Alberta Hansard — 23 April 1997, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 1)

19970423

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 141 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 1:30 p.m. Date: 97/04/23 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Welcome. Today's prayer is an excerpt from one said in the Ontario Legislature. Let us pray. Our Father, give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Help us to use power wisely and well.

Inspire us to decisions which establish and maintain a land of prosperity and righteousness where freedom prevails and where justice rules. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 20 constitu ents of Edmonton asking and urging the government of Alberta to review and revise procedures for eligibility requirements for financial subsidy under the Capital Region Housing Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR.

MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce a petition to this Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to enact legislation that would prevent the use of replacement workers during strike action. This petition has been signed by 76 concerned Albertans. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand now to give notice that after question period I will rise pursuant to Standing Order 40 to present the following motion:

Be it resolved that this Assembly congratulate Rio Terrace elementary school for being the third school in Edmonton and the 15th school in the province to achieve Earth school status. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with

chapter 1 1,

section 12 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act it is my pleasure to table the 1996-97 annual report of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. Should any of the members wish to review these reports, additional copies are available through my office. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table with the Assembly the annual reports of the following regional health authorities for the year ended March 31, 1996: Crossroads regional health authority, Palliser health authority, Chinook regional health authority, WestView regional health authority, Peace regional health authority, East Central regional health authority No. 7, regional health authority No. 5, and the David Thompson regional health authority. Also, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table with the Assembly and provide copies to all members of the following: the annual report of the Alberta Registered Dietitians Association for the year ended March 31, 1996, and the annual report of the Public Health Advisory and Appeal Board for the year ended July 31, 1996. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased this afternoon to table copies of a submission by the Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association proposing that this province enact a piece of legislation to allow class actions in this province so claimants and plaintiffs don't have to travel to B.C., sir, to ensure that they can seek some recourse through their court system. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise and table copies of letters to 15 schools in the province of Alberta who have achieved the status of Earth school under the SEEDS program.

Y esterday I had the privilege of attending the ceremony of the 15th school to join this club with the deputy Leader of the Opposition. That school is Rio Terrace school here in the city of Edmonton. On behalf of the government I offer congratulations to all 1 1 1 Alberta schools who are committed to this environmen- tal program. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table four copies of 72 letters addressed to the Minister of Education by Albertans concerned over the funding levels for education in the province.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I table with the Assembly the report of the Ethics Commissioner dated April 21, 1997. The report is with respect to the investigation involving the hon. Premier and the Treasury Department. A copy of the report is being distributed to all members. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovern- mental Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 41 grade 6 students and two teachers from the Brander Gardens elementary school in the riding of Edmonton-Whitemud.

They're here today with a keen interest as to how the provincial government works, and they're accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Gago-Esteves. They're seated in the members' gallery, and if they'd please stand, I'd ask the House to give them the traditional warm welcome.

142 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. I would like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you Gerard Meagher, QC, and his associate Joanne Crook. I'm very proud to inform people here today that Gerry's most recent achievement is as a very successful 16-day campaign chair. Thank you. Gerry and Joanne. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you 39 students from the Rosemary school in Rosemary, Alberta. There are also six adults with them. I'd like to introduce Mr. David Blumell, the vice-principal; Mr. Jon Knights, the principal; Mr. Ron Wallace; Mrs. Faye Dyck; Mrs. Wanda Lepp; and Mrs. Lorill Wallace who have made the trip from Rosemary, Alberta, to be with us today. Could you please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Ethics Commissioner's Report MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The ethics report tabled today in the Legislature raises serious questions about the inappropriate actions of the former Provincial Treasurer during the 1997 election campaign on behalf of the Progressive Conser- vative Party. This minister ordered his department to violate the public trust by doing work for his political party, the Conservative Party. This insider information, not available to the public under the terms of the Conflicts of Interest Act, I might add, was then used by the Premier during the election campaign.

To the Premier: what immediate action will you take to make sure no more taxpayers' dollars are used for purely political purposes in cases like these? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I've just got a copy of the report. As a matter of fact, I received a copy about a half hour ago and this copy here today. I haven't had a chance to read the general advice offered by the Ethics Commissioner, but I will take his advice under consideration. I deem that advice to be good advice, and I would suspect that the opposition Liberal Party will do the same. 1:40 MR. MITCHELL: He may have seen it a half an hour ago, Mr.

Speaker; he's had the issue for about two months to think about. Will the Premier take action to ensure that all employees identified in the report, especially those providing directives on behalf of the former Treasurer and one at the most senior levels in the Premier's office itself, are appropriately disciplined to prevent further violation of the public trust? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there was no violation. The Ethics Commissioner, as I understand it – and I haven't read the full report – has pointed out that this information is available anyway.

When we present a budget, Treasury of course will do an assessment of this budget. As a matter of fact, they do a very, very significant assessment, because they help prepare the budget. But when any opposition party or when anyone presents a proposal – in this case, as I understand, during the election it was a proposal in our estimation that amounted to some $4.1 billion in Liberal promises. Then, God forbid, had the Liberals been elected, Treasury would have had to deal with that. Naturally they're going to do an assessment. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition would have had access to that informa- tion had he asked. MR. MITCHELL: But I knew it to be wrong, Mr. Speaker, so why would I want it? On April 16, 1997, the Premier stated in this Legislature that the election was fairly fought and very clean. Is making govern- ment departments available for use by the Progressive Conserva- tive Party during an election campaign his idea of a fair and clean election, Mr. Speaker? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, once again I will reiterate that I will read very carefully the advice of the Ethics Commissioner and perhaps bring forward as a matter of policy some procedures that will abide by that particular advice. Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party, I would remind the Liberal oppos ition, is the government. We were elected. We won the election; they lost. MR. SAPERS: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: Recognized. Second main opposition question, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Seniors' Tax Rebates MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year $14 million, 14 m illion sweat-soaked dollars, come out of Alberta seniors' purses and wallets into the province's coffers as a result of changes to the federal income tax age credit. The Premier had promised, had given his word that any additional money flowing into government coffers because of federal changes would be rebated. The former Treasurer said that seniors' tax dollars were returned. The Treasury Department says that the money hasn't been returned.

I would like to table a copy of the Treasury Department's election costing of Alberta Liberal campaign promises showing 14 million additional dollars per year needed to rebate seniors' tax dollars. My question to the Premier: who's right? Who should seniors believe: the former Treasurer or the Treasury Department? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this question coming. There are a number of references there which I don't have in front of me at this time, something that's just been tabled there.

So I'm pleased to say that I'll do some follow-up on this and look into it and respond in a way that shows that I've looked into the matter. MR. BONNER: My supplementary: how can this government go around saying that there are no new taxes, no increases in taxes when clearly it has increased its tax take from senior citizens' income taxes? I thought you had a spending problem not a revenue problem.

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 143 MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, now we're on to a different item here. The question was asked: how can this government say that there are no new taxes? It's like this: there are no new taxes. MR. BONNER: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier commit right here, right now to get to the bottom of this, come clean with seniors, and tell them once and for all whether he intends to keep his word and finally rebate their money? MR. KLEIN: Well, I take that as a question that deserves some examination, Mr.

Speaker, and I will give the undertaking to the Liberal opposition to try to find the answers. THE SPEAKER: Third main opposition question, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y esterday in this House in relation to the Al-Pac loan I revealed that $29 million is curiously absent from Budget '97. However, I was encouraged by the Premier's and Treasurer's earlier comments that they do not foresee any problems collecting the entire $371 million which is now owing to Alberta taxpayers.

Nonetheless, I am still concerned that their optimism may be somewhat dampened by this case of the missing millions, so my question is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Mr. Treasurer, why was this $29 million not reported and not added to the already existing amount owing by Al-Pac? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, in the few consultations I've had with my critic from the opposition party, he committed something to me on which I take him at his word, and that is that when the government does something which in his view is worthy of being noted as being a good thing, he will comment on that, and when he thinks we've slipped or goofed somewhere, he's going to comment on that, and I would expect that. I've already heard him actually on a couple of occasions give credit to some of the things this government has done in this budget, and I commend him for being willing to do that.

It's interesting that he raised this particular item, because it was an issue which I raised – I think it was the first week on the job – with Treasury officials in looking at the document and in fact noting that the accrued interest was not being added on, as it had been in previous years. We engaged in a discussion about accounting methods which, frankly, left me a little bit lacking in understanding. I made the clear commitment that we need to continue to record this interest as accrued, because in fact – and this is very impor- tant, Mr.

Speaker – Al-Pac does owe the entire principal and the entire accrued interest. They are not in default at this time. They do owe the entire amount. Through a suggested accounting change, showing what is called a reversal of interest, Treasury officials were indicating at that time that they would not be putting it in. I gave clear indication: we are going to continue to show this as being added to. In fact then the update did not take place. It was an oversight on the part of Treasury, which through the good work of the opposition was brought to my attention. I take full responsibility for that.

I signed that document, and in fact it wasn't recorded the way I wanted to see it recorded here. Mr. Speaker, today I table for you and for all members four copies of errata to Budget '97: Post-Election Update. Even though it's still a matter of fact and guaranteed, for the public record the money here is now showing as having accrued. I've also written to the Auditor General to make sure that he will take a close look in terms of loans, loan guarantees, and long-term investments and how we do record them to make sure that it is strong and it is sound.

Once again I congratulate the opposition for pointing out this oversight, and I do take responsibility for that. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Treasurer. I appreciate your admission of the oversight. Giving credit where credit is due, it's part of what we do as a vigilant opposition, and I'll take your word to continue in that same spirit of co-operation in the future. I just want to follow this with a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, let's revert to the question of

preambles. Y ou had a very nice

preamble congratulating the Provincial Treasurer, but you know, we asked for no

preambles. 1:50 MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to follow that admission with a question to the Treasurer that goes like this: will the Treasurer now confirm if he or his department have any concerns whatsoever surrounding the collectibility of this loan to Al-Pac? MR. DA Y: I won't congratulate the member for the question, because we've been instructed not to do that. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I have a crystal ball, that I can project all economies of scale and say for certain that Al-Pac will continue to be a strong company. I hope that is the case.

I'm being totally transparent here. I hope that is the case. We're in a strong economy right now. Al-Pac, as I've said, is responsible to pay the full amount of principal, the full amount of accrued interest, and I hope that the economy stays strong, that that business stays strong, and that in fact, although they are not in default now, we will see the day when we will be in full collection of what is owing here. MR. ZWOZDESKY: My final supplemental is along the same lines, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to have the Provincial Treasurer just reassure Alberta taxpayers that we will in fact receive every last payment, and perhaps he might comment on how he intends to pursue this first payment that has now been missed. MR. DA Y: Well, to differentiate here, Mr. Speaker, there is no default at this time. The agreement as written and as is published in our public accounts – as a matter of fact, I could table a copy of that from the page itself of the public accounts just so all members know that it does exist. I have it right here: a copy that shows the formalized parts of this agreement.

Indeed, it has the dates, it has the rates of interest, and it shows when the payments have to happen. So they are not in default at this point. The agreement here, which I'll table from this page that is in our public accounting process, shows, again to reassure the member – and it is very clear in the contract – that Al-Pac is required to pay the full amount of principal, the full amount of interest. They are not in default at this point. We show in the record, which I've also tabled, how much each year should be accounted to what is owing.

They are not in default at this point when you look at the time lines in terms of when they're required to make the payments.

144 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 There is no doubt on the part of any Al-Pac officials that I have talked to that they are required to pay that amount. If they need a reminder of that or if the hon. member thinks they need a reminder of that, we are happy to do that through the loan agreement, which is very clear. They must pay. They must pay in full. That is what we are requiring from them. Safeway Labour Dispute MS BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, last Tuesday I wrote to the Justice minister asking him to inquire about why Calgary city police were preventing peaceful picketing outside of Calgary Safeway and Food for Less stores. I've got copies of the letter, which I'm prepared to file with the Assembly. By law these people are allowed to picket, and the Calgary police are intervening in preventing that even though there's no situation that has occurred which would warrant that. My question now to the Minister of Justice is: what action has he taken to ensure that the Calgary city police are not unfairly interfering with the law? MR.

HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, upon receipt of the letter I did discuss it with the deputy minister. As of yet I have not had a response, although I will assure the hon. member that when I do get a response on that I will certainly get back to her as quickly as possible. Certainly we're concerned if the police are doing anything in contravention of the rights of the strikers, and I've asked him to look at it quickly. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister.

I didn't c.c. this letter to the Minister of Labour, but I assume that he has had complaints filed in his office about these actions in Calgary, and I'm wondering what action he's prepared to take now or has taken to make sure that the picketers have the right to do what the law allows them to do. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we have no record of any protest being filed, any intervention taking place. This is the first I've heard of this issue from the hon. member.

In fact, in my travelings around Calgary I have not noticed where there has been any intervention taking place, nor have I noticed a great deal of friction taking place between consumer, picketer, or management. The last thing, Mr. Speaker: I know that there is an informal protocol on the line and that for the most

part it's being adhered to in the Calgary situation. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary is to the Minister of Family and Social Services, whose department is issuing emergency vouchers to the most needy people payable to Canada Safeway, which has the effect of the government taking sides with Safeway. My question to the minister is this: during the duration of this labour disput e, would he ask his department to please start issuing vouchers to other main grocery retailers as opposed to Canada Safeway? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and thank you to the hon. leader of the New Democrats for bringing that to my attention. It's certainly our polic y not to side with anyone in a strike. I think it's an important thing, and I will direct my department to do that. MS BARRETT: Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Peace River, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Flooding MR. FRIEDEL: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Utilities, responsible for disaster services.

Y esterday the minister and I along with our colleague from Fort McMurray went to Peace River and later to Fort McMurray to look at the damage as a result of the recent flooding. While we were there, we met with some of the disaster victims and some of the community leaders. I wonder if the minister can tell us what he's been able to do to activate the disaster relief program to assist these communities. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Y es, this is a very unfortunate tragedy for both the residents of Peace River and the residents of Fort McMurray as well as other small communi- ties that are experiencing many of the same difficulties. These are very trying times, very difficult times, very stressful times, and very fearful times for those who've been directly involved. We've had our disaster services people meeting with the communities, and certainly before all of this happened, there's been adequate training.

In Peace River's case, of course, there was an evacuation of some 4,000 people that happened within a very minimum amount of time, because when the flood actually happened, the water rose very dramatically and only provided a very minimal time for evacuation.

Our disaster services people have been working with the municipality, who, by the way, is in control during a situation such as this, and I want to compliment the municipality of Peace River as well as the municipality of Fort McMurray for the proactive approach that was taken and the excellent response that was taken and the organization that was there that's allowed all of this to take place, even though there's a huge disaster ongoing, without a casualty, without a fatality, without any loss of life whatsoever. MR. FRIEDEL: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if he can tell us how soon information as to what to do, how to register, and this sort of thing would be made available to the victims. MR. PASZKOWSKI: As of this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we'll be setting up an office in P eace River. The office will be fully staffed. Information, applications will be available to the residents that have been affected, and the criteria will be ex- plained. Any information, any questions, any applications will thus be taken starting today in Peace River. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.

Nursing MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Licensed practical nurses and registered nurses both have important and complemen- tary roles in the Alberta health care system, but this government has attempted several times to move registered nurses out of the operating room and replace them with people with less training. Each time public opposition has forced the government to scrap those initiatives, but now we understand that yet another plan was hatched in a secret, closed government meeting this morning.

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 145 Now, my question is to the hon. Minister of Health. Since he's already . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there? MR. DICKSON: That's the problem with secret meetings. Since the minister has already chopped 8,000 nursing positions in this province, how many more nurses will be cut as a result of the new policy? 2:00 MR. JONSON: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. mem- ber's report on recent events is inaccurate, but I would like to certainly comment on the overall topic that the hon. member raises. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to realize – and I think most hon. members do – that in the area of the health professions there are ongoing proposals, requests, debate as to the appropriate scope of practice. Certainly in the case of nursing we have the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, which is advocating, making representation for expanding their scope of practice. Likewise, so has been the case with the licensed practical nurses. The scope issue with respect to the license d practical nurses is something that's been under consideration for some time.

We do hope to conclude that process in the fairly near future. The important thing, though, here – and I think all members would agree – is that a medical practitioner be properly trained, properly qualified to offer the service that they are approved to provide. That is the basis, the principle on which we are operating throughout the health care professions and on which we are operating here. MR. DICKSON: Does the government, Mr. Speaker, have a current intention to eliminate the existing requirement that licensed practical nurses must work under the direction of a physician or a registered nurse? MR.

JONSON: Mr. Speaker, with in the positions that nurses operate, there are supervisory personnel: doctors in the case of certain aspects of hospital operations, registered nurses. In fact that was a major topic that was resolved in the recent UNA negotiations with the regional health authorities. So there is certainly the assurance that ther e is appropriate supervision of personnel within the health care system, and that is something that government wants to see continue. MR. DICKSON: I'll put my specific question to the minister again, because I still don't have a response.

Does the government have a current intention of eliminating the current requirement that a licensed practical nurse must work under the direction of a physician or a registered nurse? Y es or no? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, where the supervision of a doctor or a registered nurse is required to assure the proper care and safety and proper provision of services throughout the health care system, we certainly support that appropriate and proper supervi- sion.

We are certainly committed to the people involved in the health care system having the appropriate training in order to safely and appropriately offer services to the patients in the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Personal Directives Act MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are directed to the Minister of Health. A number of my constituents have expressed concerns over Bill 35, the Personal Directives Act, which was passed by the Legislature in 1996.

In particular, they're concerned that the legislation opens the door to euthanasia. Could the minister advise the Assembly as to what measures he is taking to ensure that Bill 35 has adequate safeguards against euthanasia? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the Personal Directives Act was passed by this Assembly, I believe with support from both sides of the House, in May of 1996. It built u pon the legislation and the experience of other provinces and, I think, a number of the states in the United States to the south.

The provisions of the Bill are quite clear, and they state that euthanasia or assisted suicide is prohibited by this legislation. MR. MARZ: To the Minister of Health: given the concerns that have already been expressed, will additional safeguards be incorporated into the regulations? MR. JONSON: Y es, Mr. Speaker. The regulatory framework is being worked on, and we are taking considerable time to do that.

There has been, I think, very thorough consultation with interested parties in the province on those regulations, and they are certainly going to take into consideration every possible safeguard with respect to the question raised by the hon. member. MR. MARZ: Also to the Minister of Health: what types of materials will be prepared to inform Albertans as to what can be included in the personal directive, and when can we expect materials to be available to my constituents? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I do not have a specific date at this particular point in time, because, as I've indicated, we want to make sure that we have done a very thorough job of developing the regulations and also of developing, in answer to the other question the hon. member raised, a good education package for Albertans and particularly for those individuals that may want to use this particular piece of legislation. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-South. Hon. member. Child Poverty MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My family and I each year at Christmas have made it a practice to adopt a needy family. An experience with such a fam ily comes prominently to mind today as I raise these questions. As I was about to leave after delivering gifts, a Christmas tree, and stocking stuffers, the oldest child, a six-year-old boy, looked at me and said: thank you for bringing the food. I have seen the face of hunger, and it is a face that I will not forget. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services.

In this week's budget speech the ministry saw fit to recommend increases – for departments, the standing policy committee – to the tune of $400,000. In addition, a $5 million increase for computer expenditures. Why, Mr. Minister, is there funding for computers but not for food? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

146 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 member asks a very interesting question. First of all, there is an increase in the budget for program, and we are increasing the income supports for both SFI and AISH in the upcoming budget when it is passed. The one point that I would really like to bring up is that as the year 2000 approaches, we are r unning into a very difficult problem. With the year 2000 those people that are computer literate realize that the computers are going to have a very definite issue with the double zeros in the year 2000.

We felt it impera- tive that we upgrade our computers so indeed these very people – these very people – can receive their cheques, receive their income support in the year 2000 in a very quick fashion. Mr. Speaker, if we did not take these precautions these people would not be able to receive this income support. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is also to the Minister of Family and Social Services. The money allocated in this year's budget only meets the needs of three out of 20 schools that need hot lunch programs.

What actions will the minister undertake – not next week, not next month, not nation- ally – to fund the 17 school lunch programs this city needs? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the member has hit upon a couple of issues. I addressed yester- day the issue of child poverty and how important that is in our agenda and how important that is on the national agenda as the ministers meet. We are working with the federal government to address the $600 million national child benefit and how it applies.

With regards to the welfare rolls and welfare rates I would direct the hon. member to read the C.D. Howe Institute report, which states that Alberta leads the country in welfare reforms and that the rest of the provinces should follow Alberta's lead in getting people back on the workforce and off the welfare rolls. MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, children are hungry. Now, today. What immediate steps will the minister undertake if not to address the issue of food to address the long-term chronic problems – health, dental, emotional, and school performance problems – resulting from child poverty? DR.

OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again I must remind the hon. member that Alberta presently has the fourth lowest rate of child poverty in Canada, the fourth lowest rate as brought out by the National Council of Welfare. I would also submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking the most important first step in addressing this issue by implementing more regional delivery of children's services. The answer to a solution in Edmonton is not the same as the answer to the solution in Brooks or High Prairie.

I would invite the hon. minister for children's services to comment on that initiative. 2:10 MS CALAHASEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I believe that when we're talking about poverty, it's difficult to define. All across this nation we've been trying to determine what poverty is. I really believe that what we're doing in the children's initiative is so important. As we move the authority and the responsib ility back to the community, we begin to see what needs to be done within the community, and the community then determines what has to happen. As an example, Mr.

Speaker, we have funded one program in Edmonton regarding food for children who are in need of a hot lunch. I think this is an indication of how a community came together to indicate the need and for us to be able to press on that issue, and I'd like to commend that committee for making sure they brought this to our attention and brought it as an important item. Speaker's Ruling Exhibits THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I call on the hon.

Member for Red Deer-South, I detected a little rise in temperature during this series of questions and answers, and perhaps it had to do with the fact that the Speaker failed to point out to the hon. member who raised the question Beauchesne 501, which indicates that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber. I believe that the hon. member did have an exhibit, and I suspect that the temperature rose simply because the Speaker allowed the exhibit to get through rather than anything to do with the sub- stance of the exchange. Let us remember that: no apples, no hamburgers, or anything else.

The hon. Member for Red Deer-South. National Pharmacare Program Pr oposal MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been recent reports that the federal government has plans to institute a national pharmacare program. While they are vague as to the cost of such a program, there is little doubt that the cost could be substantial and could be a huge impact to the province of Alberta. My questions are to the Minister of Health. Can the minister please advise the Assembly what this program is? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the proposal that has been refer- enced by the federal Minister of Health emanates from a report of the national forum commissioned by the federal government to report to the federal government on future directions in health and the needs of the system. In their final report, which was pre- sented in February of this year, they indicated overall that there was in general enough funding within the system, but they did identify two or three key needs. One was with respect to long- term care, another in the whole area of information and data for the system.

A key one was a proposal that there be a national pharmacare program which, as simply defined as I can make it, would involve public funding for all medically required drugs in Canada. MR. DOERKSEN: To the same minister: what are the minister and his officials doing in response to this federal initiative? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is at this moment in time some difficulty being able to say that we are doing or accomplishing anything in a concrete way. We are gathering information on other pharmacare programs in other countries.

We are trying to prepare a good information base so that we can enter discussions both at the federal level and at the ministerial level in the coming months on this particular initiative. What we really need to know and what we will try and obtain as quickly as possible is more detail with resp ect to what the federal govern- ment's intentions are, particularly on a very, very key matter, and that is the overall commitment that the federal government is prepared to make monetarily to support their initiative. MR. DOERKSEN: Mr. Minister, what will be the impact on Alberta? Will it have cost implications?

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 147 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, currently Alberta compares quite favourably across Canada with the government-assisted drug programs that we have, but certainly if that definition is to be completely fulfilled, it involves a substantial cost to any province entering into the program. So we really need to work on this particular matter. We need to ascertain if the federal government is prepared to come forth with the required funding, because it is potentially very, very substantial.

We need to know, now that the minister also announced that the major reductions in transfer payments seem to have concluded as far as the federal government is concerned, whether they are prepared to put back substantial amounts of money to help with this program nationally. River Water Quality MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, the surface water quality index in Alberta provides an indication of river quality upstream and downstream of major Alberta centres. The indicators used are good, fair, poor, and not acceptable water quality.

Of the six locations measured, the water is not acceptable for recreational purposes on four major rivers downstream of Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, and Lethbridge. These levels have not been acceptable since 1993, when according to the minister's own reports the last testing was done. To the Minister of Environment Protection: why hasn't the department monitored the water quality since 1993, when the levels were found to be unacceptable? Is your department afraid of what the results will be? MR. LUND: There is monitoring continuing.

While it was not in the report that the hon. member speaks of, in our measuring in the department you will find results of the water quality in the province of Alberta. MS CARLSON: Nineteen ninety-three, Mr. Minister. Why does the business plan not contain specific programs for improving the water quality below these cities? Setting a target is not good enough. We need concrete action in this area. MR. LUND: As the hon. member identified, it's downstream from the major cities within the province of Alberta, and there is work being done on upgrading the sewage systems within those jurisdictions.

MS CARLSON: That's still no answer. Why is the Water Act, which addresses some of these concerns, still not being proclaimed in this province, Mr. Minister? MR. LUND: For the benefit of the hon. member, the new Water Act deals with things like quantity in the rivers. The quality of the water in the rivers is dealt with in the Environmental Protec- tion and Enhancement Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Education Tax MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing a firm hand in the Chair, no

preamble whatsoever. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: can the minister explain why the education tax requisition from the province for the city of Calgary is up $18 million? MS EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, Alberta Education submits to Munici- pal Affairs the total amount of the requisition to be collected through the property tax system. For 1997 the amount to be collected throughout the province is $1.389 billion.

Municipal Affairs receives property assessment information from municipali- ties and, to assure a fair and equitable distribution of the education tax, all assessment information is adjusted to a common 1997 level. The mill rate to allocate the requisition to municipalities is calculated and then applied to each municipality to determine the individual municipal requisitions. Mr. Speaker, clearly Municipal Affairs is responsible to use the best information available to provide fair valuation of assessment and a level playing field for taxation.

Municipal Affairs is then responsible to assess and submit values, which become the basis for the tax that is calculated at the city. 2:20 MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to go back at this just a bit. I'm curious if the same minister is saying that Calgary is growing faster than other municipalities in the province and that is the only reason this $18 million addition is tacked on. MS EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, Calgary is indeed growing fast. It is growing faster to the tune of moving from a 24.82 percent calculation for education requisition in 1995 to 26.57 percent.

That's based on growth in construction, and it's based on growth in the values in the property itself. I might add, however, that Grande Prairie and Canmore are two communities that are similarly incurring significant growth. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supple- mentary is to the Minister of Education. Why is it that the municipal government and the provincial government are involved in the collection of local education property taxes, and is there an alternative system in another jurisdiction anywhere in North America that uses a system other than property tax to fund education? MR.

MAR: At the outset I first want to say that I wish to forfend, that is to say protect, the Education budget from any further reduction. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, education in this province has long been supported through property taxes, since before the time that Alberta entered into Confederation. Prior to 1994 school boards requisitioned property taxes directly from municipalities. Under that system the education funding that was available for students largely depended upon the wealth of the particular jurisdiction.

In some cases that resulted in discrepan- cies, differences in education funding levels of up to $19,000 per student per year. That system was not fair. With the introduction of full provincial funding, property taxes in this province are now distributed per student, on a per student basis.

With respect to the portion of the question as asked by the member with respect to alternative ways of funding education, the mayor of Calgary has suggested entertaining a look at what has been done in Ontario, which is to say a movement of municipali- ties into a number of provincial areas of funding jurisdiction and the province vacating education funding areas from property taxes. Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that prior to full provin- cial funding in 1994 there were increases for a period of 10 years on the education tax portion.

Since full provincial funding in 1994 the education tax rate has been reduced for four years in a row.

148 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod. Municipal Taxation DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Municipal Govern- ment Act sets out different taxation and revenue generation options for rural and urban municipalities. A number of rural councillors have asked me why they do not have the same flexibility that is available for their urban counterpart municipali- ties. So on behalf of these councillors I'd now like to place that same question to the Municipal Affairs minister.

Why is it that they do not have the same flexibility as urban municipalities? MS EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask for clarification of the question. Due to the hon. member's r eceipt of a gift from the opposition, I missed the start of the question. THE SPEAKER: A highly unusual request, hon. member. Would you rephrase your question? DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't my gift. There's a concern by rural municipalities that they do not have the same flexibility to deal with taxation and revenue generation as their urban counterparts.

They would like to see the Municipal Government Act changed so that they have the same options, the same flexibility to generate revenues that are available for cities and towns. MS EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, there would be a fairly detailed response to that question. I'd be pleased to take it under advise- ment. May I say this? There's absolutely nothing in the Act that I'm aware of that would mitigate against revenue generation from rural municipalities, nor does it mitigate against revenue sharing with urban municipalities.

There is a history and a trad ition in Alberta of urban municipalities being able to generate more revenues, but I see no conflict for rurals. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, again to the Municipal Affairs minister. Basically, they want to know why they don't have the same option in terms of property tax, in terms of other revenue generation to define their base the same way that urban municipal- ities have of defining their base. They're restricted in how they deal with the definition of what constitutes property, what constitutes valuation methods. They want to know why they can't have the same. MS EV ANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there are both regulated and nonregulated assessments in this province. Predominantly those municipalities that have machinery and equipment, for example, are regulated at forms of assessment and are conducted quite differently. If the hon. member is asking about rural generation of taxation or that sort of methodology, that does happen pending the configuration of the municipality itself. If the member could be quite a lot more specific, I'd endeavour to answer the question. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. DR.

NICOL: One more supplementary. THE SPEAKER: If we have the questions through the Chair. Hon. member, you . . . DR. NICOL: One more supplementary, please. THE SPEAKER: Well, we had that sort of exchange, and then some fruit got transferred, so I don't . . . DR. NICOL: It wasn't my fault, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Okay. It isn't your fault. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the options that some of the rural municipalities have proposed is the introduction of a business licence for on-farm businesses and for livestock operations.

The former minister had asked that to be put on hold until reviews could be conducted. Could you inform the agricul- ture community right now: what is the status of this option for rural municipalities to introduce business licences targeted at livestock operations? MS EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the farm assessment review committee, and I'm well aware of the polarization of two approaches at that committee level. I would submit that perhaps if the hon. member is asking us for farm market value assessment methodology, that clarification be given.

We are working on both the farm and the industrial assessment review, and we are in a heavy consultative process. I'd be pleased to receive any suggestions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Municipal Recreation/Tourism Areas MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have long been a supporter of the municipal recreation and tourism area program.

Like many of my constituents I was concerned about whether this program would be sustained at the time of government spending reductions since those reductions affected the grooming of 1,200 miles of snowmobile trails in the Crowsnest Pass area. My question today is for the Minister of Community Development. I see in your new business plan that this program, once destined to be phased out, is now slated to be retained. This is good news for Albertans. Can the minister please explain why the program is being retained? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I too am certainly a supporter of the municipal recreation/tourism areas in the province. They really play a big contribution to the quality of life in this province. There are two reasons why this program is being retained. First of all, this government listens. In discussions with our municipal- ities as stakeholders they indicated to us through this minister and through other ministers that this program was important to them and that there was a need to retain it.

The second reason is that in the preliminary work of the active living strategy committee it is strongly suggested that providing recreational opportunities to Alberta's population will certainly aid in keeping Albertans fit and healthy. By being able to provide these areas, we can promote active lifestyles. I want to just mention about three of the areas to refresh members' memories. There's a George Pegg Botanic Garden,

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 149 that's just out of Edmonton. The Pass Powder Keg ski hill near Pincher Creek, which I'm sure the hon. Member for Livingstone- Macleod is familiar with. There's a Lakeshore park in Lake Chipewyan and the Peerless Lake recreational area. Those are just a small sample, Mr. Speaker, from across this province that benefit from that program. 2:30 MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what will be the funding for the program in 1997-98, and how will this funding be made available to the communities? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, th is year's funding for the program will be maintained at $1.5 million. That is 40 percent of the original commitment, which is the commitment we have to retain the program at. This year it will be partially funded by the Community Development department and partially funded by the Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation. In the future years, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation have offered to take this program under their mandate, and they will continue to fund it through the foundation. MR.

COUTTS: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that. Given that this program will be $1.5 million lower than it was in previous years, can you explain, even though you talked about a mechanism for the money to come through, how the program will be maintained with that amount of funding? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions and advice that I've received from other ministers and MLAs, it was suggested that this amount of funding would sustain the program.

I should point out that our municipalities and our nonprofit organizations and stakeholder groups are very innovative and very judicious and prudent in the expenditure of these funds. They understand the need for fiscal responsibility, and they have suggested that they will be able to maintain these wonderful areas in our province at that level of support of funding from this government. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services wishes to supplement an answer given earlier during Oral Question Period. Hon. minister. Safeway Labour Dispute (continued) DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to clarify an issue on the Safeway voucher question that was asked of me. The Department of Family and Social Services makes out the vouchers to whomever the client wishes. So in keeping neutral in the labour dispute, they will only make out the vouchers to whomever the client asks them to be made out to. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Prior to proceeding with the Standing Order 40 request, might we just revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Minister of agriculture. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a real pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the Mem- bers of the Legislative Assembly a group of directors of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association who are visiting the Legislature today. They are seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask that they rise: Mr. Larry Maquire, the chairman; Mr. Dan Hochhausen; Mr. Leo Meyer; Mr. Glenn Sawyer; Ms Sharon McKinnon; and a young future director as well. I wish that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 Earth School Status THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie.

Ms Carlson:

Be it resolved that this Assembly congratulate Rio Terrace elementary school for being the third school in Edmonton and the 15th school in the province to achieve Earth school status. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand here and speak to the urgency of Standing Order 40. On Earth Day, April 22, 1997, Rio Terr ace elementary school was proclaimed an Earth school. This is an amazing accomplishment for Principal Julia Elaschuk, her staff, and her 350 young students.

To be the third school in Edmonton and the 15th in the province to receive this status speaks to their dedica- tion to protecting this province and ensuring that we are all committed to an environmentally friendly future. Rio Terrace registered in the society, environment, and energy development studies, or SEEDS, program, in September of 1991. By April 1992 they achieved Green school status by completing 100 environmental projects. In April 1995 they achieved Jade school status by completing 250 environmental projects. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I'm . . . THE SPEAKER: Okay. Fine. That's good. We'll deal with it after. MS CARLSON: In April 1996 they achieved Emerald school status by completing 500 environmental projects. Y esterday they achieved Earth school status by completing 1,000 environmental projects that met the demanding criteria of the SEEDS Founda- tion. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education today sent them a letter congratulating them . . . THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. Please. Urgency. Urgency. Urgency. MS CARLSON: The urgency of this matter, Mr.

Speaker, is that this is the very first available opportunity for Members of this Legislative Assembly to congratulate this school. It isn't enough that a minister sends a letter. That minister does not and in fact cannot speak on behalf of all of the private members in this Assembly. This is the only manner in which all of us have an opportunity

150 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 to congratulate this school and the other schools, like the Member for St. Albert's school that is also getting this award on June 5, and recognize the significant achievement that these young people have contributed to this province as a whole. I think it behooves all of us to address this issue, to speak to the urgency of it, and to compliment them and congratulate them for an award that is very, very well deserved and that they worked for years to achieve. THE SPEAKER: We actually have two points of order, and the Government House Leader's point of order is second to it.

Opposition House Leader, your point of order is not on this subject matter I gather, so we'll deal with it secondly. Government House Leader, is your point of order on the Standing Order 40? Point of Order Urgency MR. HA VELOCK: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct the House's attention to Standing Order 40, which states specifically: A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previ- ously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, what we heard today was simply a lengthy introduction.

It sounded to me like the member was actually already debating the motion and putting forth her comments and her position without in fact having had the vote with respect to the urgency of the matter. I don't believe it's a sense of urgency for a member to be able to personalize their congratulations through the House to a particular institution or school or individual. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, one, I think in the future we need to ensure that these matters are truly urgent and, secondly, that when they are tabled and put forward and moved, the mover actually addresses the issue of urgency THE SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the alleged point of order, Standing Order 40 doesn't stand alone of course in Standing Orders. The other parts of Standing Orders outline the process of debate, and it's quite specific that a private member has an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes on a motion under Standing Order 40 in order to develop the theme of urgency.

Sometimes it takes a little while longer than other times to convince all members of the Assembly to do the right thing. It's not simply a matter of standing up and asking for unanimous consent. We've certainly seen that, Mr. Speaker. The government seems somehow hesitant to allow the Assembly to express its unanimous approval of an extraordinary act such as the one being suggested by my colleague. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader's argument absolutely makes the contrary point. He alluded to the fact that members on this side of the House are trying to personalize their congratulations.

It is exactly the opposite intent. What we are trying to do is make them nonpartisan and make them statements of congratulations from the entire Assembly as opposed to just from a minister of the Crown. So I thank the Government House Leader for making that argument, because I could barely have made the point better myself why it is that we must take the opportunity under Standing Order 40 to recognize in a nonpartisan way the actions and accomplishments of extraordinary Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The reality is that there was an interjection by the Chair in terms of brevity with respect to urgency.

The Government House Leader rose on a point of order on urgency. The Opposition House Leader rose and indicated that a member would have up to 20 minutes. That would only be provided should the following question be answered in the majority. The question now under Standing Order 40 is the following: might we have unanimous consent to proceed with the motion as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE SPEAKER: Opposed? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE SPEAKER: It's defeated. Point of order, Opposition House Leader. Point of Order Reflections on the Assembly MR. SAPERS: Mr.

Speaker, thank you. In many regards this is an extension of the same point. I'm going to quote for you from pages 124, 125 of Erskine May under the heading “Other indignities offered to either House.” I'm making reference to an answer provided by the Premier in response to a question put by the Leader of the Official Opposition, at which point the Premier uttered words to the effect that the Progressive Conservative Party is the government. 2:40 Mr.

Speaker, Erskine May reads in part: Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the perfor- mance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority may constitute contempts. I submit that the Premier's rather odious abuse of power in confusing the difference between the Progressive Conservative Party and the government of Alberta brings this House into such contempt.

We have long seen how the government tends to blur the lines between its role and ability to govern the province and to bring forward policy and Bills in this Assembly and the role of any political party. Mr. Speaker, it has long been a tradition of parliaments around the world that partisanship stays outside the doors of the Chamber and that in fact you have the executive committee and then you have private members. In making the statement that he did in question period, the Premier only underlines that this government is developing total contempt for the parliamentary process and for free and democratic debate.

There is a certain arrogance attached to a government that confuses its sponsoring political party with its own role as a government in the right of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, this should be brought to an immediate stop. The Premier should be reminded that he is the Premier of all the people of the province, even those 49 percent of the people of the province that didn't vote for his political party, and that he has an obligation to respect the rights and responsibilities of all private members, not just those who happen to join his party for whatever reasons they did so.

I suggest that this is a very serious point of order. In fact, the Government House Leader's arguments in the previous discussion on the Standing Order 40 are an indication of just how deep seated this arrogance and contempt for democracy has become in this Chamber.

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 151 MR. HA VELOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was listening quite closely to what the Premier had to say. It is true that the Premier indicated that the Progressive Conservative Party is the govern- ment. I think the simple point he was trying to make is that the majority of the members elected in this House in the election happened to be running for the Progressive Conservative Party, and as the majority of the members here come from that party, I don't think it's too much of a leap to suggest that the Progressive Conservative Party formed the government.

Now, with respect to being nonpartisan, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader practise what they preach. If they wish us to pursue this vigorously, then I would expect that any news releases they issue in the future will simply state on them “opposition” as opposed to having any reference to the Liberal Party. [interjec- tions] THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. Beauchesne is fascinating reading, and I would really draw it to everyone's attention. The sixth edition is perhaps one of the best.

Now, as I understand this point of order which has been raised by the Opposition House Leader, it comes in response to a question that was raised by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition about the Ethics Commissioner's report. The hon. the Premier did indicate that the Progressive Conservative Party was the government. I would like to point out, however, that the Chair showed some leniency with respect to the question by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition as he essentially asked for the Premier's opinion on a matter, and secondly, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition referred to the Progressive Conservative Party. Now, if one wants to read Beauchesne, 409(1 1) clearly prohibits the seeking of opinion. Secondly, Beauchesne 410(17) clearly prohibits questions “with respect to party responsibilities.” It's clear to the Chair that the Progressive Conservative members do form the government, and the Chair would argue in response to the point of order that the door to this point of order was in fact opened by the Leader of the Official Opposition. There is no point of order. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions MR. HANCOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I move that the written questions appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I also move that the motions for returns appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Bill 202 Crown Contracts Dispute Resolution Act [Debate adjourned April 22: Mr. Jacques speaking] MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure to rise and continue my opening comments in debate with regard to Bill 202. I know that people were riveted by the remarks that were being delivered yesterday and particularly at the point when I had to adjourn those comments with regard to some of the history involving ADR. I was speaking specifically with regard to what occurred in the 1960s in the United States and what was at that time a lot of internal conflict and certainly a marked increase in legislation.

Those problems, when combined, saw that the court system was inundated with litigants seeking court guidance in regards to personal rights and dispute resolution, and concerns about court congestion, excessive litigation, delays, and rising legal costs certainly spurred the ADR movement. Although we in Canada face the problems of congestion, delays, and rising legal fees in our legal system, they have not been on the same scale as in the United States. Indeed our system can be said to be in better shape than our American counterparts'.

However, with the guidance provided by U.S. initiatives, Canada has openly accepted the concept of ADR, which has led to a significant increase of ADR over the past 10 years. In addition to fighting increased legal costs, delays, and congestion, the ADR experience in Canada is growing because of international commer- cial businesses operating in Canada and their related expectations that ADR is virtually automatic when contract disputes arise. Certainly the fact that ADR is seen to improve relations between participants has greatly increased the use of it in Canada. Mr.

Speaker, Alberta is not the only province looking at ADR. Indeed in December of 1994 the government of Saskatchewan amended the Queen's Bench Act to provide for mediation. The Saskatchewan legislation is not unlike Bill 202 except that it covers all contracts whether the provincial government is involved or not. The Saskatchewan Act was originally set out as a one- year pilot project that would monitor and enforce mediation in only two cities: Regina and Swift Current. The project continues to evolve, and as such the time line has been extended indefi- nitely.

The province's mediation services department is currently looking at expanding the project to include Saskatoon. Essentially the Saskatchewan Act compels parties in a contrac- tual dispute to attend a mediation session to inform them of ADR prior to going to court. As with Bill 202 any evidence that is tabled in the session is not admissible in a court of law. If a party does not attend the session, the court may order their attendance at a session or some other remedy it deems fit.

Nothing in the Saskatchewan legislation disallows a party to continue with their legal action. 2:50 The Saskatchewan Act originally received complaints from lawyers trying contractual cases as they felt it was just one more step in the legal process. However, after three years of participat- ing in the project, the lawyers involved in contractual disputes now feel that mediation is effective and is working well in both cities. They view it as another option to court rather than just one more step to begin legal proceedings.

As the Saskatchewan mediation services department monitors current litigation in Saskatoon, it is finding that claim settlements are taking from between six and nine months longer in Saskatoon, where they do not have mandatory mediation, as compared to either Swift Current or Regina. We can gauge the effect that mediation would have in Alberta if we look at those results. As Bill 202 is based on the 1994 legislation in Saskatchewan, we can expect a similar reduction in court times, court fees, and a better working relationship for all

152 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 parties involved in a dispute. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that one of the mandates of the established Industry/Government Standing Committee on construc- tion contracts is to review processes for alternative dispute resolution that would be appropriate for government construction contracts, and there are certainly some government contracts today within the province that do indeed have ADR provisions. This has only been a piecemeal approach.

Legislating ADR for government contracts would ensure that parties entering into a contract with the government would know prior to signing that there would be no ifs, ands, or buts when it came to ADR. If there was a problem, it would be handled in a manner that would be fair and equitable to everyone involved. Mr. Speaker, there has been some suggestion that a general policy directive can accomplish the same as Bill 202. However, it has not been proven in any jurisdiction that just a policy directive has been effective.

I believe we need a firm commit- ment to ADR, and that can only occur through the appropriate legislation that is applicable to government contracts. I urge all members to join me in supporting Bill 202, and I look forward to the ensuing debate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MS OLSEN: I understand the intent of Bill 202 and appreciate the fact that alternative dispute resolution may in fact reduce the backlogs in the courts. This is an issue that's very close to my heart, having sat for numerous hours in a courtroom waiting to testify when 13 hours of trial time has been set down in two hours.

However, I oppose this Bill in principle just because I do not believe that this Bill serves the citizens of the province well by closing the door to a process that we all rely on when we believe we've been wronged. The way this Bill is written could stall the court process by up to almost four months. This might be okay for the government with all its resources, but it could create a great hardship for a smaller company. I believe in alternative dispute resolution and have used community mediation as a result of neighbourhood disputes that I've investigated as a police officer.

However, I find it difficult to believe that legislated mediation can be anything but ad- versarial. Therefore a person may just as well proceed to the courts. Most mediators believe this process works best when there is not a power imbalance. I put to the hon. member introducing this Bill that being forced into dispute resolution with the government through their own legislation may appear to be strong-arming the small contractors. I must also draw attention to comments from the Minister of Labour quoted in the Edmonton Journal on April 17, 1997.

This is when he was asked if he would force Safeway to be mediated in their strike. He stated: there is very little power that a government minister could exercise to force people to talk to each other. This indicates that at least one minister doesn't support the principles of this Bill. A further issue is that the Bill requires all parties to share in the costs of mediation equally. Again, this could be very unfair when you consider that one party is the Crown, with huge resources, and the other party may be a small contractor. When the court process is used, generally the unsuccessful party is assessed costs.

In the case of a small contractor successful litigation would see the business reimbursed for some of the costs incurred,

whereas in mediation even if they settle in favour of the contractor, he is still out the cost of mediation. The Bill does not address whether mediation will be available in all jurisdictions. If it is not, then the matter of fairness arises. What about the smaller areas, possibly in High Level or in the south in the Brooks area, where contractors may have to travel and may have dates that are set further down the road than possibly a court date would be? If it is taken into consideration, how long will it take for the remote areas to become involved in the process?

This also creates another level of bureaucratic proceedings before the dispute may be settled. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe the government and the parties involved in a contract would be better served by both parties agreeing to write the mediation process into the contract as the first choice for dispute resolution, not forced mediation. That appears to be only in the best interests of this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise and enter the debate today on Bill 202, the Crown Con- tracts Dispute Resolution Act, as sponsored by the Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Speaker, the fact about contract disputes is that not all are avoi dable. In an endeavour to be proactive in reducing the numbers of disputes that reach a legal stage, you can develop conflict management programs to improve the likelihood of contract dispute resolution. One of the most effective techniques is that of alternative dispute resolution. Bill 202 addresses this by way of a dopting ADR for use in some government contracts.

If one reflects upon the emphasis on the link between communi- cations and conflict, it can be s een why the future of conflict resolution rests with ADR, not under the authority of the courts. A conflict is often initiated when there is a breakdown in commu- nication, and it is a process such as ADR which can re-establish constructive communications. When the lines of communication are open between disputing parties, it can be assumed that they will work together to create a mutually acceptable agreement in regards to the conflict.

Dealin g with problems internally rather than involving the court system has its advantages. When the courts are not involved, there is a freer exchange of information and a cost saving for all involved. Alternative dispute resolution is not a new concept. In fact, there are some government ministries which currently have clauses relating to the forum for dispute resolution, but as I said, only some ministries.

The need for ADR to be legislated into government contracts is the simple fact of a level playing field, the ability for all parties, including the government, private firms, and individuals, who enter into mutual contracts to know from the outset that if there is a breakdown in communication that leads to a dispute, then there is a means to begin communications anew rather than relying upon the justice system to fix all the problems. One must take responsibility for their actions, and a very effective way to ensure that this occurs is through the Crown Contracts Dispute Resolution Act.

ADR has been touted as a creative way to achieve several objectives, including accessibility to justice and reducing court co ngestion, court costs. Despite these obvious advantages ADR has not received wide acceptance, and formal mechanisms to incorporate ADR into our justice system have been absent. Bill 202 would reverse that trend and bring ADR into the mainstream of our Alberta justice system, and it would do so in a prudent fashion which allows time for parties to adapt to new ways of conducting their legal affairs. By having the Bill apply

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 153 only to certain government contract disputes, it formally intro- duces ADR into our justice system with little disruption. The hope is that if the legislation brings about the benefits I just mentioned, perhaps it may be broadened and become a much larger part of our justice system in an effective way. The proposed Bill is based upon one of the only pi eces of legislation regarding ADR in Canada, which is found in Saskatch- ewan. In 1994 the province of Saskatchewan amended its legislation in regards to the Queen's Bench Act to provide for mediation.

Under a one-year pilot project involving the cities of Regina and Swift Current, legislation was changed such that the parties involved in contract disputes in both family and civil law were forced to attend a mediation session. This mediation session was used to explain to the participants in the action what other options they had in addition to going to court. The legislation was accepted into the legal process with much opposition from local attorneys who practise law in th ese forms. Now, some three years after the project was initiated, the scope and attitude regarding the legislation has changed.

Currently only civil, non family law is affected by the legislation. Family law, which is no longer covered, now provides for voluntary access to mediation sessions to discuss options rather than legal recourse. 3:00 As with the change to which forms of law would be affected by the legislation, there was a change in attitude towards the use of mediation as a reliable dispute mechanism.

Six months to one year after the pilot project was started, lawyers were using the mediation sessions as a productive step in resolving conflict, not just making an appearance at the session and then proceeding directly to trial without giving ADR a chance. Saskatchewan mediation services estimates that only 20 percent of civil cases in Regina now go to court, with legislated mediation taking place. The success of the project in Regina and Swift Current has led mediation services to review the prospect of expanding the scope of the project to include Saskatoon. Mr.

Speaker, the successful Saskatchewan project speaks volumes for ADR and its effectiveness in contract disputes. Here in Alberta we would be missing a viable technique to reduce the pressure upon the Alberta justice system if it does not adopt Bill 202. ADR is the wave of the future. Many American states already have it, and many provinces are looking to implement it in some form soon. Alberta should take the lead, as it does in so many other things, and pass Bill 202. Similar to courts across Canada the courts in Alberta are starting to become backlogged, and legal fees are rising.

Although that might be beneficial to some individuals, to the majority of Albertans it is quite costly both in terms of legal fees and taxpayer dollars. In addition, the time and money needed to fight a court case can often be highly prohibitive. This is because lawyers, technical experts and the like are needed to make your case in court. Y ou are often a bystander in your own proceeding.

The complexity of the Rules of Court and legal jargon necessitates that you have these people on your side or you may be greatly unprepared for a legal battle, and unpreparedness for hearings certainly increases the likelihood you will not win the case. There needs to be a justice system that is accessible and usable by all Albertans, not just the highly trained. ADR represents one facet of justice that everyone can be comfortable using. Many groups have asked for legislation or a formal way to have ADR in our justice system, but they have often faced entrenched opposition to this change.

To be honest, in Alberta we need to catch up to the private sector in initiatives. Our private sector has been highly involved with ADR for a number of years. In 1995 the Canadian forum on dispute resolution met in Edmonton, where this 200-plus group discussed the future of ADR in Canada. As a result of roundtable discussions, the group proposed some recommendations in regards to ADR. I feel it is important to share a few of these with the Assembly.

The first recommendation: to ensure that the quality of Cana- dian justice be acknowledged and enhanced through the design, development, and implementation of innovative, flexible, and accessible processes. They also recommended establishing a public education and awareness campaign to make the public aware of dispute resolution choices and to promote appropriate dispute resolution methods. These recommendations are very much in line with Bill 202, Mr. Speaker.

The same group also made a recommendation that government lead by example by including ADR clauses in contracts and use ADR processes to resolve intergovernmental disputes and deal with public policy. Mr. Speaker, Bill 202 will accomplish these recommendations in a manner equitable to all parties who may enter into a future contract with the government of Alberta.

By voting for Bill 202 now, you will have taken a very important first step in assisting our justice system while at the same time saving the government and individuals money and time spent locked in legal battles that could be better resolved through ADR. I urge all members to fully support Bill 202. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to join the debate on Bill 202. There are a number of observations I want to make.

First, I'd make the observation that like all members, when we come into the House to speak on a Bill, we tend to reflect our own experiences and, I suppose, our own values and biases. Some of the filters through which I view the Bill are some experience practising law in the province and some experience as an accredited mediator. Also, I'd had the privilege of being Justice critic in the province for a period of time. I think one of my first reactions is that we've heard a couple of really very different speeches here. We've heard the Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti talking about the Bill.

We've just finished listening to a speech that talked a bout ADR but really nothing about the Bill at all. In fact, many of the arguments that we just heard moments ago would be sound reasons to defeat Bill 202, but I'll come to those in a moment. Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the approach in this province I think what Bill 202 captures is a lament, a lament that in a province that we like to think of as progressive, on the forward edge of reform in all areas of endeavour, it's not the government of Alberta that comes forward and says we're embracing alternative dispute resolution; we have a private member's Bill that comes in, Bill 202. The closest connection we have to this being anything other than one member's frolic is the fa ct that the Minister of Justice graces us with his presence this after noon.

Maybe he'll engage in the debate before we get to a vote on principle. Where's the government initiative for ADR? Y ou know, we've had certainly the experience of watching Saskatchewan, where the provincial government and the Law Society in that province recognized that alternative dispute resolution can be a big advantage to the citizens in that province.

154 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 They came forward with a multifaceted program to give people information about how ADR works, to improve access to ADR. We've asked in this province for at least four years for the government of Alberta to take that kind of a proactive step. We weren't talking about legislating, imposing a rigid formula on people who have the misfortune of having a legal entanglement with the government of Alberta. We talked about how in positive, noncoercive ways we can promote alternative dispute resolution, whether it's arbitration or mediation.

That is a positive thing, Member for Calgary-Mountain View. That is something we want to support. But Bill 202 doesn't do that. In fact, where was the Department of Justice in this province when we talked about the multidoor courthouse concept that's been pioneered in Washington, D.C., when we talked about initiatives that we've seen in family law in Ontario and Manitoba? I mean, there have been plenty of examples in this province of noncoercive leadership initiatives from provincial governments that wanted to promote this and create an alternative to the civil litigation process.

The provincial government in fact has done none of those things. The Law Reform Institute report has virtually been orphaned. It was done at least five, six, seven years ago. It came out with a list of things that the government of Alberta could and ought to do, and the government of Alberta has chosen to do none of them. So what we have instead is not a provincial government commitment in this province to ADR; what we have is Bill 202. Let's spend a little time l ooking at what's in the four corners of Bill 202.

Just before doing that, I'd make the observation to the Member for Calgary-Mountain View: you know, mediation isn't always cheaper. In my experience in terms of doing mediation in family law situations, sometimes you get a much more efficient, speed- ier, and cheaper remedy from a chambers judge in the Court of Queen's Bench than you do going through 12 agonizing, tortuous mediation sessions. Although it has many advantages, it's not the answer in every case. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. HLADY: Y es. Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the member would entertain a question.

MR. DICKSON: Of course. I'd always entertain a question from the member opposite, Mr. Speaker. 3:10 Debate Continued THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just wondering why you say it's sometimes more expensive. Would you not admit that it is seldom more expensive than going through our justice system? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The point is this: mediation isn't the panacea. The point is that mediation may work in some cases.

In many other cases the regular civil litigation route may be the best remedy. In some cases you may have a third alternative, which is a managed trial, where you actually have a judge who shepherds an action through from beginning to end. This would simply be one of a whole range of options. My point is just: let's not get so focused on ADR and certainly on Bill 202 that we think this is the only and best answer. I would say that alternative dispute resolution is simply one item that would be in an arsenal of tools in a civilized society to help people resolve their complaints.

The other point I want to make is this. When the Member for Calgary-Mountain View talked about entrenched opposition, the entrenched opposition in Alberta to ADR didn't come from the Law Society, didn't come from the Canadian Bar Association, didn't come from the Law Reform Institute. It came from the government of Alberta. I hope we'll see that all of that rhetoric we've heard about the wonders and attributes of ADR is going to be converted into pressure on the hon. Minister of Justice to require the government of Alberta to come in with a much broader approach to promoting ADR. Anyway, on to Bill 202.

I think the opposition Justice critic did an excellent job of highlighting some of the difficulties and problems with it. I want to touch on some of the things that give me difficulty with it. For those members that remember the Opron case and for those who were not members of the House but may have read about it in the media, this was the case where after years and years of an action wending its way through the court system, we had the court determining that the government not only had been wrong but accusing the government of being deceitful, accusing the govern- ment of a host of unsavoury things.

I think many of us thought that in a case like Opron this surely was a case where mediation would have been a wonderful option, because what it demon- strated was that in most cases when the Crown is the defendant and the plaintiff may be a small construction company, may be a small contractor, there's an enormous imbalance in power. The problem with 202 is that to require both parties will favour the Crown, because in virtually every case the Crown is going to have the deeper pockets, is going to have the whole array of resources that only the government of Alberta has access to.

Most other parties, most plaintiffs aren't going to be in that position. Something that would make more sense: maybe what we do is make it at the option of the other party in terms of whether the Crown is going to have to participate in a mediation session. The other thing is that it's strangely selective. I want to know: is this going to apply to the Public Highways Development Act and claims made under that? When we look at

section 2(2), we list some contracts to which the Act will not apply. So I think to myself of the kinds of actions that people typically bring against the government of Alberta. I'd like some explanation in terms of the Public Highways Development Act and particularly if you look at

section 39(3). There are some unique provisions there. I want to know to what extent this would impact on that. Would it be intended to cover that? What about the Public Works Act? Most of the claims I remember having against the provincial government arose from somebody supplying goods and services to the provincial govern- ment, and there you don't commence your action against the government of Alberta by way of a statement of claim, which is a condition precedent to being able to invoke the jurisdiction of this Act. What you do there is you file a claim in a prescribed form under the Public Works Act.

Sections 13 to 19 set out a whole elaborate process in terms of how you get paid. So one would have to ask: if that, as I suspect, is where most claims against the Crown originate, particularly from smaller vendors and contractors, why wouldn't the Act apply to those people? Well,

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 155 it wouldn't under the straight wording of the Bill, because the Bill only applies in those cases where you start by way of a statement of claim. It would seem to me that that would be the logical place if you want to try and address a problem with people being bled or ground into the ground by the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services and needing some help. That would be one of the places, I would think, we would want to start. What about the Frustrated Contracts Act?

Section 1(

b) of that Act means it applies also to contracts in which the government of Alberta is a contracting party. So would those actions be subject to this Act? I don't know, and I need some clarification. What about the Expropriation Act? I'd like to know: would this Bill apply to that? Would it not? That's an area where we find tremendous imbalances between a large, powerful government on one hand and a small landowner or contractor. I'd like to know whether the Act would apply to that. Once again, this Bill would have a perverse result.

What it would do would be exaggerate the strength and the bargaining advantage of the government of Alberta and undercut and weaken the position of the claimant. Under this Bill, after there's a reply and joinder of issue or there's an implied joinder of issue, that's the close of pleadings. Then you wait up to 60 days before somebody can apply to name a mediator, and then there's another 60 days to wait in

section 3(4) for the mediator to hold a media- tion session. Then we have something curious in

Section 3(6). A mediation session may take place in an action involving more than 2 parties even though not all of the parties attend the session if the parties [that do attend] the session agree that the session should take place. Certainly the Member for Calgary-Glenmore, who I expect has been involved in plenty of actions in which the provincial government was a party, will tell you that often you have third, fourth parties to an action.

So under this Bill you could be in a situation where the plaintiff and a fourth party attend a meeting, the defendant isn't there, the government of Alberta isn't there, the third party isn't there, and the two of them say: well, we've decided this is going to be a mediation session within the meaning of the Bill. Well, that's a perverse result; isn't it? Y et that's what the Bills reads, and that's the result we would have.

A fourth party who's got the most marginal interest in the action and maybe a negligible interest in the action and the outcome of the action is sitting there determining: yeah, that's fine; we've met this requirement, and we're all set to roll to the next stage. So it seems to me that that becomes a problem. The Public Works Act also, sections 20 to 24. There's a whole other body of claims that can be made under those provisions, and it's not at all clear from

section 2(2) whether those things are in or out, because ultimately what we've got is that the scope of the Act is going to be defined by regulation. We all know in this province that we're one of the few jurisdictions in all of Canada, indeed in all of North America where subordinate law-making, either orders in council, regulations, are never subject to any kind of all-party scrutiny. No scrutiny. The Committee on Law and Regulations that we went through the process of appointing but a mere few days ago has never met in the province of Alberta for – the current Minister of Justice might refresh my memory.

I think it's at least 10 or 12 years since that committee last met. So we have no all-party scrutiny of regulations. What will happen if we pass this Bill as it stands, absent a commitment from the sponsor of the Bill that a draft set of regulations will be introduced in the House, circulated to all members before we're in a position of voting on the Bill – how could we possibly know what's in and what's out? It seems to me that's a pretty irresponsible way to go about making laws for our constituents and Alberta citizens. 3:20 Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Calgary-Mountain View talked several times about improving a ccessibility.

But that small contractor in Drumheller, Alberta, that had experience in terms of entering into some kind of a public works contract to grade a road or build a small bridge or do some minor project, who can't get money from the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services – do you think that fellow is going to be happy to discover that instead of simply going to court and commencing a statement of claim and then pressing for the earliest possible discovery date and then a trial, now he's lost control of part of the process?

He and his lawyer have to sit there and twiddle their thumbs for perhaps, first, 60 days and then 60 days after that. At the end of the day that small contractor in Drumheller, who's been paying his lawyer to attend each one of the mediation sessions – we certainly know that the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services isn't going to come without a lawyer. They'll probably have three of them. I mean, that's the way government typically operates.

So that small operator in Drumheller has just built probably another $4,000 or $5,000 into a solicitor/client legal bill, and that's all he's gotten in terms of the litigation. The action is at the close of pleadings. So instead of just having paid for a statement of claim, he's paid for perhaps a couple of mediation sessions. So let's be honest with Albertans about the Bill.

If we want to promote ADR, that's fine, and I expect members on this side will work as hard as we can with any member opposite and certainly the Minister of Justice to see what we can do in terms of promot- ing alternative dispute resolution, in terms of improving access of Albertans to the court system, which, after all, they pay for. That's the sort of thing that we can work on. Coming in with a prescriptive, arbitrary, highly selective kind of Bill seems to me to be absolutely the wrong way of doing it. [Mrs.

Gordon in the Chair] So my suggestion to all hon. members is: let's harness that enthusiasm the Member for Calgary-Mountain View and the Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti expressed for ADR. I expect it's shared by many of the rest of us in here. Let's take that sentiment and find ways of focusing it on constructive, positive, noncoercive kinds of solutions. I think members of my caucus would be interested in working to that very same extent, too, Madam Speaker. I think that those are the primary points I wanted to make. ADR is wonderful; Bill 202 is not.

I encourage all members to consider carefully before they decide how they're going to vote at second reading. Thanks very much. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- Glenmore. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today, obviously to the relief of my colleagues b ecause on previous occasions I have not, to join in the debate on Bill 202, the Crown Contracts Dispute Resolution Act, as proposed by my colleague from Grande Prairie-Wapiti.

156 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 I'm encouraged to see this Bill being debated in the Assembly because I believe it deals with a timely issue and is one which deserves the attention of the Legislature. I'm also encouraged by the foresight of the hon. member in pr oposing this B ill, which addresses in a small but effective way some potentially real problems: problems such as those which have been experienced in the United States, Ontario, and British Columbia; problems like overcrowded court systems; skyrocketing legal costs; decreased accessibility to and an increasing frustration with the justice system.

Problems such as these threaten the public trust in our court system. That's where Bill 202 comes in. This Bill targets those problems as they relate to government contracts, and it is in this context that I would like to address my remarks this after- noon. As a trial lawyer for 22 years and a mediator for six I can speak personally to the challenge s of the court-based resolution and the benefits of alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. ADR is often credited with achieving savings for the parties to a dispute, and under the mediation package as proposed by Bill 202, these savings will occur.

Instead of going immediately through a judicial proceeding, a dispute will be mediated, which will result in savings for both the government and the parties. This saving will, I believe, Madam Speaker, come in two very important forms. The first is a monetary saving, the second a time saving. ADR has savings benefits that will be quickly realized for all parties involved in the mediation sessions as outlined in this Bill. We can, Madam Speaker, assume that the cost of going through a mediation session, where the parties resolve the dispute, will be far less than going through a long, drawn-out court trial.

Even in those cases where mediation does not resolve the dispute com- pletely, the issues will often be defined, and the streamlined court case will take less time to try. Evidence which was given to an Ontario ADR task force showed that programs which required litigants to participate in ADR worked well. As it has been said here today, the cities participating in the Saskatchewan pilot project that mandated mediation see an average of 20 percent of litigants going to court after the mediation session as compared to 40 percent in cities that currently do not have ADR mandated.

That's a 50 percent drop in the number of disputes that go to trial, and that is a compelling statistic. Time saved is also an ADR advantage. Where the parties choose to litigate, crowded court calendars, procedural motions, document production, and examinations for discovery delay timely resolution of disputes. Another ADR advantage compared to traditional court proceed- ings is that it maintains privacy. The court system is a forum of public record. Documents and transcripts are filed, decisions are published, and all are available for public view.

In certain cases the litigation system has the effect of forcing the disclosure of information which some of the parties do not want a matter of public record. This often results in extensive procedural wran- gling to prevent disclosure of such information. Examples that come to mind are trade secrets and proprietary information. ADR maintains privacy of the parties, because the information given during the mediation process is confidential and does not become part of the public record.

Another distinct ADR advantage is the potential to choose a mediator who has specialized knowledge matching technical issues in a given case. The persons with specialized knowledge can easily be chosen by the parties to mediate a case where that knowledge will enhance the chance of conflict resolution. Such is not so when a case is set down for trial. The parties do not choose the judge, and the judge typically will be a generalist. In the mediation process the parties are the ones who exercise control over what happens from start to finish.

It is a positive thing to put the responsibility for the outcome of a dispute in the hands of the parties involved. This is so because the result is achieved by them. It is not imposed upon them. People who go through ADR typically feel more satisfied with the result, have a better understanding of what transpired and why, and feel more supportive of the outcome. ADR compels parties to consider different alternatives to resolving a dispute and to confront the actual resolution such as payment of money or the cessation of an activity.

ADR removes some of the all-or-nothing mentality that can be associated with court proceedings. So, Madam Speaker, as you can see, the advantages of ADR are widespread and have enormous potential. Given these advantages, I believe we ought to bring ADR into government contracts. The advantages of ADR are compelling. To ignore them would mean passing up a tremendous opportunity here, and I urge all members to vote for Bill 202. Thank you. 3:30 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge- East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill 202.

As we've heard from a number of other members this afternoon, this is a Bill that has quite a lot of potential if it gets to the point where it actually becomes part of our process of dispute resolution. We've got some particular problems, though, in terms of how this Bill is set out. There are a couple of issues that I'm sure would have to be addressed if it gets to committee stage. When we look at the whole idea of what focuses on dispute resolution, it's got to become part of the expected part of a process of looking at the judicial solution of a problem.

If we begin with just certain parts of our contract dispute resolution subject to these kinds of mechanisms, what we're doing is creating an even more confusing system of expectations among the people of Alberta. There are a number of conditions or situations that are created by certain clauses in the Bill that do result in kind of an anxiety level increase or an increase in the level of uncertainty that's associated with whether or not these processes would go forth. It's really unfortunate that Bill 202 didn't apply to a lot of the processes that go beyond just government contracts.

There is some real opportunity to kind of alleviate the pressure that exists on our court system if we can get people involved in the ideas of dispute resolution either through mediation, arbitration, or some of the other newer techniques that are coming out now to talk about how to reduce conflict or mediate conflict. This is the kind of thing that I think we need to have a little more explanation of in terms of the context of this Bill, because what we see is that the Bill specifically only refers to mediation.

I'm hoping there that that's taken in the whole broad context of all of the different processes that might be available for conflict resolution. So it needs to be dealt with in terms of a little more of a broad representation in terms of just the single word that shows. The aspects of the Bill that I find kind of the most concern to me relate to the idea of the compulsory nature of it.

I think that it would be very appropriate for us to recommend it highly or make sure that people are informed about the potential of it, but if we have a situation where it's really obvious that one of the members or one of the participants in it does not want to go

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 157 through any kind of a mediation, there has to be an option there to opt out, to allow it to go to the court process. This kind of becomes quite obvious when we look at the conditions of clause 6 in the Bill, where we have options for not everybody that's involved in a contract being involved in that part of the mediation. This allows for kind of a real inequity in terms of how we go about making the process work.

Processes such as arbitration, mediation, alterna tive dispute resolution, whatever name we put to them, only work if we get full-time, real commit- ment from the participants to both participate actively and live by the result. It's an important part of dealing with this kind of activity that we really look at the option of whether or not this flexibility that's introduced by having the elimination or the voluntary absence of one or more of the members still allows for the mediation process to continue. I think we've got to look at that fairly seriously.

The other part of it that seems to be quite interesting is the idea that in one of the clauses – number 5, I think it was. Y es, Madam Speaker, it is number 5, where they're talking about sharing the costs can become part of the mediation, but it also says that they'll be divided equally unless they can agree to some other process. If you are the participant here that's going to be potentially found at fault or potentially found in the position of having to make amends, you're obviously not going to agree to a process of sharing the costs.

I think it would be better if we just left it out and said it would be part of the mediation process as to how the costs are shared, rather than putting in a kind of default option. So just allow for the whole process of cost allocation, cost sharing to be part of the mediation process as opposed to giving that kind of default. I guess the last issue that I really want to address is the idea of why we don't expand this, why we don't make it applicable to a lot of the other issues.

We've got a lot of exclusions here in terms of the types of government contracts that will not be involved in the process, yet when we look at how the government gets involved in actions with either groups of people, companies, or individuals in the province, there are a lot of options to expand on how we deal with this in terms of how it comes out. It's important that we look at it in the context of making sure that it gets applied equitably, that it gets applied in a position where no one is disadvantaged through some of the clauses that show up here. It's a good start.

It's too bad it didn't go broader and get involved in the entire judicial process. I don't see why we can't have this kind of alternative dispute resolution become part of the broad judicial system in the province. The Bill needs to be expanded. As the Member for Calgary-Buffalo has pointed out, it would be very good if that could be looked at from the perspec- tive of becoming an integral part of the Department of Justice. It's an issue, again, of expectations and how we look at that.

I think this is just going to create some confusion for the people of Alberta in terms of what to expect when they get involved with government contracts, why one is dealt with differently from another. When we look at

section 2(2), where it lists all of the ones that are going to be exclusions, you're kind of left with the impression that, gee whiz, almost all of the government contracts already have a dispute resolution mechanism built in.

Maybe one of the things we might want to look at is just suggesting very strongly to the ministers of the Crown that when they do write contracts, there is a clause at the end of it that includes a strong recommendation or a strong mandate that before conflicts are taken to court, they become subject to a degree of arbitration or of mediation, whatever is appropriate for that type of contract. Then we can see that people are really aware of what they're getting involved in.

A lot of people are going to be signing contracts with the government and may possibly not be aware that this automatically becomes part of the contract they're signing in terms of how they can get disputes resolved. I really think that this is a good step, but it didn't go far enough. It should have been applied broadly across the judicial system. I think it's something that we really have to look at as being a contribution to the process in Alberta, and I don't see why it's not done at that level. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Government House Leader. MR.

HA VELOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am certainly pleased to rise and speak in support of Bill 202, which was brought forward by my friend and colleague the Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. I do support the Bill because government needs to adopt a new way of thinking, a new approach to some of these issues. That is partially due to the fact that our resources to handle what seems to be the ever increasing litigation line of our court system are certainly tightened and shrinking, and we need to rely on people to work through some of the problems that they themselves have created.

Now, the Justice department has actually long worked towards alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Despite what my colleague the Member for Calgary-Buffalo stated earlier, there are a number of initiatives in place at this point in time, and I actually see Bill 202 adding quite nicely to those initiatives.

What I'd like to do is simply take a moment to advise the House of some of the initiatives which we're presently involved with, again to dispel the notion that the department actually has not been proactive in this regard. 3:40 One item, for example, is that the court services business plan identifies ADR in civil cases as one of the initiatives to be undertaken over the next three-year period. The process includes identifying alternative options, consultation with the judiciary, and implementation.

In fact, Madam Speaker, the Alberta implemen- tation committee for systems of civil justice task force report is of the view that we should proceed as quickly as possible with early ADR. This is one of the recommendations which we just recently received. Internally we have established a departmental Dispute Resolu- tion Co-ordination Committee. It would be nice if they came up with shorter names for these committees. Nevertheless, what we are going to be doing is implementing a process to propose a policy on dispute resolution for Alberta Justice.

We're presently compiling an inventory of current activities in the department. Once that is done, the committee which I just mentioned will then consider what needs to be done and prepare a departmental implementation plan, which will include as a component the court services action plan for dispute resolution. That's the plan which I mentioned earlier. The committee, I understand, will be considering this at its next m eeting in May, and we are moving forward in that regard.

Court services is also working with various committees of the bar and the judiciary to develop other initiatives that involve elements of dispute resolution. One is that we're looking at

158 Alberta Hansard April 23, 1997 expedited Rules of Court for cases under $75,000. The intent of these rules is to st reamline the procedures required to resolve those particular cases. We're looking at case flow management, and this concept involves the court in supervising the progress of cases, which is a function traditionally left to the parties and their counsel. We will also be presenting in the near future and tabling in the House a Bill which will be increasing the limits of the Provincial Court. We're looking at phasing that in and hopefully getting it up to a maximum of $10,000.

Another initiative is that the civil law division has been working on construction contracts to determine in what ways a dispute resolution process can be implemented and actually incorporated into those agreements. Finally, Madam Speaker, we have actually provided training to lawyers and information to clients to help them become better aware of some of the alternatives that are available out there. So despite, again, what the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo said earlier, the department has been quite proactive, and I see this Bill 202 as being certainly an important piece of the puzzle.

In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the use of ADR in government contract disputes will reduce the burden . . . MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Point of order? Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. DICKSON: Under Beauchesne 482, I wonder if the hon. minister would entertain a brief question before he completes his speech. MR. HA VELOCK: Not right now, thanks. I get enough of that during the day. Debate Continued MR.

HA VELOCK: In any event, as I indicated, the use of ADR will I think alleviate some of the burden that the system is presently facing with people of course again becoming much more involved in litigation. It will also, in my view, create more of a level playing field for those individuals who enter into a contract with government. They know really at the outset how the dispute may be resolved, and I think it would create a much more positive beginning to the contract negotiations. Thus, Madam Speaker, I am very supportive of this Bill, but I make that comment subject to a couple of qualifiers.

It may be worth while at the committee stage to amend the Bill by making it mandatory for a mediation provision to be included in govern- ment contracts when it enters into that contract with the third party, or the private sector. In my view, that is preferable to the provisions of

section 3, which I understand require mediation after the close of pleadings in an action prior to being able to take any further step in that action. Secondly – and I'm not entirely convinced on this point – we may want to examine whether or not we should put in a financial limit. That financial limit we may want to have coincide with the limits available in the Provincial Court. That would assist in relieving some of the, for lack of a better term, clogging of the system at the higher court level. In conclusion, though, I certainly support this Bill. I think it's a positive step.

I believe that it can be part of an overall process. I would like to see at least one of the amendments I've discussed briefly perhaps seriously considered at committee level. Our department is looking forward to working with the member if this Bill passes in ensuring that the use of ADR becomes widespread in the province. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I consider it a privilege to rise and speak to this Bill 202.

I have listened intently to the comments made by the previous speakers, particu- larly the lawyer colleagues that we have in the House with us. I would speak to this Bill not as someone who has a legal back- ground but as someone who has worked for actually the last 15 years as an employee in the public sector and, also, in the last five years as someone who worked in an environment in which considerable negotiations and work were undertaken to build and foster productive employer/employee relationships. I am fully cognizant that Bill 202 does not apply to the public sector.

This has been clearly outlined within the body of the Act. However, I think there is relevance to speak to this Bill on the tenets, the aspects, the pieces of the employer/employee relation- ship, the elements of a contract that must be in place, which this Act does not foster. In fact, I view this Act, with all due respect to its sponsor, as a muscle Act. It is

an Act th at interferes with the process of collective bargaining, whether that bargaining and negotiation is going on in the private sector or public sector, with the govern- ment as a partner or not as a partner. It sets a precedent in this province, a precedent that I do not think is a healthy one. In fact, Madam Speaker, on numerous occasions during the period of time that I have been a resident of this province, I have heard this government say that they have no place interfering with or taking unfair advantage in a negotiation process. I have heard them say that with respect to the laundry workers' strike.

I have heard them say that in the context of the current Safeway strike. What this Act does is in fact say that they want an unfair advantage, that they want as a party to negotiation to be able to circumvent and push for a mediated agreement and to make that agreement mandatory and nonappealable. There are a number of very concerning aspects of the Bill. Before I address those, I do want to raise these points with respect to previous comments that have been made. I would raise the question: how is forced mediation not adversarial?

I have been party to mediations that have been mutually agreed to, but I do not understand how a forced mediation is not adversarial. How is forced mediation not perceived to intervene in the negotiation of a contract? I also found it of interest when one of my hon. colleagues said that the government needed to catch up to the private sector. I would rather, Madam Speaker, that the government set the example. I do not think that we use as our ruler or as our report card in this House the activities of the public or the private sector.

I think the responsibility is that we set precedents and laws that set a fair example. This Act is not a fair example. 3:50 My colleague has mentioned the aspect of

section 3(6) with respect to, basically, the session taking place involving two parties, even though not all the parties may attend the session. Those parties attending the session can agree that the session take place. That is divisive, Madam Speaker. If what this government is trying to achieve is an environment where there is mutual respect and a constructive relationship built, that type of process

April 23, 1997 Alberta Hansard 159 will not achieve that. I also look at the aspects under

section 4, where at the request of a party the mediator may file a certificate of nonattendance to a court, and then the court may take action. Those actions, Madam Speaker, are very heavy handed. The court may “adjourn the application . . . strike out the pleadings . . . grant any other relief.” The question that I ask, despite the supposed evidence brought by the legal members on the other side of the House: why do we have to force a contract or an agreement?

I have learned from my own experience that it is not so much the memorandum that's achieved but the process of achieving that memorandum that defines a respectful and functional working relationship with an employer. This Bill does not allow that process to take its natural course. It does not allow the parties to evolve, to mature, to learn. It basically puts those parties at the mercy of a mediator. I would also raise in this House: what in fact is the definition of a mediator in this Act? It seems – and I have seen this from experience – that it is a very popular profession.

It appears to be attracting a lot of interest. What in fact is the definition that we are using in this House? Is it someone who actually has certifi- cates, degrees, or is it someone who has basically established an at-home practice and is providing that service? I think at the very least that amendments defining that in a more concrete way would be valuable. To conclude, again I do not think this government wants to set the precedent of being a muscle employer. I do not think they want to set the precedent of not fostering constructive em- ployer/employee relations.

This Act does set a precedent in that respect, Madam Speaker. MR. JACQUES: Point of order. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie- Wapiti. Point of Order Factual Accuracy MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. member has used at various times and most recently “this government.” I would point out to her u

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19970423
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S1 19970423 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f3af87f831780e6133ec0217c8b7abc54521a277

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