Alberta Hansard — 21 April 1999, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 3)

19990421

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1151 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 1:30 p.m. Date: 99/04/21 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated.

Hon. members, today I’m pleased to acknowledge our colleague Shiraz Shariff, who was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in the by-election of April 20, 1995. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, over the past several months many outstanding Albertans have been introduced to the hon. members of this Assembly and to the people of Alberta. Many of those attained recognition because of accomplishments in athletics. Today I’d like to introduce a young man who recently was proclaimed a grand prize winner in Corel Corporation’s world design contest for web site abstract creativity.

Wolfgang Maul was chosen the winner of the abstract category in computer art from an entry field of thousands of designers from throughout the world. He is among other interna- tional winners from Germany, Russia, Italy, Bosnia, Greece, and the United States. For his efforts Wolfgang received a trip to Ottawa for the gala presentation and a prize package worth an estimated $20,000 American. Born in Edmonton, Wolfgang Maul is one of ours. He is an employee of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, and we are fortunate to have Wolfgang’s talent for graphic design as a Legislative Assembly Office resource.

You can see his talent on the Legislative Assembly’s worldwide web home page, which he maintains. Wolfgang is seated in the Speaker’s gallery, and he is accompa- nied by his wife, Tamsin Maul; mother, Brigitte Maul; mother-in- law, Sarah Bohnet; and father-in-law, Artur Bohnet. I would ask Wolfgang Maul to rise and receive the traditional welcome of this House. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to file today signed by a number of residents of the Peace River area, and in the petition they state: We the undersigned urge the government of Alberta to hold a province wide plebiscite to determine once and for all the fate of VLTs in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition to table this afternoon.

It’s a petition from 95 Albertans urging the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my col- league from Strathmore-Brooks I’d like to present a petition from the Brooks Catholic community. We, the undersigned, wish to protest the lack of funding for suitable school space in the Christ the Red eemer Catholic School Division.

Four hundred and thirty names attached to that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present an SOS petition on behalf of 110 Edmontonians to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a tabling this afternoon from the United Nurses of Alberta to the assistant deputy minister of Labour wherein they request that mediation needs “to involve all of the affected Locals and Employers currently in bargaining.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling today a set of 13 different amendments to Bill 15, the Natural Heritage Act, which returns tonight for debate in Committee of the Whole. Thank you. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, today I wish to file with the Assembly copies of a memo sent to the Member for Lacombe- Stettler which supplements my answers to her questions in the House on March 31 concerning the operations of the Cultural Diversity Institute. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real pleasure today to table five copies of the government of Alberta news release dated February 12, 1998, entitled Ensuring a Quality Health System Now and in the Future. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members, I’m pleased today to rise on behalf of Mr. Speaker and introduce to this Assembly a group of young people from across Alberta who are in Edmonton this week participating in the Forum for Young Albertans. The Forum for Young Albertans is a nonpartisan political learning opportunity for senior high school students. On Friday here in this Chamber the students will participate in a model parliament after having had prior discussions with Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, and staff regarding their roles in the Legisla- ture.

We are pleased to have these students with us today sitting in both the members’ gallery and the public gallery. I would ask them

1152 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 now to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I’m pleased to rise and introduce to the Assembly very special indi viduals within the Legislative Assembly Office. They are volunteers who assist visitor services with school groups, educational programs, special events, and grounds tours to summer visitors to this wonderful building. Seated in your gallery, Mr.

Speaker, are Jean Yates, volunteer of seven years; Doreen O’Callaghan, a volunteer of five years; Clive Lomax, a volunteer of four years; Myrna Grimm and Rita Alfrey, volunteers of one year. I’d also like to mention two additional one-year volunteers who were not able to be with us today: Pat Foster and Jeanne Sui. I’d ask all these volunteers now to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure today for me to introduce through you to the re mainder of the Members of the Legislative Assembly two different groups of people that are here today. We have in the public gallery three constituents of mine that have spent a great deal of time in their lives volunteering. This being Volunteer Week I’d like to introduce to you, first of all, Lois and Doug Sorenson and Denise Chapman. If they would be so kind as to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. And the second, sir. Also in the public gallery there is a person that does a lot to keep my life to gether in my constituency office.

I’d like to introduce to you a southern Albertan, one from the Vulcan area originally. She’s in the audience. I’d like Rhonda Middlestead to rise and receive the warm welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature 82 grade 6 students from l’école Dr. Bernard Brosseau school in Bonnyville. Included in the group is my ni ece Ashley Levasseur and her mother, Diana Levasseur.

They are accompanied by Odessa Lessard, Nicole Jodoin, Therese Richard, Marie-Josée Dupont, Mr. Powers, and Reb ecca Hunka and by parents Maurice Richard, Carmen Christensen, Colleen Ostrosky, Grace Oman, Karen Irwin, Agnes Vendiola, Bryan Toth, and Anita VanDerVoort. They are seated in both the members’ and the public galleries, and I ask that they now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Legislature. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly Mrs.

Yvette Kumpula and Mrs. Evelyn Dubetz. They are doing a fine job of running the Edmonton-Glengarry constituency office. As well, Ms Lara Holowenko, who is the executive assistant for the Edmonton-Castle Downs constituency office. They are seated in the public gallery. With your permission I ask them now to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

When I had a vacancy in my constituency office, we had a competition publicly advertised through the Calgary Herald; 80 strong candidates, but the strongest is the young woman that started working in Calgary- Buffalo on March 1. I’d invite Patti Spady to stand and receive the customary welcome of members. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly a person who keeps me out of trouble in my constituency, my executive assistant, Loreen Kabanuk.

She’s up in the public gallery. I’d like her to stand up and get the greetings of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you five people who have journeyed here from Brooks to meet with the hon. Minister of Education today: Trena Ramsay, Diane Harty, Lisa Albers, Trudy Crosby, and Barb Wallis. I’d like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. I believe they’re in the members’ gallery. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR.

NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me real pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and to the members of the Legislature one of the two people who help in my constituency office. I’d ask Susan Giffen to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to rise and provide two introductions to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. The first is six members of the Medicine Hat and district independent day care operators.

These women are owners of day cares in the Medicine Hat, Redcliff, and Brooks area. They have come to Edmonton today to meet with MLAs and ministers and the Leader of the Official Opposition around issues of child care. I would also indicate that they’re meeting with the minister of science and technology this afternoon as a resident MLA in their cons titu- ency. I would ask these women to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I am pleased to introduce to you and through you on behalf of my colleague for Calgary-East 14 grade 5/6 students from St. John Bosco, which is a private Catholic school located in the Forest Heights community. I was pleased to meet with the students earlier today. They are seated in the public gallery and are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Philippa Olivier, and home sc hool mom Mrs. Joan Borbely. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce an individual who’s important not only to myself but to the constituents of Edmonton-Meadowlark.

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1153 She’s both my left hand and my right hand. Her name is Pat Cassady. If she’d please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second intr oduction today is also to introduce a woman who runs Edmonton-Riverview in my absence. I would ask Jan Baker to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me tremendous pleasure to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly another time an individual who has distinguished himself as a community volunteer, as a fund-raiser for CKUA, as one of the organizers in the VOTE campaign, and in his spare time he manages to run the Edmonton-Glenora cons tituency office with distinction. I would ask Mr. Kim Cassady to please rise and be welcomed by the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. Treaty 8 Centennial MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I had the honour of joining Premier Ralph Klein, the Minister of Community Development, the Minister of Economic Development, the minister without portfolio responsible for children’s services, and 11 of my colleague MLAs at a gala ceremony to launch the commemoration of the Treaty 8 centennial. One hundred years ago, on June 21, 1899, on the shores of Lesser Slave Lake, Treaty 8 was signed between the British Crown and the First Nations people of that area. This historical treaty covers northern Alberta, parts of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.

Our forefathers and those of the First Nations people of that area entered into Treaty 8 in good faith to build a stronger future for all. As a province we continue to demonstrate our commitment to fulfilling the terms of the treaties by assisting the federal government through our provision of unoccupied Crown land as required. Since 1986 nine treaty land entitlement claims have been settled in Alberta. Seven of those are within Treaty 8.

As Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs I was present last year at the signing of the Alexander settlement, and I look forward with anticipation to the signing of the Loon River First Nation agreement, which was recently approved by our cabinet and will hopefully be signed early this summer. We are making great progress in settling these claims, but we are operating on the basis, Mr. Speaker, that 100 years should be enough to fulfill our obligations. The Alberta government will continue to pursue the resolution of claims across Alberta.

We also announced in this year’s throne speech our intention to complete an aboriginal policy framework to guide and strengthen relationships between the government of Alberta and the aboriginal people in this province. Related to this Treaty 8 celebration, the government of Alberta announced yesterday that it will contribute $800,000 in lottery revenues to help the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council on behalf of Treaty 8 stage the Treaty 8 centennial commemoration. This is in addition, Mr.

Speaker, to two CFEP grants that have been provided and moneys that have been provided out of the departments of Community Development and Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs as well as in-kind services provided by our departments to help facilitate this very important celebration. The centennial event is designed to establish and promote greater understanding of the treaties and their significance. A very significant part of the celebration process is the educational component attached to it.

I congratulate the regional council and the Treaty 8 Grand Council and all involved for their creativity, their energy, and their willing- ness to share their culture in this way. I look forward to being part of the commemoration on June 21. I encourage all Albertans to become involved during the week of festivities between June 17 and 21 and extending through to August in various parts of the Treaty 8 area.

These events will provide an excellent opportunity for Albertans and their families to spend summer vacation time in northern Alberta learning more about aboriginal history, learning more about Alberta in general, and sharing in the spirit of a momentous cultural commemoration. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to congratulate the First Nations people who are celebrating the centennial of Treaty 8. Treaty 8, that was signed in 1899, included all the lands north of the Athabasca River and then east of Cold Lake.

Treaty 8 includes the entire area of what was to become northern Alberta and of course stretches into the neighbouring provinces to the east and west and the Northwest Territories. It deals with the rights of 40 bands. In 1899 the signing of Treaty 8 was an international agreement between one nation and another. The First Nations people still have a primary relationship with the federal government.

The federal minister of Indian and northern affairs met last year with Grand Chief Eddie Tallman, representing Treaty 8 First Nations, to discuss self-government, an issue of major concern to all First Nations people and the federal government. However, the provincial government also has an important role to play. The treaty made commitments to First Nations peoples including the rights to fish, hunt, trap, and the provincial government needs to respect these traditional rights. 1:50 It is great to celebrate the centenary of Treaty 8.

I hope the celebrations will provide an opportunity for all of those who are in northern Alberta this summer to become more familiar with the richness of the aboriginal culture. This event also reminds us that even after 100 years we still have a number of major issues that need to be addressed, and I hope that after the celebrations are over, we will continue with new resolve to settle the outstanding claims. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Education Funding MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

This government is forcing the Edmonton public school board to lay off nearly 200 teachers and another 100 support staff. Yesterday the Premier referred to Edmonton public’s effort to eliminate its accumulated deficit by saying:

1154 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 So the board’s budget for next year actually shows a surplus of $5.4 million, which will be used to start bringing deficits down. This is long-term planning, and we commend the Edmonton public school board for doing that kind of planning, for undertaking that kind of process. Not a mention of classrooms, of teachers, of families, or of a toll on children and on learning. Unbelievable, but true to form for a government that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. My questions are to the Premier are.

How much more in user fees will Edmonton families be paying for instruction, supplies, and transportation now that the Premier has shut the door on helping out Edmonton students and their school board deficits? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have hardly shut the door. Again I will remind the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition that this government has reinvested almost $600 million since 1995. We’re looking at this year, next year, and the year following, $600 million in addition to the $400 million already invested. Almost a billion dollars. This is hardly closing the door on education.

This is an average 6 percent increase per year over six years. That is far and above the rate of inflation, and it should be adequate to satisfy the needs of the various school districts in this province. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier describe his rationale for commending Edmonton public for using a projected $5.4 million surplus for rapid debt reduction while ignoring the impact those province-satisfying actions will have on our class- rooms? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I have to allude to an

article that was in one of the newspapers this morning where the board chairman, George Nicholson, is quoted as saying that he’s counting on retirements to reduce most of the positions dictated by its budget. He said 150 teachers have [already] announced their June retirements and 40 more teaching positions must be cut. “We expect no individual will lose their job through layoffs.” This sounds like an orderly way to deal with the situation. Again, I reiterate my commendation of the Edmonton public school board for addressing the deficit in a straightforward, orderly, and responsible way. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, when can Edmonton parents expect relief from overcrowded and split classes, from a shortage of current textbooks and technology as a result of this government’s lack of commitment to public education? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to “lack of commitment.” This government has identified education as certainly one of the top priorities right up there with health. Again I have to reiterate that a commitment of nearly one billion additional dollars -- additional, new dollars -- to education is a significant amount.

Maybe it’s not significant to this spend-like-crazy Liberal Party, but to the average Albertan a billion dollars is a huge amount of money. Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to pose the question that I’m sure they won’t answer. We have said that a billion dollars over six years is adequate, an average of about 6 percent per year. That is deemed to be adequate, especially in light of what Ms Bauni Mackay said, that she was absolutely euphoric that we were reinvesting that kind of money. She would have been euphoric if we had invested an average of 3 percent per year, but this is an average of 6 percent.

Here’s the general question: how much more? Will this hon. member stand up and give us a figure as to how much more she wants us to spend on education, how much more she wants us to spend on health, how much more she wants to spend on the multi- tude of programs that are provided by this government? Mr. Speaker, will she stand up and give us the figures so we will know where the Liberals stand, we will know what their bottom line is. THE SPEAKER: The second main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, this government’s . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor with her second main question. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, this government’s callousness and shortsightedness is not limited to the treatment of Edmonton schools. The Calgary board of education is contemplating layoffs of 240 teachers and more than 100 support staff f aced with some of the most crowded classrooms and schools in the province. The govern- ment’s lack of support for children in public schools is an insult to a city whose young educated citizens know the value of an excellent education.

To the Premier: why does this government refuse to acknowledge the results of the Calgary board of education review, which affirms the excellent job done with the limited resources available from this province? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Calgary board of education’s budget as I understand won’t be presented to the board until sometime in May. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that’s the case. So we don’t know basically what the board is going to do at this particular time.

Again I would remind the hon. member that a billion dollar reinvestment of new dollars in education should go a long way, especially since those involved in the business of education were absolutely elated before the budget or said that they would be elated if they got 3 percent. Well, they’re getting 6 percent. What has changed in those few short months? Again I would ask the Liberal opposition: how much? How much more? What is their dollar figure? They talk about more and more. Is it another billion? Is it another 2 billion? Is it another 3 billion? Is it a zillion or a trillion? What is the figure? How much?

MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that this government has promised a review of its allocation of resources for school boards, how many more years will pass before the unique needs and the expenses of our urban school boards will be addressed? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, they are being addressed as we speak. Six hundred million dollars starting this year over the next three years. That is a significant amount on top of the almost $400 million that has already been reinvested. That is a significant amount.

A 6 percent increase this year, a 6 percent increase next year, a 6 percent increase the year after that: that is very significant. Six threes are 18; that’s an 18 percent increase in funding over three years. That is absolutely huge. That is far beyond the anticipated rate of inflation. But again I ask the question: how much more? You know, put it on the line. I ask the Liberal Party to do this. Put it on the line so that the taxpayers know exactly what kind of a party this is and really how th ey demonstrate to the public that everything can be fixed by spending, spending, spending, and spending more. 2:00 MRS.

MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, given that five years ago property

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1155 taxes covered 97 percent of the Calgary board of education’s cost of educating students and today it covers only 90 percent, how is the Calgary board supposed to make up the shortfall? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we expect the Calgary board to exercise prudent, proper budgeting like every other school district. The leader of the Liberal opposition knows very well that we had to take some dramatic steps to bring about equality throughout the education system in this province, a duty that she failed to perform when she was Minister of Educati on. I would point that out.

She liked the system. She liked the system where some school districts with a huge property tax base could spend up to $12,000 per district, where some of the poorer rural areas could spend absolutely the bare minimum. That’s the system that she liked. It was a system that was unfair, it was unequal, but she must have liked that system, Mr. Speaker, because she did nothing to fix it. Nothing at all. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. User Fees DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the past six years this government has brought in over 800 new and increased user fees including over 400 through regulation, bringing in $285 million in tax grab on Albertans. The Premier says that keeping user fee changes by regulation are simply adjustments to reflect the cost of providing services. Albertans call it taxation. My questions are to the Premier. How can the Premier claim that user fees are adjusted to the cost of service when not one government department was able to provide detailed cost-of-service data when requested by the Official Opposition? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon.

Provincial Treasurer pointed out yesterday, all of that information will be tabled. There will be a complete and thorough review of all of the 800 or so fees. Again, that information will all be tabled at that time. The Liberal opposition will have an opportunity to provide, I hope, constructive input as to whether those fees are indeed fair. AN HON. MEMBER: How many user fees are enough? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker . . . Right. Thank you. It’s hard to address you, sir, and listen to this yipping and yapping over there. It really is. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: how can the Premier claim that user fee taxes are going down when his budget clearly shows they are going up by nearly $92 million over the next three years? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there will be legislation introduced, as I understand it, Bill 35, to basically freeze all of the user fees until we have had an opportunity to review those fees. I can assure you that none of these will go up, but in many cases they will likely go down. I would reiterate what the hon. Provincial Treasurer said relative to taxes in this province: the onl y way that they are going is down.

I would apply that to most of the user fees. All we want to do is to make sure that these fees are commensurate with the value of the service being provided, Mr. Speaker. I’ll have the hon. Provincial Treasurer supplement. MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, that’s quite accurate. You know, I find that the response has been interesting the last couple of days. We have indicated that we’re going to do a review of all of our fees. As a matter of fact we are going to table in the Legislature, as the Premier said, a list showing all the fees.

We’re going to have a committee that will even go beyond that mandate and take other charges that may not be called fees and look at everything that we charge. This is something that I’ve distinctly heard the Liberals ask be done. There is no other government in this country that is going to be doing such a comprehensive review. In terms of increase, since 1994 there has been an increase that can be approximated of about 1.3 percent. One point three percent. Our population increase last year alone was something like 2.7 percent. Population and growth are beyond even what fees have increased since 1994.

They’ve been asking for this exercise. We’re asking for their participation in it, and now they seem to be angry that we’re doing it. It’s a good news exercise. By the time it’s done, there will be a number of fees that will be reduced, Mr. Speaker. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary is to the Provincial Treasurer. Included in this list will you be identifying those fees which are in violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Eurig estates case? MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good point that is being made here.

It happens rarely from the Liberals, but this is a good point that’s being made. The Eurig case, which went to the Supreme Court, basically said that Legislatures or governments can charge whatever they want for any fee, but if what they are charging is significantly beyond cost recovery, then that fee needs to be put in statute. It needs to be brought into the Legislature rather than simply in regulation. Part of the exercise clearly is to determine that.

If we have fees that go far beyond cost recovery -- I don’t know if we do, but if we do, then we’ll have to make a decision with input from the Liberals on whether we should maintain that fee in regulation and drop the cost or in fact bring it into the Legislature. That’ll be part of the discussion that we want to invite them to take

part in. Education Funding (continued) MS BARRETT: The Calgary board of education is now facing a $55 million accumulated deficit by the end of the sc hool year thereby making it impossible to reach a fair settlement with its teachers. The Edmonton public school board is attempting to deal with its $21 million accumulated deficit through -- what a surprise -- bigger class sizes and laying off 189 full-time teachers. My question is to the Premier, and it’s this: why was this government willing to make a onetime payment to eliminate the accumulated deficits of its appointed regional health authorities?

Remember the document I filed earlier today? That was the news release from 1998. They were willing to make the onetime payment to the unelected regional health authorities, but the governme nt refuses to even consider a onetime payment to help eliminate the deficit of the democratically elected school boards in Edmonton and Calgary. MRS. McCLELLAN: That’s a good point. MS BARRETT: It is. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously in this Legislature, we’re willing to work with any board that is experienc- ing problems with financing and particularly with deficit financing

1156 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 to see if we can achieve some administrative efficiencies and help them through some of these problems. Indeed before we addressed the health situation, we did detailed examinations of thos e hospital authorities and worked with the hospital authorities to bring about assurances that they would deal with their deficits and develop programs to deal with deficits. They’re doing a darned good job of that, and I would hope that the school boards would do the same. MS BARRETT: I don’t understand.

Why would the Premier, why would the government, then, not make the same agreement with the elected school boards as it did with the appointed RHAs and get into meetings with them and offer the money to eliminate the deficits that they inherited? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. leader of the NDs doesn’t understand that we are indeed helping the school boards.

Again, I would have to reiterate that $600 million over the next three years, an average 6 percent increase each year starting this year and the two years following, should go a long way to helping these school boards to deal with any deficit financing they might have. That is a huge chunk of change added to the almost $400 million that has already been reinvested. That is help. I mean, there are not many departments in this government that have been guaranteed -- guaranteed -- a 6 percent increase over three years. That is very significant. Eighteen percent.

That should go a long way to help any school board with a deficit problem to deal with those problems. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. 2:10 MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, one thing that I wish to supplement in terms of the Premier’s answer is with reference to the hon. ND leader’s assertion that the Calgary board is not in a position to make a fair offer to its teachers. We believe that teachers work hard and that they do deserve a fair pay increase.

What’s been offered by the school board is a 10 percent offer over a three-year period, a significantly generous offer in my view, and a guarantee that classroom sizes will be limited so that there will be a 26 student per class limit in elementary school classrooms, 28 at the junior high level, and 30 at the high school level. So the initial assertion that the board has not been in a position to place a fair offer on the table I don’t think is correct. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, instead of the Premier asking the opposition how much is e nough -- I can give him the answer.

In Calgary’s case it would be $55 million; that would be enough to get rid of their deficit. Why doesn’t the Premier meet with the two boards of education that are facing these crippling accumulated deficits so that he gets a firsthand appreciation of why they need the government to cover those deficits? MR. KLEIN: As a matter of fact we’re going to do precisely that. I think I have a meeting with the two board chairmen -- when is it? -- sometime this month or next month. AN HON. MEMBER: This month. MR. KLEIN: Right. Yes. And we’re going to discuss some of these issues.

Again I will have to reiterate that when people say, “Why don’t you give more money to the school boards?” well, we are. We have given a significant amount this year, $200 million, next year $200 million on average, the year after that another $200 million, an average of 6 percent. They will get over the next two years a 12 percent increase in addition to what they received this year, in addition to the almost $400 million that they’ve received since 1995. So when the media say, “Will you give them any more money?” well, we are going to give them more money.

There is a three-year commitment to give them 18 percent, starting with 6 percent his year, 6 percent next year, and 6 percent the following year. That is more money. That is significant dollars. Even to the CBC it’s significant dollars, or to the Liberal Party it’s significant dollars. Those are new extra dollars. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Student Debt MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development.

Young Albertans who are attending our colleges and universities are graduating with certificates, diplomas, degrees, and huge crippling debts. To the minister: if the minister believes that education is the key to a better life, why are his department and the government forcing students to incur such huge debts? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, let’s place things in context first of all. Less than half of the students in our postsecondary system require student loans, and of those that actually have student loans with us, we have the second lowest, I guess it is, average debt load in the country.

I would want to remind some of my friends opposite that had such a good time when the question was being asked . . . [interjections] I know. I understand. I’m just talking about the reaction. They could be a real help. You in the opposition in Alberta could be a real help to students here in the province by talking to your federal cousins, because the overwhelming amount of debt that students are experiencing is the federal student loan program. We have been working very diligently with these folks, and we think we can work with the federal government and here in the province to reduce student debt. MR.

TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development: how can the minister ignore the fact that many needy Albertans are frightened away by the high costs of postsecondary education and not eliminate the economic barrier to students to better themselves through postsecondary education? MR. DUNFORD: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was unable to hear the question. THE SPEAKER: That’s probably correct because of all the chatter that was going on in all parts of the House. Last question, hon. member. MR.

TANNAS: Again to the minister, the final supplemental: given that there are some loans and grants available, is it government policy to pass on the cost of education to the shoulders of students so that they graduate with this millstone of huge debt? MR. DUNFORD: Well, I think this is an excellent point and a good opportunity for me to once again inform Albertans, people here in the House, and especially the youth of the forum that are here in the galleries that the policy of this government is and will continue to be that those who can afford to pay will pay and that those that cannot

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1157 afford to pay to enter our postsecondary system will find assistance with this government. We think the assistance programs we’ve put in place, Mr. Speaker, strike a nice balance between those two objectives. There is no reason for any adult in Alberta who is qualified and motivated to enter our postsecondary system not to be able to do so. Yes, they may have to take on student debt, but the debt they would take on in entering the postsecondary system is the best investment they will ever, ever make in thei r lives. It will do three things at least.

Higher education will lead to a higher job, it’ll lead to more money, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it’ll lead to better health. Brooks Day Care Study MRS. SLOAN: Lakeside Packers in the town of Brooks recently received a $50,000 grant by the Minister of Family and Social Services and MLA for Brooks to study child care. The town didn’t ask for it. The child authority knew nothing about it. The only qualified day care provider is excluded from participating. My questions today are to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Why, Mr.

Minister, was this grant awarded when all other day care operators in the province must spend their own money to complete feasibility studies? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to correct the hon. member as once again she’s got her facts wrong. There was no grant given to Lakeside Packers. There was a $50,000 grant that was given to FCSS in Brooks, and the reason and the rationale behind that grant was to look at studying an after-hours day care program. In Brooks, Alberta, they are undergoing a tremendous amount of growth.

Part of that growth occurs in an industry where workers do not necessarily work from 8 to 5. We have as many people working from 8 to 5 as we do from 5 to midnight or 5 till 1 in the morning. What this $50,000 is intended for is to look at the feasibility of running after-hours day care in the province. We do not at present fund any after- hours day care in the province.

When there are communities such as Brooks that are very dependent upon shift workers, maybe the opposition wants the children to be left in the home at nighttime, but we don’t, so we’re looking at the feasibility of setting up an after-hours day care. MRS. SLOAN: Given that the government’s press release on this matter did not appear on the government web site, why was this announcement not made provincewide? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the news release. It’s the same as any other news release that we’ve ever put out in our department.

March 29, 1999: “A $50,000 grant from Alberta Family and Social Services will be used to study the feasibility of establish- ing an extended hours child care program in Brooks.” Here it is. I don’t know what she’s talking about. 2:20 MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, is this not a political gift to a large business to set up a day care? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member must not be hearing me properly. Lakeside Packers did not receive the grant. FCSS in Brooks received the grant. If I may, I’ll just comment on some of what the mayor of Brooks said.

I think it is wonderful; I th ink it will help Brooks, said Lisa Nickel, who’s the owner of a day home. Mayor Don Weisbeck says that there is a perceived demand for child care services and that the study will help establish how large the demand is; I think right now we have to look at the numbers, the affordability, and who it will cater to. Lakeside community liaison, Tracey Dueck, says: the study is the result of a community-driven effort, we were quite concerned about the day care situation in Brooks, we’re really excited that this announcement came, and it is quite a relief that there is money for the study.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what she’s talking about. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Agricultural Trade with the U.S. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of interven- tions by North Dakota’s governor trade restriction legislation that was supposed to happen in that state that would have been harmful to Alberta has been dropped. This is very, very good news for our farming communities in this province. My question today is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

How can we promote a better relationship with our neighbours to the south so that we can improve co-operation and do away with conflicts in the agricultural sector? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, the news coming out of North Dakota has certainly been excellent. Common sense has prevailed, and the governor has interceded in what would have been a very detrimental order that was passed in their Legislature. However, in order to facilitate better communication and trade between Alberta and the Pacific Northwest states, the Premier and I visited Governor Racicot in Montana in December.

The Premier had introduced a very informal dispute resolution process to try and resolve some of these trade border disputes before they escalate to international settings. As a result, the Premier will be hosting a conference together with Governor Racicot in Great Falls, Montana, June 1 and 2 to try and deal with these issues. MR. LANGEVIN: Mr. Speaker, again to the same minister: what is the purpose of this conference, and what will be the immediate benefit to our farm communities? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, currently our beef trade with the States is about $2.8 billion.

We see on the horizon much legislation that’s being introduced in the states of Colorado and Idaho referring to beef labeling. We’ve got to start somewhere to try and bring about a better dialogue and talk about opportunities for agriculture on both sides of the border. This particular conference will take industry leaders from both sides of the border, put them at the same table, and start dealing with a lot of these issues, many of them, quite frankly, as a result of poor communication and wrong information. It’s polarized producers on both sides of the border, forcing really poor decisions. MR.

LANGEVIN: Again to the same minister: how can you guarantee that the agriculture sector will be represented properly at that conference? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, we on the Alberta side have invited about 150 different participants. It includes the oilseeds, cereals, and livestock sectors, but most importantly also all of our food proces- sors to ensure that everyone that’s involved in agriculture and food is represented at this conference. We expect that we’ll have an excellent turnout, and this will provide an opportunity for the

1158 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 Premier and the governor to open up the conference to talk about their vision for agriculture and food and then leave it up to the people that are actually investing the money in this industry to dialogue and bring about some change. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Day Care MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Day care operators in this province are closing their doors b ecause they ca nnot afford to provide quality care.

Since the province removed the operating allowance, middle-income parents in Alberta cannot afford to send their children to quality care, thus we have a two-tier system. This afternoon independent day care operators traveled from southern Alberta to meet with the Minister of Family and Social Services, to meet with the minister of children’s services and were refused. My question is to the minister responsible for children’s services.

In light of her answer on April 15, 1999, in this House where she talked about the importance of involving the whole community, would she be good enough to explain why she refused to meet with the independent day care operators group from Medicine Hat? Why was that, Madam Minister? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really important to be able to indicate that sometimes our schedules and our calendars conflict with other things that have been booked. Sometimes we’re doubled booked, so we have to say no to some of the meetings that have been requested of us. DR.

OBERG: The hon. member has a couple of inaccuracies in what he said. First of all, I have never received an invitation from the Medicine Hat day care association to meet with them. I knew they were coming today, and I went through my invitations and asked my staff: did they send an invitation to meet with me? Mr. Speaker, they did not. The hon. member opposite sent me an invitation to ask me to meet with them, but I received nothing from the Medicine Hat day care association. Mr.

Speaker, I must say that the hon. member who just asked the question was talking about the two levels of day care and the changes to day care. With the elimination of the operating allow- ance we are actually putting $3 million more into day care than we did last year. We’re now spending $64 million on day care as opposed to $61 million last year. Mr. Speaker, I’ve stood up in this Assembly many times and talked about the child care subsidy, how we’ve increased the rate. Presently if there are two children from a two-parent family, you will receive a subsidy up to $43,000 net income per year.

The last thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that presently in Medicine Hat there is a 35 percent vacancy rate in day care spaces. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question, going back to the minister responsible for children’s services: will that minister explain the inequity created when day home operators in Alberta receive an administrative fee while day cares do not? MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, that’s a great question, and I know the Minister of Family and Social Services, whose responsibility it is in terms of service delivery, will be answering.

I think it’s important to identify who’s responsible for what. First of all, as minister responsible for children’s services I have two mandates. One is to be able to move it into the community- based system where the regional authorities would take over service delivery, and at that point the Minister of Family and Social Services takes over. My second mandate is to be able to look at integration both at the bureaucracy level as well as at the community level. That’s exactly where my responsibilities lie. Service delivery I will hand over to the Minister of Family and Social Services. DR. OBERG: Very short, Mr.

Speaker. I will just comment by talking about the child care subsidy rates. For day care for a child from zero to 18 months they receive $ 475. For a child 19 months and older it’s $380 in day care. In a family day home it’s $300. MR. DICKSON: My final question, Mr. Speaker: while we’re waiting for the Premier to rename ministries so they more accurately reflect responsibilities, will this minister responsible for children’s services commit to implementing a wage enhancement program similar to what we’ve seen in other provinces as part of the chil- dren’s initiative? MS CALAHASEN: Mr.

Speaker, obviously it’s really important to be able to identify what the Al berta children’s initiative is. The Alberta children’s initiative is to be able to look at integration within the various departments that have been involved in the service delivery aspect of children’s services. It is at the point where it is now a framework to work with the various ministries so that we can make it much better for communities and families to be able to access services. 2:30 Mr.

Speaker, in terms of what is happening on service delivery, the Minister of Family and Social Services is responsible for that, and I will allow him to be able to do that in terms of explaining what he’s been doing, because I think he’s done a marvelous job at making service delivery better. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll keep it very short. The hon. member raises an issue of great concern. Wages for day care workers are very low.

One of the things that we have been looking at in our department is how to enhance those wages so that the private operators do not take the money that we have given them and put it in their jeans but instead pass it on to their workers. Unfortunately we do not have a lot of control monetarily as we direct the money that we give to day cares through the parents. We are working with the day care operators to find the best possible way to enhance those wages so that the money that is given to them goes directly to the worker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Auto Glass Tinting MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s been brought to my attention by a constituent that our current laws governing tinted auto glass state that only factory tinted glass is legal and that no exemp- tions exist, not even for medical conditions such as severe photosensitivity, even though some factory tint is much darker than what is available through after-market suppliers. It would seem more appropriate to base regulation or legislation on the degree of tint rather than its point of origin or who sells it.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Utilities. Could the minister explain why such a discrepancy exists? MR. PASZKOWSKI: The safety glass of new motor vehicles or

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1159 replacement glazing sold in Alberta is required by our current legislation to meet the standards of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act as well as other standards that are set. These standards require that glazing material allow 70 percent of the light to show through. Our current Highway Safety Act prohibits the installation of any material on the windshield or on the side windows that indeed will restrict it to less than that.

The application of film or any other type of device that will reduce the amount of light that is allowed through the windows is also not only light restrictive, but it creates a problem if involved in an accident or a collision. The sha ttering characteristics are changed, and therefore there is a higher risk as far as shattering is concerned and injury to the people that are involved in the vehicle.

As far as those that may have a photosensitivity with their skin, there is a process where by applying to the Motor Transport Board, exemptions can be allowed and will be provided for those that have a medical certificate indicating that indeed they require tinted glass. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplemental to the same minister: would he commit to reviewing the current regulations regarding this issue as it appears to favour one supplier of the service over another? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: The current legislation that we’re bringing forward is going to create the climate for a review of all issues, including this particular issue. So indeed once the Traffic Safety Act is passed, regulation will allow us to make ongoing changes where they are required. It will allow for the review of all the regulations that are required to develop the Traffic Safety Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. Safety Code Enforcement MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1996 faulty welding and failure to properly supervise and inspect furnace repairs at the Swan Hills waste treatment plant caused the release of PCBs, dioxins, and furans. The environmental damage is irreversible, and the contaminants will be cleaned up at taxpayers’ expense. This is another example of industrial self-regulation under the Safety Codes Act. My first question is to the Minister of Labour. Why was there no inspection prior to the furnace being returned to active service which would have uncovered that there was no insulation placed over the steel plate to protect it from extreme temperatures? MR.

SMITH: Mr. Speaker, clearly it’s a technical question, and we’re more than pleased to take it under advisement and report back to the member. MR. MacDONALD: The minister doesn’t know. Perhaps he can answer this question for me, Mr. Speaker. What testing procedures were used to certify the stainless steel welders for this job? MR. SMITH: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, the policy is a matter of record, and he’s more than welcome to do his own digging. MR. MacDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, considering that this release happened in 1996, why, after this total failure of the safety code system, has the minister in the interest of public safety and financial accountability not conducted a thorough review of this incident to ensure that it does not happen again? Why aren’t you doing your job? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, you know, we’ll report back to the House in the fullness of time. We will undertake an examination of the member’s original points and report back. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert.

Education Funding (continued) MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier has pointed out in this House, by September 2001 total education spending will be almost a billion dollars higher than it was in ’95-96. My question is to the Minister of Education. Why, then, are some school boards still talking about cuts to staff, resources, and programs? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, staff costs are the largest single expense that school boards face, including the Calgary board of education.

The Calgary board of education review, which has been used for a number of very good purposes by both the board and the province alike, found that instructional staff take up about 83 percent of the budget for the Calgary public schools. Mr.

Speaker, we have reinvested and have made new investment in education: 2 percent last year, 3 percent for the coming year, 2 percent in the year after that, and another 2 percent in the year after that, plus, in addition to that basic instructional grant rate increase, millions of dollars in targeted funds for things like special-needs students and new initiatives such as the early literacy program to help students learn better. One point that I’d to make is this: when teacher unions and their school boards agree to salary increases that are higher than the levels of funding, Mr.

Speaker, then boards will have to find the money from other parts of their budget or in the alternative they ultimately incur deficits that mortgage their future decision-making. The people of this province, Mr. Speaker, will clearly remember that when this government was elected in 1993, they elected this government to eliminate years of accumulated deficits. We had to make tough decisions to get back in the black. When school boards run deficits of a similar nature, they at some point will face those same kinds of decisions.

The issues of taking responsibility for those deficits and dealing with them with sometimes tough measures is the responsibility of school boards. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, again to the same minister: can he explain how a small pupil/teacher ratio and a cap on instructional hours can lead to bigger classes? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting point of debate in the city of Calgary. There is in the minds of some people an equation of pupil/teacher ratios to class size. Pupil/teacher ratios clearly do not reflect class size.

PTRs include teachers in s upport positions such as administration in central office, librarians, and counselors, and accordingly a jurisdiction may have a pupil/teacher ratio of fewer than 20 students per teacher but ultimately the class size may be larger than 20 students in a classroom. Mr. Speaker, we are expecting that the numbers of students in this province will go up. Accordingly we are allocating $194 million to reflect increases in enrollment that we expect. Most of that will go to teachers’ salaries. Boards will have to make decisions on how to maximize their staff resources in the classroom.

1160 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 2:40 Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question which was raised about instructional hours and their limits, just by way of information, for the average elementary school student in the public system in Calgary their contract requires a limit on the number of instructional hours, and averaged over the year for the Calgary public elementary teacher, that may not exceed 30 hours of scheduled duties per week and 23 hours of instructional time per week. The seven hours’ difference may be for things like parent/teacher interviews and such.

What that limit means is that one teacher in the classroom is not working enough hours to deliver the hours of instruction they’re guaranteed under the School Act. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: if staffing creates such a restriction on school board decision-making, then why not just increase funding for schools? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have increased funding for schools, and we’re continuing to increase funding for schools.

The increase in the instructional funding is only part of the picture: $22 million for the early literacy initiative, $10 million for t eacher assistants, $26 million a year for student health initiatives. As I indicated, in the noninstructional spending for areas like operations, maintenance, and transportation, those areas are going up by 3 percent, 2 percent, and 2 percent. Mr. Speaker, people are often saying that the government should put more money in this, but I wish to leave people with this impres- sion: it is not the government’s money; every dollar comes from the taxpayer.

In order to provide more funding, we would either have to raise education property taxes or raise income taxes or other taxes. Albertans do not want more taxes. THE SPEAKER: In 30 seconds from now, hon. members, I will call on the first of seven hon. members who will participate in Recogni- tions today. Pending that, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members, again I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of Mr.

Speaker and introduce to the Assembly a group of young people from across Alberta who are in Edmonton this week to participate in the Forum for Young Alber- tans. The Forum for Young Al bertans is a nonpa rtisan, political learning opportunity for senior high school students. On Friday here in this Chamber the students will participate in a model parliament after having had prior discussions with Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, and the sta ff regarding thei r roles in the Legislature.

We are pleased to have the students with us today sitting in the galleries, and I would ask them now to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce a woman who is serving as the constituency secretary in the constituency of Edmonton-McClung. Ruby Swanson comes with a wealth of experience including being a producer for CBC Radio in her days past, an excellent administrator and a wonderful manager of the office.

I would ask her to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Recognitions Leaders of Tomorrow Awards THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Public recognition of youth volunteerism is more than saying thank you for a job well done. It focuses community attention on the contributions that young people make. When we publicly recognize contributions made by young volunteers, we affirm the value of their actions in the community.

A recent event celebrating special recognitions of y oung volun- teers in Wetaskiwin at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum on the evening of April 19, 1999, was the leaders of tomorrow awards ceremony. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to congratulate all 36 nominees and especially the four award recipients for their outstanding contributions to their community. The award winners in the four categories include Trista Wideman, William Rosebluff, Neil Parmar, and Blaine Stone. The Wetaskiwin-Camrose cons tituency greatly values and appreciates the many acts of service by these dedicated young volunteers to their communities.

Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Doug and Lois Sorenson MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week is national Volunteer Week in Canada. This week is to celebrate the contribu- tions of thousands of hours by dedicated Canadians to their fellow- man. I can think of no better way to celebrate than to recognize two individuals in our community as fine examples of some 17 million volunteers in Canada. Doug and Lois Sorenson moved to Welling- ton Park in 1966, where they raised three children. Both coached soccer and basketball in the Athlone community league.

They became volunteers from that day, dedicated to their community. Doug worked with scouts, cubs, and rovers, while Lois worked with CGIT. Upon retirement Doug became the president of the Edmon- ton Neighbourhood Patrol Society, where citizens wearing vests and carrying cell phones keep their neighbourhoods safe. When the Calder community police station opened, Lois and Doug were the very first to volunteer and have remained volunteers ever since. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Secretaries Week MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today it is my honour to acknowledge the remarkable work of secretaries throughout the province in both the public-service sector and in private industry. Because we are seated in this Legislature, I wish to pay tribute especially to all the secretaries in this very building and its annexed offices. In our legislative offices, our constituency offices, and the government’s departmental offices our secretaries work diligently and wisely to facilitate the productivity of our work, the performance of our jobs, and the effectiveness of our services.

I would urge all members of this Assembly to join me in expressing our appreciation to all our secretaries.

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1161 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Jennifer Hartt MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure this afternoon to recognize and congratulate a constituent of Edmonton- Meadowlark, Jennifer Hartt, who was selected for the second year in a row as a member of the 1999 cadet honour band of prairie region. She is one of 100 cadets chosen from the 210 sea, army, and air cadets units across the province. Jennifer, who plays the clarinet, is a member of 699 Jasper Place Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squad- ron.

The commanding officer of this unit is Captain Bowman, and the sponsor is branch No. 255 Jasper Place Legion. Jennifer takes music at school and enjoys bike riding when not involved in cadet activities. The cadet honour band of prairie region presented concerts in Calgary, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Thunder Bay and is in its sixth annual concert tour of the prairies. These cadets performed music of almost every style and also demonstrated all that is military pageantry and ceremony. All the bands incorporated military marching, and the pipe band performed with highland dancers.

I’m sure that other members of the cadets look up to Jennifer as a role model and find inspiration from her, and I would also like to recognize the Canadian cadet organizations and their local commu- nity sponsors. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. Mr. Speaker’s Alberta Youth Parliament MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with a great deal of pride that I recognize Mr. Speaker’s Alberta Youth Parliament. Eighty-three grade 10 students from all across Alberta honoured this Assembly to experience life as an MLA and learn about the parliamentary process by being an MLA.

The experience gained through this program for these students and the 14 participating teachers is without a doubt an experience that will benefit not only them but their families, schools, communities, and indeed all of us. In particular, I would like to recognize and thank members of the Alberta-Northwest Territories command of the Royal Canadian Legion for their support not only of a monetary nature but the personal support provided. Legionnaires hosted a fabulous dinner for the students, and they chaperoned and even became personally involved in the program.

The command president, Tom Barton, served as Rupertland’s Lieutenant Governor. Legion members should all feel very proud of their efforts. Through their leadership this program was a huge success and one that I am very, very proud to say that we as members of this Assembly played a small role in. I wish to commend and thank for their efforts the four teachers on the teachers’ advisory committee who assisted with the planning and the program guidelines for this event along with the Legislative Assembly staff. Mr.

Speaker, thanks to you and your initiative and your willingness to reach out to students throug hout this province, this program will help ensure that parliamentary democracy is alive and well in Alberta for many years to come. 2:50 Jim Shewchuk Award MS BARRETT: I’m pleased to congratulate and honour Mr. Barrie Regan, this year’s recipient of the Jim Shewchuk award.

This award is sponsored by the United Way of the Alberta Capital Region and the Edmonton & District Labour Council and is given in memory of Jim Shewchuk, honouring his dedication to working people and his tireless commitment to the labour movement, community, and city. Barrie has served his union and membership as a committee member, job steward, and has held executive titles as well. He is an enthusiastic community volunteer as well with over 20 years of dedication to the Scout movement. He has also spent countless hours working to raise funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.

Barrie Regan has shown outstanding commitment to bettering the lives of others through his exceptional work in his union, commu- nity, and the labour movement. Barrie is a most worthy recipient of the Jim Shewchuk award, and I salute him. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. Radway Lions Club 50th Anniversary MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday, April 17, 1999, I had the distinct honour and pleasure to be part of the 50th anniversary celebration of the Radway Lions Club. Over the past half century the Radway Lions have built up an enviable record of community service.

They have served their community by helping individuals. They paid the hosp ital bills for an injured hockey player, helped a family whose home was burned, provided bursaries to students, and took care of an old pensioner. They have made sizable donations over the years to numerous Lions’ projects. The Lions have been partners with citizens in making this a better place in which to live. If I may, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this Assembly I wish to extend a hearty congratulations to you, the Radway Lions. The Lions of Alberta and internationally are true humanitarians.

For this I thank you. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that written questions appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 197, 198, 199, and 204. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] [Motion carried] Big Valley and Ryley Landfills Q197. Ms Carlson moved that the following question be a ccepted.

On what dates between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1998, did Alberta Environmental Protection conduct unannounced inspections of the Big Valley industrial landfill and the Ryley hazardous waste landfill, on each occasion how many samples were taken of waste that had already been buried in the landfill and how many of waste being dumped, and what substances, if any, were detected in excess of permissible limits, and what action was taken? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We find it necessary to amend this question before we can accept it.

The fact is that we make no distinction between announced and unannounced inspec- tions, so we find it necessary to clarify that, also the fact that we do

1162 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 not take samples within a landfill to ensure the integrity is not breached.

So, Madam Speaker, the amendments would be: by adding “and announced” after “unannounced” and by striking out on each occasion how many samples were taken of waste that had already been buried in the landfill and how many of waste being dumped, and what substances, if any, were detected in excess of permissible limits, and what action was taken? and substituting for each inspection what field activity occurred and what follow-up action occurred for any noted Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act contravention?

So the question will now read: On what dates between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1998, did Alberta Environmental Protection conduct unannounced and announced inspections of the Big Valley industrial landfill and the Ryley hazardous waste landfill, for each inspection what field activity occurred, and what follow-up action occurred for any noted Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act contravention? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie on the amendment. MS CARLSON: Yes, Madam Speaker. We will accept the amend- ment. Happy to.

However, I have to say that I am a little surprised about the information the minister has just given us in terms of their not differentiating in their own records between announced and unannounced visits. I would think that that would give you some valuable information in terms of the condition of the sites, when you show up unannounced versus when you show up announced. So I would request that the minister, when he sends over this information, also respond to that and let us know if in the future he has any plans to make that simple effort to ju st record the visits themselves as being announced or unannounced.

Also, I’m quite surprised that when they do these site inspections of these landfills, they’re not taking samples. I’m wondering, then, how they get the information in the inspections from the field activity that’s occurred in terms of knowing what’s going on in the landfill site and how they’re detecting excesses that may be occur- ring at that time. So if the minister could also in his answer give us some background on that, specifically, why they’re not taking samples and how they feel that they’re adequately getting the information that they require in that regard without it, I would appreciate it.

Yes, Madam Speaker, we will accept the amendment. [Motion as amended carried] Parks and Recreation Areas Q198. Ms Carlson moved that the following question be accepted. Between January 1, 1997, and February 16, 1999, at which provincial parks and recreation areas was a contract for the private-sector management of a campground terminated, at which sites has a new contract been signed with another private-sector operator, which sites are now being managed by the government, and which sites have closed? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SAPERS: Madam. MR. LUND: Oh, Madam Speaker; I’m sorry. MR. SAPERS: You should resign. MR. LUND: I know Hansard will correct it. MR. SAPERS: Not now they won’t. MR. LUND: Madam Speaker, we find it necessary once again to amend this question so that we can accept it. We need to make some word changes regarding the nature of contract termination and the sites to be considered during the specified time period.

So we need to add “prior to the expiry date” after “campground terminated,” and we need to strike out “at which sites has” and substitute “at which of these sites has”; strike out “w hich sites are now” and substitute “which of these sites are now”; and strike out “and which sites have been closed” and substitute “and which of these sites have closed.” So the question will now read: Between January 1, 1997, and February 16, 1999, at which provin- cial parks and recreation areas was a contract for the private-sector management of a campground terminated prior to the expiry date, at which of these sites has a new contract been signed with another private-sector operator, which of these sites are now being managed by the government, and which of these sites have closed?

THE ACTING SPEAKER: Edmonton-Ellerslie on the amendment. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Once again, in the spirit of co-operation we will accept this amendment, but I’m wondering why “prior to the expiry date” -- why the change from our request of just management agreements being terminated? Could the minister in his answer then tell us if there were any that were terminated on the expiry date in addition to those prior to? With that we’re happy to support the amendment. [Motion on amendment carried] THE ACTING SPEAKER: Edmonton-Ellerslie, do you wish to conclude debate on the main question?

MS CARLSON: No. That’s fine. [Motion as amended carried] Vandalism/Terrorism in Energy Industry Q199. Ms Carlson moved that the following question be a ccepted. What is the name and legal description of each energy industry site at which vandalism or terrorist activity was recorded between January 1, 1997, and February 16, 1999, what is the name of the company owning or leasing the site, what damage was recorded, and at which locations has a charge been laid? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Unfortunately, we have to reject this question on behalf of the government. The way the question is worded, it’s just posed far too broadly to be answered with any degree of certainty. No singular RCMP detachment or police detachment across the province is responsible for the numerous acts of vandalism directed at the energy industry. To acquire the information would be labour intensive, time intensive, and a very expensive process. Acts of vandalism can range from denting a building to spraying paint on a building. The way the

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1163 question is phrased, it’s just too broad for us to be able with any definitiveness to provide an answer. 3:00 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I’m curious as to the reason given by the government for rejecting this written question. I’ve seen media reports where numbers have been bandied about: this many hundred or that many hundred incidents of vandalism. Obviously somebody has a record.

Knowing the government’s commitment, the special attention the Minister of Justice had paid to the whole issue of energy-sector vandalism, the task force, the high- profile nature of this whole set of events, I would have thought for certain there would have been an accounting and that certainly the government would have made it their business to determine the true extent of the vandalism that’s out there in the oil patch. After all, the government committed some extra resources to this issue. I know that the Minister of Energy has commented on it. The Minister of Justice has commented on it.

The Premier has commented on it. The fact that not one police detachment or one RCMP detachment is responsible for all of the investigations I think is irrelevant. Numbers have been published. Certainly there’d be an expectation that the government would be able to verify those numbers. I’m just very surprised with the rejection. MS CARLSON: Madam Speaker, I too am surprised at the rejection.

What we asked here is that we get information on vandalism or terrorist activity: “the name of the company owning or leasing the site, what damage was recorded, and at which locations has a charge been laid?” I think this is more than an RCMP matter.

When we hear repeatedly from this government how important the energy sector is to economic development in this province, we think they should be doing everything within their power to know and understand what’s going on out there in the community and how individuals living in the community and those companies are being affected by occur- rences of vandalism or terrorism that may be happening throughout the province.

Quite frankly, I think they’ve been negligent in their duties if the various ministries, who are so fast to co-operate and co- ordinate other activities in the energy sector, are not doing so in this case. If the Government House Leader says that the question is too broad in its scope, we would respectfully request the government to let us know what would be a better focused question so that we can get some information to clarify this so that we can meet the needs of the community who has requested this information.

If we could at some point in time get some further clarification on this so we can continue to pursue the matter, that would satisfy us. We wish they would accept some form of this or had amended it in this particular instance. [Motion lost] Environmental Laws Enforcement Q204. Ms Carlson moved that the following question be accepted.

How many staff were employed by Alberta Environmental Protection on January 1, 1999, for the pollution control division, how many announced and how many unannounced inspections did they make in the calendar year 1998, what infringements were detected, and what was the outcome in each case? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I see where it’s necessary for us to once again amend this particular question.

We need to add “to conduct compliance assurance activities” after “How many staff were employed”; strike out “for the pollution control division”; strike out “announced and how many unannounced”; add “and investigations” after “inspections”; strike out “make” and substitute “conduct pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhance- ment Act”; and strike out “what infringements were detected, and what was the outcome in each case” and substitute “and how many enforcement actions were undertaken by the environmental service under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act in the calendar year 1998?” One of the big reasons for these amendments, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we have done away with the pollution control division and have moved this out to the six regions, so that causes some problem with trying to answer the question.

The question will now read: How many staff were employed to conduct compliance assurance activities by Alberta Environmental Protection on January 1, 1999, how many inspections and investigations did they conduct pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act in the calendar year 1998, and how many enforcement actions were undertaken by the environmental service under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act in the calendar year 1998? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie on the amendment.

MS CARLSON: Madam Speaker, we started out pretty good with the first two written que stions and have rapi dly deteriorated from there. With the amendments that the minister is proposing, he has effectively neutered this question, and we’re not getting any valuable information out of it at all now. We need to know announced and unannounced inspections for the pollution control division. It’s in fact in part because they have moved this division out to the regions that we require this informa- tion at this time.

We need to find out if they have found infringe- ments in the past, particularly those that they didn’t take any action on. Specifically, we were looking for information on where there was action taken that was punitive in nature or just saying to them: don’t do it; next time there’ll be some more punitive kind of action taken. That’s the level of detail we want. We think the people in this province deserve to get that informa- tion. There is absolutely no reason why the government can’t do that. They have the resources. They have the department. They have the information in the regions.

It’s supposed to be centralized in addition to out in the regions. We all know that, Mr. Minister, so instead of blocking access to information here, I wish the minister would provide it. If it takes him some time to pull it together, that’s fine, but in fact we need this information. We will not be supporting this amendment. MR. HANCOCK: Madam Speaker, I must admit to a great deal of surprise by the comments by the hon. member in opposing the amendment.

In reading the amendment and reading the original question, I would come to the logical conclusion that the hon. minister of environment has gone to great lengths to try and make sure that he could accommodate the wishes of the member asking the question and provide the information that she requires from the database and from the information that’s available to him. When I read the amendments, it clearly just reconfigures the

1164 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 question so as to make it answerable given the nature of the reorganization of the department and clearly offers to continue to provide the information that was requested both in terms of inspec- tions -- and it even broadens it -- and investigations. It clearly provides for an answer to the question that she’s asking, and I’m really surprised at her comments about not bringing forward the information. If she doesn’t want the information with the amended question, we can certainly vote against it. [Motion on amendment carried] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie to conclude debate. MS CARLSON: No. Thank you. [Motion as amended carried] head: Motions for Returns 3:10 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157, 158, 1 63, 165, 168, 169, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 194, 195, 200, 201, 202, 203, and 205. [Motion carried] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M142. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the letters from Triple Five Corporation and the fax cover sheet sent by Hugh Tadman to the former acting superintendent of the Alberta Treasury Branches on May 24, 1994, as cited on page 40 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks. [interjection] Glad to be back, Madam Speaker.

I look forward to the quick concurrence of the government, particularly the minister of advanced education, in supporting this motion for a return. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With respect to Motion for a Return 142, I would indicate, as I will be indicating for motions for returns 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157, 158, 163, 165, and 168, that the government will be rejecting these motions. I’m not going to repeat the discussions that we’ve had on previous Wednesday afternoons relating to the reason for rejecting these motions.

All of these motions relate to information relating to West Edmonton Mall and the Auditor General’s investigation into West Edmonton Mall as requested by the Provincial Treasurer and by the government. We’ve made our points with respect to the information on past occasions. I’m not going to belabour the time of the House, although I wouldn’t want to hear again the member opposite indicate that by my reticence to repeat the same arguments over and over again, I was somehow diminishing the importance of the House. I do not.

They could be very important questions, but the govern- ment’s response has been provided on Wednesday afternoon after Wednesday afternoon. So on all of those questions I’ll be indicating that the government will be rejecting. I would invite the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora to couple the questions together so that we can deal with this matter expedi- tiously in the House this afternoon. I would invite him to do so. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate on Motion for a Return 142. MR. SAPERS: Thanks.

Questions often asked and never a satisfac- tory answer provided, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the Auditor General’s report is incomplete. The Auditor General’s report does not contain details on some of the major players and certainly doesn’t contain information on some of the documents that we now know are in a safekeeping place someplace within the Premier’s office. So there are many, many questions that Albertans have, about a half billion dollars worth of questions, a bout who the loan arranger was.

What the government is trying to withhold from Albertans is beyond me, b ecause the Treasurer has said that they want to be open and the Premier has said that they want to be open. When the Auditor General was invited in, we were told that all the information would be put before the people of Alberta. In fact, nothing further from that has happened. The truth is that the Auditor General has made it very clear that he will not be commenting on his report.

He has made it clear that this report, this special-duty audit, is now the property of the government of Alberta, and it’s up to the government of Alberta to talk about the government of Alberta’s role. The Auditor General’s report did not exonerate the government or the Premier. What the Auditor General said is that he could not find direct evidence of improper political involvement. He could not find direct evidence. He also says that he didn’t have an opportunity to examine all the evidence. We also know that there are documents being held that the Auditor General may or may not have had access to.

We don’t know what documents the Auditor General had, because the government won’t even provide a list of the documents that were in fact given to the Auditor General. The Premier has a clever device by saying: well, we gave the Auditor General every- thing he asked for. But if the Auditor General didn’t know what documents may be held by the Executive Council, what documents may be held by the Premier, the Auditor General couldn’t have asked. So the Auditor General probably asked for something along the lines of: please give me what you’ve got.

Well, we don’t know that what the Auditor General received was everything, was exhaustive. In fact, we have some suspicions it may not have been, because this is the same office, the Executive Council office, that failed to respond to a legitimate freedom of information request put in by the Official Opposition. It was just less than a year ago that the Official Opposition put in a request to the Premier’s office, and the Premier’s office said: we don’t have any documents on the West Edmonton Mall.

In fact, we found out that wasn’t true, and that led to a special investigation by the Privacy Commissioner in which the Privacy Commissioner found that the Premier’s office violated the government’s own freedom of information and protec- tion of privacy legislation. So, Madam Speaker, it’s very clear that we are left wondering what it is that the government still holds, what it is that they gave to the Auditor General, what it is that the Auditor General was

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1165 referring to when he said that he couldn’t find any direct evidence, and what information there is that has surfaced subsequent to the February report of the Auditor General. The government can manoeuvre around this all they want. The fact is that time and time again legitimate questions are being asked of the government to come clean, and time and time again the government does not rise to the challenge and instead tries to pretend that there’s no issue. If the government wants to continue to do so, I suggest that they do so at their peril.

I will continue to give the government opportunities to live up to their word and to be forthcoming with the information. I would hope that the government whip isn’t applying undue pressure on all of the government supporters and that people will vote with their conscience and in fact will support this motion for a return so that we can begin to get the shreds of evidence that Albertans are demanding be put into place and so that we can all get to the truth of what happened. [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M143. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the August 8, 1994, and August 10, 1994, letters from the former Deputy Premier to Gentra Canada Investments Inc. as cited on page 44 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks.

On page 44 of the Auditor General’s report we are told that just prior to the first mortgage maturity, the then Deputy Premier wrote to Gentra, who was representing the senior bondholders involved in West Edmonton Mall financing, not once but twice and warned of the economic effect that the action by the bondholder group would have on the Alberta economy and directly requested Gentra to again attempt a consensual work-out with Triple Five. After writing these letters, there does not appear to have been any further involvement in WEM refinancing by [the then Deputy Premier].

But, Madam Speaker, the fact is that this correspondence would help us understand what the current government thinking was prior to the Deputy Premier’s removal from cabinet. Obviously some decisions were made after he left cabinet. In fact, I believe it was the Premier himself who took over the reins, who took over control of the Economic Development portfo- lio, which was the portfolio also being held by the Deputy Premier. So once the Deputy Premier was removed from cabinet, it was the Premier who took control of that portfolio, and it was that portfolio which had the responsibility for West Edmonton Mall.

It’s very clear to me that we need the correspondence to fully understand the sequence of events that led to the government setting aside the Gentra deal, setting asid e the Nomura deal, se tting aside private- sector solutions, and instead opting for a public-sector intervention through the Alberta Treasury Branches. Critical information, Madam Speaker, and again, we’re only teased about the contents of that information in the Auditor General’s report. We don’t have the whole story. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Reject. Read Hansard. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate. MR. SAPERS: No. [Motion lost] 3:20 West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M145. Mr. Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of draft memoranda prepared by the former Deputy Premier for the Premier of Alberta for the period February 14, 1994, to February 22, 1994, relating to the decision of the February 14, 1994, agenda and priorities committee on refinancing of the West Edmonton Mall as cited on page 36 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. MR.

SAPERS: Madam Speaker, the February 14 meeting, the Valentine’s Day meeting, in 1994 of the agenda and prior ities committee dealt specifically with West Edmonton Mall refinancing. It was as a result of that meeting that the February 22 memo, which found its way into the Banksters and Prairie Boys book long before the government released it or at least even acknowledged its existence -- the February 22 memo was about that meeting. Apparently at that meeting cabinet or at least the agenda and priorities committee decided that th ey were going to set aside the private-sector financing.

Then a memo from the Premier to the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier, the minister of economic development and tourism, said: make sure that we do everything possible to facilitate a made-in- Alberta solution. We know that there was not even a consensus about what the made-in-Alberta solution could be or would mean. It seemed to be code word for something, but we weren’t entirely sure what. So this motion for a return, again, asks for some information that would help us understand the thinking that was going on in cabinet at the time and what led to that now infamous February 22, 1994, memo.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Reject. Read Hansard. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I’d just make the observation that I thought was made so tellingly by my colleague for Edmonton-Glenora a few moments ago and on previous Wednes- days. The point is this.

So long as the Premier refuses to share with members of this Assembly the statutory declaration which he apparently swore -- we only have secondhand, thirdhand informa- tion for this -- we will continue to not have the full evidence. [interjection] The Minister of Economic Development was not here, obviously, when we discussed before the limitations with the statutory declaration coming in. I’m happy to point out to that member . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order Allegations against a Member MR. HANCOCK: On a point of order, 23(h), (i), and (j).

I believe the hon. member is making allegations that are entirely inappropri- ate. The Premier himself, which is firsthand, indicated that he

1166 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 signed a statutory declaration and provided it to the Auditor General. So for the hon. member to suggest that he only has it secondhand or thirdhand that a statutory declaration was provided is clearly an allegation against the Premier’s integrity, and he should be asked to be very careful about how he says these things and to withdraw that type of allegation. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo on the point of order. MR.

DICKSON: Well, we have a question of debate in terms of whether we have firsthand knowledge or secondhand knowledge or thirdhand knowledge. That doesn’t come within any of the citations that have been referred to by our colleague opposite. I’m happy to debate what the significance is of a statutory declaration, but it is certainly no point of order, Madam Speaker. MRS. NELSON: Well, Madam Speaker, I believe that the rebuttal from the hon. member opposite is inaccurate. He clearly said that he had it on secondhand and thirdhand information as to the statutory declaration that was prepared by the Premier.

The Premier has answered that question in question period in this House -- it’s in Hansard -- on several occasions, that he in fact has filled out I believe it’s a 16-page statutory declaration and that it has been filed. For the hon. member to come back and say that this is a debate on statutory declarations is not the point of the point of order. It is the fact that he knows that that information has been filed. He’s had it firsthand right from the Premier, who filled it out, and I think he should retract those statements right here in this House. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR.

SAPERS: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I would only provide the following comment to you for your consideration as you rule on this point of order, and that is that as I understand parliamentary tradition, if we are going to talk about documents in this Assembly, we have a responsibility to table them in the Assembly. While it’s true that the Premier has said that he has filed a statutory declaration and given it to the Auditor General -- and we can all read the Auditor General’s report in which he extracts parts of the Premier’s statutory declaration -- we have never seen that.

In a court of law I believe that would be called hearsay. Now, I would just simply suggest that the Premier can’t have it both ways. If we play by all the rules, in which case the Govern- ment House Leader’s and the former Deputy Government House Leader’s points are valid, then we should play by in fact all the rules, and the Premier should be required, based on your ruling today, to table this statutory declaration in the Assembly.

Now, if we’re going to be selective with the application of the rules, then I would suggest that there is in fact no point of order because we have no direct proof of the existence of at least the contents of the statutory declaration. THE ACTING SPEAKER: I would ask the Assembly to wait just a moment here. I will give you a ruling. One thing I would draw all members’ attention to. If you do look at Motion for a Return 145, it doesn’t mention anything at all in it to do with statutory declarations.

Under Beauchesne 494, “Acceptance of the Word of a Member.” I would ask everyone that has a copy of Beauchesne to follow along. It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members. But a member’s word is a member’s word. So in the case of the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, I do believe that when a statement of declaration has been made, we will in fact accept that as a member’s word.

I’m not part of the legal community, but Beauchesne 494 states there for all parliamentarians to respect that, and I would ask us to do so. If you look at Motion for a Return 145, I would ask that our comments can pertain to what is written there in that particular motion for a return. MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, of course if one looks at the motion for a return, the question is: why do we need the informa- tion? I thought that’s what we were attempting to address. MRS. NELSON: On the point of order, Madam Speaker.

Based on your ruling, I think a very good ruling, I was hopeful that the hon. member was going to retract his statements on the record, based on Beauchesne 494, and clear the record in this Legislature -- that has not occurred -- before the debate on the actual motion for a return continues. MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, if there’s some confusion, I’m happy to acknowledge that the Premier said that he had sworn a statutory declaration. He acknowledged that he shared that with the Auditor General. I accept that; that’s not an issue. What’s an issue is: what’s the content of the statutory declaration?

That has never been brought into this House. I haven’t seen it. My colleague from Edmonton-Glenora hasn’t seen it. Maybe the hon. minister has seen it. The issue is that if we can’t see that statutory declaration and we have to rely on information from the Auditor General or that small group of people who have had access to it, we have to guess what’s in there. Albertans should not have to guess in terms of this kind of liability. 3:30 THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo, it’s always nice when one is dealing with a person that has been trained in the law, but I did just say a few minutes ago that Beauchesne definitely says that we will accept the word of a member. A statutory declaration, in my opinion, is that member’s word, and we have in fact, as has the Auditor General, taken that, and it is not for us to question what is or what isn’t there. The declaration has been given. The declaration has been made. So I would ask if we can move away from this.

If you want to talk to me later or whatever -- I don’t have the knowledge or expertise that you do being a lawyer. I do believe that we need to get off this particular topic and move on to what is in Motion for a Return 145. We have a number of them to go yet, and I will be ruling you out of order if I hear anything more about the statutory declaration in regards to these motions for returns. MR. DICKSON: Well, with respect, Madam Speaker, let’s be really clear. I accept that a statutory declaration has been sworn by the Premier. The Auditor General has told us that.

What we do not know is what’s in the statutory declaration, and I’m sure that what your concern is and what is fair comment is that it would be not accepting the Premier’s word if we were to assert there was no statutory declaration. That’s not the case. I accept that there was a statutory declaration. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The point being, then, hon. member, can we get beyond this, please, and move on to Motion for a Return 145, that doesn’t talk in the least about anything to do with statutory declarations. The declaration has been made. I don’t want to hear

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1167 anything more about it, whether it be firsthand, secondhand, or thirdhand. I want to deal with what is before the Assembly now, please. MR. DICKSON: I’d be delighted to do that, Madam Speaker, and in terms of dealing with Motion for a Return 145, that also means that nobody else can make reference to it. What it means, then, is we have to talk about the . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: What it means, hon. member, is that you can’t make reference to it as coming firsthand, secondhand, third- hand, which you did before. We are accepting a statutory declara- tion for what it is. Okay?

MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, I’ve made no reference to . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: No. I have made the ruling, hon. member. Now, let us get back on the debate on the motion for a return, please. Debate Continued MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, that’s precisely what I’m doing. If one looks at Motion for a Return 145, it asks for some docu- ments . . . MR. DAY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: We have another point of order, raised by the Provincial Treasurer. Point of Order Allegations against a Nonmember MR. DAY: Under the Standing Order, which is very clear, that allows a member to ask for a ruling.

I realize I would not want to put the chair on the spot at this point, but it appears to me -- and it would probably require reviewing the Blues -- that the member has also challenged an official of this Assembly, that being the Auditor General. It is the Auditor General who said: I have reviewed the statutory declaration; I find no evidence whatsoever of political wrongdoing. We are hearing a challenge about one of the officers of this Assembly, and I would request and ask if the chair could review and see whether in fact the member is out of order in putting forward that challenge. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Glenora on the latest point of order. MR. SAPERS: I believe that the Treasurer was rising under 13(2), which gives authority to ask the Speaker to justify a decision, and then raised some other issues which had nothing to do with your decision. You’re going to have to guide me through this. Under 13(2), in asking you to justify your decision, I would join with the Treasurer in wanting some extra clarity.

The government has mentioned the statutory declaration in their argument in the rejection of not just Motion for a Return 145, but the Government House Leader then enumerated a whole list and has constantly said: read Hansard; refer back to what we said weeks ago. Well, if you go back, Madam Speaker, what you’ll see is that the government has repeatedly relied on the statement by the Premier that he has filed a statutory declaration to the Auditor General which has satisfied all the information requests, and that’s why they don’t feel compelled to provide any information in the Assembly.

So it’s not the Official Opposition that introduced the matter of the statutory declaration into these debates around written questions and motions for returns. It’s the government. Now, Madam Speaker, I know that you would not deny us the opportunity to respond to the government entering that into the debate, and I’m confident that was not the intent of your ruling.

As long as the government is going to be relying on the existence of the statutory declaration to reject these motions for returns, we of course should have the o pportunity to speak to the gaps that exist in the information around that statutory declaration. On the other matter introduced by the Treasurer, which was that somehow my colleague was questioning the Auditor General, that is a stretch that even I have trouble keeping up with, and I’ve been pretty creative, as you know, from time to time, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the Auditor Gene ral never said that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

What he said is: I can’t find direct evidence of inappropriate government interference. His words were much more carefully chosen than the Treasurer’s words were. In fact, the Treasurer’s words were I think unfairly and unnecessarily provocative and violate other Standing Orders of this Assembly. MRS. NELSON: Which ones did he violate? MR. SAPERS: The ones about not being provocative in debate, Madam Minister of Economic Development, and I think you understand provocation.

Madam Speaker, while you were ruling, I had asked you, of course, for your guidance on whether or not the Premier would be called upon through your judgment to table the document that he has cited or referred to in the House.

You have properly referred to Beauchesne 494, and of course if you r ead just a little bit further down the page, you’d see Beauchesne 495, where it is very clear that a minister -- and that would include the Premier -- “is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the Table.” Now, the Premier has in fact given answers which he says are in the statutory declaration, and it is in fact a state paper because it is now part of the audit papers that make up the Auditor General’s report.

So, Madam Speaker, I hope you will now provide guidance and instruct the Premier to immediately be prepared to table his statutory declaration in this Assembly, just so we can all be consistent. THE ACTING SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: The hon. member indicated that he had the ability to stretch, and indeed we’ve seen that he does. He stretched a considerable amount with those last remarks. Clearly 495 does not require the Premier or anybody else to table a document which is alluded to but not quoted from.

I have sat beside the Premier virtually every day of this session, and never once have I seen that document. If you haven’t seen it, I don’t know how you can quote from it. In any event, that point of order was not raised at a relevant time, so it’s totally irrelevant to this discussion. The other thing which I’d like to clarify in terms of the points made by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora is that in respond- ing to these questions, I have cons istently indicated that all the material was provided.

He’s suggesting that my response has been premised on the fact that a statutory declaration was filed, and that’s just inaccurate. What I have indicated is that all the relevant materials have been provided to the Auditor General and that the Auditor General has reported. I don’t hang any hat on the statutory declaration. I’ve said that all of the documents have been provided.

1168 Alberta Hansard April 21, 1999 THE ACTING SPEAKER: Regarding this particular point of order raised by the Provincial Treasurer, it takes up to 20 minutes for the chair to get a copy of the Blues. So I would have to defer making a ruling on the particular subject at hand, which was the Auditor General. I would definitely want to read the Blues. I’m still going back to Beauchesne 494, where it has been ruled that a statement made by a member will be accepted as the word of the member. I stand by that.

I will have to say that if we don’t quickly move on here and get to the meat of the matter on Motion for a Return 145, I am going to lose my patience somewhat. We have a number of motions for returns which, I have heard many times in this Assembly, are important to some members of this Assembly. I believe today is the day that we’re doing them. Thus far we have dealt with seven since approximately 2:50 this afternoon. I do believe that we need to move on here. I would ask the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo to continue debate on Motion for a Return 145.

Let’s move on so that we can in fact vote on this particular motion. 3:40 Debate Continued MR. DICKSON: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Coming back to Motion for a Return 145, the information that’s sought here in terms of the draft memoranda, it’s important that that be shared with Albertans. It is of absolutely no consequence that that may have been provided to some legislative officer. The key is that Albertans don’t have access to it. We are their forum, so I think it’s an appropriate request, an appropriate motion for a return, and I’d encourage all members to vote in support of it.

Thank you very much. [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M146. Mr. Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the handwritten note of the former Deputy Premier to the Premier recording the decision of the February 14, 1994, agenda and priorities committee as cited on page 36 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. MR. HANCOCK: Reject. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate. MR. SAPERS: The Auditor General’s report makes specific reference to this note.

In fact, I’ll quote from the Auditor General’s report as it quotes from the handwritten memo. This is a memo written by the former Deputy Premier to the Premier, and it reads as follows. As per yesterday’s conversations my understanding is: (1) the “arrangement” between TB [ATB] and Gentra is to be parked i.e. stopped.

(2) TB and T-5 are to start talking and working towards a positive resolution. If TB wants to, it can raise the necessary $ for T-5 (at commercial rates with a benefit to TB), put a complete first mortgage on T-5 and buy all the creditors out. The province guarantees the TB now. Madam Speaker, the existence of this handwritten note seems to confirm the worst suspicions about the decision being made not by the Treasury Branch but in fact out of the Premier’s office to finance the West Edmonton Mall and to use the Treasury Branch as the vehicle to do so.

Now, we can have a discussion whether it is appropriate or inappropriate political interference with the Alberta Treasury Branch, but it is clearly interference. It is clearly not arm’s length when a note to the Premier is saying, “If TB wants to, it can raise the necessary $ for T-5,” meaning Triple Five. Madam Speaker, this is a critical piece of information, and I would suggest that Albertans should be able to see it firsthand. The meat of the information is of course in the Auditor General’s report, which is a public document.

The government would probably be made to look good if they complied with this motion for a return. They’d appear, of course, to be forthcoming and transparent. Given that they have nothing to hide, they should present this document to Albertans. [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M147. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the briefing document about the proposed Gentra Canada Investments Inc./ATB, Alberta Treasury Branches, arrangement presented to the February 14, 1994, meeting of the agenda and priorities committee as cited on pages 34 and 35 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. MR. HANCOCK: Reject. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate? [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M148. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of briefing documents, memoranda, correspondence, and background documents prepared for the January 24, 1994, February 1, 1994, and February 8, 1994, agenda and priorities committee dealing with the refinancing of the West Edmonton Mall as cited on page 34 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. MR. HANCOCK: Reject. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate. MR.

SAPERS: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General makes it very clear that not once, not twice, but three times he was made aware that the most powerful committee of government met to discuss the government’s involvement in the financing of this private-sector venture, of this shopping mall. It’s a half billion dollars that we’re talking about here, and as the Premier has said, that’s a sizable amount of money. In fact, it’s almost as much money as the Premier is bragging about putting back into education.

Madam Speaker, the money that was given to West Edmonton Mall we also know was discussed at not just the three meetings that the Auditor General refers to but at least at three other meetings that the Auditor General didn’t refer to or perhaps didn’t even know about, that we have only learned of because of freedom of informa- tion applications, where the government has grudgingly acknowl- edged that other documents exist that aren’t cited in the Auditor General’s report. Even though they exist, they won’t release them

April 21, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1169 to the public, and we have no idea whether these documents were in fact ever turned over to the Auditor General. I would just, once again, invite the government to live up to its word, do the right thing, be forthc oming with the information, and make good on its promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about its involvement in the refinancing of West Edmonton Mall. [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M149. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the portions of the minutes of the January 24, 1994, February 1, 1994, and February 8, 1994, agenda and priorities committee dealing with the refinancing of the West Edmonton Mall as cited on page 34 of the Report of the Auditor General on the 1994 Refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, February 1999. MR. HANCOCK: Reject. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora to close debate. MR.

SAPERS: Madam Speaker, I’m losing count of how many times this government has refused to live up to its commitment to tell Albertans everything about its involvement in West Edmonton Mall. But I will, rest assured, be going back and reviewing the record, counting it up, tabulating it, committing it to paper, and making sure that taxpayers know about it. [Motion lost] West Edmonton Mall Refinancing M150. Mr.

Sapers moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of letters, memoranda, and briefing notes between the former Deputy Premier and the Premier for the period October 29, 1993, to November 1, 1994, relating to the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. MR. SAPERS: Madam Speaker, there are several documents that we are after. They cover several different ministries, and they cover a fairly wide time frame.

Of course, what this shows is that this was not just an incidental discussion that took place within cabinet but that in fact there was a sequence of discussions and that this was high on the list of things to be discussed by government during that time period. At this time there were rallies to save hospitals and concerns about cutting back kindergarten funding at the same time that Albertans were losing their jobs who had built careers in the public service, all in the name of financial restraint.

At the same time all that was happening, this government was meeting behind closed doors trying to figure out how it could funnel a half billion dollars to a shopping mall. 3:50 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We, of course, will be rejecting this question, as we will 157, 158, 163, 165, and 168. I reiterate those ones in order to once again invite the hon. member opposite to assist us with the progress of the House by moving this forward and moving all of these motions in bulk.

He can count those rejects in any bitter and twisted way he might want to in terms of portraying it to the public. The fact of the matter, Madam Speaker, is that the government of Alberta has been open and honest with the people of Alberta about the whole process and indeed has asked for an independent inquiry by an officer of the Legislature about the whole process.

That officer of the Legislature has come back, having reviewed all of the documents in context, which I’m sure the member opposite wouldn’t do if he had access to the documents he’s requesting today, and on the basis of reviewing them in context has provided a report which speaks for itself. I won’t even attempt to quote the good things that he says in that report, but the report speaks for itself. I would invite the hon. member to get on with life, to move past this quest, and to move all of the motions that are referred to so that we can get on with the other business of the House. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Glenora to conclude debate on Motion for a Return 150. MR. SAPERS: Thanks very much. The Auditor Ge

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19990421
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S3 19990421 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e6a2bb290d2646508288f7faf291a040b30d98ee

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