March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 853 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, March 28, 1995 1:30 p.m. Date: 95/03/28 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. Our Father, keep us mindful of the special and unique opportu- nity we have to work for our constituents and our province, and in that work give us strength and wisdom. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to table today four copies of separate resolutions from two ECS groups in my constituency of Little Bow.

The first is from the Enchant ECS, and the second is from the Coalhurst Elementary School Kindergarten Committee. Both of these urge the Alberta government to mandate the right of access to fully funded kindergarten programming to a minimum of 400 hours per child per school year. head: Notices of Motions MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I give notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions stand and retain their places on the Order Paper with the exception of Question 185, Question 186, and Question 190. As well, I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of Motion 196. head: Introduction of Bills Bill 25 Teachers' Pension Plans Act MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 25, being the Teachers' Pension Plans Act.

This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this Bill keeps a commitment the government made to the teachers of Alberta some time ago. That commitment was to rewrite the Teachers' Retirement Fund Act to reflect the reforms to their pension plan agreed to in 1992 by the government and the Alberta Teachers' Association.

Because the existing legislation was first introduced over five decades ago, the government is taking this opportunity to establish the foundation for the complete modernization of the teachers' pension legisla- tion. At the same time, it is the intent of the Bill to continue the existing funding arrangements and pension benefits entitlements. [Leave granted; Bill 25 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table four copies of the document Future Directions for Alberta's Heritage Fund.

This is the all-party committee's report of hearing from Albertans in eight public hearings held across the province, 1,700 phone calls tabulated to the 1-800 number, and 50,515 returns of the questionnaire from the tabloid sent to all households in Alberta. This is a tremendous response from concerned citizens throughout the province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. N. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table four copies of the forestry product regulations in Idaho and Oregon and a résumé of 36 other states for the benefit of the environment minister showing that logging and cutting on private land is treated just the same as on government land. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table six copies of a document recently released by the C ouncil of Ministers of Education, Canada entitled School Achievement Indicators Program: Reading and Writing Assessment 1994. As well, Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to table six copies of How Are Students Doing?

This document, produced by the Department of Education, exhibits the results from the January diploma examinations. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm filing with the Assembly today the annual report of the Alberta Securities Commission for the year ended March 31, '94, and, as well, a document entitled the Alberta Advantage: March 1995, a document that I provided to members of the investment community as well as our invest- ment borrowing syndicate as well as those who were interested observers during my visit to New Y ork and Toronto last week. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table four copies of a letter from Dr. Christopher Penney in Calgary to the Minister of Health indicating that he disagrees quite vehemently. In fact, physicians are being totally ignored. Morale is extremely low among the physicians [in Calgary] and it is not surprising [therefore] that some are leaving for the U.S. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to table four copies of a paper done by three University of Alberta professors entitled Road Kill: Women in Alberta's Drive toward Deficit Elimination, which points out that women are disproportionately affected negatively by this government's cuts. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have two items to table, four copies of each of two documents prepared by the Health Sciences Association of Alberta. The HSAA holds in excess of 120 certifications representing over 7,500 employees in over 125 different health-related disciplines.

The first is the final report of the Health Sciences Association on ad hoc laboratory services. The other is their submission evaluating the laboratory services restructuring business plan format. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. MR. BRASSARD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 48 grade 8 students from Olds junior/senior high

854 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 school. They are accompanied by teachers Ms Thelma Hilton Wenc and Ms Angie Dezall and parents Mrs. Husted and Mrs. Shipley. I wonder if they would stand and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legislature 54 grade 6 students from the C.P. Blakely school in Sylvan Lake. They are accompanied by their teachers Miss Cunningham, Miss Friedrick, and parents Ms Cindy Brown, Mrs.

Barb Thurston, Mrs. Brenda Janzen, Mrs. Karen Mehlhaff, Mrs. Denise Barry, and Mr. James Ekelund. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a great pleasure for me to introduce to you and to all members of this Assembly a great couple from the Calgary-Egmont constituency who have been very active community members as well as very involved in Calgary-Egmont constituency. Dr.

Don Watt and his wife, Betty, are here in preparation for a great convention this weekend, where Don is running for southern vice-president. They're seated in the members' gallery. Please welcome them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce to you and the Assembly a gentleman who immigrated to Canada from Iran a number of years ago and who recently became a Canadian citizen, much to his delight. Mr. Moussa Shamipour is seated in the public gallery. Mr.

Shamipour, would you please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period 1:40 Impact of Budget Cuts on Women MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, a study by three University of Alberta professors confirms what we in the Liberal caucus and what Alberta women have always known, that the cuts imposed by this government are affecting women disproportionately.

The study entitled Road Kill: Women in Alberta's Drive toward Deficit Elimination states: The Alberta Advantage should stay in the spotlight, not so that we can celebrate it but so that we can understand that the base on which it rests is the exploitation of Alberta's women and children. My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Why is it acceptable to this government that women are being forced out of their jobs and back to being an unpaid labour force filling the gaps left in our communities by this government's policies? MR. MAR: Well, Mr.

Speaker, our government's objective has been from the outset to balance our budget and to create a climate for businesses to create jobs, because, as we know, economic independence for both men and women is very important to the people of this province. We believe that women and men want to work, be productive members of society, and provide for their families. The statistics in fact are that there are 606,000 women employed in Alberta. That reflects an increase of 20,900 since February of 1994.

Seventy percent of those women are employed full-time, which is up 13,000; 30 percent of them are working part-time, which is up 7,500. Since 1989 the employment position of women in this province has improved over men. In 1989 the rate of unemployment was 9.8 percent for men and 9.6 percent for women. As of December of 1994 it was 7.9 percent for men and 6.5 percent for women. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that there is a differential effect of some of the changes that are being made in government programs, and of course that is true.

There is a differential effect, but there are a number of things that we are dealing with to try and address that differential effect. There are programs in Economic Development and Tourism that have improved the number of women who are entrepreneurs. The Minister of Labour has set up legislation on the subject of midwifery which will allow more growth in that area for women. Alberta Health has earmarked $20 million for its workforce adjustment strategy. There are also training and education programs available through Advanced Education and Career Development.

I'd point out that 51 percent of those in full-time attendance at public postsecondary schools are women, and 67 percent of female former welfare recipients are now training through skills development grant programs. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will the minister responsible for women's issues set aside all that array of statistics, which obscures the real issue, and just answer one specific question, and that is: why is it that since this government took office two years ago, more than twice as many women have lost their jobs in this province as have men? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that statistically it's been clearly demonstrated that there are more jobs for women in the province of Alberta than in 1989. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing things that we see on this side of the House is a minister who remains silent when there are women who have serious problems which are not being addressed. Why won't this minister speak out on behalf of women instead of apologizing for this govern- ment's decisions? If this minister won't do it right, why doesn't the Premier appoint somebody who will? MR.

MAR: Well, first of all, from time to time of course I do make statements on behalf of women, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, women are prepared to speak for themselves. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the numbers just used by the Leader of the Opposition saying that more women were being affected by restructuring and layoffs – the facts are that on March 31, 1993, in the Alberta government service, there were 12,862 men employed and 14,891 women employed. That's 53 percent of the workforce that were women.

Move two years later to January 31, 1995 – this is after this year's announcements – females employed in the government service 12,808, males 10,781. The percentages had moved up, and . . . [interjections] I wish they would be quiet, because the Liberal leader gave false information. The facts are that in this last year the reductions . . . [interjections] They don't like to be confused with the facts. The facts are that 250 women were moved out of the government service this year,

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 855 men 469, almost twice as many. Once again false information from the Liberal leader. False information. MR. MITCHELL: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour doesn't understand that nurses in fact are government workers, and they are being laid off in droves. Seniors' Suicides MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, seniors now have the highest suicide rate of any group in this province. Cuts to seniors' benefits, increased property taxes and user fees, Calgary veterans lining up at food banks at their Legion: this is the Premier's legacy for the people who built this province.

My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Why is it that the seniors' suicide rate in this province is 25 percent higher than the average suicide rate? MR. MAR: Well, suicide, regardless of the age category of the individual, is always a tragic and serious issue. I, of course, am particularly concerned when it concerns seniors. Seniors' suicides are not a new phenomenon, and they are certainly not exclusive to the province of Alberta. Our federal government statistics show an increase nationally, increasing over the last 20 years.

A study r ecently released by M ount Royal College shows that suicidal seniors – there are three reasons that were identified in the report: seniors feel disconnected from their friends and family, they feel that they're unimportant, and they feel that they don't have meaningful roles or a sense of purpose. Mr. Speaker, of course, our provincial government is keenly interested in programs that deal with those particular issues of making sure that seniors have a meaningful sense of purpose.

So to that extent we are funding seniors' centres, we fund Meals on Wheels, we fund recreational opportunities for seniors, family and community support services, Alberta's health and wellness programs, and others, all with the intention of dealing with the issue of isolation of seniors. It is a very, very important issue. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's results that count, and we see the results in an increased suicide rate for seniors.

Does this minister not understand that there is a direct relation- ship between the way in which he is cutting support for seniors and the elevation in their suicide rate in this province? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I rely upon the Mount Royal College study, which showed that really the issue is much different from the issue of dealing with government cuts. It deals with issues of isolation and having a sense of purpose and a sense of meaning. We do work on programs, but again this is a trend which is a national trend. It is not an issue which is exclusive to the province of Alberta. MR.

MITCHELL: Does this minister not understand that the reason for increased seniors' isolation might include, for example, that they're losing their homes because their property taxes are going up, because their benefits are going down, or that they're being thrown out of a long-term care facility because this government won't fund the facility, and they have nowhere else to go? Does that increase their isolation? Does that enhance their suicide rate? I think it does, Mr. Speaker. 1:50 MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, there are not seniors who are being thrown out of the facilities in which they live.

This is an issue of great concern, having housing facilities for seniors. There's no doubt that we are in times of change. Change is stressful for many people. It is not just seniors, but it is stressful for all Albertans to deal with change. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of seniors and of Albertans are resilient people, and they'll deal with change. For those people that are falling through cracks – that is exactly the reason why we have appeal processes set up, to deal with the exceptional cases.

But in the majority of cases, seniors lead happy and healthy lives within their own homes and independently. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Grain Marketing DR. NICOL: Thank you. Time is going by. Farmers are out there preparing for their spring work. Y esterday a government member asked the ag minister if he was prepared to hold a producer plebiscite on grain marketing. The minister said that it was being referred. Referred, Mr. Speaker. This Legislature told him to conduct a plebiscite. My question to the minister of agriculture: are you going to hold a plebiscite, yes or no?

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, who has asked this question once before – I think it was two days after the motion was passed, as I recall. The question should properly be referred to the federal minister, who has the responsibility for this jurisdiction. This is where the legislation really inhibits our Alberta farmers from having the opportunity of accessing this continental market. I'd like to ask the hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East: what has he done to communicate to those who are responsible to have that piece of legislation? What I indicated to the hon. Member for Taber-Warner yesterday when he asked the question was that, indeed, we are in the process of putting together a process. Now, what the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East was asking for in two days was to have a plebiscite. That's very interesting. In two days. Who is going to be allowed to vote? Who is going to be eligible for the voting process? Is it going to be indeed of any value to our federal counterparts?

Are our federal brethren even going to consider this? Mr. Speaker, I wrote to my federal counterpart some time ago asking him for a clarification of the status if indeed we do carry forward with a plebiscite: what will his response be, and will he accredit this plebiscite? To date I have not had the courtesy of a response. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, supplemental question. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Y esterday you said that you were going to instruct the Alberta Grain Commission, a group of political appointees, to communicate with the industry to develop a strategy when this Legislature has asked for a plebiscite. Are you going to have a plebiscite, yes or no? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting to note and I think the commodity organizations and the farm organizations that are all a representative part of the Alberta Grain

856 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 Commission will be very interested to know that they are actually only political appointments, not agricultural appointments. We have representatives from the wheat growers, the canola growers, the barley growers, the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Commit- tee. Virtually every farm organization is represented on this Alberta Grain Commission. What we are in the process of doing is, in conjunction with the industry, in conjunction with the wheat growers and the barley growers, who we'll be meeting with next week, as I mentioned yesterday to the hon.

Member for Taber- Warner, we're going to allow the industry to assist in the development of this. We will not have the politicians telling the agricultural community what it is that they should be doing. DR. NICOL: I wish that this morning I would have put on my barn boots instead of my city go-to-meeting boots. The final question, Mr. Speaker: yes or no? Very simple, yes or no? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I've given the answer several times. Again I will answer the question. Together with the industry, that decision will be made, as well as the timing, as well as what the process will be.

It will be the industry that will make that decision together with the department. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MR. SAPERS: Question. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. See? Y ou set an example, and they follow, Mr. Speaker. Forest Management MRS. FORSYTH: The media focus on the logging issue has generated tremendous interest from all Albertans. During the past few weeks I've had a great many calls and letters from constitu- ents who are upset with apparent logging practices on private and Crown land. My question today is to the minister of environ- ment.

Why is the logging industry treated differently than the oil industry, who have strict environmental standards that must be met on both Crown and private lands? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the hon. member for the question. It certainly is a good one. The fact is that on Crown land the oil and gas industry and the forestry industry have very extensive rules to follow. They are similar. As a matter of fact, if the oil and gas industry is building a road or forestry is building a road, they must follow the same kinds of guidelines.

The forestry industry on Crown land must file cutting plans. They have to abide by Free to Grow, which is a very extensive program, one that was implemented in 1991. That requires them to reforest within two years. There's a whole number of things that they have to do. There are, in fact, six Acts that apply to private land, as they do to Crown land, whether it's gas and oil or forestry. They relate to soil conservation and the fishery. That is the same whether it's private-land logging or oil and gas activity on private land. As a matter of fact, all the issues around pollution are the same.

I think there is some confusion probably inasmuch as the ERCB have a number of other regulations that apply to oil and gas that of course don't apply to the forestry industry because of the difference. One is a subsurface mineral, and the other one is a resource that's on the surface. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the forest industry is depleting one of Alberta's most important natural resources, how can we ensure that this resource will be there for my children and their children? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that all forest companies that are harvesting timber on Crown land have what's known as an annual allowable cut. That annual allowable cut really means the annual growth of the forest. They are not allowed to go over that annual allowable cut, and that is set somewhat below what is actually grown each year. So in fact through that process and thro ugh the Free to Grow process, the assurance that the timber is goin g to be there in the future is inherent in the way that it's managed.

As a matter of fact, one of the things that we're finding is that the growth under the proper management is greater than was expected, so in fact there could very well be more timber available for future generations than there currently is today. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you. Why doesn't the government require cutting permits that incorporate environmental require- ments for the harvesting of timber on private land? 2:00 MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on private land the environmental rules apply as they do on Crown land.

As I have said many times in this House, there are six Acts that apply to private land as to Crown lands. So as far as the environmental issues are concerned, they are dealt with similarly on private land. Since we are talking about private land and the trees are a private commodity, a product of the landowner, I think the minister of agriculture possibly could add something. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister of agriculture. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an important issue and one that has to be properly recognized for what it really is doing as far as agricultural development is concerned as well.

Indeed, as the hon. minister has properly identified, there is identical legislation that does cover the environmental issues regarding development on private land as well as on public land. As a matter of fact, we are working with the private landowners in developing a proper conservation strategy. As a matter of fact, we're doing that in conjunction with the federal government, the provincial government, as well as our own department. As a result of that, a publication has been put together.

Conservation and Logging on Private Land in Alberta has been developed for the use of those who are developing logging on private land. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that through the period of time when all the land was identified for its various uses in the province and the quality and the level of the quality of the land were being established, there were clearly 6 million addi- tional acres that haven't been developed today that are identified

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 857 as suitable for agricultural development in this province. Now, of those 6 million acres virtually all of it has some form of wood cover, and what we really are doing at the present time is simply utilizing the land perhaps in a different manner. Perhaps it will eventually go back to forestry development. Nevertheless, whether it's used as feedstock for cattle when it's grassed down or whether it's used to refurbish the fibre industry, it's still being used to its ultimate value. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. Special Places 2000 MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Today the government announced its Alberta natural heritage policy, Special Places 2000. The policy falls well short of preserving Alberta's endangered spaces, which was the whole idea behind the plan, because now it adds economic development as a fundamental goal of the program. This announcement today leaves many Albertans who participated in this process asking: what's so special about special places? My question is to the Minister of Environmental Protection.

The state of the environment report issued on February 27 does not include economic development as a goal of special places, but the announcement today does. Why is that? MR. LUND: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his

preamble made a statement that is certainly not accurate. He indicated that economic development was a pillar of the program. That's not the case. As a matter of fact, tourism and economic development are tied together. All one has to do is look at the national parks. We have tourism there. Those are special places. But we also have economic development. And so many instances – look at a ski hill. I could go on and on and on and give examples where there's a special place, whether it be recreation or tourism, and there is some economic development. So this is not inconsistent.

As a matter of fact, I think it is a very important component of the program. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: why did the minister allow his standing policy commit- tee to dictate the addition of economic development as, and I quote, a focus throughout this initiative. Why did you allow the standing policy committee to do that? MR. LUND: Well, Mr. Speaker, since Special Places 2000 was initiated back in 1992, there has been a lot of public input. After the report of the committee that was chaired by the hon.

Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake was filed, there was a lot more input. We've been developing this over a period of time, and as far as picking out one group or one individual that had input and saying that that's what changed it, that's not the case. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the nomination and review process, why did the minister build in a kill button at every single stage of the nomination process for an area for Special Places 2000? MR. LUND: Mr.

Speaker, one of the objectives of this program, of course, is to fill the gaps that may be there in the whole program of identifying areas for special places. There are 20 subregions in the province. There are some gaps within that area, so we want to make sure that we are filling the gaps. Now, if in fact there's an area that is already well represented, maybe it's not necessary to proceed with that nomination. If in fact the local people, the stakeholders that are most directly affected, cannot agree with the area management plan or the total area that's been designated, they have the ability to change that.

I think that what'll happen through this process is that we are going to have all of the stakeholders, the people that are involved – in fact, we're going to have a much better buy-in and a better program because we're going to involve the public. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Sheriffs' Offices MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question comes directly from a constituent, and it's to the Minister of Justice. Some time ago the Civil Enforcement Act privatizing some of the services of the sheriff's department received the approval of this Legislature.

When can the public expect to see these changes in the way the business of the sheriff's office is presently carried out? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. EV ANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under the Civil Enforcement Act, which was passed in this Legislature in the fall, we as legislators gave the opportunity to privatize our seizure procedures in the province. The intention is to streamline debt collection.

We will as of the 3rd of April begin a series of public information meetings around this province in eight different centres, and the intention is that we would allow Albertans to discover what is in that Act and what the opportunities are for Albertans to take on a privatized method of seizures in this province. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. What sheriff's office services will be moving to the private sector, and how will the minister ensure necessary controls are in place? MR. EV ANS: Well, essentially, Mr.

Speaker, there will be three areas which will be privatized: first, the conducting of seizures themselves; secondly, the storage and the sale of seized goods; and thirdly, the distribution of the proceeds of those sales. Now, the hon. member has also asked: how can we ensure the integrity of that process? Well, there will be bonding require- ments. There will be insurance requirements. There w ill be training requirements. We intend to set up a code of ethics as well for those who will be acting as bailiffs or civil enforcement agencies. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplemen- tal is again to the same minister. As the focus of the sheriff's office will be shifted from actually conducting seizures to conducting reviews to make sure that everything is going along in a complementary way, my question is: how will the sheriff's office's function change, and can you tell us a little bit about the personnel within that department?

858 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 MR. EV ANS: Well, the purpose of this exercise, Mr. Speaker, is to improve the delivery of service to Albertans. We're going to be able to do that through this privatized model using fewer people because the people who will be continuing to operate in the sheriff's office will be, as the hon. member has indicated, reviewing how the operation is being conducted under strict guidelines.

We expect that that process, quite frankly, is going to start in about October of this year, after the training process, after the applicants for this privatized opportunity are well aware of what the restrictions are and what they can do and what opportu- nities are made available to them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. 2:10 Medical Laboratories MRS. FORSYTH: Question. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll get right to the question. The funding for medical lab testing has been cut nearly $8 million this year, and it'll be further eroded by about $25 million next year.

This will result in the loss of thousands of jobs and the closure of dozens of lab collection sites. Now, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, which represents laboratory technologists, has studied the proposed changes and has come up with several recommendations. What has the Minister of Health done to ensure that the issues raised by the Health Sciences Association, including conflict of interest, quality of care, patient access, have been addressed and will continue to be addressed by the regional health authorities? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure that I have received those recommendations from the Health Sciences Association, but certainly I'll check, and if I have or when I do, I'll review them very carefully. However, I would expect that the Health Sciences Association have most properly presented their findings and their concerns to the regional health authorities, who are the groups that are responsible for delivering the lab program in this province. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SAPERS: Y es. The reports were produced months ago, and I tabled them earlier today, so the minister will have a chance to look at them.

I'm wondering if it's all right with the Minister of Health that as a result of lab closures right around the province wealthy Albertans may be able to pay to have specimens collected at their physician's office while everyone who can't afford it will have to make their way to one of the few remaining collection sites and then wait in line to have the tests done. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure exactly what the question was. It seemed to me that it was far more of a statement than a question. Let me say, Mr.

Speaker, that we had a difficult decision to make in restructuring laboratories in this province. We have a lab system that was partly private and partly in the public sector, and unfortunately there was a great inefficiency in both sectors, so the decision was to restructure to ensure that we're using our lab facilities most efficiently. It is interesting to see that the city of Edmonton, with some 600,000-plus people in the community, had about 120 collection sites. The city of Vancouver, who have 2 and a half billion people, did not have any more than that, Mr. Speaker.

It seemed very obvious to me that if a city of the size of Vancouver could accommodate less collection sites than we have here currently, surely we could come down somewhat. I think the hon. member would well address the concern of ensuring that we have an efficient, an effective, and a high-quality lab system in this city and in this province, and that is what the regional health authori- ties are addressing as they restructure how we deliver lab services. MR. SAPERS: I hope this question will be clear to the Minister of Health.

Will the minister explain exactly how patients will receive the same quality of care that they have been receiving in cities like Calgary, in Alberta, with only half the current number of lab techs working in about one-third of the sites? How is that going to work? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, it's going to work by making the system far more efficient. It isn't very efficient to have half of the sites operating at 50 percent efficiency. The people in this province deserve better value for their tax dollar than that.

I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the dollars that the people in this province entrust to us are spent in an effective manner, and that is not by promoting inefficiency. However, what we should promote is quality, and quality doesn't come with the number of collection sites. It comes with quality workers and a quality system. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Heritage Savings Trust Fund MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Provincial Treasurer.

A number of MLAs in this Assembly have the stated goal of selling off $6.4 billion of the heritage trust fund assets for a number of reasons, including to f und core programs on a need defined basis. Given the advice of Albertans to keep the fund, what steps will the Treasurer take to protect the fund from these pilfering attempts by some members? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will acknowledge my resistance to the temptation to respond to that.

I would respond, first of all, by acknowledging the efforts of the committee that reviewed the Alberta heritage savings trust fund and tabled in this Assembly this afternoon the Future Directions for Alberta's Heritage Fund, chaired by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West, also with membership from Red Deer-South, the Member for Calgary-East, the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, and even the Member for Edmonton- Whitemud. I think they've done an exemplary job in listening to Albertans, Mr. Speaker.

Having briefly now read the report, I would remind hon. members of the five important principles that Albertans told the committee to stick with. 1. The Fund should be retained, but not at the status quo. 2. The management of the Fund should be at arms length from the political process. 3. Private sector investment managers should be involved in investment decision making, along with Alberta Treasury staff. 4. The Fund should be more transparent; the Fund's managers should be more directly accountable to the people of Alberta. 5. The role of government is to set objectives for the Fund. Mr.

Speaker, I think the advice of well over 50,000 Albertans in the process is advice that we as members of this Assembly

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 859 should heed, and I look forward to having the kind of debate that will protect Albertans from the very concerns raised by the Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With some members in the Assembly calling for a stabilization fund to replace the heritage f und, could the Treasurer comment on the impact of such a move? MR. DINNING: Y es, I could. I would simply say that establish- ing a stabilization fund is merely a smoke screen for the liquida- tion of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund.

It's clearly something that Albertans told this government, told the committee not to do, Mr. Speaker. Over time our concern would be that the stabilization fund would be drawn down such that all of the assets formerly of the heritage fund would be drawn down and sold to pay for overspending, and all the while, on a consolidated basis, the government would be running a deficit.

The Deficit Elimina- tion Act, agreed to unanimously by all members of this Assembly in May of 1993, and more recently second reading of Bill 6, the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act, make any deficit of any kind after 1995-96 illegal, and clearly this Assembly will not operate illegally. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you. To the Treasurer: is the establishment of a stabilization fund for these purposes consistent with the government's commitment to open and understandable accounting? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely not.

It is entirely inconsistent with what this government is trying to do in establishing one set of books, not having things mystically and magically off to the side. I must admit that I was a bit concerned when I heard some members of this Assembly calling for the stabilization fund, so I wrote to the Auditor General. I'm filing in the Assembly today the response from the Auditor General, where he made it clear that the idea of a stabilization fund runs counter to the move to fully consolidated reporting.

I believe that the government and the public must continue to focus on the Province's consolidated position . . . Therefore, I encourage you to avoid the establish- ment of a stabilization fund and the resulting confusion it could create with the public. Clearly, our view is that the government will stand its ground against the liquidation of the heritage fund. That is what Alber- tans told us to avoid doing, and certainly the creation of a stabilization fund is merely a disguise for doing just that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Roper. 2:20 Internet MR. CHADI: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Computer technology is advancing at an amazing rate and giving Albertans access to new information, services, ideas, and entertainment. Alarmingly, among all the valuable programs available on the Internet, we hear increasingly of programs involving pornography, hate propaganda, and now Internet gambling. We can regulate and protect Albertans when these products are delivered in a tangible form, but it's difficult to restrict the free flow of information over the Internet.

My question is to the minister responsible for consumer protection, whoever that may be: what steps have you taken to regulate the programs available over the Internet? MR. DINNING: I would happily take the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he would report back to the Assembly. MR. CHADI: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister responsible for lotteries: will the minister commit to all Albertans that he will not allow any company offering Internet gambling to establish itself here in Alberta? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I don't usually answer hypothetical questions.

That is another discussion that would have to take place with our legal people and everything else as to what constitutes our airwaves and networks outside the province and their legal application in the province. So under the existing laws today I can assure you that my attitude would be no, but I am not aware of the legal ramifications of somebody standing outside and using telephone lines to sell services, no more than I see some of the dial-in things that you can get through the newspapers today in this province. MR. CHADI: Mr.

Speaker, my next question would be to the minister responsible for science and research. Would the minister undertake to make it part of her authority's mandate to develop a policy with respect to consumer protection from harmful programs available on the Internet? MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is with regard to research, and if this is part of our research project, certainly we would take on that responsibility. Health Facility Construction MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Mr. Speaker, the Capital health authority recently announced dramatic changes to health care in and around Edmonton.

Contingent on these changes are capital dollars that must be spent to move programs such as ophthalmology from the Charles Camsell hospital to the Royal Alexandra hospital and an upgrade of the emergency unit at the University of Alberta hospital. To round out the complement of community health centres, I understand a new one is to be built in northeast Edmonton. My questions are all to the hon. Minister of Health. What is the total cost of the three aforementioned capital projects in Edmonton? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there is consideration by the Capital health authority for a number of capital projects.

The three that I picked up that the member identified would be in a range of about $16 million. However, there are some other projects that are involved in the Capital health authority's plan. So I may not be entirely exact on that figure, but that's about what those three projects would be. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be more cost-effective to move ophthalmology surgery to the Grey Nuns hospital, where fewer renovations are required?

860 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the details that the authorities across this province have been doing over the past months is looking at ways to more efficiently deliver programs and services.

Certainly in the two major centres that have a responsibility not only to serve their communities but in many cases all of Alberta or in Edmonton's case, northern Alberta, the western Arctic, and northeastern B.C., there has been a great deal of work done on consolidation of programs so that they could ensure that they truly had centres of excellence in some of these very highly specialized areas.

It was considered, I believe, by the Capital health authority that it would be far better to have the ophthalmology area in one of the referral hospitals of which there are three: the Royal Alexandra, the University hospital, and the Glenrose. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. Y ANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is: could the old Belmont Correctional Centre building in northeast Edmonton not be renovated to become a community health centre more cost-effectively than building a new facility? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there has not been a decision made on the building.

The Belmont facility was considered; it was looked at. However, in that assessment the Capital health authority are looking at a number of possible buildings. When you look at the development of the community health centre, it has to be a building that can handle public health, some emer- gency and urgent care services. It is quite a complexity of services that will be offered there. So the Capital health authority are viewing all sites or buildings that might be available or plans for a building with those programs in mind, and I think that's the decision that it will be made on. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. Social Assistance MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The steady erosion of supports for families on welfare continues. We have heard that effective April 1 the department will no longer pay child care expenses for a parent on assistance who is actively looking for work or for a parent with a temporary medical problem in need of respite. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Mr. Minister, how do you expect a parent on welfare to actively search for work if they don't have proper child care? Y ou'd have them in a catch-22.

Or do you expect them to take their children with them to the interview? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the particular issue is an issue that we've changed some policies on, because the way it was set up before, a person could look for a job forever and continue receiving subsidies. What we've done to speed up the process of getting people back into training and job opportunities is to set a time line as to how long that person would be eligible for those subsidies while they are looking for a job. If they are unhappy with the changes, there's always the appeals process to go through, and it's still there.

That hasn't changed. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MS HANSON: Thank you. The supplemental is: would the minister tell the House how long that time line is, please? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I think a reasonable time line to start with would be around two months, and then of course, like I say, there is an appeals process. At the same time, the manager of an office can provide additional dollars if there is a requirement. So we do have all the safety backups required to assist people to get back into the workforce.

That is our top priority, to assist people to get back either through training or direct placement in employment opportunities, and we will continue doing that. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MS HANSON: Thank you. My final supplemental to the minister: will the minister assure us, then, Alberta families and children on welfare, that he will not totally take away the funding for child care for parents either looking for work or who are temporarily ill and need respite? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, you know, I've answered that question a number of times in this House.

There is nothing in our policies that will take away any f unding from those particular people. We are in fact in the next two years, like we've done in the past, putting close to $100 million in those particular areas to provide the supports that are required to move people from being on social assistance to employment and training. This program will continue. That is our plan in this government. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Health Care Funding MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The restructuring in health care has caused I th ink every MLA, certainly on this side of the House, to get closer to the physicians in their area, and I certainly have a series of ongoing meetings with physicians. My questions are to the Minister of Health. There are a number of concerns being brought to us by physicians across the province about the loss of their independence as regional health authorities and their nonphysician managers take over resource allocation decisions.

To the Minister of Health: is the government planning to move all physician funding under regional health authorities as they have done with laboratory funding? 2:30 MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan to move any further resources of physician funding to the regional health authorities. However, I would say that there are a number of discussions occurring with the Alberta Medical Association, who act on behalf of physicians in the province, as to the appropriate methods of funding physicians and physicians' services. Also, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that in a number of regions there may be discussions occurring between physicians and the regional health authorities in those areas to discuss how resources are utilized. We do have a mechanism for change of how we deal with physician payments and physician resources. That is through the Administrative Council, and that would be the system that we would work through. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. There have been reports of putting a cap of $200,000 per annum on a physician's income. Is the government

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 861 planning to implement a capitation model for the funding of physician services? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I've said before in the House and I'll say it again: I respect the negotiation process that we have in place with the AMA on physician agreements. However, I am concerned about a report that was around on capping physicians' salaries at $200,000. I can tell you that there is no proposal to cap individual physician's salaries.

However, I think that when the discussion occurs around capping or capita- tion, we have to understand that there is a difference in those two terms and a difference of understanding. Sometimes reporting can go awry. However, again as I say, I very much respect the negotiation process, and I believe that those negotiations on any subject of physician payment should occur at that area. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, is the minister developing negotiation processes similar to the current process with the Alberta Medical Association with other practitioners, such as midwives? MRS.

McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly there have been discussions on funding issues with the Association of Midwives. One thing I can say is that there has never been any suggestion that we would move midwifery payment under the fee-for-service area, but those discussions on funding must continue with the Association of Midwives. I believe that we had a commitment to a decision in that area some time this summer. head: Members' Statements Trade Mission to Texas MR. LANGEVIN: Mr. Speaker, I love my country and I love this province. I believe that this is the best place in the world to live.

We are blessed in Alberta with a democracy which is the envy of many countries. At every election Albertans have the opportunity to go to the polls and decide for themselves who will govern this province for the next term. We've had in the past and we have today in this Legislature MLAs of different political stripes, who are here to articulate on behalf of their constituents their vision, aspirations, and expecta- tions. We often have on the floor of this House some very passionate, forceful, and colorful debates, but, Mr. Speaker, I get very concerned when we take our debates to the international scene.

Whenever the Premier of this province leaves the capital city to travel on a trade mission to promote our province, attract investors, and create jobs, we should be seen as united. The stunts that some members of the Official Opposition pulled last week were disgraceful and tasteless. It was political partisan- ship at its best or, should I say, at its worst. Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for those of the Official Opposition who were not part of the decision. Unfortunately, they are all painted with the same brush.

I cannot understand for the life of me why some members of this Legislature would undertake an exercise to undermine the well-being of this province and of all Albertans. This is not acceptable, and I hope it will never be repeated. I don't know what they thought they had to gain, but little do they know that there are no votes in Houston for them. They may also be surprised at the next provincial election at the number of votes for them or the lack thereof. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mount Royal College MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To succeed and prosper in the global economic order, we must be able to work not only in our province or in our country but anywhere in the world. This international perspective promises much and offers to the province and the people of Alberta a great future. Mount Royal College in Calgary is taking a leadership role in preparing people for international challenges. In particular, the college is forging links with Mexico and developing relationships that will offer economic advantages and also enhance Alberta's interna- tional profile.

In January the college was one of only six Canadian institutions accepted into the international consortium for ec onomic and educational development. This trilateral consortium will result in new partnerships with instituti ons in the United States and Mexico. More immediately, in one month's time a group of 30 science teachers from the National Aut onomous University of Mexico, Mexico's principal public university system, will be in Calgary. Spearheaded by Mount Royal College, this project will help train science teachers in Mexico's high schools.

This is the first time in Alberta that a consortium of Calgary postsecondary and secondary institutions has worked together on a partnership of this nature. It is expected to bring about $500,000 into the Alberta economy. This consortium includes SAIT, A VC Calgary, and the two Calgary boards of education, the public and the separate. Mount Royal College is also working with the Monterrey Institute of Technology, one of the largest private university systems in Mexico. Last year 80 students and six teachers participated in summer study tours at Mount Royal College.

This was the first time in Canada for this consortium and over six weeks brought another $500,000 into the economy. This program will return to Calgary this summer. Mount Royal College has also proposed to be the first Canadian site for a year abroad component of this bilingual preparatory program and has signed a formal faculty and student exchange agreement. I'd like to bring this information in front of the House and share the success of Mount Royal College and this great endeavour with respect to the economics and advantages of education in Alberta with this Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Heritage Savings Trust Fund DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was my privilege to serve on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Review Committee. It was an all-party committee. I found that it was a remarkable way both to break the bonds of partisanship and also to come to a common understanding of what individuals were saying about a particular issue. I know from talking to my colleagues who served on the all-party freedom of information committee that they had a similar experience. It was equivalent to the free vote.

Y ou could discuss issues, and you could work together for a common goal. I must tell you that having seen the report, having gone through the report, I think it's a very fair representation of what we heard on the road and certainly from the brochures that I sampled, because there were too many to look at individually. It's a very

862 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 fair representation in terms of capsulizing the competing objec- tives that individual Albertans had with regards to the fund. I would just note three things. I think that all-party panels work. I think that when you solicit the views of Albertans, you will get a good set of views that are rational, that are dispassion- ate, and that give you a good idea of what the issues are and how they should be dealt with.

I certainly think the message I got from that in terms of what the perceived role of the fund is in the future is that it is a tool to be used in the best interests of Albertans, to be at arm's length from political processes, and to be run in a way that benefits all Albertans. So I would just like to say that it was a good idea, and I think it worked well. 2:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West has given notice that he wishes to raise a point of order. Point of Order Parliamentary Language MR. BRUSEKER: Y es, Mr. Speaker.

In the diatribe which he referred to as a supplementary answer to the question posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Government House Leader used the term I think twice: false statements. Now, that's been referred to in Beauchesne 489, 490, 491, but I'd like in particular to turn to Beauchesne 494. Now, the Leader of the Official Opposition quoted statistics from a paper ent itled, Road K ill: Women in Alberta's Drive Toward Deficit Elimination, showing the job loss for men in the Alberta union of public employees to be only 1,700 compared to 2,939 for females.

Now, the member opposite has been here long enough that he should know how to make his point without using language that has been unacceptable to this House for some time. I noted you called, "Order" a couple of times during that particular sp eech by the member opposite. I want to return particularly to Beauchesne 494: It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temper- ately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts.

But I want to highlight the next section, Mr. Speaker. No imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident. Now, the member opposite rose with a different set of statistics that he claimed were correct and claimed that the others that were offered by the Leader of the Opposition were false statements. That type of language should not be accepted in this House. I rise today because it has been repeatedly used by this member.

Y ou have raised concerns about it in the past, and I would urge you to be more stringent in calling members to task for using language that's inappropriate. MR. DA Y: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry you have to be pained with this again. My use of the word "false" was very deliberate and very intentional and was by no means an accident. It's unfortunate that the member opposite – and I feel a little badly for him because as I was speaking, he was being goaded by his leader to get to his feet and protect his very shallow attack. So I do feel badly for him there. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Calgary-North West, the Opposition House Leader, is well aware, though he didn't quote it, of

section 490 of Beauchesne, which says that "since 1958" – let's see, that's almost 40 years, a generation – "it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions," and the word "false" is there with a number of references, and the word "falsehoods." Now, if information can be declared and stated as being false – as far as imputing any motives, I'll leave that up to the audience both here and in the broader electorate to see if indeed there was an intention to impugn motives. Mr.

Speaker, again – and I referred to this last week – there is not just a tendency but an outright practice by members of the opposition to get up with information that is inflammatory, to use words as we heard last week, like "coward" and others, in the preface of their questions, to be highly inflammatory in their approach. They know that it doesn't matter if it gets ruled out of order later in a point of order because as we l ook around, nobody's sitting in the galleries in terms of the media, the cameras are off, and they don't have to worry about being exposed.

Now, they were exposed quite brutally last week, and it took foreign media to do it. Again, it's a tactic that is specifically planned to try and get a negative sense out to the public. The plan itself doesn't work, as we've seen in poll after poll. They're getting increasingly desperate. But, Mr. Speaker, the consequence of that type of approach as used by the opposition leader today does demean the entire process. It does work; it does get us upset when the information is false. We get upset, and of course we dispute it. The Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar just sits and laughs.

I would think that the Woman of the Y ear would be a little more sensitive to that type of approach. As I conclude my remarks, I'll say that it's a planned tactic. It's something that we see in other jurisdictions. It's a negative attack tactic. Like a drowning person, swinging wildly they hope to attract a little bit of attention as they continue to go down. Mr.

Speaker, I used the word "false," and I was not just reflecting on the statistics but on the entire approach of the Leader of the Opposition, who was indicating and trying to get a false message out to the public that the policies of this government are an attack on women and associating them with something called Road Kill. That is absolutely, one hundred percent false. THE SPEAKER: Well, we've moved from "misleading" to "false." The Chair has not ruled "misleading" as an unparliamen- tary word. The Chair is not going to rule "false" as an unparlia- mentary word.

As has been pointed out, the word "false" appears under both categories: parliamentary and unparliamentary. This just points out the circumstances and the manner in which a word is used. The Chair would have absolutely no difficulty with the hon. Government House Leader's use of the word "false" in its original use, but what bothers the Chair to some extent is the continued use within a very short period of time.

That just changes the environment for the use of the word, and that's the whole criterion of what makes a word parliamentary or unparlia- mentary – that is, the environment in which it is used – for most of the words that have caused interventions from the Chair. Some words are absolutely unparliamentary, like "lying." No matter what the environment is, those are unparliamentary. But for other words that are found under both categories, the environment is important: how they're used and whether the way they are used is likely to lead to disorder and disruption in the House.

So the Chair is not going to rule that the word is unparliamen- tary. The Chair would just urge hon. members that perhaps the same message could be gotten across without using a word that is likely to cause the necessity for the Chair to intervene. Each side

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 863 has had the opportunity of further elaborating on what was meant by the use of this word, and the Chair is going to say that the matter is closed. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 205 Debt Retirement Act THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 205, the Debt Retirement Act, is a private member's Bill, and as such it is restricted from having many of the elements that you would expect with a Bill dealing with debt management. It reads very much as though it were a

schedule of payments on the principal of the debt, and that it what it is. It is so because as all members are aware, private member's Bills cannot deal specifically with money issues. So to understand the motivation of the Bill, you have to assess some of the elements that lie behind it. The one principle that lies behind the Bill, Mr. Speaker is that it starts out with a higher value of net debt than the Bill that has been brought in by the government, which starts with the net debt at $8 billion. This places it at around $16.8 billion.

That accounts for why the payment scheme appears to be more onerous than that of the provincial government: because it in fact starts with a higher net debt. It also tends to be front ended in terms of the pay-down, because that then will generate higher savings in terms of funds that are available for core programs in health care, education, et cetera. So that's one difference. 2:50 Another difference is that because the payments on the principal are high, as hon. members alluded to earlier in the day, it also discusses linkages to use of the heritage savings trust fund.

That was made explicit by other members across the way. The point there was that in those instances where it appears that the fund in terms of rates of return is earning less than the average cost of servicing our debt, there's a really clear payoff to using those funds and paying down the debt. Hon. members will say, "Is that inconsistent with what in fact members of the heritage savings trust fund review panel heard?" My argument would be: not really, because what I heard as a member of that panel from many Albertans is that the fund should be used in a prudent way.

Many Albertans in discussing whether or not to keep the fund would always comment on the data provided in the brochure. The brochure was very clear in saying that the average return on the fund exceeded the average cost of servicing our debt. While that may be true, it is also true that certain portions of the fund, especially those portions in the short end of the market, the cash and marketable securities division, do earn less than the cost of our debt.

Now, we face a peculiar problem that no other province in this country f aces, and that is that 46 percent of our debt will be maturing over the next three years. That of course is a significant problem because the outlook for interest rates is, to put in mildly, highly volatile. As it presently stands, Mr. Speaker, Alberta pays about 30 points above the rate charged Canada for borrowing. How much Canada will have to pay on its subsequent debt borrowing depends very much on two issues over which the province of Alberta has absolutely no control.

The first is what happens in the Quebec referendum when that is held. There will be periods of uncertainty related to that. Fiscal integrity is always translated then into uncertainty in the capital markets, and since the cost at which Canada borrows unfortunately sets a benchmark from which the province must borrow, you're looking at the Canada rate plus about 30 points. That outlook is highly volatile. As I say, since we have to borrow over 46 percent of the unmatured debt over the next three years, trying to pay that down or in some way address it I think is prudent. The second issue, Mr.

Speaker, that leads to volatility in that market is of course the ability of the federal government to meet its deficit reduction goals, the first goal being the 3 percent of GDP, and then at some point setting targets for the elimination of the deficit. The latter has not been done, but financial markets seem to suggest that the budget this year is a reasonable, good first step to ensuring that the 3 percent of GDP is met.

However, a very significant share of the federal government's debt is held abroad, and because it is held abroad, that puts Canadian capital markets and the cost at which we borrow in some jeopardy. Any uncertainty there means that for our foreign borrowings we'll in fact have to pay a premium. So it makes some sense now, because of the highly uncertain international market for Canadian debt, to try and address that sooner and, as I say, because of issues related to federal debt and issues related to uncertainty related to the referendum. These two features are unique, but unfortunately they fall precisely, Mr.

Speaker, at a period when the province has to refinance 46 percent of the outstanding debt. I think that makes it unique from the prospec- tive of prudent financial management in the province. So two issues, one of which is: I think there is potentially a role, if it makes economic sense and only if it makes economic sense, if in fact the returns on assets held by the fund pay less than the cost of servicing our debt. As I say, I don't find that inconsistent with anything I heard on the road in light of what Albertans said.

Y ou wouldn't in fact ever sell off any asset and cash it in if it was paying more than the intended use. The other issue that is important and what this Bill attempts to do. One of the reasons it has such a focus on higher net debt is because of the concern that the s ooner we pay down foreign- denominated debt, the better off we will be, because it reduces our exposure in terms of exchange rate volatility and of course interest rate volatility. So those are a number of factors, then, that lead the payment

schedule that is set out in this private member's Bill to be so high: because of concerns a bout unique factors that face us now and face no other province. I daresay that when the Alberta govern- ment has to go into the market s over the next three years to borrow, it is a highly uncertain environment. Even the gross borrowing requirements this year – and I'm now approximating this – I think are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 and a half billion dollars.

That is a significant about of money, and those gross borrowing requirements reflect both the need to refinance debt that is coming due plus the anticipated $500 million deficit that is forecast for the coming year. This private member's Bill attempts, then, to do so. Again, not to anticipate some arguments that may come from members on the other side, but it is a private member's Bill, and because of that it ca nnot go into the same detail that, for example, a Bill like Bill 8 does. It is a money Bill and therefore a government Bill.

Now, one issue I would bring up in this context concerns in fact the use of the heritage savings trust fund. I note that in reference

864 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 to a question that was asked by the hon. Member for Innisfail- Sylvan Lake about the uses of the fund, the term "pilfering" was used. I know that was used in jest, because, after all, that would imply an absence of diligence on the part of the heritage savings trust fund review committee and the Auditor General and the Treasurer. So I know that was used in jest. But an important issue is raised, and that is: what is the use of the fund? This relates again to this payment schedule. The hon.

Provincial Treasurer highlighted very clearly that under Bill 8 any effort to liquidate any of the assets of the fund is viewed then as a rundown of assets. Now, if you ask yourself: well, what does that mean? It means, then, that we have a rainy day fund – and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many individuals did refer to the heritage savings trust fund as a rainy day fund – that we can't actually use when it rains because if you do, on a consolidated account a deficit will emerge. So we will have a savings acc ount, a contingency fund, a rainy day fund that you can only use when it doesn't rain.

Then if you're running a surplus, you can run down the asset there, and it won't generate a deficit that would be inconsistent with the provisions of another Bill that is on the table. 3:00 So there's a peculiarity there, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the uses of the fund.

This is why this Bill, in terms of background material that is in support of the Bill, suggests that when it makes prudent financial sense, one would look at some of the assets of the fund, particularly those that were earning less than the cost of servicing your debt and particularly in light of the unique features that face us in the next year or two, in light of the overall uncertainty, concerns then about the cost of borrowing and the fact that 46 percent of our debt comes due.

So I think some of the issues th at are raised in this Bill are worthy of debate, and I think the Bill does indicate very much a shared commitment by parties on both sides of this House to ensuring an orderly liquidation of the debt and the elimination of the deficit. What differs between hon. members in this House is only the how, not the why. I think it is a legitimate debate to engage in.

For the purpose of some hon. members who have just returned, I would say again that this Bill does see a role for the heritage savings trust fund, though the Bill – in fact, I daresay the Speaker could almost rule me out on relevance on this because the heritage savings trust fund isn't explic itly mentioned in the private member's Bill because, again, of constraints of construction of a private member's Bill compared to a government Bill.

This does envisage then when there is a specific fiscal issue, as in so much of our debt maturing when international capital markets are so volatile, that there is perhaps a role when assets, particularly on the cash side, aren't earning what it will cost us to refinance that debt. Again I will pose the conundrum for the hon. Provincial Treasurer: what is the use of a rainy day fund if you can never use it when it rains? That is, you know, one of the peculiarities of the debt retirement and deficit Bill. Let me just reiterate what this Bill's core features are.

It starts off with a higher level of net debt, and inclusive of that higher net debt is the unfunded pension liability. That is there b ecause we think the debt owed Albertans has first claim on resources. It is the government's share of that unfunded liability, not the employ- ees'. We see the provincial government paying down its share faster but leaving the obligations of the employees intact, again subject to whatever legislative consequential amendments would be required in the various public sector pension acts to ensure that.

It also has a higher level of net debt because we think, as does the government, that the faster you can pay down the debt, the more funds are available for core programs. Where we differ with the government is that any Bill called a debt retirement Bill that leaves $25 billion outstanding at the end of the day is a tad short of being a debt retirement Bill. Again to use the analogy that has often been used by the Provincial Treasurer, if this Bill is sort of the homespun equivalent of paying down one's mortgage, you generally have to pay down the whole mortgage before you get title.

Paying down one-third, unless he shops at a different bank than I do, means that you get no title. So I would suggest then that paying down a larger share of the net debt makes sense. Now, one of the issues that might arise is unfunded liabilities. There then my reply is: if not unfunded liabilities, make it $16 billion in gross unmatured debt. The real issue is e xposure in capital markets at a period when we're facing, I think, more unsettled capital markets than we ever have had.

I think this is a consequence of successive federal governments having borrowed abroad to such an extent that we are now vulnerable to interna- tional capital flows. Because we are now vulnerable, I think we ought to work as quickly as possible to try and eliminate as much debt as possible, particularly that debt which is externally held because that's where the vulnerability arises. Y ou only have to look, Mr. Speaker, to the Dirty Thirties and the effect that having fixed debt obligations had on Alberta farmers, on the Alberta government, when capital markets were highly unstable.

It is in fact debt, and debt payments are the first obligation of government. They're the first obligation of any individual. They are the first claim on our resources, those interest payments. The more we can work collectively to reduce the volume of those debt payments the better collectively we all are. So this Bill, then, in a sense, I would view as constructive and complementary to what the government envisages in terms of trying to eliminate a larger share of the net debt. This Bill differs from others that are on the Order Paper in that it doesn't deal with issues of a balanced budget.

Those issues in fact ought to be debated with regard to Bill 8. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I will close on this Bill. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge . . . MR. DUNFORD: West. THE SPEAKER: Lethbridge-West. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last time there was hesitation about where I was from I said, "West is best." I want you to know that I heard from all kinds of Lethbridgites indicating to me that . . . MR. PASZKOWSKI: They agreed? MR. DUNFORD: Well, no. The ones that phoned me didn't agree. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Why? MR.

DUNFORD: Well, they thought that the east was pretty good too. MR. PASZKOWSKI: The west is served best, though.

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 865 MR. DUNFORD: Speaking of serving best, I wanted to open my remarks by digressing just a minute from Bill 205 to publicly express my appreciation of the Member for Edmonton- Whitemud's activity on our heritage savings trust fund review committee. I thought he was a very valuable member, and I want him to know that I appreciate that very much. Notwithstanding any of the above, here comes the "but." Mr.

Speaker, in speaking about Bill 205, I wanted to say that debt retirement is certainly an important topic, and I'm glad to see that the opposition understands just how important it is to reduce the debt. I want to say very strongly, if I can, that we must reduce the debt not just for ourselves and not just because it might be politically popular. We must reduce the debt for future genera- tions. We simply cannot pass on a legacy of debt to our children and our grandchildren. We must act now. That's why I'm so glad to see that the Liberal finance critic acknowledges the importance.

But as we can see, Bill 6, presented by the Provin- cial Treasurer, is a far superior Bill. When you compare the two Bills, Bill 205 falls short of being a good plan for debt retirement. One key element of Bill 205 which is faulted by this speaker is the fact that the definition of net debt does not exclude pension liabilities. Mr. Speaker, we already have a plan to reduce unfunded pension liabilities. This Bill would have us unilaterally eliminate the plan to reduce unfunded pension liabilities and put these liabilities in the same basket as the debt, and this is not necessary.

In 1993 the Public Sector Pension Plans Act was passed, which would see unfunded pension liabilities reduced over the next 50 years. After a long negotiation process the government was able to come to an agreement with all involved parties regarding pension plans. The inclusion of pension liabilities in the debt elimination plan of Bill 205 seems strange to me. In May of 1993 the Liberal opposition agreed to the plan. On May 1 1, 1993, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark said of the plan to eliminate unfunded pension liabilities over 50 years, and I quote from Hansard: "Mr.

Speaker, we support this Bill." We now have a member of that same caucus bringing forward a Bill less than two years later that is now wanting to see that pension liability agreement scrapped. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a change in the amortization rates for unfunded pension liabilities to a 24-year period would be very costly to the government as well as to pension recipients. Municipal employees, teachers, and others would be hurt by this plan. In short, Bill 205 is not good for teachers, and it's not good for other recipients.

It's not good for the government, and it's not good for Albertans. 3:10 I find other things wrong with Bill 205. If this Bill were passed, the flexibility given to the government would be enor- mous. Bill 6, on the other hand, constrains this government and future governments from veering off the path of fiscal responsibil- ity. Generally speaking, Bill 205 isn't too bad a Bill. It has a reasonable time frame set out and allows for monitoring of government progress on debt retirement. But the Treasurer's Bill, Bill 6, goes so much further.

The key part of Bill 6, for me, is that it compels the government to stay the course of fiscal management. The limits will be placed upon the government to continue on its battle against the debt. As I said before, that is very important to all of us. By locking these limits in place now, we can rest assured that we will not have to worry about future governments living beyond their means or becoming lax about debt reduction. It allows the government to say no to interest groups which may want provincial money. All in all, Bill 6, unlike Bill 205, is a solid, comprehensive plan for Alberta's future.

First off, the Treasurer's Bill will outlaw any deficit budget. Every year after 1995-96 must have a balanced budget. We already know that this government is serious about fiscal responsi- bility, but future governments may not be. That is why Bill 6, unlike Bill 205, is so innovative. Another important element is that Bill 6, unlike Bill 205, requires that government use all of the surplus funds in a given year to reduce net debt. In other words, surplus funds cannot be used by the government to spend up a storm come election time.

The government of the day must stay the course of fiscal responsibility and let voters decide on the government's record. This gives further assurances to taxpayers about the fiscal responsibility of this and future governments. That is what the people of this province want, Mr. Speaker. Albertans want and deserve responsible government. They need an insurance policy on future governments, but if we pass Bill 205, that insurance policy is not there. I sleep much better at night knowing that my house, car, and other valued possessions are protected from possible unforeseen events, and Bill 6 is the same thing.

Bill 205 is not. If a tax-and- spend government gets into office in this province, their actions will be restrained by the legislation contained in Bill 6 as opposed to Bill 205. The people of Alberta will be able to rest a little easier at night knowing that they don't have to worry about a government like the one in Ottawa, by the way, freely spending their money. The markets will pos itively respond to B ill 6 as well. Bill 205 does nothing to reduce the fears of the markets or the fears of Albertans. Bill 6 is like an insurance policy from a reputable insurance company. Bill 205 is not.

It's not just the insurance that is great in Bill 6, unlike Bill 205. It's knowing that there's a well-thought-out plan that will be laid out in legislation as well as periodic checks put in place for monitoring progress. Bill 6 forces the government to pay down 20 percent of the net debt every five years, no exceptions, no excuses. The five-year milestones pay the net debt off quickly enough that the interest savings will accrue to the taxpayers. The milestones will allow for fluctuations in the business cycle.

So if there is a good year for revenues, the government can pay down the net debt quicker than anticipated, but if revenues happen to be lower in one year, the government won't be forced into making a huge payment toward the net debt. Only the five-year milestone has to be met. Now, this makes good sense, Mr. Speaker. It's like paying off your loans. If you earn more money in one year, you can use it to pay more of the loan off. If the year wasn't so hot, you make the minimum payment. Bill 6 allows for this flexibility; Bill 205 does not.

Bill 6 makes good economic sense, and while Bill 205 does make economic sense, Bill 6 is stronger. Revenue shocks are also lessened with Bill 6. Budget estimates will be required to use conservative forecasts of revenue from corporate tax and nonrenewable resources. This is a great improvement over the forecast done only a few years ago. By using these conservative forecasts of revenue, the government can be better cushioned against revenue shocks, revenue shocks that could otherwise endanger the debt retirement plan or funding for services such as health or education.

By showing financial markets that we're serious about debt reduction, this enhances the Alberta advantage, Mr. Speaker. We cannot show that commitment with Bill 205. Fortunately, we can continue the course of fiscal responsibility with Bill 6. That Bill does something that no other Bill or legislation in Canada does: it makes a commitment to the taxpayers of Alberta. Saskatchewan

866 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 and New Brunswick have balanced their budgets, and they need to be applauded. But their New Democrat and their Liberal governments have not shown their commitment to taxpayers like the government of Alberta. Bill 6 lays out a plan unlike any other. While other governments, such as the Liberal New Brunswick government, make promises to pay down the debt, they have no legislative plan, nor do they have any plans to legislate debt retirement. Their commitment to taxpayers is absent.

On the other hand, the government of Alberta has a plan and remains committed to the taxpayers of this province, and passing Bill 205 gives up on that commitment. To me, Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to pass Bill 205 when we have a far superior Bill to consider. While Bill 205 has some merit, it is clear that the Treasurer's Bill is far better. Bill 205 is enabling legislation only. So for the meat on the bones or the specifics that would have to be added, we would need to either pass additional legislation or leave it up to the government to be fiscally responsible.

I think we can trust this government to be responsible, but what about other future governments? Hoping that they will be responsible is not enough. We must enact legislation with concrete solutions to the debt problem and do it now. Unfortunately, passing Bill 205 does not give us those solutions, but Bill 6 does. Mr. Speaker, Bill 6 has all the necessary elements for an effective debt retirement plan and gives assurances to Albertans about the fiscal responsibility of this and future governments. Unfortunately, Bill 205 does not.

It would be foolish to think otherwise, and I encourage all members of this Assembly to vote against Bill 205. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support Bill 205, which is on the Order Paper in my colleague's name, the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, and it's the Debt Retirement Act. First, I want to cover some of the points covered by my colleague from Lethbridge-West. As of today, I'm sure he's aware, there are five provincial governments in Canada that have now balanced their budgets, so it's far from an incredible feat.

It's something that we would expect in today's difficult financial times. 3:20 The Member for Lethbridge-West went on to some of the faults of Bill 205. Some of the faults of Bill 205 were that the definition of net debt didn't exclude unfunded pension liabilities. Well, Mr. Speaker, what this Bill is trying to do is put Albertans up front with foreign creditors, not behind them, because we believe at least that they must be considered equals when they extend some finances to the provincial government.

The Member for Lethbridge-West went on to say that this exclusion of these pension liabilities would someho w hurt teachers and others, but I'm not sure. He didn't go on to explain how it would hurt them. In fact, I'm sure they would be pleased if the unfunded pension liabilities were to be renegotiated as part of a shorter time period for repayment.

He went on to say that, generally speaking, it's not too bad a Bill – and that was a positive statement – but he said that Bill 6 would go further and deal with the debt in a much better way, that it would deal with somehow greater accountability and responsibil- ity to Albertans. But at the end of the day, when this amortiza- tion period is done and the course of Bill 6 is run, Albertans are still saddled with $27 billion worth of debt, and somehow that's not something that's included in this debt retirement Act, Bill 6, that is being defended.

Then the Member for Lethbridge-West went on to say that God forbid there should ever again be a tax-and-spend government, that such a government would ever get into office in Alberta. Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, I agree; we do need some legislation to protect Albertans from such a government ever returning to power, because here in Alberta we've had a Conservative government, many of whom remain as cabinet ministers, which over a period of nine different budgets accumulated $32 billion worth of debt.

So it's appropriate that we should have some form of protection there from this tax-and-spend government, the regimes we had in the past that brought us this. Interestingly enough, they were under the Conservative brand. So it wasn't a tax-and-spend Liberal brand; it was a Conservative brand that brought us this spending. The other point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member for Lethbridge-West said that the government should be responsible. I agree. Government should be responsible, but not just on the spending side, for God's sake.

Government has to be responsible on the consumption, on the buying side. We have to ensure that we're getting value for every taxpayer's dollar that we're expending, yet we have no evidence. Here we are two years after a new administration has come into effect, and we still don't have any indication that we're getting a greater bang for our buck – is that the term? There's still no indication. We just know that we're getting much less for the taxpayers' dollars.

Now, I understand – and I certainly would encourage the Treasurer to respond in some way on this one – that today Alberta borrowed half a billion dollars; $500 million was borrowed on the domestic market. I'm sure there will be some kind of nod of approval? No? There's nothing coming forward. This is what I understand: today the charge card is still running wild; $500 million was borrowed today. I don't know at what interest rate. I'm sure I'll find out at some point later. So you're darn right: we need protection.

We need protection from tax and spend, and in fact worse than tax-and-spend is borrow-and-spend govern- ments, Mr. Speaker. What we need protection from is borrow- and-spend governments. Mr. Speaker, so often in this House what I've heard – and I'm sure the voice I just heard moments ago – is: provide us with some positive input; provide us with some alternatives. It's one thing to be the opposition, but at some point you have to provide alternatives, and Bill 205 is exactly that. It's looking at an alternative.

It puts the government in a position that I find myself on this side of the Assembly so often in, where they present a Bill and we say, "Well, that component's good, the principle is good, but yeah, but." Now the government's in a yeah-but position, and I would like to see if they would adopt some of the ideas that are incorporated in Bill 205. So if we could just go through some of them. The object of Bill 205 is to propose an unfunded scheme to eliminate the province's $16.8 billion net debt by the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

The proposed legislation essentially follows the principles laid out in the Alberta Liberals' 2020 Vision plan for debt management and retirement. The scheme is unfunded because, as my colleague from Edmonton-Whitemud said, the Standing Orders don't permit anyone other than a minister of the Crown to present a money Bill. [interjection] In fact, it's true. In fact, it's true. The Treasurer is saying that it's not, but it is true. Only the Treasurer or a minister of the Crown can present a money Bill.

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 867 MR. DINNING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The Provincial Treasurer is rising on a point of order. Point of Order Questioning a Member MR. DINNING: Would the hon. member take a question, Mr. Speaker? THE SPEAKER: It's up to the hon. member. MR. SEKULIC: Mr. Speaker, there's nothing like practising for the future. Debate Continued MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct: a nongovernment member cannot introduce a money Bill.

But when will the hon. member do the honourable thing and table in this Assembly the Bill that he would table were he ever to become a member of the government side? Where is that? When will he table that Bill? MR. SEKULIC: I would appreciate it if the hon. Treasurer would repeat his question. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the hon. member: when will he table the Bill, not introduce it but table the Bill that he would have prepared were he a government member? We hear lots of ideas, lots of suggestions, but where's the beef? MR. SEKULIC: Mr.

Speaker, granted the Treasurer's been here for a much, much longer period than I've been here, and he apparently knows of some mechanism by which we can present a plan and table it. The only thing is that I believe that would be somewhat undemocratic because it couldn't be debated. I don't know that there's a mechanism by which it could be debated if it's not on the Order Paper as a private member's Bill or a govern- ment Bill. If in fact there is something to learn here, I'll investi- gate it.

If there is a way, we'll have to come back and table a document for the Treasurer to peruse and perhaps take some good ideas from. So thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Treasurer. A debt retirement amount from the generation of annual surpluses will be set aside yearly starting in the fiscal year 1996- 97 and used to redeem and pay down the $24.5 billion unmatured debt. That's the debt held by third parties, such as U.S. and Canadian financiers and Albertans themselves. The

schedule of the debt retirement amount is similar to that proposed in the Alberta Liberals' 2020 Vision plan, and in fact I think it's on page 5 of Bill 205. THE SPEAKER: The Chair sincerely regrets having to interrupt the hon. member, but Standing Order 8(2)(

b) provides that the time for consideration of this matter has expired and we must now move to the next order. head: Motions Other than Government Motions Health and Safety Standards 505. Moved by Mrs. Laing:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to ensure that health and safety standards are being met in all personal care facilities by establishing regulations and a comprehensive monitoring system. [Debate adjourned March 21: Mr. Sapers speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion before us is a motion that I hope will get wide support. When I had a chance to speak earlier, I spoke about the fact that the Liberal caucus has been arguing for the need for such standards for some time.

I will conclude my comments simply by establishing for the Assembly what would be a Liberal wish list for group home standards, the kinds of things we think should be the product of this motion. Now, first of all, we believe that licences for group home operators should only be granted to individuals with extensive and appropriate experience and academic qualifications. In particular, their qualifications should be in caring for seniors and persons with disabilities.

There should be clear guidelines for staffing requirements, including mandatory police checks for all potential staff and ongoing staff training and upgrading. These training and upgrading plans, Mr. Speaker, should be part and parcel of the licensing procedure. 3:30 The dispensing of drugs by unauthorized and/or untrained staff should be outlawed. It should be enforced that only those individuals who meet licence requirements for professional associations and organizations be allowed to administer drugs. There should be proper standards for hygiene of the residents and for the home or the facility itself.

There needs to be documented records of the provision of adequate supplies of nutritious foods. Security needs to be in place that protects both the residents and their personal property. Mr. Speaker, for residents who are under the care of the Public Guardian, there must be continuous contact and spot checks by the guardian's office to ensure the resident is well cared for. I would suggest that this should expand beyond just the caring for their financial needs.

As we get into a discussion in this Assembly about living wills, the need for an enduring power of attorney I think should be included in the process of these spot checks, looking after the residents' best wishes. Mr. Speaker, there needs to be staff in place to monitor and enforce any regulations and standards, and there must be stiff and stern action when these standards are broken. Continuous infractions should result in immediate suspension of the licence. There should be whistle-blower protection for staff and for family members to report any potential wrongdoing or any actual wrongdoing.

There must be standards to ensure that all buildings adhere to public fire and safety codes. Finally, there must be clear programs for personal development, and they must be not only established but adhered to for dropping off residents who may be unsupervised at shopping malls or in other personal care facilities or for other personal matters. Mr. Speaker, the point is that simply taking a senior to a mall, dropping them off, leaving them on their own, and then coming back and getting them at some later point in time is not personal development, and it shouldn't be allowed to pass for that.

So there must be program criteria established with standards attached to them for the recreational or extracurricular kinds of activities that the residents may be involved in. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie.

868 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking to Motion 505 in two capacities today: first, as the chairman of the Seniors Advisory Council; and, secondly, as an individual concerned with the safety of the residents of Alberta's personal care facilities. Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Advisory Council has been promoting a greater variety of community living options for seniors, particularly the personal care facilities. There has been an increased number of private care homes for seniors in recent months, and this form of seniors housing is expected to increase.

There is a growing urgency to address this issue. The percentage of seniors in our population is growing rapidly. There is a shift to community-based care, and the planned decrease in per capita nursing home beds will increase the need for alternative housing for seniors who need some care and some supervision. Since October of 1994 the council has r eceived approximately 31 calls specifically related to personal care facilities and has mailed out approximately 87 sets of its guidebooks. The council is very concerned that older persons may be subject to abuse and exploitation.

The council, in its 1 993-94 annual report, recom- mended that as these homes develop, standards [should] be [put] in place and enforced to ensure that older persons are not subject to abuse and exploitation. Mr. Speaker, the council is concerned about abuses of any sort, be they financial, physical, or mental. While many of our seniors are very capable and quite independent, we still want to do all that we can to protect them from unscrupulous behaviour and the risks associated with unregulated homes. It concerns the council that there are no legal restrictions on who can operate a private care home.

While it is assumed that most operators have some sort of experience in providing assistance, we are finding more and more that many individuals looking into these homes do not have the appropriate experience. The private care home guidebooks – the Guide to Private Care Homes for Prospective Residents and the Guide for Private Care Home Operators – were developed in 1992 as a result of an expressed need coming from the seniors community and its service providers. The aim of these books was to encourage operators to institute standards voluntarily in the absence of provincial standards.

The response to these manuals has been very positive, and the council has received letters of appreciation from different community agencies. It is also pleased that the licensing and enforcement unit of Alberta Family and Social Services is using these guidebooks. Mr. Speaker, the Guide for Private Care Home Operators addresses such issues as the training necessary to be a caregiver, environmental and building requirements, fire and safety stan- dards, food preparation, and selection of residents.

The service plan, the admission agreement, the keeping of records, the rights and privileges of residents, and other concerns are also identified. This book is only a guideline, however, and as we know, operators may choose not to follow its suggestions. The guide for residents is designed to help individuals choose which type of facility will best meet their needs in order to make informed decisions and lessen the likelihood of getting themselves into potentially harmful situations. Mr.

Speaker, this particular guidebook was also of help to the families of those elderly who are looking for this type of care and also for caregivers who work in the community in establishing a good discussion and educating the seniors as to things that they should look for. The guidebooks have also been used to help other groups design their own guidelines. The Capital Care Group, for example, developed their own guidelines and standards for operators. They have prepared an extensive set of policies and procedures, a manual, to ensure that the standa rds of care are instituted.

The Capital Care Group has even established a screening process to ensure that potential operators have some medical background or experience in working with seniors. On the other end of the spectrum from the Capital Care Group are private care homes which have been established in the province by individual homeowners and are not associated in any formal way with a service delivery organization. It seems likely that these organizations may not benefit from the guidelines or from an internal monitoring system. In fact, homes with three or less residents do not even have to be licensed. This reflects, Mr.

Speaker, the uniqueness of these programs, because they are adaptable around the province. While the guidebooks have certainly filled a need, the problems facing our seniors have not been adequately addressed. Guide- lines similar to the ones advocated by the Seniors Advisory Council need to be enforced by appropriate regulations. As it stands now, there is absolutely no obligation, besides an obvious moral one, to adhere to the standards that the council has developed. Mr.

Speaker, the Seniors Advisory Council is in touch with seniors on a daily basis, and we are regularly fielding calls from private home care operators. The council is perhaps in one of the better positions to determine the necessity of these regulations, as a result. As I stated earlier, the advisory council has recommended that the regulations be developed under the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act. Mr. Speaker, once the need for appropriate regulations is established, there are a number of factors we have to consider when developing and enforcing these standards.

The first consideration I would like to point out is the concern of the broad spectrum of seniors requiring care. As we all know, there are many active and healthy seniors out there today, and just because an individual turns 65 does not mean that they become frail and dependent. We also know, however, that some seniors do require a great deal of care. The regulations and program standards that are developed have to be able to encompass the wide range of care and independence of all seniors.

I think it is extremely important to identify to the seniors community and to those approaching the magic age of 65 that we recognize the vitality and the dedication and the enthusiasm that they bring to our communi- ties. The thought of having to regulate how they choose to live in our communities would be inappropriate, and I think it's important we maintain that distinction. There is also the matter of municipal zoning bylaws that has to be taken into account. Provincial regulations should not interfere with local requirements and local priorities.

Every community is different, and care must be taken to avoid intrusion into municipal jurisdictions. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a variety of municipalities and cities looking at this issue from a social concern. I do think it's important to recognize that regulations and guidelines that might be appropriate in a larger centre such as Edmonton or Calgary may have different

interpretation or application in our smaller communities. The resources within those local communities to support the seniors should also be taken into account. I think it's very important that in the discus- sion on developing appropriate regulations or guidelines, we look at the variety within our communities. 3:40 Mr. Speaker, I would also like to identify that the regional health authorities are looking for alternatives to deliver care, and

March 28, 1995 Alberta Hansard 869 perhaps, then, the authorities themselves could pay a larger role in delivering this type of community service. I would at this point in my debate identify that I feel that any discussion in the area of regulations should involve the regional health authorities so that we're working in a parallel process, meeting the mutual goals and needs of our community with respect to seniors. In conclusion, our seniors need the province to step in and make personal care facilities a desirable and safe alternative for the care of the elderly.

As chairman of the Seniors Advisory Council of Alberta, I support Motion 505. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. WICKMAN: I'll keep my comments relatively short, Mr. Speaker, so that the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, with all the wisdom, more wisdom than I have, can have the opportunity to make some comments as well. I commend the member for bringing the motion forward. It recognizes an area where there is shortcoming. I've had the opportunity myself of having been involved in related fields. I was on the board of Capital Care when it was still called district 24.

I thought the excellent level of service provided by Capital Care, taking into consideration the budget restraints they were faced with, like other health care centres, health care facilities – they did a superb job. But still, despite all that monitoring there were instances where people fell between the cracks. The same was true with the Greater Edmonton Foundation, which was responsible for a number of lodges and self-contained apartment buildings for seniors.

Again, despite the monitoring, the rules, the regulations, there were instances where people fell between the cracks, and it was the seniors that were the victims when things went wrong. I can recall one instance where the former member Dennis Anderson, who was chairman of the review committee, called me as chairman of the Greater Edmonton Foundation pointing out a concern with one of the lodges, that I took to our board: that a matron was abusive. The end result was that the board made a decision by a vote of 3 to 2 to keep her on staff.

That good member – and he was a good government member, a Liberal at heart but a good government member. I remember him calling me and saying: if your board is not prepared to dismiss that matron, I'm going to step in. As a result, I went back to the board, and we had that done. I point those out b ecause they're examples that even with the monitoring that is in place, there are still cracks that do appear. The Member for Calgary-Glenmore, I can recall, years ago was involved in a very, very extensive study.

I'm not sure specifically what came of it, but it talked in terms of the level of care in our extended care centres. Here we're talking about a problem that is even worse in the sense that we're referring to group homes where there are four persons or less, that are unlicensed. Unlicensed. If you get the wrong persons in there being responsi- ble for the operations of that group home, that can lead to problems.

I believe the member initiating this Bill has good intentions at heart, and because of her past experience on the review committee she's been able to determine firsthand, like many others of us here have, that there are shortcomings, that there is a need for regulations. There have been some ugly incidents, some unfortu- nate incidents that have been referred to that have occurred in the past. No matter what type of monitoring, what type of regula- tions, there is still that possibility that things can go wrong, but at least this would reduce the degree of potential for abuse that there is at the present time.

As we restructure more and more the province of Alberta – and we seem to head more to privatizing virtually everything. When we talk in terms of privatizing people services, people programs, one has to do it with a great deal of reluctance, and one has to ensure that when there are private operators involved that are motivated by the dollar – that's mainly the reason that an entre- preneur will proceed with a business venture, and these group homes that are unlicensed are operated on a profit basis, are profit motivated. What's the expression that is used by some people?

Some businessmen's happy face is the dollar sign. So we have to have the monitoring in place as we head more and more towards privatization. The Member for Edmonton-Glenora – and it'll now be recorded in Hansard – spelled out very specifically a wish list for detailed improvements that should take place to make those group homes a safer place, a better place, and increase the quality of lifestyle for those residents in there. I don't want to repeat them, because they are in Hansard and there are other members that wish to speak and I realize we are running out of time on this motion.

So on that note, I'm going to conclude and again commend the member for initiating this motion. I would hope that all members of this House support the motion and that when the motion is passed, the government acts upon it. MRS. HEWES: Do I get to go or somebody else? THE SPEAKER: Well, no. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Motion 505 addresses a situation of serious concern and hopefully not consequence to a growing number of Albertans.

This motion identifies two areas of considerable concern: the first is the standard of care received by many residents living in an unlicensed personal care facility, and the second is the total lack of regulation governing program standards or quality of care now provided within both licensed or unlicensed facilities. Recent complaints are indicative of the need to develop and monitor such regulations. Motion 505 seeks to rectify these concerns, and as such I am pleased that I have the opportunity to speak in favour of this very important and timely motion.

Personal care facilities have the opportunity to play a very important role in our society. I'm sure that all of us can identify constituents seeking this type of care, and in the not-too-distant future we too may be considering private care homes. The fact is that more and more people see these homes as an attractive alternative. Increased need must be addressed by increased monitoring, increased regulations, and increased licensing requirements. I've talked to a number of different people in my constituency about these types of facilities.

What I have found is that rural constituencies may have an even greater vested interest in these homes than urban centres. Individuals seeking care may not have the selection that urban residents have in their choice of formal or traditional institutions. There are almost no facilities available to seniors in rural communities who require a level of care between the seniors' lodge and the extended care facility. As well, urban residents generally have more options available to them such as day support programs or assisted living programs. In many rural areas, however, these services are simply not available.

It is not unheard of for people to enter long-term care facilities simply because they have no other choice available to them. Regulated personal care facilities can play a vital role in giving our seniors and older adults a viable, well-protected alternative. Regulations would go a long way in providing rural residents with

870 Alberta Hansard March 28, 1995 more options for the provision of safe and effective care. Personal care homes can offer an individual a family-like setting, but this setting must be subject to regulations so that the individual is assured a safe environment, support, protection, supervision, and assistance. As well, when you consider other jurisdictions, it is apparent that Alberta needs to seriously reassess the lack of regulation. A study funded by the Seniors Advisory Council in 1991 concerning foster home care looked at adult foster programs throughout North America.

This study found that 36 states and four provinces had programs that supported community care in residential facilities. This study also indicated that personal care facilities constitute a substantive care alternative in many U.S. states. From the recent upsurge and interest in our province we have every reason to believe that will soon be the case in Alberta as well. In Canada Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and British Columbia all have guidelines and licensing procedures for operators, although requirements do vary.

While Ontario does not yet have comprehensive regulations in place, it has been doing a considerable amount of work in this area. 3:50 In 1992 Ontario released a report on unregulated residential accommodation. As Ontario's Lightman report suggests, we are dealing with a profound public policy void. Ontario realizes that residents of these homes require at least some sort of protection. The Lightman report also raises an issue which I think aptly describes Alberta's situation.

We did not set out to create a system of rental housing in which the most vulnerable members of society are the least protected, but that has certainly been the outcome. Mr. Speaker, Alberta's vulnerable citizens require special consideration and special protection. This is definitely one area where Alberta does not want to differ drastically from other provinces. Alberta has to recognize the needs of personal care facility residents and come in line with other Canadian jurisdic- tions.

Alberta's shift to comm unity-based services, like many other provinces, necessitates the development of regulations for these types of homes. The bottom line is that if we are going to be encouraging these types of facilities, we have to have mecha- nisms in place to guard against abuse and unsafe practices. Mr.

Speaker, I find it particularly disturbing that we don't know how many residents are subject to physical, emotional, or even sexual abuse, that we don't know how many people receive acceptable or intolerable care, and that we don't even know how many unregulated premises operate in this province or how many people reside in them. This uncertainty is all the more reason to protect the residents of personal care facilities. Ignorance is not an acceptable defence in c hoosing not to regulate these homes. Personal care fac ilities s hould be a stable refuge in our often turbulent and threatening environment.

We simply cannot ensure this is the case as long as our personal care facilities remain unregulated and unmonitored. There is a need for regulations and there is a need for monitoring in these facilities. I congratulate the Member for Calgary-Bow for bringing this initiative forward. I strongly support Motion 505, Mr. Speaker, and encourage the other members of this Assembly to recognize this motion as necessary to the safety and well-being of senior Albertans. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure how many minutes I have left; a few.

I'd like to add my support to those members who have already spoken and thank the Member for Calgary-Bow for bringing the motion forward. I particularly want to thank the Member for Calgary-Currie and the Member for Lacombe-Stettler for their comments, with which I find no disagreement. I think they have outlined quite clearly some of the reasons why we need this motion at this time. Mr. Speaker, this is something that I've been concerned about and a field that I've worked in for many years.

The Member for Edmonton-Rutherford mentioned some of his background in this field of practice, and in fact the two of us were involved a great many years ago, more than I care to mention, in establishing with a group of disabled people in the city of Edmonton and surround- ing the Sir Douglas Bader Tower, which has been a model for independent living for disabled people who are able not only to control themselves in their own apartment with some help but also to access – home care now is able to go in, and they are able to manage that and therefore control their own life and determine where they want to live and how they want to live.

This is something that I think is a goal and an objective for this govern- ment, and certainly this motion allows that to happen, allows those choices to be there for people but makes sure that the choices have the protection of the government and the community to make sure that they are safe places, places where people can be happy and have a good life for themselves and r each their own objectives. Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that I've been more concerned recently with some of the moves of the government that have precipitated some of my own thinking. How much time do I have? How much? MR.

BRUSEKER: Thirteen minutes total. MRS. HEWES: Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I just want to leave some time for some other members. Some of the moves of the government have provoked me to ask questions in particular regardin g seniors. But this is not a problem that is exclusive by any means to seniors, and I'm sure the Member for Calgary-Bow had that in mind in presenting it. It in fact deals with people who are disabled, with children who are in foster care, with seniors, to be sure, with any persons who find themselves in a position, because of frailty, to need to have some support in their housing.

When we see moves, some of which I agree with, to close many of the institutions of our province, institutions where children have heretofore been kept in residential care, when we see moves to close the Alberta Hospital Edmonton beds and hopefully help people live within our communities, and when we see moves to close or limit access to the Michener Centre so that people in that centre can move safely into community living, then we know, Mr. Speaker, that the kinds of rules and regulations we have at present are probably insufficient to deal with that more wholesale move to give people new choices.

I fear that some of those changes didn't perhaps take into consideration some of the things that the Member for Calgary-Bow is aware of, and therefore