May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1495 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 5, 1999 8:00 p.m. Date: 99/05/05 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 35 Government Fees and Charges Review Act [Adjourned debate April 29: Mr. Hancock] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the ND party. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As per usual, I won’t take long in offering my comments on this bill.

Last week after it was introduced, I asked the sponsoring member, the Provincial Treasurer, if he would entertain expanding the scope of the bill so we could include looking at the fees that the private registries charge on top of what the government charges the private registries for informa- tion. During that exchange the Provincial Treasurer said he would happily keep that in mind. The following day I wrote to the Provincial Treasurer to remind him that this was what I was asking, and I sent a copy of that letter to the Member for St.

Albert, who will be chairing the committee overlooking the review of all the government fees that are being considered under the scope of this act. I have not heard back from the Provincial Treasurer as to his intentions. In fact, I wrote him a memo in the Chamber today, but I believe he needed to leave and was just on his way out, and I didn’t get an answer from him.

So I’d like to reiterate my pitch, number one, that the scope of the bill be expanded so we can take into account all the markups that the private registries charge on top of the fees we pay indirectly now to the provincial government for such things as motor vehicle registra- tion but even including death and birth certificates. At about this time last year I found out that there was no cap on many of the services provided by the registries, even when those services pertain to information and services that are controlled by the provincial government.

I believe I found that getting a copy of a birth or death certificate could range from about $20 in some cases as the marked- up fee to as high as $68, and I was quite shocked by this revelation. The government, I know, will say: well, the marketplace deter- mines those fees. But that’s not necessarily true. First of all, if you believe – and most consumers do – that those prices are controlled, they’re not going to shop around to see who charges more and who charges less. Secondly, if you live in small-town Alberta, you might only have one registry that offers these services.

You’re facing a monopoly, let’s face it, and monopolies can charge what they want. So I think it’s wrong to say that it’s market driven. Ultimately the difference between the way things used to be before privatization and the way things are now postprivatization: consumers, in my opinion, are being milked and in fact, I would go so far as to say, in many cases gouged. I for one don’t see why, if it is the government that is providing these basic services, they should even have them privatized in the first place.

Again I say, now that they are privatized, that I think it is ridiculous that the markup fees they charge are not contemplated in the scope of this bill. I’m also worried that health care premiums are not explicitly included. To give my Liberal brethren credit . . . DR. TAYLOR: Oh, don’t do that. MS BARRETT: Well, I have to every once in a while. They had a good point today when the Member for Calgary- Buffalo, I believe it was, tabled a recommendation that university and college tuition fees be also included in the scope of this bill. That’s a good point.

Those are fees, and those fees are directly or indirectly, whichever way you care to look at it, set by government. When the government says to a university or college, “We’re only giving you X, Y, or Z dollars,” and our policy by legislation, by statute, is to set tuition caps at a certain percentage of the actual, at least for now, operating costs, then those are fees that are paid by the public, and I believe those fees should be included. Worst of all is not specifically including the greatest flat tax that Albertans face, that being health care premiums.

It’s no secret that the NDP has always opposed health care premiums. Earlier today in the Chamber I supported a private member’s bill, Bill 207, which calls for the elimination of health care premiums amongst senior citizens. I say: fine, this is great, but it’s only a first step. If we really want to make tax reform an appropriate, believable, and immediate reality for all Albertans, the best way to do that is to get rid of the largest flat tax Albertans pay, that being health care premiums.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of the composition of the committee that is struck to review this legislation and to take the public input. My figuring is that it’s got to be one way or another. The way it is right now, three government MLAs will sit on this committee along with two other persons.

Now, if the government is so serious that it wants to make sure it’s receiving public input and if the government is so serious about being transparent and demo- cratic, then the government should be equally serious about making sure that a committee struck by legislation would be reflective of the composition of this Chamber. That is not the case. What the government has done in this bill is set up basically a government-dominated MLA committee. That is predictable. I don’t accept it. That is absolutely predictable. That is the way all the all-party committees are structured in this building.

It’s always: the government has the most MLAs, the Official Opposition has the next number of MLAs, and the third party has the fewest number of MLAs. I have no bone of contention with that. However, this bill does not call for that composition. It calls for three government MLAs and no opposition MLAs. So I put it to you that things need to be one way or the other: it is going to be either an all-party committee of the Legislature or a true arm’s-length committee.

It’ll sound like I’m straying, but I’d like to speak briefly to the concept that I would argue is the most powerful, and then I will conclude my remarks. In December the Premier was on the Dave Rutherford show, and about a quarter to 12 or so in the a.m. he said on the record something like: yeah, a health summit; that would be a good idea; I think I could agree to a health summit – the govern- ment already having conducted their growth summit and already having announced their justice summit.

Well, about two minutes after 12 noon that day, the reporters started calling me on my cell phone: “Hey, Barrett, what do you think? The Premier says ‘health summit.’ Apparently he hasn’t even talked to the Health minister, but he’s saying ‘health summit’.” I said: “Good; about time, and here’s how it should be structured.

We should have a hundred people from the stakeholders’ groups and a hundred people ran- domly selected such that we get a balance, a true cross reference of our society: proper regional representation, proper gender represen- tation, proper age representation, the whole thing.” It turns out that the Health minister went ahead and structured the health summit on that basis. I was very pleased. As a matter of fact, I’ll say to the Health minister right now that I was delighted he structured the health summit that way. I think it worked very well.

1496 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 The argument I’m now going to make with respect to the compo- sition of this committee is that if you’re not going to have an all- party committee – and I would actually recommend against that – you structure your committee so that it is representative of society, so that it does have some representation from stakeholders and also some random selection so that the public itself can really have the hands-on experience in going through all these fees and determining which ones are appropriate and which ones are not, which ones are too high and which ones are too low, not that I can expect anybody is going to agree that they’re too low, particularly when they are taxes by any other name.

So let me conclude, then, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of taxes by any other name. It is well known, but just in case some members didn’t catch it, for the years that I was not in the Legislature, between 1993 and 1997, I did read Hansard, and I did read the government denying that user fees were taxes. I did read in Hansard time and again various members of the front bench saying: well, we’re just recovering costs. I did read that the government was saying: well, we’ve still got the lowest tax regime in Canada, and we don’t count in user fees.

Well, user fees, particularly those which are marked up, constitute taxes by any other name. 8:10 The premise of this legislation is sound and in fact many years too late, in my opinion. If the government wants to do the right thing, it needs to do the right thing properly, and that is expand the scope of this legislation so that we get to take into account all the fees that the consumers are paying, not just those which go directly into government coffers, and all the fees to the instruments which provide for the common good, which we as taxpayers wish to access.

I hope that by the time this bill gets to committee, the Provincial Treasurer will have agreed to these changes. If he hasn’t, then I guess I’m just going to have to sponsor an amendment to that effect; won’t I, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to start my comments by reading from a publication by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. This is talking in terms of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

In there they state: Supporters contend that hundreds of millions of dollars of “taxes by another name” are being raised annually by government and its agents through mandated user fees or service charges on citizens who have no other options. All three levels of government, and their agencies, are using fees as additional revenue sources without the accountability that exists when reviewing taxes. Fee-setting principles would ensure that pricing is aligned with the cost of service, and guarantee that revenues raised are used in relation to the service required.

Now, I think that is very, very supportive of what the Ontario court decision said and what this caucus has been saying for a period of time. When we look at the scope of user fees – and, quite frankly, it’s not only this provincial government that’s guilty of doing it. I would say that every provincial government and territory throughout the country is probably gu ilty of the same thing. Probably the federal government is guilty of it and the municipalities.

We just read very, very recently that the city of Edmonton, for example, in their proposed plan by the city manager talked about a 4 and a half percent tax increase for the next three years or whatever and a 5 percent increase in user fees to raise additional dollars. And that quote was used: to raise additional dollars. That’s what citizens find so offensive in using user fees as a hidden tax. It’s fine to say that we’re not going to raise taxes, that taxes have been frozen for years, but when we see, on the other hand, that user fees have continuously gone up, a tax is a tax is a tax.

Those user fees, of course, constitute a tax, and it’s recognized in the court ruling. Now, the Premier has said in very, very recent days that user fees should not be reflective of a requirement or a need for revenue, that they should be revenue neutral. In other words, they should pay for the service being provided. So we have to be very, very careful in this bill that user fees not only by government but by agencies under the control of the government are subject to those same require- ments.

Certainly in terms of the provincial budget it’s going to mean a need to find additional resources from other areas to compensate for the reduction in those user fees, because we are going to end up seeing a reduction. The question has been raised about the health care premiums. The health care premiums are very, very difficult ones to discuss because there are only two provinces that even have a health care premium in addition to taxes paying the bulk of health care costs. So I don’t want to get into that one too far. If we go back, Mr.

Speaker, even prior to this term, even in the last term our Member for Edmonton-Whitemud at that particular time, who was our critic for Treasury, stated many, many times in this house, pointed it out, in fact tallied for the benefit of this Assembly something like 247 instances of increases in user fees in that one year alone and tallied it to amount to several hundred million dollars of add itional revenue to government coffers.

This caucus harped away at it and harped away at it, and government didn’t acknowledge that user fees were being used as a means of raising additional tax, revenue, call it what you want, but again I have to say that a tax is a tax is a tax. Now, if I go back and read into the record some of the actual quotes that have been made by principals over the last period of time, I can go back to statements quoted from newspaper clippings and such made by the Premier.

For example: we will succeed by getting our financial house in order; we will succeed by not raising taxes; raising taxes is a no-brainer; you don’t need brain power; you don’t need to work at it. Then it goes on. In the November 2 statement, five weeks before becoming Premier, Klein vowed to freeze all taxes until at least 1994, saying: no new tax increases. The point I’m trying to make as I read these is that when user fees were increased, that was a form of taxation. Now, this becomes a bit more blatant: you don’t need a brain to introduce a new tax, Klein said back then.

When quizzed whether a Premier Klein government would hike taxes, charges, or user fees, Klein blurted: certainly not; no new taxes; no increases. It refers very, very specifically to user fees. Mr. Speaker, here we go. February 15, 1995: a fee for service or a premium is not a tax. It is not a tax, he is saying there. Then we see: in 1994 we clearly published all the, what is called here, selected premiums, fees, and charges; nothing hidden, well docu- mented, nothing hidden; fees will be adjusted to reflect the cost of providing the services.

That was all well said and done, but that in actuality is not what has happened. I believe all members of the House now will agree that there is a need to review all those user fees and put them in line with the actual cost of the services that are being provided. When we look at the specifics of the bill and when we look at the need for a number of amendments that will be coming forward by the critic for Treasury, which will occur during the committee stage reading, of course, it’s got to make it very, very clear that it is covering all the various areas where user fees are implemented, not

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1497 just those that may be specified in the bill but are very, very specific. Mr. Speaker, I’m going to conclude at that point on that particular note on second reading. During the committee stage, when we get into very extensive debate with various amendments and such, we’ll all have an opportunity to again debate the specifics of the various user fees that will be under review. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise this evening to speak to Bill 35, Government Fees and Charges Review Act.

When we look at the history of this particular bill, it was triggered by a case in Ontario when Marie Eurig’s husband, Donald, died in October of 1992. Now, Donald left an estate in the neigh- bourhood of $414,000. His widow s oon found that she owed the government $5,710 in probate fees. For that money she received a certificate stating that her husband’s will was valid. What she and her lawyer did was question whether or not this was in fact good value for her money. Of course, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and there was a decision that came out in 1998. Mr.

Speaker, user fees have become a convenient and an addictive source of cash for many governments across this land, our federal government as well. We pay taxes for airports and fees for libraries. Some pay water usage charges. Services that were once paid out of general taxes now carry user fees. In 1997 there was a study done by a University of Toronto economist, Richard Bird, and he estimated that such fees account for 6.1 percent of the total government revenue here in Canada. The consulting firm Informetrica casts a wider picture in defining user fee use by our governments here in Canada.

They calculate that they constitute somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12.5 percent of total government income, and that will amount to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $22 billion annually more than Ottawa earns each year from the GST. 8:20 When we look at how these fees are levied, each new fee, Mr. Speaker, is typically levied on the taxpayers, and it’s a small portion of the taxpayers they’re levied on, so what it does is minimize the complaints that would arise out of any particular group.

Unfortu- nately, as well when these fees are levied, there is no alternative because the government has a m onopoly on whatever service is being used. MR. SMITH: Send me an e-mail. MR. BONNER: We’ll do that for the minister. Anything that the government directly charges to its citizens for any service can be considered a user fee. Unfortunately, most governments are using an alternative source of tax revenue, and that is the user fee. Now, when we look at user fees throughout the history of mankind, we find that they violate one of democracy’s most basic precepts: no taxation wit hout representation.

When we talk about representation, Mr. Speaker, we give all members here an opportu- nity to represent their constituents, and I would be interested to hear the representation that the minister is going to make for his constitu- ents. You will have an opportunity when I am finished, and I look forward to that, sir. [interjection] Well, I’m sure by 1:00 tomorrow morning you’ll have plenty of time. Speaker’s Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the theoretical person that you were talking to is the chair and not the hon. members over there, who theoretically should not be talking either to other people.

So, hon. member, if you could direct your comments through the chair and the other hon. member wait his turn. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder and through you and to you, sir. Debate Continued MR. BONNER: Now, as I was going along, we s hould have no taxation without representation. It’s a principle with deep roots in western democratic tradition. For example, in ancient Athens in order to institute any type of new tax, it would take a quorum of 6,000 citizens.

Of course, perhaps one of the greatest examples we have is in the 13th century in England when King John’s barons objected to his tax increase to fund the overseas wars, and as a result we had the Magna Carta. Now, in Canada the British North America Act had a number of sections which said that governments could not institute taxes unless there was a vote in the Legislature. These, of course, occurred in sections 53, 54, and 90 of the British North America Act.

Now, when we do look at what has happened here in the province, these are just some of the examples of what’s happened here when we look at government fees and charges. It’s a breakdown of fees and charges by ministry. We look at Advanced Education and Career Development. We have 46 of these fees, Mr. Speaker. In Agriculture, Food and Rural Development we have 21. In Commu- nity Development we have 11; Education, 19; Energy, 28; Environ- mental Protection – I know the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie is going to have a hard time believing this, but we have a total of 372 user fees in Environmental Protection.

I would expect that we would get much more for that many user fees, but we still are fighting the fight. Then in Family and Social Services we have six; in Health, nine; Justice, 93; and Labour, 84. In Municipal Affairs we again soar up to 356. Under Transportation and Utilities we have 110; in Treasury, 55. This is quite an extensive list, Mr. Speaker, and I have to wonder how many will be deemed a tax and how many will be deemed a user fee under this latest bill.

This bill is to protect and freeze 800- plus user fees and charges levied by the government of Alberta for a one-year period until July 1, 2000, and at that time we will have a review of those user fees and fee collection systems by a committee of government MLAs and private-sector representatives. As well, another highlight of this bill is that the authority to establish any new or increased fee and charge is suspended until such date of July 1, 2000, unless

an act is presented in the Legisla- tive Assembly approving the fee or charge. A fee or charge can be reduced during the review period; however, once the fee or charge is reduced, it cannot subsequently be increased except by

an act of the Legislature. Of course that gets back to the whole idea of: taxes can only be levied by a vote in the Legislature. Another highlight of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker, is it responds to the October 1998 Supreme Court decision in the Eurig estate case to ensure that the existing fee and charge regime cannot be challenged in the courts pending a review. Now, this review committee is mandated to review user fees, charges, and premiums and to make recommendations as to which of the user fees, charges, and premiums are excessive and should be brought into line with the cost of delivering the service. In far too

1498 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 many instances we’ve seen that where a service is being charged for, the charge far exceeds the value of the service. So again we can no longer say it’s a user fee. It’s just another way of taxing the masses. Now then, the majority decision by the court determined that probate fees in Ontario are a direct provincial tax since they are intended to defray the cost of administration of justice in general rather than merely the cost of granting the probate.

It was interesting in that decision in Ontario – and we have a number of lawyers in the Assembly that certainly are much better versed on how long it takes to probate a will, but for a will of $400,000 probate fees of $5,000 certainly are excessive. 8:30 We want to see what is going to happen here with Bill 35, Mr. Speaker. I think we will find that once all of these user fees are looked at, we will certainly see that this method of taxing the average Albertan will be eliminated. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my seat and listen to further debate by other members of the Assembly.

Thank you very much. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s interesting to listen to members from across the way. I’m sure they’re going to get their time to address the Assembly on this very important issue of government fees and charges. Now, I think we should have a quick review of the highlights of this bill before we get on with our remarks. Bill 35 is to protect and freeze 800-plus user fees and charges levied by the government of Alberta. This is for a period of one year, and this is pending a review.

I’m glad to see that we’re going to have a review on this when the government is so reluctant to have a review on other matters. [interjections] Speaker’s Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Labour, you’ve not been recognized by the chair other than for your disturbance, which is one cogent reason why one ought to sit facing the Speaker or at least facing the people over here rather than with your back to us all. Hon. member that is just beginni ng to add to the interruptions, I wonder if we could hear the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar and hear him without a lot of interruptions. Thank you.

Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re also with Bill 35 going to suspend the ability to in crease or to establish any new fee or charge. But we look at the growth of user fees across the province. We could go through each department, Mr. Speaker, and I was astonished to realize that in the Department of Labour alone there are according to my records 84 user fees. I would have thought that this would have included all the DAOs that are associated with . . . MR. SMITH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: We apparently have a point of order, hon. member.

The Minister of Labour will give us a citation. Point of Order Clarification MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m looking for a point of clarification. I would ask him to name the 84 user fees and deter- mine why they are user fees. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour is certainly welcome to enter into debate and make those kinds of comments and others. Clarification is not really a recognized point of order, so the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar would be invited to continue his discussions on this bill on second reading. Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said before, these 84 user fees are those other, I understand, than those that are collected by the delegated administrative organizations. In the Department of Labour we have the Alberta Boilers Safety Associa- tion, the Petroleum Tank Management Association, and these fees are outside the scope of this bill. We have all the pressure vessels across the province. When they’re initially designed, we have a fee. When they’re installed and on a yearly basis after that, there is a fee. It is difficult to keep track of this. It is very difficult.

I’m sure there are accurate records in the Alberta Boilers Safety Association, because naturally this is a source of revenue for them, and they would have very accurate records. So why would this not be included in this legislation? If the Minister of Labour in due time in the course of debate has the answers, well, then I’m going to be listening with eagerness to hear the explanation for this. The Department of Health – I’m going to get into health care premiums a little later – has nine user fees. Environmental Protec- tion has 372 fees and charges.

Advanced Education and Career Development has 46. [interjections] Now, some would say that the user fees we’ve introduced in this province, Mr. Speaker . . . Speaker’s Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister of science, research, and technology, if you wish to speak to the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry and he wishes to speak to you, far be it from me to stop you, but I will in this Chamber. So if you want to go outside and speak to each other, fine. Otherwise, wait your turn in debate. Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, hopefully we’ll be able to hear you out without any further interruptions from hon. members who do know better. Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, Advanced Education and Career Development made a significant policy change two years ago. They introduced a program to allow people who had accumulated skills in the workforce the opportunity to challenge for a trade ticket. This policy existed some years back, and there was a $25 fee for writing the exam.

I’m not disagreeing with what the department of advanced education did, but they put an incredibly high fee on this examination. I believe it went to $450. Then we had hon. members of this House complaining about the shortage of skilled workers in the province, particularly welders. If a person went through all the steps to qualify under this good program to become a certified welder, the fees could go as high as $710. I do not understand the rationale for this. We can go down the list here further. There are 93 fees in the

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1499 Department of Justice. The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow asked a very good question in the Assembly in this past month regarding fees in the courts and accessing information from the courts. So the problem of fees goes beyond traditional party boundaries. Every hon. member in this Assembly in the course of their duties certainly has reason to be concerned about this government and its use of user fees. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, the recommendations that I believe should be reflected in Bill 35 are these. [interjections] I believe we s hould develop and adopt a comprehensive user-fee and charges policy with clear implementation standards based on the principle of a definite link . . . Speaker’s Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister of science, research, and technology, you’re perfectly free to carry on a discussion with the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. Please do so out of the Chamber. That’s twice. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. There has to be a definite link between the fee charged and the internal cost to government of providing or producing the good or service. No one can tell me that it costs $450 to administer an examination to allow a tradesperson to practice their trade anywhere in the province. This is the problem that we’re having.

I believe we also should establish a process to engage clients and/or users in the design and delivery of cost-recovery programs and services. 8:40 Now, if we are to eliminate user fees and charges that violate the Eurig estate decision or on a case-by-case basis bring them before the Legislative Assembly for debate, then that perhaps would be a little cumbersome, but if there is a compelling case for continuation of certain fees and charges, there must be an acknowledgment that those user fees and charges constitute taxes which should be collected as a credit to the general revenue fund.

Perhaps we should look at amending the Financial Administration Act to require the annual publication of a report detailing a list of all user fees and charges, the revenues raised from each user fee and charge as well as the cost of service associated with each user fee and charge. Now, there are some researchers in our caucus. It was even noted in the press, Mr. Speaker, that one of our researchers has made a cottage industry out of tracking these user fees by the government. Fortunately our researcher is very relieved because his cottage does not have untreated pine shakes on its roof.

Another recommendation that would be advisable for any thorough discussion on this Bill 35 is: perhaps we should look at amending the Government Accountability Act to require a detailed list of all user fees and charges and associated cost-of-service data to be included in the three-year ministry business plans and annual reports, which so many hon. members are so proud to table, in order that those user fees and charges receive the scrutiny and approval of the Legislative Assembly.

Perhaps we should talk about having a formal tie or linking user fees and charges to performance measures and benchmarks for services as contained in the three-year ministry business plans. I haven’t heard anyone discuss the fact that it might be wise to amend the Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act to require that all user fees and charges proposed by the government be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations for scrutiny. I am a member of that committee, and perhaps it’s a good idea, Mr. Speaker. We could have a meeting.

Private Bills has less to do, so maybe we could do some work in the Law and Regulations Commit- tee. I would like to know if any hon. members have considered amending the Government Organization Act to require that all delegated administrative organizations and other entities that do not fall under the government’s reporting entity – I’m talking about regional health authorities, universities, colleges, school boards – provide a detailed list of all user fees and charges and associated cost-of-service data in their three-year business plans and annual reports as well.

Perhaps we should look at requiring government ministries to prepare and publicly release impact analysis statements on all proposed new or increased user fees and charges. These impact analysis statements, Mr. Speaker, would examine issues related to the cost of service, such as the impact of the fee or charge on the ministerial budget, workload volumes, unit production costs, overhead costs, and the direct and indirect cost of those fees and charges on users or clients.

Perhaps we should look at developing and refining government cost accounting systems to ensure that all user fees and charges are linked to cost-of-service data in order to justify the level of user fees and charges. We could also look at establishing a process so that governments and government departments must compare the competitiveness of its user-fee and charges regime with other jurisdictions. Now, I think it would also be advisable, Mr. Speaker, to develop a process for the Auditor General to conduct an annual performance audit on all user fees and charges.

There has been much said in the past about user fees, and it is quite interesting, b ecause if we don’t look at our past, if we don’t understand our history, it’s very difficult for us to march into the future. The Canadian Manufacturers’ Association questionnaire in 1992 asked the Premier of the province, the Premier of the day: what new revenue sources do you foresee to help balance the budget? This is the answer. Increased revenues will play a role in helping balance the budget . . .

Higher user fees may also be n ecessary to bring a better balance between consumption and payment for government services . . . an independent review (perhaps a commission or task force of eminent persons) is needed on Alberta’s long-term fiscal capacity . . . The larger issue in principle as to whether in principle we should be taxing wealth creation activities or consumption should be dealt by this independent review. Now, this is another remark from the Premier in the same year in a local newspaper.

This is in reference, again, to user fees, to taxes. “[It] is probably the most unimaginative way of raising revenue. You don’t need a brain to introduce a new tax. I can promise during my term as leader there will never be a sales tax introduced,” also pledging there’d be no tax increas es or user fees on government services during his first year. When I go through this and I see these 800 fees, I would begin to wonder, Mr. Speaker. Here’s another one from a southern paper, from the fine city of Calgary. This is a year later, and this is also the Premier. We will succeed by getting our financial house in order.

We will succeed by not raising taxes . . . Raising taxes is a no-brainer. You don’t need brain power – you don’t need to work at it. Again, we have 800 user fees in here, and we shall see what happens. The courts have said that a tax is a tax. It’s going to be interesting to see how all this will unfold, Mr. Speaker. We shall go on further on in 1993, and this is a speech to the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. It is a fine region economi-

1500 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 cally. Unfortunately, some of the areas that are closest to the Pacific coast are suffering because of the downturn in the forest industry and also the downturn on the other side of the Pacific in the Asian economies. But hopefully it’s going to work out for everyone and we’re going to see a recovery very, very soon. This is 1993, and this is the Premier. And raising taxes in Alberta is about as popular with Albertans as power failures during double overtime in the Stanley Cup Finals . . . and besides, it’s sorely lacking in creativity. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don’t want to dwell on the fact that we may have a power failure during the play-off season, but this is another example of how we’ve had this quiet, subtle increase in user fees. It is obviously not going to continue, but how things change. Now let’s roll ahead to 1995. This is a sp eech to the Fraser Institute, and this is again a quote by the Premier. Alberta stands alone as the only government who refuses to take easy way out, the cowardly way out, the brainless way out, and that is to raise taxes . . .

The Alberta government stands apart from all others in its decision to leave taxes untouched . . . Too many governments still believe that they can give you everything you want, simply by raising taxes, or introducing new taxes to pay for it. This is 1995. Now, if I could look at 1995, we’ll discuss briefly health care premiums. There was, Mr. Speaker, an increase of $52 million between 1994-95 and 1995-96 in health care premiums. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands spoke very passionately about health care premiums, and we need to look at this for a moment: health care insurance premiums in the province of Alberta. I had the pleasure this afternoon of speaking to the Assembly about how health care insurance premiums affect the seniors of this province. Revenue from health care premiums has increased by 8.9 percent, on average, between 1992-93 and 1999-2000, while Alberta’s population has increased by 1.8 percent per year, on average, over a similar period of time.

That looks like a tax increase, but sessional paper 113/98 shows that the estimated cost of collecting Alberta health care insurance plan premiums is averaging $11 million. I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and your consideration in allowing me to speak. Thank you. 8:50 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: May the Assembly agree to a brief reversion to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. head: Introduction of Guests THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure this evening on behalf of my friend and my colleague, the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, to introduce to you and to all the members of this Assembly visitors from the Lac Ste. Anne army cadet corps. We have 26 visitors; 21 are cadets, and Second Lieutenant Robert Heinz, Second Lieutenant Gail Cooper, and OC Chris Gerdaine. Also with the group this evening is Mr. Don and Mrs. Kim Cope- land. I’d like to ask our visitors in the members’ gallery to please rise and be recognized by the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy today to introduce two guests who are here and wish to be announced as registering their opposition to Bill 15, the Natural Heritage Act, which will later this evening be up for debate, so stick around. They are Elizabeth and G.F. Pascher. They’re here today representing Canadians for Responsible Northern Development, Windsong Power Co-op, and Edmonton Friends of the North Environmental Society.

I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 35 Government Fees and Charges Review Act (continued) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to have the opportunity to speak to this bill and the long process and the debate around Bill 35.

The object of Bill 35, as we’ve been listening to, is to protect and freeze 800-plus user fees and charges levied by the government of Alberta for a period of one year pending the review of those user fees and collection systems by a committee of govern- ment MLAs and private-sector representatives. The main thing that I’ve been listening to around the debate, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that the government looked back on the Eurig estate case dealing with the probate and the court decision that obligated the province of Ontario to do something about ensuring that the fees charged related to the cost of services provided and that if the fees go beyond the cost of recovery, the government would have one of two options. That is to either reduce the fee or to bring it before the Legislature for approval. So Bill 35 is one that is very interesting. [Mr.

Shariff in the chair] The Eurig case deals with the probate fees used for public purpose and defraying the cost of court administration in general and not simply off-setting the loss of grants produced; that is as per the Supreme Court. The Alberta government reviewed that some of these fees could also be challenged by the courts. In Bill 35 the sections list 800 user fees and charges that bring money directly into the general revenue. To assess for appropriate- ness freezes these fees until July 1, 2000, pending the review. It may decrease the amount but only increase through

an act. How- ever, there appear to be 1,300 user fees in charges, which means that there are 500 remaining which could be increased. It also protects 800 fees from being challenged for the next year so that the revenue can continue to be collected. It can be the right balance, and that is up to almost $1.3 billion. Is it likely that the government will actually reduce any fees over the next year, more likely protecting it from one or another suits similar to the Eurig case? Why was the government committee appointed in an era when the public is demanding transparency and accountability?

For example, in its study of regulatory fees by the federal government entitled “User Fees: Where Does the Buck Stop?” the Blair consulting group highlighted the need for a neutral expert review panel to do an in- depth review. Why did the government not reflect any of the constructive recommendations made by the Official Opposition on this particular matter? We had a number of questions in the House this past week when I’ve brought up the fact that the government

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1501 policy of off-loading its deficit onto municipalities is reflected not only in its infrastructure deficit but the increased tax burden on the ratepayers of local communities over the past five years. We look at, for example, that recommendations develop and adopt a comprehensive user-fee charge policy which would negate need for such a review in the future, establish a process so the government must compete or be competitive in its user fees and charges regime with other jurisdictions across the country. After all, the government credits itself for having the lowest tax in Canada.

Why is it so reluctant to compare itself with the basis of fees? We on the opposition side propose that it s hould lead to the openness and fairness which Albertans are seeking. As I peruse through different things that we’ve looked at in this actual bill, one of the major weaknesses of Bill 35 as it is currently constituted includes that there are no specifications in Bill 35 of the level of revenue raised from each of the 800-plus individual fees and charges set out in

schedule 2. There are no specifications in Bill 35 of the costs of services associated with each of the 800-plus individual fees and charges set out in the same schedule. There is also no attempt to link revenue raised from each of the individual 800-plus fees and the charges set out in

schedule 2 to the cost of services. Establishing a correlation between the level of revenue raised by the cost of services for each individual user fee and charge is the essence of what happened in Ontario with the Eurig estate ruling. This government has had six months to provide Albertans with information linking the revenue with the cost of the services, but there is nothing in Bill 35 suggesting that the government has even done that work.

We must note that the Provincial Treasurer has refused to release the 276 pages of analysis conducted by his department on user fees, charges, and premiums since November 1998. So maybe he has looked at the costs of services but does not want anyone to know the results since they probably show that the government has broken its no-tax pledge many times over, as it has in the last seven years. 9:00 Alberta health care insurance premiums, Mr. Speaker, are not included under

schedule 2 of Bill 35. This means that effectively $690 million, or 52 percent of the $1.316 billion in premiums, fees, and licences raised by the government of Alberta during 1992-2000 are not subject to the terms and conditions of the act. Nearly $20 million in user fees and levies of delegated administra- tive organizations authorized under the Government Organization Act or the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act are not included under the auspices of B ill 35. It should be noted that by law the DAO fee levels must be approved by the government.

This should include fees levied by such organizations as the Alberta Boilers Safety Association, as our Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar mentioned earlier on. Over $257 million in fees and charges from the RHA are not included under the bill. Some of the recommendations that should be reflected in Bill 35, Mr. Speaker, are around development and adoption of the compre- hensive use of user-fee policies and the clear implementation of standards based on principles and

definitions linking charges and internal costs to the government for the production of goods and services. It should also amend the Financial Administration Act to require the annual publication of a report detailing a list of all user fees and charges and revenues raised from each user fee and charge as well as the costs of services associated with each user fee and charge and formally tie or link user fees and charges to the performance measures or benchmarks for services as contained in the three-year ministry business plan.

It should require government ministries to prepare and publicly release impact analysis statements of all proposed new or increased user fees and charges. These impact analysis statements should examine issues related to government service such as the impact of fees and charges on ministerial budgets: workloads, volume units, production costs, overhead costs, and direct and indirect costs of those fees charged to users or clients. Mr.

Speaker, it should also develop and define government cost systems to ensure that all user fees and charges are linked to cost/services data to justify the level of user fees and charges and establish a process where the government must compare the competitiveness of user fees and charges with other jurisdictions. Some questions actually should be presented to the Treasurer, and hopefully he can answer some of them.

Will the Treasurer please explain to Albertans whether it is still the government’s policy to exclude from taxpayer protection legislation the 380 new or increased user fees, licences, and premiums which raise about $174 million in taxes, or $79 per Albertan? Is it still taxation by regula- tion that is the government policy? Well, some of the sources that we actually looked at and some of the things that we put together, Mr. Speaker, are that between ’92-93 and 1999-2000 this present government has introduced or increased 500 separate user fees, licences, and premiums.

Over 400 have been introduced by regulation. The 500 new or increased user fees presented an additional $289 million in new taxes. That’s $97 in new taxes for each and every taxpayer in the province. Over the course of the next three years, ’98-99, 2000-2002, the government is expected to raise an additional $101 m illion, or 7.8 percent, in taxes from the new or increased user fees, premiums, and licences. That is another $33 for each and every Alberta taxpayer. Alberta’s population is expected to only grow by 6.6 percent at the same time.

Over the course of the next three years, ’98-99, 2000-01, and 2002, the government is expected to raise an additional $48 million, or 7.2 percent, in health premiums. Alberta’s population is expected to grow by only 6.6 percent in that particular time. When the Premier became Premier in December 1992, the revenue from fees, licences, and premiums was at a rate of 7.2 percent of the total budgetary revenue. Today the revenue from fees, licences, and premiums is 7.8 percent of the total budgetary revenue. Right around the same time, the health care premium revenues were 3 percent of the budgetary revenue.

Today the health care premium revenue is 4 percent of budgetary revenues. Mr. Speaker, I can go on. I think other members on our side have mentioned a lot of the figures around these things. At this time I’d like to sit down but at the same time adjourn debate. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Having heard the motion from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, are you agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. May we have unanimous consent to briefly revert to the Introduc- tion of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed? head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie.

1502 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that I have another guest who’s arrived in the gallery. We are joined tonight by Sam Gunsch, who is here representing CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. He, too, is opposed to Bill 15 and is here to listen to the debate. Unfortunately, it may be several hours before we get there. Anyway, we would ask that he please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading (continued) Bill 23 Pharmacy and Drug Act [Adjourned debate May 4: Mr.

Hancock] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise this evening and again say a few words about Bill 23, the Pharmacy and Drug Act. This is, as has been noted earlier by one of my colleagues, a companion piece to the Health Professions Act. This bill is going to replace the sections in the Pharmaceutical Profession Act which could not be incorporated into the Health Professions Act. It’s going to allow the Minister of Health to designate drugs as

schedule 1, 2, or 3. This

schedule will determine how drugs must be stored and where they can be sold. I also understand we’re going to prevent pharmacists from advertising designated drugs by anything other than their name, their price, and their quality. Now, the pharmaceutical industry is an important industry and a significant contributor to this country’s economic growth, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, I would like to ponder what direction or encour- agement this bill is allowing the future development of this industry in this province. The pharmaceutical i ndustry, as I said, is an important contributor to our economy.

In mature, developed jurisdictions, such as the one we’re fortunate enough to live in, health care expenditures, which to a large extent are funded from the public purse, have been increasing. This is a fact we live with every day. Many factors are involved in this increase, including the cost of health services. How this is being developed in Bill 23, I’m not so sure. If any hon. members have any suggestions, then I would welcome their observations in debate. 9:10 Mr.

Speaker, some of these costs are physicians’ salaries, hospital care, related workers’ salaries, the introduction of new and better drugs, and this is, I believe, where we get into the importance of

schedule 1, 2, or 3. The increasingly complex medical devices needed to care for an aging population – and I would like to note that I do not believe it is increasing at the rate alarmists on the other side of the Assembly declare. Because of the important need to control health care costs, including drug costs, governments must take a look at developing initiatives that are affordable for all Albertans, particularly seniors who are on fixed incomes. Now, prescription drug sales in 1995, Mr.

Speaker, amounted to over $200 billion U.S. worldwide while for over-the-counter drugs, or OTCs as they’re called, these sales are worth about $45 billion. The United States is the largest market for drugs, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. This country is a small market, accounting for a small percentage of total global pharmaceutical sales. The greatest influence on how this is developed or why a drug is chosen by the doctor – of course the doctor exercises his authority by writing the prescription, and the prescription is taken to the drugstore.

But the decision of the doctor was based on the effective- ness of the drug rather than on its price, and brand-name companies are focusing their efforts on doctors. I don’t know if this bill is sufficient in its effort to limit increasing costs of drugs. I don’t know if it could even attempt to start, but it’s something that at some point we’re going to have to look at in this Assembly. We’re looking at diversifying the economy of Alberta, and I will credit the government for making significant initiatives in the last 10 years.

I’ve said this before and I’m going to say it again about the furniture manufacturing industry in Calgary, Mr. Speaker, and how it has grown from modest beginnings to over a $330 million export industry annually. Perhaps if we were to look a little closer at the Pharmacy and Drug Act, we could maybe attract more research and development to this province. I don’t see anything the matter with trying to attract industries such as this. I think that before I close my remarks, I would like to talk a little bit about just how important research and development are with pharmaceutical companies.

There are over 18,000 Canadians who work in this country in 62 research-based pharmaceutical companies. Each member company, Mr. Speaker, shares a single primary objective: to discover new medicines which improve the quality of health care available for every Canadian. There are over $1 billion invested each year in Canada by the Canadian research-based pharmaceutical companies on research and development of innova- tive medicines. This unpr ecedented investment represents the largest single source of medical research funds in Canada. Now, we look through Bill 23 here, and I don’t know . . . MR.

RENNER: Point of order. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat on a point of order. Point of Order Relevance MR. RENNER: On relevance, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been listening very intently to the member’s speech. It’s a good speech. I quite enjoyed it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill at hand. This bill has to do with the licensing of retail pharmacies; it has nothing whatsoever to do with pharmaceutical research. I would ask that the member confine his comments to the bill. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Medicine Hat, the House requires a citation.

Do you have a citation for your point of order? MR. RENNER: Beauchesne 459. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Okay, the point has been made, and I’d hope that you would continue and stick to the debate that’s before us. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, continue. Debate Continued MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know if the hon. member would like to talk on this bill. He certainly is welcome to it, but we have many issues on this bill. If he hadn’t been so anxious to interrupt me, if he ha d been listening with interest, he would have allowed me to continue. Now, we talk about research and development, Mr.

Speaker, we talk about the inspection process that is related to the development and the marketing of a drug, and we talk about the licensing of

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1503 pharmacies in this bill. All these are steps in the direction. We go from research and development through to the licensing of pharma- cies. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] I just need to clarify a few more items, Mr. Speaker. The first one, of course, is an elaboration on schedules 1, 2, and 3, as it was described last night by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Near the end of

section 40 we spell out what penalties and what offences there are for making false statements in an effort to operate a licensed pharmacy and whether this is going to mean a suspension or a temporary suspension. We need to discuss this. I’m sure that when I take my seat and this bill is moved to committee, the hon. Member for Medicine Hat is going to leap to his feet and explain on behalf of his colleague a few questions that we’re going to have on this bill. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I can see that it is early in the evening and many hon. members are anxious to progress.

We have a lot of discussions to undertake tonight. I shall take my seat and allow another hon. member time to debate. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to keep my comments short and to the point. When we deal with Bill 23, the Pharmacy and Drug Act, my understanding is that the Alberta Pharmaceutical Association was not fully satisfied with the contents of the bill, that they still had some outstanding concerns. If you’ll bear with me on this, I simply want to pass on some communication to the minister responsible for the bill.

In the course of traveling about the city and going into drugstores, the drugstore in the mall where my constituency office is located – and I’m in there quite often; I know the pharmacist quite well. I get down to Superstore and talk to some of the pharmacists there and various places. I asked them: what are your concerns? What would you like me to say to the minister in terms of Bill 23, concerns that you have as individual pharmacists? There were two that were pointed out. One was the dispensing fees.

I know that all of these may not be directly related to Bill 35, but in reviewing the whole pharmaceutical act and such, these are comments that were passed on. 9:20 The dispensing fee was a major concern, because you have this situation where there is some resentment against the giant store that runs the ads in the newspaper: dispensing fees of $1.99. In reality, when you go there, that’s what you’re getting for your $1.99, strictly the dispensing of a drug, of a prescription.

You go to other drug- stores or pharmacists, particularly in rural Alberta, and they not only dispense the prescription that you’ve asked for, but they dispense advice. What they propose is a two-pronged system, where you have dispensing fees for dispensing, but you also have consultation fees for the advice that they offer. If I recall correctly, in the province of Ontario there’s an incentive for a pharmacist – at least from what one pharmacist told me, they’re actually paid to not dispense a drug, even though that drug may be prescribed by a doctor.

What they’ll do is they’ll go to their computer, go to their records, and they’ll phone that doctor, ask a few questions, and determine that drug was not really required. It may be just a repeat or such. So the decision that the pharmacist that I spoke to took was that if there was a new system, if there was a total revamping of the dispensing fees, it could save Albertans a great deal of money in that a lot of unnecessary drugs may not be prescribed or dispensed. At the same time, consumers would be given a great deal of advice when they take their prescriptions.

All of us who have taken prescription drugs know that with every prescription there’s a great number of warnings if your pharmacist deals with the matter correctly and maybe gives you a printout from the computer with 16 different warnings, to not be under the sunlight or to not mix it with this or that. However, when you get the situation where a pharmacist simply gives you the prescription of 144 pills, whatever, and you’re on your way, you really don’t know the consequences that may be involved in taking that particular prescription because you haven’t got the advice.

That’s the one concern that they’ve expressed to me. I think that’s going to be an ongoing concern, and I think it’s a very, very valid concern, because it would benefit not only the pharmacist but the consumer and the health care system itself. The other, of course – and the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar touched on it somewhat – is the question of your choice of generic drugs versus the brand name. I’m one of those that does tend to go for the brand name because I recognize the amounts of dollars that are required for research. Mr.

Speaker, I know that’s straying from the bill somewhat, but I’d point those two matters out because I want them on the record. It’s very, very important that we as Albertans realize the consequences when we go to a pharmacist, that it’s not just a question of getting a prescription, walking out of the drugstore, and thinking that’s the end of it, because there are implications. On that note I’ll conclude and allow the member who wants to say a few words as well. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand tonight to speak to Bill 23, the Pharmacy and Drug Act. This seems to be a bill that has some merit but also some concerns. The Health Professions Act has been under development since 1994. This seems to be a companion act to the Health Professions Act, when moving pharma- cists under the Health Professions Act could not include provisions to account for pharmacies and their regulations. One of the main objects that I’m looking at is that it replaces the Pharmaceutical Profession Act

section which could not be incorpo- rated into the Health Professions Act. So as I rise tonight to address Bill 23, which I understand replaces the pharmaceutical act

section which couldn’t be incorporated, the question is: why? It seems that the Alberta Pharmaceutical Association is still working with the government to amend this act. So why is it in front of us at this particular time? It is our understanding that the pharmacists have outstanding concerns, so I’m just wondering: has the process been done prop- erly? Is this another twinning at the same time with Bill 22?

As we have been in debate in the last few days on Bill 22, I think there has been a better process of consultati on with regards to bills like this, and my understanding is that on Bill 23 we s hould be s till in consultation with the actual presenters. When we look at the final hours of this going through, the major item around all these different sections is

section 4 with the licensing of pharmacies. These could be pharmacies operated by independent, or private, pharmacists. Then, we get into

section 11. It states that if a pharmacy operates in a leased building, “the rent payable . . . may not be based on a percentage of the revenue obtained from the sale of [prescription] drugs.” Is this currently the practice of some

1504 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 pharmacies? If so, it is a totally unacceptable practice. Are any of these facilities owned by a doctor who writes the prescriptions? This would obviously be a conflict of interest. Any pharmacy currently rented would be grandfathered. Why? Are there conflict of interest guidelines from physicians in the area of pharmaceuticals? Physi- cians should not be receiving kickbacks from pharmacists for writing unnecessary prescriptions.

Section 21 details what the field officer’s report must include and how long he or she has to produce it. The field officer’s report must be provided to the registrar and to the licensee within 90 days. Doesn’t this seem like an extremely long period of time for a basic report on whether there are any violations by the pharmacy? How long does this report have to be? Under

section 29 it states that “drugs may be dispensed or sold only in a licensed pharmacy.” Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of different questions around that particular item. Sections 30, 31, and 32 establish

schedule 1, 2, and 3 drugs. These schedules determine how drugs can be stored, sold, and advertised within the pharmacy. This is in keeping with the federal legislation recording sales of prescription drugs, I hope. The question is: under the current practices of the pharmacy, are any of the facilities owned and being underwritten by doctors, as I mentioned before? I do think that the Member for Banff-Cochrane has done a very good job of putting some of this together, but there are a few questions we do have around this. Usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and I hope that the minister or the presenter will be able to stand up and answer some of the questions that we do have.

Section 33 allows the Minister of Health “after consulting with the council, [to] make regulations respecting the designation of drugs” not covered under the federal statutes. The council should determine this. What expertise does the minister have? Major pharmaceutical companies would become too influential through the support of the party. There are lots of concerns, Mr. Speaker, but at this time I’m going to take my seat. [Motion carried; Bill 23 read a second time] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. 9:30 Bill 36 Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 1999 THE CHAIRMAN: We’d ask if there are any comments, questions, or amendments. The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to start off by thanking the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford for his second reading comments in support of Bill 36. In particular, I appreciate his support of this amendment that authorizes the government to give policy direction to the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commis- sion.

I also appreciate his support of the provision that terminates VLT agreements in municipalities that voted against them in the October 1998 plebiscites and those earlier. While these are the two key provisions of the act, Bill 36 does two other things. It limits the liability of the government, the minister, and the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission for removing VLTs, and it alters the organization of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission to separate the quasi-judicial board from the operational arm of the commission.

I want to focus on a couple of things I dealt with at second reading just for clarification.

Section 46.2(1) terminates VLT agreements in the following communities: (

a) County of Lethbridge No. 26; (

b) Town of Lacombe; (

c) Municipal District of Opportunity No. 17; (

d) Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo; (

e) Town of Canmore; (

f) Town of Coaldale; (

g) Town of Stony Plain. Furthermore, under

section 46.2(2) it says that the Commission must remove all video lottery terminals from establishments located in the municipalities referred to in subsection (1). Mr. Chairman, once this bill receives Royal Assent, it becomes law. The VLT agreements will be immediately terminated, and the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission will move appropriately to remove the machines. I think it’s important for all members to realize that this is a very direct statute and deals with the commit- ment that our government made to honour the votes that were taken at the local communities in October of 1998 or those prior. Mr.

Chairman, I hope this House will in fact support this amend- ment to the Gaming and Liquor Act b ecause I think it is time to move forward to a position where policies will be made by the government and given to the commission. The structure will be appropriate to provide a quasi-judicial environment, and we’ll proceed on with the dutiful job of regulating and managing the gaming industry in this province. We will in fact be able to put some of the unrest and uncertainty we’ve had this last year and a half behind us and move forward.

With those brief comments, I welcome questions and comments from the Legislature. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, it’s not our intention to hold back this bill. We will be proposing a couple of amendments to the bill that I hope the minister would consider. The minister now has them in her hands. I do want to speak a bit before I actually make the amendments. I will allow the distribution of the amendments at this time so members are ready to deal with them when I actually move the two. Just some background information from my point of view.

It would be nice to be able to say that the whole issue of VLTs, gambling, and such in the province has gone very, very smoothly. We know that that’s not the case, Mr. Chairman. We can go back a number of years and trace the entire history of the VLT movement, starting as some experiments under the minister who was then responsible for lotteries and how they went from quarter machines to dollar machines and new types of machines. We saw them spread throughout bars, hotels, and we saw the problems they created. And they did create a lot of problems throughout the province, Mr. Chairman.

There’s no question about that. That’s why so many citizens started to become concerned about the impact VLTs and the addiction to the VLTs was having on many, many families, many businesses. We even had calls of a lurid suicide due to addictions that couldn’t be handled. Prior to the last election when we set up the hot line, we had over a thousand calls in a matter of a few days. Within hours the voice mail was overflowing. We had to have staff come in during the weekend to monitor the voice mail, to record the calls and clear it, the calls were coming in so fast.

We saw that momentum grow throughout the province, and we saw a number of municipalities

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1505 decide to force plebiscites on the issue. They wanted to determine within their own municipalities that they wanted the machines ousted. When we look back at the whole scenario, ideally the answer would have been a provincewide plebiscite in conjunction with the last provincial election or the municipal elections and to have dealt with it equally in the entire province.

Then you wouldn’t have seen the challenges that have occurred and the intentional delays to keep the machines moving and spitting out the money to the hotel operators and of course the government as well while these court challenges went on. Ideally that provincewide plebiscite would have resolved it.

Had a provincewide plebiscite been held on the basis of asking three questions – do you want VLTs out of the province, do you want VLTs to remain as is in the hotels and such, or do you want gambling activities restricted to nonprofit casinos? – I would say that 70 percent of Albertans would have opted for the nonprofit casinos with a reasonable number of slot machines with percentages of the profits going to nonprofit organizations. Everybody I think, Mr. Chairman, would have been quite satisfied and happy with it.

We recognize in this caucus that an element of gambling is a way of life, and we’re not saying we have to ban all forms of gambling throughout the province. We know that’s not realistic, just like we can’t say that tomorrow we’re not going to allow the sale of alcohol or we’re not going to allow the sale of tobacco. We know that’s not going to stop it. There’s always going to be some type of activity, illegal, whatever, or people will go to other parts of the country or other parts of North America to gamble. So we have to minimize the impact. That to me would have been the ultimate solution.

However, that didn’t happen. Now, the minister is attempting to address the problems we’ve had with the municipalities that voted to take them out. Some of the votes were close. That makes it that much more difficult. Stony Plain, for example, Lacombe. There are going to be some very, very difficult situations. However, so me of the votes in the other direction that said to retain the machines were very, very close.

We read in the Edmonton Journal this morning that already hotel operators, the tourism group in Wood Buffalo have announced that they’re going to have court action as soon as this bill receives Royal Assent. They’re going to challenge it immediately. So government has to be prepared for it. I’ve had legal advice offered to me saying that unfortunately – I hate to say it. In their opinion they’re under the belief that they’re going to have this bill struck down in the courts due to the way it’s worded, because of the question of retroactivity.

They see it as a way of dealing with the question of retroactivity that can’t be done by legislation through what they call a backdoor method. 9:40 Nevertheless, we’re in a situation in our caucus, because we pushed for this type of action, where we want these machines removed because the people in those municipalities voted to have them removed. So what’s the best way to remove them? The bill is a step in the right direction, and we support it. However, we want to help the government out.

We want to help the minister out, like we always want to help the government out, and if they’d listen to us a little more often, we would dispense some good advice like with the previous bill on the user fees, Bill 15 for example. A great deal of good advice comes from Edmonton-Ellerslie, but the government doesn’t always listen to us unfortunately. I want to deal with the two amendments that I presented sepa- rately. I believe they’re being distributed at this time, and I believe most members would have them.

Now, the first one I’m going to deal with – I’ll read it into th e record, and I’ll explain why this amendment has been proposed. We’ll call it amendment 1, I guess, Bill 36, Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 1999. The amend- ment would be that Bill 36 be ame nded in

section 2 by adding the following after the proposed subsection 6.1(2):

(3) Policies made under subsection (1) must not be inconsistent with a resolution or bylaw passed by the council of a munici- pality in which the policy is to apply. Now, why we’re saying that is that if a municipality wants to pass an amendment or pass a resolution to have the machines taken out . . . Oh, I’m sorry. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has moved the first amend- ment, which we’ll call A1, as he has described. It’s the shorter of the two amendments that are handed out in case someone didn’t hear that. You may proceed, Edmonton-Rutherford. MR.

WICKMAN: Now, the purpose of the amendment is to allow the municipality to deal with these matters quickly and to determine what’s best in their community. That would in my opinion address the question of retroactivity, because even if some lawyers out there wanted to challenge Bill 36, a municipality would simply have to pass a new resolution saying: we want the VLTs removed, or we want the gambling activity as stated in the resolution out of our municipality. So that would take care of the question of retroactiv- ity. It would be a new resolution.

Then the gaming commission would be directed to follow through on that particular resolution, and that’s in keeping with the recognition that municipal councils are elected and they know what is in the best interests of their particular communities. We sit back here and make decisions on behalf of the province because we feel we’re in a position to sort of speak out for Albertans and set those policies in place, but at the local level, which we all appreciate and many of us have been there, we recognize it’s the government that’s the closest to the people.

They’re the ones that can best decide what’s appropriate to their particular municipality. Mr. Chairman, as this amendment is being dealt with, I ask the minister to make comment on it and, secondly, to recognize it’s not an amendment being proposed to try to slow down the process of Bill 36 or throw a barrier in the way. It’s a useful tool that we’re offering to the government saying: here, use this; this will help in your efforts to recognize that these municipalities named in Bill 36 want those machines removed. So on that note I’ll conclude my discussion on amendment A1. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon.

Minister of Economic Development on amendment A1. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve looked at this amendment carefully. I know it’s been filed with absolutely good intentions, but I have to say that when we look at

section 6.1(1), the purpose of putting in the amendment that “the Minister may make policies that must be followed by the Commission, the board or both in carrying out their powers and duties under this Act” – this was put in place as a result of the identification by Madam Justice that the government did not have the ability to give policy directions to the commission. This is to correct that flaw that was in the existing legislation. Now, the amendment the hon. member has put forward has not got the same purpose of correcting that flaw. It goes beyond that.

When I looked at that, I started to read the amendment very, very carefully. It says: “Policies made under subsection (1),” which I just read,

1506 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 “must not be inconsistent with a resolution or bylaw passed by the council of a municipality in which the policy is to apply.” Well, the provincial government makes policies that are provincewide. In the case of having policies that would be customized to fit individual municipalities, there are 360 municipalities in the province of Alberta. There could be contradictory resolutions coming out of those communities, which we’ve already seen as a result of some choosing not to participate in the plebiscite process and others choosing to. Others voted yes; others voted no.

To make a govern- ment policy that could involve differing views or wording from 362 municipal bodies is going to be next to impossible. So I think your purpose of making sure the policy directions established by us as elected officials are the same as the local municipal government people’s is a valid point. But to make that so it’s not inconsistent with a policy that may come out of a particular group of municipali- ties would be very difficult when there are 362 of them. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think we would have to reject this amendment.

I hope it’s evidenced to the hon. member that when the policy statement was made in January of 1997, it b ecame abundantly clear. Part of the reason we’re here today was that there was a commitment from this government to honour the wishes of the local communities. That request actually came from the Lotteries Review Committee report, where the local AUMA representatives and the municipal representatives said, “Let us make the decision ourselves.” We accepted that. That is why we said that communi- ties would make the decision at the local level as to whether they kept their machines or not.

This whole process, with all the legal battles, et cetera, and the amendment that we’re putting forward is to honour that commit- ment. We said we would honour it. It was identified clearly by the Madam Justice that there was a flaw in our legislation. We’re here to correct that flaw so we can honour that commitment and from this point forward make sure we are able to give policy directions to the commission, not get involved in the daily operations, Mr.

Chairman, because that wouldn’t be appropriate because there is a quasi- judicial nature there, but to make policies here that are reflected in the operations of the commission on a regular basis. So I would have to say that I can’t accept this amendment. I don’t think it would do what the hon. member really wants it to do. I think

section 6.1(1) does the job for him. [Motion on amendment A1 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, I wonder if the committee would give unanimous consent for us to revert briefly to Introduction of Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [interjections] You’re right. Another visitor here today in opposition to Bill 15, Pyxie Jarvis, is avidly waiting for the debate to begin on the bill.

I would ask that she please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. 9:50 THE CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of those who are in the gallery, it’s probably obvious by now that this is the informal stage of the Legislature. Members are free to drink coffee or juice and to move from one place to another. The only stricture is that we only have one member standing and talking at the same time. Bill 36 Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 1999 (continued) THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford has another amendment before us. MR. WICKMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

As I proceed into the second amendment, just in reaction to the minister’s comments. I found her comments rather interesting in that she touched on two subjects that were of particular interest: the recognition of the 362 municipalities and the difficulty in kind of juggling the needs and wants and desires of each one and the inconsistencies that may occur. Yes, I agree that those types of problems could very well arise, Mr. Chairman, but we’ve got to recognize why they occurred in the first place.

It was this government, headed up by the Premier, that made the statement and set the policy that municipalities would decide one by one upon plebiscites and petitions and resolutions and such as to whether they wanted it. Had the government chose to, they had the option of having a provincewide plebiscite . . . THE CHAIRMAN: The committee has just debated this and has made a decision. MR. WICKMAN: I’m going to move my second amendment now, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: I know that you feel it was the wrong one; nevertheless, they did make the decision, so we move on. MR. WICKMAN: Now, my second amendment, Mr.

Chairman, would be to move an amendment to Bill 36,

section 2, by adding the following after the proposed subsection 6.1(2): Where an action or proceeding is commenced in court to challenge or otherwise review a policy made pursuant to subsection (1) requiring the cessation of a gaming activity anywhere in Alberta, the Minister must instruct the Commission to suspend the gaming activity pending the outcome of the action or proceeding. Now, Mr. Chairman, that amendment, of course, would have worked much, much better, would have been a lot more . . . THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment that you have just moved will be called A2. Go ahead. MR.

WICKMAN: . . . operable had the first amendment been passed, but unfortunately the first amendment hasn’t been passed. There is still an element of benefit to the amendment, but we addressed this on the basis of looking at the 362 municipalities that I referred to, and we would have needed that requirement of having these inconsistencies throughout the province.

When we talk about this amendment, the other way we could have avoided these types of situations, period, of even having the matter of the VLTs challenged in a particular municipality or the need to have plebiscites and such would have been if right off the bat the province had gone into a municipality and allowed a vote before the VLTs went in. If the vote had happened before they went in, then of course we wouldn’t have this type of activity where now we have to look at actually suspending gaming activity while a legal proceeding is going on.

This amendment very, very clearly applies to the municipalities that are named in Bill 36. The minister is confident that the wording of the bill is such that termination of the contracts will result in the immediate removal of the VLTs; thus there will not be any valid court action that could be proceeded with. However, the advice that I’m given is different.

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1507 They’re convinced they do have grounds to launch court action. As long as we maintain that position – and I haven’t heard anything differently from the Premier, who has stated repeatedly that as long as there’s a court challenge going on, the machines would remain inoperable. Now, the minister is making the statement that the wording of the bill is such that it’s going to come to a halt because the contracts end. However, I don’t think that’s gone far enough, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that tightens up the process to the point that it should.

I would like to see another obstacle in there to act as a deterrent to hotel operators who want to launch legal challenges simply to stall, to allow the dolla rs to continue to flow from the machines. I know there’s some incentive for the government to allow that to happen, because of course the government continues to receive 70 percent of the dollars that flow out of the machines. Now, this is worded in such a way that it’s not specific to VLTs. It talks about “gaming activity” in a particular municipality “pending the outcome of the action or [legal] proceeding.

The reason it’s worded in that particular case: if we look at Wood Buffalo, for example, in the original resolution that was passed by that council, the original plebiscite, it didn’t just deal with VLTs; it dealt with the matter of slot machines as well. Of course, the government never made any commitment that slot machines would be removed in seven days and such, so I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, that resolution was there.

Again in k eeping with my philosophy that a municipality knows what’s best for its community, if they passed a resolution and if the government were to act on that resolution, as policy is developed down the road by the minister, which she has acknowledged will happen, and if there is legal action, then any gaming activity named under that resolution would be halted until the legal action is finalized or unless the court directs that an injunction be upheld like we saw in the earlier situation in Wood Buffalo, where the court dictated that the machines would be allowed to continue because we do have to respect the outcomes and decisions that are made by the court.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up my comments on this particu- lar amendment and ask the minister for her comments, although I suspect she’s going to defend the current bill and the termination of the contracts, I ask the minister to again consider very, very carefully that we again are throwing out a tool to the government to aid the government in the process of getting out of the jam it’s gotten itself into. And it has gotten itself into a jam.

If next week we see another legal challenge take place and we see those machines continue to hum, what do you think the people of Wood Buffalo are going to think after almost two years of frustration about having those machines removed by a vote of something like 66 percent of those that voted?

So this, I believe, would strengthen the minister’s position and would lessen the possibility of that happening, because quite frankly, if it does go to court again and if the courts do rule that the government again has not brought forward a bill that sufficiently addresses the concerns from a legal point of view, it’s going to be a laughing matter. People are going to laugh and say: what is this government doing that they can’t deal with this issue, that they can’t manage something as simple as VLTs?

The Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, for example, is so concerned about a much greater impact on the province by Bill 15, which I won’t get into, but this sort of sets an example. It demonstrates that if we can’t deal with something as simple as VLTs, how can we trust the government to deal with Bill 15, the Natural Heritage Act? I know I do tend to stray somewhat, and I don’t want to do that, so I’m going to conclude on that note. I ask the minister for her comment and plead to her on behalf of the citizens in those munici- palities: give this serious consideration, because it’s going to help you.

THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I appreciate the input from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, and I know he’s given this a lot of thought. I’d like to refer him, though, to

section 46.2(1) of the bill, which talks about the agreements. It says: All agreements between the Commission and retailers respecting video lottery terminals existing immediately prior to the coming into force, which means Royal Assent, of this

section and any rights of retailers connected with or arising from those agreements are hereby terminated and canceled in the following municipalities: (

a) County of Lethbridge No. 26; (

b) Town of Lacombe; (

c) Municipal District of Opportunity No. 17; (

d) Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo; (

e) Town of Canmore; (

f) Town of Coaldale; (

g) Town of Stony Plain. Subsection (2) says:

(2) The Commission must remove all video lottery terminals from establishments located in the municipalities referred to in subsection (1).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), if the Commission has removed video lottery terminals from a municipality before the coming into force of this

section as the result of a vote held in that municipality, the Commission may not (

a) enter into agreements wi th retailers respecting video lottery terminals, or (

b) place or replace any video lottery terminals in establish- ments in that municipality. The second element, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the hon. member’s attention is

section 46.1, which deals with basically what you’re saying, I think only a little tighter. I’d like you to review the wording on that. 10:00 Now, that isn’t after

section 6; that comes after

section 46, where we believe we have tightened up the actions that may or may not arise. It says: 46.1 No action or proceeding may be instituted or continued against the Crown or a Minister of the Crown, the Commission, the board or its members, the chief executive officer, inspectors or employees of the Commission based on any claim or cause of action, whether arising before or after the enactment of this section, for compensa- tion, for loss or damages including exemplary damages or for injunctive . . . And that’s a very important phrase. . . . or declaratory relief, whether based on contract, property, tort, equity, restitution, expropriation or otherwise, for (

a) the removal of video lottery terminals from establish- ments, (

b) the termination or cancellation of agreements with retailers, (

c) the termination or cancellation of any rights of retailers connected with or arising from agreements with retailers, or (

d) any act or omission authorized by this Act. We believe that is a very powerful

section of the statute and presumably takes away the concept of challenging this move. I mean, this is a commitment. There’s a commitment to remove the video lottery terminals from those communities that said to remove them. We believe that this kind of wording does exactly that. Now, what will happen in the courtroom I don’t know. No one knows until that occurs, if in fact it occu rs. But with this act coming into

1508 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 *These spellings could not be verified at the time of publication. place, we believe that this in fact is the process to follow to tighten this up, based actually on the court case we’ve just been through. I believe this

section deals with what you’re trying to accomplish, in fact is far more encompassing and direct and is listed in this statute. So I believe it will do exactly what you want, in fact even more. Let’s once again say that the intent of this bill is to make the corrections that were identified by Madam Justice but also to keep in mind the commitment and to stand by the commitment that we made as a government in January of 1997, albeit it’s been a very long trek for all of us, to remove those machines from those communities that voted and asked us to do so.

I’ll take the hon. member back to – I tell this story quite often – my very first day of being sworn into this ministry. I’d been in the office all of one hour when the phone call came that said: Madam Minister, the court decision is out on Rocky Mountain House; you are going to be allowed to remove the VLT machines from Rocky Mountain House. I had to say: could I just have a half an hour to go and find out about this? I’d been sworn into this portfolio one hour, and that’s when it started. I can tell you it’s been an interesting two years of back and forth dealing with this issue.

There isn’t anyone in this Legislature that wants this issue put to rest more so than I do. When I say that I believe this does the job, I say that to you with all sincerity. I sincerely hope this does the job of honouring our commitment to remove those VLTs, Mr. Chairman. So I would have to reject this amendment. I believe that what’s in the clause in the

section in the act is stronger and more forthright and more direct. I hope hon. members would in fact support the bill as presented, because there’s been an awful lot of effort to move forward on this act and to make sure that it’s in compliance with the suggestions from Madam Justice. So I’d ask you to reject the amendment presented. [Motion on amendment A2 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: Before we go to the question, I wonder if we could have consent to revert to the Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie.

MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have more guests who would like to be on record as being concerned and in opposition to Bill 15. They are Angela Bischoff from Eco-City, Tooker Gomberg from Greenspiration, Patsy Hough*, Heather Bessey, David J. Parker from the Alberta Green Party, Margaret Marian, Nicole Dust*, Al Warmbly*, Marcel Howrish, Kyle Van Hauwaert, and William Lee from the Alberta Wilderness Association. [*These spellings could not be verified at the time of publication.] Mr. Chairman, they’re wondering what the holdup is on Bill 15 here tonight, and quite frankly we don’t know.

Hopefully, we’re going to get to it this evening. We would ask that all of these folks who are here in attendance this evening please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Bill 36 Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 1999 (continued) [The clauses of Bill 36 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] THE CHAIRMAN: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Carried. Bill 24 Traffic Safety Act THE CHAIRMAN: Are there are any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed I have an amend- ment to offer and plenty of comments. This will be my first opportunity, at some point after this amendment, to speak to this bill.

I know that the minister of science, research, and technology will be listening because he’s going to learn a bout Snell ratings and enlighten us as to helmet safety and the science of radar and photoradar and all that. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to introduce an amendment, and I’ve given it to the Clerk. It’s an amendment to Bill 24, and if I could read it into the record while it’s being di stributed, that would be appreci- ated. I move on behalf of the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert an amendment to Bill 24 that adds the following

section after 115: 115.1(1) No person under 18 years of age shall operate a bicycle unless that person is wearing an approved bicycle safety helmet.

(2) No person under 18 years of age shall ride as a passenger on a bicycle unless that person is wearing an approved bicycle safety helmet.

Section 116 is amended by adding the following after clause (l): (

m) respecting standards for approved bicycle safety helmets.

Section 157(1)(

a) is amended by adding “115.1,” after “115(2).”

Section 158 is amended by adding the following after subsection 4:

(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under

section 115.1(1) or (2) is liable to a fine of not more than $100. Mr. Chairman, would this amendment be A4? 10:10 THE CHAIRMAN: Our records show it should be A3. MS OLSEN: A3 is correct then. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This amendment will be A3. You may continue. MS OLSEN: We submitted yesterday. It’s A3. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We number by when you move them as opposed to when they were given to us. This is the third one that’s been moved on this bill. MS OLSEN: This is the third one. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think the distribution is almost com- plete. If I could move ahead.

Last night we attempted to move an amendment to this bill on helmets . . . [interjections] I’ll take my seat for a moment. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, hope- fully on amendment A3.

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1509 MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to support this amendment. The Member for Edmonton-Norwood on behalf of her colleague for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert is making the proposal that if the Legislative Assembly is not prepared to ensure or to require that bike helmets be worn by all bicycle riders, adult or child, we’ve now come back with this amendment and said: well, at least let’s ensure that children under the age of 18 must wear a bike helmet.

I think all of the strong and compelling reasons that were advanced the other evening with the other amendment obtain here as well. If you make the analogy to seat belts, would any responsible parent in 1999 not ensure that their minor child has a proper seat belt or, if the child is of tender years, an appropriate child carrier? We’ve come a long way in this province, Mr. Chairman.

We’ve come, I think, a very long way in terms of understanding that through relatively simple precautions, a device that now is readily available and not inordinately expensive, we’re able to drastically reduce the incidence of injuries. While we’re talking about this, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Capital and Calgary health regions and some of the other ones as well produce some very comprehensive statistical reports on causes of death, causes of injury.

Although I don’t have it handy, my recollection in the case of region 4, the Calgary health region, is that in their last report they identified that trauma represented the largest cause of hospitalization in the Calgary region. A good part of that had to do with motor vehicle accidents. A significant part of it had to do with children being hurt in other kinds of accidents. If you talk to emergency physicians at the Alberta Children’s hospital, Mr.

Chairman, talk to people who deal with children who are brought in with a fractured skull, with brain injury, and that sort of thing, I don’t think you have to hear very many of those stories before you understand the importance of legislated protection. [Mr. Zwozdesky in the chair] So one might say that if as a province we’ve thought it’s appropri- ate and prudent that we should require – and I know the Minister of Health is probably going to want to share some comments on this.

In fact I imagine now he’s thinking of precisely what he’d like to add in support of what those health regions are doing in terms of health prevention. I’ve been to some of those standing policy committees on health planning, and when the Minister of Health has been there – I think he’s vice-chair or whatever – he’s heard compelling statistical presentations in terms of how we can reduce the incidence of serious injury to Albertans. Here is a concrete, practical proposal to ensure that we reduce the incidence of children who are hurt. MR. YANKOWSKY: There’s a shortage of policemen. MR.

DICKSON: Well, we hear the usual incisive comment coming from the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. I’m sure he’s done a thorough analysis of this issue. I’m sure he’s done a comprehensive statistical review of head injuries to children riding bikes. I’m sure he’s going to want to share his distilled wisdom with the rest of us so that we can genuinely have all of the information in front of us and ensure that this is an informed and meaningful debate.

While we’re waiting for the Member for Edmonton- Beverly-Clareview to gather his voluminous statistics and marshall his arguments, I’m just going to make a couple of further observa- tions, if you’ll allow me, Mr. Chairman. I’m trying to imagine the arguments one might have. I think I mentioned the other day one of my concerns with requiring all Albertans on a bike to wear a helmet. I made the observation that if you’re a libertarian, you take the position that adults should be entitled to make stupid decisions, that that’s sort of within the compass of individual responsibility and individual decision-making.

But that argument clearly does not obtain when we’re talking about children. I think that indeed I’m much more comfortable with this amendment than the first amendment that was put through, although after some agonizing introspective reflection, I ended up in a position where I would support the earlier amendment. After emerging bloodied from a vigorous caucus discussion, I was prepared to accept it, but this one I can say without any hesitation, without any equivocation is an amendment that makes darn good sense.

I think we have a chance to provide some leadership and some protection for children in this province. I know that as soon as the Minister of Health rouses himself to participate in the debate, he’s going to also be able to vigorous ly defend the interests of children being able to be protected. We can’t rely on children always to do the prudent thing. As adults we have that responsibility. As legislators we have that broader kind of responsibility. Mr.

Chairman, I know that my MLA for Calgary-North West is going to be supporting this because he’s demonstrated from time to time a keen sensitivity of what his constituents want. To the extent I can right now, I want to communicate to my MLA that this is an issue I’m hopeful he’s going to vote. I don’t know. I want to encourage him to stand up. He produces questionnaires from time to time in his newsletter, and I always respond to them. I don’t specifically remember one on bike helmets for children. I’ve done my own informal poll of my neighbourhood, and I think there is majority support for this.

So being a good representative of people in northwest Calgary, I’m counting on my MLA to stand up and support the Minister of Health. There may be other members who want to reinforce that point, because if we cannot provide protection for children, who’s going to do it? Some parents, frankly, are not responsible, so should their children have to bear the burden of a cracked skull? 10:20 I think this is a responsible amendment.

If we recognize the huge value in terms of requiring children to wear seat belts and the appropriate restraint devices, why would we expect a lower level of standard when they’re traveling on a bike that doesn’t even provide that minimal kind of protection that they get by being in an enclosed vehicle? I think those are all good reasons. I’m not suggesting that I’ve been persuasive, but on the basis of other reasons, if there are any members who disagree with this amendment, I hope they’ll share with us and with Albertans their objections, their reasons.

I hope we’re not going to be met with stony silence when it comes to the vote. I hope that those people who think there are good reasons why children s houldn’t be protected in this fashion, if I could be so presumptuous as to suggest, I think those MLAs have a responsibility to stand and engage in the debate and stake out their positions so that Albertans can know. I hope that the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, who had so much advice to offer from his seat, is going to take his place and catch your attention, Mr. Chairman.

I’ll encourage my members to pause for a moment before they stand up to allow the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview to stand up and share with us both his research and his values. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood.

1510 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize for my laughing outburst prior to the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo speaking. Mr. Chairman, I think many of the reasons and the rationale behind putting forward an amendment to have children under the age of 18 wear bicycle helmets have been discussed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. However, you don’t have to have been a police officer or you don’t have to have been an emergency room physician or a nurse to know the injuries that can be caused as a result of an injury to the head.

There are many people, as I’ve said before in this House, who use bicycles as a form of commuting. In fact the bicycles are more highfalutin. They have more gears; they go faster. We have a lot of kids who have those bicycles. We have a lot of kids who use their bikes to move around the city as opposed to public transportation. Many of those youths are 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, and many of those kids have no fear. They think they’re invincible. So they hop on a bike, and they rush off to the ri ver valley, and they think they can make every jump down in the river valley.

They think that they can go as fast as they can on those bike trails without recognizing that there are other users of the trails and sometimes get themselves into some difficulty. As a result of th e speed they may be going, they end up crashing, and serious injury can be the result. I think it’s only prudent to see that our kids in this province have all the safety available to them. Anything that we could do to protect them, we should do, and as adults and as legislators and as parents, we have that responsibility.

I’ve heard many members in this Assembly talk about their own children and their cycling and helmet-wearing. Well, I would say that in my house my son doesn’t go on his bike without his helmet, and if he does, then he loses his cycling time, and his bike stays lo cked up in the garage. I think that’s so I feel comfortable that the injury to him will be reduced should he crash. This government talks a lot about the high cost of health care, and I think that the Minister of Health would probably agree that there are preventative measures.

Out of the Royal Alex hospital they have a yearly cycling clinic, and they take inner-city kids on a cycle around the downtown area. Those kids are not allowed to cycle without helmets, and those kids that don’t have helmets get helmets. That is a safety program. If we want to start cutting the costs of health care, then we have to practise some preventative measures, and for those who don’t make that decision or who can’t make that decision for themselves, then we have to help them out.

You know, we had an hon. member earlier bring forward a private member’s bill on smoking and the issues to try and deal with youth smoking. Well, I think this far more paramount than the smoking issue, because this is immediate. The consequences of cycling injuries, of being hit by a car while you’re on your bicycle or having an accident in the river valley or elsewhere are far more severe. They can be far more critical. Both are important, because I think we need to target prevention in terms of youth smoking, but also we have an ability to practise prevention.

I think that this is the route to do it and will help with the reduction in the costs of health care. So if we can do that, then let’s do it. Let’s take that step. In my constituency I know that there are kids who can’t afford helmets, but I also know that there are people who will endeavour to get helmets for kids in the inner-city and those kids whose parents can’t afford them.

But there are also kids whose parents won’t or can’t focus on the whole safety issue, and I think that it’s important for other adults in communities to share some of the concerns and ensure that the kids know the rationale behind wearing such things as bicycle helmets. We’ve done it for seat belts, and right now I think the traffic fine for not wearing a seat belt is $25. It’s $25 for an adult not allowing . . . DR. TAYLOR: Fifty. MS OLSEN: Okay, so it’s 50. And if it’s 50, it should be 100. I think the minister of transportation is going to look at hiking up a lot of those fees. Actually I think it’s 25.

In our neck of the woods it’s 25 bucks. The same with car seats. It’s an offence to have an infant or a toddler not secured in a car seat in a vehicle. Well, why do we do that? Because statistically we know that it reduces the type of injury to an individual who is secured into a seat. So if we can do it for those particular instances, why can we not look at bike helmets in the same fashion? Why do we have to pretend that it’s any less important or that the injuries ar e any less serious than those that might be sustained in another accident?

I think that if we think about it, especially with summer coming up, we’ve got plenty of kids that are going to be out there. In fact last night in our break I noticed five kids riding up 107th Street. None of those kids, not one of them, had a bicycle helmet on. I just thought the timing was interesting given that we’ve been having this discussion the past couple of days. A hundred dollar fine I can live with. It certainly puts some onus on the offender or the offender’s parents to ensure that they have a safety helmet on. 10:30 This is another one of those issues: well, who’s going to police this?

I think that if a police officer sees a youth without a helmet on and we have this law, then he’s more likely to stop. Again, it’s not going to be the first priority, but it is going to be something people will abide by because most citizens are law-abiding citizens, and because we have the law, they will therefore ensure that they abide by the law. Because this is a very visible type of traffic offence, I think there would be more of a response by the police. The other thing is that the police also have a summer safety enforcement time when bicycle enforcement occurs on a regular basis.

So much the same as you’re going to give somebody a ticket for going through a red light, a stop sign, or those types of traffic offences, you could then give out a summons for operating a bicycle without a helmet. Given that, Mr. Chairman, I think the rationale is there. It’s sound. I think the docs in the emergency rooms would agree. I would hope the doc from Brooks would agree and he would stand in support of this amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would take my seat, and I encourage everybody to support this amendment. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, please. MR.

SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking in support of the amendment, as I spoke in support of the previous amendment on Bill 24 which would have seen bicycle helmets for all bicycle riders put into law. I understand one of the arguments against that amendment was that we shouldn’t compel adults. We should leave that choice to adults. I’m curious about that because I haven’t heard anybody in the Legislature stand and say: well, I don’t think motorcycle operators should have to wear helmets. I haven’t heard that adults shouldn’t have to wear seat belts.

But that notwithstand- ing, I heard the argument, and I accept the will of the Legislature as assembled that night that defeated that amendment. So now we’re provided with a second chance, which is a rare thing in this business, a second chance to do the right thing, and that is to at least recognize the special interests of children.

May 5, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1511 This isn’t unique. There are many, many examples where we have provincial law that recognizes the special needs and the special interests of children. We have legislation, in fact, that puts a positive obligation, a responsibility on adults to do the right thing by kids. We have legislation that makes it a serious offence, in fact, to be neglectful or hurtful when it comes to children and their care. Mr.

Chairman, the other argument I heard was a more general application of the notion that somehow it’s not the job of this Legislative Assembly to pass laws that control or dictate behaviour. Of course that’s what we do in this Chamber every day. If you take a look at any of the laws that come out of this Assembly, in one way or another they all impact on the freedoms, that people have to do whatever it is that they will do. We limit choices. One of the things about the rule of law is that we all agree to be bound by it, and that’s what we do in a civil society.

So I don’t buy the argument that we shouldn’t pass this legislation b ecause it’s too intrusive. Then there’s the argument about enforcement, which I think I covered in my remarks on the previous amendment, and I won’t take up the time of the Legislature to repeat them. I would simply add this to the debate.

I would ask if there is one parent in this Chamber, one parent in this Assembly that would not see to it that their child was wearing the proper equipment when they participated in any recreational activity, if there’s one parent that would send their son or daughter out on the soccer field without shin pads, if there’s one parent that would allow their son or daughter to play hockey without the proper equipment, if there was one parent, in fact, who didn’t insist that their young one fasten their seat belt when they were being driven to the soccer field or to the hockey arena.

Is there one parent that flaunted the law and didn’t use a proper child seat for their infant and then for their toddler? I would suggest that there’s not one parent in this Assembly that would be that irresponsible.

So I would ask all those parents who in their everyday lives do exactly what it is that this amendment would have us do to vote with their conscience and do what they believe is right and not get taken in by this sort of simple argume nt that this is too intrusive but recognize that the time has come for us in this Chamber to demon- strate some leadership and protect the health of our children every way we can, including, admittedly, being just a little bit heavy handed, just like we are when it comes to car seats, seat belts, athletic equipment, and I could go on. This is a very reasonable amendment.

The bill will be improved. The quality of life for our children will be improved, and I believe that if you’re looking for any final good reason to s upport this amendment, it would be to simply echo the public health aspects of this safety issue. I would hope my colleagues will ignore the instructions of their whip across there in the government benches and vote the way they believe is right and approach this amendment as parents. Thank you very much. [Motion on amendment A3 lost] MR. DICKSON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I’m still sort of getting over my acute disappointment that I didn’t hear my MLA voting loudly enough in the fashion that this constituent was hoping he would vote. I just want to make some observations generally about Bill 24. MR. AMERY: You don’t live in Calgary-Buffalo? MR. DICKSON: No, I live in Calgary-North West, hon. member, through the chair. Actually, the cost of accommodation in down- town Calgary is too expensive. Nobody can afford to live in downtown Calgary. The rents have gone through the roof, Mr. Chairman.

But that’s another matter for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we’ll discuss that another time. I wanted to make a couple of observations with respect to the licence suspension, and I had the opportunity to speak to this at second reading and distinguished myself by being singularly unpersuasive because the bill got second reading nonetheless. I just ask each member to consider this prospect. Just because a police officer pulls you over on the side of the road and decides he has reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample does not mean you’re guilty.

We have a thing that has existed for a very long time in our system of criminal law. It’s known as the presump- tion of innocence. 10:40 Sometimes, and we certainly see it evident in this bill, it’s easy to sort of get stampeded in terms of saying that we have – if it’s not quite the sky is falling, it’s we have this carnage on our roads and therefore any means justifies the end. Well, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, this is a question of trying to reconcile some competing values, some important compet- ing values.

On the one hand, of course, as a parent, as an elected representative, as a spouse I’m anxious that my family members be safe as pedestrians or as motorists. I don’t want to see carnage on the roads any more than anyone else does. But you know, at some point we have to understand that we have a system of checks and balances that means that normally before you are punished, there has to be an adjudication, an adjudication that follows a process whereby you get to present a full defence. You get to cross-examine the Crown witnesses. You get to question the Crown evidence.

After that process has been completed, there is a conviction or an acquittal, and after there’s a conviction, then punishment follows, and recognize that what we’re doing in Bill 24 is skipping that huge step. There’s no adjudication of guilt. It’s the policeman on the side of the road who makes the decision which results in your licence being suspended for a number of months. My sense is this is one of thos e issues there’s probably a lot of popular support for, but just because it seems to be popular and even if there were majority support for it doesn’t make it right.

I have suggested before that what we ought to be doing is focusing our energy on a process that allows an expedited hearing in front of a judicial officer who then would have it within his power, similar to a bail hearing, to suspend the licence. Whether it’s for three months or six months is far less important to me. I remember when I read the Medicine Hat News, and I think, Mr. Chairman, you will remember. I’d just come back from Medicine Hat.

I had a copy of the Medicine Hat News in my hot little hand, and I pointed out the editorial that talked about government’s indifference, ignorance of, lack of understanding of presumption of innocence. My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, had been that we look at a process that would ensure, just as in a bail hearing, that there’s an interim process which happens relatively soon after apprehension. After the alleged offence has occurred, there is like a bail hearing that would allow, in appropriate circumstances, the Crown to make their case why there should be a suspension.

The accused would have an opportunity to make defence to that. If in fact there was a determination, just as there is in a bail hearing, to suspend the licence, it would still be subject to judicial appeal. That at least would ensure that there’s the intervention of a judicial officer who makes that all-important decision about pulling the licence. The Minister of Transportation the other day had wanted to quarrel with me: is it a right or is it a privilege? I think that’s a bit

1512 Alberta Hansard May 5, 1999 of an empty argument. Whether to operate a motor vehicle is a right or a privilege, can we agree that in a sparsely populated province like Alberta, with limited public transit outside the major urban areas, vehicular transportation is a pretty essential way for people to get around. There aren’t too many of us that have the horse tethered to the garage door. So if we can’t operate our motor vehicle, whether you call it a right or you call it a privilege, it may mean that you can’t drive to pick up your children on your access weekend, it may mean that you can’t go to your job, or it may mean that your partner can’t drive to her job. You know, it