Alberta Hansard — 28 November 2000, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 4)

20001128

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2149 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/11/28 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. At the conclusion of the prayer would all hon. members please remain standing. Let us pray. O God, grant that we the members of our province’s Legislature may fulfill our office with honesty and integrity. May our first concern be for the good of all of our people. Guide our deliberations this day. Amen.

Michael Maccagno July 15, 1914, to November 25, 2000 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is with sadness that my office learned today of the passing of former member Michael Maccagno on Saturday, November 25, 2000. Mr. M accagno was first elected to the Alberta Legislature in the general election of June 29, 1955, and served until May 27, 1968. During his years of service he represented the constituency of Lac La Biche for the Liberal Party and also served as leader for the Alberta Liberals. During his years in the Legislature Mr.

Maccagno served on the following committees: the Select Standing Committee on Agricul- ture, Colonization, Immigration, and Education; Municipal Law; Municipal Law and Law Amendments; Private Bills; Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing; Public Accounts; Public Affairs; Railways, Telephones, and Irrigation. Mr. Maccagno also served on the special committees on Centralization and Consolida- tion of Schools, Collective Bargaining between School Trustees and Teachers, Commercial Fisheries, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Electoral Boundaries, Ombudsman Search, and Preventive Health.

With our admiration and respect there is gratitude to members of his family, who shared the burdens of public office. Our prayers are with them. In a moment of silent prayer I ask you to remember Michael Maccagno as you have known him. Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. Amen. Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table nine petitions containing 527 names from the Cardston-Taber-Warner constituency, 22 names from the Leduc constituency, 160 names from the West Yellowhead constituency, 54 names from Red Deer- South constituency, 36 names from the Livingstone-Macleod constituency, 97 names from the Vermilion-Lloydminster constitu- ency, 200 names from the Whitecourt-Ste. Anne constituency, 20 names from the Peace River Cons tituency, and 167 names from various Alberta constituencies. Mr.

Speaker, the petitioners are urging the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Alberta human rights act “to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. MRS. TARCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition signed by 32 residents of Banff-Cochrane requesting the Legislative Assembly to allow health professionals to opt out of medical procedures for reasons of conscience. Thank you. MR. MASON: Mr.

Speaker, I have a petition signed by 110 Edmontonians opposed to the Liberal Bill 211, which would require any tax increase to be subject to a provincewide referendum. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition signed by 754 Albertans, most of them postsecondary students, and the petition reads as follows:

Whereas, post-secondary education is the key to Alberta’s future prosperity, And

whereas, post-secondary education is becoming unafford- able for most families We the undersigned residents of the province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to reduce post-secondary tuition fees by 30%. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have the petition I presented last Wednesday now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legisla- tive Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented on Tuesday, November 21, be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or belief that human life is sacred. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask that the two petitions I presented on November 22 be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legisla- tive Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and

2150 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the petition I presented on November 27 be now read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly not to pass Bill 211, which would create social division and threaten long-term, stable funding for schools, hospitals and other important services. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. MR. YANKOWSKY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legisla- tive Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that tomorrow I will move that the following written questions that appear on the Order Paper be called for consideration, being questions 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. I am also giving notice that tomorrow I will move that the following motions for returns also appearing on the Order Paper be called for consideration. They are 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to give notice that at the start of private member’s business today I will be seeking unanimous consent of the Assembly to advance Bill 221, the Public Health Care Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, to be the next bill dealt with in private member’s business. I would stress that there is urgency in debating Bill 221, which repeals Bill 11. Thank you. 1:40 head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table the appropriate number of copies of the School Facility Evaluation Project Final Results along with the

summary of the audited results of all 1,463 schools. The individual reports are currently being loaded onto Alberta Infrastructure’s web site and will be available next week through our home page by following the links. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a copy of a letter that I sent today to the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar responding to the question that he had asked in the Legislative Assembly on November 23, 2000. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would today like to table eight copies of the Department of Environment’s response to Motion for a Return 18 as requested by the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings today, the first being six copies of the Alberta Opportunity Com- pany’s annual report. Second, six copies of the Agriculture Financial Services Corpora- tion.

Also, six copies of the Livestock Identification Services Man- ager’s Report for the period April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000, which under its delegated agreement includes annual reports for the following four acts: the Brand Act, the Livestock Identification and Brand Inspection Act, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, and the Stray Animals Act. The audited financial statement for the year ending March 31, 2000. Lastly, I’d like to table the following information item: six copies of the Alberta Grain Commission’s annual report 1999-2000. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR.

DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table with the Assembly the 1999-2000 annual report for the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. Then on behalf of the hon. Minister of Learning I’m pleased to table with the Assembly the 1999-2000 annual report for the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Board. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today and table the Social Care Facilities Review Committee investigation report arising from the death of Mr.

Wayne Oles at the Herb Jamieson Centre on August 7, 1998. This was obtained under the freedom of information act by the Member for Edmonton-Riverview on September 29, 2000. My second tabling is a notice of motion filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench between Ms J and the province of Alberta, which clearly cites that Ms J’s failure to testify will result in her imprison- ment, a fine, or the striking down of her suit. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another set of tablings from the association of brain injury outlining their concerns in the form of a questionnaire. I will table the appropriate number of copies in the House today. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have five letters here today from constituents of Red Deer-South, Calgary-Varsity,

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2151 Calgary-Currie, and Medicine Hat, and I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of the letters. All of them are talking about the lasting educational, social, and economic benefits of the arts in Alberta and, in particular, asking the government to increase funding to the Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have five copies here of a letter sent from Doug Clavette to the minister of health.

He’s battling cancer, he lives in Calahoo, and he is request- ing payment for the MRI that he had to pay for that was medically necessary. He wrote in June and has still not received a reply from the minister. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to table the appropriate number of copies of letters from 15 tourism operators in the Solomon Valley area northwest of Hinton. They object to plans by Weldwood Canada to cut timber in the area known as Athabasca 4 in the Solomon Creek watershed.

They wish to remind the government of the importance of a maintained land base for tourism activities in this area. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings today. The first tabling is a document prepared by the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations. It’s called All Colours are Beautiful. This booklet is a t eacher’s resource kit wh ich uses literature to illustrate situations of racial discrimination to young people and allows an open discussion of racism and its implications. My second tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a copy of a letter from Paul Boisvert to John Pilipchuk, a board member of the Lakeland regional health authority. This letter seeks “full explanation of the events leading up to the disposal at the sanitary dump of totally functional computer equipment” from St. Therese health care centre in St. Paul. The third document, Mr. Speaker, is a news release from the Flagstaff county area. It’s a letter that’s written by citizens opposed to the hog plant development in the area. The letter protests the approval by the appeal board of a large hog plant operation there. The last tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a copy of a letter of November 14, 2000, addressed to the hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane in which Janet Brygger and Anthony Neilson of Exshaw express their concern over the already high pollution levels in the Exshaw and Bow Valley areas and over Lafarge Canada’s proposed coal conversion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The chair would like to table five copies of a memorandum from the hon.

Member for Calgary-Fort requesting that Bill 209, Employment Standards (Parental Leave) Amendment Act, 2000, be brought to third reading on Wednesday, November 29, 2000. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a great pleasure for me to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of this great Assembly some very special visitors who are here today from Julia Kiniski elementary school, which is definitely one of the best schools on the planet Earth. They are accompanied by teacher Janis Parrott.

Yesterday they were here with Donald Douglas. They are participating in the School at the Legislature at the behest of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and we’re very grateful for that. They’re having a wonderful time. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the very warm welcome of all members of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to you and to all members of this Assembly 30 members and their guests of the Probus Club of central Edmonton.

Probus Club is a group of professional and business persons who gather together for the purpose of fellowship and certainly of lifelong learning. They are seated both in the members’ gallery and in the public gallery, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome and introduce to you and through you to all hon. Members of this Legislative Assembly 11 students from Concordia University, Gold Bar campus, and their teacher, Dr.

Linda Kerr, who are visiting the Legislative Assembly this afternoon. They are going to come to the public gallery at 2 o’clock to observe question period. I would now ask all hon. members to please welcome them when they visit the Assembly. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my privilege to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly 90 grades 5 and 6 students from one of my favourite schools in the riding of Edmonton-Rutherford, Richard Secord elementary school.

The 90 students today are accompanied by five teachers, Mr. Bryan Rosychuk, Miss Jan Scammell, Mr. Milles Collins, Mrs. Renee McLaws, and two parents, Mrs. Jayne Bawden and Mrs. Janice Peters. They are in the public gallery and the visitors’ gallery. I would ask them to all stand at this time and receive the warm welcome of the House. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I have two introductions. The first one.

I’m very, very pleased to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly Ms Lan Chan-Marples, who is the executive director of Edmonton Chinese Community Services Centre and a board member of the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations. She’s also working on her PhD degree at the University of Alberta. Ms Chan-Marples is strongly committed to the promotion of human rights and elimination of racism in Alberta. Her organization, the Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations, is commemorating International Human Rights Day on December 8, 2000.

I’ll ask Ms Chan-Marples to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. She is sitting in the public gallery. Mr. Speaker, my second introduction. Again, I’m very pleased to introduce to you and to all memb ers in this Assembly Merrill Stewart, who is a New Democrat candidate for Clover Bar-Fort

2152 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 Saskatchewan. I’ll ask Mr. Stewart to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly special guests that will be arriving in the Assembly at 2 o’clock. These are 29 students from Lamont high school. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Blair Charlton and Mr. Todd Eistetter. In their absence may we welcome them with warm applause. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 27 grade 6 students from the Thorhild school in my constituency. They also will not be arriving until 2 o’clock but will be observing question period. They are also accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Mike Popowicz and Mrs. Linda Ewaskow, and by parent helpers Mrs. Petra Roche, Mrs. Deb Hamilton, Mrs. Teri Green, Mrs. Sherrie Kapach, Mr. Kevin Kapach, and Mr. Harold Hamilton. I would ask that we please give them the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period Electricity Price Fairness Review MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, this morning when I was thinking about my questions for today at 1:30, I was trying to think of what the government was going to do to bring down electricity prices that are skyrocketing on January 1. I decided that the government’s answer was either going to be that they were going to intervene in the marketplace or they were going to subsidize a market with taxpayer dollars. Well, it’s clear now from their announcement that they’ve decided to do both.

So why did this Premier under his KEP mislead Albertans that prices were going to go down and has decided to intervene in the marketplace now that prices are clearly skyrocketing? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we still believe that prices will go down in about a year and a half, when more power comes onstream. It’s a simple fact that supply and demand dictate price, and that indeed will happen. Deregulation is going ahead. I would remind the leader of the Liberal opposition that this government always said – always said – that it would monitor prices and listen to consumers and respond accordingly.

We have always said that, Mr. Speaker. We made two major announcements earlier this fall in anticipation of rising prices under a regulated environ- ment. We introduced the energy tax refund and the electricity option rebate. This latest announcement, this announcement today, provides further relief from short-term – and I stress: short-term – price fluctuations. MRS. MacBETH: Will the Premier admit that his deregulation plan, his KEP, is a disaster now that he has decided to try to re-regulate the market? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. MRS.

MacBETH: How will this Premier’s intervention in the marketplace solve the f undamental problem of lack of supply of power in this province? MR. KLEIN: That, Mr. Speaker, is a good question. It is a good question. If the leader of the Liberal oppos ition has the answer, if she can snap her fingers like this – you know, just as she thought this morning, if that bright light can go on just as quickly as her mind went into gear, we would have absolutely nothing to worry about. Mr. Speaker, you simply don’t bring on power overnight. You have to build generation plants, and that is a huge capital endeavor.

We have indications now that the power companies plan to bring on more power. We’ve had announcements from EPCOR. We see Luscar now contemplating a major power project in southeastern Alberta. We’ve had some indication from TransAlta Utilities that they plan to bring on more power. We see a lot of cogeneration coming onstream, but I have to reiterate: it does not happen over- night. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, in relation to electrical capacity, as you are aware – and I have indicated this in the House before – the peak demand in Alberta at this time is 7,247 megawatts.

We presently have access to over 9,400 megawatts. So the capacity is balanced presently. As far as new generation, we have over 400 megawatts that’s on-line now and another 1,600 megawatts that will come onstream in the next two or three years. As the Premier said, when this stuff comes onstream, no doubt the electricity rates will go down. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, on a day-to-day basis we are getting inquiries as to people interested in putting electricity in Alberta, and we’ll continue meeting with those people. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier admit that his actions today are going to create more not less, more uncertainty in the marketplace and that prices will rise accordingly? MR. KLEIN: No. As a matter of fact, by law and through regulation prices will not rise. The announcement made today is to enhance the reliability of the Alberta electricity supply and to stabilize prices. There are some reasons, Mr. Speaker, and it’s not deregulation. It’s a matter of electricity that we have to import from B.C. Hydro, the good cousins of the NDs to the west, that is causing some severe spikes in rates.

We’re going to deal with that problem. I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR. CARDINAL: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Speaker. Today’s announcement was part of the ongoing monitoring of the process of deregulation. It is only one pa rt of the 10-point action plan we announced. We will continue monitoring the situation and make adjustments accordingly to serve Albertans the way they want to be served. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, when did this Premier change his mind about being back in business and become such a massive intervenor in the marketplace of this province? MR. KLEIN: I am astounded. I am astounded.

Here they have been chirping away for the last two weeks now saying: you’ve got to do something to protect consumers. We do something to protect consumers, Mr. Speaker, and they don’t like it. Anything that we do that is good, they think is bad. Anything that we do that is bad, well, they think it’s good. I mean, this is not the role of the opposition. The role of the opposition is to offer constructive criticism and to work with the government. The role of the oppos ition is to work

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2153 with the government to make sure the consumers of this province are protected. That is precisely what we are doing, and they refuse to help. 2:00 MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier answer the question as to how many other businesses in this province he intends to intervene in in the coming years? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is very unusual, a situation that has occurred in a regulated environment, and we have an obligation. Our first step was to introduce the energy tax refund and the electricity auction rebates.

We said that we would monitor prices and we would take, if necessary, appropriate action to protect the consumer. That’s exactly what we are doing under this very severe circumstance. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, how much will it cost the taxpayers of this province to intervene in this manner that the Premier is proposing today? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the costs might or might not be. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Resource Development has a better handle on that. THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister. MR. CARDINAL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It shouldn’t cost the taxpayer any more than what we have, because we have existing staff doing the work that are paid already. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier just explain for Albertans what is going on here? Is he continuing with deregulation, or is he back into re-regulati on? The power suppliers of this province would like to find an answer. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing with deregulation. Those people who want to buy power in a deregulated environment will be able to do so after January 1.

Those residential consumers and farm consumers who want to stay in a regulated environment can do so after January 1. What we have done today is we have announced that the prices are going to be held virtually constant for the next year while the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board conducts a full price fairness review. I think that that is a reasonable and responsible action on the part of this government in terms of protecting the marketplace. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier can use all the bravado that he wants, but how much is he is going to spend to make sure that businesses and the economic cycle of this province generate more power rather than government intervention in the marketplace? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, one has to assume that if there is power to be used, there is power to be generated. Because of the tremen- dous economic growth and prosperity of this province it stands to reason that the power companies will be generating more power because the demand is already there and it’s going to be increased in the future.

So if there are buyers out there for the power, the power generators will make sure that there is power to sell. It’s as simple as that. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members appear to be rather charged today. Electric Utilities Deregulation MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, the government promised Albertans lower electricity prices under the deregulated regime. The opposite has been the case so far. Even the term deregulation is a misnomer. Prior to the so-called deregulation there were only four regulations governing the entire system. Until today under deregulation there were 32 regulations. I have them here.

Today the government approved three more, bringing the total number to 35 regulations under deregulation. Will the Premier admit that the current regime is so complex that not even the government can understand it and that the only way to bring power prices under control is to com- pletely reverse themselves and re-regulate prices as they have done today? MR. KLEIN: Well, we’re in a regulated environment right now. Mr.

Speaker, if anyone should know about regulated price increases and raising rates without going through the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, simply going to city council – this hon. member knows all about raising rates in a regulated environment because he’s been part of it for at least the past three or four years as a member of the EPCOR board. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is as usual completely wrong. His facts are not correct. How can the Premier pretend that when the government is intervening in the marketplace, it is not re-regulating? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I think there is a vast difference between re-regulating or going back into a regulated environment and protecting consumers from rising electricity costs under a regulated regime. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, after today how can this Premier look Albertans in the eye with a straight face and pretend that this government knows what it’s doing in the electrical industry? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that all of the rate riders applied for by companies and in many cases approved, including EPCOR, were approved under a regulated environment. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Doctors’ Fee Negotiations MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday many of my constituents were astounded . . . AN HON. MEMBER: And outraged. MR. JACQUES: And many of them were outraged, Mr. Speaker. They’re very concerned to learn about the Alberta Medical Associa- tion taking job action in the form of withholding services only some four months prior to the current contract expiring and despite an offer by the government of 28 percent over two years. All of my questions are to the minister of health.

The first question is: how do the existing fees for doctors in the province of Alberta compare with those in other provinces? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, we’ve done a survey of the 263 most frequently used fees in five provinces, the four western provinces and Ontario, and in 62 percent of the cases Alberta’s rates ranked

2154 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 either first or second. Of course, that means that the other fees are not in the top two, but we have made a fair offer that keeps Alberta’s fees competitive. Mr. Speaker, currently our medical services budget, out of which physicians are paid, is approximately $1 billion. Our offer currently is to increase that by $263 million, or 28 percent, over two years. That compares with the Alberta Medical Association’s opening position asking for $644 million. Currently their position is $525 million. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. MR.

JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to know what component of that government offer is with respect to specific physician fees. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the $263 million relates to a number of different areas. With respect to fees, the portion of that that relates to fees, the 28 percent increase is 13.4 percent over two years. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Based on comparable taxable incomes for the next taxation year, as a result of the single- rate tax and other tax initiatives how much lower will income taxes be for Alberta doctors as compared with other provinces? 2:10 MR.

MAR: Mr. Speaker, with the fee increase that has been offered by the provincial government in these negotiations, the average billings for a physician will go from $195,000 to $221,000 a year. That would be the average billings. In answer to the hon. member’s question about the tax position of such a physician, physicians in Alberta in that range would be taking home between $10,000 and $30,000 a year more b ecause of tax savings in this province compared to other provinces in Canada. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead.

Electricity Price Fairness Review (continued) MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is supposed to be a quasi-judicial body set up to be an independent review of the amount of regulated oil, gas, and utilities in Alberta. Last week this government through the Premier was to intervene in these hearings. This week and today he is ordering the hearings to do someth ing that we’re not sure of. Sir, what has changed from last week to this week other than yesterday’s election? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member would read the act – he doesn’t need to read all the act, just one page or so. Under the Electric Utilities Act the government of Alberta has the authority to direct the EUB to conduct fairness reviews. All we are doing is using our authority to make sure that what is done is indeed done fairly and in the best interests of the consumers of this province. MR.

WHITE: In that the board is currently under the understanding that they’re doing exactly that, reviewing all the inputs for the costs for the stable rate option and for the proposed rider rate surcharges, what’s different between what they’re reviewing now and what we are proposing they review for the next year? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon. Minister of Resource Development supplement. The AEUB now is dealing with specific applications for rate increases.

This is more of an omnibus kind of action that really in a more global and more generic sense studies and reviews the fairness of electricity prices in general. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. CARDINAL: Yes. Mr. Speaker, today’s announcement, of course, was part of our 10-point action plan. It covers a number of areas: the rate riders, which the hon. member is asking about, and the import prices and also direct sales. As far as the EUB’s function, the EUB doesn’t only deal with electricity. It deals with a broad

section of responsibilities out there, and they continue to do a wonderful job. We are very confident that in the end they will do a good job of this added process that they are going through. MR. WHITE: In that the minister continues to say that he has listened and responded to the needs of the province of Alberta and that there’s the knee-jerk reaction of today’s announcement, is that simply not another way of saying that you’re flying by the seat of your pants in this electricity deregulation plan? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I have to reiterate that this government said back in September that we would carefully monitor this situation, that we would continue to monitor prices, that we would listen to consumers, and that we would respond accordingly. We said that back in September. That was deemed to be appropriate action on the part of this government, and I didn’t hear the opposi- tion squealing at that particular time. At that time and in anticipation of rate increases under a regulated environment, we made two major announcements. Well, actually we made three.

We made the energy tax refund rebate, we made the residential electricity auction rebate, and we made the auction rebate announcement relative to municipalities, farm communities, industry, and so on. I simply reiterate that this latest announcement provides further relief from short-term price fluctuation and serves to protect the consumer. What could be wrong with that? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Coal Marketing MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members of the House are well aware, the recent closure of Smoky River Coal north of Grande Cache and Luscar Ltd.’s Gregg River Resources mine south of Hinton and the unpr ecedented high cost of electricity raises an interesting question about the use of coal to generate electricity. In fact, the price of natural gas and the power demands both are rising. Some Albertans are questioning: why not coal, as it would be the sensible way to go? Could the Minister of Economic Development tell the members of the House what is happening in the coal industry and what the department is doing to respond to these closures?

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Essentially there are two markets for Alberta coal. There’s a domestic market for our thermal coal and an international market for our metallurgical coal. Now, on the minus side unfortunately Alberta’s international coal markets are in decline due to lo w world prices. However, we’ve seen some stabilization in some smaller markets; for example,

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2155 China, Egypt, and Brazil. That’s been going on since 1999. We expect that trend to continue. Also, coal prices are stabilizing in Europe. So hopefully that will firm up the international market. On the plus side, Mr. Speaker, the local coal market has increased its share of production as a result of stable demand from Alberta’s electricity industry. Now, with respect to Luscar and Smoky River Coal specifically, we are assisting both communitie s to address their long-term planning.

Alberta Economic Development, for example, cospon- sored the Yellowhead Regional Marketplace to identify opportuni- ties for regional co-operation on economic development issues, and that includes the idea of forming a regional alliance. In Grande Cache we sponsored a study to verify the viability of their proposed development as a tourism and retirement destination. We’re working closely with the departments of Resource Develop- ment and also Human Resources and Employment. Mr. Speaker, what we’re finding is that if you take care of the small things, the larger things will also take care of themselves.

For example, in the Grande Cache area our department helped facilitate the first ever tour of the dinosaur tracks located at the closed mine. In fact, there were two Japanese tour groups that came through. They were absolutely thrilled that we were able to get them on-site. They very much appreciated our assistance. So while we’re assisting and planning at a much broader economic level, we’re also trying to get the smaller things accomplished. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first supplemental question: in light of high electrical costs, could the minister say what the potential future is for coal-generated electricity? MR. HAVELOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know this is going to upset the opposition, but this really is a good-news story. We are fortunate because Alberta is home to the lowest sul phur content coal found anywhere in the world, and as I just mentioned, the local coal market has increased production as a result of stable demand from Alberta’s electricity industry.

Further, domestic demand for thermal coal may well increase if selected Alberta companies go forward with their plans to actually convert from natural gas to coal. By way of another example, the proposed Brooks power project provides a logical step in continuing to use coal for our electrical needs. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that we need to ensure that the Brooks project receives equal treatment in terms of both the regulatory and environmental processes to ensure that competition between natural gas and coal-fired generation projects offer the lowest cost electricity options for Albertans. So, Mr.

Speaker, it’s very clear that the domestic market for coal in Alberta is very strong. The future of the industry generally is strengthening every day. We are very supportive in encouraging additional electrical capacity in this province either through natural gas or through coal, but certainly we see a tremendous future for coal and electrical generation in that regard. Thank you. 2:20 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental question is to the Minister of Environment.

There are a number of environmental concerns associated with coal-fired facilities. In light of these concerns, would an increase in coal-fired power negatively affect our environment? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, power plants are among a wide range of industrial facilities in this province that are regulated by Alberta Environment under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

Alberta Environment applies very stringent standards, standards which are ranked and recognized across Canada as being the most stringent or near the most stringent of any particular province or territory in this entire country. This set of regulations is diligently enforced by Alberta Environment, and we would do so, of course, if there are applications for expansion of coal-powered electrical generation in this province. Mr.

Speaker, I think it’s really important to point out that at this point in time in the province Alberta Environment is involved in continuing to monitor and regulate the emissions coming from a number of coal-fired plants in this province currently. We are continuing to enforce those high standards with respect to the existing generation that is present in the province, and we are certainly committed to doing the sa me with respect to any future capacity in terms of new plants that might be proposed and come onstream in this province. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Electricity Auction DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The re-regulation of the electricity industry to control price increases has created uncertainty in the electricity sector, especially in the area of prices. Later this week the government intends to auction the last 2,200 megawatts of power held in the power purchase agreements. My question is to the Premier. Is it the government’s intention to cancel this auction? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is, no, it is not our intention to cancel the auction.

If the hon. member will permit, I’ll have the hon. Minister of Resource Development supplement. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is always right. We’re not going to cancel the auction, but once it is completed, we will carefully analyze the outcome and make adjustments or decisions at that time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that potential purchasers through this auction must know is the price that is the alternative.

How will they determine that alternative price that they have to use as a benchmark to determine what they will bid in this auction when we’re going through a reasonableness review now which could take two or three weeks, maybe two or three months, maybe till after the election to get put in place? How are they going to get a benchmark to judge what price to bid tomorrow and the next day when they don’t know? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it is still market driven, and we’re talking about people who wish to purchase power to provide long-term stability.

We’re dealing with a very specific situation relative to extreme price hikes under a regulated environment. I would point out that the government has had an exceptional response to the pre-auction workshop, with over 70 companies and 150 people in attendance. So the auction will proceed as planned.

2156 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, the issue is that they have to know where the future is. This auction is a one-year contract that they’re selling. They need to know the price next year. How are they going to have a base for that price to accurately bid in these auctions? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, they’ll have to factor today in, and that is a good factor. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, the consumers as of today’s change will have access to direct sales between supplier and users. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. School Infrastructure MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the main recommendations of the School Facilities Task Force was to have an extensive audit of all the province’s K to 12 schools. Today the Minister of Infrastructure has tabled the results of that audit. My question is: could the minister explain what the findings were? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. [interjections] MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The school audit that was . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: I really don’t know what there is about the personality of the hon. Minister of Infrastructure that causes such disarray to occur, but we’ll go back again to recognizing the hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for intervening. What we did was complete a full audit of all 1,463 schools in the province. These audits were conducted by electrical and mechanical engineers following a very rigid set of criteria. They rated all of the schools according to priority in c ondition.

Of the 1,463 schools about 689 were rated in good condition, about 639 in fair, and there are about 135 that were rated in poor condition. As a result, those are the first schools that we’re going to work on in modernizing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: can the minister tell me how the modernization needs of the schools, particularly those in poor condition, are going to be met? MR. STELMACH: Mr.

Speaker, I have to give great praise to all of the school boards across this province, because during the summer they met with our staff to review the results of the audit. Now the school boards are conducting public meetings throughout their various divisions to see if all the schools audited are actually viable. Once we get back that list of priorities from the various school boards, we will then look at those sc hools that are put up for modernization. So the worst raw score is the first school to be done.

With respect to the new schools that are n ecessary, we are currently working on a utilization formula, but like I said, the trigger is 85 percent utilization in the school division to trigger a new school. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. Is there sufficient money in the new century schools plan to complete the necessary work? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is. It’s $1.07 billion over three years. It’s $635 million new money: $235 million this year and $400 million additional next year.

We would want to move our meetings through with the School Buildings Board so that we get as many projects approved in principle so we can start as many projects as possible next year in the province of Alberta to catch up with the backlog. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-East. Electricity Price Fairness Review (continued) MR. SAPERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Resource Development avoided taking responsibility for the mess in power deregulation and avoided answering questions in this House because he said that the issue was before the board.

In fact he said, “On this particular issue” – and I’m quoting from Hansard – “we’ll have to wait until the decision is made.” Will the minister please explain why he has contradicted himself by today ordering that the EUB suspend its current hearings? MR. CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier answered this issue very clearly earlier, and I did too. We will continue monitor- ing the situation. [interjections] I know you don’t like that. We will continue monitoring the situation, Mr. Speaker, and we will make adjustments as fast as we can once we determine there have to be changes.

This is exactly what we’ve done. I’m still waiting for their plan in relation to deregulation. About two weeks ago I asked for your plan to help us move forward and design a good electrical system for Alberta. We haven’t seen anything yet. We’re still waiting. THE SPEAKER: The Member for Edmonton-Glenora. 2:30 MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the government was really interested in listening to the Official Opposition’s plan they wouldn’t have invoked closure on the 1998 legislation. Mr.

Speaker, given that the government has now said that the hearings will be interrupted pending a review, will the minister please tell us what the timing of this review is? I guess the real question is: are Albertans going to get the answer to this review before or after the spring election? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the press release today and the documents provided identify that pr ocess as to what the timing is. It’s very, very clear. MR. SAPERS: So to make it clear, that means after the election. Mr. Speaker, earlier the Premier said that there was going to be a price reduction in a year and a half.

So I’m assuming that the Minister of Resource Development will table the order to the EUB about this review, and while he tables that, he’ll table all of the studies that have shown what the supply curve is, what the demand curve is, and how it is that these prices are going to go down and exactly what the price points are going to be a year and a half from now.

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2157 MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals would do something like that when the process just started. We will continue monitoring the process, and we will file documents at appropriate times, keeping in mind that it would be in the best interest of the consumer out there. Not like the Liberals. They’d file it today probably. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Workplace Health and Safety MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 15 Fiesta Party Rentals was fined $100,000 in Calgary Provincial Court for breaking a safety regulation which resulted in the death of one of their workers. Can the Minister of Alberta Human Resources and Employment tell us if the fine reflects a new awareness of the importance of workplace health and safety and the responsibilities employers have to protect their workers? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, in regards to the fine, of course no amount of money can ever compensate for the loss of a life and the loss of a family member.

My sympathies again go out to the family of the young fellow that was electrocuted on that site. Having said that, I do believe that fines such as the amount of the fine that the member indicated in his

preamble really do send a rather strong message to employers that the health and safety of our workers cannot and, of course, will not be compromised. We expect employers to take their responsibilities seriously. They must do everything they can to make sure that their workers perform their jobs competently and safely. This means ensuring that workers are properly trained, use the proper safety equipment, and, perhaps as important as anything, know and understand that they can refuse to perform unsafe work. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell us if prosecuting employers who violate the Occupational Health and Safety Act is a successful deterrent in reducing workplace injury? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, I’m a very strong believer in proactive education. I believe in proper information being provided to people. The fact is that preventative health and safety programs are really more effective to make our workplaces safe.

We in this province, as we relate ourselves to any other jurisdic- tion in this country, I believe have shown that with voluntary compliance we have had success in reducing incidents in the workplace that have led to injury and illness. But we want to make that sure everybody understands, including all hon. members here in this House today, that if all else fails, we will prosecute violations of our health and safety provisions. There is a clear understanding in this particular province about the mutual responsibility of both employers and employees to work safely.

Our partnership program is one of the techniques and one of the programs that we have in place that we believe is showing a high level of success in actually reducing injuries and illnesses on the job. I want to use this time in question period today to encourage all employers and employees who might be listening to investigate that partnership program and get themselves involved. We know this approach works. There are something like 3,200 Alberta employers that are currently under this program. We estimate that this covers 20 percent of the Alberta workforce.

There are clearly differences in lost time injury statistics between those that are in our partnership program and those that are outside the partnership program. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what is your department doing to help increase awareness about health and safety issues with employers and employees? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, we’re looking at some different ways in which we might be able to further communicate awareness to employers and employees here in the province.

First of all, of course, I’ve challenged our partners and my department to identify where we could make the most difference in selected workplaces as we try to create more safety. We’re looking at initiatives like a call centre. Of course, we’re going to be employing web sites, looking at educational and promotional activities to really drive home our message that safer workplaces make Alberta businesses stronger. Now, we’re also increasing our focus on compliance. We’re adding more inspectors, and we’re giving them more time for inspections, and we’re starting now to target high-risk industries.

Electric Utilities Deregulation (continued) MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, with his announcement today the Premier has finally admitted that his electricity deregulation scheme, better known as the KEP, has resulted in inadequate supply to meet rising demand, critically low reserve margins, and skyrocketing prices. After five years of bungling and mismanagement this announcement is an acknowledgment that the KEP has been a dismal and fundamental failure.

When utility companies have spent millions to go before the EUB on regulated rate option tariff hearings, can the Minister of Resource Development tell us why this government failed to consult with utility companies before making this announcement? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility when consumers are asking us to look at an issue very carefully, and the opposition has done the same. We’ve indicated before that as we move forward with this deregulation, we will make adjustments when they’re required to address the issue of consumer need.

These announcements today are part of the 10-point action plan. We will continue making further announcements. We will continue monitoring the situation and make adjustments as we move forward. We are not changing. That is the direction. MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, when the fundamental problem is supply, what will that one-year gr ace period do to increase s upply when this minister just said this afternoon that it will take two to three years to increase supply generation? This government just doesn’t know how to plan. MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated earlier that the existing capacity of electricity in Alberta is at 7,247 megawatts at peak demand, and we have presently more than 9,400 megawatts. So it generally addresses the issue that there is a reasonable balance. In relation to new generation there are 1,400 megawatts that are on-line already. In addition to that, there are another 1,600 mega- watts that will come onstream within the next two years. In addition to that, on an ongoing basis, either through the transmission administrator or through our department or through Economic

2158 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 Development and others, companies are approaching us discussing the issue of electrical generation in Alberta. We are very, very optimistic that we will have the supply that you over there do not want to see because you don’t want to see the process succeed. 2:40 MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, nobody believes they know what they’re doing. Why did this Premier and this minister change the rules just 34 days before deregulation is supposed to start when they have had over five years to care and listen? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the rules are not being changed.

We said that we will continue monitoring the whole situation of deregulation, and we will make adjustments. In fact, if the Liberals would come up with some good ideas, we could probably incorpo- rate them in some of the changes we’re making. If they’re good ideas, only good ideas. So if you have good ideas, please forward them to my office. Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon. Economic Development minister maybe supplement that particular issue. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, hon. minister.

We need to keep in mind that there’s going to be ample opportunity for companies to generate a reasonable rate of return over the next few years. To go back to what the hon. member across the way was referring to regarding capacity, just this morning I was meeting with a company that’s looking at a very significant investment in this province, in excess of $400 million, to build a very advanced natural gas fired electrical generation facility that will generate over 500 megawatts of power.

So what I’m hearing from the industry, generally, is that they have a great deal of confidence in Alberta, that they have a great deal of confidence in the economy, and quite frankly they have a great deal of confidence in this Premier, which drives those guys nuts. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Rural Electricity Costs MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve talked to constituents in Little Bow and resi dents in the city of Lethbridge who are business and residential owners.

I’ve looked at their billings for the past couple of months, and I want to indicate that they’re very confused about a dramatic rise in the consumption that’s graphically illustrated in their Enmax and Utilicorp billings, which of course means a significant percentage increase in their cost of power. My questions today are to the Minister of Government Services. What assistance, Madam Minister, does your department offer to the residents that I’ve referred to in my

preamble to clarify or validate the actual kilowatt consumption that’s showing on their billings and the dramatic increase? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very valid question. We have had constitu ents from the riding of L ittle Bow contact our department with concerns about massive spikes in consumption. As most people will look at their utility bill, there’s a little chart at the side that shows the last year, the change from the estimate to the actual on the consumption of their electricity and their water on a monthly basis.

In this particular riding there was a massive spike in the consumption of electricity, particularly so far in what we’ve seen from this constituency. We have gone and made some calls based on these concerns and complaints to the electrical comp anies, utility companies, to ask them if there was a flaw in the system or if there was some sort of an oversight that would cause the unbelievably unprecedented spike in consumption on these consumers’ bills.

We’ve asked them to validate the bills, because it is very, very strange to see three times the usage come up in one month that would be there for the previous year’s registration on the charts. We are working with that, and we hope that the companies will contact those consumers directly and have a resolution come between their consumer complaint group and the company. If they don’t, then we will assist the consumers, with our own people working almost as an arbitrator between the consumer and the electrical company. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the answer. With respect to the one speci fic utility, Enmax, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Government Services indicate just what exactly she and the Enmax officials have found out in their initial discussions on this consumption increase? MRS. NELSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the officials from Enmax. There has been some concern that because of the new transition between the distributing companies this last little while there may have been some errors made, and these disputes may in fact be real between the consumer and the retailer of the electricity.

We looked at other scenarios that may have occurred down in the city of Lethbridge area. There was some concern with some water meter readings that had gone a little off-kilter and were overcharging and causing some difficulties. That ended up being the result actually, quite frankly, of faulty meters that had been installed in that area. So we are looking at all angles of this along with Enmax, and they’re very co-operative in the pr ocess. They want to have the dispute and the discrepancy resolved very, very quickly.

We will, again, keep on with the program, and if more consumers come forward – I’m sure your constituen ts aren’t the only ones, because they seem to span 100 miles apart – we will look at all complaints that do come through. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Instead of blaming everything on deregulation, then, is it possible for the minister to convey to these customers if it’s possible to have an actual monthly reading on their meter rather than an estimated reading? MRS.

NELSON: Well, as the hon. member knows, most utility companies work on an estimate and then do a reversal to the actual once they have the meter reading done. Some utility companies read the meter every month. Others do it every second month. We have asked the question and inquired whether it could be consistently every month that the meters are read so that if there is something that goes astray, it can be picked up immediately.

We had some that said that they were going to read meters only once a year, which we were a little surprised at and thought that’s not going to be really quite acceptable, I wouldn’t think, to consum- ers. We asked them to come back to us with a plan and to reconsider

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2159 doing a reading more frequently as opposed to less so that if there are problems that do arise, they can be addressed between the utility company and the consumer very quickly. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now we’ll call upon the first of three members to participate. In the interim, birthday greetings to the hon. Member for Leduc. The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Friends of Seniors Foundation MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As chair of the Seniors Advisory Council for Alberta I have heard that only seniors know what is best for seniors. I’ve also heard that seniors prefer to be only with seniors. I disagree with these statements, and I will use a truly wonderful example that supports my position. The Friends of Seniors Foundation in Calgary is the brainchild of Brenda Wood, an intelligent and active parent who is also a constituent in Calgary-West.

The foundation is a charitable organization and under Brenda’s leadership provides intergenerational programs which help create caring partnerships between teens and seniors in care centres. In 1999-2000 five schools and five care centres participated with 150 students and 75 seniors visiting with each other on a regular basis. The foundation has a present wa iting list of 25 schools and care centres, or approximately 1,100 students and seniors, a strong indication of the demand for this fresh approach in meeting the needs of both generations.

A few of the many benefits to youth are to dispel myths of race, culture, disability, aging, and other stereo- types and to acquire community service and job experience. For seniors a few of the many benefits are to alleviate loneliness, give them something to look forward to, and a sharing of life skills and experiences with youth. Mr. Speaker, we must encourage the Brenda Woods in Alberta who dare to envision and to persevere. Seniors needing continuing care will increase in unprecedented numbers within the next 10 to 15 years.

The Friends of Seniors Foundation provides our youth with training in dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, creates awareness of seniors and aging, and influences youth who will be our future caregivers, builders, and architects of the future. The foundation is helping to ensure that the deci sion-makers of tomorrow will have experience, empathy, respect, and knowledge as to the aging process and will know what changes are required in order to improve the quality of life for seniors.

Brenda Wood, I strongly applaud the foundation and its goal to be able to offer its programs to every interested school and care centre in Calgary. Congratulations. Thank you. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Intensive Livestock Operations DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last year has seen a number of cases where communities have been divided over the merit and the approval process for the planning development of large-scale livestock operations.

The divisions have arisen because of a lack of a clear process and from a lack of flexibility at the local level in planning and land use decision-making. In October the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop- ment announced the appointment of a committee, headed by the Member for Leduc, to address the issues of the development of an appropriate process for the approval of intensive livestock opera- tions. The committee is made up of Ben Thorlakson from the Cattle Commission and also Roelof Heinen, a past president of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties.

The challenge for this committee, Mr. Speaker, is to incorporate a balance between the environmental needs of all Albertans and the local community and also the local development approval process that gives the local communities the choice to implement and to develop the kind of community that they really want.

In order to do this, they’re going to have to look at the need for provincial level intervention or supervision of the environmental process, but they’re also going to have to look at the ability of the local community to develop the appropriate level of planning processes, which includes zoning, which includes development of a process that will allow them to, in essence, have the final say in whether or not an intensive livestock operation actually is established in their community. This will also require, then, some changes to the Municipal Government Act. Mr.

Speaker, I would encourage this committee to look at those options, because we have to have a system that will allow for the flexibility for community control but also give our agriculture sector the opportunity for growth so that we can reach the $20 billion of value-added and the $7 billion of primary production that’s the target by 2005. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Reidun Tatham MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to rise and recognize a very uniquely talented and accomplished y oung athlete from my constituency of Calgary-Lougheed.

That young person is Reidun Tatham and is one of Canada’s finest synchronized swimmers. She represented Canada at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, in September. Reidun returned to Calgary with her head held high, wearing her latest and most cherished accolade to date, an Olympic bronze medal. Mr. Speaker, 22-year-old Reidun has been involved in synchro- nized swimming for 15 years. Since taking up the sport at the early age of seven, she has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to her sport.

In her lifelong quest for Olympic glory she has not only developed outstanding athletic skills, but her sport has also helped her acquire the character traits and life skills necessary to succeed in life. For the last two years Reidun joined the top 10 Canadian synchro- nized swimmers at the Centre of Excellence in Toronto to prepare for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The training was intense and often demanded more than 50 hours per week, but the hard work of Reidun and her teammates paid off in a big way: international recognition on the Olympic podium for their bronze medal win. Mr.

Speaker, I’m told that according to the team coaches, who are likely the harshest critics, they described the team’s performance in both the long and short programs as the best swims ever for their athletes. On behalf of all members of the Assembly I wish to extend our congratulations to Reidun and her teammates on their outstanding performance in Sydney and to say to these young people that they brought great honour to our province and to our country. Thank you. head: Orders of the Day THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to proceeding, we had notice of motion today given by the hon. Member for Edmonton-

2160 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 Meadowlark dealing with a motion that she wanted the Assembly to address, so we’ll take it under consideration now. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon I provided notice that I would seek unanimous consent of the Assembly to advance Bill 221, which is the Public Health Care Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, so that it would be the next bill dealt with during private members’ business.

Now, while I recognize that all private members’ bills are important, it is also important to note that Bill 221 will put forward the repeal of Bill 11, which in fact opens the doors to private, for-profit health care in this province and was one of the most contentious bills in Alberta’s history. Also, as we are all aware, it was opposed by a majority of Albertans. MR. HANCOCK: Point of order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader, briefly, because I was going to interject anyway. Go ahead with your point of order. Point of Order Relevance MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, yes. Under 23(h), (i), and (

j) this is a request for unanimous consent, not an opportunity to debate the merits of the bill or anything else. THE SPEAKER: That’s absolutely correct, hon. Government House Leader. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark, quickly. Debate Continued MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you. The authority under which I move this particular request is Beauchesne 18, wherein it states: Within the ambit of its own rules, the House itself may proceed as it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent.

Therefore, I am requesting that unanimous consent be given to move Bill 221 forward on the Order Paper. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark is requesting unanimous consent from the Assembly, so there’ll be one question. [Unanimous consent denied] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I’ll call the Committee of the Whole to order. 3:00 Bill 209 Employment Standards (Parental Leave) Amendment Act, 2000 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any amendments, comments, ques- tions arising out of this bill? MR. CAO: There is no amendment to be introduced here, sir, but I would like to speak further on it, Mr. Chairman, to answer a few questions. I will try to keep my comments brief today so that we can hear from as many members as possible in the limited time we have remaining at this committee stage. However, there are two important subjects I would like to address.

First, I would like to respond to a couple of the questions and concerns that were raised by my colleagues during the debate last week. Secondly, I would like to share with everyone some of the recent developments in the province of Ontario that I think are quite relevant to this debate. The general concern that I hear brought up on this time and time again is that this bill is potentially harmful to Alberta businesses, particularly small businesses. I don’t know how much more I can say to respond to these concerns, but I will attempt once more, again, to clarify my argument on this issue.

First, as I have pointed out, the number of people actually taking leave in any given year is likely to be absolutely minuscule in comparison with the overall size of the Alberta workforce. Further- more, I must emphasize that this leave is not mandatory. In fact, many parents may choose not to take it or at least not to take the full amount. Even the existing maternity leave provisions are not fully used by all eligible mothers. This legislation simply ensures that sufficient leave is available to those parents who assess their own family situation and decide to do it if needed.

I don’t see how the small number of parents who make this decision each year is likely to be too onerous for Alberta employers to bear. Not only that, the cost of employers to locate, hire, and train replacement workers will remain the same whether the leave is extended or not, and even if we keep maternity leave at the current level of 18 weeks, the replacement worker must s till be found and trained. Similarly, any administrative or planning costs associated with this leave are already being paid to administer or plan existing maternity leaves.

Simply expanding the length of leave is not likely to substantially increase these costs. I think that is all I will say on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I believe the potential negative impact of this legislation on Alberta busi- nesses has been somewhat exaggerated, and it should not be allowed to distract us from considering the potential positive impact of this legislation on Alberta children and families. I would, however, like to respond to a couple of specific questions that were raised by my colleague the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert.

She noted her approval of the fact that under Bill 209 adoption leave is to be amalgamated into the 27 weeks of parental leave. Then she inquired as to whether parental leave could be taken by adoptive parents regardless of the age of the adopted child. Could it be taken, for example, if the child being adopted was as old as 12? The short answer to her question is yes. It was my intent with this legislation to give adoptive parents the same rights as birth parents.

It seems to me that it is important for parents to establish a lasting bond with the new child in the first few months, regardless of whether the child is a newborn infant or an adopted child of any age. Even if they are not babies or young children, adopted children f ace the same difficulty of adjustment, and they can only benefit from having the parent close by their side as they experience that transition. The opposition Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert also inquired as to whether two parents could split the 27-week leave between them. Again, the answer to her question: yes, they can.

The intent of this legislation is to allow parents the freedom to determine for themselves which of them should take leave and for how long. Each family has its own set of values and its own unique economic circumstances. This legislation allows them to take all that into account and make their own decision on how they will divide the allotment of parental leave.

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2161 Having addressed this question, I now would like to move on to my second purpose here today, which is to inform this committee of some recent and exciting developments in the province of Ontario. In fact, while we were debating this legislation last Wednesday afternoon, Ontario was announcing sweeping changes in its own Employment Standards Act. Ontario was already ahead of Alberta in the area of parental leave, offering 17 weeks of pregnancy leave plus an additional 18 weeks of parental leave.

Now Ontario will allow birth mothers to take up to a full year, 52 weeks, of leave. This would be composed of 17 weeks of maternity leave plus an additional 35 weeks of parental leave. Other parents, natural or adoptive, would also be permitted to take 37 weeks of unpaid parental leave. Clearly, by changing the Employment Standards Act to bring parental leave provisions in line with the federal EI benefits, Ontario is moving even further ahead of Alberta on this issue. This is particularly interesting given that Ontario has always shared our concern for maintaining a positiv e business environment.

For example, Ontario implemented a series of business tax cuts very similar to our own. Obviously, Ontario’s commitment to a sound business climate has not disappeared overnight. Instead, it must be the case that the Ontario cabinet has reached the same conclusion I have on this issue: extending parental leave is not likely to have a substantial negative impact on business. In conclusion, Mr.

Chairman, I understand why business owners and some of my colleagues have concerns about this legislation, but I believe that if they examine the issue more closely, they will reach the same conclusion as the government of Ontario did: these concerns are largely unfounded. Extending parental leave would not be overly harmful to the employers’ interests. It would be greatly beneficial to the interests of children, parents, and families. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. [interjec- tions] I appreciate the support from my colleagues. I’ve gone back and read the Hansard on this debate, and it was interesting to see the kinds of c oncerns that were raised on this. Certainly the Member for Calgary-Fort has done everything in his power to try and calm those fears and alleviate the concerns that have been raised. One of the substantive concerns that was raised against the bill was from Calgary-North Hill. I have to admit that in the year 2000 I was really surprised to hear that sort of a concern being raised, but I’ll accept it as legitimate.

The hon. member seems to feel very strongly about it. Essentially his point was that somehow this legislation and lengthening the amount of time of parental leave that would be available would impact badly on women in the workforce because businesses would hesitate to hire women at all and that that would result in a hiring discrimination against women. I’m struggling for words to . . . MS CARLSON: Unbelievable at the very least. MS BLAKEMAN: Unbelievable at the very least. Tsk, tsk. The member should know better at this point. Later on in his debate the member . . . [interjection] Well, yes.

That’s what he deserves for that kind of comment. I mean, given that sort of thing, the hon. member wouldn’t be sitting in this House. That’s ridiculous. Later on he goes back to say that he doesn’t support the bill because he thinks the marketplace should decide this sort of thing. Well, I have to disagree with him, because I think if we had left it up to the marketplace to decide, we’d have no defined hours of work for a start. The marketplace was pretty darned keen, if I remember, on about 80-hour workweeks and no lunch hours or coffee breaks for any of the workers. They just wanted them to work.

We certainly wouldn’t have any minimum wage, because the marketplace would prefer to almost not pay workers if they could possibly get away with it, certainly in some cases. We certainly wouldn’t have health benefits, probably not pensions. We could be in a situation where we’d still have child labour, because we do see that in other countries where there are no restraints on the marketplace whatso- ever.

So I don’t know that kneeling before the altar of the market- place is really going to move us forward here in this millennium. 3:10 The marketplace certainly hasn’t addressed the wage gap between men and women, for example. I think we’re still struggling with a wage gap of somewhere between 63 cents for women and a dollar for men. It’s just done nothing to address that. The only thing that has addressed it is pay equity legislation. So what other things can we look at that the marketplace did not address and isn’t ever likely to address? They don’t want to address it.

That’s part of the purpose and the point of government: to enact legislation or to provide benefits and remedies that will protect the workers or in some cases the consumers. In that, this is very appropriate legislation to bring forward. We do now recognize and value the contribution that women make to the labour force, their ideas, their perspective on things, the creativity that can be brought to the workforce. I really did not expect to be standing in this Assembly having to debate the merits of this in the year 2000. For shame. So I simply do not accept the argument that the marketplace should decide this.

I think it’s perfectly appropriate that we do have legislation that covers this. Let’s look at a couple of examples then. We’ve got some sectors that are dealing with a gender inequity, and they’re not doing anything to address it. Therefore the inequity is continuing to pose a problem. I’m thinking specifically of the legal sector, where we now have well over 50 percent – I think it could be toward 75 percent – of the graduates from law school that are women. Well, they get out into the workforce, and given that climate, that marketplace, if you want to call it that, women are leaving.

We’ve got trained lawyers who are leaving those profes- sions in droves, just saying: “Sorry. We’re not going to play this kind of game. This is not in our interest or in our family’s best interest.” They don’t seem to be jumping up and down and rushing about trying to correct that imbalance in that situation in the legal profession. Frankly, it’s to their loss, and I hope they do start to address that soon. One of the other accusations leveled was that somehow this legislation was an intrusion into people’s lives.

This government is more than willing to intrude into people’s lives in economic policy, deregulation policy, in all kinds of things they’re willing to do without batting an eyelash. So I don’t know why extending parental leave by a few weeks would be considered any great intrusion into someone’s life. I think it’s improving quality of life, and if we really are talking the best interests of the child, then that certainly is attempting to address that.

When I spoke in second reading, I was urging the member but I think more to the point urging the wider government members to look at the other programs and le gislation that exists to try and improve a number of the other parts that come into raising children in this day and age. I had talked about covering midwifery services under health care, the issues of child poverty, the issue of minimum

2162 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 wage, which certainly affects quality of life and the best interests of the child. Employment and pay equity is another area that could certainly be addressed that would help families and working families. Health care. Housing is a huge issue. There was a symposium today on seniors’ housing, and within the last few weeks I’ve been at other symposiums for social housing. It’s a huge issue.

Really, if we’re going to talk about the best interests of the child and raising good children and all the information that I read in Hansard that was raised around the discussion of this bill – how we’ve got to get involved in prevention and spend more time with children at a younger age and all those good things – well, boy, if they don’t have good housing to be doing that in, there’s another area the govern- ment could be working on.

I talked about education and availability of education, the size of classrooms, additional costs associated with K to 12 education in this day and age, how much parents have to work to subsidize that, and I talked about higher education. I thought a bout it some more, and I t hought: well, if we were taking it from the angle of the best interests of the child, as the Member for Calgary-Fort suggested, I think there are a few other things that could be looked at.

For example, it is in the best interests of the children to have a much stronger and much more rigorously enforced but, let me add, fairer maintenance enforcement program. Now, that’s in the best interests of the child. We could have pay equity, where people were earning better wages. That would be in the best interests of the child. We could have better prevention programs like Head Start. That would be in the best interests of children. I can’t get Head Start programs. I can’t get additional or new Head Start programs in my constituency because the f unding is limited for it.

We’ve got one on one side of the constituency. Well, tough beans for any kid living on the other side, because we can’t get one in the school that’s closer to them. So, you know, you want to talk about the best interests of the children? There’s something. Let’s look at the funding for Head Start programs and other prevention programs. This bill is trying to do a simple thing, which is to extend the parental leave to parents so they have more time at home with a newborn or with an adopted child, and that’s an admirable thing to attempt. I’m certainly willing to support it.

As fa r as I can see, there’s no hidden agenda here. I certainly hope I’m not proven wrong in the future. It appears to be a very straightforward attempt here to make it possible in this world, in this day and age, for parents to spend more time with their children. It’s not a difficult concept. It’s certainly not difficult to implement. We’ve got most of it in place already. This is a matter of extending the amount of time that is available and making it available to both mothers and fathers.

The Member for Calgary-Fort has already answered some questions about whether parents could each take time, that one could take 10 weeks and one could take 17 weeks, and yes, indeed we’re being told that that was part of what was being planned here, which I think is a great idea. So we should be able to support this bill. As I said before, I simply don’t buy the arguments that somehow this is an intrusion and that the marketplace should be left unfettered to somehow come up with this, because frankly they’re not going to come up with it. It’s not going to happen.

I do underline that this is about unpaid leave, and for most of those families who are in poverty or struggling, this legislation isn’t going to help, because they can’t afford to take the leave. There’s another huge issue that should be seriously looked at by this government if programs like what’s being proposed by the Member for Calgary-Fort in this Bill 209 are to flourish. We really need to be addressing seriously the whole issue of child poverty and poverty in general. I mean, poor children are not Cabbage Patch dolls. They come from poor families, and we’re not doing much to address those issues here.

A look at my e-mails and the letters and notes that are being dropped through my mailbox on the effect of electrical deregulation on people in my constituency is te lling me right away that it’s having a huge effect on people. One of the problems with that is that if parents can’t afford to be paying the electrical bill or the gas bill and they’re looking to then put their children in care of the govern- ment, to give them up into custody of the government because they can’t afford to provide for them, what kind of situation is that where we trap people into making those kinds of horrible choices?

They certainly don’t want to be there. 3:20 Now, I did look through the

definitions. I’m not too sure on this one, but as far as I can tell, the definition of “parental” is not spelled out here. So I’m assuming, in fact, that it could cover or include gay and lesbian relationships, if they’re choosing to adopt, for example, because there’s nothing in here that precludes that. If indeed that’s the case, then I commend the Member for Calgary-Fort on his inclusion, which is very nice to see. I view this bill as an investment, and I think it could be the start of a series of preventative programs.

I certainly encourage the government to view it that way, where it’s the beginning of a longer trail, an expansion of an attitude towards the people in this province from the government recognizing that people are an asset and the government’s willingness to invest in them. Part of that is in bills like this. But I strongly encourag e the government to consider the rest of the society that this exists in and to understand that preven- tion is a key

part in keeping families healthy, a key part of the best interests of the child. We need to view this bill in the context of what exists today and what is possible in the future and move forward on it. I don’t want to take up too much time today, b ecause I’m aware there are others that want to speak to the bill. I’m interested in following the rest of the debate to see what other possible objections could be brought forward from members opposite. I’m certainly willing to support it at this point, and I look forward to further comment in third readin g. With those words, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide comments on this private member’s bill, sponsored by my colleague from Calgary-Fort. I didn’t have an opportunity to contribute during second reading. As you well know, as this is a private member’s bill, there is only a limited amount of time, so I’ll make my comments brief before the time actually expires.

I’m going to take the opportunity at the committee stage of this bill to discuss what perhaps could have been brought up in second reading, but I ask the indulgence of the chair on this matter because I feel my comments have considerable bearing on the debate at the committee stage as well. It seems to me that Bill 209 is a highly admirable initiative that could make a real difference in the lives of some Alberta children and families. We have the opportunity to commit to our children and to invest in the future so th at they can turn out physically and mentally healthy.

All of the research I have seen indicates that when children get the kind of care they need during the first year of their infancy, they have better physical, mental, and social health

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2163 outcomes. When that happens, it almost goes without saying that we will have lower health care costs, lower educational costs, lower social program costs, and even lower, perhaps, justice system costs. I know that those who have gone before me have touched on similar themes, as my colleague before me has mentioned, but there is one important point about this legislation that I don’t think has been mentioned yet.

It occurs to me that Bill 209 could be an important way to ensure that rural – and I use the term “rural” – Albertans enjoy the same early childhood development opportunities as their urban counterparts. Mr. Chairman, this government has clearly demonstrated through initiatives like the supernet high-speed, broad-band network that it is committed to giving all Albertans, regardless of where they live in this province, the same access to government programs and services.

I believe Bill 209 has the potential to accomplish the same kind of thing because it will place parents across the province on a level playing field, and a level playing field is important. Currently, for those parents who do not live in or near major urban centres, child care facilities may not be realistically accessible or affordable, and in most remote areas of this province there may not be another family member, close friend, or neighbour available to provide the care that is needed for a newborn child.

Obviously it would be particularly important to those areas for parents to be able to remain home with their newborn or recently adopted children for as long as possible. In the course of reflecting upon Bill 209, by my colleague from Calgary-Fort, I have come to realize that it conforms with many of our government’s other objectives in addition to the goal of provid- ing equal access to services across the province of Alberta. The objective that stands out the most in this regard is expressed in the Alberta children’s initiative.

Now, the question here today in having a clear vision and policy framework is to support the healthy development of Alberta’s children. It has produced an important policy document entitled An Agenda for Joint Action. The very first, substantive line of that business plan reads as follows: The Government of Alberta has made a commitment to putting children and young people first. All ministries in government have a role in ensuring that Alberta’s children thrive in a healthy, safe and supportive environment.

The children’s initiative document goes on to note: Research shows that a complex range of physical, mental, emo- tional, cultural, and spiritual factors influence how a child develops. Preventive supports early in children’s lives can help avoid more serious and costly interventions later [in life]. The healthy develop- ment of children is vital to their lifelong well-being and healthy functioning as individuals, family members and [also] community members of our great province.

As I read over the passage, I just kept nodding to myself in approval, because it seems to me as if it were written with this very bill in mind. It definitely seems that child care experts and senior policymakers within this very government have acknowledged the fundamental importance of a strong parental presence in early childhood development. Having said that – I know my time is growing short – no matter if the number is 27 weeks or perhaps is 30 weeks or 34 weeks, I believe this initiative is a positive one for the future of young Albertans in this province. With that, Mr.

Chairman, I’d lik e at this time to move for adjournment of debate on this particular bill. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d move that the committee rise and report. [Motion carried] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Committee of the Whole has had under consideration and reports progress on Bill 209. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Assembly concur in this report? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed?

So ordered. 3:30 head: Motions Other than Government Motions Pension Reform 514. Mr. Hlady moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to examine its future in the Canada pension plan or explore other options, including a made-in-Alberta pension plan or a mandatory personal retirement savings plan. [Debate adjourned November 21: Ms Carlson speaking] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased this afternoon to rise and make some remarks relative to Motion 514, “a made-in- Alberta pension plan.” My reading of the history of this motion’s inception takes us back to cover a bit of landscape in the history of this province, and it gives rise to the prominence of an individual who was quite prominent in last night’s federal election. He didn’t fare overly well in that election, and I would be hoping that his brainchild of a made-in-Alberta pension plan would also not fare well in this Assembly this afternoon. My reasons are that when the hon.

Provincial Treasurer past, the Member for Red Deer-North, first conceived the idea of having a pension plan, it really was sort of a reactionary thought, because the federal government had brought about Bill C-2, which was enacted to try and address the concerns that were being raised that the Canada pension plan over time, because of the population demo- graphics, was not going to be able to provide pensionable earnings to those that were insured. So the federal government in a very accountable manner brought this bill forward to increase contribu- tion rates.

That raised some angst in Alberta, as quite often federal government actions are prone to do in this province, and it was that bill that then spurred the Provincial Treasurer of the day to say that we should develop our own pension plan. Now, again, just to bring some of the history to light, we at- tempted at the time to obtain some of the documentation that the Provincial Treasurer was using as justification for why a provincial pension plan should be drafted.

He refused to release documentation that was in his possession, some 18 pages that had been prepared between July ’97 and October ’98 which spoke to reforms to the Canada pension plan or options to replace the Canada pension plan. In an August 21, ’98, letter the former Provincial Treasurer had said that the Cowell committee, which is John Cowell, did not prepare

2164 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 separate reports on the feasibility of establishing a made-in-Alberta pension plan or the merits of turning the retirement component of the CPP into a mandatory or individual RRSP-style account. We did learn, though, Mr. Speaker, that on December 1, 1999, the past Provincial Treasurer met with a group of policy analysts and academics to discuss the feasibility of the pension plan. So even though the analysis wasn’t fit to be made public, in his estimation, he continued to fantasize to some degree with this concept.

Although there was agreement that as a result of Alberta’s younger population and high employment rates it could deliver a pension plan that would be similar to the CPP, with somewhat lower contribution rates, at least initially, there was concern about the portability of benefits, the costs of initial setup, and the overall and ongoing administration costs that the province would be forced to incur.

There was also concern about and a determination of and agree- ment on the distribution of assets and liabilities of the Alberta portion of the CPP if in fact Alberta had proceeded to disengage themselves from the federal plan. Noting that history, Mr. Speaker, for the record I think it’s an honourable thing that the past Provincial Treasurer has moved on to greener political pastures, some might say. The landscape, even in eastern Canada, is a bit bare at this time of year, so the green may have to wait for another day.

I acknowl- edge that this was his concept and that the motion that’s before us this afternoon is in fact in some respects being further debated, instead of being pulled, out of respect for his service to the province. In that respect I’m happy to provide my thoughts and my voice of opposition to the proposal. In reality, those things aside, Mr.

Speaker, with due respect to the right of members to bring these types of initiatives forward, however far fetched they may be, would the creation of an Alberta pension plan really result in more benefits than costs, or, put another way, would the costs not outweigh the benefits in this scenario? Even in thinking through some of the very simplistic repercus- sions of doing this, I was prompted to think about the rates that employees and employers pay under the CPP.

While perhaps in its initial inception the Alberta type of plan might be able to offer some type of enticement to have lower contribution rates for employers and employees, we know that our economy is very diverse. It’s also very prone to booms and busts. I in my time in this province have definitely been through one major one, in the mid-80s. We’ve now rebounded from that bust, and we’re in a boom phase.

In logistically thinking about how a pension plan and contribution rates would be customized to weather that boom/bust cycle, if you think about how that affects the number of employers, the number of employees, I’m really not sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is really a logical or achievable initiative. We in the opposition believe that there are some alternatives that the government could be pursuing in this regard.

If truly there’s concern about the ability of the CPP to cove r Albertans within the next several decades, then certainly the past Provincial Treasurer is well situated to voice alternativ e suggestions and to, respectfully, provide some concrete alternatives. Now, what might those types of alternatives be? Well, certainly we could encourage the federal government to take steps that would encourage Albertans to use the private pension plans that exist, retirement savings plans, without having to go the course of eliminating the CPP or disengage Alberta from the federal plan.

Other examples of concrete suggestions that could be made would include increasing contribution limits for investments in individual RRSPs, indexing those higher contribution limits to inflation, as well as increasing the amount of foreign property that Canadians and Albertans can hold in RRSPs from the current limit of 20 percent. We believe these measures would encourage contributions to individual retirement savings plans and thereby generate a higher rate of return on contributions. Mr.

Speaker, once you take the politics out of it, if you take the antifederal factor out of this bill, really I believe that the end result, the pure intention is to try and protect Albertans from a potential day when the CPP might not exist to be able to provide a pension benefit. If that’s the case, these other mechanisms could be avenues that would achieve that end. 3:40 The scenario that was proposed by this motion – and I’m certainly anticipating it’s not going to be passed this afternoon.

But in the event that some force should strike the government caucus to propose it, I think there are other flaws within the proposal that need to be pointed out, and let me just include those into the record. If we look at taking the route of mandatory self-directed RRSPs, as has been suggested, there are still a number of questions about the feasibility of defined-contribution retirement savings plans.

These issues include things like the investment risk which is placed on individual contributors, the impact on long-term rates of return from low-risk investment, the incidence of administrative costs, the impact of higher female life expectancy on the level of retirement benefits, and the development of adequate transitional provisions which ensure that contributors do not have to pay twice to fund new individual savings retirement accounts. Mr. Speaker, to something that I’m little bit more familiar with.

It also strikes me that if this government was sincere in wanting to ensure that Albertans were able to access pensionable support in retirement, they would look at tre nds that exist in this province; as an example, the increasing exploitation of part-time workers for the primary purpose of not having to pay those employees benefits or pensions. Actually, I should qualify that in the part-time category those would be nonpermanent positions or using the casual or temporary classifications, as is rampant in the health care sector, in the social care sector, and in the disability sector.

We have widespread use by employers, because of the financial cutbacks of this government, of casual or temporary employees that are not in a position to receive any benefits or any pensions. They are also not in a position to earn sufficient money that they can put any money away into RRSPs. So, you know, while we could go to great lengths to design some made-in-Alberta pension plan, I think our purpose here in this Assembly is to really seek to respect and defend and protect the interests of Albertans, and I believe those would be best served through addressing some of the demographics of our workforce.

Another example of a demographic that requires addressment is the increasing number of women in the workforce, many in positions that are also not receiving an employer-provided pension plan. The demographics are across the map. Many of them are women who are approaching their senior years. Many of them are single parents. Many of them are of an ethnic background. These are another component of the workforce which is not going to benefit from a made-in-Alberta pension plan.

They’re basically scraping to get by as it exists now, and these are some examples of where I think our energies this afternoon and in the years to come would be better placed. Now, I did read through some of the literary attachments of analyses that have been done by people who certainly have much more expertise on this issue than I do, and one that struck my eye was a study that was conducted by Robert Brown entitled Alberta Opting out of the Canada Pension Plan: Can It Be Done; Should It Be Done? In that study Mr.

Brown said that Alberta would face financial implications for opting out of the CPP: while Alberta

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2165 would be able to claim some $4 billion in assets of the CPP invested in provincial government bonds, it would also be responsible for the actuarial liability within the CPP of the benefits that its workers have accrued to date. Mr. Speaker, in my review of the debates on this bill I’ve not seen the government respond to that reality. So what is really the balance sheet analysis of this bill? What’s the cost?

With due respect, I believe we have to be prepared to do a bit more research if we’re going to put something on the agenda of this Assembly that gives all members the benefit of knowing whether or not it’s realistic to even contemplate the scenario. In the case of creating a made-in-Alberta pension plan, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s absolutely integral that there be, at least in a preliminary way, some estimation of the costs. Mr. Speaker, I also could not refrain, in debating this bill, from referencing some of the Auditor General’s remarks from 1999-2000. There’s quite a substantive

section in his report this year about Treasury, which I would direct the hon. member to. In a number of areas what the Auditor General found was that Treasury was having a bit of difficulty managing their business as it was. Again, if we want to be responsible legislators, I think we’ve got to look at: what’s the capability within our public service to take this on? What I read in the pages of the Auditor General’s report is that we have a public service that is barely making ends meet, and in many respects the ends are very frayed and are no longer holding the rope together.

Now, specifically on the Alberta pension plan issue, on page 278 of the Auditor General’s report he talks about the administration of our existing Alberta Pensions Administration Corporation. He pointed out that the audited financial statements for the Management Employees Pension Plan (MEPP) were not issued until August 2000, over 190 days after MEPP’s fiscal year-end. The delay in the issuance of the audited financial statements was mainly due to the performance of an actuarial valuation as at December 31, 1999 to determine whether the pre-1992 unfunded liability was eliminated.

So there were issues about timely reporting even with the pension plan that exists through the administration corporation. That was significant enough to cause the Auditor General to comment on it in this year’s report. Well, my time is up. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call on the hon. Member for Fort McMurray, I would like to remind hon. members that we’re dealing with a motion and not a bill and that we’re dealing with a private member’s public motion. We’re not talking about a government motion or a government bill. The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. 3:50 MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Relative to my colleague from Calgary-Mountain View’s motion, Motion 514, I feel compelled at the outset of my comments in this debate first and foremost to say – the hon. colleague on the front bench on the opposite side made comments relative to barely making both ends meet. Certainly I take exception to that. I am very confident and proud of our public service in Treasury in terms of the administra- tion of whatever this government presents to it. They have proven themselves in the past and, I’m quite confident, will continue to prove themselves in the future.

That’s why so many other provinces are looking at the taillights of Alberta this day, because of that competence that is going on here. Relative to the point of Motion 514 by my hon. colleague from Calgary-Mountain View, I believe this motion really appears to be a very prudent response to a very evident problem with the Canada pension plan. This problem is indeed severe. We do not want to understate the situation that presents itself to us today. Albertans have never put their heads in the sand and said: we don’t want to take and deal with the problem. That’s why I applaud the hon.

Member for Calgary-Mountain View for his initiative today relative to Motion 514. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that the Canada pension plan could in fact collapse in my lifetime. In fact, to support this evidence, the Fraser Institute survey of independent investment managers found that no fewer than 98 percent of respondents thought it likely or very likely that the Canada pension plan would face a major funding crisis sometime in the next 25 years. Just this past January the Association of Canadian Pension Management issued its own very disturbing report.

Its primary message – and I quote the vice-president of the association – was: don’t rely on the government to look after you. The association also noted that there are currently four working taxpayers for every pensioner in this country, and even at that ratio the CPP, the Canada pension plan, is struggling to stay afloat. Given the demographic trends by the year 2030, just to provide some insight, there will only be two working taxpayers for every CPP beneficiary.

Even if one does not conclude from this that the CPP is inevitably doomed, one must consider and certainly concede that a serious and urgent consideration of its future is abso lutely essential. That’s why I applaud Motion 514 by my colleague for Calgary-Mountain View, because that’s exactly what the purpose of Motion 514 is all about. In fact, Mr. Speaker, rumors of the CPP’s demise have become so prevalent that a conference was held last year to discuss the issue. Presenters at the conference were asked to respond to just one question and one question only: should there be a separate pension plan for Alberta?

The delegates engaged in spirited discussions and identified a number of important factors. I think it’s important to recognize that Albertans are very strategic in terms of how they lay down a financial plan for the future, and in doing so, there is not always agreement. In fact, one distinguished presenter quite accurately likened the CPP to a huge, unstable pyramid scheme on a national scale. Conference participants were not always able to answer the single question with clarity in a simple yes or no answer.

The inconclu- siveness only underscores the point of Motion 514 by my colleague, that the future of the Canada pension plan is an ambiguous one. We all know the importance of uncertainty in the marketplace, and ultimately there is lots of uncertain ty in terms of the future of the CPP. It is incumbent upon us in this private member’s motion to be responsible to explore its future in the plan as fully and extensively as possible. My colleague’s motion also suggests two possible directions should it be determined that Alberta’s best interests lie outside the CPP.

The first of these options would be to establish an APP, an Alberta pension plan, with roughly the same structure and level of benefits as the CPP. This is the current situation in Quebec, a neighbouring province, which established its own QPP back in 1966, I believe. However, from the beginning the reserve fund of the QPP was managed – and this is a key and relevant point – by an inde- pendent provincial investment agency. Nonetheless, the QPP also has fallen victim to some of the same problems as the national CPP, forcing it to enact similar serious reforms just three years ago. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the experiences of the QPP offer a number of useful lessons for Alberta to consider if we are to pursue the APP option, the Alberta pension plan. I should mention that for many of the following points I’m drawing on the excellent and thorough work of Francois Vaillancourt, an economist who participated in the conference that I just made reference to. The first lesson to be learned from the QPP is that a separate

2166 Alberta Hansard November 28, 2000 provincial plan generally offers far greater flexibility in terms of social policy. Yes, that’s social policy. For instance, Quebec was able to offer reduced pensions to those aged 60 to 64 in order to counteract the incentive in most pension plans for employees to work right up to retirement age. This innovative policy was eventually copied by the CPP in the late ’80s.

I’m not suggesting that under an APP plan this province would necessarily want to offer retirement incentives one way or another, but the point is that we could if we wanted to, adding that greater flexibility to the chal- lenges that face this country, and certainly Alberta once again wants to be out in front of those issues. A second lesson of the QPP is that a provincial plan might not create costly incentives for people to take advantage of disability benefits.

One of the most important factors in the recent rise in the CPP payments has been a dramatic increase in disability payments – interestingly, this increase has not occurred in Quebec – and one reason is that there is an incentive for most other provincial welfare programs to offload disabled recipients onto the CPP disability program. Now, this is an important point, because it would not be the case in a province where the provincial government was responsible for the programs.

The likely result is that disability payments would be much less of a drain on retirement savings and therefore would not create the same pressure and reason to raise premiums. Of course, that is an important component in the sustainability of any program. A third possibility suggested by th e QPP example is that a large public pension fund would have the effect of encouraging the development of the local financial services industry, a made-in- Alberta solution once again. Once developed, this financial expertise would be an easily marketable resource and an excellent way to extend the Alberta advantage.

In today’s society I believe that in Alberta we want to continue to look for vehicles to be able to attract the venture capital that’s required in the province, but we need a vehicle to be able to attract that venture capital. Rather than being at the beck and call of those on Bay Street or Wall Street, why don’t we have the billions of dollars that are presently coming from Alberta invested in Alberta? Why can’t Alberta have its own Bay Street and its own Wall Street in terms of investing Alberta resources to be able to attract and be able to use that financial vehicle for the benefit of all Albertans? Mr.

Speaker, a second option suggested by this motion is the creation of some type of personal mandatory retirement savings plan, or as I refer to it, an MRSP. Such a plan would have the potential for considerably greater investment returns. In fact, the first year that the limited CPP reserve fund was invested on the Toronto Stock Exchange, it earned a return of nearly 40 percent on a $2 billion investment. That is a substantial and reasonable return by any account in terms of measurement.

But this fully funded, privately managed MRSP option is also one that is favoured by several interested parties, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The CTF advocates a plan that would be mandatory in order to limit the financial strain on noncontributory benefit programs. It also favours defined contributions rather than the current system of defined benefits. The current system also forces the government to intervene or raise premiums in order to maintain the guaranteed benefit level. Ultimately what we are talking about here is the sustainability of those who invest.

But if only contributions were defined, benefit levels would be determined by each individual’s chosen investment strategy. 4:00 The MRSP option also has been utilized in other jurisdictions around the world, so it is not a new concept. In 1981 Chile replaced its pay-go system with a privatized MRSP system. Under the Chilean plan employees were re quired to contribute 10 percent of their salaries. With that, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I support the motion. I think it’s an important Alberta initiative. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m required to interrupt the hon.

Member for Fort McMurray because under Standing Order 8(4) I must put all questions to conclude debate on the motion under consideration. [Motion Other than Government Motion 514 carried] Snowmobile Trails 515. Mr. Coutts moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish a pilot project in partnership with the recreational snowmobile industry that would include such initiatives as a cost recovery fee system, i.e., registration and user fees, to support the development, maintenance, and promotion of safe, multi-use trail systems for snowmobiling in the province’s green zone. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Livingstone- Macleod. MR. COUTTS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion 515.

This, in essence, does wish to just examine the development of an industry sustainable, multi-use trail system for the recreational snowmobile industry in Alberta. The necessity for snowmobile enthusiasts to define their role in the tourism industry is greater than that of some other recreational pursuits. This is because of the potential hazard of snowmobiling resulting from the extreme speed of the sport.

There is also a large potential benefit for tourism in Alberta’s smaller communities, as snowmobiling could bring excitement to touring rural Alberta during what is otherwise considered as a low or an off-season. Unquestionably, there is a role for snowmobile enthusiasts to play in this development of tourism marketing, and positions such as tour guides, outfitters, language and trail interpreters will all need skilled and enthusiastic snow mobilers to help fill those positions.

This value-added component – and that’s what I’m looking at, the value- added component – to our tourism industry would contribute to local economies, which could mean more than just offsetting the costs of a trail network. Mr. Speaker, many of the trails in the Crowsnest Pass area and the Pincher Creek area have historical significance as old trapping and ice fishing trails, each with an individual character and a certain amount of myth. Today, in the last 40 years, many cut lines and logging roads provide a very well co-ordinated trail system potential for southwest Alberta.

One advantage of a trail network would be to begin the development of what are otherwise unused and remote areas throughout Alberta and provide greater economic and geo- graphic diversity to our ever-expanding tourism industry. In 1999 our own Pincher Creek-Crowsnest Pass area was ranked by SnowRider Magazine as the best overall snowmobiling area in western Canada. It was also ranked highest for the area where people would most like to ride in the future. So with increased tourist traffic, regular trail grooming becomes necessary in order to maintain the region as a competitive tourism destination.

Trail grooming consistently ranks high in importance to vacationing snowmobilers in market demand surveys. With over 1,200 kilo-

November 28, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2167 metres of designated trails in the Pincher Creek-Crowsnest Pass area and with that overall ranking, a pilot project would be appropriate in the green area in the southwest corner of our province

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20001128
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20001128 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f97843e53a8765a0f65a95d2f2f57d9bd8cc09df

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