November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1407 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:30 p.m. Date: 02/11/20 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we continue our work this day, we renew our thanks and ask that we may continue under Your guidance. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MR. NORRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [some ap- plause] Thank you for that thunderous applause. Mr. Speaker, it’s an absolute delight for me to rise today.

As you know, the constituency of Edmonton-McClung produces some very interesting and wonderful things, not the least of which are the kids from Ormsby elementary school. They’re here today with their teachers Mrs. Linda Vanjoff, Mr. Thomas Lock, Ms Tina Yonge, and they’re all in the members’ ga llery. I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. Edmonton-McClung is great. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s certainly my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly six great individuals from my constituency and probably known to quite a number of you. They are also on county council in Thorhild, and I’d like to introduce them. First, we have Henry Zolkewski, the reeve of the county; the deputy reeve, Lyle Kuzik; Nick Lazowski, councillor; Kevin Grumetza, councillor; William Kowal, councillor; and the county manager, Robyn Singleton. They’re here for the AAMD and C convention and are here to observe us, so please welcome them. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Peace River. MR. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and to the members a constituent from High Level, Dianne Hunter. In fact, she’s the CAO of the town of High Level. She’s here today as part of the AAMD and C conference and a little later this afternoon a meeting with our Solicitor General. She’s standing in the members’ gallery, and I would like our members to give her the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my great pleasure to introduce to the House through you 27 students repre- senting St. Augustine school. They’re accompanied by their teachers Miss Elana Siminton and Christine Wong and by parent helper Dina McMahon. We would ask them to please rise and accept the warm and gracious welcome of the House. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I have the honour of introducing to you and to all members of the House today Ms Shirley Barg.

She’s vice-president of Athabasca University Stu- dents’ Union and a member of the Council of Alberta University Students, an organization called CAUS. She along with all the members of the CAUS, close to a hundred thousand students, is trying to convince the government to reduce tuition fees. She’s also among those students who are wondering why the government, on the one hand, is letting tuition fees go up while the government is actively engaged in cutting the corporate taxes in this province. I think Ms Barg is there, and I’ll ask everyone to welcome her. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. head: Oral Question Period Provincial Fiscal Policies DR. NICOL: This government’s priorities are really mixed up. Over the past three years millions of dollars in capital improvements on schools have been put on hold, and 135 schools are rated by this government as in poor condition. Meanwhile, this government continues to give handsome bonuses to its managers, with some bonuses as high as $29,000, more than many Albertans earn in a single year.

My question to the Premier: how can you justify nearly $3 million in staff bonuses to employees of Alberta Infrastructure over the past three years while thousands of students are sitting in run-down schools? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that across Canada I believe that our senior public service employees, sad to say, are amongst the lowest paid. What we try to do, within a reasonable degree, is bring them into scope so as not to lose them to other jurisdictions and, indeed, the private sector.

I would point out that many of our deputy ministers, certainly many, many of our assistant deputy ministers, earn far less than school superintendents. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister to supplement. MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to recognize that under the new century school program, which was started two years ago, there was some $1.1 billion – $1.1 billion – spent on schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you.

Given that $3 million could have provided 1,700 poor children with hot lunches every school day for three years, but instead it went to feed the bureaucracy, can the Premier tell us what his priority is: hungry children or bonuses for well-paid employees? MR. KLEIN: Naturally we’re concerned about hungry children, and we address the issues of poverty and certainly have programs in place to accommodate those who are truly in need in society, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll continue to do that. Relative to the salary issue, Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the hon. leader of the Liberal Party that our senior public service employees had their salaries frozen for five years in a row, then took a 5 percent rollback. Right now they’re in a catch-up phase, but, as I said previously, they are nowhere near what other senior public service employees get paid across this country, certainly absolutely nowhere near what they get paid in the private sector. DR. NICOL: Given that $3 million in bonuses were handed over to well-paid employees in just one government department over the

1408 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 past three years, including one bonus of $29,000, can the Premier explain why he can’t toss a few crumbs to low-income Albertans who haven’t seen a raise in 10 years? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, low-income Albertans are receiving a lot more than a few crumbs. I point to AISH in particular, one of the programs that is unique in Canada.

It’s the policy of this govern- ment, as I stated yesterday, to provide a hand up rather than a handout and to accommodate those who truly need our help and to help those who are on welfare and are able to work to get off the welfare rolls and to find employment and to earn a living in a dignified manner. DR. NICOL: Over the past five years this government has gotten fatter and fatter. It’s abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility and restraint.

The government’s own numbers show that it is spending $358 million more on salaries, wages, and benefits than it did five years ago, coincidentally the same amount needed by the Calgary board of education for deferred maintenance projects. Mr. Speaker, not only does this government have its priorities all mixed up; I’m afraid it’s been seriously infected with a bad case of chronic wasting disease. My first question to the Premier: how can you justify spending nearly one-third more on government salaries and wages while Albertans are paying more user fees and receiving fewer services?

Was the $184 million increase in health premiums this year alone to pay for this bloated payroll? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic and quite contradic- tory that the hon. member would be asking this particular question since it’s the Liberal Party that consistently and constantly demands of this government to spend more for teachers, more for nurses, more for doctors, more for social workers, more, more, more, and when we provide reasonable salary increases, they complain. I don’t know really where they’re coming from.

Do they want more for teachers, doctors, nurses, nurses aides, and other public service employees? They’re constantly crying for more and more money. When we pay them more money, then they complain. I can’t figure it. 1:40 DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, it has to do with good management. We would do it better. How can the Premier justify a 26 percent increase in Executive Council salaries over the past three years and a 117 percent increase in deputy minister salaries, benefits, allowances since 1997 when schools are crumbling and SFI and AISH recipients have not received any increases? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, as you know, relative to SFI and AISH that matter is under review, the result of the low-income review, and that situation will be addressed. We’ve heard from representatives of various groups representing people who are deemed to be in poverty, and we’ll deal with that particular situation. Relative to Executive Council salaries and the salaries of other public service employees, Mr. Speaker, what we try to do is make sure that, as best we possibly can, our salaries are in line with other jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to meet the salary allotments that are given in many other jurisdictions, but we try our hardest to do that. In other words, we try to treat people fairly, and that’s what it’s all about. DR. NICOL: I ask you, Mr. Premier: when are you going to keep your promise to reduce the size of government and return to a smaller cabinet, reduce it from the 24 that you have? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, 24 is not bad on a percentage basis considering the huge majority we have and the very measly minority they have. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Heritage Savings Trust Fund MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today the Minister of Revenue announced that the heritage fund has suffered losses of $1.3 billion in the first six months of this year. Another blow in a long line of attempts by this government to deplete the heritage fund is the most recent survey, with one trick question and three others that show that all this government wants is to spend, spend, spend the fund. My questions are to the Minister of Revenue.

Why doesn’t the survey on the future of the heritage fund provide Albertans with a meaningful opportunity to indicate that they want this fund saved for the future? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. MELCHIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think we should ever apologize for consulting with Albertans. You know, there are four questions in that survey, and I’m glad that he’s reminded. It’s an opportunity to invite all Albertans to complete that by this Friday, which is the close date, November 22.

Of the four questions, two come from the original mandate of the fund: that of a long-term endowment, which a portion of it has always been dedicated to and a portion quite likely will forever be dedicated to. The other question: what to do with capital? Over $3.5 billion has been invested in various projects like the Walter C. Mackenzie centre, the Tom Baker cancer centre, Kananaskis park, a variety of projects that benefit now and future Albertans.

The other two questions are a direct result of the Future Summit recommendations: that of sustainability – should that form part of it? – and should the debt be paid down? We’re following up as a promise to Albertans through a public consultation to put their ideas forward so that Albertans can have the choice. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why does this minister spend $365,000 on a manipulative and meaningless survey instead of holding a referendum and getting meaningful direction from Albertans? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. MELCHIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a fund that has such great value to Albertans, it is important that we do take time to not just survey but that we also give time to educate and inform and allow them to participate in the de mocratic process. This is very much part of it, and we’re pleased to have it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the larger this government becomes, the more the heritage fund shrinks, how many ministries will it take to spend the heritage fund? MR. MELCHIN: You know, the heritage fund, I must say at the outset, is here to stay. It’s here to benefit not just current generations

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1409 but future generations of Albertans, and that’s what the survey is about. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. Rural Health Services DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tory MLAs are in open revolt against this government’s plans to close rural hospitals. The Lakeland health region, chaired by a former Tory cabinet minister, is refusing to do the government’s dirty work by closing or down- grading rural hospitals in northeastern Alberta. Three cheers for him.

Rural Albertans are furious with this government, and rightly so, especially when they know that this government is generous with tax cuts to big corporations that don’t need a penny of their social welfare. My question now to the minister of health: why is the minister content to have as his legacy the closure or downgrading of public hospitals in rural communities? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that the chairman of the regional health authority out in Lakeland would be most astonished to have the support of the hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona.

Let me say that we have a commitment to maintaining a level of services in rural Alberta that is sustainable. That sustainability must be not only for people that live in Calgary and Edmonton, but it must also exist for people that live in Hairy Hill, Two Hills, Pincher Creek, Red Earth Creek. Whether it’s in Fort McMurray or Fort Macleod, Mr. Speaker, we have a commitment to maintaining our facilities in rural Alberta where they are required. There are and have been examples where facilities for any one of a number of reasons may have been converted to long-term care centres.

We, of course, have different ways of delivering health care throughout the province. We have teleradiology. We have tele- health. We have telepsychiatry. We have many ways of making sure that our administrative systems are as effective and as efficient as possible. But to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, our goal is to try and decentralize the delivery of services in health care.

We are making better use of facilities that exist outside of Calgary and Edmonton, and there are outstanding facilities throughout rural Alberta, but the crux of the matter is that we are maintaining and in some cases able to improve delivery of health care in rural Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think the minister got Mr. Isley’s message clear and loud. How can the government insist that rural RHAs can operate on funding increases of 2 percent this year when their costs have increased closer to 6 percent? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, there have been increases to regional health authorities. While it is true that some regional health authorities get a 2 percent increase, other regional health authorities have had up to a 7.8 percent increase, and the reason is that we fund on the basis of population. The more population you have, the greater your growth in population, the more funding attracts it. Also, our population funding formula recognizes that there are increases as a result of dealing with an older population, of dealing with a lower income population, of dealing with the aboriginal population, and our funding reflects that.

Now, it is correct, Mr. Speaker, that there are some regional health authorities that because their populations have either been stagnant or in some cases have been decreasing, in those cases the funding increase that they get is less than in areas where the regional health authorities have experienced growth or an aging population.

So one of the solutions that has been proposed and will be decided upon through the process of going through our standing policy committee, our caucus, and our cabinet is to determine how we will deal with these issues with smaller regional health authorities that may not be sustainable two, three, four, five years out. 1:50 DR. PANNU: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to have a hard time selling his solution to rural Albertans.

My last question to him: does the minister agree with the Premier when the Premier insulted rural Albertans by describing their hospitals and health facilities as nothing more than local employ- ment centres? MR. ZWOZDESKY: Point of order. MR. MAR: Two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, what the hon. member said is patently untrue. Secondly, in answering his question about who has the interests of rural Albertans best in mind: the caucus that is represented in the government of Alberta. I can’t name one NDP member from rural Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Automobile Insurance MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past months there has been a flurry of media coverage on automobile insurance in Alberta. These reports indicate that auto insurance premiums are on the rise and will continue to rise if something isn’t done about it. Recently it was also announced that a large insurance company and two smaller auto insurers operating in Alberta would stop writing new auto insurance policies in the province. My questions are all to the Minister of Finance.

My constituents would like to know what they can do if they are unable to find an insurer to cover their automobile. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that there have been three corporations that have decided to not take on any new customers. That’s a corporate decision they have made, but there are another 60-odd insurance companies that do underwrite auto insurance actively in the provin ce of Alberta today.

It is the law that you must carry automobile insurance in this province, and if any constituent is having difficulty, they should be aware that there is a facility corporation that is available if it’s the last resort for them. So there is availability of auto insurance. If they’re having difficulty finding it, they need to just phone the Insurance Bureau, and they will direct them to the appropriate facility. MR. JOHNSON: In regard to rising premiums, my constituents would like to know what your ministry and the government are doing about this issue. MRS. NELSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think all insurance companies are facing the difficult task of rationalizing the costs of claims that have gone through. Some of the payouts have been very, very large for catastrophic accidents, so as a result the premiums have gone up.

1410 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 We’ve sort of tracked this a bit, and it looks like it’s almost a 10- year cycle that insurance seems to go through. It peaks out and then levels off and goes for roughly eight to 10 years and then ramps up again. I think we’re probably in that ramp-up cycle right now, which is making it difficult for all of us who do have to buy insurance because we are all seeing our own policies going up. It’s part of the cycle. There’s not really anything we can do. It’s the cost of business, unfortunately. MR. JOHNSON: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister also take this opportunity to tell this House what effect the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States has had on the insurance industry? Does the insurance industry cover acts of terrorism? MRS. NELSON: Well, interestingly enough, I guess that if you look at your homeowner plan, there’s a new statement on the plan this year that says that it does not cover acts of terrorism, which I don’t think we had before, and it is now showing up. Acts of war and acts of terrorism are being identified as being exempt from the coverage of your personal policy. So that has been eliminated.

I think that as a result of the devastation that did occur last year, a lot of insurance companies felt that they had to remove that coverage or the assump- tion of the coverage from their policies, so they’re not included on most homeowner plans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Manhattan Resources Ltd. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of concerned citizens residing in the county of Strathcona have recently attended a series of public meetings regarding Manhattan Resources’ proposal to dr ill six sour gas wells.

It is my understanding from attending a meeting along with the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry that companies must go through an intensive process of notification and consultation prior to obtaining a licence, and if this process is disregarded, then the consequences are severe. My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Why was public consultation in this matter not done in accordance with the standards of the EUB? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, without taking the time of this House to correct the misinformation that the member, as usual, puts forth in his

preamble, I will say to you that the matter is in front of the board. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is a quasi-judicial board in this province. MR. MacDONALD: Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: how did Manhattan Resources receive approval for a sour gas battery prior to conducting the required public consultation? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this memb er is trying to tear down the reputation of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, that is known to be one of the best if not the best regulating boards in the world today.

Their information is clear, their information is transparent, and their regulations are available for everyone to follow. MR. MacDONALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Given that nearby residents were told that there would only be a potential for .01 percent, or 100 parts per million, H 2S and appar- ently landowners in the vicinity where the wells would be drilled were given documents that illustrate the true potential of H 2S at .66 percent, or 66 hundred parts pe r million, how can the minister explain this inconsistency when he is the person that’s in charge of the EUB? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the parts per million of intelligence required to ask that question is zero. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Green Power Production MR. LORD: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently more good news on the alternative energy and energy conservation front in Alberta. Two days ago the Alberta government, through Infrastruc- ture, issued an RFP, a request for proposals, calling for a supplier or suppliers to provide the government with at least 25 percent of its electrical needs from alternative energy sources.

Along with this announcement was a reference to an energy retrofit program which is apparently modifying Alberta government buildings. My first question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Could the minister explain what the goals of the Alberta energy retrofit program are, specifically in terms of quantifying any taxpayer impacts on electrical bills as well as greenhouse gas emission impacts? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, back in the mid- 90s and in the early ’90s this government had been talking about what we could do and what people could do to reduce consumption and therefore reduce the emissions. But, as usual, we in government want to back up our talk with action, so we developed a plan and a program whereby we looked at structures and determined what we needed to do to have a three-year payback period.

Then we stepped forward after that program and looked at a five-year payback period. 2:00 We’ve found that by doing a lot of retrofitting in our buildings, whether that be putting in the more efficient furnaces, heat exchang- ers, changing to different types of lights, insulating buildings, putting in efficient windows, all of those kinds of things, that would reduce our need for and consumption of fossil fuels, and also we moved, then, into the vehicle area and looked at how we could reduce our consumption of fuels and, of course, the use of automo- biles.

It was quite interesting, because currently, today, we have completed the five years. As a matter of fact, in this very building we were working on this retrofit this summer, but we have now pretty well completed the five-year cycle. We have now reduced our emissions to 22 percent below the 1990 levels, and by the year 2005 we’ll be down to 26 percent below, and we’ll see a savings of about $5 million annually on our utility bills simply through this retrofit program.

So if you take that over a 20-year period, you suddenly see that there’s about a hundred million dollar value in this program that simply reduced consumption. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. LORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Infrastructure. Now, since green power is not subject to depleting reserves or fluctuating world prices of oil and gas, does the minister anticipate that having the government acquire a green energy supplier might in fact help stabilize government budgets going forward, or does green energy supply come with large risks attached as well?

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1411 MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, a number of projects and ways that green power can be produced, ranging from biomass cogeneration, some hydro and, of course, wind energy. The fact is that when the hon. member talks about stabilization of budget, we are in the RFP asking for a longer term contract, so that would help stabilize the budget. However, I must point out that there are some other benefits that we will be very interested in, and those relate to: how can you help the environment with the purchase of green power?

So we’ll be looking for what the purchase of this green power does to reduce emissions that are pollutants, not just the CO 2 and things like methane but other things that could be considered pollutants; for example, a particulate or SO 2 or nitrogen oxide, those kinds of things that could be health hazards. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. LORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the Minister of Energy.

I’m wondering whether the Minister of Energy could confirm whether or not electricity deregulation in Alberta, which has been criticized in some quarters, has had any effect on the development and business viability of green power production in our province, especially as compared to other provinces which have not deregulated. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answers to those questions are yes, yes, and yes. The benefit of deregulation allows many optional forms of power to come onstream, and we’ve seen that with coal-fired natural gas generators.

We’ve seen that with biomass projects. We’ve seen that with windmills. In fact, with the recent announcement of Fort Macleod and the McBride area – once that’s finished, we will be the number one wind province in Canada. We’ll have surpassed Quebec. We will have done all this, of course, without any taxpayer investment put towards this type of product. The market is making the decision about the benefits of wind power to local industry in southern Alberta and, of course, the benefits to the electricity grid in the province. HIV/AIDS Risk in Prison System MS BLAKEMAN: Mr.

Speaker, a recent study by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has Alberta ranked second to last in a harm reduction rating for preventing the spread of HIV and hep C in our prisons. Prisoners do not have access to the most basic HIV prevention methods that are available outside prison. In Alberta people are not just receiving a jail sentence but potentially a death sentence. My questions are to the Solicitor General. Why has the department chosen not to protect inmates from HIV and hep C? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is referring to a report that has just crossed my desk. I can tell you that Alberta is very conscientious about the HIV and AIDS in our prisons. We are protecting our correction officers; we are protecting our prisoners, but I can tell you that in this province the one thing we are not going to be doing in our young offender centres is handing out condoms to our young offenders. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

Has the department done a cost- benefit analysis which leads them to believe that it’s cheaper to pay for years of hospitalization and drug therapy than to buy a bottle of bleach and some needles? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta govern- ment is very conscientious about what’s going on in our prisons. I can tell you the one thing that this government will be doing. We will not be handing out needles and bleach in our prisons. I have to be concerned about my correction officers and the damages that can be done to them by bad needles.

I don’t believe that we should be promoting drug abuse in our prisons. I will tell you what we will do though. We will promote drug and alcohol education, and we will also provide them a methadone program if the medical officer on duty deems it fit. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you. Has the minister considered the government’s liability when pris oners under their care get HIV or hep C in prison and are then released into the general public? You are not protecting the spread of this. MRS. FORSYTH: Mr.

Speaker, it’s a known fact, believe it or not, that sex does occur in our prisons whether we agree with it or not, but I can tell you that we in Alberta are not going to be promoting sex in our jails. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Seniors’ Benefits MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The average total income for an Alberta senior in constant dollars for the year 1994 was $24,398. In the year 2000 that average dropped to $23,146 using the same constant dollars. We have many seniors on fixed incomes who have lost health benefits over the years.

Their food, their shelter, their utilities, their property taxes have all gone up considerably. They are suffering financially. To the Minister of Seniors: what is the Minister of Seniors doing to help those seniors meet at least their basic needs? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The mandate of the Ministry of Seniors is to ensure that seniors in this province are well looked after. We focused our resources on the seniors most in need. As a result of that, we have two financial support programs, one being the Alberta seniors’ benefits program, which supplements income.

We currently have a large number of people on that. The other is a special-needs assistance program which provides a lump sum payment of a maximum of $5,000 for seniors who run into extraordinary financial circumstances. These people who qualify for special needs have to already be on the seniors’ benefit, because they are at the bottom end of it. In addition, the special needs this year has expanded its coverage to the people on the seniors’ benefits program with respect to some dental and optical needs because the extended health program had been terminated in Health this past March.

1412 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for his answer. Seniors are aware of these benefits and these programs. Since seniors have expressed concerns about the future of these and other financial benefits available to them, what is your ministry doing to compensate them for the loss of their buying power and to ensure that their current benefits are maintained and benefits for future seniors will be there when they need them? 2:10 MR.

WOLOSHYN: That question is one that the ministry has been reviewing and reviewing and reviewing. What we would like to do would be to introduce some sort of a cost-of-living increase, but due to current financial circumstances within government as a whole, we can’t cover the current budget, if you will, let alone increase it, but that would be one of our hopes. The other is we’re conducting an internal review of the threshold to see if it is appropriate, but I would like to say, though, that about half the seniors in this province do not pay health care premiums.

They only pay a portion or are totally excluded from them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that there are huge concerns among seniors about the future of the Blue Cross prescrip- tion coverage for seniors, could the minister advise the House and the Alberta seniors if there are any changes on the horizon for the Alberta Blue Cross coverage? MR. WOLOSHYN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Seniors I do not support further reductions in any seniors’ programs. I have also been a recipient of correspondence with this concern, which refers specifically to the Blue Cross program.

At this point in time I have not been made aware of any effort to reduce that. The ministry responsible is Health and Wellness, and if the minister so chooses, he may supplement my answer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Funding for Postsecondary Education DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tuition in Alberta has increased 208 percent. While some countries are committed to fully accessible postsecondary education by not charging students any tuition, we now have proposals on the table for even more expensive differential fees.

My first question is to the Minister of Learning. What is the government doing to combat the sticker price shock that scares students from low-income families away from postsecondary schools? DR. OBERG: Well, thank you very much for that question. I will address one of the points that was given in the

preamble, and that was the whole idea about the c ountries who do not charge any tuition. Mr. Speaker, in countries such as Australia they attempted to have a no-tuition policy, and very quickly what they found is that the demographics of the population attending university did not change in the least, so what they have subsequently done is gone back to charging tuition. Mr. Speaker, the other issue that he brought up was the whole idea of what we are doing about the sticker shock, and I will say that that is an excellent question, because that is one of the issues that is out there for the students.

They see the price; they don’t necessarily see the benefit. I think that for anyone who has ever set up a small business, in order to come out of university after four years with an average of around $17,000 in debt and be essentially – essentially – guaranteed a job, that’s a great investment. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the minister of municipalities. Given that student residences are charged property taxes, will the Municipal Government Act be changed to eliminate that tax, thereby helping reduce rents for low- income students?

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I want to say that the housing for students today, the work that is being done – we’re looking at reviewing the Municipal Government Act, but as you know, the Municipal Government Act of Alberta is one of the leading pieces of government legislation in all of Canada and is certainly recognized that way. What we are contemplating when we open up amendments are all of our options. DR. MASSEY: Thanks for nothing. My third question is to the Minister of Learning.

How can the government’s underfunding of universities do anything but force a two-tier system, one for the rich and one for everyone else? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. DR. OBERG: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess there are about two or three different ways that I can answer that. First of all, what I will mention are the student finance programs that we have. Presently in Alberta we have excellent student finance programs, where if a student cannot afford to go to school, they can take out student loans up to the tune of around 10 and a half thousand dollars per year and pay back about $5,000 per year.

So, basically, they’ve received $5,500 free for doing that from the government of Alberta, from the people of Alberta. The second point that I wanted to make on tuition fees: the supposed gospel according to Maclean’s, which came out last week, showed that the University of Alberta was, actually, number 29 when it came to tuition and fees; the University of Calgary was number 31; and the University of Lethbridge was number 38. Keeping that in mind, Mr.

Speaker, what you also saw in the same appraisal of what was happening on the university scene in Canada is that the University of Calgary was number 4 for funding, for operating budget, and number 5 was the University of Alberta. So what you see is high operating budgets and lower than average tuition in Alberta. That’s a pretty good deal for students of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Carbon Dioxide Emissions MR. MASON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the government claimed that CO 2 emissions are a natural resource and, therefore, constitutionally, belong to Alberta. Now, if this position is upheld, then the New Democrats will certainly want to nationalize the Minister of Energy. What’s more likely, however, is that Alberta’s ridiculous position will be laughed out of court. To the

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1413 Minister of Environment: will the minister table in this Assembly any legal opinions the government has obtained that support the proposition that CO 2 emitted by coal-fired power plants, SUVs, and, yes, even people breathing is a natural resource under the Constitu- tion of Canada? DR. TAYLOR: Well, let me clearly give you an example of how CO 2 is a natural resource. We are presently working with the government of Saskatchewan. We’re working with EnCana Energy and pumping CO 2 out of North Dakota into southern Saskatchewan to help in the recovery of oil.

It goes down into the ground and helps the recovery of oil, so CO 2 is very clearly a natural resource that has an economic benefit to it. MR. MASON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if CO 2 is indeed a natural resource, will the government commit to capturing most or all of the CO 2 emitted in Alberta and then obtain the best possible price for it on international markets? DR. TAYLOR: Well, I’d like to thank that member for such a fine question. If he’s read our plan and understands what we’re trying to do in our greenhouse gas reduction plan, one of the issues we have in Alberta is that we have two sources, Mr.

Speaker, that are producing over 50 percent of our greenhouse gases, 50 to 55 percent. Those two sources are the oil industry and coal-fired power plants. Now, as we spend money through the Minister of Innovation and Science’s budget on research to separate the streams so we can separate the NO X, the SOX, and the particulate matter from CO2 and get a clear and pure stream of CO2 – we can collect it at these major sources – yes, as we go forward, we would like to see a pipeline in Alberta that is specifically for CO 2, that can be utilized in economic recovery and stored underground. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has antici- pated my third question, which I’ll ask anyway. Can the minister please tell Albertans what plan the government has for value-added manufacturing for this wonderful new resource industry? Or are they just going to build a pipeline and ship it all to the U.S.? DR. TAYLOR: Since I’ve already answered his question, you know, there’s no reason for me to answer it again, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Ticketing by Special Constables MR. OUELLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through discussions with local municipalities it’s been brought to my attention that the overall policy of police patrols along primary highways has been altered. Specifically, the town of Penhold has been advised that the town can no longer ticket traffic violations through the town of Penhold along highway 2A, even though Penhold school is adjacent to highway 2A and the majority of students must cross 2A multiple times each day. My questions today are to the Solicitor General.

Is it true that the Department of the Solicitor General has stated that special constables can no longer ticket on primary highways, including those highways that run through municipalities? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MRS. FORSYTH: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to say that, first of all, special constables have never had the authority to ticket on primary highways – never. They have the authority to ticket on secondary highways, but when secondary highways were changed to primary highways from Alberta Transportation, we agreed to allow that to happen till after the policing review. Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member’s frustration, but my number one priority in my department is to ensure that the highways are safely manned by fully trained and qualified officers and that the residents in that area receive effective and adequate policing. Special constables do not have the same training and qualifications as police officers. Special constables are also not paid at the same level as fully qualified police officers.

While this makes it a little more affordable for jurisdictions, they are not qualified to perform all of the duties of a police officer, including enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act on primary highways. 2:20 MR. OUELLETTE: I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I thought that 2A always was a primary highway. What is the hon. minister doing to address concerns of local residents that the RCMP feel that the local detachment will not be able to provide the level of service on this highway that the commu- nity has been accustomed to? MRS.

FORSYTH: The member is correct: highway 2A is a primary highway, and the responsibility is that of the RCMP. I understand his frustration. We have called the assistant commissioner of the RCMP. We have said to him: your responsibility is to man that particular highway. My understanding is that the assistant commis- sioner of K Division is meeting with the town of Penhold’s staff sergeant this week. MR. OUELLETTE: So can you tell me, then, hon. minister: are you going to refund all the money that’s been ticketed by these consta- bles in the past? MRS.

FORSYTH: It’s been brought to our attention by the hon. member, and he can bring it back to our attention at any time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Impact of Climate Change on Health DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s come to public attention in the last few days that there’s been a surge in deaths in Ontario from the West Nile virus, which is carried by mosquitoes which are spreading into Canada from the south as a result of climate change. As well, we have a medical officer of health, Dr.

David Swann, fired from his job for expressing professional concern over the health impact of climate change. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Does the minister have plans to amend regulations to protect the job security of medical officers of health? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, regional health authorities throughout the province have looked at the issue involving Dr. Swann. In fact, the relevant health authority, in this case Palliser, had also looked at its practice with respect to how it had dealt with Dr. Swann. It made every effort to bring Dr. Swann back.

There were a number of comments that he made on the conditions upon which he would return to being the medical officer for Palliser. I understand that the board made that offer. Dr. Swann has now decided to go to Iraq instead and practise his profession in Iraq. Each regional health

1414 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 authority has looked at this particular issue, and I think that they are dealing with it appropriately. DR. TAFT: I’d say that in short, then, there are no plans to protect the job security of medical officers of health. My second question is to the same minister. Has any attempt been made by the government to measure the health impact of climate change on Albertans? MR. MAR: I think that the Minister of Environment is well on this particular file, Mr. Speaker. We do co-ordinate with work that is being done out of his department.

Our focus has really been on things that are much more closely associated with issues related to health care. We are more concerned about ensuring, for example, that people get the highest level of cardiac care in this province. We made an outstanding announcement today about our continued support for a cardiac centre here in the city of Edmonton. That is more meritorious of our considera tion than the issue raised by the hon. member. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that earlier this year the Minister of Energy said that if climate change affected the health of one child, he would recommend against resisting Kyoto, will the Minister of Health and Wellness or the Minister of Environment ensure that the health effects of climate change are made a priority in this government’s climate change plans? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, again, I think this is a different way of asking the same question. I have complete confidence in the ability of the Minister of Environment to deal with these issues and that we will co-ordinate. The Minister of Environment has the issue well in hand.

If he were to come to me and suggest that there is credible evidence that it is a health issue, then, yes, I would bring it forward. THE SPEAKER: The minister to supplement. DR. TAYLOR: I’d just like to clarify this kind of misinformation that the Liberals and the federal Liberals continue to put out. They assume that the brown smog, which is causing health conditions, is an issue covered under Kyoto. [interjection] The only brown smog we have in here is from you, Dr. Taft. As we go forward, Mr. Speaker, it’s quite clear that Kyoto is about greenhouse gases, 98 and a half percent of which is carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to Recogni- tions, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 14 students from St. Albert Catholic high school who are here in the public gallery today. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Tamie Bentz and by the student teacher who is with them this week, Ms Sophy Norng.

I would ask them all to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. MS CALAHASEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today I have the great pleasure of introducing on behalf of my colleague from Sherwood Park 51 important people who are from the Wood- bridge Farms elementary school. They are here with their teachers and group leaders Mrs. Busch, Ms Ackerman, Mrs. Setchell, and parent helpers Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Joly, Mrs. Bourque, Mrs. Field, and Mrs. Schaffler.

They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask that they stand and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Lud Prudek Stan Price James Helm MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This year’s inductees into the Agriculture Hall of Fame were recognized for pioneering work in crop and livestock industry research and development. In addition to these achievements, each inductee has been a key individual in the creation of industry associations and actively involved in communi- cation and development in their area.

Lud Prudek from Bow Island is recognized for his leadership role in initiating and developing dry bean pulse crops into a hundred million dollar Canadian industry. He also made significant contribu- tions to other specialty crops and pioneered gated pipe irrigation. Stan Price from Acme led the development of vertically integrated food production from farmer to consumer and is the founder of the Sunterra markets retail chain. Stan pioneered the development of modern hog market production practices, promoted the need for national grading standards and development of value-added processing. Dr.

James Helm’s work in the area of feed grain development led to the creation of 23 new varieties of barley and triticale, establish- ing Alberta’s Field Crop Development Centre in Lacombe as a worldwide leader in scientific excellence, productivity, and innova- tion in cereal breeding programs. He’s also recognized for his significant contribution to the development of the Canada/Alberta barley agreement.

I know that all members of this Assembly will join me in recognizing these outstanding Albertans and their outstanding achievements and congratulate them on their induction to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame. 2:30 THE SPEAKER: As the hon. member violated the one-minute rule, I will not be calling on him for a second recognition. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Tom Maccagno MR. DANYLUK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am honoured to recognize Mr. Tom Maccagno from the Lac La Biche- St. Paul constituency, who was recently presented with the very prestigious Canada’s recreation fisheries award.

Tom Maccagno has been actively dedicated to fishery resources in Alberta for over the past 30 years. He has played an instrumental role in the education of people across the country on the importance of a balanced fish habitat and the preservation of their populations. Tom was involved in the establishment of the provincial walleye and pike task forces

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1415 and has been a frequent spokesman on behalf of fisheries and fish habitat. He can also be credited with the act of support and involve- ment in the development of the Alexander Hamilton park, which is a fish enhancement project in Lac La Biche. Each year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada honours five deserving individuals or organizations for their contribution to the conservation, restoration, and enhancement of Canada’s recreational fisheries and their habitat. Mr.

Maccagno was one of these fine recipients, and I would like you to join me in congratulat- ing this dedicated Albertan for his accomplishments. Thank you. National Child Day DR. MASSEY: Today is National Child Day. The theme this year is: A World Fit for Children. This theme grows out of the commit- ments made at the 2002 United Nations Special Session on Children. Making the world fit for children requires a comprehensive, affordable, and accessible education system. In Alberta we’ve made little progress. At the postsecondary level our efforts are a national embarrassment.

Many European countries like Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden ensure an accessible system by not charging tuition fees. Our record is dismal. Declining government support has resulted in tuition covering more and more of postsecondary schools’ operating costs. The withdrawal of government funding has seriously limited accessibility for lower- and middle-income families. High-income families were two and a half times more likely as those from low-income families to have attended university in 1998. One can only surmise that the increases have made the problem worse.

On this National Child Day we should be assuring youth from low-income families that qualifying students will find our institu- tions accessible and affordable. Count of Homeless Persons MS BLAKEMAN: On October 23 I participated in the fifth Count of Homeless Persons in Edmonton organized by the Edmonton Joint Planning Committee on Housing. Teams of volunteers surveyed people at drop-in centres, libraries, bottle depots, and in certain areas on the street and in the river valley. Organizers commented on how many people had expressed an interest in the homeless situation and had come out to help.

As a result, the count was able to take in areas of Whyte Avenue, downtown, Stony Plain Road, Boyle/McCauley, and near the Skyreach Centre. The results of the c ount will be announced this Friday, November 22, as part of National Housing Day and are expected to help identify the magnitude of the problem and what changes, if any, have occurred since the last count. I’m looking to this government to react to this count with concrete plans and targets to reduce homelessness and increase the stock of affordable accommodations. With matching money available from the feds, this province is able to do more.

Buying more flop mats is not a long-term solution. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. McHappy Day MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today marks the 13th McHappy Day in McDonald’s Canada history. Since 1977 more than $16 million for Ronald McDonald children’s charities across Canada has been raised with one simple objective: to help children in need. This year McHappy Day is being held in Canada in support of World Children’s Day, representing an unprecedented worldwide effort to benefit children in need everywhere. This morning I was invited by Dola Ritter to join the team at St.

Albert’s downtown McDonald’s restaurant in helping to raise funds for three specific projects in our communities. First of all, the Ronald McDonald House is raising funds for an expansion to the house. As Edmonton has become a major pediatric treatment centre, the house has become very busy and waiting lists are commonplace. The Stollery Children’s Health Foundation is raising funds for the Cochrane Collaboration. The focus is to build an on-line resource library available worldwide. The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is also benefiting. National Child Day MRS. JABLONSKI: Mr.

Speaker, today 350 children and youth gathered at the Winspear Centre in Edmonton to celebrate National Child Day. We celebrated the United Nations Rights of the Child, that demands nourishment and protection for all children every- where. Eleven-year-old Camille Holland sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel, accompanied by students of the Suzuki charter school. The Kokopelli Youth Choir sang with rhythm that energized the atmosphere. The City Centre Education Project Band played Song of the Serengeti, and I heard the wind rustling through the trees and the animals grazing in the grass.

A presentation on freedom of expression by a group known as Youth One proved to me that our children and youth, of which we have 840,000, making us the youngest population of all the provinces, are growing strong and healthy in this province. But, Mr. Speaker, there are some children who are not growing strong and healthy in this province, and it is time that we as a society change our weak words and meaningless platitudes into actions that truly protect our children. Demand from the good people of Canada that we raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.

Demand that child pornography not be accepted as art, and demand that child poverty be eliminated. Then and only then can we truly celebrate National Child Day. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MR. HORNER: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by 77 Albertans in my cons tituency petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to deinsure abortion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition signed by 83 Albertans urging the government to “not delist services, raise health care premiums, introduce user fees or further privatize health care.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition here today approved for presentation by Parliamentary Counsel signed by 40 Albertans regarding the deinsuring of abortion.

1416 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: On a Standing Order 30 application, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to give notice that later on this afternoon I plan to make a motion under Standing Order 30, and I await your further direction. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, did you have a second one? Standing Order 40? MR. MacDONALD: Yes, I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

I would like again, and following your direction, to propose a motion, this time in regard to the democratic deficit that exists in this province, at the time instructed from the Speaker’s chair. Thank you. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment. Bill 33 North Red Deer Water Authorization Act DR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I am pleased to introduce some groundbreaking legislation. It’s called Bill 33, the North Red Deer Water Authorization Act. Mr.

Speaker, ensuring a healthy and adequate and sustainable drinking water supply for all Albertans is important for this govern- ment; in fact, a top priority. And that’s what this act does. When passed by this Assembly, this legislation will ensure safe drinking water to Lacombe, Ponoka, Blackfalds, Red Deer, and the First Nations community at Hobbema. This is a community-led solution, community-led direction, and I think it’s going to be excellent legislation, so I’m pleased to introduce it. [Motion carried; Bill 33 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As was mentioned in this House, the Association of Municipal Districts and Counties is meeting this weekend.

I’d like to table today the requisite number of copies of a resolution that was endorsed by the entire association that was initiated by the central Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, where it briefly says that: the AAMD and C relative to the Kyoto resolution support the province’s position on Kyoto, urging the government of Canada to delay any vote on the ratifica- tion until a workable implementation plan is in place consulting all provinces. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter from Edmonton’s mayor and city council supporting Bill 212, the Traffic Safety (Seizure of Vehicles in Prostitution Related Offences) Amendment Act, 2002, which will be introduced as Bill 206 in the spring 2003 session. This legislation would allow police officers to seize vehicles or provide an alternative measures program for offenders involved in prostitution-related offences in an effort to reduce the negative effects of street prostitution in Alberta’s communities. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. 2:40 MR.

MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have two tablings. The first is 36 letters from cons tituents asking that the abortion procedure that is currently paid for by Alberta Health be deinsured. The second is a letter encouraging the government to officially confirm square dancing as the official folk dance of Alberta, and that is followed by 131 signatories. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of a letter from a constituent in support of ratifying the Kyoto accord.

They make note that “the actions of the Alberta government on the Kyoto Protocol constitute a violation of Alberta’s member- ship in this international community.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter sent to me by Mr. Chad Axling of St. Albert requesting the designation of the Bighorn wildland recreation area as a wildland park, using the original 1986 boundaries. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today.

My first tabling is a letter from the municipal district of Northern Lights No. 22 addressed to the Minister of Health and Wellness expressing their deep concern over the Peace health region board’s decision to cut active care beds in Grimshaw and to reduce preventa- tive health services in their municipality. Mr. Speaker, the second tabling is a document from the Lakeland regional health authority pointing out the Minister of Health and Wellness’s high-handed approach to health care. It also accuses the provincial government of downloading the ambulance operational costs to municipalities. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise at this time to table five copies of a document. It’s a program called: A Celebration and Reflection of 100 years of Quality Craftsmanship. It’s the program to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners in Alberta. They have existed in this province since 1902 and helped, as a matter of fact, in the construction of this very Assembly.

There are notices of congratula- tions in here from the Governor General, the Prime Minister and, certainly, the Premier of Alberta. It is noteworthy that this organiza- tion has celebrated its 100th anniversary and looks forward to contributing to the prosperity of this province for another 100 years. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding, then, to Orders of the Day, we have some parliamentary business to attend to. If I understand this correctly, we have a point of order that was raised by

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1417 the hon. Deputy Government House Leader, a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, we have a point of privilege to deal with that stems from yesterday, and we have a Standing Order 30 application and a Standing Order 40 application from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. So let’s proceed in this way: first of all, the point of order presented by the Hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Point of Order Allegations against a Member MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Orders 23(h), (i), and (j ).

Under 23(h), as we will all know, it is improper for a member in this House to make allegations against another member. Under 23(

i) it’s improper, also, to impute a false or unavowed motive to another member, and under 23(

j) it’s improper to use the kind of language that might create disorder. Now, having said that, it’s my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that during the heat, the cut and thrust, as they say, of debate, as part of his

preamble to a question to the hon. minister of health the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, that being the leader of the ND opposition, indicated words that he avowed, which are not true, toward the Premier. I don’t have the Blues. I’ve requested them, but they haven’t been prepared yet. But I believe the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona gave an indication that he’d somewhere thought he heard, saw, or read that our Premier had indicated something to the effect that rural hospitals are nothing more than local employment centres or words to that effect.

I know that’s not true, and I think that everyone else here knows that’s not true, so I would simply ask in the spirit of the understanding of this House that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona kindly do the honourable thing and simply withdraw the remark since it’s clearly not true. It’s clearly false, and it obviously has been used in some very purported and totally out-of-context way, even though, I stress, I know it’s not true. So I will give the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona the opportunity to please withdraw that comment. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands, you’re participating in this? MR. MASON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To respond to the assistant Government House Leader’s point of order, I have here the words attributed to the hon. leader of the third party, the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, that are in fact correct, and I would beg to indicate the two articles from the Edmonton Journal in which the Premier was quoted.

Here on the 17th of November the Premier was quoted as saying that “hospitals do employ people, but they do not survive, they do not exist, to accommodate employment.” The next day, on the 18th of November, the Premier’s comment was: Our government and our party have to keep in mind that the health system does not exist primarily as an employment agency or a local economic tool, said Klein. That’s the message I’m trying to get out there today. It’s going to affect us all and it’s going to take some courage. So, Mr.

Speaker, while the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona may have exaggerated slightly the meaning of the Premier, it is clear that the Premier has made similar comments, and I have not seen any attempt on the part of the Premier to correct this reporting through letters to the editor or otherwise. THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, is this on a similar point of order? You also indicated that you wanted to raise a point of order. Are we talking about the same subject matter? I’d like to bring them all together if I can. If not, I’ll deal with these two points of order separately. DR. PANNU: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. I heard the Premier utter a word or two while I was raising the question. He called: it’s a lie. Then I heard the Minister of Finance say something to the effect: you’re a liar. It’s a serious matter. My point of order is intended to draw attention to the use of these words, which I hope you will consider as unparliamentary. Beauchesne 485 under Unparliamentary Language does require the members of the Assembly to be careful in the use of words and certainly not use the words “you’re a liar” in addressing other members or what other members say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader on this point of order. Now, I’ve put the two of them together. We’ll deal with them both. MR. ZWOZDESKY: I wanted to deal with the first one first. If you’ll allow it, I’ll do that, and then we’ll talk about the second one. THE SPEAKER: Yes. 2:50 MR. ZWOZDESKY: Okay. Thanks. I appreciate the Member for Edmonton-Highlands raising the point that he just raised, and I am aware of what was in the particular paper as referenced, even though I know that we don’t like to get into those things.

I think that if the member reads the entire quote and puts it into context, the intention there was simply to say that hospitals, of course, do employ people and they certainly do not exist only for that purpose, because it goes on to say that they exist for “people who are sick and injured,” to accommodate those people. So if you read it all in context, I think that clears that matter up. With respect to things that may have been said across the bow that probably aren’t in Hansard, I believe the hon. Minister of Finance has a statement to make. MRS. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, I did use the words: the hon. member told a lie. I should not have done that. I should have said: made an untrue statement. So I would like to retract “lie” but put in “untrue statement.” THE SPEAKER: Anybody else want to participate in these two very important points of order? Well, thank you very much for that. Here is what was said. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to have a hard time selling his solution to rural Albertans.

My last question to him: does the minister agree with the Premier when the Premier insulted rural Albertans by describing their hospitals and health facilities as nothing more than local employment centres? Then the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness: Well, first of all, two things, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member said is patently untrue. And secondly, in answering his question about who has the interests of rural Albertans best in mind: the caucus that is represented in the government of Alberta. I can’t name one NDP member from rural Alberta. Well, let’s just deal with some of these things.

First of all, thank you very much, hon. Minister of Finance. Her remarks were not picked up in Hansard, at least definable to her, so she has come clean by admitting in the House that she was responsible for them.

1418 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 That’s the honourable thing to do. That is the honourable thing to do. Secondly, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona violated the rule of this House about

preambles by including a

preamble on the last question, which was, of course, a no-no, which, of course, then gets other people excited. The question itself, you know, is rather arguable in terms of: My last question to him: does the minister agree with the Premier when the Premier insulted rural Albertans by describing their hospitals and health facilities as nothing more than local employ- ment centres? Okay. It could be argued that it might be out of order because it doesn’t really deal with government policy. What it does is attempt to get personal views and opinions. Then the response from the hon.

Minister of Health and Wellness: “What the hon. member said is patently untrue.” It didn’t call him a liar, but there’s an oblique way of basically saying the same thing. I guess the whole point of this is that we arrive in this place and we do get excited and we do get moved, and strict adherence to all of the rules would have ruled out the question and probably ruled out the answer and would have forced another intervention from the Speaker, which meant that, really, question period would not become very interesting to too many people other than the Speaker, who would say that this is really boring.

Hon. members like the flow and the back and forth, but I think that if we temper it with decent language and if we temper it with overall understanding and the whole thing, we’ll serve everybody a lot better. If quotes are attributed to statements in newspapers and the like, we’ve always followed the tradition that we’re not going to ascertain the truth of anything found in newspapers, but I guess it is used by hon. members from time to time to make the point, as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona did today, and it elicited re- sponses.

I think the key thing to all of this is let’s just try and avoid the hostility, and if we do it with some degree of humour, then I suppose that some people will say, “Well, that’s witty,” and that’s the highest form of debate that we can aspire to and attain. So, all in all, let’s say that we’ve dealt with those two points of order. Privilege Contempt of the Assembly THE SPEAKER: Now we will hear further with respect to the point of privilege that was raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

When we left it yesterday, the Government House Leader basically was given an opportunity to return today for comments with respect to this matte r, but before we get to that, I would invite the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar if he has anything more to say with respect to this point of privilege. Or shall I just proceed to recognize? MR. MacDONALD: No, Mr. Speaker. Please proceed to recognize. THE SPEAKER: Okay. Then the hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to start by repeating the comments of the House leader yesterday; namely, that we still believe that it is not, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, the stuff of privilege. Nonetheless, the government agrees that the word “government” should have been in front of “MLA committee” in the advertisement. Its absence was an oversight. There was no intention to breach the rights of this building and its members. Let’s be serious here for one second.

Can anyone in this Chamber today say that their rights or the rights of this building were trampled upon by an oversight about a word in front of “MLA committee”? Everyone on that committee is an MLA, thus it can technically be called an MLA committee. To be properly titled, it should have said: government MLA committee. But in fairness to this side, it was not called a legislative committee; it was not called a Legislative Assembly committee; it was not called an all-party committee. It was called what it was because that is what it was.

In hindsight, in light of this issue being brought to our attention, the government apologizes. It will be called the government MLA committee in the future. But, surely, this is not the stuff of privilege. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to the hon. member, the Deputy Government House Leader, I certainly hope that this will not happen again. I have certainly a different opinion, but the authority, the dignity, and the performance of the functions of this House and its members go across the province. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to remind all hon. members of this Assembly that committees such as this, in my view, have no basis in law, and they cannot offer witnesses that are called to testify before them the parliamentary privilege of being immune to civil action for defamation or slander arising from any of the comments that they may make before that committee. So I think it’s very, very important, and one cannot forget that there should be all- party committees formed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, on this point I believe that this matter appears to have been resolved. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar was completely within his rights, and he followed all the procedures that we have by notifying my office correctly and by applying under Standing Order 15(2). I think, as well, that the highes t possible resolution of this issue was afforded to the House yesterday in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, when he did offer alternatives.

I’m pleased to say today that the Deputy Government House Leader has taken up the alternative, and I think we’ve concluded this matter with a better understanding of the distinctions between the legislative branches and the executive branches and the importance of keeping them apart from one another. So thank you very much for that. Now, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar on a Standing Order 30 application. head: Request for Emergency Debate Electoral Boundaries MR. MacDONALD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will be brief, and I hope that there w ill be a sense of urgency with this Standing Order 30.

When I look up in the public gallery and I see that 33 percent of the people are already asleep, I’d better be very brief with this. For the record:

Be it resolved that this Assembly adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance – namely, the issue of urban and rural split – particularly in the context of electoral district distribution, which is listed as a priority in the interim report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, where it is proposed that the city of Edmonton lose one district, specifically, and unfortunately in my view, the district of Edmonton-

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1419 Norwood, which has had a significant history of over 50 years in this Assembly, and it has been represented by Progressive Conservative members, New Democrat members, and Liberal members. However, when I rise today, Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge debate in this Assembly on the interim report.

The interim report, which was tabled in this Assembly yesterday afternoon, on page 24 states, “The Legislative Assembly needs to give priority to seriously considering how the urban/rural split issue will be addressed in the future.” On the next page it states in bold type as well, “The Legislative Assembly should consider the resources allocated for constituency offices.” In order for the commission to carry on from the interim report to the final report, it is my view that we urgently need to discuss the interim report and, if possible, give some further direction to the committee. 3:00 This is a very important matter.

The issue which is defined as a priority in the interim report, which we discussed, has caused friction in the past in our province. There’s no doubt about that, especially when it comes to the matters of electoral distribution. Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter, again, because there has been an increasing sense of alienation between the rural and urban popula- tions not only in the province but, unfortunately, across the country. This issue needs to be debated before any further actions, in my view, are taken by the commission.

The interim report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission has made several points which, if implemented, will increase the friction again between rural and urban Albertans. Rural Alberta stands to lose two seats under the proposed boundary redistribution. The city of Edmonton stands to lose one. In my view, not only should we keep the 19 in the city; we should be getting another one as well. Each side of the debate . . . [interjection] Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We need to discuss this now, and we cannot allow any more confusing statements to be made on the urban/rural issue.

We need to speak about the province as a whole, the economic growth that’s occurring, the dramatic growth that’s occurring not only in Calgary but, certainly, in Edmonton. In conclusion, I would urge all members to support this motion because it is very, very important not only for the city of Edmonton but for the entire province. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the comments of other hon. members of the Assembly in regard to Standing Order 30. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: If hon. members wish to participate, I would invite a brief participation on the urgency of the Standing Order 30 application.

However, hon. members should know that I am prepared to rule. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. STEVENS: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of urgency. The wording of the moti on is interesting in that it’s not completely clear what the discussion is to be. If we’re talking about an urban/rural split, which seems to be the focus – clearly that is the case today; I’m sure it will be the case tomorrow – and if it is a question that Edmonton is losing a seat due to an unjust formula for splitting the province into urban and rural seats, then I would make these points.

The Assembly does have before it an interim report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and no final report has been tabled. Concerns about the proposed map should not be debated here as an emergent matter but brought up during the next round of Electoral Boundaries Commission’s consults scheduled for Decem- ber. The commission, which is looking at redrawing boundaries, is comprised of five members: two proposed by the opposition, two proposed by government, as well as a respected Albertan as the chair.

To declare that we need an emergency debate on what they are doing before they are finished doing it shows a lack of faith in the commission and its all-party appointees.

There’s a suggestion in this application that the drawing of electoral boundaries should not pay any attention to the split between urban and rural ridings, but the act which governs the work of the commission specifically states that those, other than the chair, who are appointed to the commission must be a resident in a city and the other a resident outside a city at the time of their appointment, which is a fairly clear indication that the law expects the urban/rural dichotomy of this province to be fairly taken into account when the commission does its work. For all of those reasons, Mr.

Speaker, I submit that there is no need for an emergency debate under Standing Order 30. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, we’re only debating urgency here, nothing else. The only word I want to hear from members is “urgency,” why this Assembly should abandon the work scheduled for today to focus on this motion. I don’t want to hear any argu- ments other than urgency. Just urgency. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MR. MASYK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’ve made it quite clear. The only thing is that I have only about two seconds to try and change gears here to follow your instruction.

However, it is my constituency that is at hand, so I felt somewhat obligated to bring sort of a defence forward. But on the note that you brought forward regarding urgency, the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore made it quite clear on urgency too, and I would probably lean in favour of him. Nevertheless, I do bring mine forward. It is my constituency, and that’s why I felt compelled to bring a defence forward. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Urgency. MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, on the point of urgency, in fact, the Deputy Government House Leader made the point.

There is only one opportunity for us to discuss this prior to the final submissions being made to the commission. They have made the interim submission, they are taking a few more submissions, and then there will be a final report. That report is binding subject only to a court challenge, and therefore it is of absolute importance that this is the very last chance we have to debate this particular issue which is hugely important to many, many Albertans. So I would urge you to rule in favour of the urgency of this particular point as made by the Deputy Government House Leader. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Airdrie-Rocky View. MS HALEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very briefly, there is no urgency, and this is not the only opportunity that anybody could debate it. As a matter of fact, when the final report is submitted and as it goes through the parliamentary process, it will in fact be in this Assembly, where the legislation is impacted. That is the place where you can debate it. That’s what this place is for. THE SPEAKER: Okay. On this point, hon. members, first of all, under Standing Order 30 the onus is on the hon. member to bring it to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

1420 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 That earliest opportunity would have been yesterday, not today. That could have been ruled out only on that one technical point as it is. Secondly, what’s the process? The process is simply that this Assembly has created by way of a motion a decision of this Assem- bly that there be an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission. This Electoral Boundaries Commission was given its mandate from this Assembly.

It’s absolutely correct, then, that five individuals were appointed to this commission on the basis of appointments by the Speaker upon the recommendation of two from the Premier, two from the Leader of the Official Opposition. There is some protec- tion with respect to that for hon. members. The commission then went forth, did its thing, submitted an interim report, which was provided to all members a few days ago but tabled in the House yesterday. The commission has already advertised that it will be hearing additional comments from individu- als by a certain date.

I believe it was sometime in November that they were hearing submissions, and they will be holding some public hearings or meetings sometime in December. By the law of this Assembly it has to provide its final report back to this Assembly, as I recall, by March 24 of the year 2003, at which point in time that report will come to this Assembly for full, thorough debate, and it is the members of this Assembly who will make the final decision on what will be implemented, not the commission. This Assembly must pass appropriate legislation with respect to that matter.

There will be ample opportunity, as there has been in the past. Hon. members should know that I’ve been through this now on at least three or four occasions with respect to electoral boundaries and redistribution, and the final say with respect to it will be made by the men and women of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta. So this particular application today basically says that it wants to interfere with the process, and until we get a final report, I don’t know how this could be viewed as urgent.

This is not applicable under Standing Order 30. 3:10 head: Motions under Standing Order 40 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, Standing Order 40 requires unanimous consent of the Assembly. Make your argument. Election of Committee Chairs Mr. MacDonald:

Be it resolved that this Assembly move immediately to amend the Standing Orders to allow committee chairs to be elected by secret ballot by all Members of the Legislative Assembly so that democ- racy, transparent government, and parliamentary reform may be brought to Alberta as well. MR. MacDONALD: Now, Mr. Speaker – and it’s on the Order Paper today under Government Motion 32 – we see the motion as presented by the hon. Member for Ponoka-Rimbey yesterday. We look at some of the legislative committee chairs, that include the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, the hon. Member for Banff- Cochrane, the hon.

Member for Calgary-Lougheed, the hon. Member for Leduc; as well as the chairs of the standing policy committees, which include, for the record, Justice and Government Services, Learning and Employment, Energy and Sustainable Development, Agriculture and Municipal Affairs, Health and Community Development, Economic Development and Finance.

I see no reason in light of this motion – I shall call it Motion 32, that’s currently on the Order Paper – why, if we’re going to talk about electing Senators and we’re going to have a better democracy as a result, we could not elect in this Assembly these committee chairs as well. Certainly we elect the Speaker, the Chair of Committees, the deputies. Why not elect the standing policy committees? Now, Mr. Speaker, on the statement of urgency and the absolute necessity of this motion, I will be brief. This mo tion is of urgent necessity for several other reasons.

The first is that we have a discussion which will be coming our way in the near future to recommend democratic reforms for government in this country. While this is a positive step, it is urgent and pressing that this government also show our intention for democracy and parliamen- tary reform in our province before we start prescribing it to others. Secondly, this motion is urgent because the good people of this province who have long been in favour of democratic reform want it at all levels of government.

Now, this motion will show to Albertans and, indeed, to all of Canada this Assembly’s true feeling that democracy is a precious and valuable resource. The urgency and true necessity of protecting democracy at the first opportunity must be a priority of all elected officials. The federal House of Commons had all-party support to pass a similar motion, and if we do not have the same, it shows that Alberta itself is suffering from a democratic deficit. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we do not act quickly on ensuring democracy in Alberta, how can we ask others to do the same? Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, it’s a Standing Order 40 applica- tion the hon. members w ill determine. It requires the unanimous consent to proceed. [Unanimous consent denied] head: Orders of the Day Transmittal of Estimates MRS. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I have received a certain message from Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, which I now transmit to you. THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Order!

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, and recom- mends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Please be seated. MRS. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, prior to moving a number of motions relevant to the supplementary supply estimates, I wish to advise that this morning I provided the government’s 2002-2003 quarterly budget report for the second quarter to all MLAs. We have also made this report public as required by

section 9 of the Government Accountability Act. I am now tabling this quarterly budget report as the amended consolidated financial plan. This revised plan is required by

section 8 of the same act whenever a second set of estimates is tabled during the fiscal year. I am also tabling, Mr. Speaker, the second quarterly activity report for 2002-2003. This document describes the major achievements of our government during the recent period. I now wish to table the 2002-2003 supplementary estimates. These supplementary estimates will provide additional spending authority to eight departments of the government. When passed, these estimates will authorize an $822,853,000 increase in voted operating expense and capital investment.

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1421 head: Government Motions 29. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that the message of Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the 2002-03 supplementary supply estimates for the general revenue fund, and all matters con- nected therewith be referred to Committee of Supply. [Government Motion 29 carried] 30. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 58(9) the number of days that Committee of Supply will be called to consider the 2002-03 supplementary estimates for the general revenue fund shall be one day. [Government Motion 30 carried] Select Special Ethics Commissioner and Ombudsman Search Committee 31. Mr. Stevens moved on behalf of Mr. Hancock:

Be it resolved that

(1) A Select Special Ethics Commissioner and Ombudsman Search Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta be appointed consisting of the following members – namely, Mrs. Tarchuk, chair; Mr. Ducharme, deputy chair; Ms Blakeman; Mr. Friedel; Ms Graham; Mrs. O’Neill; Dr. Pannu; Dr. Taft; and Mr. Tannas – for the purpose of inviting applications for the positions of Ethics Commissioner and Ombudsman and to recommend to the Assembly the applicants it considers most suitable for appointment to those positions.

(2) The chair and members of the committee shall be paid in accordance with the

schedule of category A committees provided in the most current Members’ Services Commit- tee allowance order.

(3) Reasonable disbursements by the committee for advertis- ing, staff assistance, equipment and supplies, rent, travel, and other expenditures necessary for the effective conduct of its responsibilities shall be paid subject to the approval of the chair.

(4) In carrying out its responsibilities, the committee may with the concurrence of the head of the department utilize the services of members of the public service employed in that department or the staff employed by the Assembly.

(5) The committee may without leave of the Assembly sit during a period when the Assembly is adjourned.

(6) When its work has been completed, the committee shall report to the Assembly if it is then sitting. During a period when the Assembly is adjourned, the committee may release its report by depositing a copy with the Clerk and forwarding a copy to each member of the Assembly. [Government Motion 31 carried] Senate Appointments 32. Mr. Jonson moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta affirm its support for an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to provide for an elected Senate which would represent the interests of all provinces through equal representation and through effective powers and, further, that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta urge the government of Alberta to undertake consultations with all provincial governments on this amendment and, further, that pending such an amendment the Legislative Assembly of Alberta call upon the Prime Minister to summon to the Senate to fill vacancies relating to Alberta only those who are Senate nominees pursuant to the Senatorial Selection Act of Alberta and, further, that the Assembly confirm the recommendations of the report of the Select Special Committee on Upper House Reform, which were unanimously endorsed by this Assembly on May 27, 1985, and again on March 10, 1987.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of International and Intergov- ernmental Relations. 3:20 MR. JONSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The resolution before the Assembly does two things. First, it is a strong statement in favour of an elected, equal, and effective Canadian Senate; in other words, a triple E Senate. It affirms Alberta’s desire for a Senate that represents provincial interests within our federal system, and it reconfirms this Assembly’s endorsement of the recommendations of the Select Special Committee on Upper House Reform, previously endorsed in May 1985 and March 1987. Second, Mr.

Speaker, the resolution calls for the Prime Minister to appoint one of Alberta’s Senate nominees to the Senate. In 1998 Albertans elected two individuals to represent our province in the Senate, and the Prime Minister has so far refused to appoint them. In my view, this a rejection of the democratic value shared by all Canadians. This month Senator Nick Taylor retired from the Senate, which means that the Prime Minister will soon be appointing an Albertan to the Senate. It is the perfect opportunity for him to show support for democracy by appointing one of Alberta’s Senate nominees.

This resolution clearly and firmly calls for him to do just that. Mr. Speaker, in considering this resolution, it is helpful to review some of the recent history of Senate reform discussions and especially Alberta’s role in them. Reforming Canada’s Senate is not, by any means, a new idea. In fact, discussions of reforming or changing the upper House are as old as the country itself. It is not a new issue, but it’s certainly an issue that has gained prominence in the last 20 years. During that time Alberta has been a leader in calling for Senate reform.

In 1982, on the heels of much heated anger and resentment in the province over the national energy program, the Alberta government issued a discussion paper called a Provincially-Appointed Senate. The paper was designed to stimulate discussion within Alberta and across western Canada about gaining greater provincial representa- tion in Ottawa through a reformed Senate. The paper proposed that Senators be nominated by the provinces and that the Senate be more focused on representing provincial interests.

These ideas led to much interest and discussion among Albertans and western Canadi- ans, and the Alberta government responded by creating a legislative Committee on Senate Reform in 1983. The committee was given the mandate to examine the appropriate role, functions, and structure of the Senate within Canada’s federal system and to make recommendations for change. Headed by then MLA Dennis Anderson, the committee studied the issue thoroughly, held a series of public meetings, and received submissions from many Albertans.

In March 1985 the committee tabled its report entitled Strengthening Canada, Reform of Canada’s Senate. The report called for Senators to be elected, for an equal number of Senators from each province, and for the Senate to be given effective powers. Essentially, it was the birth of the idea of a triple E Senate. In May 1985 the Legislative Assembly voted unanimously to accept

1422 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 in principle the recommendations of the report, and I was honoured to be able to participate in that debate. Mr. Speaker, the momentum in favour of Senate reform continued through the annual Premiers’ conferences in 1986 and 1987, and reform of the upper House was included as part of the Meech Lake accord in 1987. The accord set the stage for future constitutional negotiations on Senate reform.

Support for an elected Senate expanded to other parts of Canada in 1987 and 1988 and was endorsed by a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons and by a National Conference on Senate Reform held at the University of Alberta. In 1988 Alberta elected its first Senator, Mr. Stan Waters, and he was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Mulroney in 1990. Mr. Waters represented Albertans very well until his death in 1991. He stands as the first and only elected Senator in Canadian history, and I certainly hope he is not the last. Mr.

Speaker, with the failure of the Meech Lake accord in 1990, constitutional negotiations began once again, and this time a triple E Senate was included in the negotiations, thanks, I think we can say, to Alberta’s leadership. In 1992 a final agreement was reached, the Charlottetown accord, and it included a reformed Senate that would be elected and, for the first time, have equal representation from the provinces. There was much debate as to whether or not it would be effective in representing provincial interests.

In the end, the majority of Canadians voted against the accord, and constitu- tional negotiations moved to the back burner. However, Albertans never gave up on the idea of Senate reform, and neither did the Alberta government. In 1998 Alberta conducted another election to choose two Senator nominees. More than 890,000 valid ballots were cast, and two individuals were elected: Mr. Bert Brown and Mr. Ted Morton. To date the Prime Minister has refused to appoint either of them to the Senate, even though he has had two opportunities. Mr.

Speaker, in 1999 Alberta amended the Senatorial Selection Act to allow Senate elections to be held prior to Alberta vacancies opening in the Senate. This was in response to the Prime Minister’s refusal to acknowledge the hon. Premier’s repeated requests that he hold off on filling vacancies until Albertans have had an opportunity to select their choice in an election. Looking back over the last 20 years, it is clear that Alberta has been a leader in calling for Senate reform. Our province has done more than talk about it.

We have taken action by putting forward solid proposals and giving Albertans the opportunity to have a say in who will represent them in the Senate. This resolution is another step in that process. Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is coming at the appropriate time for two reasons. First, it has become very clear that we need improved provincial representation at the federal level. In recent years we have seen the federal government ignore provincial interests on a host of issues. Currently, we are concerned about the Kyoto protocol. The matter of gun control is still very much an issue.

The Wheat Board is another topic that would benefit from discussion by such a body as an elected Senate. A whole host of municipal issues are on the list. Those are only a few of the topics that I think would benefit. Alberta has had to lead the way in opposing many of these issues through costly court challenges, public awareness campaigns, and other approaches. Mr. Speaker, if we’d had a triple E Senate in Ottawa, these efforts may not have been necessary, but as it stands now, the Senate fails to represent provincial interests in any tangible way. Its powers are, at least to some degree, only theoretical.

It does not have equal representation from the provinces, and it is made up of appointed individuals only. Mr. Speaker, the second reason that the time is appropriate for this resolution is that democratic re form has once again come to the forefront of federal politics. The discussions so far have centered on procedural reforms within the House of Commons and giving backbench Members of Parliament increased influence in federal decision-making, but there’s no reason that Senate reform cannot be part of these discussions.

It would be interesting to know what the Liberals in Ottawa who are leading the discussions on democratic reform think about Senate reform. This resolution, I hope, will lead to that question being asked. Alberta has an opportunity to once again take the initiative and push Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by calling on the Members of the Legislative Assembly to take a stand on this issue and to support this motion. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Point of Order Dividing a Motion MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Before I begin debate on this motion, I would like to get some procedural advice from the chair, if possible. I rise in regard to Beauchesne 557(1) and page 478 of Marleau and Montpetit. Beauchesne 557(1) says: A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker has a discretionary power to decide whether a motion should be divided. Mr. Speaker, we’re asking for this particular motion to be divided because in fact it has several distinct pr opositions. There’s a precedent for this in the past.

On February 27, 1995, when a former Provincial Treasurer divided an opposition motion moved by the former Member for Calgary-Buffalo into two parts, it was divided in midsentence because it contained two distinct propositions. The final decision on this lies with you, and I am certain that you will find that Motion 32 before us contains several distinct propositions. 3:30 Mr. Speaker, we’d like to recommend a process for dividing this motion up.

There are some natural divisions within this motion which should be looked at separately, and I would ask you to consider dividing out the third paragraph, which says, and, further, that pending such an amendment the Legislative Assembly of Alberta call upon the Prime Minister to summon to the Senate to fill vacancies relating to Alberta only those who are Senate nominees pursuant to the Senatorial Selection Act of Alberta, from the other three as it deals with slightly different material than the other three clauses. We would ask that the other clauses be dealt with as one. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Well, then, pending a response from the chair with respect to this request, the chair is prepared to hear comments from other members with respect to its merit. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for his interest in this resolu tion, but the motion that is before the Assembly is one which deals with, in my view, one concept.

It is a concept that has to have the three elements in it; that is, we have to be talking about an elected, equal, and effective Canadian Senate to have what our goal is, and that is a more effective Senate in Canada to represent the interests of Canadians and particularly the interests of the areas or regions of Canada and specifically the provinces.

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1423 Mr. Speaker, I think we’re talking about one overall concept here, and I do not think that it is appropriate to try and take apart what is a well-understood concept and debate it in two or three or four pieces. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on this division proposal? DR. PANNU: No, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Well, from a procedural point of view, anyone want to make an argument? A procedural argument? The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. DR. NICOL: On the division of the motion? THE SPEAKER: Yes. DR. NICOL: Mr.

Speaker, in the context of looking at this, the idea of support for the concept of the triple E Senate is unique. It stands fully in the context of a specific initiative that we can take. The next step, then, if that initiative becomes a reality, is: how do we go about the elections?

In effect, if we tie the two parts, the support for the concept of the triple E Senate with an election which occurred in the past, we’re basically tying the two of them to the idea that an election that has occurred in the past was relevant within the support for the triple E concept as approved and as requested today, and I think it would be appropriate to divide the two of them out. Let’s talk about the triple E Senate and then, secondly, let’s talk about: was the previous election in the spirit of the support for that triple E concept?

If it was, then, yes, the people who were elected in that can become the candidates for appointment or be sent to the Prime Minister asking that they be the people appointed. But, secondly, if we don’t, what we can deal with then is a secondary debate about what is an appropriate way to carry on an election for that Senate. By tying the two of them together in one motion, I think it complicates the process of: do we support the concept of triple E and tie to it the previous process of elections, or should we be dealing with elections as a separa te issue once we get the triple E concept approved? That’s, Mr.

Speaker, why I think it would be very appropriate for us to handle them as separate debates and separate votes in this Legislature. Thank you for considering that. THE SPEAKER: On the procedural point of the division, the hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. A citation would be helpful. REV. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me? THE SPEAKER: A citation from parliamentary tradition would be helpful. REV. ABBOTT: Well, just following up on the reasoning that was given by the member opposite, if you look at the motion, Mr.

Speaker, it says here very clearly that it is a resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada. It’s one issue, and all that the second, third, and fourth parts of the motion do is just explain how that amendment is going to take place. It seems very clear that this is just one issue, and I think that dividing it would actually cause it to be several issues. So I think that it would be best to leave it as it was presented by our hon. minister. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, Beauchesne very, very clearly has a citation with respect to this dividing motion,

section 557. A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker has a discretionary power to decide whether a motion should be divided.

Section 557(2) states: It is only in exceptional circumstances, and when there is little doubt, that the Speaker may intervene and, of his or her own initiative, amend the motion proposed by a Member. Well, there’s absolutely no intent from the chair to amend the motion. The question of division is an interesting one. This is not the first time that this has occurred in this House. In fact, it occurred as recently as one year ago almost to the day, on November 21, 2001, when we had the debate on Standing Orders, if all hon. members will recall, that such a motion and such a suggestion was made to the Assembly.

The conclusion at that time was that there would only be one debate with respect to the Standing Orders but that there would be a number of votes rather than one vote, and that seemed to work intelligently and quite capably with this. In looking at the motion, it strikes at least the chair that it is not that complicated a motion. It may be a bit longer than most motions but, in terms of the overall intent, would not seem to require an intervention from the chair with respect to this matter.

It would probably serve the debate well that, in fact, the four items are separate in sum, but others will argue that they’re all together, and I don’t think I can be motivated to intervene for a division with respect to this matter today. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry does have the floor if he wishes to continue his participation. Debate Continued MR. BONNER: Yes. Thank you very much and thank you for that

interpretation and ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is appreciated. The debate over a triple E Senate has occurred on more than one occasion in this House, and the hon. minister has given us a bit of a history. When we look, we can see that when we follow a chronol- ogy of progress on the triple E Senate, in August of 1982 the government of Alberta released a discussion paper on Senate reform, and this was followed in March of 1985 by the Alberta Select Special Legislative Committee on Senate Reform recommending a triple E Senate. In May the report was unanimously approved by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.

On March 10, 1987, the triple E Senate was once again unanimously approved by the Alberta Legislature, and I think that I would like to draw the point to all members’ attention that it was unanimously approved by the Alberta Legislature. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] On July 2 and 3, 1987, the first ministers agreed to the Meech Lake accord, bringing Quebec into the Constitution and guaranteeing constitutional conferences on Senate reform.

This was followed on September 9, 1987, by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommending that first ministers pursue Senate reform on a priority basis. On May 18 to 21, 1988, the western Premiers unanimously endorsed the triple E Senate model. On August 17 to 19, 1988, all Premiers agreed that Alberta would lead discussions to promote triple E Senate reform. 3:40 From September 1988 to February 1989, led by the federal and intergovernmental affairs minister, Alberta’s Senate Reform Task Force discussed Senate reform with the federal and all provincial governments.

Also in February of 1989 the government of Alberta

1424 Alberta Hansard November 20, 2002 introduced the Senatorial Selection Act. With this act Alberta would become the first province in Canadian history to select its Senators democratically. Now, as well, without a doubt, one of the reasons we are discuss- ing this particular motion today is the recent retirement of Senator Nick Taylor, who served this province very well not only as a Senator but as an MLA and as leader of the Liberal Party here in the Assembly. He moved in the Assembly on March 10, 1987:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly support an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to provide for an elected Senate, which would provide protection for the interests of the lesser populated regions through equa l representation and through effective powers. Again, we continue as the Official Opposition to support the motion that was moved by the then MLA back on March 10, 1987. Now, then, this current Official Opposition supports Senate reform.

We feel that there is a great need for Senate reform, and certainly if you were to poll Albertans, the majority would support some form of Senate reform, and those reforms vary as well, Mr. Speaker. Some Albertans feel that we shouldn’t have any Senate, and certainly a number of others feel that Senators could be elected. Of course, in all of this there is due process.

We continually come back to debating the merits of Senate reform here in the Legislature, yet we are not, it seems, moving forward to the point where we can get the other provinces onside to enough degree to get the feds to open up these discussions. Now, then, as well, with an elected Senate we also have to consider that there are going to be some very worthy Senators who would not have on their own merits the resources to be elected to a triple E Senate.

One Senator that I had this discussion with was Senator Thelma Chalifoux, certainly an outstanding Senator, a Senator who represents all Albertans but, as well, a minority group here in Alberta and has done a marvelous job. I think of the political climate when Senator Doug Roche was appointed, certainly a man whose credentials are unquestionable in this province and a man who represents Albertans as a Senator and does a marvelous job and a person that I am proud to say is one of our Senators.

We do have to look at the possibility that in an elected Senate we’re not going to get everything we want, but two of the key things that I support in Senate reform is that with an elected Senate we would have representation that would reflect the views of Albertans and accommodate the needs of all Canadians. I think, Mr. Speaker, that would certainly be one of the areas that we would look at as being a better system than the current appointed system that is happening.

If we do have a triple E Senate, an elected Senate with equal representation from each particular province, then the principle of equality of all provinces in a federal state will take place, so it certainly will balance off the differences in population that we do have across this country. As well, if we do have Senate reform and a triple E Senate and we do send Senators from this province that are duly elected, then what we must also ensure in this reform is that there are effective powers in the Senate. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to reitera te that it’s been the Official Opposition’s position for many years here in the Assembly that we support a triple E Senate with elected Senators, and I would urge all members of this Assembly to support this motion. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View, followed by Edmonton-Highlands, followed by Edmonton- Rutherford. MS HALEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am absolutely thrilled to be able to talk about the triple E Senate and why we need one. This is something that has been a big part of my life for a very long time.

Back in the early 1980s – and I was a little bit younger then than I am today – the federal government came along with a program called the national energy program, and it decimated a lot of this province. It devastated the town that I was living in, which was a very small city called Airdrie, at that point around 6,000 people, and within months we had over 500 empty homes as people packed up and moved out of our city and out of our province and went home because so much of our industry was being shut down.

While it’s true that there was, in fact, a global recession that was starting, it was a thousand times worse here than it ever needed to be because of government intervention in the economy, and the government was, in fact, the federal government. I couldn’t understand then and I don’t understand today why a federal govern- ment would in fact hurt any of the parts of a country. It didn’t make any sense.

At the same time, there was an election going on up in Olds-Didsbury, where a separatist won, and our options at that time, as I saw them, 20 years ago, were whether or not it matters being part of this country, and if it does, in fact, what do you do about it? One of the things that mattered to me, I thought: well, nobody wants to give up on a country, so let’s talk about a triple E Senate. I met Mr. Bert Brown, who’s now one of the Senators-elect, and have since also had the opportunity to meet Mr.

Ted Morton, both really interesting men who believe that if you’re going to be part of this country, you’ve got to be treated equally, and the only way you can do that is, in fact, if you have an elected, an equal, and an effective Senate. As I watched going through the ’80s and as I watch today as we’re talking about things like Kyoto, I see the similarities, and they’re absolutely staggering. Twenty years have gone by since the first attempts at trying to bring a triple E Senate to this country, and in that 20 years we’ve suffered inside this province.

We’ve had all kinds of issues with the federal government, and the federal government chooses not to listen, and our one salvation, from my perspective, is a Senate that is, in fact, equal, elected, and effective for all of this country, not just for Alberta but not just for Ontario and not just for Quebec. 3:50 Well, why does it matter?

It matters because this year alone, for example, Alberta will pay over $9 billion more into Confederation than it gets back out, and we have at the same time an inequity in tax bases for corporations in this country, where it’s okay to say to the energy industry: you can pay 28 percent. Every other industry can pay 21 percent, but the energy industry is based largely in Alberta, so that’s okay. It’s not okay. It wouldn’t be okay if it were in Nova Scotia. It wouldn’t be okay if it were in Newfoundland, and it’s not okay just because it’s here.

It’s not okay that we have a Canadian Wheat Board that the east doesn’t have to deal with but we have had imposed on us for over 50 years, and you can’t even have a conver- sation about it. It’s not okay that you have gun control laws that make no sense at all, where you spend $800 million registering guns. Nobody even knows how many guns are registered or how many aren’t. My own mother tried to register a gun, spent three years, has had at least 15 phone calls with people in Ottawa trying to straighten out a gun that hasn’t been fired in 60 years, but, hey, she’s clearly a risk to this country.

We just do things, and there’s no logic to it. My logic, my basis is that without a triple E there’s really little point in trying to defend an Alberta inside this country. You know, one of my colleagues has a republic of Alberta hat. I don’t have the hat, but I’m looking for one. I’m very, very proud of my province, and I’m very, very proud of my heritage. I’m also incredibly proud of the fact that when the oil patch needed invest-

November 20, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1425 ments in the ’40s and the ’50s and the ’60s and the ’70s – most of Canada couldn’t be bothered – the money came here from the United States. They believed in our oil patch. They helped us develop it. They turned us into a have province from a have-not province, and we’ve been punished ever since, and I’m frankly tired of it. My hope is that a triple E Senate at least could give us an opportunity to have an equal, effective, and elected voice in the government of this country.

A few years ago in the Senate in the United States, on a vote of 95 to 0 – five people were away – because they have an elected and an equal and an effective Senate in the United States, 95 people voted against the Kyoto protocol. It never even made it to Congress. It didn’t need to. The Senate kille d it, and they killed it because it wasn’t fair to all regions of their country, a concept apparently alien to our federal government: you don’t need to hose down one part of your country so that another

part can do what? So we can look good on an international stage? We produce 2 percent of global green- house gas emissions. We heat an entire country, a cold country. We sell clean-burning oil and gas to the United States. We have the cleanest coal in the world here, but we have to feel guilty about everything, and I’m tired of feeling guilty. I want some equality, and I want it now.

When I look back at what was happening 20 years ago, a little snapshot of history, newspaper clippings pulled out of the Legisla- ture Library – okay? – in 1981 Jean Chretien told a packed audience of school trustees: the wealth of the country must be shared if there is to be equal opportunity across Canada. Well, the Prime Minister was in Alberta about a year ago and made the same comment. Nothing changes. The script probably got retyped, but it’s the same script.

At the same time, in 1981, the federal government came up with a $3.25 million advertising campaign to promote the national energy program and tell everybody that it was a good thing and it won’t hurt a bit, so just let it go; go for it, guys. Canada’s oil policy, a real-life nightmare. Just one more time with feeling. Twenty years later we’ve now got some of our key tar sands projects being put on hold and