf of Albertans.

In identifying who would be a suitable Auditor General, an all- party committee I think is certainly the best way to go, and I applaud the member for bringing this forward. This certainly is a step in the right direction. When I start to review in my own businesses what I can do better to be more efficient, I always look at my financial statements. When I look at my financial state- ments, I scrutinize: where are we spending more money, where did we make money, where have we gone wrong? In this business of government, when we look at the public accounts – and I happen to sit on the Public Accounts Committee, Mr.

Speaker – I find it a very useful exercise and quite an interesting experience. It's one that the Auditor General plays an important

part in, and I think that an all-party committee to choose that Auditor General is certainly one that I could support. The Auditor General that we are going to choose is going to be fresh and have new ideas, one that is energetic and one that almost makes me think of when I first got elected. Of course, I was so full of energy and enthusiasm and wanted to get at the job. I wanted to do right by my constituents.

I sincerely think that the new Auditor General will perhaps have that same enthusiasm, that same energy and will do a good job for Albertans in producing and scrutinizing the financial statements of the province. I would hope that one could also include efficiency audits. We keep talking about it, and we say it in so many different ways. We've heard value-for-money audits and assessments of all kinds. These are things that happen daily regardless of wherever we are.

In our own homes, in our businesses, in government, in every- where and every walk of life we have efficiency audits whether we use those terms or we don't. I would hope that the Auditor General we choose would implement such audits. We've looked at other jurisdictions around the world from New Zealand to the state of Texas, and we've seen what they've done. I was truly intrigued by meeting a fellow by the name of Gil Cox, who spoke at length as to what New Zealand is today and where it was 10 years ago and the progress that they've achieved.

I would hope that each and every one of us, if given the opportu- nity, could review what New Zealand has done and implement perhaps some of the ideas that they've taken and they've imple- mented. I would hope that the Auditor General we choose would be looking in terms of other jurisdictions to see what they've done. Speaking in favour, Mr. Speaker, of that, I would now rest and allow any of my other colleagues to perhaps comment on this. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. KOW ALSKI: We only have one side participating. MR. SPEAKER: Well, of course the hon.

Government House Leader, if he speaks, will close debate. The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about efficiency audits at this time, but I do want to talk about the fabric of this motion in its entirety. Now, I'm sitting here, Mr. Speaker, and I see a committee of six people established, an interparty committee, four from one side, two from the other, and I have to ask myself: is that an efficient way of handling this particular committee structure? Would an odd number, a five or a three, be a more practical balance?

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1367 Then I look down and the next concern that I see is a public concern, not my concern but the public's. The public will sometimes comment: “What is the best way elected officials can get extra dough in their pockets? What's the very best way they do that? Get on a committee and get yourself some fees approved under

schedule A.” So in the interests of efficiency, it would seem to me that we could lead a good challenge right here by cutting down the size of this committee somewhat and giving some serious thought to perhaps asking the committee members selected for this most important committee, to choose our next Auditor General, if in the spirit of that thriftiness they would be inclined to not claim fees in this particular session. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order. The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR.

GERMAIN: Now referred to as dangerous – I mean, I've been called lots of things in my life. AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the car. MR. GERMAIN: I think that's a compliment. I'll ask my wife. But if I ask my wife about that, she will want me to tell her again about the new car we bought a couple of years ago, so I won't do that. I've made my points, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. AN HON. MEMBER: No, the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If other hon. members from the government side wish to speak, they will be recognized, but the Chair is not prepared to recognize the closing off of the debate on the basis of going back and forth. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I'll sum it up in about 45 seconds. I would just hope that when this committee is in place and it does appoint the very best person for the job, that person then be given instructions to look at the city of Edmonton when it appointed an audit.

That got into efficiency audits, and look at the millions and millions and millions of dollars that were saved. MR. KOW ALSKI: Mr. Speaker, this motion was discussed with the opposition. There was even agreement on the membership of this committee. Now, I've listened here for the last 20 minutes, and I've heard statements like the following being made with respect to Alberta's current Auditor General: quote, hasn't always been forthwith, end quote.

The current Auditor General in the province of Alberta is a fellow of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and that's the highest order in accounting designation that can be provided. Secondly, I've heard comments from across the way, Mr. Speaker, about the government employing the Auditor General. It is not the government. It is the Legislative Assembly of Al berta that hires the Auditor General. There seems to be a great amount of misunderstanding with respect to this position, and I now ask for adjournment of the debate on this motion. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Government House Leader has moved that debate be . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: No. When the hon. Government House Leader speaks on this motion, he closes the debate on it. Debate is closed on this matter. Therefore, the Chair has no alternative but to ask for the question on Motion 22. [Motion carried] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading 8:20 Bill 21 Agriculture Financial Services Act Moved by Mr. N.

Taylor that the motion for third reading be amended to read that Bill 21, Agriculture Financial Services Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Of all of the places I could have been this evening, after the good fun and comradeship that was had here last night, I'm anxious and happy to be back again. [some applause] Thank you, thank you. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at 5:30, I was about to talk about Bill 21.

I'm going to leave the agricultural issues to those who are more skilled and more knowledgeable in those areas, but I do want to talk about division 3 in connection with the motion and the amendment that has been put forward by the Member for Redwater. I want to focus my attention in tonight's debate, if I might, to division 3, the local opportunity bonds. Now, we are definitely getting mixed signals in this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure all members of the House understand completely what this division purports to do in this Bill.

Therefore, the amendment put forward by the Member for Redwater makes eminently good sense to me notwithstanding my inexperience here in this House, notwithstanding my inexperi- ence in debate, and notwithstanding that sometimes I trip up on words and that causes the hon. members opposite to encourage me with loud words of encouragement. I want to say to you tonight that what we have here is a 100 percent guarantee.

I want to point out that one of the long- standing safety valves we've had in the province of Alberta is the Securities Commission and the Securities Act, which allows people to vet before that august body their proposals for develop- ment and their proposals for extracting money and their proposals for investing. What we've done in this particular situation is we don't need all of that, and of course that legislative protection is wiped out, because it's replaced with something else: a 100 percent government guarantee as to principal – 100 percent, Mr. Speaker.

Again we see a piece of legislation that starts out very innocuously, starts out like that thoroughbred dog. It starts out that it's going to simply deal with cleaning up of housekeeping items, and then we are into this most serious 100 percent govern- ment guarantee again. I know that earlier today in the private members opposite there was some commentary and some concern that they had farming community members there and they didn't want loan guarantees. They didn't want any of these guarantees, and now the first piece of legislation that . . .

1368 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 Speaker's Ruling Relevance MR. SPEAKER: The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. Member for Fort McMurray but must remind the hon. member that we are debating an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Redwater and that comments hon. members make here this evening should be on that amendment, which is that the Bill “be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.” The comments should be addressed to that amendment. Debate Continued MR.

GERMAIN: I'm very grateful for that instruction, because it is important for the members – remember a while back we had slogans of listening and caring? It is very important that members get an opportunity to go back to their individual constituencies and ask: “Do you want 100 percent guarantees? Do you want the government guaranteeing an investment in this province to 100 percent?” I want to line up to make some of those investments myself, Mr. Speaker. How can you lose on that? We can have chicken farms everywhere, and that's important. Agriculture is important. Small business is important.

Plant creation, job creation are all important. But when you have a hundred percent guarantee, you will sometimes be motivated by the fact that you might make a large investment coup in a high-risk operation where your downstream losses are protected. Now, you wanted me to focus my attention on the issue of the Member for Redwater. There is no urgency.

There is absolutely no urgency to this legislation, because as I understand it, the effective mechanical amalgamation can be handled with the status quo exactly as it exists today – government consolidation, government efficiencies, cleaning up intergovernmental depart- ments – with the many tools the minister of agriculture already has in his arsenal. So I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of this amendment now. What is so urgent and so compelling about this piece of legislation that we have to get into 100 percent guarantees, that we can't wait for six months to have some sober second thought?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. MR. CHADI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise to speak in support of this amendment. This amendment brought forward by the hon. Member for Redwater certainly makes an awful lot of sense to me. Whenever we look at what we have today in terms of lending institutions, in terms of opportunities for small business to be created, it just doesn't make sense right now to be looking at something like this, local opportunity bonds. We already have things like the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation investing in commercial ventures.

They're doing it in Edmonton. They're doing it in Calgary. They're doing it in all the small communities. We have all sorts of money out. Alberta Opportu- nity Company – and the key word here is “opportunity” – serves a tremendously useful purpose provided it's functioning the way it was intended to function. If it was functioning the way it was intended to function, there would be no reason for the local opportunity bonds whatsoever. So when we speak about this amendment, let me suggest to you that we do have to go back to our constituencies. We do have to go back into rural Alberta. That's where I'm from.

I'm from a rural background. I remember that for an awful long time so many of these small financing arrangements that used to come forth – I haven't seen very many of them work to start with. I think we have to go back. This is a lack of vision and very, very narrow and simplistic thinking. I think we have to go back into our rural communities. We've got to ensure that they understand first of all that there is an avenue of financing other than local opportunity bonds. That's something they probably don't understand: that AOC is out there, that AADC is out there. Why on Earth aren't we using them?

Because we don't want to approve the loans that small businesspeople in rural Alberta are desperately trying to suggest to us they want approved. Mr. Speaker, the system is flawed. We don't need something like this right now without first going into our constituencies. The hon. Member for Fort McMurray's absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. If we care and if we listen, then we should not – and I repeat, we should not – be looking at any more loan guarantees. Albertans have told us time and time again. What do they have to do to make us understand? MR. WICKMAN: Draw pictures. MR. CHADI: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps we may have to resort to that. I think there's no reason for this at this point in time. We have to go back to our constituencies. We cannot in all good con- science right now support this Bill. I think the amendment is the right way to go, and I shall support it wholeheartedly. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise to speak in favour of this amendment. I, too, believe that this is a recipe for disaster, what's before us, so it's important that this amendment be supported.

I would have thought this government would have learned something. I've sat here for the past number of weeks and listened to: we won; you lost. Well, let's put it this way. There was a trust put in this government by Albertans, and one of the trusts Albertans put in this government was indeed that we would get out of loan guarantees, that we would stop risking public funds. This very Bill once again puts us back in the position of being bankers, which we should never have been in the first place.

I well remember the debates when Premier Lougheed brought this before his caucus, and I would suggest that if you look over the past d ecade, it was indeed a recipe for disaster. We have been told that that was then and this is now. Well, I would ask: where is the conscience of this government when they truly are supposed to be doing what they say Albertans voted them as government to do? I would suggest that they're still speaking out of both sides of their mouth, that they're still buying votes through this type of proposition.

When you have such an open end where anyone, in essence, can go and access funds that have no limit on them: once again, a recipe for disaster. 8:30 Why indeed have we not learned from past mistakes, and why are we not listening to New Zealand where government has got out of the agricultural marketplace? For the first time in their history they've started to see farmers actually making a profit without subsidies. If we are serious as a government, I would suggest to you that the longer we continue on this road, we certainly are not going to be able to compete in global market- places.

I would like to hear from members across the way who indeed support government being in the loan business. Stand up and tell

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1369 us in this House that you want the government of Alberta to still be bankers. I would like to hear you say tonight that you're against the government of Alberta being bankers and making open-ended loans to people who, if they're going to be successful and we're going to move this province into the next century and meet global marketplaces, will have the ability to borrow from the financial institutions who w ill evaluate them on their merit, not because a government wants to keep the votes they perceive they're going to have four years from now by this type of legislation.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Albertans aren't going to be fooled by this, that Albertans are expecting more. They're expecting integrity. They're expecting an open and accessible and accountable government. This Bill doesn't do it. The amendment goes a short way to achieve that. Mr. Speaker, let's hear the conscience of this government speak, and let's put our money where our mouth is and get out of the business of loans. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MR. BENIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sort of taken back by this Bill, and I support the amendment.

I thought when the New Democrats were defeated, much would change. The members opposite talk about getting out of the business of being in business. However, as we from this side glance across the aisle, we notice that certain things have not changed. Perhaps this Bill may have been a joke inserted by a certain member opposite from his former leanings on this side of the House when a certain party sat here. Perhaps the influence of that member is starting to saturate the rest of the caucus opposite. Mr. Speaker, this amendment was brought forth for a number of reasons.

One of them was the concern of hundred percent financing. We in this province and in this House know the track record of this government over the past decade when billions of dollars were lost with government guarantees. I believe it's something like $2.6 billion and rising. Here we have a Bill that doesn't guarantee 10 percent or 20 percent. It guarantees 100 percent. The member opposite from the former party that was on this side and no longer exists must be smiling. He is smiling. I notice that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said on another occasion that he would not blink.

Do we have here now a blinking by the entire caucus under the influence of that member? Here is the first Bill to start pouring funds forth with 100 percent guarantees, and other Bills will follow like a flood. Mr. Speaker, when the former leader of the New Democratic Party went down to defeat, he was resurrected opposite and he sits there. The Bills now coming forth like this one I'm sure will do . . . [interjections] Point of Order Relevance MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader is rising on a point of order. MR.

DA Y: Well, first, I'm surprised at the comments of members opposite about concern about a point of order being raised. They crybaby every question period with points of order, so they should get used to this. Y ou know, it's fascinating, Mr. Speaker. They can sure dish it out, but they sure can't take it, can they? Mr. Speaker, referring to Beauchesne 731 . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order. The Chair would like to hear what the hon. Deputy Government House Leader has to say. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Someone should throw the seals over there some raw fish and quieten them down. Citation 731 of Beauchesne says very clearly that at third reading stage there's a restriction: nothing can be dealt with, no “matter which is not contained in the bill.” The member opposite seems infatuated with the previous leader of the ND Party. I do congratulate him. He defeated him. He never even went to a public forum, and he still beat him. I congratulate him for that. Their strategy was keep this member off the doorsteps and we might sneak him in there. However, Mr.

Speaker, the question is that he's dealing with matters not contained in the Bill. I know you'll want to bring him to order on that. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The point of order was really as to relevance of debate. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader sort of meandered off that point, but he did have a point about debate at third reading. The debate isn't as wide-ranging at third reading. We've been hearing a lot of second reading speeches. Even further, the hon. Member for Redwater has further constrained the limits of debate because he has moved an amendment proposing a six-month hoist.

Therefore, comments should be directed strictly to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Redwater. The Chair has been rather lenient, although the Chair has interjected two or three times. It will have to become more active to keep hon. members on the point. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Debate Continued MR. BENIUK: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice. I was trying to set the stage, pointing out the importance of voting in favour of this motion. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Amendment. MR. BENIUK: I'm sorry. In favour of this amendment. My apologies.

I will try to be more focused, but I think it was important, Mr. Speaker, to point out the philosophy, et cetera, behind the Bill that we're going to be voting on shortly.

This amendment will give everybody across the aisle an opportunity not to be influenced by a certain member and possibly have second thoughts about the 100 percent guarantee the Bill proposes, a six-month period to give some more thought to this, to think if they want to re-enter the marketplace with vast guarantees, including 100 percent guarantees, or if they really want to sit back and say: no, we will continue with what we have been trying to convey, whether it's a myth or reality, that they're trying to get out of the business of being in business. This motion, Mr.

Speaker, gives every member in this House a six- month period to think, to reflect, to take another look at this motion. Does each member opposite really want to vote in favour of guaranteeing one hundred percent? This motion presented by the Member for Redwater provides a period for people to reflect, and I stress that: clear, sober second thought. [interjection] Sober. 8:40 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sober? MR. BENIUK: Well, if you don't like the word “sober,” insert whatever word you like.

1370 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 The point is that the motion provides a six-month period to re- evaluate the impact. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add to this by asking the members opposite: considering the track record of the loss of billions of dollars, have the members opposite had an opportunity to see an analysis of what the projected potential losses might be? If they haven't, the six-month period will give them an opportunity to evaluate it.

Do they really want to be tarnished again after – what was it? – $2.6 billion losses with another $10 million, $50 million, $100 million, whatever the figure will be? Only some projections on this will be able to evaluate the losses. I notice my friend opposite is still smiling. I'm glad he appreciates the situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is required at this stage? This is the final, final moment.

If the members opposite are so sure there will be no losses if the hundred percent guarantee takes place, if they are so sure that if ther e are losses, they will not feel awkward and defensive, then by all means reject this motion. But if you have any second thoughts of the impact it will have on the people in your riding, on the general population, on the economy, can this government that is cutting back in education, on social services, on health care reject this motion and say, “We are going to go forth with a hundred percent guarantee and agree to accept the losses that the taxpayers will have to bear”?

This amendment gives an opportunity for everyone in this House – everyone in this House – to sit back, observe, and think about it. In six months come back and you can still have your Bill. I mean, you have the majority. But the price of now rejecting this motion, voting for this Bill could be very great not only in losses to the taxpayers but also in embarrassment to a government that claims it's trying to go out of the business of being in business. The other point, Mr.

Speaker, on this motion: if the hon. members opposite reject it, they are in fact sending a signal that their statement that they are interested in going out of the business of being in business is a myth, because what they're doing is re- entering the marketplace with a hundred percent in guarantees. The losses that took pl ace before: were they a hundred percent guaranteed? Is this now a higher level? This motion gives them an opportunity to re-evaluate. That's all we're asking.

A second, sober – sorry; they don't like the word “sober.” A second thought reflecting on the implications of going ahead and agreeing by law to provide one hundred percent guarantees without knowing the potential losses and what the track record has been in the past when the government has provided guarantees. Members opposite are still trying to figure out how to recover from losses on the Pocklington deals. Those were also guaran- tees. Here will be some other problems, unless second sober thought re-evaluates.

I'm sure the minister will be only too happy to provide members of his caucus with assurance that there will be no losses – or massive losses. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to make a few comments on the amendment introduced, proposed by the most hon. Member for Redwater. I think it's important, first of all, that we stop and look at what an amendment of this nature does, what's commonly referred to as an amendment to hoist a Bill.

Some would call it maybe “heist” a Bill because of the nature of the particular Bill that we're dealing with. It does give us the opportunity – because obviously there are members of this House that don't recall, prior to June 15, some of the statements that were made not only by people seeking elected office but by Albertans throughout the province that I heard over and over and over. This gives them the opportunity to go back and to revisit with their constituents, revisit with Albertans, and ask them their feelings on this particular Bill as it relates to loan guarantees.

Ask them as to their feelings as to how this Bill would relate, from Albertans' perceptions, in terms of NovAtel. Ask them how much they feel that NovAtel cost the taxpayers of this province. Mr. Speaker, we go back to our constituents and we ask them about loan guarantees and we remind them about Gainers, the ongoing saga of Gainers and the tens of millions of dollars that have been lost. We could go back to our constituents, we could go back and talk to Albertans, and we could ask them, since that election of June 15, what they think.

What do they think of this $2 million loan guarantee for a cookie factory where the president of that cookie factory states publicly that they would have relocated in this particular province even without that loan guarantee? That gives us the opportunity to go back, to seek the wisdom of our constituents, to get their advice, because obviously the message did not sink through fully. Obviously, this govern- ment is still on a course of loan guarantees despite the fact that we have a bill tallying up to – wh at? – $2.1 billion? Possibly a government member could break it down for me.

Included in the NovAtels, the Gainers, the cookie factories, we could look at the riverboat situation. The riverboat situation as it relates to a loan guarantee of close to $1 million is very, very symbolic in that it's somethin g that most Albertans, most taxpayers, can identify with. It 's easy to identify with. It's something that was pictured on TV night after night and in the papers night after night. Many Albertans, Edmontonians in particular, looked forward to the enjoyment of going on that riverboat.

They thought it must be a good venture if the private sector was involved, but they became very, very skeptical once they learned that the government was going to be involved. They said, “If the government is involved, obviously the private sector doesn't feel it's viable enough to go on their own.” And lo and behold, Albertans were right. Lo and behold, the taxpayers called that one. Mr.

Speaker, to stay to the am endment, the intent of the amendment, what I'm trying to do is illustrate the importance of getting that sober second thought as reflected by the Member for Edmonton-Norwood, as he relates from his perception the opportunity to have a second look. I could go through a list. I could go through NovAtel. I could tally it. I could look at Gainers, the cookie factory, the riverboat. In the Speaker's own riding very recently – I believe it was in the Speaker's riding – some other company went down fairly recently. What was it to do with? Hot air balloons?

Could somebody refresh my memory on that? AN HON. MEMBER: Hovercrafts. MR. WICKMAN: Y eah, hovercrafts. How many millions of dollars did that one cost? How many tens of thousands did the famous bungee jump cost? Again there's a loan guarantee plus a loan grant, lo and behold. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to all government members in particular, who are so anxious to have this Bill approved, to go back to their constituencies. Go into Red Deer and talk to those people in Red Deer and say: “What do you think? Should we support more loan guarantees after NovAtel, after Gainers?” What will they say?

Will they say yes, or will they say no? I would think they would say no, and they would say: “Listen to the wisdom of that Liberal caucus, that opposition that is telling you to hold off for six months. Give it a second thought, and support

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1371 that most decent amendment br ought forward.” [interjection] Y our constituency, too, madam. Support that most honourable amendment of wisdom brought forward by the Member for Redwater. Thank you. 8:50 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to speak in support of the amendment by my colleague from Redwater. I think that what's significant about the hoist amend- ment is, firstly, the source of the mover of this amendment.

I've found that the Member for Redwater, as a veteran member of this Assembly, has often a unique perspective, and I find that he's a keen listener to what Albertans are telling him, sometimes expressly and sometimes intuitively. AN HON. MEMBER: He listens. He cares. MR. DICKSON: He does listen and he does care, Mr. Speaker. That's always been my experience with the mover of this amend- ment. There are three reasons I speak in support of the amendment. The first one is simply because it's the Member for Redwater who advances it.

I've found that when he counsels slowing down a too hasty legislative process, when he counsels further consultation, nine times out of 10 he's right. Certainly this is one of those nine times, Mr. Speaker, so I'm pleased to support the Member for Redwater in that respect. The second reason I think there must be more time before this particular matter is advanced to the next stage is that we had an opportunity on November 8 when we saw the minister here attempting to defend this Bill.

I think one of the most interesting things is when a minister comes forward and says to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, “This is a housekeeping matter; this is just a question of tying up some loose ends.” Well, what's always so interesting to me is that almost invariably in one of those housekeeping Bills you find some substantive wrinkles. Y ou find some changes that are tucked away. Sometimes it's in the back part of the statute, sometimes it's in the midpart of the statute, but often it's in there.

I can think of the one experience that always makes me wary when I see legislation like this that is pushed through with all the speed that a majority government can muster. I can remember it was the spring of 1992, and there was an amendment to the Election Act of the province. What was interesting there was that there was an attempt, and it was made covertly. Nobody acknowledged it or expressed it at the time, but there was a substantive change to allow the government to virtually double the period of time to call a by-election after a seat had been declared vacant. That ta ught me a valuable lesson, Mr.

Speaker. It encouraged me to be much more wary and much more careful when the government comes forward with a Bill like Bill 21, to turn the thing upside down, to read it over again, and to listen to the sage advice of a senior member like my colleague from Redwater. In fact, when we saw the minister attempt to defend Bill 21, we saw him saying, on the one hand, that this is simply a housekeep- ing matter; this is just trying to bring the statute into line with other changes that have already been made.

But, you know, when he was asked, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed it was an inconsequential amendment, he was talking about a statute, an indexed deferral Act. Well, it turned out, in answer to further questioning, that there was no such statute. He was talking about a plan. His reaction then was to say: Well, members should be familiar with this.

Well, I acknowledge that I represent an urban constituency and there are not very many farmers in downtown Calgary, but it seems to me that Bills and legislation have to be presented in such a format, with supporting information and explanations, that every member in this Assembly, whether you represent a downtown urban constituency or a rural constituency, has the answers you need to be able to vote for or against a Bill, but in a knowledge- able, intelligent way. I regret that the minister in this case didn't give us that opportunity.

In fact, by being unable to respond in a confident and forthright fashion to many of the legitimate questions that were posed to him when that matter came up in committee, it simply, I think, undermined the confidence that we wanted to have in this minister. I think we all started off wanting to support this housekeeping matter and allow the government of the day to get on with other business, but our confidence was badly undermined, Mr. Speaker. That's the second reason that I think we have to take this back to the draftsman.

The minister has got to sit down with his senior administrators and review in fact whether this is what the province of Alberta needs now, in the autumn of 1993. Now, the third reason why I'm pleased to speak on behalf of this amendment by the Member for Redwater is

section 56. I think I'm alarmed, as most members on this side are alarmed, with the local opportunity bonds. Let's be absolutely clear about it, Mr. Speaker. In pith and subs tance this is a loan guarantee. There's no other way of hiding it or concealing it or mislabeling it. It's a loan guarantee. I think it's important that all Albertans understand that that's what this government is advancing, that's what's included in Bill 21.

That's the reason why we need a further period of time to have more public input, and not just to allow members in this House to reflect and not to allow Albertans to weigh in with their views but also to allow the minister responsible, charged with the responsibility for carrying this Bill through, to rethink what he's doing and reconsider how on the one hand his government, the government that he's part of now, made certain representations to Albertans on June 15. We now see an approach and a piece of legislation being championed by this minister which contains a loan guarantee.

So much for all of the rhetoric about government getting out of the business of being in business. It turns out to be nothing other than a hollow representation. I think it's clear that what we see with respect to the local opportunity bond is a betrayal of the promise that was made to the people of Alberta on June 15. I think that's a strong and compelling reason why all members should support this thoughtful and helpful amendment sponsored by the Member for Redwater. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, too, to speak to the amendment. Specifically, just to recap, the amendment is that Bill 21, Agricultural Financial Services Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read . . . this day six months hence. MR. DA Y: Very good, Michael. MR. HENRY: Great. Just trying to remind you. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recall some of the debate from yester- day, I believe, in second reading and committee with regard to Bill 21. Specifically, I'm doing that not to rehash that debate but

1372 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 to try to explain why it is that I enthusiastically support this amendment. MR. MITCHELL: How enthusiastically? MR. HENRY: I very enthusiastically support this amendment, Mr. Speaker. This amendment has been proposed by the hon. Member for Redwater. As very eloquently said by the Member for Calgary- Buffalo, the hon. Member for Redwater has been around in political and legislative circles forever, for a long, long time.

My history is involved with public affairs in terms of organizationally as chief of staff for four years with the Liberal caucus, since June 15 as a member of this Legislature, also as president of the Alberta Liberal Party when the hon. member was our leader, prior to that on the executive of the Liberal Party and also prior to that when I first got invo lved in public policy issues in founding the Alberta Friends of Medicare and several other organizations such as that that pushed for social change and pushed for public policy. 9:00 I remember first meeting the hon.

Member for Redwater in Red Deer, and I'm not sure if he recalls that, but he provided me with some very sage advice that particular day. I continue to follow it, and from time to time he's provided more advice. There are times I have to admit that I wonder, what is the hon. Member for Redwater up to? I wonder what's behind what he's telling me today. What is it that he is trying to push, and why doesn't it make any sense to me? Usually, most often, I take some time and I think about it. Mr.

Speaker, you know, age and experience do speak well, and I've found from time to time to time that it has been wise advice, and I've usually most often benefited when I've followed that advice. Point of Order Relevance MRS. BURGENER: A point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie is rising on a point of order. MRS. BURGENER: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order, citing Beauchesne 731, the issue being relevance. I thought we were discussing the amendment and not the hon. Member for Redwater. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair was believing the hon. member was having a rather expansive lead-in, but he thought that the hon. member was getting pretty close to speaking to the amendment. MR. HENRY: I thank the hon. member for her help, and I thank you, sir, for your direction. I was very, very, very quickly getting to my point. My point is that when I follow the advice of the hon. Member for Redwater, it's usually been very good advice. Debate Continued MR. HENRY: Mr.

Speaker, one of the frustrations, speaking in a more serious tone, on this side of the House is that we're asked to engage in debate and to actually vote on particular measures that the government brings forward. Sometimes we have information available to us and other times we don't. Mr. Speaker, first, to contextualize this, one of the things this Bill does is provide for the amalgamation of the Alberta Agricul- tural Development Corporation and the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation.

Y esterday I very specifically asked the minister of agriculture for copies of management audits that I know have been done and do exist. I asked him for copies of external audits and reviews and other information that would have led him to the decision to amalgamate these two agencies. If I had received that information and if the minister, when he responded, chose not to respond to my request, I'd be in a much better position today to talk in a very informed way about why it is these two agriculture-related agencies should be amalgamated. But I have not seen the audits.

I think it needs to be put on record that there is information, and I frankly think the government is hiding something here, because there is information floating around, and has been for about a year now, that suggests in fact that the reason for this merger was not to provide one-stop shopping, was not to provide more efficient services, but was to in fact hide the observations that were made in the management audit that was done of the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation. It's my under- standing, Mr.

Speaker, that there were some management problems identified there, and the decision was made last October. If there's nothing to hide – and I see several hon. members laughing about this – why don't we have the audits? MR. MAGNUS: It's a secret. MR. HENRY: It's a secret, exactly. The hon. chairman of the financial planning committee says, “It's a secret.” Well, I take him at his words. It's a secret.

All we had to do was table the management audits, and if I saw what I had very specifically requested, then it would allow me to make an informed judgment at third reading as to whether I could support this Bill or not. The other thing: it's a freedom of information issue. The other piece of information I asked the minister for was to give me the two organizational structures – i.e., org charts that exist – and how in fact the plan was for them to be merged so that I could indeed find out if there were some positive or negative implica- tions on communities.

I have some ties in Camrose, and I have some very strong ties in Lacombe, and I wouldn't want to see my former home adversely affected by a government decision. I wanted to see which positions were going to be abolished, because that will happen in a merger, and where in fact the employment is, relating it to the government's at least former desire to try to help keep rural Alberta alive by decentralizing government. I very specifically asked for that information, Mr. Speaker, and in fact I got some sort of mug-wash about there'll be a couple of secretaries let go maybe.

Well, my information is that long before this reached legislative debate, there were in fact some very substantial moves made that removed some employees from their positions and in fact cost the Alberta taxpayers a significant amount of money. That decision was made last fall. I'm aware of some of the details of that, and Mr. Speaker, I want it to be put at rest. I didn't want to be uneasy about knowing how to vote in terms of this Bill. I asked for very specific information.

If the minister had provided that information to me, frankly I'd be in a much better position to make a decision in the context of free votes as to how I would vote today, and I find that really difficult. Speaking specifically again to the amendment about why I don't believe we should be dealing with this now and why we s hould wait six months to deal with it. I have a lot of questions about the local opportunity bond,

section 3. I see the hon. Deputy Govern- ment House Leader yawning. If we're going to make some very

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1373 significant pieces of legislation in this Assembly, we should act in a responsible way and not simply pass anything. It's fine for the members on the government benches because the government members will have an opportunity to review regulations and to review policies prior to them being released to the public. I think the members in the back bench have to recognize that they're in a much privileged position compared to those of us on the opposite side. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I'm being asked to vote for a Bill that leaves a lot to regulation, that leaves a lot to the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council; i.e., the provincial cabinet. Again, for the government members it may not be the same issue, because the government members will get to review regulations and suggest improvements.

I would be much more comfortable if the government had done what they have done in some other instances, and I know the Premier did with the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act – I think I have the title accurate – where there was not only draft legislation but a draft set of regulations that were circulated around this province, and we had some time for input. It was a very wise move. The Premier repeatedly stands in this House and says what an excellent consultation process that was.

In fact, I remember being at a function with the Premier, actually just after he had announced that he was running to be Premier of our province, a year ago. He told me – and I hope I'm not disclosing private conversation, but I don't think he would mind – that he was very proud of the consultation process that he had gone through with that Bill and the fact that he was able to have draft regulations. In fact, what eventually happened is that it was passed unani- mously by this House. It was a very good process, Mr. Speaker.

It allowed people like me on the opposition benches, who are not going to have the opportunity to sit and discuss regulations, to confidently pass a Bill, knowing what the government's plans were with regard to regulations. I look at the kinds of things that are going to be in regulations, Mr. Speaker: “prescribing the types or classes of business,” “governing the criteria or conditions,” “prescribing the informa- tion,” “prescribing the persons,” “prescribing the form and content of documents.” I look at that.

I'm looking at the Budget '93 Update that was published this September 8, and I look at several of the loans and loan guarantees that are outstanding. I look at it, and my g oodness, it's Gainers once again. We have $53 million outstanding in Gainers Properties and another $10 million in Gainers.

Well, I'd like somebody on the opposite side to show me where in this B ill you w ouldn't be able, without seeing the regulations, to have another $60 million-odd to go to a failed venture such as Gainers. 9:10 Magnesium Company of Canada Ltd.: $103,845,000 for a plant that's sitting idle and isn't worth more than $2 million. Mr. Speaker, I look at what I have in terms of the Bill for the local opportunities Act, and there is nothing in here that precludes that kind of venture from happening again. We all know that was made as an election promise.

It lasted for about two years, and somebody ended up running off out of this country with a pile of our taxpayers' money. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Provincial Treasurer hasn't seen fit to actually acknowledge that there really is a loss there and start recording it as a loss. That money's gone down the tubes, and we're never going to see it again. I don't want to vote for a pi ece of legislation that's going to allow that kind of thing. If there was something in this legislation that said, “Let's have a cap” – as I understand the intent of

section 3, local opportunity bonds, it's to provide funds for local small business initiative, if I'm not mistaken. Well, surely if it's not in the Bill, there should be some sort of draft regulations that say that we're going to limit it to $500,000 or a million dollars or $5 million, whatever is reasonable so that we can gear it towards small business. The government's asking me to vote for this Bill not knowing that we may not end up with another Northern Steel. Northern Steel doesn't even exist anymore, and we've got $3,771,000 gone down the tubes. Outrageous.

I mean, I cannot understand what can be going through the hon. member's mind, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, when he stands up and proposes a Bill that has such a wide opportunity for

interpretation, depending on the regula- tions, and expects me to sit in my seat and go, okay; I trust you, no problem.

If the government would have tabled draft regula- tions, we may have been able to get up at second reading and perhaps at third reading and say, “Here are some suggested changes,” or, “Here are some suggested improvements.” Would you go back like we did with the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and several other Acts; if I recall, the Municipal Government Act, the School Act back in 1988, where we were able to have drafts of the regulation so that the public and members on this side – and I have to point out that we often hear, as the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan indicated, that one side was elected the government and this side was not elected the government.

Well, I choose to contest that. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, in four years we will contest it again. Frankly, I was elected with a large majority in my riding to represent the constituents of Edmonton-Centre, and I don't want to walk down the promenade, 100th Avenue, in Edmonton-Centre and have people – there are a lot of retired people who have worked very, very hard all their lives and who have put their money in the bank and invested wisely and have bought condo- miniums or are renting apartments and are looking after them- selves. I know dozens in each building. I walk down that street several times a week.

I don't want to name names, but I don't want particular people who I hold in incredibly high esteem to stop me and say: “Michael, how could you let them do another Gainers without rising? How could you let another Northern Steel? How could you let another MagCan?” What am I going to say? They haven't changed? My voters are going to turn to me and say: “Michael, we elected you because we know that you have a strong social conscience and a strong principle in fiscal responsibility. Y ou should have stood up and said that this was wrong for Alberta.” Mr.

Speaker, that's why we need more time, so I can go to my constituents – and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I've missed the boat completely. Maybe I'm wrong. I want it to be clear that if I'm wrong and if I'm totally misinterpreting this and if I'm totally out to lunch on this, it's not up to the government members – although a few of them do live in my constituency, I'll have you know. It's up to the people who voted for me to tell me: “Michael, you're wrong on this one. Go back and say you're wrong, and let the government have carte blanche to have more loan guarantees.” Mr.

Speaker, this one affects my constituency very directly. The North Saskatchewan River Boat company: we've got $569,000 in that. Anybody in their right mind in Edmonton- Centre could have told you that that boat would never float down the river, and it hasn't floated down the river. [interjections] I did not vote for it. Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of young people in my constitu- ency living in the Oliver area, who live north along the Avenue of Nations, who were looking for summer jobs and thought that maybe the government was right and that maybe by putting up a

1374 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 $949,000 loan guarantee and a $500,000 tourism grant, and, and, and, we would end up with more jobs for our students. Well, one of the things that I found out in May, June, July, and August is that in my constituency, which has a lot of students attending Grant MacEwan College in the new City Centre campus, the Alberta Vocational Centre, which is in my riding . . . Point of Order Relevance MR. WOLOSHYN: Point of order, please. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain is rising on a point of order. MR. WOLOSHYN: Y es. Relevancy under 23(i). We've heard all this before.

It's nowhere near the Bill. If the member wants to subdue us with the same pile of rhetoric – if he would be so kind as to table it – we'll sit quietly for the duration of the time. Then the next one can get up. But please, Mr. Speaker, if they're going to have something to say, have it on the amendment. MR. HENRY: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to explain exactly why it is. Citation 23(i) “imputes false or unavowed motives.” I don't know what this man is talking about. He's got the wrong citation. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Stony Plain may have cited the wrong Standing Order, but the fact remains that the Chair feels that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre has been straying in the last four or five minutes. MR. HENRY: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, certainly. I always have and always will. Debate Continued MR. HENRY: I'm trying to explain exactly why it is that I think we need to take some time to review this Bill. Mr. Speaker, six months from now, by rough calculations, we will be in the springtime in Edmonton, which is a beautiful time. I won't tell you about my walks in the river valley during the springtime.

AN HON. MEMBER: Walk? MR. HENRY: Believe it or not, I walk. Some people look at me and . . . Mr. Speaker, I must respond to the heckles. In the springtime, with the rules that the hon. House leader and Opposition House Leader have worked out, we will in fact be back here, prior to February 15, after this session adjourns. That's not a long time from now. Mr. Speaker, if we were to pass this amendment and not deal with this Bill at third reading but deal with it six months from now, we would have an opportunity then to be able to let the government table some regulations or release publicly some regulations.

As a member who tries very hard to represent his constituents, I would be able to take those regulations or an improved version of the Bill that outlined very specifically what the government was up to with the local bonds to members of my constituency and ask for input. Then I would be able to come back here and stand in my place, and assuming that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development was in the House at that time, I would be able to suggest to him some improvements or some changes that he might want to make or indeed some additions he might want to make.

I want to be very, very clear that by voting for this amendment, I am not voting to kill this Bill. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, and the notion of local opportunity bonds, the notion of encouraging Albertans to reinvest in their communities so that local entrepre- neurs have an opportunity to create jobs in Alberta, is a very, very positive objective, and I wholeheartedly support that. But I'm being asked on trust to just buy into too much. The hon. minister said yesterday that this Bill was only three pilot projects. Mr. Speaker, I have read this three times, and I have not seen “pilot” in here anywhere.

I've not seen it, not once. To the amendment that we delay voting on this Bill or dealing with this Bill at this point, again I'm not voting to kill the Bill. I am voting to ask members, especially the members from rural Alberta on both sides of the House to take some time and go back to your constituents and to ask them, give them a copy of the Bill. 9:20 MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, speaking very briefly to the amend- ment, which will be the first time tonight that the amendment has been addressed, I'd like to suggest to the thousands that are tuned in and the tens of thousands who will be poring over Hansard – because they hang on every word that dribbles across the way. I'd like to suggest in addressing the amendment what is actually taking place here. Point of Order Parliamentary Language MR. GERMAIN: Point of order. MR. DA Y: Oh, this should be really interesting. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray is rising on a point of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Citation. MR.

GERMAIN: Standing Order 23. Mr. Speaker, there are some commentaries that snap out at you without even a citation. Referring to the members of this House as gerbils I suggest crosses the line. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. Maybe we can make a fresh start. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Debate Continued MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been trying to talk in calm, even tones. We've been listening to the drivel and the `dravel' and the oozing out from members opposite, and now a member from the government side gets up and they go berserk.

I think it's quite interesting that they can't listen to something intelligent, given what they've been listening to for the last hour and 25 minutes. Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it will be abundantly clear to those people who do pore over Hansard nightly and daily and to the amassed crowds here in the gallery it will be immedi- ately and abundantly clear that members opposite are opposed to . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: The loan guarantees. MR. DA Y: Call it whatever you want. They are voicing their opposition.

As a matter of fact, that can be achieved by one member stating it and the others getting up on a standing vote or whatever.

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1375 What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that the people opposite, who propose and who dare to try and have the people of Alberta think that they're concerned about efficiency in government, that they're concerned about a new way of doing business in government, that they're concerned about the time in the Legislature . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: To the amendment. MR. DA Y: This is directly on the amendment, so I wish they would quit their crying.

These people now as members get up to speak, they giggle among themselves, they look at the clock, and they are just delighted about the fact that they are wasting taxpayers' time. Here is what the amendment is doing. I want to ask this question. I wonder how Karen Mavis Poor Eagle feels, because she has an adoption Act brought forward by a member opposite. She's waiting . . . MRS. SOETAERT: To the amendment. MR. DA Y: This is directly to the amendment. This amendment is a stall tactic. That's all it is now. I wonder how Karen feels waiting for this adoption Act to go through.

I wonder how the folks at the Y outh Emergency Services Foundation feel as they wait. Point of Order Imputing Motives MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood is rising on a point of order. MR. BENIUK: Point of order. I believe it's Standing Order 23(h), (i), (j). Mr. Speaker, they have delayed presenting the private Bills until after this is over. For the member opposite to rise and imply that we are responsible for preventing certain things from happening is an insult to every member in this House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for not even deigning to reflect on that. Point of Order Order of Business MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. DA Y: Oh my, my; aren't they a thin-skinned little bunch over here. MR. WICKMAN: Beauchesne 459 states very, very clearly as to the importance of the debate to what's being presented. The hon. member has made an attempt to use a private Bill as rationale as to why debate should be stifled on this particular Bill.

Now, the government member knows very well, because it's a member of his caucus that chairs the Private Bills Committee, that that work has been concluded, that that Bill is here, that simply they could have had that as number one on the Order Paper today. It would have had third reading. Bring the Lieutenant Governor in to give it Royal Assent, and it would . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair finds that the hon. member for Edmonton-Rutherford has not raised a valid point of order. The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader is entitled to debate the amendment and the effects that the amendment is having on other business. MR. DA Y: Thank you again for the esteemed wisdom in your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Debate Continued MR. DA Y: It is a fact that Michael Caleborn Rothery is wonder- ing about his adoption. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair is not prepared to listen to the entire list of private Bills in order to demonstrate the point. MR. DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not go through that. I just wonder how the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark is going to address Benaning Osi, who is also wondering.

Point of Order Anticipation MR. HENRY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. DA Y: Oh, they really can't take it, can they? They really can't take it. MR. HENRY: Standing Order 23(

e) very clearly states: any debate that anticipates, contrary to good parliamentary practice, any matter already on the Order Paper or on notice for consideration on that day. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader is talking about something that we're going to be debating later on this evening, and I think that would be totally out of order, Mr. Speaker. Debate Continued MR. DA Y: So it is, Mr.

Speaker, that good people, good citizens of this province who have concerns riding on the legitimate Bills and motions that are still before this Assembly would be wonder- ing tonight, would be saying to themselves: on this amendment have not the members opposite expressed themselves? Are they so in doubt about their own delusions of adequacy that they think they have not been able to communicate? I'm sure everyday Albertans must wonder that they would continue in this vein after it's been abundantly clear that they're opposed.

I want to underline on the amendment and to the amendment that that is the purpose of what they're doing. They are wasting time. They are being redundant. They are participating in a one-sided show of the theatre of the absurd . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Point of Order Intimidation MR. N. TA YLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. deputy threatened us. He said: because there was no chance it would get through. The least this government can do is pretend that it's a democracy, pretend that there's going to be a vote.

To get up and tell us to shut up because it's going to go through regardless is a threat. He could have been hauled away and put away in irons back in the days. 9:30 MR. SPEAKER: Order. No, not a valid point of order. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

1376 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 MR. DA Y: Thank you. I think I've got about 17 minutes left, given all the interjections. The latest interjection by the Member for Redwater: I think that logic is the same logic going into the amendment. I think that speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that the words of the members opposite echo in their ears when they talk about reforming this process. What we're seeing here is the old way, the old style, the ridiculous process of filibustering and just wasting time when there are legitimate needs of Albertans before this Legislature.

I'd like them to give that thought and consideration as they continue to rise, to look at the clock, to giggle among themselves, and think about the waste they are bearing on the shoulders of Albertans. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise and speak to this amendment to Bill 21. Y ou know, when my constituents read Hansard, they like to read what I've had to say, and I don't want to leave my colleagues alone. I believe in this amendment. I think we've jumped at it too quickly, and we need to address this.

The fact that it may be rhetoric or redundant may be a point, but, you know, in teaching, I've found that sometimes if you repeat things a few times, they catch on. Speaker's Ruling Repetition MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair would remind all members that there are rules against repetition, not just repetition within a speech but speakers repeating what others have said over and over again. There are rules against both forms of repetition. MRS. SOETAERT: Okay; thank you, Mr. Speaker, for correct- ing me on that. I'll bring a new angle to this, I'm sure. Debate Continued MRS.

SOETAERT: Number one, I would like to support this amendment because of the hon. Member for Redwater; I respect his opinion on these things. In fact, when he first convinced me to get involved in politics, I was told by members opposite that if you followed his lead, you'd have nothing to fear. So when I looked this over closely, I realized that it's a smart amendment. We have to wait six months for this. We have to go back to our constituents, whether it be rural or city. I don't think anyone agrees with loan guarantees, and we all ran on that. No one agrees with loan guarantees.

I think we'd rather see small business opportunities on an equal playing field, rather than these in – what is it? –

section 56. It clearly states that it is a loan guarantee. Although I'm not as eloquent as all my fellow colleagues in here, I'll get better, I know. I hate to repeat myself, but I'll just say this: we don't want loan guarantees. That's why we are standing on this. We all feel it is very important that this does not go through, and if we can wait six months to debate this again . . . MR. DA Y: It will. MRS. SOETAERT: To say, “It will,” well, that's a typical arrogant statement that we often hear from the deputy House leader, but we're getting used to it.

What we'd like to say: if this is a democratic process, we would like people to consider this for six more months. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for Calgary-North West, might there be consent to revert to Introduc- tion of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? The hon. Member for Dunvegan. head: Introduction of Guests MR. CLEGG: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are three ladies up in the gallery tonight that the hon. deputy House leader recognized this evening. They are from the greatest part of the province.

It's unfortunate that there's only one from the constitu- ency of Dunvegan, and that's Chris Jones. Chris, if you would stand up. There are two other ladies, Sherry Wilcox and Alice MacKay from Grande Prairie-Wapiti. They are in the city doing business, helping the government, and I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 21 Agriculture Financial Services Act (continued) Moved by Mr. N.

Taylor that the motion for third reading be amended to read that Bill 21, Agriculture Financial Services Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was afraid when the member rose that he was going to offer them a loan guarantee. MR. DINNING: They already have one. MR. BRUSEKER: They already have one? That's nice to know. It's in Hansard. Thank you, Mr. Treasurer. The Member for Red Deer-North says that this is the old way and that this is the way things have happened.

One of the things that was really nice at the beginni ng of this session was that the House leader from the government side and the House leader from the opposition side met and came up with a bunch of new rules. One of them is free votes. So I looked at this amendment. The Member for Red Deer-North suggests that I am going to support the Member for Redwater on this amendment simply because he's a Liberal. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I'm not going to support this member just b ecause he's a Liberal. I'm going to support him because he's right. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, he's reading a newspaper. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Newspapers are not allowed in the Chamber. [interjections] Order. The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I considered should I or should I not support this motion, I thought, I want to put myself on the government side and imagine how the Treasurer would feel if this Bill were passed, the Treasurer I have known for a number of years now in this House. I thought, how would

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1377 the Treasurer feel if he had to go out and promote this Bill after the speech he's given us earlier a bout the budget, a bout the government that's getting out of the business of being in business? I thought, you know, that the Treasurer is a man who wants to have a good image in the public of Alberta, who would like to be well respected and so on in the province of Alberta, yet he's going to be looking at this Bill, and he says on one hand that the government wants to get out of the business of being in business.

So when I said, well, should I support this – because that's what the amendment says. I want to make sure I'm clear that I'm on the amendment. The amendment says, really, to the Treasurer and to the Cabinet: please wait six months; think about it again over the six-month period and maybe bring it back in six months' time. If you still think it's a good Bill, bring it back in six months' time, and we'll have a look at it at that time.

I thought, you know, that if I were to go out and make a speech and say that the government is getting out of the business of being in business, then in this Bill there should be no reference to government being in business. When I looked through the Bill, I got to

section 28, and it talks about in that particular section: The Corporation must not, except with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (

a) make a loan in excess of $1,000,000. Again the government is directly, under that section, proposing to be in the business of being in business. Now, I know that's been in there before. It's in the Alberta Opportunity Fund Act, Alberta opportunity corporation Act. I thought to myself, you know, if I were the Treasurer, I'd say to myself, gee, this guy down the row from me, this Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, is trying to pull a fast one on us because he's saying that we should get back into the business of being in business.

And I thought, now, if I were the Treasurer, would I support this motion? MR. DINNING: God forbid you should be the Treasurer. MR. BRUSEKER: Well, you never know, hon. minister. [interjection] Well you know, things are only temporary. [interjection] MR. SPEAKER: Through the Chair, please. Order. MR. BRUSEKER: Y ou're correct, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry.

I was just trying to offer some good, sage advice to the Treasurer, trying to suggest to him that not only should he listen carefully, but he should even agree with me and other hon. members who have spoken in favour of this amendment to delay for six months the reading of this particular Bill. Mr. Speaker, that was only one section. I thought, well, you know, if I were the Treasurer, maybe I could gloss over one little section. It's only a million dollar loan here or there. We've heard previous Treasurers say: what's a million? So I thought, well, the Treasurer could say: what's a million? But then the very next

section says that once they get past that million dollar mark, then they don't need any approval from the cabinet. They could just go ahead and option it up to $2 million, $3 million, $5 million. How much was Gainers again, $102 million, $105 million, $1 15 million? A frightening amount. Who knows where it's going to go? I thought to myself if I were the Treasurer and I saw that happening in here, I'd be really concerned, and I'd want to support this amendment. I'd want to delay this for six months, because . . . [interjection] Well, I would like to be the Treasurer.

I think that'd be great, because we've got to have somebody who's in control of that department, and we sure don't seem to have anyone over there right now. MR. DINNING: Tsk, tsk, tsk. MR. BRUSEKER: Tsk, tsk, tsk. MR. SPEAKER: Order. MR. BRUSEKER: Sorry. Y es, Mr. Speaker, you're correct. I thought, you know, that's only two situations, only two, and I thought, well, there's a whole lot of sections in this Bill. If I were the Treasurer and operating the way these guys have in the past, I could overlook a couple of things. After all, as the previous Treasurer said, what's a million? 9:40 MR. DINNING: Not this one.

MR. BRUSEKER: Not this one; that's true. That's why I did say “previous Treasurer,” Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure that's clear in Hansard: previous Treasurer. I thought, now, okay; there are two issues that I have concern with. Is that worth holding it up for another six months' time? Then we get a little bit further on, and it talks about another

section which I think again talks about the idea of government being involved in business. In

section 33 it says: The Corporation may make grants or provide other incentives as prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Again, a direct intervention by the cabinet in the marketplace, despite having said on one hand that the government wants to get out of the business of being in business. Y et this particular Bill says it. That's three times, Mr. Speaker. Now, if this were baseball, you'd strike out.

Y ou'd say, “I can't possibly support the Bill going through, so I'd support the amendment.” Y ou know, I'm trying to think this through as if I were the Treasurer, which of course, as we know, at the moment I'm not. I thought, well, if I were the Treasurer, I'd want to support this amendment, because in baseball if you have three strikes against you, you're out, and I'd want to vote against that and say that we should delay it and support the amendment, b ecause there are clearly at least three indications, three different places that talk about where the government would be involved in business.

I thought, well, that's certainly not particularly supportive of the concept. Y ou know, you want to have a clear message. Y ou don't want to make people uncertain about what it is you're saying. We on this side have said no to loan guarantees, and I think the government has said that. Y ou go on a little bit further and there's a

section in here,

section 37, that talks about regulations. I'm not going to read it to you, Mr. Speaker, because of course there's not the time. I'm sure you've read it thoroughly and you understand what it says in there. It talks about a variety of things, that the government may make regulations respecting the corporate activities of the corporation and outlines again directly why it is and how it is the government would be involved directly in business. Again, I asked myself the question: does that send the right kind of message?

Or would it be better if we supported the amendment and said, well, gee, maybe we should really wait six months' time, as the amendment suggests. So there's a fourth thing in there. I'm just going through the Bill and trying to highlight in brief form – because I don't want to read every section; that would not be appropriate at this time – why it is that I think finally we really have to support this amendment. I'm sure that the Treasurer, after he listens cogently, as I hear him hanging on my every word, is going to agree with me in the long run.

1378 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 Mr. Speaker, I went on a little bit further, and I looked at other parts of the Bill, and I said, you know, what other kinds of things are in here? Are there any other concerns that I would have that would cause me to want to either vote against the Bill at third reading, when we get to that stage or, alternately, which of course is where we are right now, support the amendment that says we should hold off for six months' time?

I got a little further in the Bill, and I came to another section, that being 53, that talks about regulations, and again the creation and outlining of how the government would be involved in business, what it is they would do, and prescribing a whole variety of things, “settlement of disputes,” “information . . . to be required in respect of an application for insurance.” That even talks about freedom of information, but that's another Bill I won't get into this evening because I wouldn't want to be ruled out of order for not being relevant and on the issue.

But of course we know that freedom of information is a big issue as well. So, again, there's another section. Now, we're up to five issues that I am concerned about in this particular piece of legislation. That says to me, gee, now this Bill is starting to look pretty shaky; maybe we really should give this the thought and the consideration that is required, wait for six months, reading it over a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth time, however many times it takes. Mr. Speaker, we've seen pieces of legislation, we've seen activity by this government before that had been hasty.

We witnessed NovAtel, witnessed the ALCB privatization, that is now getting people up in arms. On one hand, we've got private liquor stores operating, and we've the legislation before us in the House. So we've seen that sometimes this government does operate in a hasty manner. The record on that I think is abundantly clear, and what this amendment simply says, from the sage guidance of the Member for Redwater, is let's think about it; let's just think about it for six months. It doesn't say let's kill the Bill. It says let's maybe put it in a deep coma for six months, sleep on it, think on it, and so on.

Well, you know, they did have one thing that sounded pretty good to me, and I tho ught maybe this w ill save it. We talked about it, the Liberals. I r ecall being down in the Little Bow constituency, and we talked about something like local opportunity bonds. I thought, there's a good

section in the Bill, perhaps, on local opportunity bonds. [interjection] A fine little constituency down in Little Bow there, just a real jewel in the province, I think. Wouldn't you agree, hon. member? Thank you. Y es. We got to the

section on the local opportunity bonds. I wanted to read that really carefully because I thought maybe this

part is going to be the area that would save the Bill, that would persuade me to want to support it, that would persuade me to want to vote for it, that in fact might persuade me to vote against this amend- ment. I thought, well, maybe there's something in here that'll save it. I asked myself the question when I looked through the local opportunity bond section: is that an area that would balance it off enough that would cause me to want to support it? So I said, I'd better read this carefully, read about local opportunity bonds. It talked again about – there it is again – loan guarantees. Then they get in a whole

section of regulations,

section 59(

a) through (q), however many sections it is. I didn't count them, Mr. Speaker. It talks about who will resell and transfer the bonds, governing advertising, form and content, prescribing the persons who are eligible – a whole long list of things, again, where government is saying, “Here's why we want to be in business again.” Y et the Treasurer on one hand says that we want to be out of business. I thought, you know, if I were the Treasurer, I'd start to get really nervous about this Bill. I'm sure that he is ge tting really nervous. I can see him really sitting up and paying attention.

Look at that look on his face. I can see it; I can see the concern. I can see him saying, “I'm going to vote with the Liberals on this because they are right.” He's coming over. He's coming over. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. MR. BRUSEKER: Y ou see, Mr. Speaker, they're starting to see the concern. They're starting to register the concern. [interjec- tions] Take the vote while he's with us, eh? Y ou know, I can see the Treasurer's coming with us. I think the minister of transportation is starting to think on it too. I can see him getting excited there. They've listened to what we've had to say.

The Minister of Energy I think has been reading the sign being held up by the Member for Little Bow, because it said, “Snarl.” I said to myself, I'm sure that the people on the front benches, that the private members opposite, would be more than willing to look at this and say that there are six major issues. I see they've deep-sixed the Deep Six. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: The shallow. MR. BRUSEKER: The shallow six? There are six major issues, Mr. Speaker, that would be of concern, and these are deep issues, so I'm surprised that the Deep Six aren't registering their concern.

I'm sure they'll be leaping to their feet early on in this debate to support the amendment to Bill 21 that we delay this vote by six months' time. The Member for Edmonton-Centre clearly pointed out that we will be back in this Legislative Assembly in six months' time. Quite frankly, there is no urgency to do this today or tomorrow or the next day. It could be handled in very short order, perhaps, in the springtime when we have the opportunity to deal with this after more thought. I would support that amendment by the Member for Redwater.

I think what I'm going to have to do tomorrow, as a responsible Albertan, as a responsible member of this Legislature, is write a letter to my MLA, the Member for Edmonton-Centre, and say, “Boy, you were sure right in the Legislature, and I sure support your position.” I'm going to have to be sure to communicate that position to him so that he clearly knows that at least some of the members that are in his constituency support his view on the motion to amend and delay for six months' time, which is of course supporting the Member for Redwater. Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment, and I'm sure that the hon.

Treasurer will leap to his feet now and agree with me a hundred percent. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. 9:50 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, support this amendment, and I'm going to take a slightly different tack. I am going to focus my reasoning for having this Bill delayed for six months upon the unfortunate absence of the Premier from this province. Clearly, this is an important Bill.

If we examine this Bill, we see a number of places where there are prof ound inconsistencies both internally, within the Bill, and between the Bill and other statements, other positions, other policies that the government has appeared on various occasions to be committed to in varying degrees. Now, I'm surprised, in fact, that the Premier hasn't phoned somebody in his caucus, hasn't phoned some cabinet minister,

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1379 hasn't phoned the Edmonton Sun to clarify his position. At other times over the last several weeks when we have seen inconsisten- cies between what a member of the Premier's cabinet is saying and what the Premier himself has said or between what one member of the Premier's cabinet is saying what another member of the Premier's cabinet is saying, we have seen the Premier on the phone, no less, to a reporter at the Edmonton Sun, explaining and clarifying the apparent inconsistencies.

For example, it was very clear for most of this session that the government was bound and determined to cut 20 percent from education and health care. That was reaffirmed by the Treasurer. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, please. My patience is going. Beauchesne 459. I'll leave it at that and your good judgment. MR. MITCHELL: I understand, yeah. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that I am surprised that when confronted by yet another series of inconsistencies, the Premier hasn't made known his concern and hasn't had the opportunity, on the other hand, to participate in this debate on this particular Bill.

Point of Order Relevance MRS. BLACK: Point of order. Beauchesne 459, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member started off going to give us a list of the problems, and so far he hasn't given us any of those. Could you please list them, on the amendment? Debate Continued MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, that brings me to my list of inconsistencies, which I believe the Premier would want to have the opportunity to clarify. The first inconsistency, in response to the Minister of Energy – it's nice to see that she has some energy this late – is that his government was going to get out of the business of being in business.

Now, how many times have we seen the Premier take that position explicitly? How many times in the past have we seen that when there's been an inconsistency, he has wanted to stand in this Legislature or phone from abroad and confirm that and clarify that inconsistency? Well, here is a classic inconsistency between the statement “get out of the business of being in business” and

section 56, which is local opportunity bonds, where this corporation is going to guarantee private-sector investments absolutely 100 percent. That's one inconsistency, then, between I should say the “get out of the business of being in business” and guaranteeing loans. The second inconsistency, which is very profound, is that the government has said that they're going to take 20 percent across the board from all departments. Y esterday the minister of agriculture stood in the House and said: well, look, this

section 56 is really okay. Why is it okay? It's okay because we've got a limit, he's told us – it's not in the legislation – on how much money we would actually allow the corporation to guarantee under this local opportunity bond program. I think he said $3 million. Well, $3 million on a $185 million budget for this corporation is over 1 and a half percent increase in the budget, Mr. Speaker. So there's another inconsistency between the 20 percent across-the- board, we're going to find it no matter what, tough-talking cuts and an increase in the budget of this particular corporation. The third inconsistency is glaring because it's even internal, Mr. Speaker. Under

section 28 it says: The Corporation must not, and this is what's critical, except with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (

a) make a loan in excess of $1,000,000. Now, while that isn't good enough, b ecause we want to have a better authorization process, it's interesting that when it comes to local opportunity bonds . . . Point of Order Relevance MR. WOLOSHYN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Stony Plain is rising on a point of order. MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, I do respect the hon. member from across the way's debate of the Bill in third reading, but this dissertation that wanders hither and yon has nothing to do with the amendment, absolutely nothing to do with the amendment.

If this is his participation in the debate on the Bill itself for third reading, then I am prepared to continue listening diligently. However, if he is purporting to speak on the amendment, I would certainly like him to get back to the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: Y es. The Chair would like to point out to the hon. member that what he is now saying is practically word for word what has already been said in this debate, citing the same sections.

I know the hon. member has had official duties this evening and has had to be in and out of the Chamber, but the Chair has been in consistently since 8 o'clock, and there was some repetition there. Debate Continued MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not want to be repetitive, but I'll tell you that the over 1 and a half percent increase in the budget has never been mentioned in this Legisla- ture before. That is definitely original.

I should say that my fundamental reasoning for this hoist – that is, to give the Premier time enough to get back to this province so he can clarify these inconsistencies – has never been broached in this Legislature before. I listened intently to the Member for Stony Plain. I was struck that here I am asking that he give his own Premier a chance to be heard on this issue, and he's disregarding that. I'm not surprised, because I know just six months ago this member would have categorically disregarded everything the Premier ever said. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Little Bow is rising on a point of order. MR. McF ARLAND: Mr. Speaker, under Beauchesne 482, would the Member for Edmonton-McClung please entertain a question? MR. MITCHELL: No, I wouldn't. Debate Continued MR. MITCHELL: My third point of inconsistency, which is seminal to my argument and a critical feature of why I believe the Premier deserves the chance to get back into this Legislature and clarify, is that fundamental inconsistency internal in this Bill. I mean, I have to ask myself, did a lawyer write this? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in

section 28, The Corporation must not, except with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (

a) make a loan in excess of $1,000,000.

1380 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 MR. SPEAKER: Order. That was the point that the Chair was attempting to make, that it had been well canvassed already. MR. MITCHELL: If I was able to finish, Mr. Speaker, I'm getting to why it's different than other points that have been made. My point is that that is fundamentally inconsistent with

section 56: “Where the Corporation issues a local opportunity bond, the Corporation shall not assure . . .” Blah, blah, blah. [interjections] Well, let me finish it. I didn't want to take up extra time. In

section 56 we note: Where the Corporation issues a local opportunity bond, the Corpora- tion shall not assure or undertake to assure that there will be return on the principal amount of the bond but may assure the repayment to the holder of the bond of an amount that is not more than 100% of the principal amount of the bond. My point is that there are two inconsistencies. There is no limit to the amount of local opportunity bond that the corporation may approve, where there is a limit to the amount that they may approve with respect to a loan guarantee. There is no secondary approval structure, as in the case of local opportunity bonds, to correspond with

section 28. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a fundamental internal inconsistency for which there has literally been no explanation. One of the really frightening observations in reviewing this particular loan, we believe, was that the minister of agriculture was unable to explain adequately the nature of this Bill. I appreciated his frustration. I could see his frustration. I could see it in his eyes. I could see the frustration with him, in turn, of many of his backbenchers, especially those tough, hard- line management kind of guys back there in the Deep Six, but it was disconcerting.

It was very disconcerting, because in fact what we saw was a minister who had inconsistencies in this Bill, inconsistencies between this Bill and policies that have been specified elsewhere, a minister who couldn't explain them adequately to the Legislative Assembly, to his own private members, and a minister who wants to get this Bill through before the Premier can return and settle these inconsistencies. I think it's merely decency. I think it's good sec ond thought.

I think it behooves us to respect the Premier's role in this particular issue and allow him to return and have a say in this Bill. 10:00 I will say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things the Premier said was that he wasn't going to blink. Well, you know what he hasn't blinked on? He hasn't blinked on the issue of intervening in the private sector.

In fact, if he blinked long enough to open both eyes, he might see just how inconsistent this Bill is with the oft-stated notion by this government, by these backbenchers, some of them who are very rampant about that, that government must get out of the business of being in business. So there they are. There are three inconsistencies, and in fact there is a subinconsistency which is internal to this document. If the Minister of Energy isn't happy with that, I don't know what she's happy with, Mr. Speaker. I think that in fact we are doing the Premier a favour.

I think it isn't too much to ask to wait for six months, to wait till the session sits again, and in fact what's very reassuring is the new rule. We know the session must sit before February 15 because we've agreed to that rule, so it doesn't necessarily even have to take as long as we might otherwise think, Mr. Speaker. We can get this back. We can listen to the Premier clarify, whip that front bench into line, whip that back bench into line, get them all singing from the same song sheet, get them all shooting straight. Wouldn't that be nice, Mr. Speaker? Here we are.

It's this caucus who is actually defending the interests of that Premier. These people should be ashamed of themselves. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. [interjections] Order please. The Chair's memory is not as good as it should be, but the records will show that the hon. Minister of Health has already participated. AN HON. MEMBER: Not on the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: Oh, that's correct. On introducing the Bill. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make a few comments in opposition to the amendment.

The purpose of this Bill, for one thing, is to amalgamate formally the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation and the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation. This was a commitment made by the government to, wherever possible, introduce cost-saving measures and efficiency. This process was begun some months ago, and this Bill formalizes that process. I find it hard to believe that the opposition would want to put off that process for another six months or several months at least, and the hon. Member for Redwater was certainly a participant in the discussion when this was initiated.

I think the combination of these two corporations is very sound. It will offer efficiencies and cost savings and will make a one-stop shopping opportunity for our agricultural community, which is very important. It also has the opportunity to enhance service to the agricultural community, and I am very surprised that the hon. member would be against that. I also would remind all hon. members that we have federal/provincial agreements that particularly the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation operates under, and this Bill will expedite the carrying out of those agreements.

The other issue I'd like to speak to just briefly is on the community bonds. I think a lot of the members in the opposition should be aware of the local development initiative that was carried out in this province where a very extensive consultation with people from across this province, every region, talked about how we could enhance communities, how we could perhaps support them in opportunities to strengthen their communities.

One of the recommendations that came through loud and clear in that initiative was that communities were very willing to invest in their own communities and the desire for a vehicle to do that. Community bonds were very clearly a recommendation of that committee. Community bonds have been introduced in other provinces. The decision was made to monitor how those commu- nity bonds had worked in those other provinces and learn some from the experience before we initiated this in Alberta.

The last thing I would want to say on that is that the minister of agriculture in his discussion last night I think clarified the very questions that have been brought up tonight. I'm sure that if all hon. members would read pages 1333 and 1334, they would understand the guarantee on the bond part of the project alone. It's very clearly laid out, and I'm not going to repeat the princi- ples that lie in that.

It is also clearly laid out in the minister's comments that there were to be pilot projects, an opportunity for communities to see if this indeed was the vehicle that could assist communities across this province to invest in their own communities with some support from this government. I am very disappointed as a rural member that this group across the way would consider a hoist on

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1381 something that is that important and was raised by every commu- nity that talked about ways to finance in their own areas. We have heard a lot of discussion in this debate about the Agricultural Development Corporation and whether it's needed or not. I would remind the hon. members that when the Agricultural Development Corporation was lending dollars when interest rates were 20 percent, I did not hear that same comment. I think the agricultural community has been well served by the Agricultural Development Corporation.

I think the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation has served the rural communities very well. I would like to support the amalgamation of these two corpora- tions in a formal way to see that the efficiencies that can be effected are. The hoist of this Bill will just delay that. It will also delay the opportunity for those communities who would like to pilot community bonds to see if indeed they are the correct vehicle for financing in their communities to further the opportu- nities for communities in this province. I speak very strongly against this hoist.

I do not think it is going to serve the rural communities of Alberta in any way. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's been some discussion in the Assembly tonight with regards to whether or not we should even be addressing this particular issue and also in terms of some of the comments that our members on this side of the Legislative Assembly have made.

I'd like to just read something that was in Hansard yesterday that I think is cogent in terms of the arguments that are made by the opposite side with regards to our abilities to address the issue, and that is this: That only is achieved [in terms of working together] as we move beyond a we/they type of approach to labour/management issues and realize that we're all in this together. The more we can work together in a co-operative, consultative way, the better that's going to be. Obviously, we're not always going to agree on everything.

The goal, I would think, is to clearly identify the areas where there isn't agreement and agree to disagree and then look at where there can be agreement and move to work together. Those, I think, are wonderful words that our Minister of Labour spoke to us in the Assembly yesterday, so I was surprised when he mentioned about 45 minutes ago that the process we were involved in is a “ridiculous pr ocess.” That seems to be the Minister of Labour's word of the week: ridiculous. I think perhaps he's tired, and I will allow that for the Minister of Labour.

However, this is a democracy, and we have an amendment in front of us that talks about the fact that there needs to be a relook at the Agriculture Financial Services Act and that this relook occur within six months hence. I think that's a logical and a rational approach to a form of passing of legislation that this government has seen to be involved in in the past two months. There seems to be a rush to pass legislation.

There seems to be a rush to put forward an agenda that is not completely thought out, and the only rationale that seems to be behind that rush and behind that pushing of an agenda is that they won and we lost. Well, let's get it right for the record once and for all: 44 percent for your side, 40 percent for our side. I won my riding with a 2 to 1 margin, so let's get some of these facts correct. I am obviously not a rural member. 10:10 MR. SPEAKER: Order. To the amendment please. MS LEIBOVICI: Y es. I am obviously not a rural member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's true.

I think you are right to ask why I am up on this particular amendment. I think the reason is quite clear. It's that you the private members on the opposite side are having fun tonight and are not up to looking at what exactly is in this particular Bill. In terms again of this amendment to which I am speaking, it was the keen eye of the Member for Redwater who picked up the problems inherent with this Bill. I will start with the area that the Minister of Health just addressed, and that is not a question to address within this particular Assembly. It is in

part 3, where it talks about the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation and the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation being transferred to the agriculture financial services corporation. For those rural members who are sitting on the opposite side, perhaps you're not aware that that has already happened, much like the privatization of ALCB has already happened. In fact, we are talking about something after the fact. So what else is new? Let's put that aside. Let's say that it's not at issue.

Let's say that it has occurred, and let's say that this particular amendment will not reflect or affect the incorporation of this particular body, which then leads to the reasons that this amendment should be voted on in favour by the private members on the opposite side. I know that when I finish my arguments, you will all stand up and be in agreement, much like the Treasurer was just itching to come across and agree with us, as was the minister of transportation. Right? [interjections] Let's just take a look at some of these Bills. MR. SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order in the Assembly on both sides. Order.

MS LEIBOVICI: If we just take a quick look, a cursory look through this particular Bill, there are some things that just jump up as not being right. The minister . . . The Member for Edmonton-Centre – sorry for the promotion, Mike; next time – talked about the fact that there has been a request to have the results of the management audit and that in fact regulations in secrecy were a problem. Now, if you look at

section 6(3) of this particular Act, it states that “the Regulations Act does not apply to a by-law or resolution of the Board.” If that alone is not enough to make the members on the opposite side sit back and reflect – they, as we did, I'm sure, ran on a campaign of openness and honesty. They did not run on a campaign of secret govern- ment, nor did they run on a campaign that would allow a corpora- tion that is being set up by this government to be able to bypass as they are in terms of the Regul ations Act.

This is something that I think really has to be looked at carefully, and again, speaking to the amendment, this is one of the reasons we need to look at not passing this particular Bill tonight. There's another area that needs to be looked at, and that's in terms of the delegation of authority. We've seen wording similar to this when we look at the Alberta liquor control Bill and also the Registries Act, where once again there's a board that's authorized to do various things, and the board has a lot of authority that has no tie-back into any kind of accountability. So you look at

section 9(1), that says that “the Board may authorize” a committee to do various things, in conjunction with

section 12, that talks about “the members of the Board and the employees of the Corporation and persons,” et cetera – I'm not going to read it all out for you – being able to have protection from liability in terms of items that they are doing in good faith. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

1382 Alberta Hansard November 9, 1993 Now, you take all of those in conjunction with

article 18, that says that “the Corporation may . . . borrow or otherwise raise money,” and 19 . . . Point of Order Decorum MRS. ABDURAHMAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: The newspaper. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know. I do not see the newspaper, but I certainly can hear a lot of people talking. This is not committee, hon. members. In view of the earliness of the evening, we would appreciate it if we would be able to hear this stimulating debate. Debate Continued MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to restate, you look at

section 9(1), that talks about the board authorizing committees “to do any act or thing required.” Y ou then look at

section 12, that talks about members of the board and the corporation being able to be exempt from any liabilities; in other words, they have protection from liability. Then you look at what the board in actual fact can do – and that is that it can “borrow or . . . raise money to achieve the purposes of this Act” – and at 19(d), that it can continue that “to meet its obligations with respect to the issuing of local opportunity bonds,” which in essence is borrowed money. I'm not sure if the members on the opposite side realize that this board can in effect borrow money up to that famous hundred percent.

Just to read it out to you, because I don't know that anyone has here tonight, what it says is that where the Corporation issues a local opportunity bond, the Corpora- tion shall not assure or undertake to assure that there will be return on the principal amount of the bond but may assure the repayment to the holder . . . I'm going to do this slowly so it sinks in. . . . of the bond of an amount that is not more than 100% of the principal amount of the bond. A loan guarantee.

Now, not only is it a guarantee that's not more than 100 percent – at least here's a cap of 100 percent – but it also means that the corporation is liable in terms of the interest that accrues. AN HON. MEMBER: That's more than 100 percent. MS LEIBOVICI: It's borrowed money. So though it says 100 percent – you're right. Y ou see, the members on this side have been listening. It is more than 100 percent. Now, this government's track record – not this particular group, but the one prior to June 15 – has been anything but commendable in terms of loan guarantees.

If we want to look at some r ecent situations that the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford has talked about in terms of the riverboat, we know there's a definite problem when government tries to get into the business of doing business. 10:20 It amazes me that this government has had Gil Cox out from New Zealand – and I'm sure you must have all read this docu- ment in terms of what happens when governments can't borrow any more money. Y ou've got the book.

Well, then you know when the book talks about agriculture, it says certain things that I think might be worth while for those members who have the book and those who have the paper to look at in terms of where this government should be heading with agriculture. So I think it's fine to pick and choose what you would like to learn from this particular document, but it's also important to recognize that this is in fact very cogent with regard to the argument we are putting forward.

There are other areas that need to be looked at with regard to this particular legislation, but what I would like to just re- emphasize is that you need the time to look at what this Act is saying, to look at the implications in terms of 100 percent plus for loan guarantees, to look at the fact that you are giving a corpora- tion, a board, broad-based powers that in effect can loan moneys up to a million dollars, that you may well be creating a monster.

There is no rush to do this at this particular point in time, because in fact there already has been the amalgamation of the two particular bodies the Minister of Health referred to. I'm glad she brought up that point, because I would not want it stated anywhere that we are against rural Alberta or that we do not believe these corporations have a role to play and we are debating just for the sake of debating. We are here talking to this particular issue because there are areas within this Bill that require time to be looked at.

There is sufficient time between now and mid- February of next year for us to go back to our constituents and for you to go back to your constituents to really decide whether this is the route to go. I would urge that all members really read through this docu- ment, and I would challenge the members if they have in fact looked at this particular document, especially those members who are from rural Alberta. I think if you were to look at this document, at this Bill, you w ould find that your constituents would not be supporting this Bill in its current format. Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we have unanimous consent for Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Medicine Hat. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and to the members of the Assembly a very close associate of mine from the constituency of Medicine Hat, an alderman from the city of Medicine Hat, Mr. George Renner. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 21 Agriculture Financial Services Act (continued) Moved by Mr. N.

Taylor that the motion for third reading be amended to read that Bill 21, Agriculture Financial Services Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to take a few short moments to speak against the amendment on Bill 21.

November 9, 1993 Alberta Hansard 1383 The previous speaker alluded to members from rural Alberta taking exception to the Bill. I take exception to the amendment for the following reason: if we delayed third reading of this most important Bill, then under

section 24 I would gather the corpora- tion wouldn't be in a position to make any loans

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19931109
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S1 19931109 2000 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d217d2a9cf08ff3edc0a7de0857b739429c3492b

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