March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 499 Leg islative A ssem bly o f A lberta Title: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/03/16 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray . Grant that we the me mbers of our province’s Legislature fulfill our office with honesty and inte grity. May our first concern be for the good of all of the people. Let us be guided by our deliberations this day. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Mr. Ducha rme: Thank y ou, Mr. Sp eaker.

Today I have t he privilege of introducing to you and through you to all the members of the Assembly a number of guests from the Bonnyville-Cold Lake constituency. They are se ated i n the me mbers’ gallery and are special guests who attended this morning’s celebration in the rotunda to mark the sixth edition of Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie and International Francophonie Day, coming up on the 20th of March. I am pleased to first introduce a group of students from l’école des Beaux-Lacs, a francopho ne schoo l in Bon nyville.

This group of students is part of the school band that played for us this morning, and they are accompanied by two t eachers from the sch ool, Mme Yvonne Veraart and Mme Nicole Jodoin. They did a wonderful job for us this morning. I ask them to stand and please be recognized by the Assembly. Joining them on this special day at the L egislature is a group of senior citizens from Bonnyville, and I w ant to add th at I’m very pleased that they were able to make the long bus trip to be with us today. I would like them to stand and be recognized as I cal l their names: M.

René Da llaire, Mm e Yvonne Chart rand, Mme Irène Plourde, Mme Ma rie-Claire Champagne, M. R éal Croteau, M me Carmen Cr oteau, M. Jean-Claude Lajoie, Mme Monique Lajoie, Mme Denise Husereau, M. Paul Husereau, and M. Denis Tardif, the director of the A lberta Francophone Secretariat. Je vous invite à vous joindre à moi pour leur souhaiter une bienvenue chaleureuse. I would invite the members of the Assembly to join me in extending them a very warm welcome and, of course, a safe journey home. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. O’Neill: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize a resident of St.

Albert who is seated in the public gallery, and I would introduce Ms Ireen Slater. My ey esight doesn’t tell me whether there’s anyone els e from St. Albert there or not, but I would like to introduce her to the Assembly and ask e veryone to give her the warm tr aditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Spea ker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a number of peo ple who ar e representing seniors’ organizations in Alberta.

They are all sitting in the public gallery, and I would as k them to rise as I say their names. First of all, I’d like to introduce Jerry Pitts, who is the chairpe rson of the Coalition of Seniors Advocates. With him is Stan Nykiel, who is a director of COSA, the Coalition of Sen iors A dvocates. They ’ve both travelled up f rom Calgary today. I ’d also like to introduce Ireen Slater, who is the chair of the St.

Albert branch of SUN, Seniors United Now; Albert Opstad, who is the presiden t of th e Edmonton br anch of Se niors United Now; and Ron Ellis, who is a director of Seniors United Now and their chairman of the communications committee. They’re all standing. I would a sk the A ssembly to plea se give them a warm welcome. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again ha ve the pri vilege of introducing parents who are taking time from their day to watch our proceedings here as part of the Education Watch initiative.

They’re in the members’ gallery, and I’ll ask them to rise as I mention their names. First is Ray Benton-Evans. He’s a father of a child attend- ing grade 9 at Avalon junior high, a nd he’s the chair of the parent school council at Avalon. Next is Linda Climenhaga. She has four children; two are at Windsor Park and tw o are at Mc Kernan. Finally, Karen Ferrari, who has three kids, two of them at Windsor Park, and one is too young to go to school yet. Well, thank you for standing. Please given them a warm welcome. They’re watching our proceedings carefully. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr.

Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and introduce to you and through you to the Assembly a gentleman who has travelled all the way from Calgary to be here today to watch the proceedings of the Assembly. He has dedicated a good deal of his t ime in rece nt months to strongly advocati ng for A lberta’s seniors and currently serves on the board of the Coalition of Seniors Advocates association, known a s COSA. Mr . Arthur Clements is sitting in the public gallery.

I’ll ask him to please rise and rece ive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The h on. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Automobile Insurance Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The year 2003 was a very good ye ar for the insurance industry, which announce d a windfall net profit of $2.6 billion, but 2003 was a very bad year for Alberta consumers who saw their auto insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. It’s no surprise that 60 per cent of Albertans told this government in a poll that they want public auto insurance.

My first question is to the Premier. Why has this government done nothing to bring down auto insuranc e rates for consum ers whi le we see insurance industry profits soar by 775 per cent? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, you k now, it’s not right to s ay that he doesn’t tell the truth. Well, I guess it is right to say that he doesn’t tell the truth. I mean, the hon. Minister of Finance will explain and outline exactly the legislation that was brought forward to address the insurance situation.

That legislation focuses on fairness, fairness to the consumer, and it doesn’t focus on individual company profits, but if the hon. member is willing to stand up and say that profit is dirty, then let him stand up and say so. Say it. The reason he’s not telling – well, I don’t know the reason he’s not telling. I know the reason he’s not telling the truth. It’s because he’s a Liberal. That’s the reason.

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004500 The insurance industry profits are based on a number of factors, and those factors include not just auto insurance – and that’s all the hon. member alludes to – but they’re based on factors related to fire insurance, home insurance, life insurance policies. They are also national. They are national in scope, not provincial. So they affect provinces that have so-called s tate or soc ialist insurance that the Liberals favour such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba and British Columbia. Well, I’ll include, because it was brought in by an ND government . . .

The Speaker: Let’s not get involved in a debate here. Hon. member, second question. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: why has this g overnment continued to dis regard the opi nion of Alberta consumers who want public auto insurance because they know it is fair, affordable, and accessible to all? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, alluding to his previous question, this has nothing to do with insurance profits.

Again, our legislation that was introduced I think maintains the spirit of free enterprise yet protects good old and young drivers from being treated unfairly as long as they are good dr ivers. N ow, bad old drivers will be t reated with penalties, and bad young drivers will be treated with pen alties, but good old drivers and good young drivers, along with good middle- aged drivers, will be treated with fairness. That’s what the legisla- tion is all about, and that’s good legislation. 1:40 Mr. MacDon ald: Again, Mr.

Speake r, to the Premi er: can the Premier explain why this government, which has been so quick to impose extra costs on Albertans, especially students and especially those seniors in the gallery, has been so slow to give them a break on their auto insurance premiums? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was enacted specifically addresses young and old good drivers. It also addresses young and old bad drivers. It serves to punish the bad and reward the good. What’s wrong with that? The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr.

Speak er. This governm ent’s insurance reform implem entation committee has failed and failed miserably. Consumers were left out. There was no public consulta- tion. Costs f or consume rs are g oing up, not dow n. Even the industry doesn’t know what the future holds . To the Mi nister of Finance: why did the president and CEO of Wawanesa Insurance resign la st Dece mber f rom the A lberta aut o insurance reform committee? Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member asked me about an

article that appeared three months ago, and today he’s all of a sudden come to realize that we have an automobile insurance reform process unde rway in this provi nce. La st summ er the implementation team took forward a program to implement a policy for automobile insurance that clearly would provide Albertans with a fair approach to having automobile insurance because it is the law in this province that you must carry automobile insurance. We said: let’s have one that’s fair, that’s accessible, affordable, and compara- bly priced across Canada.

That’s exactly what they brought forward and are bringing forward in this whole program. To all of a sudden say, “Wow, we’ve all of a sudden discovered that there are huge profits in the insurance industry in Canada,” well, no kidding. That’s why this program said that we had to have a reduction in costs of insurance, and that’s why over $200 million in this province alone has to come out of the premium base to make this insurance program affordable for all Albertans. He ’s finally coming to grips with this.

Thank you for coming on board, because that’s supporting the reform that the Member for Medicine Hat has been leading with an implementation team. You’re just about six months behind. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: why is it that even the insurance industry has very little confidence in this government’s auto insurance reform package? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that to be true. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe that at all. There is one insurance company that has a problem.

I understand that a lawsuit has been launched, and I can’t speak to that particular situation because it is now before the courts, but generally the insurance companies are supportive of the program. You know, it was very difficult to strike the right balance between the injury lawyers, various groups representing injured people, the insurance companies, but I think the Ministe r of Finance did an outstanding job along with the able assistance of the hon. Member for Medicine H at, who did a n outstanding j ob, Mr.

S peaker, travelling the country, consulting with other provinces, and consult- ing with Albertans about the ins urance industry. So f or this hon. member to say that there was no consultation, he is not te lling the truth. His nose is growing. Mr. MacDonald: Again to the Premier: will this government finally admit that this policy is not going to work for Alberta consumers? It’s going to drive u p pre miums even higher. Will y ou cancel i t immediately? The Speaker: There are about four questions t here. It’s multiple choice; take which one you want. Mr. Klein: Well, multiple choice. I’ll give a multiple answer.

Like what? Like Saskatchewan? You know, Saskatchewan insurance can come in here and compete with insurance companies. B.C. ins ur- ance can come here and compete with insurance companies. Manitoba insurance can come here and compete. Mr. MacDonald: You own your own bank. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, owning a bank has not hing to do wi th insurance. We’ve gotten out of just ab out every kind of business, and by cracky if we ever suggested selling the ATB, these p eople would just go through the roof. “How can you do that? My God.” You know, the y would have Erne st Manning t urning over in his grave and Aberhart too.

The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Benefits Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last month members from the Coalition of Seniors Advocates – and some of them are here in the gallery today – met with the government’s Calgary caucus and the chair of the Seniors Advisory Council and were frustrated by the

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 501 response. At a ti me when seniors are facing additional hardships due to electricity deregulation and high automobile insurance costs, all they want is for their sen iors’ be nefits t o be restore d. My questions are to the Premier. Given that the COSA m embers felt that they were ridiculed and cut off, is this the government’s idea of meaningful consultation with seniors? Mr. Klein: Mr. Sp eaker, I take very strong exception to the hon. member’s remarks relative to insurance costs. Good older seniors are rewarded, as are good younger seniors. Good older drivers are rewarded.

Relative to the situation that the Liberals are alluding to – and that is calling on the government to reinstate universal optical and dental benefits for seniors – I understand that they had a news conference just before this session. The previous program, the program that the Liberals are asking to be reinstated, offered limited assistance, in the minds of the government. Only 30 per cent coverage was provided with the balance being paid by the senior, and only basic dental procedures were covered. As a result, less than half of all seniors accessed the coverage each year.

What we decided to do was to focus on those seniors who needed it the mos t and provide full c overage. So the current program provides much bet ter coverage, in our minds. We focus that coverage on seniors who need it. I believe that the majority, not all but the majority, of Albertans support that approach. The special- needs assistance for seniors program provides up to 100 per cent, not 30 per cent but 100 per cent, co verage fo r optical and dental expenses for those eligible seniors and, furthermore, has no restric- tions on procedures. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

Again to the Premi er: given that the cost of dentures for a senior couple can be as high as $8,000, beyond even middle-income seniors, when will this government restore the universal, not the paid-dow n but the un iversal, optical and dental benefit plan for seniors that the government took away? When will you restore a universal plan? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, the progr am that the gove rnment t ook away was the previous program, which offered limited access. As I pointed out, only 30 pe r cent cove rage was provide d with the balance being paid by the senior. Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that in 2003-2004 approximately 14,000 seniors received financial assistance under the special-needs assistance for seniors program. As well, the govern- ment has underta ken a pilot project with the denta l school at the University of Alberta, one of the only dental schools, I believe, in western Canada to assist low-income seniors with the costs of dental services. This includes all forms of dentures. This pilot project, as I understand it, has been extended for a year. 1:50 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

Aga in to the Prem ier: given that the recent Alberta Council on Aging poll shows that seniors are having to cut back s pending on food and tra nsportation, w hy does t his government persist in policies that create hardships for seniors, particularly middle-income seniors? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that that is true. Ms Blakeman: It is. Mr. Klein: No. Would you stop the chirping from that other side, please. Mr. Speaker, what the y say is not true, a nd I’ll have the hon. Minister of Seniors respond. Mr. Woloshyn: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is very important to point out that over the past 10 years we have chosen to focus our resources on the people who truly need them and can show the need. Although the number of seniors is increasing significantly in the province, I’m very pleased to say that a lot of the increase is people who are quite self-sufficient, shall we say. To indicate t hat we are ou t and hurting m iddle-class seniors i s totally erroneous. We have an ongoing review of things such as the threshold. We look at those to see when they can be adjusted, the costs of them . We’v e react ed at ev ery tur n to the needs.

For example, I’m pleased to say that w hen the sen iors were under considerable stress on utilities abo ut a ye ar ago f rom now , the special-needs program cut in and helped them out on that end of it. Yes, for seniors close to a threshold who may be suff ering, we ’re having a look to see if we can address those issues also. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Health Care Reform Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite a budget surplus that the Par kland In stitute at t he U niversity o f Albe rta earlier today forecasted will top $4 billion, the Premier seems bent on undertaking an expensive PR campaign to scare Albertans into swallowing the bitter medicine of delisting and us er fees stacked on top of he alth care premiums. While the true magnitude of this radical surgery will no doubt be kept hidden from Albertans until after the next election, the PR strateg y so far seems to be base d on strateg ic media leaks while keeping Albertans in the dark. My question is to the Premier.

Why do national columnists like Jeffrey Simpson f rom Toronto- based Globe and Mail get an advance peek at the Premier’s radical proposals while the Graydon repo rt, the secr et blueprint f or two- tiered medicine, remains locked in the government’s vault? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey Simpson did not get a peek at our plans, which are under development as I speak. But he understands what has to be done because it has been talked about at Premiers’ conferences, it has bee n talked about at fina nce ministers’ confer- ences, at ministers of health co nferences.

It’s been the topic of discussion at what is now c alled the C ouncil of the Federation – before it was the Premiers’ Conference – for at least the past seven years. The Premiers have been talking about achieving sustainabil- ity. They ’ve also been talk ing about more ca sh from the federal government, which would be nice to close the so-called Romanow gap. But they all understand that money is not the only answer. So our caucus, this government, with the guida nce of the Minister of Health and Wellness is preparing a plan to achieve sustainability.

Now, the hon. member likes to pick out those things that provide for a good 15-second sound bite, you know, user fees and this and that. Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of things, even things that don’t involve the kind of education that this person has ; in oth er words, looking at what works in o ther countries and why it works and what’s bad in other c ountries and how to discard that. You know, nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with looking at ways of allowing health jurisdictions to generate revenues as long as

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004502 they provide for the sick and injured, that they don’t lose their homes and their dignity and other things because of illness or injury. Mr. Speaker , I would re mind the hon. member that ev en his mentor the late Tommy Douglas said that when you talk about user fees, which is – could be, could be, might be, maybe – one smal l component, one little w ee, teeny, teeny component of the w hole thing, you know , people should pa y something to re cognize t he value of medical services. T ommy Douglas said that. He likes Tommy Douglas; he liked Tommy Douglas. He would agree, I’m sure.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why is this Premier refusing to consult with Albertans before advocating snake oil remedies like delisting, user pay , and furthe r privatization that far f rom saving money will only drive up the cost of health care? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, it is a big fib, to say the least, to say that we will not consult with Albertans. You know, stay tuned and see how the plan unfolds because I can tell you – and I don’t think I’m spewing out any secrets – that consultation is one of the components of the plan. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr.

Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary to the Premier: then why have this Premier and his government kept the contents of the G raydon re port secret and not ma de the repor t public? Mr. Klein: A very, very good reason. It’s to prevent the hon. leader of the third party and his friends in the Liberal Party from picking out little pie ces and us ing them for those 15-second sound bites. That’s what it ’s all about . It’s to pre vent them from spreading misleading and false info rmation.

We will re lease it very, very shortly, but it will be re leased in its entirety, not only the Graydon report but other reports as well, and the plan will be released at that particular time. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. The Speaker: Actually, hon. members, we’ve spent a lot of time in this

section here. We’re going to move on. I’ve got a whole list of members. The hon. Membe r for Ca lgary-Buffalo, follow ed by th e hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Family Violence and Bullying Round-tables Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m aware that a family violence and bullying workshop will be held in Calgary this week. The workshop is being held as lead-up to the family violence and bullying round-table in May. In the past two weeks there have been numerous incidents of domestic violence across the province that have resulted in serious injury and death.

My question is for the Minister of Children’s Services. Can the minister tell us how the information from stakeholders in Calgary will be used? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, throughout Alberta we will have a total of 13 regional round-tables and separate focu s groups includi ng the aboriginal community, the faith community, the disabled community, the victims, the men’s group.

Like all of the other regional round- tables a coming together of those solutions that have been proposed will take a very bro ad look at t he issue on M ay 7 in C algary at a province-wide round-table c omplete with ex perts’ opinions and other data. So, in fact, it will be one piece of all of the information we are ga thering to m ake sure that we have a f ull range, a full spectrum, of views from every single solitary member of the Alberta community including youth that will come forward and provide their views on what should be done to er adicate bul lying a nd fam ily violence. The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is also to the Minister of Children’s Services. How have Albertans been included or how have they been heard regarding being involved in the round-table process? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, right from the time we put our web page up on the family violence round-table, we have h ad the view s of Albertans on what we should do for proces s. A s well, today on familyviolenceroundtable.gov.ab.ca you can register and complete a questionnaire.

You can respond if you’re a youth by entering a My Alberta contest that was announced in order to give those artists and writers an opportunity to talk about what they see as a young person, what Alberta should look like in the future. By the time we have finished all the regional round-tables, a total of 2,000 people will have pa rticipated. Today, as we speak, at the Fantasyland Hotel we have over 200 people in the Edmonton area that are responding.

There will even be an additional round-table in Slave Lake that has been added so that aboriginal people will have an opportunity to come forward and express their views as well. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My f inal supplementary question: can the minister tell us what is going to be done with the information coming out of the round-table? Ms Evans : Mr. Speake r, although C hildren’s Service s is co- ordinating the round-table s, there a re a total of nine mi nistries involved in the Alberta children and youth initiative.

We also have the Gaming ministry, which has frequently been involved in funding supports for c onstruction o f shelters and so on. So e very single ministry will ta ke a look at the re commendations, g et integr ally involved with the Alberta comm unity, whether they ’re police, mental health workers, social workers, counsellors, schoolteachers, and s o on.

We w ill look at the streng ths we c an build into the program areas of delivery in support of the c ommunities and the neighbourhoods where this violence takes place, in the homes of the Albertans that are affected, and try and provide them with ways of getting help before they desperately need it and ways to encourage a positive outcome for our children and grandchildren. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Electronic Health Records Dr. Taft: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

The main problem f acing Alberta’s health care system is not out-of-control costs. It’ s mismanagement of the money we have. Recently this government unveiled plans for an electronic hea lth records system. While the idea of an electronic health records system is seductive, the minister

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 503 is in danger of sending Alberta taxpayer money into a virtual black hole. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Given that the minister announced $59 million in October for health information systems a nd then provided the Alberta Medical Association with $65 million in November and RHAs are spending untold millions more, will the minister tell us the total expected cost of establishing the electronic health records system? Mr. Ma r: Mr. Speake r, I want to first elaborate a little bi t in responding to the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and that is to say that consultation will be a very, very important part of what we do as we move f orward into recognizing that our he alth care system in this province is not sustainable. Albertans can be assured that we will seek their in put, as we have at all steps of our policy development, and they will have an opportunity to have their voices heard with respect to what it is that they want to do. Now, Albertans may want to say: we want the existing system, but we’re prepared to pay a lot mor e money for it. I f that’s what A lbertans say, then I suppose we can do that.

I think, Mr. Speaker, to suggest, as the Member for Edmonton- Riverview has suggested, that there isn’t a problem, that it’s simply an issue of b etter management of health dollars, if that’s the case, then apparent ly every province of every part of this country has exactly the same problem. I don’t understand how the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview can suggest that it’s merely a management problem when the Premier of New Brunswic k, Bernar d L ord, is talking about how the system will not be here 10 years from now on its current track. I need not refer only to Conservatives.

P remier McGuinty from Ontario, Premier Campbell from British Columbia, Premier Calvert, an ND from Saskatchew an, Premier Do er of Manitoba: w ithout exception, Mr. Speaker, they all agree that this is the biggest policy issue in Canada today, that we need to get our system to be sustain- able. Dr. Taft: I guess he doesn’t know the answer. Mr. Mar: You don’t even know the question. Dr. Taft: You can read it in Hansard, Gary.

Given the st aggering amou nt of h ealth infor mation generated every day in clinics and labs and hospitals and doctors’ offices, what cost controls are in place to ensure that costs for the health informa- tion system don’t escalate into the hundreds of millions of dollars? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, there may come a time when we find that spending tens of millions or perhaps even hundreds o f millions of dollars over the next 10 years will make sense for our health care system. Imagine this, Mr. Spe aker.

I magine being able to call up a n electronic health record with a diagnostic image on it by referring to it on your computer instead of sending your patient off to yet another unnecessary diagnostic test. Imagine that transaction being repeated hundreds or thousands of t imes today and tomorrow and the day after.

There a re tremendous advanta ges that are rec ognized by health care systems in other parts of the world and in other parts of Canada as well of the importance of having electronic health records and the appropriate infrastructure being put in place to ensure that these types of efficiencies can be developed. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister table for us or give us verbally any cost-benefit analysis that was done to justify spending $12 4 mill ion o n info rmation syste ms when t he same amount could essentially resolve our long-term care crisis? Mr. Mar: Mr.

Speaker, it sounds like the perfect sort of question for a written question. To simply suggest that you can take this money and apply it and fix long-term ca re, the sim plicity of that de mon- strates the simplicity of the analysis conducted by the hon. member. Labour Relations Mr. Rathgeber: Mr. Speake r, Edmonton-C alder is t he home of many small and medium-sized construction and electrical firms. Recently many of these reported that the y have been targ eted by salting campaigns, where union organizers target a j ob site and thereafter leave once ce rtification had been ac complished.

My questions are to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. When will we see amendments to the labour code to deal with this practice known as salting? Mr. Dunford: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, there was a call from many Albertans to have a look at the current Labour Relations Code as it related to those matters of discussions between our organized employees here in the provinc e and em ployers, so we ha d put together a group of people to ta ke a look .

They came back w ith recommendations that indica ted that her e in Albe rta we had, generally speak ing, a good l abour clim ate and re ally did not recommend that a full-scale review of the labour code take place at that time. However, as minister there was concern expressed to me regard- ing an issue that’s referred to as salting, and I believe that the hon. member in the question explained that particular practice. So we’ve had a committee looking at that situation. I am in receipt now of the report from that particular committee.

We had our last meeting on Monday of this week with the members of that committee. It is now in my shop for me to determine a government response, and we’ll be doing that within the next little while an d then take it through the internal system. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rathgeber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of the same firms report that they have lo st bi ds due to competing with unionized contractors whose bids are subsidize d using m arket enhancement recovery funds, or MER F.

To the s ame minister: w hy do es the labour code a llow unions to contribut e to em ployers while it prohibits employers from contributing to unions? Mr. Dunford: This is a practice, Mr. Speaker, known as MERFing, and this has been in consi deration for som e time here w ithin the province.

There is curren tly a disagreement amo ngst people that look at these ki nds of matters as to whether or not this is an issue that can be addressed or should be ad dressed by the Labour Rela- tions Code here in the province or whether, in fac t, it is something that is more in line with free trade or com petitive trade, in which case one then might make the argument that perhaps it’s the people in the federal government in Ottawa that ought to be looking at it.

Now, as much as some folks have tried to make an issu e of this particular situation and even though the Competition Bureau is there to look into these kinds of matters, it is my understanding that they have yet to receive a request. 2:10 Mr. Rathgeber: Finally, Mr. Speaker, when will the report that the

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004504 minister referred to be re leased to ensure that this proc ess moves forward? Mr. Dunford: I’ve been contemplating how to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, and there are really two ways in which to do it. One, of course, is to release the report, again then to th e public, and t o provide for a further stakeholder response. The other way is to do it in a way that would release the report at the same time we release the government respon se.

I’m not sure as I stand here today what the best approach would be, and any guidance that the hon. member wants to provide to me in this matter would be appreciated. Long-standing WCB Claims Review Mr. Bonner: Mr. Spe aker, this government has been dragging its heels for year s wi th the pr omise of a tribu nal for lon g-standing, contentious Workers’ Compensation Board claims. Many injured workers are being prevented from getting on with their lives while they wait to learn if their cases may be reviewed.

To the Minister of Human Resources and Employment: when can these workers expect a decision on whether such a tribunal will be struck? Mr. Dunford: I’ve been saying publicly for some time – and I guess the hon. member has missed it. It was always contemplated from early days in the discussion around this topic that the government of Alberta would be responsible for the administration of the tribunal, but whatever outcomes within that tribunal, whatever payments were due or if actual decisions were reversed, those payments then would be the responsibility of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

We have various estimat es as to w hat the administration of this program would be, but I can tell you that my priorities at the current time rest with other members of our client base that fall within our mandate, and that is the poor and the vulnerable here in the province. Until such time as we are able to fully enact the kind of reform that we feel i s necess ary in t hat partic ular area, w e’re not w illing to invest our money in second and third chances. Mr. Bonner : Mr.

Speake r, giv en that m any of the poor and vulnerable are those injured workers waiting for the tribunal, can the minister tell me if changes to the Workers’ Com pensation Act passed in 2002 have corrected the c omplaints filed by injured workers against the WCB? Mr. Dunford: As far as my reference to the pe ople that nee d the help of this g overnment, ther e is no wall that is drawn, wherever they come from. If people come f orward to us for assistance a nd they need that assistance, then we stand there prepared to look after those folks. Dr. Massey: It’s a pretty high wall. Mr.

Dunford: I happened to hear from across the way about a pretty high wall, and in fact the mem ber is right. One of the things that every jurisdiction in this country is trying to do is reduce the size of welfare walls. As a matter of fact, if the Liberal opposition will stay tuned, they will see in the next few months, of course, the kinds of reforms that we’ll be bringing forward to in fact reduce that wall. Mr. Bonner : Mr.

Speake r, give n that we’re not talking about welfare, that we are talking abo ut settlemen ts for long- standing, contentious claim s that thes e work ers are ent itled to, w ill the minister commit today to strik ing a t ribunal to hear t hose lon g- standing, contentious claims? Mr. Dunford: I object to the use of the word “entitled”. It is not an entitlement. The injured workers that the hon. member is purporting to represent today have in fact had their issues dealt with by the rules and by the people that were in responsible positions at the particular time. I’m here to report to you, Mr.

Speaker, that we are very proud of the changes that have been made to the W orkers’ Compensation Board, of the fact that since the years 2000-2002 we’ve been able to see where there’s been effective change within the situation and how workers’ compensation deals with injury claims. If people want to get anecdotal, we’ve got ane cdotes we could sta nd here and ta lk about for the rest of the day. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. WCB Premium Assessments Mr. Magnus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today go to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. A constituent of mine ope rates a small construction company in Calga ry and received his WCB pr emium assessment for 2004. He lea rned his premium rates will go up actually from $3.70 per hundred dollars of insurable earnings in 2002 to $6.91 per hundred in 2003 to $10.26 per hundred in 2004 even though he hasn’t had a workplace accident in some five years. This is a 300 per cent increase, and I’m wonder- ing if the minister can explain how such an increase can be justified to this small businessman. Mr. Dunford: Mr.

Speaker, there is some background that will be necessary for this ques tion. First, I w ant to say this to the hon. member so that he can relay it back to his constituents and so that, in fact, any member here in the House, if they are running into that kind of a situation, can take this back as well that we tend to focus on the appeal system inside workers’ compensation as som ehow being there solely for injured worke rs. The appeal system is an appeal sys tem, and any em ployer is entitled, then, to use that particular appeal sy stem s hould they ha ve a conc ern about thei r particular rates.

This is a very tough one not only for the member and his constitu- ent, but we’re finding that we’re having this th roughout the pr ov- ince. What happened was that at one time we had a huge category that included basically all of the construction activities. Representa- tions were made to the Workers’ Compensation Board by genera l contractors and by others, and they were successful in getting a new definition or, I gue ss, a n ew divi sion among st the const ruction trades, and what happened w as tha t it put roofe rs and fr amers basically in to a category by them selves.

Now, anyone that has followed the lost-time claim rate in this province knows that that is an area of particular concern because of the incident ra te that is happening in that area. So there’s going to be constant pressure until the number of injuries in that area is reduced. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Magnus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the same minister. Given that my constituent has had an increased cost to his bottom line that is challenging to absorb, are there any ways in which the impact of this large increase over the span of two years can be mitigated? Mr.

Dunford: Well, I thought I heard the word “mitigated” as the last part of his question. Again, I would urge the member to consult

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 505 with his consti tuent and to make sure that they have gone through the appeal system at the Wo rkers’ Compensation Board. I w ould further urge the member to talk to his constituent about certificates of recognition where we show, then, a com mitment in wri ting by employers that they will in fact reduce the incident rate within their particular company.

Now, if the incident rate has been zero, then it’s difficult to talk about any sort of reduction, but the very fact of being recognized with a certif icate, of course, immediately e nacts a 5 per cent reduction in the WCB assessment leading to a maximum of a 20 per cent reduction on that assessment. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. 2:20 Fish and Wildlife Management Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Alberta Fish and Game executive are very concerned about fish and wildlife management in Alberta, and particularly they are concerned about how the Alberta Conservation Association has been handling the over $7 million that they have under their control. My questions are to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Can you tell us why there’s a duplication of services with that $7 million? It should more rightly be under your control. Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, there’s no duplication in that process.

This organization was set up as an arm’s-length operation and given the delegated authority to be abl e to work and plan along with the interested shareholders. There is no duplication. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker , perhaps the minister could tell us why those in the employ of the Alberta Conservat ion Association have access to up-to-date, modern equipment and vehicles and your own staff members don’t. Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, of course, the member wouldn’t know what the Department of Sustainable Resource Development has or doesn’t have, and you can tell by the questions.

We do have over a hundred fish and wildlife officers. The budget has increased in that department. We spend close t o $3 8 mi llion in that particular department. All w e’re trying to do is m ake sure that we operate efficiently within that department, and once that happens, once we do have the restraints in place, that will ensure that some of the jobs we do are necessary. I can give you a good example, Mr.

Speaker, in relation to travel because that has come up in the House bef ore, where I suggested that, you kn ow, when meetings are held in Edmonton that requir e staff, say, to come from Slave Lake and other jurisdictions outside of Edmonton, the meetings start at 10 in the morning rather than 8 in the morning so that those people do not have to leave a day earlier and travel the night before to come to Edmonton. Those ty pes of activities are taking place. The other area is the number of people sent sometimes when they have che ckstops.

I’ve seen ca ses whe re they have a c heckstop where our department and the RCMP were involved in it. They had 20 vehicles doing a fisheries checkstop on a Father’s Day south of Calling Lake, where I come from. You know, they did not need 20 staff or 20 vehicles to do a minor checkstop of that nature. I said: surely, we can do a better job than that i n managing our resources within the department. Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: why has there not been any priority or focused spending for hunters and anglers so that they can conduct necessary fish and w ildlife surveys and better manage the resources in the province? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, we have a fisheries strategy. Of course, that member would not know of it becaus e she’s not part of t he government. She’s the opposition. The sky is always falling on the opposition. In fact, they don’t even listen to the answer when you try to answer after they ask a question. But that’s fine. I’ll channel it through you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Thank you.

I want the minister to know that I am listening. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Electricity Prices Mr. Mason: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. The Energy minister knows no s hame when it comes to spinning the fact that power prices are way up since deregulation. Now the minister has taken to calling Manitoba a c ommunist ju risdiction to deflect questions about why Manitoba’s pow er rates are sta ble whil e Alberta’s have increased 60 per cent since 2000.

The minister has gone from being the Baghdad Bob of energy deregulation to the Joe McCarthy of high power bills. To the minister: how can the minister justify his position that the 60 per cent . . . The Speaker: Okay. We hav e a qu estion. We hav e a questi on. [interjections] Please, please, please. Just a second. I’m going to recognize the minister. Mr. Mar: Okay, Bob. The Spe aker: Whoa. We are ex uberant today with all thos e personality things. Okay. We’ve got a question. Mr. Smit h: Well, t hank you, Mr. Speaker. We justify those statements by the very careful use of the facts. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, I will attempt to restate my first question, and that is: how does the minister justify his position that the 60 per cent hike over four years with big ger spikes in between is nothing more than a simple cost-of-living increase? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the cost of elec tricity has dropped 24 pe r cent in the rural are as of Alberta in the calendar year 2004, and he knows that his own bill has dropped 20 per cent. Why don’t we have a look at his own bill, and we’ll just have a discussion on that? Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speake r, given t hat the New Democr ats have tabled hundreds of power bills that have gone up and thousands of names on petitions calling for an end to deregulation, when will the minister table ev en one singl e residential bill th at has gone down since deregulation began, not just in the last year when these riders came off? Mr. Smith: Well, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is stay tuned. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004506 Petroleum Reserves Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Giv en that the livelihood of ordinary Albertans and the strong economy of A lberta depends a great deal on confidence in the petroleum industry and resources, given that the natural resources in Alberta belong to Albertans – my question today is to the Minister of Energy – could the minister tell Albertans how Alberta’s petr oleum re serves are ca tegorized and estimated? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is ve ry much a questi on of information.

I think th at I can start by talking a bout the Alberta Energy and Utilitie s Board. T his organization on an annua l basis publishes a document called Alberta’s reserves, and through careful analysis and the use of skilled individuals in reservoir technology and the core a nalysis and in volum etric ca lculation as well as economic forecasting and e conomic use of pric e models, they are able to come up with specific reserve numbers. Just for an e xample, Mr. Speaker, the 174 bill ion barrels of the Alberta oil sands that have been put forth with the U.S.

Department of Energy last April and accepted by them as well as the world Oil and Gas Journal – that data comes from over 56,000 wells that have been drilled in the area of the oil sands , analyzed, as well as fro m over 6,000 core samples that remain in the possession of the Alberta government through the A lberta Ener gy and Utilities Board in a building directly adjacent to the University of Calgary. Mr. Cao: My supplemental question is to the s ame minister. Mr.

Speaker, given that th ere is recent news about unethical business cases in other parts of the world allegedly delaying the rele ase of petroleum reserve estimates that may have negative impacts on their own companies in the financial market, how does the minister ensure that Alberta natural resource estimates, including reserves from oil companies, are consistently and correctly done and released? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard comments, particularly from this side, saying that it’s a very good question.

It is a g ood question because we’ve seen what occurs with specific companies that get int o diffic ulty about how petrole um reserves ar e stated. Although most shares of oil and gas companies are traded on price- earning multiple s and on cash flows, the statement of reserv es reflects the net worth o f that company. So from a macro basis we use the numbe rs from the Albe rta Energ y and Utilities Boar d, because anybody who’s a resource developer in this province must submit a core sample.

The w ell logs, the informat ion about the various wells themselves – and I may ev en re commend a great publication called the Canadian Discovery Digest that outlines these logs – will tell us about the reserves. But we do not take the word of the individual oil companies. We use the EUB to calculate a gross quantity of our reserves. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you. My last supplemental question is to the same minister. What are the latest estimates of Alberta petroleum reserves in comparison with the major producing area in the world? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, we’re number two in the world, which I think is very important. Number one is Saudi Arabia, which pumps right now abou t 9 million barrels a day. L ast year, Mr. Spea ker, Saudi Arabia, for the first time in 20 years, balanced their budget. They have produced some $74 billion worth of oil, and that allowed them to balance their budget.

The budget of this province has been balanced since 1995, and the royalties that have been collected this year should be in excess of $8 billion. 2:30 The Speaker: Hon. members, very shortly I’ll call on the fir st of four to participate today, but just a couple of comments because of the equity i n the question pe riod. Hon. Mem ber for Edmonton- Calder, your second question had a

preamble, but I let it go by. So I compensated to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry with the length of his third qu estion, w hich was almost as long a s the continuous length of the questions provided by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, however. Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I ris e to introduce to you and through y ou to this As sembly some v isitors f rom the province of Sask atchewan as we ll as A lberta. O ur visitors from Saskatchewan are Richard and Angie Klassen. Mr. Klassen will be relating their story of false allegations at a meeting tonight and their 10-year fight in the courts to be exonerated. Richard and Angie are seated in the members’ gallery along with Richard’s brother Dale, his wife, Anita, and their son Trevor from Red Deer, A lberta, also four of their local friends and supporters, Mr. Gary DeVries, Angie Geworsky, Tracy Marcotte, and Mike Russell.

I would like to ask them to please stand a nd receive the ve ry warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleas ure to introduce to you and t hrough you t o all members of the A ssembly a number of inj ured workers that have joined us today to witness the proceedings in the Assembly.

They are Reg Frie drich, Ralph T eed, John Ste ele, Terry Fedorak, Mike Renaud, Betty Chong, Charlie Sams, Rod Barrett, Ron Barrett, Ron Nahrebeski, Mike Beauchamp, Erich Schmidt, Karl Johnson, Lana Lamont, Bob Miller, Bruce Hall, Virginia Losier, and Don Purcell. With your permission I’d ask them all to now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman : Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Speaker.

I’m always pleased when vi siting cla sses f rom NorQ uest Colleg e atte nd the Assembly and allow me to introduce them to you and through you to all members of the Assembly. Joining us in the publi c galler y today we have 13 members of the NorQuest College ESL class for career options for new Canadians. They are joined by their teacher, Mr. Allan Carlson. I would ask them all to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you very much for coming. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake.

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 507 Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie Mr. Ducha rme: Merci, M. le Président. Aujourd’hui c’est un plaisir pour m oi de présenter à la Cham bre une ex plication d’un événement Cana dien qui s’appe lle Les Rendez-v ous de la Francophonie. Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie se déroulent à la grandeur du Canada sur u ne base annuelle. Duran t cette période de temps on célèbre les communautés francophones afin de promouvoir la langue et la culture françaises tant par ses activités sociales et ses célébra- tions que par sa dimension humaine et communautaire.

Les Rendez- vous contribuent à renforcer les liens entre les an glophone s et les francophones du Canada et favorisent un plus grand respect entre ces deux communautés. De plus en plus nos m unicipalités Albertaines se joi gnent aux Rendez-vous en tenant de s cérém onies p our reconnaît re leur communauté francophone. Parmi ces municipalités cette année on compte Edmonton, L ethbridge, Calgary. F élicitations à ces municipalités. Ce matin à la rotonde de la Législature le Président de la Chambre était hôte d’une belle célébration dédiée à la reconnaiss ance de la contribution des francophones à notre province.

C’est un geste que la communauté apprécie beaucoup, si on en juge par la participation importante de la communauté. Je tiens aussi à rem ercier mes collègues de l’Assemblée qui se sont dérang és pour ass ister à l a célébration. Cette sixième édition des Rendez-vous revêt une si gnification spéciale par ce qu’ elle m arque l’ouve rture des c érémonies du 400ième anniversaire de l’établissement du pre mier établissement permanent français en sol Nord-Américai n. Plusieurs activités se dérouleront au cours de s mois qui suivent da ns les provinces maritimes pour mettre en évidence cet anniversaire.

En terminant, j’aimerais remercier le groupe d’étudiants et d’aînés de ma circonscription qui sont venus de Bonn yville pour célébrer avec nous. Merci, M. le Président. [Translation] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today it is my pleasure to provide the Assembly with information on a wonderful Canadian event called Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie are held throughout Ca nada on a yearly basis, and this year the y run fro m March 5 to March 21.

During that period of time attention is focused on francophone communities with the idea of promoting French language and culture, as much through community and human relations a s throu gh so cial act ivities a nd celebrations. Les Rendez-vous contribute to the reinforcement of links between francophones and anglophones in Canada by fostering greater respect betwee n the two comm unities. More and more of our municipalities are joining in Les Rendez-vous by holding ceremo- nies to recogni ze their f rancophone com munities.

Edmonton, Lethbridge, Calgary are so me of t he municipalities that held flag- raising cerem onies to m ark the l aunch of th ese cele brations. Congratulations to all of them. This morning the off ice of t he Speake r hosted a w onderful ceremony in the rotunda to r ecognize the contributi ons of the francophone comm unity t o our province. It was very m uch appreciated by the francop hone commun ity judgin g by the large attendance. I also want to thank my colleague MLAs who took time off their busy schedules to stop by.

The sixth edition of these Rendez-vous takes on a special meaning because they mark the beginning of a f ull year of cel ebration to recognize the 400th anniv ersary of the e stablishment of the f irst permanent French settlement in North America. A large number of activities are planned in the maritime provinces over the course of the year to celebrate this anniversary. Once again I want to thank the group, composed of students and seniors, from my constituency who have come a ll th e way from Bonnyville to celebrate this event with us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [As submitted] The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Shaw. Sour Gas Well Development Mrs. Ady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to address an issue that is nat urally of deep concern for my constituents. T hat is the application by Compton Petroleum that i s currently in front of the EUB. Mr. Speaker, Compton Petroleum is requesting permission of the EUB to drill an additional six wells into a site that has existed on the southeast corner of the city of Calgary for the past 30 years. The y will argue that with new technology and additional wells they’ll be able to rem ove the g as in approx imately 11 y ears instead of 30.

They’ll also argue that it can be done safely. As you can understand, my constituents have concerns about that argument. However, Mr. Speaker, there is a purpose, and the EUB is going to hear with their application whether that can be done. It will give thos e who disa gree or ha ve leg itimate c oncerns about public safety the opportunity to intervene. I’ve been working with the EUB, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that my constituents have an e qual opportunity to vo ice those concerns. Whether they’re the city of Calgary, the fire department, the Calgary health region, community groups, they all have a role to play.

If the EUB is not convinced that an energy project can be constructed and operated safely, it will not allow that development to proceed. For example, in December 2003 the EUB denied an application by Polaris Resources to drill a critical sour gas well near the Whaleback area in southwestern Alberta because the company did not convince the EUB hearing panel that it could drill the well safely. Companies are responsible for understan ding th e natural r isks and ha zards associated with what they propose, and if necessary, as in this case, there’s a transparent and impartial EUB hearing.

Last week Compton Petroleum of Canada requested that the EUB postpone the hearings on the development of these wells. The EUB is expected to respond to Compton’s request in the n ext while to postpone the hearing until late summer or early fall in 2004. I want to reas sure my c onstituents tha t the EUB w ill give them a fair hearing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Benefits Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Seniors feel that their programs have taken the brunt of this government’s budget cutting over the last decade.

A recent Alberta Council on Aging poll shows that thi s government h as forced seniors to take f rom their food and health budgets for services that were once covered by the province. Forget having money for social activities and transporta- tion; that was the first to go for many seniors.

Increases due to energ y deregulation and m ounting automobile insurance coupled with the elimination of seniors’ exemption from health care premiums, the loss of universal funding for dental care, dentures, and eye glasses, and the e limination of the educati on property tax exemption up to $1,000 have made merely existing a hardship for many Alberta seniors.

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004508 Seniors were willing to make some sacrifices for the good of the province, but they never counted on being left with virtually nothing. Now they’re mobilizing through groups like the Coalition of Seniors Advocates, COSA, in Calgary and Seniors United Now, SUN, in the Edmonton area, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, now has an Edmonton branch. Seniors want the same benefits they had before this government started paying down the debt on their backs. Middle-income seniors are being impove rished by this governmen t.

The Alberta Li beral opposition believes that seniors make a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Albe rta and deserve our respec t, and that’s why we’ve developed an alternative.

The Alberta Liberal opposition wants to see universal dental and optical benefits fo r seni ors re instated, healt h care premiu ms eliminated, peop le in priva te hea lth c are faci lities and home s included within the Protection f or Persons in Care Act or similar stronger legislation, consistent capital funding provided for seniors’ lodges, and a body set up spec ifically to investigate complaints of elder abuse, among others. We believe there is a n alternat ive to forcing seniors to take food off their tables t o pay for dentures and eyeglasses. We have a better solution. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Long-term Care Industry Ms Kryczka: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. As an MLA I’ve heard about the challenges facing the long-term care industry in Alberta from constituents in my Calgary-West office to repr esentatives of the Alberta Lon g Term Care A ssociation at the Standing Policy Committee on Health a nd Community Living.

Q uality of life for residents in the long-term care centres has improved due largely to the 2003 accommodation rate increase, but there are still quality-of- care needs that need to be a ddressed by government by additional funding through the health regions. 2:40 What is rarely reported on or spoken about, though, Mr. Speaker, are t he many good-news stories that exist, such as Carewest’s dementia care training program, supportive pathways, that will be offered to 3,000 fro nt-line heal th care w orkers in Alberta.

The benefits of this program will be far reaching as close to 75 per cent of long-term care residents in r esident facilities have Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementias. Another story i s that of the Capital Care Group c elebrating 40 years of caring in 2004. Their well-known reputation has been built on visionary leadership, excellent man agement, education, and resources, as w ell as dedicated staff. Capital Care staff are a big reason why r esidents a nd fam ilies choos e this orga nization f or continuing care services. Mr.

Speaker, the truly unsung heroes, who care for over 14,000 residents in Alberta’s long-term care facilities, are the staff, who are dedicated, skilled, and co mpassionate profe ssionals who want to care for res idents to the best of t heir abi lity but are fr equently challenged; for example, when resident care needs exceed staffing levels or when re sident behav iours prove almost impo ssible to contain or control. I have met residents and staff in many long-term care centres and have come to fully appreciate the challenges to whic h I refe r.

Families and frie nds do a wonde rful job as caregivers, but there comes a time when one spouse or parent ne eds the le vel of c are provided in the long-term care centre. Who better to care for them on a daily basis than knowledgeable and caring staff? I suggest to this Assembly today that we all make a serious effort to walk a mile in the shoes of our long-term care staff and award them the recognition and respect that is truly deserved. Thank you. head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank yo u very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m g iving notice that I’ll be rising later this afternoon, at the conclusion of the daily Routine, to move a Standing Order 40 application. Thank you. head: Tabling R eturns and R eports Mr. Zwozdesky: M. le Président, c’est un grand plaisir pour moi aujourd’hui de déposer une lettre adressée à M. Ernest Chauvet, le président de l’Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, suite à la cérémonie ce m atin à la Légi slature qui marquait la sixième édition des Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. Merci. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a copy of a letter written to Mr.

Ernest Chauvet, president of the French-Canadian association of Albe rta, following this morning’s ceremony in the rotunda of the Legislature to mark the sixth edition of Les Rendez- vous de la Francophonie. [As submitted] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. I’m tabling five copies of a graph from the Parkland Institute re port re leased this morning showing that provincial health spending is at about the same level as 1993 once inflation and population growth are factored in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr.

Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling the ap propriate numbers of correspondence referred to yesterday in question period. It’s a letter from the regional clinical department head of the Calgary health region to Mrs. Kathy Briant relating to concerns in emergency wards in Calgary. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of Wome n and Non-Standa rd Work: A Grass roots Approach.

This is a project of the Womanspace Resource Centre in Lethbridge, Alberta, released in Novem ber 2003, wri tten by J ane Barter Moulaison and r esearched by Barter Moulaison, Lisa Lambert, and Jackie Woodworth. It has been partially funded by the Alberta Community Development human rights, multiculturalism, and citizenship fund. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first is a letter from Marianne J. Murray to the hon. Premier.

It is in regard to the devastation of electricity deregulation and how it has affected a business. My second tabling is a letter dated March 16, 2004. It is a letter that I’ve written on behalf of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition f or

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 509 Alberta in regard to the opening of the border with the Americans so we can ship live cattle. Thank you. head: Motions under St anding Order 40 The Speak er: The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Centre on a Standing Order 40 application. Seniors’ Benefits Ms Blakeman:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to reinstate the univer sal optica l and dental benefits progra m fo r seniors. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I rise on a Standing Order 40 application to present a motion to this Assembly. It has al ready been distribut ed to t he members. Of course, Standing Order 40 applications a re to be made in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, and it is asking for the Legislature to take a specific action.

Regarding the urgency, over the last few years I’ve been receiving increasing numbers of letters and phone calls from seniors groups urging the g overnment to reinstate their benefits that were taken away a decade ago. In recent months the calls for the reinstatement of seniors’ benefits from groups like COSA, the Coalition of Seniors Advocates, and Seniors U nited Now, also known as SUN, h ave become even more urgent as the people they represent have become more desperate. Over the past decade Alberta seniors have seen the universal benefits they had enjoyed dwindle away to almost nothing.

Middle- income senio rs were hit the harde st since t hey now qualify for virtually no seniors’ programs yet still bear the burden of increases to utility rates, car insurance, an d long-t erm care. This w as illus- trated by a recent Alberta Counci l on A ging poll that showed that after so cial activities and transportation seniors were cutting into their food and health budgets to pay their bills. I believe that it is urgent that we address that concern.

The response from the government has been to reduce seniors’ benefits by allowing the increase of other user fees that seniors have to pay and increasing health care premiums and soon likely Alberta Blue Cross. I urge all hon. members of the House to grant unanimous consent for the moti on and to reinstate the universal optical and dental benefits programs for seniors. Thank you. [Unanimous consent denied] head: Orders of t he Day head : Transmittal of Estimate s The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Mrs. Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I hav e received a certain message from Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, which I now transmit to you. The Sergeant-at-Arms: Order! The Speaker: Hon. members, the L ieutenant Governor transmits interim supply estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province and of certain sums required from the lottery fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Please be seated. Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, I now wish to table the 2004-05 interim supply estima tes.

These i nterim s upply est imates will prov ide spending authority to the Legislative Assembly and the government for the t wo months e nding May 31, 2004. By that date, it is anticipated that spending authorization will have been provided for the entire fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. As announced previously, we are tabling Budget 2004 on March 24.

When passe d, th ese in terim supply estimates will authorize approximate spending of $5 billion in oper ating expens e and equipment and inventory purchases, $133.5 million in capital investment, $66.4 million in nonbudgetary disbursem ents, and $313.6 million in lottery fund payments. Interim supply amounts are based on department’s needs and fund government programs and service s until t he end of Ma y. Whi le many payments are monthly, other payments are due at t he begin- ning of the quarter and fiscal year. Some payments are seasonal. head: Government Motions 11. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that the message from Her Honour the Honour- able the Lieutenant Governor, the 2004-05 interim su pply estimates, and all ma tters connected therewith be re ferred to Committee of Supply. [Government Motion 11 carried] 12. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 58(9) the number of days that Committee of Supply will be called to consider the 2004-05 interim supply estimates shall be two days. [Government Motion 12 carried] head: 2:50 Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 21 Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2004 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 21, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2004. This bill proposes a number of minor amendments to the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 20 03, which received Royal Assent last spring.

The need for these am endments arose during the proces s of drafting regulations and prepar ing for the implementation o f t his new c hild w elfare legisla tion. The a mendments in Bill 21 are largely a matter of housekee ping. They will cl arify wording i n places where there are inconsistencies or ambiguities and will also ensure that the act is aligned with the Family Law Act and the Vital Statistics Act. This means making the wording consistent between the acts and allowing for the consolidation of some of the regula- tions.

The am endments will also e nsure that c hildren rec eiving services under the Protec tion of Childr en Involved in Prostitution Act will ha ve access to se rvices provided by the child a nd youth advocate. These amendments, Mr. Speaker, will also allow for a smoother transition between the existing and new legislation by, for example,

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004510 providing sufficient time for facilities to apply for licensing under the new provisions. Othe r amendments include clar ifying that a foster parent or someone with a very close relationship with the child can apply for a review of a director’s decision and represent a child’s wishes during a review and appeal process. Mr. Speaker, the amendments in Bill 21 will fine-tune Alberta’s new child welfare legislation. This is important legislation that will help us better support and prote ct Alberta’s children, youth , and families. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 21. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Interim Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the member speaking about Bill 21, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2004. The num ber of bills and amendments to the or iginal Child Welfare Act are becoming numerous, and when I saw that this was on the Order Paper, it rea lly made me wonder if things are being thought out as thoroughly as they should be. If they are, why do we keep finding ourselves back here with more and more amendments?

Each time we’re told that the amendments are minor, and that’s only a prelude to a set of amendments that will be tabled the next session. I think that some of the departments have managed to put up the draft regulations before we have to consider the bill in the Legisla- ture. If I he ard the member correctly , he indicated that these amendments are a result of changes needed after the regulations had been drafted.

So, again, maybe it would be better if the department followed the lead of other de partments like t he Departm ent of Justice, where w e get a look at the regulations and, mor e impor- tantly, where that department gets a look at the regulations and can make the adjustments needed in the bills before they appear in front of us in the Legislature. That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I doubt if things will change, and I predict that we’ll be back here next session with another amendment to the Child W elfare Act bec ause something else has been overlooked. There are a number of changes in the bill.

It redefines the job of the child advocate and includes the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act. It allows the advocate to delegate his duties to people within the sphere of the youngster’s life. We have always had difficulty with the positioni ng of the child and youth adv ocate, Mr. Speaker. We believe that it should be a legitimate officer of the L egislature and that answering to the minister is an inappropriate position for the advocate to be placed in.

As far as the a mendments d on’t deal with that, we feel that it’s a mistake, and that’s a position w e’ve had over the pa st number of years. The changes in the alternative dispute resolution are going to be again defined by regulations, and I would ask if those regulations have been draf ted. I gue ss there are som e other ques tions with respect to the discl osure of doc uments created by the altern ative dispute resolution. It’s being broadened to include any documents that affect the development of a child, and when you think of it, Mr. Speaker, that really almost opens the door to anything.

How do you determine what isn’t going to affect the development of a child? I guess the question it a lso raises is: w ho’s going to protect a child’s personal information after the dispute is settled? So there are a number of questions around this particular provision that I think need to be clarified before we proceed. The bill removes the financial contributions that the family may have to provide when their child goes into the service and allows the court to demand treatment for both the child and guardian.

It seems to give th e court the ability to make decisions without regulated control on what is required to bring the family bac k together. At least that’s the impression that we’re left with. The bill further changes the amount of time for which a court can make a secure services order from 10 to five days. It forc es the family guardians to be notified by any means necessary within one day if this secure services order is giv en by the courts. They may apply for fi ve days to stabili ze the chi ld or asse ss the chil d and prepare a plan for services.

There’s also a set of information that is supplied to the child when a secure services order is passed. Some minor changes: change in the amount of time from two to three days for the review of the secure services order. The bill also repealed all the information about how Children’s Services would obtain child support and allows a director to apply for child support to the courts. I think this is a

section that we have to look at carefully, Mr. Speaker. It deletes a large part about child support from the original act, and it removes the process by which directors would act to obtain child support. The question it raises, of course, is: what’s going to be done now? Does the child support law handle this? The act repeals the law that requires a native child to be registered under the Indian Act and removes the requirement for all documents to be sealed that are used to require a consent of the minister or the court.

Again, it raises the question: how are these children going to maintain the ir t reaty s tatus afte r adoption? A nd why w as this particular change brought in? There’s now an 18-m onth wait be fore residential facilities will have to be properly licensed, and the m inister may also vary the terms and t he con ditions to w hich that lic ence is s ubject, Mr. Speaker. I guess the question is: why? Why does the minister need this control? And why was this cons idered an a ppropriate time period?

Another provision is that the court may direct a child to have legal representation if the c ourt believes the vi ews of the child a re not being adequately represented. It further allows the court to ask for records from Children’s Services if required in a case, but they still can’t reveal the client or guardian. The bill has spelled out exactly what would be required to get a reco rd and h ow that inf ormation would be treated once before a court.

It gives the director licence to publish the name and personal information of a client if they deem it in the interest of justice. 3:00 The bill is, as the mover indicated, an amendment. Many of the clauses are housekeeping clauses, but there are some larger issues that I think we deserve an answer to before we proceed with the bill. Hopefully, we’ll r eceive those answ ers from the mini ster or the mover of the bill. [Mr.

Shariff in the chair] One final provision that I think again deserves some explanation is the chang e in the am ount of tim e you ca n sentence a parent or guardian who causes a child to be in need of protective services from 12 months to 24 months. While we sympathize with that provision, Mr. Speaker, two years is really a long period out of the child’s life, and that’s particularly true of a v ery young chil d. Agai n, so me explanation of why there has been this extension of that provision would be of interest. I think those are the comments I have at this stage, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 511 Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I apprec iate the opportunity to just raise a couple of questions and concerns briefly touched on by my hon. colleague for Edmonton-Mill Woods. I’m particularly intereste d in knowing the history and the rea soning behind

section 15 in the bi ll, which is – here we go again – really amending the old sections 57.2 and 57.5 to 57.9. Now, I know that we’re not to be going into word-by -word and clause-by-clause analysis of a bill at this point. We’re really talking about t he principle of the bill, but I’m struggling to approve of the principle of this bill when I don’t understa nd why t hese acti ons are bei ng contemplated. Specifically w hat’s being considered here is tha t the sec tions talking about support orders – we would usually call them mainte- nance orders – are being el iminated from the originating act, the Child Welfare Act, and a very short

section is being left in which essentially says that if t he director of child w elfare has a chi ld in custody or has a temporary guardianship order or a permanent guardianship order, I suppos e, or the dir ector has entered int o a family enhancem ent agre ement, the direct or can ente r i nto an agreement whereby the guardian of the c hild agrees to pay child support. The only other

section that’s left in here is that that doesn’t prevent the director of child welfare from also applying to the courts for child support. That’s it. Now, what’s being removed from the bill with this amendment is everything else. Well, what does that mean? Just let me briefly go over some of the things that it means. It’s taking out the set-up, you know, if a director of child welfare takes over guardianship of the child. They, obviously, have been able in the past to go and seek an agreement or an order or apply, according to the form prescribed in the regulations, to the court for basically child support.

Traditionally what we’ve had is the situation with maintenance enforcement where the maintenance is usually paid through the c ustodial parent. I ’m struggling to see how this is still going to work out in this new arrangement. Traditionally, if the custodial parent is receiving benefits from the government, the government has set it up that they have a right to claim the maintenance money that would usually be flowing through the custodial parent to the child, especially if there are arrears. Then we say t hat the govern ment has sub rogated th at money; they’ve claimed it for th emselves.

They’ve repaid themselves the money that they a re offering in a ssistance, and nobody seems to have a problem with that at this time. When the governmen t goes to chase do wn that money, th ey’ve been pretty vigorous in doing it mostly because they’re getting it for themselves. That has had a lot to do with their tenacity in trying to get the regul ar pay ments e stablished and also in pur suing any arrears, any debt that has bui lt up as a result of this.

We have a maintenance enforcement program to do that, and it also, of course, has been expanded and now will assist people whose maintenance orders are not subrogated to the government. That was the genesis of it. So we have a child welfare agreement here that is now removing all of the other rules around how the director of child welfare goes about establis hing support orde rs or obtaining money fro m a guardian in support of a child. It’s striking out sections like an order of the court can be retroactive to th e commencement date of the child coming into the cust ody of t he government.

I f the cour t is going to mak e an order r equiring a guardian to pay, they have to consider certain things like the income or the earning capacity and the financial resources of the guardian or the parent. They have to consider the value of the estate, if there is an estate that’s being held in trust for the child. They have to take into consideration the needs of the child. That whole

section is now being taken out and another whole

section around review. We traditionally have had a system where someone is always able to appeal a decision. T hey can go to a hig her level or a dif ferent level and appeal a decision that’s been made. That’s being removed in this section. So what we have in this amendment ac t is that it’s proposing to strike out all of these things that I’m talking about. It would be striking out the ability of a guardian or a parent or a trustee that has been ordered to pay child support, their ability to apply to the court for a review of the order. That’s now being removed. The court when looking at an order under this

section can decide to “vary, suspend or te rminate th e order or may reduce or cancel [any] arrears.” That’s being re moved. So everything to do with support orders is being taken out except for the first two sections that I talked about; that is, that the director of child welfare can seek an order whereby a gua rdian would ag ree to pay child support – i t doesn’t say to whom; I’m presuming to the government – also that that doesn’t stop t he director of child w elfare from going to the courts to seek a court order for child support.

All the rest of the set- up, the rules around how we usually deal with child su pport ar e being removed, and I’ve already listed quite a few of them, including that review process a nd the ability of the c ourts to var y the orde r that’s in place. It sets out that an agreement or an order that was under this would terminate, and then it g ave the conditions under which it w ould automatically terminate, like if the child is adopte d or if the chil d died or if the child, you know, reaches the age of majority or if the child married, for example.

All of those would be reasons that the court order would be deemed fulfilled or null and void. That

section is being removed. We also have a

section where it sets out the responsibilities of the director of ma intenance e nforcement under this arrange ment. I t makes me a little nervous that all of thi s is going away, and I’m seeing two pretty narrow sections being left in place without all the rest of these supporting rules. So I’m looking to the sponsor of the bill to explain to me on the record why this is being removed. There may well be a very simple explanation, but I get a little ne rvous when I see things like this happening and I’m not hearing why being articulated.

Those are the concerns that I’m seeing because I’m a proponent of the mai ntenance enforcement program a nd of court-ordered support for children. I’m not sure why I’m seeing the government abolish all the rules that we have been operating under or what we understand has been the relationship we expect to have there, why it’s all being taken out, including avenues of appeal, when the thing starts, when the thing ends, how one appeals it, how one buries it. All of those r ules are now struck, and I woul d like to know why. How does the mover of the bill anticipate all of this is going to be handled?

I sure hope I’m not going to be told that this is going to be under regulations now, because that will make m e really unhappy, and you know that when I get unhappy, I get wordy, usually late at night. 3:10 So if I could hear from the mover of the bill why that is happen- ing, it would m ake me more interested in supporting t his bill i n principle at second reading. At this point I will have to reserve my opinion. Well, actually, that probably means I’ll have to not support it in second reading until I can hear some sort of explanation for this.

There’s something wrong here, and I’d like to hear the answer for it. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 21 read a second time]

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004512 Bill 22 Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 The Acting Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move Bill 22, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, for second reading. Like last year’s electoral boundaries commission act, the responsi- bility for carrying this bill on behalf of government rests with the Department of Justice and hence the reason I’m bringing it forward, although it deals w ith acts w hich are r eally the purvie w of the Legislative Assembly itself.

The bill makes ame ndments t o legisla tion based pri marily on numerous recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. This will help to ensure that our legislation is up to date prior to the next election. I must say off the top, Mr . Speaker, that I’d like to recognize Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, Brian Fjeldheim, and all of the people who work with him. The staff at Elections Alberta had a busy year last yea r wi th the whole re distribution proc ess and working with the commission on that behest.

Their efforts on behalf of all Albertans ensure that we can be proud of our electoral events, that they’re conducted fa irly and in an unbiased and impartial manner, that all parties and stakeholders, regardless of political party or viewpoint , have a set of rules and can abide by those rules. Albertans can be proud of their democratic experience.

Tabling this bill does not, I hasten to add, indicate anything with respect to an early election call, as was suggested by the Member for Edmonton-Centre following the press conference that we had about the agenda f or this y ear’s session when I mentioned the E lection Act. The question of an election call is not in my purview. This is simply a bill to update and improve the Election Act, based primar- ily, as I said, on input from the Chief Electoral Officer. For the mos t part the bi ll contai ns minor hous ekeeping and updating of the legislation.

It makes several important and signifi- cant changes, however, and I’d just like to highlight a few of them for the Ass embly. Bill 22 m akes numerous ame ndments to four acts: the Elect ion Act, t he Election Finances a nd C ontributions Disclosure Act, the Alberta Personal I ncome T ax Ac t, and the Alberta Corporate Tax Act. I’ll go through the key amendments in each of these acts. There are more than 150 amendments being made to the Election Act.

That may seem like a daunting task, but most of them, as I say, are amendm ents of a hou sekeeping nature that reflect needed changes recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. Because the act is very specific and quite codified, small details that one might not otherwise expect to find in

an act, like allowing the authority to hire and delegate certain responsibilities to an executive ass istant, those sorts of things, are included right in the act. Dr. Taylor: Is one of the changes an election every 10 years? Mr. Hancock: The hon. minister from Cypress -Medicine Hat has advocated 10-year terms in the act, but I can assure him that most of us are quite happy to go back to the electorate and get our mandate renewed on a regular basis.

The bill will update and clarify a description of the duties of the Chief Ele ctoral Officer and his office, amend severa l definiti ons such as the poll book, official agent, and seniors’ lodge to ensure that they’re up to date and deal with more current terms. Existing legislation also addre sses how candidates ’ names appear on the ballot, updates the format of how names appear on the ballot. The change will basically boost the font size. As you can tell, Mr.

Speaker, some of the things that we’re dealing with in this act are very, very detailed, not like you’d expect to find in most acts but for the clarity of ensuring that electors, candidates, parties can look at the act and see all the rules clearly spelled out. Other changes of significance in this act include amendments that will improve accessibility to apartment complexes and mobile-home parks for enumerato rs as well as for cand idates and campaign workers.

Agai n, we’re trying to ensure he re that A lbertans have every opportunity t o participate in th eir elections, so m aking sure that they’re on the voters list is absolutely essential, of course, and making sure that they have access to information so that they can be informed prior to v oting is a lso esse ntial. In k eeping w ith the tradition of the act, making sure that access is available for enumera- tors and candidates and campaign workers is essential. Enumerators will also be required to visit a residence at least twice more after an unsuccessful first visit.

Other amendments will help to ensure the accuracy of the register of electors, also known as the list of eligible voters, as well as control access to that personal information and protect the privacy of voters. One very significant ch ange will sig nificantly im prove the flexibility of the way we use advance polls. Under existing legisla- tion advance polls can only be accessed by a select group of people under very specific circumstances. Eliminating the limitation will make this option available for even more Albertans who may wish to vote but for whatever reason are unable to get out to the polling station.

Mr. Speaker, we’re always concerned about the turnout of voters and making sure that people ha ve every opportunity to vote, and I think this c hange is a signifi cant one, be cause w hile you’re not encouraging everybody to vo te in the adv ance polls, often peopl e don’t vote sim ply bec ause of inconvenie nce. Opening up the advance polls so that people can vote at them without having to sign a declar ation say ing that the y’re going to be abs ent from their normal residence on election day makes it available and perhaps will encourage even more people to get out to the polls.

I would indicate – this is not an amendment – that in the Election Act there’s a provision for a person to vote at the returning office any time during the writ period, I believe, after nominations have ceased. Again, the key here is to ensure that all Albertans have the opportunity to participa te and are encourage d to p articipate i n elections. I wouldn’t suggest that this is the final sol ution to that broader issue of encouraging a higher turnout of voters, but I think anything we can do to encourage Albertans to take advantage of their right to vote is a step in the right direction.

Along this line, the rules that govern the use of special ballots are also clarified under Bill 22. A new change to this area of the act will allow secure voting for those Albertans who feel that their personal safety may be at ris k if they appear in person a t the polls.

A gain, this will not necessarily be used by a wide number of people, but in keeping with the co ncept of protec tion of priv acy and in keeping with the concept that there may be people who do not w ish their location to be disclosed or do not wish to be accessible because they fear that they’re at risk either from a family member or some other threat, this chang e will m ake it pos sible for them to pa rticipate without endangering themselves.

Special ballots that are cast by mail are requested throughout the election period in w riting, by phone, fax , or in person a nd hav e traditionally been reserved for speci al ci rcumstances such as physical incapacity. This ame ndment will extend thes e circu m- stances to those people who feel that thei r safety may be at risk. With our co-o rdinated efforts, as I was talking about, to address family violence, including the work being done b y the Minister of Children’s Services, this is but another example of how we can help to ensure the safety of those people that feel that they are at risk.

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 513 3:20 With that, I’d m ove on to the other ma jor act tha t’s being amended by Bill 22. The Ele ction Finance s and Contributi ons Disclosure Act helps ensure the transparency and accountability of candidate fundraisi ng and par ty fi nances. One amendm ent will allow the office of the Chief Electoral Officer to publish candidates’ expenses on the Internet. Another amendment will clarify that donations raised at a fundraising function are considered contribu- tions and a re the refore subject to di sclosure.

Other cha nges will clarify that public ins titutions and their subsidiaries, such as municipalities, regional health author ities, sc hool boards, ar e prohibited from making political contributions. Another amendment will allow the Chief Electoral Officer to cancel the registration of a political party if it fails to run a candidate i n a general election or senatorial election. Other changes are significant in that they increase the maximum contribution limits to a party’s constituency associa tions and individual candidates for the first time since 1980.

These amounts are being increased by 33 per cent, w hich I belie ve is si gnificant. However, it’s been nearly 25 years since the numbers were first put in place, so the increase is not, in my view, unreasonable. Just for the record I’ll go over each of the changes. The maximum contribution for individual candidates will be increased from $1,500 to $2,000 and from $7,500 to $10,000 in total for candidates of each of the registered parties. The maximum contribution to i ndividual constituency associations will rise from $750 to $ 1,000 and from $3,750 to $5,000 in total for a party’s constituency association.

One other item which I should’ve mentioned perhaps unde r the Election Act is the increase in the deposit. I believe the increase is to $500 from currently $200 or $250. The purpose for the increase is to give the Chief Electoral Officer a tool to encourage candidates to file their financial statements on a timely basis under the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act. Formerly a candidate would put up a deposit, and if they achieved 50 per cent of the winning number of votes, they’d be entitled to the return of their deposit.

Now that the deposit is doubled, they still get the first 50 per cent, the first half, back if they meet the first test; that is, 50 per cent of the winning candidate’s votes. They get the second half of the deposit back regardless of the number of votes they get if they file their financial statement on a timely basis. This is a tool that was asked for by the C hief Electoral Officer just to encourage candidates to make sure that those filings are made.

Obviously, the Alberta Income Tax Act and the Alberta Corporate Tax Act have to be amended in a corollary fashion with respect to the maxi mum contribut ions and donations . These amendm ents increase the political contribution tax credit for both individuals and corporations. Like the maximum contributions named above, the amount has been $750 since 1980. Under Bill 22 it will be increased to $1,000. In conclusion, the changes under this bill are primarily those that were brought forward by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Obviously, he didn’t make comment on the amount of the contributions, but with respect to the operations of the Election Act those ar e primarily concerns that he’s put forward to modernize and improve the act and improve his ability to work with his staff in running fair elections in the province. So I would e ncourage support from members of the Assembly. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I t’s with interest that I ris e and partic ipate in the debate th is after noon at second reading of Bill 22.

I certainly was a keen listener to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General’s remarks in regard to Bill 22. We are looking at changes to four acts, 150 amendments. It is, as it was described by the hon. minister, an update and an improvement in some areas, but I don’t know if it is an improvement in all areas. Certainly, there was a discussion with the Chief Electoral Officer of the provinc e, but I wonder w hat other cons ultations w ent on in regard to this legislation. [interjection] Now, the hon.

Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar seems interested in participating in debate, and I will be anxious to listen to his comments in regard to this bill as well. If one wer e to l ook at this bill and think that if t here was one purpose and one purpose only and it was to increase voter turnout rates in t he province, then this bill would certainly be worthy of support. We need to improve voter participation in elections in this province; there’s no doubt about that. It astonishe s me.

Some communities which have the most to gain and the most to lose from good or bad public poli cy have very low voter turnout rates , and anything we can do to improve that should be supported. Now, I believe the hon. minister stated that Albertans should be given every opportunity to participate in elections, and I agree with that. But I do have some questions at this time in regard to this bill, and

section 13 certainly comes to mind. The Chief Elector al Offi cer ma y assign, in respect of each elector whose info rmatio n is co ntai ned i n the regi ster , a uni que and permanent iden tifier n um ber c ons isti ng of nu mb ers or letters, or a comb ination of num bers and letters , to be us ed to a ssist in di stin- guishi ng an el ecto r fro m another el ecto r or v eri fying the information about an elector. On first g lance this whol e idea of having a UIN, or a unique identifier number, to me would be a form of branding.

It is, in my view, at this time, unless there’s further explanation from govern- ment, Orwellian, and it certainly would be unnecessary. What is precisely the purpose o f this unique ide ntifier number? Why is it nece ssary to have a series of lette rs and num bers to identify each voter in this province on an electoral list? Wh at’s going on with this? Are there problems that we don’t know about with the curre nt system, where all t he information is in the po ll book? I don’t think there is. I s this gove rnment at so me time contemplating going to on-line voting or Internet voting?

Is that why we’re going to brand Albertans with one more number? We have a driver ’s licence number; we have a social insurance number. Now w e may be assigned by the Chief Electoral Officer this UIN. I think members of this House and certainly Albertans are owed an explanation as to why this branding may occur. We can look a t some of the attempts at Internet voting in other jurisdictions, and one would have to say that to have confidence in this process would be stretching it.

I’m privileged, I believe, to have read in the recent past an editorial observation by Adam Cohen in the New York Times dated Sunday, February 29. Mr. Cohen writes an interesting piece on electronic voting. If we are setting up in this bill the foundat ion for f uture attempts at this in Alb erta, then we have to hav e a muc h broader debate, and there has to be a much broader consultation than the one that was done in regard to this bill. 3:30 Certainly, there are both sides to the story in America. There are both sides to the story in Canada.

Many organizations, including the political party t hat I’m a member of, ha ve tried successfully and unsuccessfully various methods of voting. Mr. Cohen writes: But mod ern technology is creating a whole new genera tion of conspiracy theori es – easy to i magine and, unless we’re c aref ul, imp ossib le to dis prov e. T he n ation is rush ing to a dop t electron ic voting, but th ere is a dis turb ing am oun t of evid ence that, a t least in its current form, it is overly vulnerable to elect oral mischief.

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004514 There are a growing number of electronic voting skeptics. There are a number of widely reported election results that some pundits have said have been a surprise. Now, I would urge all members of this Assembly and all members of the public who have Inter net acce ss to chec k out www.blackboxvoting.org and see f or themselves one side of t his issue, because we have a lot of debate that has to occur if this is the intention of adding this UIN to the voters list. Is this what the future is?

Or should w e remain with our traditions, p articularly in this democracy, where you go, you get your ballot, y ou mark it to the candidate of your choice, and you put it in the ballot box? I don’t think sc hemes such as this are going to increa se voter participation. In f act, I think it would be the other w ay around. There would be fewer people interested in voting. Mr. Cohen has a lot to say about electronic voting, and I would urge all members of the Assembly to read his article. In fact, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will table that for the benefit of the Assembly tomorrow. Now, we’re also looking in

section 17 at adding the unique identifier number, and the same questions would appl y there, Mr. Speaker. We can go further on, and we can see where we’re going to increase the amount that a candidate has to pay to enter the election, whether or not they are successful or whether or not they reach the threshold to have their money returned to them. We are increasing the amount from $200 to $500 to file papers. I wonder why that is necessary . Why did we more tha n double that amount? Democracy is apparently getting expensive in Alberta.

I don’t think w e can pre vent candi dates w ho want t o enter an election or participate in an el ection campaign from doing so, and I’m afraid this fee will do exactly that. It will reduce the number of candidates in an election. I think that in a parliament, in any parliament, the more voices and the more views that are expressed, the better government you have and the stronge r democracy you h ave. There are some political parties – I’m not saying the one that I’m a member of; others would say that – that certainly would have a great deal of difficulty with the $500.

There m ay be a candidate or a person i n any constituency across this provin ce who ma y want to run as a n independent a nd may not have that $500 and may have some excellent views on some very important issues, and I think their voice sh ould be heard. I don’t think we should be putting a price on democracy and making it unaffordable with that amendment. Now, further on here – and pe rhaps this question, Mr. S peaker, will be addressed during committee – in

section 116 as amended, an application for a special ballot. We are now allowing that to occur by electronic mail, or e-mail. Is a signature going to be no longer required as a result of this to get a special ballot? Certainly, the hon. minister talked a bout this idea of having a special secure ballot. I believe that’s how the hon. minister addressed that issue. How many special secure ba llots does the ministe r estim ate wi ll b e i ssued during an election? I think that’s a good idea.

I think that’s a really good idea in case there are people who for one reason or another do not want to be identified at a polling station or do not want to come near a polling station for obvious reasons. That is one amendment that I certainly at this time would support. I believe the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre is going to have some questions or some concerns around the repea ling of s ection 158 and the interference with the right to access.

There’s going to be a penalty if one is found guilty of an offence and “liable to a fine of not more than $1000.” I, too, have been limited or banned from certain premises. Mr. Hancock: It’s a small wonder. Mr. MacDonald: The hon. minister says that it’s a small wonder. In a democracy during an election every one should b e allowed free and ea sy acc ess to the voters, a nd the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Centre is going to talk about that. But I think that in this case the fine should be increased. Everything else seems to be going up in these amendments. Why is that fine not going up?

An apart ment ma nager, for instance, may not take particular pleasure to one party – let’s say that it’s the Progressive Conserva- tive Party – and prevents that candidate from accessing that building and repeatedly throws out the candidate. So I think we need to have a look at this. This has to be enforced vigorously.

Not only is it the responsibility of the respective campaign teams to know the law and present the proper documentation to building managers in this case, but I think the e lectoral office has to m ake more of an effort to ensure that ma nagers of buildings k now what the law is and that each and every candidate has the right to canvass there between the hours of 9 in the morning and I believe 9 in the evening.

Again, I’m sure there is good reason for this from the Minister of Justice and Attorne y Ge neral, but in sec tion 163 why are we instituting under this act that no prosecutions will take place without the consent of the Chief Electoral Officer? Now, the Chief Electoral Officer is going to have the final say in this matter. Would not in some cases perhaps a Crown prosecutor? Why is that amendment in there, “consent to prosecute”? Now, the hon. minister spoke about this earlier. In my view, this is wrong becau se it’s les s public notic e.

It looks like w e are attempting to repeal here the amou nt of the expenses in total based on the f inanci al s tatement submitte d by each candi date pur suant t o sect ion 43 t o be published in a newsp aper circ ulat ed in the e lectora l division of tha t can dida te with in 30 d ays af ter the date on w hich the fin anc ial s tatem ent is approved b y the Chief Electoral Officer. Why are we repealing that? As I understand, this information will be published on the web site of the Chief Electoral Officer. Well, I would like to see, in fairness to those Albertans – and that’s roughly half.

This w ould be the re peal of s ection 4 und er th e Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act,

part 2. Why could we not have both Internet access and have that published in a newspaper as well, pa rticularly for seni ors who don’t have acc ess to the Internet? 3:40 If we’re going to put these fees up from $200 to $500 and we’re going to collect other fees for distribution of information, surely it shouldn’t be a matter of cost. If we’re going to put these fees up, we can still afford to rent a little space in the Edmonton Examiner, for instance. I don’t think that is in the intere sts of ope nness and transparency; I’m sorry. We’re going to increase donations to political parties.

The federal government is changing their laws regarding cam paign donations, changing their laws significantly, y et h ere we are incr easing campaign donations. Certainly, there are those political wags who would say, “Well, that should benefit the Alberta Liberals,” because we have a l ot of outstanding debt. But wha t sort of pr esentations were made to the chief electoral off ice to urge the office, as I understand it, to recommend that we have these changes and that we increase significantly what can be donated to a respective political party?

Certainly, there are many issues, but in my first look at this bill, Bill 22, Mr. Speak er, I would have to say that there are im prove- ments. But I’m not convinced that this update is going to improve Albertans’ voting participation rate. I can’t understand why we need this UIN, this uni que identif ier numbe r. People are regul ated enough in this society, and I can’t understand it unless at some time

March 16, 2004 Alberta Hansard 515 in the very near future there are plans to implement electronic voting. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Spea ker. I’m pleased that I can put a couple of comments on the record in second reading on Bill 22, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. I am glad to see this com ing forward. Ther e are a number of issu es that have been long-standing problems, which, I believe, there is an attempt to address in this proposed legislation.

There are a couple of other, more global issues I want to address around this bill bef ore I get to the spec ific issue of so-ca lled free access. I’ve been saying for some time that we must as legislators bite the bullet, t ake the big step, do the right t hing, all of those clichés. But what it boils dow n to is that w e have a n increasing distance between the electorate, between citize ns, a nd the dem o- cratic process. They don’t feel engaged in it. They don’t feel that it’s fair. They don’t feel that their vote counts or that they’re able to effect an y change if tha t’s, in fact, what they’re seeking.

Tha t’s problematic. I mean, at the outset people laugh and say: oh, you know, come on; it’s just because you’re in the Official Opposition and you want everything to go your way. But I think there’s a larger problem here. In Alberta we now accept as a given that we’re dealing with a 50 per cent voter turnout. That’s bad, and we know it’s bad, but at what point do we say: can I get the government, can I get my colleagues in this Assembly to admit that there really is a problem? At 40 per cent voter turnout ? At 35 pe r cent voter turnout? A t 30 per cent voter turnout?

How much moral sway, how much right to be there does a government have if they’ve been elected by only 30 per cent of the people that are eligible to vote? I think at a certain point it’s sort of the opposite of critical mass. In a cri tical mass situation you’re trying t o get enoug h people in place that they affect the outcome of what you’re trying to do. We talked about the representation of women and getting enough women elected into political office to start to af fect th e policies and procedures of government. What I’m talking about is the opposite.

At a certain point I think we lose the moral authority to be legislators when we can’t attract enough people at some percentage to support us being elected into official office. So we really need to address this. I think there needs to be wider change than what’s anticipated in this bill, but I’m willing to say okay for the small detail stuff and in some cases for the larger detail stuff that is being looked after in this bill, and I am glad to see it.

We still need to go back and look at things like the first past the post system that we’re using right n ow and the electoral boundary system t hat we ha ve in plac e. It does make some v otes mor e valuable. It particularly makes rural votes more valuable than urban votes, for ex ample, and since w e have t wo-thirds of Albe rta’s population now living in the metropolitan areas o f Edmonton and Calgary, that becom es significant. W hen those peopl e get a ngry enough that their vote isn’t counting the same, we have a problem here. So there is a need to address that larger democracy challenge here.

I think we do need to be looking at things like probably a hybrid or mixed system of proportional representation and first past the post to sort of ease int o it, but we have to make some major changes in what we’re doing. The second sort of over all contextua l thing that I want to talk about is younger voting, youth voting. I think, again, this is about being able to attract a different generation of people to what we’re doing. It’s quite common that younger people don’t vote. I mean, I couldn’t wait to get to my 18th birthday and be able to vote.

It was important to me, but it wasn’t to most of my colleagues at the time, and I think that’s still true. The difference is that up to now we knew that people would learn to vote. Maybe they weren’t interested when they were 18 or 19 or 20, but when they started to get into their mid-20s or their later 20s, they started to realize the effect that government legislation has on their lives. They maybe get married; they start a family; they buy a house; they g et a car loan; they get invol ved in the s tock market. There are all kinds of other places wher e what we d o in this Assembly affects people’s lives.

They start to realize that, so they would start to vote. What we know now through the work that’s being done by the council for unity in Canada and some other groups that are working on this kind of democratic reform is that the c urrent generation of younger voters is not learning to vote. If we can’t get them to vote now, they don’t seem to be learning to vote. Whatever is happening in their lives, it’s not convincing them to start voting as they get a little older. They’re just not. That is problematic for us.

Refer back to where I started when I was talking about t he 50 per ce nt voter tur nout and what we ar e going to do when that starts sliding below 50 per cent towards 40 per cent. So just hearken back to all the things that happen there. 3:50 I believe that my coll eague from Edmonton-Gold Bar raised a number of really good issues around electronic voting, and I support him in everything he’s saying there. At the same time, I’m looking at the younger people that I’m working with, and they have an affinity with the Internet and with computers that we do not have. They get it; they are there; they think that way.

Somehow there’s a connection between them and that electronic machine. I think we do have to start looking at the idea of electronic voting and other citizen participation initiative s to start to capture those y ounger vote rs because they’re not capture d; they’re not energized by w hat is in place right now. Our voting syst em has changed. I mean, we tend to go: oh, no; it’s always been the sam e for us. No, it ha sn’t. Come on. You know, wome n weren’t allowe d to vote at one point; aboriginal people weren’t allowed to vot e at on e point.

At one point it was only property owners that could vote in certain elections. So things have certainly changed and moved on, and for us to claim that no, no, it’s always been this way, it’s just flat-out wrong. There have been changes that have brought more voters into the system or made it more attractive for people to vote, so we need to think about stuff like that. Now, I want to specifically talk about a couple of sections here, and that’s about this conce pt of free access.

As we get more and more security buildings in the province – that is, a multiple-unit building, whether it ’s a gated community, whether it’s a securi ty high-rise building that is either apartments or condominiums or any other building that you can’t walk freely into – we now create two different levels of citizens as far as their access to information about political campaigns and candidates. Generally speaking, most people can walk up to the front door of a single-family detached house.

Yeah, there are things you’ve got to be care ful of, t he dogs in th e front yard and all of that k ind of thing, but essentially there’s nothing barring you from being able to walk up and knock on that door. The person can come to the door, look out, and go, “Oh, it’s a candidate. I’m not going to ope n the door and talk to them. No, thank you.” That’s fine. They are entirely within their rights to do that. But the candidate managed to get t o the door and was able to present themselves, and the individual can

Alberta Hansard March 16, 2004516 still make up their mind as to whether they wish to open the door or not. The situation that’s developed with security buildings and gated communities where there is a sec ure electronic barrier preventing candidates from being able to even get to the door is that we have two kinds of people: those that can open their door and engage with a candidate if they wish to a nd those that ne ver even know t hat a candidate was trying to present themselves to them.

That becomes problematic right now for those that are seeking political office in larger urban centr es, but increasingly those security buildings are turning up in every centre in Alberta; therefore, it becom es a problem, eventually, for everyone. So we need to make sure that there is the same level of access to the voter, that the candidates can present themselves equally to the voter. If the voter still chooses not to open their door, that’s fine. My point is th at you’ve got to be a ble to get the candidates to the door, and then the vote r can dec ide if the y’re going to open the ir own door or not.

That’s what’s important here. People are allowing this in that they say, “Well, I moved into a security building, and I mean that I don’t want anybody knocking at my door. I’m afraid when people do because this is a secu red building. There shouldn’t be anyone in here that I don’t know who they are.” Som e of them are fearfu l, in fact, when you’re in an election campaign and people start getting access into these security buildings and, in fact, knocking on the doors.

I think we were setting ourselves up for a whopping challenge, a court case where we end up with a challenge because one candidate was able to get access to a building and an other ca ndidate was not able to get access to a building. If we end up with a difference in a final vote of a couple of hundred votes, that could be that building. That’s where we’re likely to have court challenges happen.

In this bill we now see that two sections have been adjusted to make it clear that in multi-unit buildings the person that’s in control of the building is responsible for ensuring that the candidate or the candidate’s worker or the enumerator is able to get fr ee access , unencumbered, uninterfered with, to every door in the unit. I’m hoping that that’s going to he lp the problem that h as arisen in the past where, in fact, some