February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 149 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/02/25 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon, and welcome. Let us pray. Let us keep ev er mindful of the special and unique opportunity we have to work for our constituents and our province, and in that work let us find strength and wisdom. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introducti on of Visit ors Mr. Jonson: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to be able to i ntroduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly His Excellency Otto Ditz, am bassador of th e R epublic of Austria. Mr. Ditz is accompanied by Mr. Niko laus Demiantschuk, our consul general from Calgary. Over the past five years Alberta’s exports to Austria have averaged almost $21 million per yea r. In the s ame period of time we have imported approximately $76 million worth of products from Austria. However, our relationsh ip wit h Austria goes far beyond strictly trade.

The Austrian gove rnment has p layed an important role in es tablishing the Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies. This institute focuses on social sciences, the humanities, and the arts, and links postsecondary institutions in Austria with those here in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, this is the ambassador’s first visit to Alberta, and I would ask that our honoured guests please r ise and re ceive t he traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Klein: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my honour to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly four prominent members of Alberta’s business community whom I had the pleasure of having lunch wit h to day: Robert Rose n of City Lumber; Dave Snyder of Sterling Cranes; Dr. Eric Newell, retired chair and CEO of Syncrude Can ada Ltd.; and Dwayne Hunka of Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. Our lunch was an auction item at the Canadian Diabetes Associa- tion’s fifth annual Flame of Hope golf tournament, and it was a truly worthy cause.

Over 100,000 Albertans currently have diabetes, and it affects thousands more of their friends and family. I was pleased to support such an important cause, and it was more than a pleasure to dine with these gentlemen, although we dined on sandwiches. I’d like to thank each of these m en for their ge nerosity and for the ir excellent company and their spirited conversation today and ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is my great privilege to ask Blake Robert, William McBeath, and Dennis Laurie to please stand. As these three gentlemen are recognized, the Liberal and the New Democrat c olleagues will take heart because this represents the past, t he present, and the f uture of the presidents of the PC Youth in Albe rta. It’s our great pleasure to welcome them here today a nd to thank them for their effor ts on behalf of all Albertans. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and introduce to you and to the members assembled 35 people from Fort Saskatchewan: the students from Our Lady of the Angels school represented here and the ir teacher, Ms Shauna S abourin, assistant Mrs. Carolina Mayner, and parents Troy and Teresa Gates. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Vandermeer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’ s my honour to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly eight members of the Emmanuel Home along with their group leader.

The Emmanuel Home is a great place to live in your retirement years, and I know that full well because my wife’s opa lived there for around 28 years. Currently, they are planning for a m ajor expansion to their seniors’ complex and have already fund-raised the amount of $2.4 million. Congratulations and best wishes with that project. I’d ask that my guests rise as I mention their names: Mrs. Ann Helder, Mrs. Doris Nelson, Mrs. Gerrie Vandenberg, Mr. Ulbe Sandstra, Mrs. Dorthea Roess, Mr . Henry Noppers, Rev. Jacob Binnema, Mrs. Hilda Binnema. They are also accompanied by their group leader, Denise DeVries.

I’d ask that we g ive them the traditi onal warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pl easure to rise today to introduce to you and through you five constituents of mine from the Yeoford area. They are Maureen and Bob W ebster, and with them a re three lovely youn g l adies: Na tasha, Da nielle, and Esther Schmale. They have tour ed the Le gislature today. I took them out for lunch, and now they’re going to enjoy question period. I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank you ver y much, M r. Sp eaker. I’ve go t two introductions. For the first introduction it’s my pleasure to introduce to you and throug h you to m embers of this A ssembly 24 vis itors from Garneau school in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Brad Glenn, and parents Ms Beverly Wilson and Mrs. Brenda Ric hardson. Garne au school is a landma rk in the history of teac her educat ion in this prov ince. The Facul ty o f Education at the University of A lberta star ted its work from the building in whi ch this school is locate d.

I think m y guests are perhaps seated in the members’ gallery. Assum ing that the y are around, I’ll ask them to r ise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Ms Jette Badre. Ms Badre is the chair of Parents of Kids Experiencing Diabetes, a member of the Mill Woods Sout h E ast Community He alth Council, and a member of the advisory committee for the Edmonton student health initiative partnership. As a parent and an engaged citizen she is here today to watch the proceedings of the Assembly.

She is seated in the public gallery, and I’ll a sk her t o now rise and r eceive the war m welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004150 Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and introduce to you and through you a number of individuals who are seated i n the public g allery. They are some of the me n and women wh o are m embers of the Com munications, Energy and Paperworkers Union local 1900. They are Dav e Malka , Terry Dekker, Adrian Pe arce, Peter Hill, Sh ane Blyan, Dave Valentine, Darren Scott, Phil DesRoches, Chris Peterson.

I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: Hon. members, today we have 17 members who have identified their desire to participate, so may I make my plea once again: brevity in questions, brevity in answers. We’ll proceed w ith the fi rst Official O pposition main question from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Electricity Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Liberal opposition released a report that the government is too embarrassed to release itself.

The report of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Electricity is so suga r-coated. T he Consume rs’ Association of Canada in Alberta withdrew its unqualified support for the report. The government’s own MLAs on the committee continue to express doubts about whet her elec tricity deregula tion is wor king for consumers, and even s ome distinguished Albertans are continuing now to speak out about the reasons why the government deregulated the electricity marketplace in the first case. Now, my first question is to the Premier.

Why is the government telling Albertans that we needed more generation when electricity expert John Davies said, and I quote, that there was ample electricity before deregulation? 1:40 Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, John Da vies, I gue ss, is ent itled to his opinion, but according to all the experts at that time and, indeed, the evidence that has c ome to ligh t lately , there w as a short age of electricity in this province, and it was due to deregulation that more electricity generation has been brought on stream. Mr. MacDonald: Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: why is the Premier telling Albertans that we are short of power when Herman Schwenk, the past president of the A lberta rural e lectrification as sociation, said, and I quote, that the only reason w e were running short of generation by 1997-98 w as becaus e the gov ernment decided to deregulate the industry? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman, of course, is entitled to his opinion, and he expressed an opinion. The simple fact is that this province was facing a s hortage of power, and the government was not about to go into the generating busi ness.

We had to make it possible and feasible for the priva te sector to bring on m ore generation. That, indeed, has happened to the point now where we have, I believe, about 3,000 megawatts of power that is deemed to be surplus to our needs, and that has come about due to deregulation. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: what will it take for the Premier to come clean with all Albertans who have been burdened month after month with high-cost electricity and admit to these consumers that el ectricity deregulation ha s been a t otal and dismal public policy failure? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, deregulation has not – has not – been a total and disma l failure. It has be en a succ ess. W ith or without deregulation there could have occurred some problems with billing, and those pro blems became evident on the consum er or the re tail side. It had nothing to do with generation and bringing more power on stream. That component of deregulation was highly successful indeed, notwiths tanding w hat some pe ople have offered as thei r opinions.

The report of the advisory committee deals with the retail side, deals with the consumer side, and makes recommendations to fix the problem, and indeed action has already been taken by both the Departm ent of G overnment Servic es and the Department of Energy to address this issue. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Provincial Fiscal Policies Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today’s budget update showed that this government has billions of dollars in surplus funds, yet we have seniors st randed in under staffed nu rsing homes, children in overcrowded classrooms, and municipalities closing basic facilities for the public. Under this government Alberta is a have province with have-not services. To the Premier: given the multibillion-dollar surplus, what excuse does he offer to the litt le children who sit in schools hungry because there is no school lunch program? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, that com ment i s totally unfounded, is absolutely unfa ir, and is sim ply not true .

You know , while t he opposition is sitting over there twiddling their thumbs and basically counting pennies and talking about a $2.70 glass of orange juice, we’re counting the billions of dol lars of new infrastructure in this province. Since the year 2000-2001 this government has funded 774 new or renovated schools totalling $1.1 billion, more than 60 new or renovated health facilities totalling more than $1 billion, 38 new or renovated colleges and universities totalling more than $500 million.

Speaking of senior s, as the hon. member was speaking, we hav e funded 121 separat e upg rades to seniors’ lodges tota lling $65 million. You know, their focus, as usual, is on the negative. I would like to remind t hem that we’re focused on the 5 ,000 kilome tres of highway this government has paved and the $3 billion spent on roads in t he last f ive y ears, nee ded infras tructure to s ustain econ omic growth and prosperit y.

We’re focused on the w orld-class student achievement results a cross the province a nd p raise our s chool districts, the praise that they are receiving from jurisdictions across the world. I met w ith the Deputy Mi nister of Education f rom Saxony today, who admitted that they have a lot to learn from our school system and our achievem ent tests and the res ults that we obtain. We’re focused on the 85 per cent of Albertans who rate the quality of their health care services as good. The Speaker: I think w e’re going to go with brevity. T he hon. member. Dr. Taft: Too bad he’s not answering his own telephone.

Given the multibillion-dollar surplus, what excuse does the Premier offer the stroke victim who sits 10 hours in t he F oothills emergency room without seeing a doctor? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, again, the Liberals will search high and low and mainly low to f ind something wrong in this p rovince. Not everything is going t o be perfect 100 per ce nt of the ti me. That’s why we operate on about a 70 per cent success rate. You know, if we have a 70 per cent approval rating, that is pretty good. There are

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 151 going to be 30 per cent of those who believe i n the Liber als or the NDs or other, no matter how well we do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to concentrate again on those things that are positive, like the practical health reforms that make a difference to patients, l ike electronic health re cords, new physician funding models, an on-line wait list registry, and around-the-clock access to over-the-phone healt h advi ce wh en h e’s speaking about he alth services.

We’re focused on the record number of MRI scans, heart surgeries, and joint replacements being performed in this province and the 600 doctors and 1,500 nu rses wh o have m oved here to Alberta in the last three years. Dr. Taft: Again to the Premier: given the multibillion-dollar surplus, what excuse does he offer vulnerable seniors who, according to his government’s own report, sit unattended in nursing homes because of staff cuts? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, he is ag ain focusing on the negative – focusing on the negative.

I would f ocus on the $225 m illion in seniors’ programs funded by this gove rnment annually, providing some services for nearly 60 per cent of seniors in Alberta who are in the low-income bracket. These are the kinds of things this side of the House, the government side o f the House, is focused on. The opposition, well, of course, they’re focused on trying to manufacture bad news in whatever way they can. And Albertans are not buying it. 1:50 Utilities Consumer Advocate Mr. MacDon ald: Speaking of bad n ews f rom this government, Alberta electricity consumers are going to get m ore of it, unfortu- nately.

One of the top recom mendations in the report from the Premier’s Advisory Council on Electricity is to create an independ- ent, government-funded consumer ombudsman. My first question is to the Premier. Why is the Premier allowin g the off ice of t he Utilities Consumer Advocate to be fully funded by the gas compa- nies and the Balancing Pool? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the precise answer to that. I will have the Minister of Government Services provide a response. Mr. Coutts: Mr.

Speaker, this is an exact duplicate of the question that was presented yesterday in this House, and I have advised this House that, y es, t he B olger commission set up the idea of an advocate’s office. That recom mendation has been ap proved by government, and our department, responsible for consumer protec- tion, has set up the advocat e’s position un der the au spices of a deputy minister.

It is im portant to m ake sure that government is close to this issue because Albertans have to have an open door, an open portal, to provide us with the information that Albertans are seeking when they want to know exactly how the energy restructur- ing has been done and what their rights are and how it is progressing to this point in time. The advocate’s office does that for Albertans. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Govern- ment Services.

Given that the minister has had 24 hours to consult with the Public Affairs Bureau regarding this matter, I will ask again: how can this g overnment call the Utilities Consumer Advoca te independent when his paycheque and his office expenses are being signed by the utility companies? Mr. Coutts : Well, Mr. Speaker, the department of consumer services under Government Services is funded by the tax payers of the province of Alberta.

The advocate’s office is also funded by the taxpayers of the province of Alberta through their utility payments, through the Balanc ing Pool, and indire ctly back. [interj ections] They don’t like this, but it’s a better direct access to government than through the other means. There was actually no access to govern- ment other than thr ough M LAs, a nd we hea rd MLAs respond through the Bolger report that the advocate’s position be put in place to be that avenue to government, and that’s what we did. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this time to the Premier.

Given that this is a cl ear cas e of pay ola, who in t he gover nment dec ision- making proces s made the decisi on? Who in c abinet m ade the decision that the office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate should be fully funded by industry? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have the hon. Ministe r of Government Service s supplem ent, but I will t ake ve ry str ong exception to the suggestion that this is payola.

Payola is the thing that their Libe ral cousins in O ttawa a re accus tomed to w ith the sponsorship program scam that is g oing on, that t hey se em to endorse and have t hrown u p smoke screens to cover up by, y ou know, focusing on $2.70 glasses of orange juice here in the province of Alberta. Relative to the question minus the suggestion that there is payola, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board funds interveners.

That is their responsibility when they look after the public interest in this province, and thank goodness we have an independent body that can do that. T hank g oodness we have the industry that supports that EUB in helping to make those decisions. Mr. Speaker, in terms of how the government is involved in this and the authority by which we as government, through the utilities advocate’s offic e – the f unding throu gh th e Balanc ing Pool is permitted under

section 148 of the Electric Utilities Act, which was amended in this H ouse in the year 2003. That amendment wa s provided for the development of the ret ail market in this province. Our department, through the advocate’s office, is to help with that development of the retail market and to inform customers and consumers, small businesses, and farmers exactly how they can access this system properly. Mr. Hancock: Point of order. The Speaker: To the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar: af ter being recogniz ed by the chair to ask the question, it m ight be appropriate then to listen to the answer instead of heckling.

The hon. leader of the third party. Health Care Reform Dr. Pannu: Thank you. During the past week the Premier has been peddling old wine in new bottles, Mr. Speaker. Instead of Hotel de Health, the Premi er is prom oting Hotel de Weal th. Allowing patients who can afford it to buy a better level of care in hospitals is a two-tiered healt h care system. My questions are to the Premier. While all Premiers agree that ma naging health care costs is a challenge, why doe s the Prem ier stand a lone in advoc ating ill- advised user-pay schemes th at lead to two-tier health ca re in this province? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, indeed, perhaps Alberta stands alone, as it

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004152 has on a number of issues, issues that have made this province very unique but, on the other hand, very prosperous and the envy of other provinces in Canada, because w e’ve had the courag e to think differently and to do things differently. Yes, I have said – and I will say publicly – that if a ll else f ails and w e can’t reach consensus relative to meaningful reform to achieve sustainability in health care, then we will consider going it on our own.

But having said that, we will abide by the fundamental principles espoused by his late departed friend Tommy Douglas – well, I don’t know if they were friends, but the late departed Tommy Douglas – who basically said that no one should lose thei r dignity and their home and their li velihood because of ill ness or sic kness. T hat’s what medicare was all about. [interjections] Well, it was. It was. It was b rought about so that people who were sick or injured wouldn’t lose their homes and their businesses because of illness or injury. That’s why it was brought about.

The system has grown to be all things for all people for all causes, and we have to address that. Indeed, every Premier – every Premier – and ever y terr itorial lea der has s aid that hea lth care c osts are driving their jurisdictions into bankruptcy, and it was unanimous in the letter to t he Prime Mi nister that unless so mething is done t o achieve sustainability, the health ca re system as we know it today will not be here 10 year s down the road. Now , you m ay think differently, but I’ll tell you that your friend in Saskatchew an, Mr . Calvert, your friend in Manitoba, Mr.

Doer, agree – agree – with me on this point. 2:00 The Speaker: Do I take it, hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, that you rose on a point of order? Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Okay. The hon. leader. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. My second supple mentary question to the Prem ier: why is this Prem ier out of step with his fellow Premiers, including Conservatives like the Premier of Nova Scotia, who are urging the federal government to im plement the blueprint for health care sustainability contained in the Romanow report? Mr. Kle in: Mr. Speake r, I am not out of st ep with the oth er Premiers.

I agre e with the other Premiers that t hat portion of the Romanow report should be adopted; that is, t here should be more federal funding. But that is only one piece of the puzzle. That is a small piece of the puzzle. We need to look in a meaningful way at things we can do that won’t undermine public health as it relates to those who are truly sick and injured in society but, at the same time, will give the regional health authorities and others the opportunity to generate revenue. Now, relative to the wine situation, let’s get it on the record and let’s get it straight.

A reporter from the Edmonton Journal, Kelly Cryderman, asked me about a situation in terms of sustainability, and I related to her a situation that was passed on to me by a person i n Calgary. That person said that he travelled to Birmingham, England, where he wanted to get a hip replacement using the Birmingham hip, which I understand is the latest in technology. He mentioned to me that he rented a room in association with the hospital.

There were 10 rooms, five of them, by the way, occupied by Albertans – 10 rooms , five o ccupied by Albertans – and these rooms were like hotel rooms, but they were attached to the hospital. Yes, those people who could afford it paid to hav e those lu xury rooms, and yes he could order wine to his room because i t wa s operated like a hotel, but the public hospital was still in place, was still doing hip surgeries. The doctors there contracted to do a certain amount of procedures under the national health system in Britain.

We have never looked at the system in Britain; we have never looked at the system in France; we have never looked at the system in Sweden: all of them social democratic countries. We have never looked in detail at those systems where they do have a mix of public and private. We have to ask ourselves: why are we number 27 in the world? Why are we not number one? Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Granted that this Premier keeps interesti ng c ompany, why w on’t he level with regular Albertans and admit that the flexibility he seeks in interpreting the principles of the Canada Health Act is code for introducing health care user fees? Mr. Klein: No, it’s not code for introducing health care user fees, although user fees may be part of the answer. May be.

You know, user fees is a sexy 15-second sound bite, but it may be a multitude of things including closing the Romanow gap, including looking at ways to allow regional he alth aut horities to be more flexible, including recommendations contained in the Graydon report talking about deductibles and to some extent user fees. All of these things need to be looked at, and we need to look at them because the health care system that he cherishe s so muc h will not be there. It will collapse totally and completely. The Speak er: The hon. Mem ber for D rayton Valle y-Calmar, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mature Cattle Marketing and Processing Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The partially lifted borders were excellent news for our cattle i ndustry, although news reports today say that Montana is asking for a seven-year ban on live cattle exports, which is no nsense, and restrictions imposed by other countries limited the beef that could be exported to cattle less than 30 months of age. This has meant an overabundance of cattle more than 30 months of age with no other market than the domestic one. My first question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

What is being done to help deal with the overabun- dance of mature beef in Alberta? Mrs. McClellan : Mr. Spea ker, first of all, I don’t believe that Montana is asking for a seven-year ban. There are a few people in Montana that have mentioned that. I spent som e time with the Director of Agriculture for Montana in Washington earlier this week, and there was no suggestion of that. In fact, what all the directors of Agriculture across the U.S. and the ministers in Canada are searching for is a way to resume normal trade. Mr.

Speaker, when we were faced with the issue of BSE in our country, we quickly came to a conclusion with the industry that there were some things that we were going to have to do differently, and one was the handling of mature cattle. In spite of ou r bein g successful in having the border opened for boneless beef under 30 months in seven m onths, not sev en yea rs, we have a s upply of mature cattle and bulls. Prior to May 20 about 60 to 70 per cent of those animals went li ve into the U.S. and into Me xico to be pr o- cessed.

So we realized that we were going to have to deal with this on a long-term basis in our country. So the government of Alberta being visionary, working with the

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 153 *see page 154, right column, paragraph 5 industry some months ago, put three programs in place to deal with this issue . We realized that we had to have ca pacity to kill these animals, which we don’t have today. We realized we had to have a home for the product within our country, which we don’t have today, so we put three programs in place. The $4 million beef product development program, which looks for new ways to use that material and, in addition, a $25 million loa n prog ram with Ag Financial Services Corporation to help processors process that in our province.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is for the same minister. Given that many farmers and ranchers are asking me how they can process and sell their own bee f, what is your depart- ment doing to make it easier for small producers to develop value- added opportunities on their farms? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we hav e something in this province that’s the envy of many provinces in Canada and, in fact, many places in the world. Mr. Mar: It’s our Premier. Mrs. McClellan: It’s our Premier – you’re right – and the vision of this Premier.

We have in thi s province the Leduc p rocessing centre, and I’ve often said that this is probably the best kept secret in our province, but, Mr. Speak er, it is be coming far bett er know n, and ma ny members would rem ember that we introduced, also, an incubator addition to that project.

What we have done with the programs that we have for funding, which are modest but are what our processors told us they needed to change their plants to handle more of this product, is put the Leduc processing centre at their disposal and also purchase some additional equipment that would be needed there to dev elop that produc t. That’s what our producers told us: we need help with product development. Obviously, each one who wants to do this can’t go out and purchase the equipment on a tri al basis. So that is occu rring, Mr. Speaker, as we speak. The Speaker: The hon. member. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. That’s good news. My final question is f or the sam e minister. Is y our department considering changing any regulations to make it easier for producers to develop value-added opportunities on their farms? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the experience with BSE has taught us one thing, it’s the importance of having good food safety rules and regula tions in plac e, the importanc e of hav ing good livestock transportation rules and regulations in place, and having regulations in place that allow us to identify animals and/or, indeed, product readily.

So as has been o ur practic e, we s it with the producers. We’ll talk about regulations that they might see that are inhibiting them from moving ahead, but we will not reduce regula- tions that in any way compromise the quality and the safety of the food products we produce. 2:10 Government Aircraft Mr. Bonner : Mr. Speaker, yesterday w e seemed to have so me confusion about whether or not the government uses its planes to fly persons not in government to partisan political events.

When I asked if municipal leaders were flown in a government plane to a partisan political event, the Minister of Municipal A ffairs replied: “Abso- lutely, yes, to the question.” When I asked if the persons in question paid the cost of their trips, he answered: “At no time will a govern- ment plane ever be used for political purposes.” Th is is a great contradiction. To the Premier: will the Premier help his minister out by confirming that the government does transport people to partisan political events such as a Premier’s dinner? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we’re very careful about that.

As a matter of fact, I know that those who attend Premier’s dinners, whether it be in Cal gary, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, or Red Deer, are transported on chartered planes. Now, it may be that a minister or officials of the government have government b usiness in tha t pa rticular city and mig ht have taken the plane down earlier to attend to that particular business, but in no case are any members of government allowed to take govern- ment planes to Premier’s dinners or to other fundraising dinners. Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, since t he operation of the air craft is in Infrastructure, I would like to supplement. I think that what is going on in here and what happen ed yester day is actually very , very distasteful. From Hansard on page 117 jus t let me read a little of what the hon. member asked yesterday. There were several municipal leader s, family members of MLAs, and other perso ns on bo ard the se govern ment airc raft tha t da y. Coincidentally, April 4, 2002, was also the Premier’s dinner day in Calgary.

And then: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: did the government transport municipal leaders to the Premier’s dinner, a partisan political event, on the taxpayer’s [expense]? Well, I happen to have in my hands right here – and I will file it later, at the appropriate time – the manifest from that day. It reads that the plane left Edmonton at 8:15 in the morning. There was one MLA and four othe r individuals aboard that aircraft. They were going to Calgary for a Roles, Responsibilities and Resources meeting sponsored by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

At 1 p.m. the plane left Calgary and came back to Edmont on, and on that pla ne there were the fiv e people tha t went d own in the mor ning plus two municipal leaders. For the member to suggest that there were family members aboard the plane, that there were municipal people going to the Premier’s dinner in Calgary that evening – you should be ashamed of yourself for making those kinds of accus ations. They are absolutely f alse, and you should apologize to the people of Alberta for trying to make the people believe that, in fact, this is happening, because it is not happening. Mr.

Bonner: Again to the Premier. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry has the floor. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. To the Premier: can the Premier explain why on October 1, 2002, the gove rnment pla ne transported to and from Edmonton and Calgary six members of the Getty family? Mr. Hancock: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kl ein: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea, nor a m I com pelled to answer any questions relative to the activities of the former Premier.*

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004154 *see page 153, right column, last line Mr. Bonner: To the Premier: will the Premier tell us if any persons transported on government planes have reimbursed their cos ts for their trips? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when we used the government airplane to attend things like the Wes tern Premiers’ Conference and other events where we have charged members of the media and members of the business community, the trade mission to Houston where we used the Dash 8. Transport Canada has since ruled that you can’t do that.

Now, that was unbeknownst to me, so there was nothing untoward about doing that at that particular time. So, yes, indeed, there have been charge-backs. We’re look ing at that poli cy now. M uch t o my chagrin and my disappointment, apparently it can’t be done. I think it’s a courtesy, to say the least, and it’s a convenience for members of the media and others who might want to travel to these con fer- ences to go on the government plane if there’s room, providing they pay. We usua lly charge what they would p ay on the lowest cost excursion. Basically, it’s the cost of fuel. Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, under the terms of our licence, we are not allowed to charg e for trips. So, as the Premier has indicated, that procedure has stopped. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Federal Health Care Funding Mrs. O’Neill: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker . At the first ministers’ meeting in January the Prime Minister finally followed through on his predecessor’s commitment for an additional $2 billion to health care. Alberta’s share of that money is approximately $200 million. My question is t o the Ministe r of Hea lth and Wel lness.

Can the minister tell this House if he has had any indication y et from the federal government and the federal Minister of He alth th at it wi ll annualize the one-time commitment to health care? Mr. Mar: Mr.

Speaker, across Canada health care costs have gone up at roughly twice the rat e of the rate of growth of government revenues, and that’s the reason why at yesterday’s news conference from the Counci l of the Federation our premier and premiers from across Canada una nimously urged the federal governm ent to annualize the $2 billion tha t was a nnounced by Prime Minister Chretien and repromised a number of times since then. Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, Alberta’s share of that money is $200 million. Let’s put that in perspective: that will only pay for about 10 days of health care in this province.

Now, every dollar of that is welcome, and I know that regional health authorities will put it to good us e, but to this point not Alberta nor any other province of Canada has had any hint at all that the federal govern- ment is planning on annualizing that funding, which is much needed. Mrs. O’Neill: Well, my supplemental to the same minister then: has the federal government given any indication that it plans to pay more of its fair share of health costs? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr. Speaker, a bit o f history on medicare in this country.

When it started out as a provincial/federal partnership with Tommy Douglas introducing a universal hospital insurance system in Saskatchewan, the federal grants for that were 50 per cent. So it was a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement. Now, that model stayed in place unt il 1977 when a Liberal Prime Minis ter replaced it w ith block funding for health and postsecondary education. That is what eventually turned into the Canada health and social transfer in 1996. Right now nationally the federal government contributes just 16 cents on the provinc ial h ealth care dollar.

All provinces across Canada are demanding that the federal government move to the 25 per cent recommended by the f ederal government’s o wn royal commission. So far, Mr. Speaker, there has been no federal intention expressed of doing so. 2:20 Water Management Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, the government’s ministers can’t seem to agree on the R ed Deer River dive rsion. The Minist er of Energy seems to think it’s no big deal, while the Minister of Environment isn’t so sure. Yesterday that minister said he is not ev en sure whether he disagrees or agrees with the appeal.

To the Premier: is the Red Deer River diversion, where fresh water will be taken out of the water cycle forever, a big deal, or isn’t it? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you’ll permit me, I would like to answer th at question, but something’s been playing on my mind relative to a question asked by th e hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. It alluded to the former Premier and his family using the plane. I wasn’t paying that close attention. It was in 2002. Indeed, Mr. and Mrs.

Getty were on a plane as well as members of his former staff, and that w as to transport him for the de dication of the Getty wild-land park. Just to have that clarified.* Mr. Speaker, in answ er to the hon. m ember’s question: i s it o f importance to me? Yes, it is. It’s of extreme importance to me. It’s of extreme importance to, I believe, both members representing Red Deer and the hon. Member for Lacombe-Stet tler and the hon. Member for Ponoka-Rimbey, probably the hon. members for Rocky Mountain House and Drumheller-Chinook as well.

The reason it’s important is that some of the communities surrounding Red Deer are running short of water. Aquifers a re drying up, and a div ersion is deemed to be one way in which these communities can be assured of a secure supply of water for the future. Where that process is right now, I really don’ t know, bu t I am very ke en on this particular project. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, then why would the a pproval for the diversion be given bef ore the Water for Li fe plan has be en com- pleted?

That seems to indicate to the communities in those areas that their concerns over long-term access to water are unfounde d and going to be ignored. You can’t just let companies take water out of the life cycle. Mr. Klein: I think we’re talking about two issues here. One is the sustainability of supply for commu nities, pota ble wat er, and the other is the whole issue of water being used in oil field development, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member can clarify for me the point that she is trying to make because I, quite simply, don’t get it. Dr. Taylor: Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to point out that I believe the member opposite is onc e again recycling a question. Although as Minister of Environm ent I l ike recycling, I do n’t necessarily like recycled questions. She’s recycling the question she asked yester- day, which I assume is dealing with the Environmental Appeal Board hearing that is g oing on as w e speak . That has to do w ith the Capstone request to divert water out of the river for the Caps tone Energy company. I assume that is what she is speaking towards.

What I believe the Premier was referring to was – if you remember last session, I believe, we passed an interbasin transfer act that would

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 155 allow Red Deer to supply water to all those various communities that the Premier was referring to. But I believe the member was referring to the Energ y hear ing that’s going on. A s I said qui te cle arly yesterday, there’s a process. I will have a recommendation from that hearing within 30 days or thereabouts, and we’ll make a decision at that time. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Minister of Environment. Does this government believe that using fresh water for injection is a sustainable use of water? Please don’t recycle your “I don’t know” answer. Dr.

Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when the member asked that question yesterday, we have a committee that is made up of the environmental groups; it’s made up of the energy industry, the gas and oil producers; it’s made up of the Alberta municipal districts and counties; it’s made up of the AUMA . We have this group tha t is currently meeting, and they expect to have their initial recommenda- tions back to me by the end of March or in that time frame, and they will be mak ing recom mendations on uti lization of water that removes it from the hydrological cycle.

That’s what the committee is designed to do, and that’s what we’re waiting for recommenda- tions on. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Education Agreement with Saxony Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 23 an agreement was signed between Alberta Learning and the German state of Saxony’s Ministry of Education and Sports. The free state of Saxony in Germany also has an agree ment of co-operation with the province of Alberta.

Besides governme nt agreements we have agreements between Lindsay Thurber high school in Red Deer and Harry Ainlay high in Edmonton that are twinned with high schools in Hesse, Germany. Could the Minister of Learning please explain how the agre ement be tween A lberta L earning a nd the Saxon Ministry of Educat ion and Sports w ill benef it the stude nts and teachers of Alberta and why the Saxon ministry has chosen Alberta Learning to partner with? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just to start off on that question, I feel very strongly that any time we can sign agree- ments with countries across the globe, students in Alberta benefit. We benefit by sharing experiences. We benefit by sharing education systems. This particular MOU, in specific, signed in five areas, basically. The first one was an educator exchange, which enables us to have teachers go back and forth between Saxony, Germany, and Alberta. The second one w as school pa rtnership, w hich will be addi ng more to the twinning arrangements that the hon. member just asked about.

Again, I feel that this i s an incredibly good use of these agreements, where we can get students in our provi nce of Alberta talking to and having good dialogue with students in other parts of the world. The third thing w ill be information on education-related issues. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this is an agreement that allows us to talk about education, to talk about what each of our partners is doing. The fourth thing will be the foreign language assistance program. Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said in this House many times, in the year 2006 we will be making second lang uages very, very important to our system.

The German language will be one of them, and we will be counting on sharing expertise with areas such as Saxony in order to do this. Mr. Speaker, the last thing that we s igned was about teacher in- service training opportunities. Quite simply, this agreement entails that when there are in-servi ce opportunitie s for ei ther Saxony teachers here or for our teachers in Saxony, Germany, we will make those opportunities available and communicate to Saxony on this. Mr.

Speaker, again I’ll reiterate that any of these agreements that we sign with foreign countries, with foreign states, truly add to the educational experience for our students. Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the Minist er of Learning: what areas of best practices in Alberta Learning were the delegation from Saxony most interested in? Dr. Oberg: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the reason that Saxony came over here is ou r rankings in the OECD. As everyone in this Assembly and everyone in Alberta should know – and many people do – we finished number one on the exams in the OECD in the year 2000.

What this has done is given us truly a world-wide reputation for our lear ning syst em. Qu ite simp ly, wh at S axony, Ge rmany, wanted to do was come over and see exactly what we were doing in curriculum development, in technology, in teacher in-servicing and teacher professional development, essentially the whole elements of our learning system. Mr. Speaker, through to the h on. member, they also had an opportunity to tour the Nanotechnology Institute at the University of Alberta as well as see several of our great projects at the University of Calgary.

So in a space of about three or four days they s aw an excellent cross-section of what we’re doing in Alberta for education. 2:30 The Speaker: Hon. members, just a comment about question period today. It seem s that the S peaker should never a sk for br evity in questions and brevity in answers. Every time I do that we get less productivity, so I’m going to learn and never say that again. My apologies to the eig ht member s who could not participa te today, but nine did participate with questions and answers. head: Recognit ions The Speaker: In 30 seconds I’ll call on the first of several members. The hon.

Member for Medicine Hat. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Positive employer/employee relationships are something that every organization should constantly strive for. The government of Alberta is no exception. One way to maintain a positive working relation ship is through face-to-face contact between front-line workers who appl y public po licy and MLAs who develop the policy. This Monday I was pleased to participate in an educational seminar s ponsored by AUPE, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

The p urpose of this s eminar was to assist union representatives to develop pos itive w orking re lationships w ith government officials an d legis lators. I f ound the me eting to be enlightening and encouraging not because we agreed on every issue, because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we may never agree on every issue, but because we were developing a pro cess so issues can be presented in a meaningful discussion that respects both the deliverer and the developer of public policy.

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004156 Mr. Spe aker, I would like to thank the AUPE lea dership and members for p resenting me with a u nion hat and sweater after my presentation. As promised, I was pleased to model both on my way into question period this afternoon. I ask all members to join m e in congra tulating A UPE on th is positive training initiative. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Dr. Gary McPherson Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to acknowl- edge an Albertan well known to this Assembly.

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, presented the insignia of membership to the Order of Canada to Dr. Gary McPher son, Friday, February 20, 2004, at Ride au Hall in Ottawa. The Order of Canada is our count ry’s highest honour for lifetime achievement. I’ve had the privilege of knowing Gary for ma ny years. He is a man of incre dible streng th of char acter and is a testa ment to t he human spirit. For nearly 35 year s Gary lived in a long-term care facility after childhood polio left him quadriplegic.

His mind and his heart more than make up for his physical challenges. Gary broke from t he bonds of institutional living to become a voice of social change that has inspired others. He is a community activist, an administrator, and a role model for us all. As many of you know, Gary was the first chair of the Premier’s Council on the Status of Perso ns with D isabilities. He re mains a ctive in our community to this day, providing strong, articulate leadership to the Alberta Paraplegic A ssociation, the Rick Hansen Ce ntre, and the Steadward Centre.

Behind every successful man is, of c ourse, a ha ppy and st able home. For that, we recognize Valerie Kamitomo, his lovely wife and mother to their children, Keiko, 14, and Jamie, 13. Dr. McPherson is a remarkable Albertan embodying the values we hold dear, independent of mind, caring, and committed to building a just society for all. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. Kim Evanochko Mr. Amery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed a pleasure to rise today to formally extend my congratulations to a very special young lady, Kim Evanochko, from the community of Forest Lawn in the constituency of Calgary-East. Mr. Speaker, Kim has competed for some time in speed skating and earned the right to represent Alberta at the Special Olym pics Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island. Today I’m very pleased to recognize Kim’s very exciting finishes; namely, two first- place finishes, two second-place, and one third-place finish. Truly, all participating athletes are to be commended.

I especially want to a pplaud Kim’s Olym pic spirit a nd her contributi on to Alberta pride. I ask th at m y hon. coll eagues join me i n recogniz ing Kim Evanochko, athlete and Albertan extraordinaire. The Speaker: The hon. Interim Leader of the Official Opposition. Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Dr. Massey: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. Today I recogni ze th e teachers attending the greater Edmonton teachers’ convention. This has been a trying year for many of those teachers. Many are worried about the recommendations of the Learning Commission that may seriously rupture their professional association.

The convention is an opportunity for them to set the problems of crowded classrooms, fewer resources, and colleagues who are no longer with them aside. Renewing the Spirit is appropriately the theme of this convention. For many, given t he tria ls of the p ast year, the th eme will have special meaning. But renew their spirit they will. They’ll explore new ideas , sha re succe sses w ith each othe r, and be inspi red by internationally rated spe akers.

The topics range f rom a k eynote speech on school bullying to a smorgasbord of panels, demonstra- tions, lectures, and debates that will help make them better teachers when they return to their classrooms. There are literally hundreds of topics to choose from spread over some of the best v enues in this city. We wish them well as they go about becoming better profession- als. Our children will be the benefactors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Pierre Lueders and Giulio Zardo Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Pierre Lueder s, an ou tstanding Albertan who recently won a g old medal in th e 2004 World Cup two-man bobsleigh championship in Germany. His achievement on the world stage is a testim ony to his a thletic abi lity, de termination, and commitment to exce llence tha t serve s as a pow erful ex ample t o young, aspiring athletes throughout Canada and around the world. Like all athl etes he has worked long and hard to reach such an exceptional level of success and, in doing so, has brought pride and honour to our capital city, our province, and our country.

Pierre and his team mate a nd brakem an, Giulio Zardo, are recognized as one of the best team s in the w orld. Their recent success builds on Alberta’s rich tradition of excellence and demon- strates that effort and dedication have their rewards. I know that all members of this Assembly are extremely proud of Pierre and will join me in extending our congratulations and best wishes to him and his teammate on winning a gold medal. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that Pierre is the brother-in-law of our Minister of Economic Development. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Dr. Robert Lampard Mrs.

Jablonski: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, on August 2, 2003, Dr. Robert Lampard of Red Deer and his s on Geoffrey led a group of Rotarians with little or no mountaineering experience to the peak of Mount Davidson on the first documented climb of this 2,909 metre high mountain located on the eastern slopes of the Rockies near Devil’s Head north of Lake Minnewanka. Mount Davidson was named after James Wheeler Davidson, an expl orer, a com munity leader, and a Rotarian who chartered 32 Rotary clubs from Banff to Bangkok and from Athens to Auckland from 1920 to 1931.

At noon on that historic day the group of Rotarians, that included Davidson’s grandson T om Abr amson, c onvened the highest organized Rotary meeting ever held in North America. They built a cairn, buried a time capsule, and toasted Davidson with champagne. Davidson was a rema rkable m an and Rotar ian, who had a mountain named in his honour. Dr. Robert Lampard of Red Deer is also a remarkable man and Rotarian, who made sure that the world

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 157 would not forget the generous and energetic contributions of a man who lived by the Rotarian ideals of making new friends and service above self. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Mr. Maso n: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise t oday to recognize mem bers of t he Comm unications, Ene rgy a nd Paper- workers Union, local 1900, some of whom I introduced earlier, who recently achieved a first collective agreement with Craig Media and A-Channel Edmonton.

These union members – broadcasters, reporters, camera operators, and technicians – refus ed to give up even as the warm fall days turned into bitterly cold weeks and then into months during this long and difficult strike. My colleague and I from Edmonton-Strathcona along with many other Edmontonians were privileged from time to time to walk the picket line with them. The members of CEP local 1900 are going back to work March 1 having ratified a first collective agreement with their employer.

I send them our congratulations and our best wishes and our sincere hope that they can now start to reap the benefits of their employment that they so deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: 2:40 Tabling R eturns and R eports Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling today a report required under the Universities Act. The report on university animal facilities for 2003 covers inspections of facilities at the three Alberta universi- ties that use anim als in res earch and education, the se being t he universities of Alberta, Calgary, and Lethbridge.

The report does conclude that the animals are being cared for appropriately. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister for Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table with the Assembly today five copies of a recently printed report of the Endangered Spec ies Conser vation Com mittee, which is chaired, of cou rse, by my colleague the Member for West Yellowhead. The committee reports to me on the progress of their efforts on behalf of Alberta’s species a t risk.

The 11-member committee represents the academic community and organizations of land-use managers, resource users, co nservation gr oups, and government departments. The biannual report covers the period of June 2000 to June 2002 and sets the stage for ongoing activities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner : Thank yo u ver y muc h, Mr. Speak er. With your permission I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of the Alberta government aircraft passenger manifest, and these are for the date of Thursday, April 4, 2002.

The first flight on this manifest is the King Air. The department is Infrastructure, from Edmonton city centre to Calgary. The Speaker: Hon. member, we just table and move on. Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, I thin k this will help clarify one of the issues brought up earlier on the floor. The Speaker: Right now we’re in Tab lings. Is the hon. member finished? The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Mr. Lund: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I want to table answers to Written Question 15 from last ses sion and the m anifest that I ref erred to earlier that clear ly was the basis of the question f rom the hon. member.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I table the appropriate number of copies of a speec h given by Christien G auld. It w as a ve ry touching speech about the effects of cutbacks in speech therapy on her child. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have one tabling this afternoon, and that is a letter to the editor of the Eckville Echo, and it is s igned by Herman Schwenk from Coronation, past president, Alberta Rural Elec trification Association, and this is in regard to electricity deregulation. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got one tabling today. It’s appropriate copies of a letter from Mr. Tim Belec dated February 25, 2004. He’s a resident of Westerose, and the letter is addressed to the Premi er.

He ur ges the Pre mier to seek a mand ate be fore opening up o ur h ospital war ds t o “silver-trayed r oom serv ice to foreign ‘customers’.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. members, I’m not sure if there’s a full moon out today or not, but we’ve three points of order. So the first from the hon. Government House Leader. Point of Order Parliamentary Language Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope by that reference that you weren’t suggesting already that I was crazy. Mr.

Speaker, today in this House we reached, in my view, a new low, and I’m going to speak to the first of the new lows in my first point of order and then my second point of order presumably after Edmonton-Highlands has put his point of order. The first poi nt of order I raised w as with respect t o the third question put today, in this case by the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

I don’t have the Blues, but during the process of putti ng his question, he used the term “payola.” I would refer members to the Standing Orders of this House – 23(l), where a member “introduces any matter in debate which offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly,” and 23(i), imputing “false or unavowed motives” would apply – but more particularly to Beauchesne’s 493(3) and (4).

(3) The Speaker has traditionally protected from attack a group of individuals commonly referred to as “those of high official station”. The extent of this group has never been defined. Over the years it has covered senior public servants, ran king officers of t he arme d services, [et cetera].

(4) The Speaker has cautioned Members to exercise great care in making statements about persons who are outside the House and unable to reply.

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004158 Now, Mr .

Speaker , when one uses the te rm “payola,” I think there’s a fairly clear understanding that one is suggesting impropri- ety and more than suggesting impropriety, but let’s go to the Oxford dictionary definition: “bribery in return for the unofficial promotion of a product in the media.” I don’t think it’s necessary for anyone on this side of the Hous e to understand what the term means, but the people on the other side appear not to have a very good education; therefore, the Oxf ord definition of bribe ry: “dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one’s favour by a payment or other inducement.” Mr.

Speaker, that is probably the most heinous thing that one can say of another person in government and public service, and in this case there can be no doubt as to whom the member on the other side was refer ring in his question. He was ta lking cle arly about the public’s advocate, the deputy minister level em ployee of th e government who has been named as the Utilities Consumer Advo- cate.

Basically, the gist of the question today , the questions that have been raised earlier in the House – and I don’t for a moment raise any concern about opposition members or any mem ber of the House questioning how monies are applied to any particular project, who ought to be paying, who ought not to be paying.

But to go so far as to suggest that there’s payola, bribery, dishonesty with respect to a public official goes wa y beyond the pale, an d that ho n. member ought to stand in his place and state that he had no i ntention to impugn the integrity of senior public servants in this province and to acknowledge that by saying that there’s payola involved, he’s taking it above the normal propriety of this House in which the opposition has the right, indeed the obli gation, to question the way in which government operates and went far beyond that.

He should withdraw the comments which clearly impugn the integrity of the utilities commissioner of this province. The Speaker: Hon. Opposition House Leader, are you participating on behalf of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar? Ms Blakeman: Yes. In my inaugural response as a House leader to the point of order raised I will be arguing in defence of the questions from the Mem ber for Edm onton-Gold Ba r. In looking at the question that was asked, there was no clear reference with the use of the word “payola,” unlike what is being argued by the hon. House leader on the other s ide.

He was questioning why the government had chosen to make other fund ing arrangements t han what w ere clearly outlined in the government’s own policy. The question of the use of the word “payola,” which is an informal bribe to get special treatment, especia lly to prom ote a c ommercial produc t – in the question asked by the member, he’s not making reference. He said, “Given that this is a clear case of payola.” He does not attribute it to any given individual or entity at all.

Now, the House leader also raised but didn’t argue the point o f offending the practices of the House under 23(l), and he also raised Beauchesne 493(3 )and (4) , which is referr ing to “th ose of high official st ation,” and i n fact t hat has not be en determined. “The Speaker has traditionally protected from attack a group of individu- als commonly referred to as ‘those of high official station.’ ” It’s never been def ined, but it g ives sug gestions of “senior public servants, ranking officers of the armed services, diplomatic represen- tatives in C anada, a Minister who was not a Member of e ither House.” 2:50 Well, we’re her e talking about independent businesspeo ple. [interjection] Yes, we’re talking about who pays the utility commis- sion, and the people that are involved in that I don ’t think ar e covered under any of the g roups that I ha ve just named: “of the armed services, diplomat ic re presentatives in Canada, a Minister who was not a Member of either House.” So I disput e that point from the member.

This is the job of the Official Opposition: to raise questions with the governm ent and to ca ll them to account. T hat is what this member has tried to do in bringing forward a situation in which the government appears to have contravened its own policy, and the member was questioning why. So I w ould argue t hat none of the citations brought forward by the Ho use lea der have in fact been contravened. Thank you. The Speaker: Additional participation?

Well, there may be some members in the House who actually are young enough not to know the origin of the word “payola,” so just for edification I wi ll advise them tha t there w as a tim e in North America when disc jockeys were playing music and record compa- nies wante d to promote music and the artists on the records. Somehow it seems that payments were made under the table to the disc joc keys to play the records . So it wa s a bribe, a nd it was exposed.

As I recall, the American Congress, in fact, had massive hearings at one tim e, and a lot of very reputable peo ple who had started careers in the re cord business quickly fo und their car eers brought to an end. In this case the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar raised the first question: “Why is the Premier allowing the office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate to be fully funded by the gas companies and the Balancing Pool?” Okay. A straightforward question. In the second question the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar then goes f urther: “How can this g overnment call the Uti lities Consumer Advocate independent when his paycheque and his office expenses are being signed by the utility companies?” So there was a progression down the line. Then in the third que stion the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar basically agrees with the position he wants to take by saying: Given that this is a cl ear case of payola, who in the government decision-making process made the decision, who in cabinet made the decisi on th at the offic e of the Uti lities Consum er Advocate should be fully funded by industry?

There’s a progression in the three questions that almost leads to the conclusion that there was bribery taki ng place. That is, in the chair’s view, totally, totally odious, and I’m not so sure t hat the language in the past is such that – every thing has to do with th e context of the question. The word “payola” was used o nce in the C anadian Hous e of Commons, and it was u sed in a speech given by the Mem ber for Calgary West on September 28, 1998, but it was used in this context: “We have to end the whole pr actice of some w ould say payola, patronage, kickbacks or backroom dealing.

A nyway we want to phrase it, it is wro ng and we should e nd these ty pes of thing s.” There was no intervention and there was no i nterjection in the Canadian House of Commons at the time. Today it seems, though, that there’s an innuendo with respect to this. No one has been named with respect to this, and I say that no one has been named, so that means it’s a technical determination that there was not an allegation made against a particular member. But there’s abs olutely no doubt in the cha ir’s mind that it w asn’t required. The phras e was not requi red in the question. It added nothing to the question.

The chair unders tands that t here is a dynamic in the qu estion period, but the chair also knows that if al l members of this House respected the rules that are f ound with res pect to ques tions in the

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 159 book that we use, Beauchesne, and also the guidance provided by the chair prior to the beginning of each session, we would never h ave these kinds of interventions. We would never have these kinds of statements with respect to a question period. The word in this case added absolutely nothing to the contents of the question. It provided an i nnuendo tha t perhaps w ill hurt someone outside of this House. Hopefully, that will not be the case. Words such as thi s are not ne cessary to any of the qua lity in t his Assembly.

One may be enthusiastic in the question, but the use of words w hich may cause ha rm to othe rs adds nothing and adds nothing to the dignity of the person raising the question. The chair also has to note that the Premier did respond and said that he would use this term in speaking of the federal Liberals. I think we’re just on the edge here today of whether or not this is a point of orde r. There ’s nothing that a dded to the qual ity of the context. There is nothing that added to the importance or the impact of the question.

It was a rightf ul interjection for the Government House Leader to raise the point of order. It was a rightful opportu- nity to have a review of this. I just wish people would ask questions according to the rules of the House, and maybe the answers would come back, too, according to the rules of the House. This is not a good example to give to anyone who visits this Assembly. I feel sad about that. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, you had a point of order? Point of Order Addressing the Chair Mr. Mason: I did indeed, Mr . Speaker , and if I may cite f rom Beauchesne’s 168 and from Erskine May,

chapter 18, on page 371: “A Member must address the Speaker and not direct his s peech to the House or to any party on either side of the House.” I don’t have the Blues in fro nt of me, but t oday durin g question period in response to the question from my colleag ue the leader of the New Democrat opposition . . . [inte rjections] I f I can make my point without interr uption. The Prem ier leane d over and i n a very belligerent and aggr essive fashion, point ing h is fin ger at my colleague, repeatedly addressed him directly and not through the Speaker, calling him “you.” He repeated that several times.

I would just like to bring to the House’s attention that as per your ruling it is, in fact, a requirement that even in response to questions it’s impor- tant to go through the chair and not personally address any members of this Assembly. Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s always a matter of the rules of the House that one addresses the Assembly through the chair. It is difficult when you’re asked a question and you’re responding to a question raised by a member.

You tend to look at the member and you tend to address the answer to the member because that’s what’s considered polite in norm al society, but w e recognize that in this House we address matters through the chair. I will make sure that all members of Executive Council are aware that that is the practice, procedure, and process in the future. The Speaker: Hon. members, I’m going to bring this one quickly to a head.

There was absolutely no doubt at all in the chair’s mind that the hon. the Premier did turn his back to the chair and did focus his attention in the direction of the members of the New Democrat caucus, who should not have been interjecting when the Premier was speaking. Now, there is a basic protection the chair can give to all members. There is a reason why members speak through the chair, and there is a reaso n why m embers are ask ed to direct their com ments to the chair. It’s not bec ause the c hair has an eg o that needs to be, you know, enhanced. That’s not the reason.

It’s done so that the chair can be in a position to protect the member and the members. If the member is not facing the chair and if something ‘slurious’, spurious may be used by way of language, I guess, with words being omitted or body movements or something like this, if the chair doesn’t see it, the chair cannot intervene to protect anyone.

That’s the reason, and it’s a basic reason. 3:00 In this case there’s absolutely no doubt at all that the Premier did turn around, and he did look and I think as he was saying – I’m not sure that it was belligerent, though, when you read the words: “Now, you may think differently, but I’ll tell you, your friend in Saskatche- wan, Mr. Calvert, your friend in Manitoba, Mr. Doer, agrees – agrees with me – on this point.” There’s a lot of friendship talk in here. If it’s belligerent, I’m sorry about that, but I could not see that.

So, Government House Leader, if you would convey to all your colleagues, again, the reason for this. Please use all the words used by the chair in conveying the message. It would be kind of impor- tant. The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order Improper Inferences Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will use all the words and assure him that it wasn’t with respect to vanity that you require to be addressed.

But, in all seriousness, there has been a series of questions raised in this House in the last few days and, in particular, one raised today by the Member for Edmonton-Glengarry which offend the practices of the House.

Particularly, I would point you to House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 438 under Written Questions where it says: While oral questions are posed without notice on matters deemed to be of an urgent nature, written questions are placed after notice on the Order Pap er with th e inten t of seek ing from the Ministry detailed, leng thy o r techn ical in formation re lating to “pub lic affairs.” I would subm it, Mr.

Speak er, as w ell, Beauchesne’s 409(7) on page 121: ”A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.” And 23(

h) and (

l) as well, as I’ve referred to earlier. Essentially, my point, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Glengarry has on at least two occasions raised specific questions in the House w ith respect to a spec ific date some years prior to this with respect to a specific manifest and who might be on it.

It would be both courteous and parliamentary of that member to either put that type of a question in the form of a written question or provide notice to the minister that he’s raising the question with the intent of the question if, in fact, he intends to do somet hing other than cast aspersions on the minister. It is the Minister of Infrastructure who’s responsible for who flies on government planes at what time. It’s the Minister of Infrastruc- ture who has the obligation to ensure that the government planes are used in an appropriate manner.

By raising questions in the House – and again I don’t for a moment wa nt to deny the opposition or anyone else in this House the right to ask about the appropriate use of government planes or the appropriate use of government money and the people’s money or any of that. It’s not about not being held accountable. It’s about how you’re held accountable in the manner which is not sim ply a dri ve-by smea ring but is a n appropriate question for accountability. When you ask a question of a detailed nature on a manifest on a

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004160 specific date at a specific time as to who was on the plane, knowing full well that no one – the Ministe r of Inf rastructure, despite his brilliance, cannot possibl y know who was on what plane on what day for what purpose, so by asking the question in that manner in the House, the motive of the member asking the question is obviously to create an innuendo of some i mproper purpose.

If it was for any other reason that he asked the question, he would have either given notice to the minister so that the minister could be in a posit ion to know who was on the plane a t th at time and be prepa red to be accountable for it, or h e would have put it in Written Questions, where matters of a technical nature are properly determined.

It is totally inappropriate and offends the propriety of this House to use this H ouse to sm ear the c haracter of other m embers and to bring the character of all members into disrepute by suggesting that there’s a process of using government planes or government money, the people’s m oney, ina ppropriately. Gove rnment m ust be held accountable. Government must be open and honest. We relish the opportunity to be open and honest, to be the most open government in terms of providing accountability for public funds anywhere. But raising questions in that manner has only one purpose, Mr.

Speaker, and that’s to s mear, to drag dow n the reputat ion of th e member who’s responsible for determining who rides on government planes at what time and for what purpose. There could be no other reason for asking the question in that manner, and the member should rise in his place and apologize. The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you fo r the opportunity to respond to the issues brought forward by the hon. House leader. As I stated before, it’s the job of t he Offi cial Opposition to a sk questions of the government and hold them to account, a nd in fact, Mr.

Speak er, that’s exactly what happened today. The Government House Leader very quickly named a number of citations. I missed the first two – I’m sorry – but I did catch 23(

h) and (

l) regarding casting aspersions, and I would like to come back to that. He spent a gr eat deal of time also ta lking about how the level of detail that was asked for was more appropriate for a written question, and then somehow tried to hook that to the fact that it was a smear in that it ha d been asked as a que stion in qu estion period rather than as a written question. The logic of that is escaping me. I will address the actual questions that w ere ask ed. What’ s interesting in this is that the ministers were very well prepared today because there was a question that was asked yesterday. The Member for Edmonton-Glengarry very carefully laid out in the

preamble the misunderstanding or possible misunderstanding that had happened in the e xchange ye sterday and off ered an opport unity f or the government to clarify, because in fact on the face of it there w as a discrepancy in what the minister questioned yesterday had answered. The questions were very straightforward to the Premier: would he help h is minis ter out by confirming that the government does transport people to partisan political events? So the opportunity for the governm ent to answ er the ques tion. T here we re no names mentioned there. I don’t know how anyone could be smeared by it.

There were no names mentioned. In the second question, the Premier is asked again about a specific date. Now, according to the information that we were able to obtain, there were some seven flights on the day in question, and in fact the Minister of Infrastructure was very well prepared because he had the aircraft request from Alberta Infrastructure with him. So he was very prepared for this pa rticular series of questions. W hen there was a question about transportation of a particular group of people – and the question asked was very straightforward; there was no innuendo.

It was ju st why on this particular date t he government plane was used to transport a particular g roup of indivi duals who w ere not sitting government members. According to the information we have, that’s a perfectly reasonable question. The final question in the ser ies: whether the persons that we re transported – again, no names were mentioned ther e in t he thir d question – reimbursed costs, and that in fact was answered. There was no casting of aspersions upon any individuals, named or unnamed, her e. There were straight-out questions to seek information from the government.

A set of circumstances presented themselves, and the oppositi on questioned the government on that set of circ umstances to a llow the government to answer why that situation occurred. The second issue raised by the Government House Leader is that somehow the government was unprepared for this, and it was not fair or was going against the practi ces of the Hou se to be askin g a question that require d a leve l of deta il the m inister coul dn’t be expected to have.

In fact, the Minister of Infrastructure was very prepared to answer that, and the original question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs was asked because on the passenger manifest that was the department under question. So the question was appropri- ately directed the first time, and in fact the minister responsible in this case was very aware of the situation and was prepared to answer the question, as was evidenced. So we do not have aspersions cast here. We have no practices that offended the House. The opposition was seeking information and is perfectly entit led to do that.

The quest ion named names where appropriate and didn’t where it wasn’t appropriate. I don’t see how there is a successful point of order in what the G overnment House Leader has presented. I look forward to your response. 3:10 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure on this point of order. Mr. Lund: Yes, on th is point of order, Mr. Speaker. I’m having trouble even believing that someone would stand up and make some of the comments that we just heard.

Clearly – clearly – yesterday the member said: “There were several municipal leaders.” The fact is that coming from Calgary to Edmonton, the mayor of Edmonton and the may or of Le duc were the two pe ople from a munic ipality. “Family members of MLAs”: there was no family member of any MLA. As a matter of fact, there was only one MLA. They had the manifest, and they had the names of all the individuals that were on that manifest. “Other persons”: yes, there were other persons on it. Also, to suggest and question: were these peo ple going down to the Premier’s dinner?

Well, the fact is that the plane, when I look at the log, left Calgary at five minutes after 1 o’clock. The Premier’s dinner did not start till the evening, and in fact all of the people – all of the people – t hat flew down t o Ca lgary o n the aircr aft in the morning came back on the aircraft and left Calgary at . . . [interjec- tion] But there’s only one flight that was with Munici pal Affairs, and you aske d the ques tion of Mun icipal Af fairs, so the re’s no question, Mr. Speaker, about the intent of what they were up to. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, do you want to participate? Mr.

Bonner: No. That’s fine. The Speaker: The hon. government whip, please.

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 161 Ms Haley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With res pect t o the point of order today, just on the specific narrow band of that, the issue on the point of order was actually on the October 2002 – the innuendo was that we were flying former Premier Getty and his family around for no specific purpose.

I wanted to just address from my perspective, sitting and listening to the questions since last week when we came back into this spring session, that many of the questions are designed on the basis o f implying in some way, passing i nnuendo or cast ing aspersions or making people who take the time to listen to this or read a headline, that somehow members of my government – ministers, MLAs – are doing something wrong. Mr. Speaker, what I find totally and wholly unacceptable about what’s happened since the session began is that whether anybody’s been guilty of anything, the innue ndo is out there.

In the world that we live in where so many people enter the world of politi cs with all the best of intenti ons, nothing but the right reasons for wanting to be he re, it t akes about four se conds before somebody’s questioning whether you have any integrity. T hese types of things that we do to ourselves in here are just horrendous to me. There are m any is sues in an ov er $20 billion budg et in 24 different departments: in health, in ed ucation, on roads. There are great questions, and the opposition have every right to ask them.

But when they drop down into these depths, they make every body feel like, “My God, what are we doing? We must have done something wrong.” You’re always putting into question our integrity in here. When you do that, hon. m embers, you do it t o yourselves as well, and I think it’s really sad. It’s so out of character for what Alberta stands for. I just hope that one day this kind of thing can stop, that we can get back onto issues that matter. They have their philosophical point of view; we hav e ours. But w hen you te ar us all down like th is, you’ve hurt the whole, and there’s no merit in it.

There’s no value to it. It is not what Albertans expect of us. Frankly, it just horrifies me, and I want it to stop. The Speak er: Let me q uote fro m Alberta Hansard , Tuesday afternoon, February 24, 2004, page 117. This is the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me be categorical. At no time will a government plane ever be used for political purpos es, no w, ever before, or ever into the future. That’s in Hansard. That was said here yesterday. Okay. I respect any hon. member’s right to stand in this Ho use and say what they want to s ay, providing it’s within the rules. So today the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry started off with a

preamble saying that there was some confusion about whether or not the government uses its planes to fly persons not in government to partisan political events, and the last statement in the question was: To the Premier: will the Premier help his minister out by confirming that the govern ment does transport pe ople to partis an political events such as the Premier’s dinner? Now, I just fi nished reading what I read in Hansard on page 117. Okay. It seems to me it was clarified, but the hon. member is right to raise a question. So the Premier responded. The next quest ion from the hon.

Mem ber for Edm onton-Glen- garry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: can the Premier explain why on October 1, 2002, the government plane transported to and from Edmonton and Calgary six members of the Getty family? Now, as I’d indicated in a pr evious point o f order today, there seems to be an extension from one question to the next. Clearly, our rules make comment about innuendo. If I were to read this: does the government “transport people to partisan political events such as the Premier’s dinner?” there’s an answer given.

So the next one is: what about “six members of the Getty f amily?” Well, I guess I’m just sitting here saying: whoa, does he m ean that s ix members of the Getty family went to a partisan political event such as the Premier’s dinner? That would b e the conn ection I’d make. Th at’s what I make. All I do f or a living these day s is liste n – that ’s my sole reason for being – and I think there was an innuendo. Once again, I know the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, and I know he’s better than that. So it’s not a good day. We’ve had an explanation of this. Yo u know, this is – what? – day 6.

It was clarified to me that there’s not a full m oon out today, but I heard t he plea from the gove rnment whip, the hon. Mem ber for A irdrie-Rocky View, about pulling people down: ev erybody goes dow n. I thi nk th is is a pla ce of honour. We’ve had this building here for 99 years in the province of Alberta, and I think we’re supposed to be here to talk about policy and alternative policies, and we start talking about personalities and stuff like that.

Maybe there’s another place in the world for it, but it’s never been a part of the tradition of Alberta that I’m aware of. head: Orders of t he Day head: Transmittal of Estimate s Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a certain message from Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, which I now transmit to you. The Sergeant-at-Arms: Order! The Speaker: Hon. members, the L ieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, and recom- mends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Please be seated. Mrs.

Nelson: Mr. Speaker, prior to m oving a num ber of motions relevant to the supplementary estimat es, I wis h to advise that this morning I provided the government’s 2003-2004 quarterly budget report for the thir d quarter to a ll MLAs. We hav e also made this report public as required by

section 9 of the Government Account- ability Act. I am now ta bling this qua rterly budget repor t as the amended consolidated fiscal plan. This revised plan is required by

section 8 of the same act whenever a subsequent set of estimates is tabled during the fiscal year. I am also tabling the third-quarter activity report for 2003-2004. This document describes the major achievements of our government during the recent period. 3:20 Mr. Speaker, I also now wish to table the 2003-2004 supplemen- tary estimates, No. 2. These supplementary estimates will provide additional spending authority to nine departments of the government.

When passed, these estimates will a uthorize an i ncrease of $114,322,000 in voted operating expense and equipment/inventory purchases and $6,350,000 in voted capital investment. Mr. Spe aker, sec tion 8 o f the Government Ac countability Act requires that the government table a new and amended consolidated fiscal plan when there is another set of estimates. Having just tabled the amended fiscal plan as the quarterly budget report for the third quarter, I have complied with that requirement. head: Government Motions 8. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that the message of Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the 2003-04 supplementary estimates

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004162 for the general revenue fund, and all matters connected there- with be referred to Committee of Supply. The Speaker: It’s a debatable motion. [Government Motion 8 carried] 9. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 58(9) the number of days that Committee of Supply will be called to consider the 2003-04 supplementary estimates for the general revenue fund shall be one day. [Government Motion 9 carried] head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 7 Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International and Intergovern- mental Relations. Mr. Jonson : Thank yo u, Mr. Sp eaker. It is m y plea sure this afternoon to rise to s peak to second readi ng of Bill 7, the Al berta Senatorial Selection Amendment Act , 2004.

The g overnment of Alberta has long been committed to Senate reform. We have led the charge in pursuing meaningful change through a triple-E Senate, one that is equal, elected, and effective. Mr. Speaker, Alberta was succe ssful in having Stan Waters, the first S enate nomi nee elec ted under the Senatorial Selection A ct, appointed to the Senate by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney back in 1990. Since tha t time, the Premi er has cont inued to see k the support of other Pre miers and the Prime Minister to achieve meaningful Senate reform. Mr.

Speaker, the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act is due to expire on December 31, 2004. It w as originally expected to be a trans i- tional meas ure while the provinc es and the federal governm ent worked toward a n agreement on a tripl e-E Senate or on overal l Senate reform. Now w ith Bill 7 I a m proposing that the a ct be extended out to December 31, 2010. It has already been extended twice before, once in 1994 and in 1998. I would like to extend the act so that a mechanism remains in place to elect Alberta’s Senate nominees should we decide to do so.

Extending the act doe s not commit Alberta to holding further elections for Al berta’s Senate nominees. However, it does keep the election mechanism in place so that we would not have to start all over again from the ground up with new leg islation al lowing A lbertans to vote for their Senate nominees. Mr. Speaker, as we saw with the past Prime Minister, there seems to be little i nclination on the part of t he current Prime Minister to appoint either of Alberta’s elected Senate nominees to the upper Chamber.

With two Alberta Senators reaching mandatory retirement age this year, three of Alberta’s six Senate seats could be empty. Alberta will cont inue to press for Senate reform w ith other provinces and t he fed eral go vernment. We ne ed to mo dernize Canada’s democratic foundations and ensure that the voices of the provinces are adequately reflected in our parliamentary institutions. Therefore, I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill 7, the Alberta Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise this aft ernoon and spea k to Bill 7, the Se natorial Se lection Amendment Act, 2004. Cer tainly, we unders tand the rea soning behind the extension of this act, but by way of history the concept of a triple-E Senate, which was elected, eff ective, equal, gained prominence during the 1980s as it w as adopted a s policy by t he government of Albe rta at tha t time. By wa y of history again, on March 10, 1987, the Alberta Liberals introduced Motion 210 calling for triple-E Senate reform.

During the Meech Lake constitutional discussions i t was agreed that the Prime Minister would appoint Senators from a list provided by the provincial governments until real Senate reform occurred. After Meech Lake failed, Prime Mini ster Mulroney agreed to fi ll vacancies from provincial list s. In response A lberta pas sed the Senatorial Selection Act in 1989 because the government believed that the only fair way to choose a candidate for the list was through a province-wide election. The Alberta L iberals voted against the Senatorial Selection Act at that time.

In 1989 an Alberta Senate seat became vacant, and an election was held, won by Reform er Stan Waters. The Prime Minister grudgingly appointed him to the Senate. Amendments were introduced to the Senatorial Selection Act in 1998. Those amendments made it possible for a government to hold elections for a Se nate nomi nee eve n when no v acancy currently exists. It also e stablished that a pers on w ould rema in a Senate nominee until they are appointed by the Prime Minister, resign as a nominee, or until their term as nominee expires.

Lastly , the bill allowed the provincial cabinet by regulation to determine the duties and functions of Senate nominees, established mechanisms to assess their performance and accountability. So this is some of the history. In October of 1998 Bert Brown and Ted Morton were elected, with, I might add, a very, very low voter turnout. I did want to provide some background as to where we as Liberals, the Official Opposition, stand on a triple-E Senate.

I look forward to hearing comments from other members of the Assembly, and I do thank y ou for this oppor tunity to s peak to Bi ll 7, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak briefly to Bill 7, Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004. This bill seeks to extend the life of the existing legislation to the year 2010, as I understand it. Mr. Speaker, the bill speaks to an issue that’s broad er than just fixing the pro blem wi th the Senate.

I think Canadians in general would l ike us all – Canadian citizens, Canadian governments, Canadian political parties, and others – to certainly seek to modern- ize, bring up to date all our electoral systems, whether they pertain to the election of members to the House of Commons, a House such as ours, the L egislative Assembly of a prov ince, or the manner in which a Senate at the federal level is constituted. 3:30 The general interest, which is reflected to a degree in the bill but, certainly, widely expressed by all kinds of organizations and some political parties including federal NDP and provincial New Demo- crats, with respect to the need to broadly update and modernize our electoral system I think is appropriate.

So the general idea in the bill is something that I ha ve no quarr el with, but to tinker with litt le pieces one piece at a time I don’t think serves well the interests that Canadians in general and Albertans in particular have in the need to

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 163 modernize our elector al s ystem and t he mann er in wh ich we constitute our various decision-m aking bodie s at the f ederal a nd provincial levels. I think it’s appropriate, perhaps, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to raise the question of, in fact, increasing regional and provincial represen- tation at all levels including the House of Commons and making that representation not only regionally more representative but also representative in terms of the strength of different political parties that take pa rt in the body politic of Canada both p rovincially and federally.

Proportional representation h as certainly been proposed as one important next ste p that needs to be take n. Fair V ote Canada, a nonpartisan organiza tion, has bee n campa igning and working at bringing forward the proposition to move our electoral system from one that’s the first past the post t ype in which the winner takes all model is operational. It doesn’t provide representation based on the number of votes, the strength of support expressed electorally that different parties enjoy during our election processe s.

W estern Canada, for example, would be much stronger in terms of representa- tion in the House of Com mons if the propor tional representation model appropriate to Canadian conditions were adopted here.

So the way to strengthen the voice of provinces and regions at the federal level, in my view, would be much better served if we in this province and across this great country seriously engage Canadians and Albertans in debate with respect to how to improve up on and change our elector al system in or der to ma ke all our institutions, including federal institutions, more representative both of political support as expressed through elections and regional representation as indicated in the number of votes and the pattern of support that can be established through democratic, free, and open elections.

So while I understand the spirit behind this proposed legislation, to extend a n existing legisla tion which na rrowly focuses on the Senate and the Senate alone, I think it’s a bill that’s now behind the times. It reflects the debates of the ’80s and the ’90s. We are into the next new century.

We’ll be stepping into a new century for this province next year, and I think it’s about time for this pr ovince to play a leading role in seeking a broad-based change and reform in the electoral system so that both we as Albertans and also we as part of western Canada can find our voices appropriately represented and reflected in federal bodies both at the House of Commons level and perhaps the Senate level.

One question that needs to be raised and debated, I think, is about the present sort of role of the Senate as a body that doesn’t really reflect any dem ocratic values or c ommitments in the way it gets appointed. It hasn’t really served to broaden democratic participa- tion or democ ratic sorts of com mitments on the part of ordinary citizens to the ele ctoral process because the Sena te, in parti cular, denies the role to Canadians in having any ability to determine who sits in the Senate.

Merely for one province to continue to bring forward legislation which, in my vi ew, is perhaps left behind b y the changing times suggests that we need a more broad-based, more pan-Canadian effort to mobilize support for effective reform that will democratize the institutions that we take pride in and that provide us the democratic means to set the course of our nation, of our province , and of communities across this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I have serious reservations about the utility of Bill 7 and what it proposes to do. Thank you. The Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) kicks in. Mr. McClelland: On debate? The Speaker: No. We have the five-minute comment and question section. Any members wishing to participate? There being none, t hen the hon. Mem ber for Edm onton- Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speak er. This is a particularly important opportunity to speak to the Senate of Canada.

I speak to the Senate of Can ada today because I thin k that vest ed with the Senate is th e capacity to a chieve balance in the country, which is sadly lacking , but if it w ere there , it would ef fectively remove many of the irritants which have over many decades, since at least 1914 or 1915, resulted in what i s known as western alien- ation and in our case particularly alienation here. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] Now, it’s interesting that the Senate didn’t happen overnight. The Senate was a reflection of the B ritish parliamentary system in the House of Lords.

As members would know, the House of Lords is an appointed body, and it was a ppointed without number, s o in the Confederation debates that took place in 1864, the first question that came to be debated was the number. It was decided that there would be a limited number of Senators, and initially it was for Upper/Lower Canada or for the provinces that made up Confederation. But there would be a finite number, unlike with the British House of Lords, which could, in essence, be an infinite number.

The second consideration that took place even at that time in the 1860s was: would this body be elective or would it be appointed, and if appointed, how so? The concern was that if the upper House was to be a reflection of that which already existed, all that would happen is that it would end up being a mimic of the low er House. It was determined at the time that the lower House should have an effective check and balance that would not have members sitting based on the same volition as the lower House. Thereby, they would not have to be elected.

Thereby, they would not have to appeal to voters for the same reasons. They could therefore potentially have a longer range vision, a l onger vie w. Wha t had happened, even in U pper and Lower Canada, was that the upper House ended up being a reflection of the lowe r House bec ause the m embers were appointed by the politicians in the lower House. 3:40 So it was determ ined then tha t in Ca nada’s first Senat e the members of the upper House would be appointed by the Crown, and that’s the essential difference in what has happened in the interven- ing years.

The notion of the Senate being appointed by the Crown in 1867 meant that the allegiance of those in the upper House would be to the people of Canada with the longer range view and would, in fact, represent the provinces. The initial Senate was to represent the provinces in the upper House with a longer range vision. Well, as members know, that is not what has evolved. That’s not what’s happened. That’s not the case today. The upper House does not reflect the provinces. The upper House reflects people appointed from the provinces but whose allegiance is not to the province.

It’s to the federal government; it’s to the central government. In Quebec Senators are elected rep resenting various geographic regions, and they have a specific geographic region to r epresent. In the res t of Canada that’s not the case. The net result is that our upper House does not reflect the values that were envisioned for the upper House in 1867, nor does it reflect the values that are necessary today. Because it does not reflect the values, which is to b e a represent ative of the regi ons or th e prov- inces, we end up with legislation that is of interest to the heav ily

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004164 weighted population cent res as represented in the House of Com- mons but without the check and balance of the regions. Let me give you an example. The famous gun registry is a piece of legislation that came as a dire ct result of an inci dent that took place in Mo ntreal. It was the massacre at l’école Polytechnique, a disaster and a terr ible th ing. That ra ised the a wareness of g un violence and, of course, gun violence and violence in general that we see on TV eve ry day.

A pers on by the name of Wendy Cukier in Toronto took up the c udgels, and she made it a political ambition, essentially, to have firearms removed from Canada as much as could possibly be achieved. The federal government of the day took this up as a ve ry popular measure, and it wa s and is v ery popular in downtown Montreal, downtown Toronto, and in many urban centres across the country.

The difficulty is that Canada geograp hically is vast and diverse, and what may well be good for downtown Toronto and downtown Montreal is not nece ssarily appr opriate in othe r regions of the country, either in Atlantic Canada or in the west or even in the north of Ontario. So we need to have far more flexibility in our federation. We need to have a certain ambivalence within our Legislatures that provides for treating different geographic regions of the country and different interests differently because one size does not fit all in a country as broad and diverse as our country.

That’s why the Senate is so absolutely crucial to the future of our country. If we are not able to achieve balance in the country, we are not ever going to rid ourselves of the sense that there are those who are underrepresented or n ot represented, which results in a sense of not being part of the equation when matters of national importance are considered. It’s not going to be easy for us to continue to drive the agenda for a reformed Senate, and in fact it may not be a triple-E Senate that we eventually arrive at.

Ted Morton, one of Alberta’s Senators in waiting, has been circulating a paper which calls for a proportionally equal Senate, which, in his opinion, is better for Alberta and better for Ca nada and ce rtainly would be a far ea sier sel l to the oth er Premiers. Now, through the Council of the Federation, in which our Premier will definitely and does have a leadership role, we do have now a unique opportunity to drive the agen da for Senate reform. In my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, if we are to have a united Canada a hundred years from today as we are at the cusp of going into our hundredth anniversary of being a member of the Canadian family and Confed- eration, it will be because we have the courage to drive the agenda for Senate reform which will result in balance in the country even when no one else will listen, especially when no one else will listen. Because we have the opportunity, we also have the obligation to do so.

If w e do not, the n I fear that a hundred years from today someone would be standing in this plac e, and we will not be addressing the Canada , the futur e that w e could have if we do address it. So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all members of this Legisla- ture and indeed all Albertans to get behind this, to say that we will not rest until we have representation in the centre of governance, in the cent re, that is equal to w hat we c ontribute to this count ry generally, faithfully as proud Canadians, but there is definitely a limit to our patience as being taken for granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting S peaker: Standing Or der 29? Hon. Me mber f or Edmonton-Glengarry, you are rising to ask a question? Mr. Bonner: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford certainly has had a distinguished career not only at the provincial level but also at the federal level. Under the current rules for gaining entrance into the Senate, hon. members in this country are approached by the Prime Minister and asked if they would certainly consider taking a seat in the Senate, and they have the opt ion of th en s aying: ye s or n o.

My ques tion to the hon. member would be: if under the current rules he was approached by the Prime Minister of this country, would he accept an appointment to the Senate? Mr. McClelland: Well, that’s a fair question. I would lov e to be appointed to the Senate by the province of Alberta. I would love to be elected by the people of Alberta to represent the people of Alberta in the Senate of Canada. I can think of no greater honour. If tha t were to come, I would feel as honoured as every other person in this room.

But given my background, given what I have said here today, given the aspira tions of A lberta, g iven h ow impo rtant havi ng Senators representing the province and not the political party or the Prime Minister of the day is, I think my duty to Canada supercedes that. I would with great regret have to say no.

If I ran and were elected by the people of Alberta and were put on a list and the Premier of the province of Alberta submitted that list to the Prime Minister, when in fact that list should be given to the Governor Genera l and the G overnor G eneral should ma ke the appointment, not the Prime Minister, then I would be most honoured to serve our country and our province in the Senate. That is the only condition. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 3:50 Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to rise and participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill 7, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004. I think that if there were an election and for some reason or other the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford were in that election, I would probably vote for him. I don’t know if that’s an endorsement he’d like to go too far with, but I would because I think he would represent this p rovince and its people with distinction. Now, certainly, we are in changing times in this country, and this whole issue of an elect ed Senate is an im portant issue .

I find i t ironic that at the same time as we’re beating the drum here in this province for an elected Senate, we can’t have elected regional health authorities. But we have talked about that in this Assembly before, and I won’t say anything more in regard to that matter. [interjection] Now, some hon. member across the way ha s said, “Good,” and I think it is odd that we can talk about democratic renewal in Alberta, but we can exclude this whole idea of having democratically elected regional health authorities.

There certainly are ma ny issues to be discussed around citizen empowerment, legislative reform a t the province level, electoral reform, election financing reform, and transparency in government that, in my view, go along with reform of the federal Senate. They all fit together in the same debate. We heard a v ery go od speech f rom the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford on exa ctly the role of the Senate in t he country.

One of the things that I don’t think has been discussed at length is the change that’s occurred in this country as a result of the late Prime Minis ter Pierre Elliott Trud eau and his gov ernment bringing the Constitution home, so t o speak. But there have been significant changes in the last 20, 25 yea rs in this c ountry. T he Senate has not changed with those times. That’s a fact. Are there regional disparitie s? Ther e certa inly ar e. There certa inly a re whenever you look at the west, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.

February 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 165 Are there re asons for weste rn alienat ion be cause of the lack of senatorial appointments from Alberta? There certainly are. When one considers what the original role of the Senate was, to be this chamber of sober second thought on legisl ation, well, it is my view that with the constitutional changes that were implemented in the last generation, the judiciary has taken over a lot of that role of sober second thought on legislative proposals.

Legislative assem- blies, the federal House of Commons: it seems to be almost routine to have the judiciary look at legislation from time to time to see if it is compliant with the Charter. That is why I say that there’s such a change, and there ha s been a c hange in how the Senate work s because some of the job, I think, that the Fathers of Confederation thought that the Senat e should do has now been taken over by the judiciary. That is one fact that I think has not come forward in the debate.

It is the view of this hon. m ember that there has been a significant change, and that has not been reflected in the Senate. How do we change the Senate? That’s a good question. It needs to be changed. It certainly does, and I support that. But is this the answer? I’m not so sure. I don’t think it is proper to look at the appointed Senators and say that they are not doing a very good job.

I use d to have a sort of really suspicious attitude towards the Senate, but I had the pleasure and the honour of going to a south side banquet hotel, the south side of Edmonton, and participated in an ev ening where many people from across this pr ovince had come to Edmonton and g athered to toast their success. Many of them were adults who had learned to read. One of the promoters of adult literacy in this country, one of the greatest promoters, is Sena tor Joyce Fairbairn.

N ow, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say the Senator’s name in this Assembly or the Senator from Lethbridge, but I would apologize to the House and to the Senator if I have said something wrong. This Senator has gone out of her way to help Albertans who have for one reason or another failed to learn to read, and that one evening convinced me that there is a role for the Senate in this country. That is one member doing many, many good deeds.

Senator Doug Roche from the city of Edmonton here: he’s an independent member of the Senate, and he has many, many good views to present not only to Canadians but to international audiences in regard to international peace and homelessness. We can’t dismiss these people. They do very, very good work on behalf of not only this province but the entire country. In this debate I would urge all hon. members: please do not forget that. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to urge all members of this Assembly whenever we’re discussing senatorial reform that we also should talk about democratic reform as well in this province and in this Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker: Standing Order 29 for questions? Mr. Lund : Mr. Speake r, I liste ned v ery ca refully to the hon. member’s comments, and while he described the situation somewhat, I want to make absolutely sure that people recognize that when we talk about senatorial reform, we are not saying for one moment that the people that are t here are the pr oblem.

T he problem is the structure, the way it’s structured and the way that people get there. So that’s the problem. I wanted to make sure that that was on the table. Listening to the hon. member, I wasn’t able to really understand and know whether he believes that allowing the judiciary to be the so-called sober second thought is acceptab le and that’s the way it should be and also whether, in fact, the structure of the Senate is the way it should be. So I would like to know the answers to those two questions. Is the judiciary to have the ap propriate a uthority to overrule the elected people?

Is that what the hon. member wants? Secondly, does he really want the Senate not to be elected? Mr. MacDon ald: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it’s up to individual respective pa rliaments whether they w ant to see k advic e and guidance from the judiciary. It’s not the other w ay around. So i f there’s no reason or if leg islative assem blies or the House of Commons is not interested in seeking advice from the judicial branch of government, well, then, that’s fine. They don’t have to do it. It’s not any case of judicial activism.

It’s just how we have over the last number of years had to have clarifications on the Charter. That’s it. As far as an elected Senate, a triple-E Senate, certainly I could live with a triple-E Senate. T his side of the House has always been strong believers in a triple-E Senate and Sen ate reform, but we do not believe that this Se natorial Selection Act is the w ay forward. This is grandstanding. This is political posturing. Thank you. 4:00 The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Asking a question? Mr. McClelland: Thank you. I, too, ec ho the com ments of the Minister of Infrastructure.

It’s not about the people that are in the Senate, many of whom are remarkable individuals and deserve to be there and do a wonderful job. It’s the checks and balances. The Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar brought in the notion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, as members know, is essen- tially appointed by the Prime Minister. We have the phenomenon that the Pri me Minister o f t he coun try coul d in fact be directl y elected by the membership of a political party.

So the leader of the party, who co uld b ecome th e Pri me M inister, would not have a connection to the party or the militants but would have direct power outside of the Parliament. As it stands now, the Prime Minist er appoints the Senate. So we have the judiciary. We have the Senate. There are no che cks and ba lances in the Canadian system, which further concentrates power in the office of the Prime Minister, which may in fact lead to some of the problems we see today nationally.

I wonder if the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar could answer that and say whether we would not be better as a country if the federation had provinces capable of offsetting the power vested in the centre. Mr. MacDonald: Well, that’s a very good question, Mr. Sp eaker, and the simple answer to that is that not only at the federal level do we have an extreme concentration of power by leaders. That also happens at the provincial levels as well. Perhaps in all this debate – and I don’t see that anywhere – we should look at having term limits. If the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford were, for instance, to be Prime Minister of this country or to be a Premier of this province, perhaps eight years is enough. Maybe we should look at term limits for leaders of this country and the provinces so that there is not this concentration of power in one or more offices. Mr. Lund: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the member is still dancing around the question that we’re asking and trying to get him to commit to, but I want t o also sugg est to the member that under our current Premier if anybody thinks that all the power is invested in the office of the Premier, then certainly they don’t know the inner way that our government works because all members have the opportunity . . . The Acting S peaker: Hon. minister, r egrettably the five m inutes that’s allocated for this portion has run out.

Alberta Hansard February 25, 2004166 Anybody else who wishes to participate in the debate may do so now. The hon. Minister for Inter national a nd Intergovernmental Relations to close debate. Mr. Jonson: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I’d like to commend those people that have engaged in the debate because it is, in the vi ew of th e government of Alberta, a very , very important topic, particularly in these times when the whole position or place of the province i s undergoing a revi ew under the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Rutherford’s capable chairmanship.

It’s also a time in which across the country, both at the provincial and federal levels, there’s interest in parliamentary reform and in government reform. The bill, of course, as members of this Assem- bly have already rightly pointed out, is a very basic, mundane bill , I suppose y ou could say , but an im portant one, e xtending th e timelines for legislation we’ve had in place for a number of years, and was something that was established to provide a framework for moving ahead on Senate reform.

We acknowledge the various suggestions, recommendations, and comments that have been made in favour of Senate reform and there being, of course, a great deal more to bring about true Senate reform which would be ope rational in t his country , but right now , Mr. Speaker, we are simply extending this legislation to keep in place the mechanism that would allow us to become involved in the selection of Senate re presentatives for Alberta. This i s not th e end o f the government’s interest in Senate reform by any means.

It is merely keeping in place one measure which we think is necessary for the overall work on Senate reform and improving the overall governance of our country federally on