Bill 13

Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

MRS. BLACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is with pleasure that I move on behalf of Mr. Hierath Bill 13, the Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood.

MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to make a few final comments on this bill. I am not going to stand in support of this bill in third reading. The apparent objective of this bill is to ensure that title to tangible personal property in Alberta shall not be taken without reasonable compensation. I'm not sure how this bill accomplishes that objective. I don't see this as anything more than a slogan bill. It's not going to prevent the province from dealing with anything federally, as was alluded to by the mover of this bill. It won't help people who are upset with the federal government over the Alberta Wheat Board. It won't allow the province or the feds to compensate anybody who loses their grain . That's something that is a fallacy that has been put out about this bill. It won't do anything in relation to federal gun control, and that's another fallacy. So I question why we have this bill.

I just want to quote the mover of this bill, the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. He made some comments in relation Bill 19. What he stated was - and I'll quote this: I don't really think this bill will do anything or change anything; it sounds good, but it isn't going to do anything for people. End quote.

Now, I would bet that Bill 19 will do a lot more for people than Bill 13 will do for anybody in this province. The exemptions in Bill 13 are so many that it becomes a feel-good, do-nothing bill. This is the bill that's a feel-good, do-nothing bill, not Bill 19. This is the bill that nobody from the other side has spoken in support of, and I am not surprised. I would hope that nobody would rise to speak in support of this bill, because it does nothing. It does nothing at all. This bill really amounts to nothing more than a little bit of fed bashing, and it's to try and scare the federal bogeyman away. It's really unfortunate that we have other bills to debate in this Legislature and that this bill, this slogan bill, gets presented as something of a substantive nature. I just have a lot of difficulty with that.

If this bill is enacted, it's not like the Charter. It could be repealed by the government of the day at any time. Any enactment can have a clause that says that it applies notwithstanding this bill, and I know that the government side is familiar with that word "notwithstanding." And the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make a regulation at any time exempting something or excepting something from the application of the act.

That really means that this bill here holds no weight and actually is an attempt, I think, to satisfy the odd constituent the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner has that may be concerned over the issue of federal gun control or the issue of the Wheat Board. To say that this bill is more valid than Bill 19 by stating that Bill 19 won't change anything - and he questions whether or not it will have any effect. Well, I want to question the relevance of this bill in relation to something as critical - as critical - to this province as the family violence legislation. Maybe he should stop and think a little bit about the devastation that's causing families in relation to issues of family violence, assaults, homicides, suicides, those kinds of things, and maybe not worry too much about what this feel-good, do-nothing bill can do.

With that I will take my seat, and hopefully somebody will speak against it.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to join debate, and if I hadn't been motivated before, certainly listening to my colleague from Edmonton-Norwood with an absolutely withering analysis of this sorry excuse for legislation, I'd clearly be motivated now.

I think that members even on the government side would be shamed, embarrassed into action to stand and put on the record their discomfort with this kind of a sham. This is sham legislation. The only value of this bill is nothing inside these meagre pages; it's the title. I can see it now. Government members are going to run around the province busy beating their chests proclaiming the Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights and what a grand title that is. What a grand title. There may be some unsuspecting Albertans who don't have the benefit of reading that withering analysis by my colleague from Edmonton-Norwood or have had the benefit perhaps of even reading the text of the bill who may get taken in. This is the sort of thing that reminds us of the charlatans traveling around in the early days of Alberta, selling whatever they had and then leaving town before the defect in the product was evident.

The government is too anxious to pass Bill 13, and the longer the House sits, the greater the chance that there'll be more public scrutiny of this empty, vacuous bill that's in front of us now. Why do I say " vacuous"? Mr. Speaker, the difficult thing is that as we go through all of the mighty seven sections here - and we discount the one that talks about "this Act binds the Crown," subject of course to everything in section 2 and section 3 and section 5. In fact, what we find is that to try and make some sense of the bill, one section refers to a set of exemptions and another section makes that provision subject to the exemptions.

8:10

We look at section 5, and the reason I like section 5 is that it demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, why the government was never serious about living up to the billing in the title of Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights. It provides that

the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any matter, provincial enactment or provision of a provincial enactment from the application of section 2.

One would have to ask: if in fact it was important to the Minister of Health and his colleagues or the Minister of Economic Development or the Provincial Treasurer, if they really felt strongly about protecting the property interests of Albertans, how could you allow the cabinet just by executive fiat, by a mere order in council to exempt other statutes? What makes that really interesting is that it's absolute total unfettered discretion. There are no objective criteria that have to be applied in determining whether something can be exempted or not. It's entirely at the whim of the provincial cabinet. So there is no point.

You know, the constituents in Calgary-Bow are probably wondering about what a mockery Bill 13 is. It's hard to muster anything other than disdain for such a shallow excuse for legislation. One might see a bill like this coming forward drafted by a private member wanting to do a little boasting back home in his or her constituency, and one might imagine that a private member's bill might come forward with this sort of nonsense in it. It may be under the name of a private member, but clearly it's a government bill. It's been adopted by the Minister of Justice, who stood up and announced with a straight face that he wanted to move this onto the Order Paper as a government bill. Well, it's preposterous, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, in some respects I applaud the government's cleverness. In a Legislature where we have seen bills come along to invoke the notwithstanding clause, Bill 37 to allow the licensing of private hospitals, I can understand the value in a diversion. I can understand the value in a straw man that you set up and assume that the opposition are going to tee off on because it's such an absolutely absurd piece of legislation. But what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that at some point the government has to acknowledge that it's a ruse - it's an absolute ruse - that there's no genuine intention to protect the property interests of Albertans. If there were, they'd be coming about it in a comprehensive way, not with this empty, empty shell of a bill.

I think surely this is the time when we can say: the emperor has no clothes; Bill 13 doesn't do a darn thing. Maybe this is a time the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner can stand up and tell us that this is the end of the prank, Mr. Speaker, that this was his April Fool's joke, he's had as much fun as he can exploit from this sorry excuse for a bill, and now he's going to advise that the government is going to torpedo this thing, put it through the shredder. Of all the things the government shreds - let's destroy Bill 13 and all copies of it so that future legislators won't come back and look and reflect with some disappointment on our ineptitude in passing and debating a bill of so little substance. [interjection]

My colleague from Edmonton-Calder mentioned a model parliament. It puts me in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this morning in Calgary I was part of a model parliament at John G. Diefenbaker high school. Do you know what was interesting? I looked at the policy resolutions that these young people were debating. They would have been embarrassed by Bill 13. They were dealing with substantive bills that affected Albertans. They had a bill in terms of health care and adequate funding of health care. They had bills in terms of important constitutional questions. They had thoughtful bills in terms of public education. It's only in the mother Legislature, in this place supposedly run by adults for adults that we find this bit of empty puffery.

I'm not sure that there's a whole lot else that needs to be said. There may be some other members that want to disassociate themselves from this bill. If there are any lawyers in this province, if there are any thoughtful students of the Legislature that had any lingering doubts about the competence of this government when it comes to lawmaking, any lingering doubts - and that number has shrunk dramatically in the last two and a half months, I can assure you - they have only to look at Bill 13, and that surely has to be the backbreaking straw.

Mr. Speaker, maybe this is the sort of bill that warrants a standing vote. You know, people always ask: do the government members find it frustrating when they have to troop in for a standing vote? Well, sometimes it's important that people can't hide behind the government. When individual MLAs go back to their constituents, whether it's Calgary-Currie, and I know that people in Calgary-Currie understand what foolishness Bill 13 is, or Medicine Hat or Calgary-Mountain View or any of the other members here - maybe it's important that every legislator in the Assembly has to be identified in terms of whether they accept and support this bit of foolishness. So maybe that's something to consider.

I'm looking forward to any further thoughtful commentary. I'm looking forward to the extent that there's something that's missed the scrutiny through second reading and through the committee stage and now through the first part of third reading. If there's somebody that can make a defence around this tired piece of legislation, let's hear it; let's put it on the record right now. If there's somebody that thinks that they can defend this to any rational person as a useful expenditure of the time of the Legislature, let's hear that, and let's put it on the record now.

It's interesting on this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the government members have been conspicuously silent, well nigh invisible in defending Bill 13. We have one member - was it a question of drawing lots? - the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, who has his name associated with this. Virtually every other member in the government caucus has to bear the collective shame of being complicit in this kind of nonsense coming forward on the floor of the Legislature. Is that what's going on, Mr. Speaker? I'm hopeful that the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner isn't going to have to hang alone on this one. I'm hopeful that somewhere in that very thorough Conservative caucus bill briefing, bill review - it would be interesting to know. This must have come to a vote at some time. That's the really scary part. This is the same gang that was prepared to buy the line that suspending constitutional
rights for 703 wrongful sexual sterilization victims was a mere technicality.

MR. MITCHELL: A legal technicality.

8:20

MR. DICKSON: A legal technicality.

You have to wonder: what kind of bill scrutiny? We've got smart people in the government caucus, smart people that should be able to see through this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smart lawyers.

MR. DICKSON: You know, I'd challenge the Member for Calgary-Glenmore to go back to his former law office, one of the most prestigious and highly respected firms not just in the city of Calgary but in the entire province and perhaps western Canada, go back to his former colleagues and partners and associates and boast to them that he was part of the gang that brought Bill 13 forward. He sat there nodding with silent acquiesence when this came through their caucus process, their bill process and came in here. He sat in support of this bill.

Well, there are other members that have other perspectives they want to add. If members will forgive me for that perhaps not so brief rant, I'll look forward to further debate on Bill 13 to see what I may have missed.

Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Treasurer.

MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a fascinating passage of time since the Member for Calgary-Buffalo stood up. Just quickly to recap some of the references. The point I'm trying to make here - and I'll reference the bill. I need to reference the bill because the Member for Calgary-Buffalo did not once reference the bill nor the principle. He could have been talking about absolutely anything. He mentioned nothing. He did not verbalize the bill. Here's what he said: April Fool's joke, no genuine intent. So, again, he's questioning.

It's one thing to go after a bill on its merits or indeed on lack of same, which should be done. Absolutely. But to say: no genuine intent, comparing all government members to charlatans traveling around the province trying to sell their wares, misleading, perpetrating this on unsuspecting Albertans, boasting, nonsense, saying it with a straight face - there's a difference here. The Member for Calgary-Buffalo is especially negligent in this area, but others have followed suit. Yes, pass him the bill; he's asking for it now.

I know that my comments will compel members, because they will now be compelled to address the merit of the bill, so finally we'll get some direct comment on the bill. He's got it now; okay. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference. There is a difference between debating the merits or lack thereof of a bill and insulting members who are supporting or not supporting the bill. It happens over and over again where we get away from the merits - and I've been guilty of it in the past also - of the debate and do nothing but insult and hurl the most insulting comments back and forth, and this is a classic case.

I hope those students to whom the Member for Calgary-Buffalo referred, that were involved in some kind of debate, will get a copy of what he I'm sure would propose to be classical debate. [interjection] Now, he says he referenced section 5. I didn't hear it, but I will take him at his word that there was the slightest and briefest of mentions. I didn't actually hear it, but I take him at his word. I don't stand here after a member has said that he did something and say, "You didn't," and not retract it. So I'll take him at his word. I don't know how many minutes he went on and on and on in the most insulting language, but I take him at his word that there was a casual reference to one section.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for those who may not have read it - and there could be bills in this House that people actually have not read; I don't want to assume or presume that, because there's a lot of bills here - here is the essence. This is the principle of the bill. This is what members opposite say is a sham and say is disdain and nonsense. As usual with a piece of legislation, there has to be a list of definitions, and then there are situations that it's subject to and doesn't apply. But this is the essence of the bill: we have a member who is so concerned about the trend in governments, all governments, to overlook some basic fundamentals of justice and maybe unintentionally wind up acquiring property that is not theirs without compensating for it.

Now, isn't that an awful thing, that we would have a member who would be so concerned about the very real erosion and total lack of understanding about fundamental principles of justice and common law which is prevalent not just in Alberta but across the country and as a matter of fact throughout North America and out of that concern be willing to stand up and face abuse that is not based on one shred of merit of discussion and say, "You know, I think people should be protected"? So he writes that where

(a) personal property is owned by a person other than the Crown, and

(b) a provincial enactment contains provisions that authorize the acquiring of permanent title to that personal property by the Crown,

those provisions are of no force or effect unless a process is in place for the determination and payment of compensation for the acquiring of that title.

Isn't that a shameless thing to stand and say should be protected?

The member uses the words: April Fool's joke, shameless, no genuine intent. I'd suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Calgary-Buffalo should really apologize to the Member for
Cardston-Taber-Warner, who proposed this bill. Go head to head on the merits of the bill . . .

MS LEIBOVICI: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark on a point of order.

Point of Order

Relevance

MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Beauchesne 459: relevance. The hon. Treasurer is going on and on and on talking about the fact that what should be happening right now is discussion on the merit of the bill, but all I've heard the Provincial Treasurer do is talk about other things that have nothing to do with the merit of the bill, which is what he says should be discussed in here. So why don't you start talking about the merits of the bill?

MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say that the member obviously was not listening. I just read out the very principle of the bill, and I spent a fraction of the time that this member did talking about the words that he used. Only last night he stood here and talked about - what? - comparative ability of debate. Now, the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark should have stood
and ruled her own member out of order, because he did not talk about the bill. I would ask her: did you not hear me read that section? I've been standing here and expounding for some minutes upon a member's sincere belief that there needs to be protection for citizens. Weren't you listening?

MS LEIBOVICI: Actually I was, but it took about five and a half minutes for you to get to that point.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, certainly we have a difference of opinion. In some people's minds relevance is not unlike beauty: in the eye of the beholder. The chair has been wondering here for a considerable length of time. All hon. members know by reference to Beauchesne 640 or to Erskine May, pages 508 and 509, about third reading. Third reading is the same as second reading except in the important area that it is more restricted, being limited to the contents of the bill.

Now, the argument could be made on much of what has been said so far, and it's up to hon. members to draw attention to that. I think, hon. member, you've drawn this to our attention. I think what you have said has merit. What the hon. Provincial Treasurer has also added has merit in that others are sinning in this. I wonder if we could from this point forward through the rest of this bill deal with third reading as it is supposed to be dealt with, with what is in the bill - not what might have been, could have been, should have been - and its merit or its lack thereof.

Debate Continued

MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I know there'll be a rush to protect the Member for Calgary-Buffalo. But anybody wanting to review Hansard will see what a bankrupt approach to debate we've just heard. I applaud the Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, who says: when governments go to take people's personal property, there had better be a place to determine the payment and the compensation for acquiring of that title other than when that person has broken laws. I think that's laudable.

You know, we live in a day where centralist, interventionist thinkers are trying to come up with all kinds of ways for what they say are temporary bits of security to take away people's freedom and liberty. It was Benjamin Franklin who said: any person . . .

MR. DICKSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo is now rising on a point of order. Do you have a citation for us?

Point of Order

Questioning a Member

MR. DICKSON: Beauchesne 333. I wonder if the Provincial Treasurer would entertain a brief and pointed question.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Treasurer can say yes or no. You don't have to give reasons.

MR. DAY: Yes, I will, as soon as I'm finished.

8:30 Debate Continued

MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, it was Benjamin Franklin who said that people who will give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. I am proud of the member from Taber who stood up for liberty and for people.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have permission to briefly revert to Introduction of Guests?

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried.

The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod.

head: Introduction of Guests

(reversion)

MR. COUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the indulgence of the House so that we can complete the dynamic foursome that's up there and make the introductions complete.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly on behalf of the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake a constituent of hers, Irene Salisbury, who is here this evening, and on behalf of the hon. minister of agriculture, Edith Sawadiuk from Vegreville . I'd ask them to please rise in the members' gallery and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House.

head: Government Bills and Orders

head: Third Reading

Bill 13

Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights

(continued)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

MS BLAKEMAN: Not on the question.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, did you want to enter debate? I presume that the Provincial Treasurer is finished. No?

MR. DAY: Yeah.

MS LEIBOVICI: But Gary had a question; remember?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the way that that runs is that the member, before sitting down and ending, has to hand off to the member. He didn't do so, so there is no question after the fact.

Edmonton-Centre, if you'd care to debate.

MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it was most interesting to have, as far as I can tell, the second speaker from the opposite side of the Chamber to speak to Bill 13, the Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights. I was hoping for elucidation, illumination on this. I understand that the member who spoke before me is looking for liberty for people and believes that that is encased in this bill, which is interesting, because it is called the Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights, which I think is about property.

I'm very interested in consistency. This is a government that wants less interference, less legislation, but we are certainly getting more legislation with what is proposed in Bill 13. Obviously they feel there is a need to put in place legislation that would require compensation for property that's taken. I think all the way along the question has been asked: what exactly is this bill trying to cover? What is it trying to do?

We have what it's not able to do. It does not apply in respect of any money that's taken from people by way of taxes or levies or royalties, not where the property is acquired or retained by the Crown if this is in payment of a penalty, in other words, or a fine or a charge or a sheriff's seizure or if the possession of that property by its owner constitutes the violation of some enactment. So I can see a number of exceptions, but not much in this bill that actually lines out what it is attempting to achieve.

It doesn't apply to any federal jurisdiction here, so one takes that it would only apply to a fairly narrow focus of provincial legislation where that is involving some sort of taking of personal property that doesn't fall under any of the other things I've already outlined. Again, a very, very, very narrow focus.

I'm surprised and I have to say a little disappointed in the government. When there's still, I think, a question of caring for people and much to be done in caring for people, it seems important to the hon. members on the other side to care for things before people. I would suggest there's much work to be done in health care, home care, children's services, students, education, seniors, the homeless, the small business owners, with human rights legislation, but it seems mostly to be concerned - I'm trying to decipher my notes that I was trying to take when the hon. Member for Red Deer-North was speaking. He seemed to feel that it was concerned with fundamental issues of justice: payment of compensation and protecting people's property. I feel strongly that there is much that could be done in advance of that to protect people.

If I might ask a question: what specific additional protection of property is available beyond the plethora of common law and statute laws, protection which is already afforded Albertans? That, I believe, was the question that the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo would like to put to the Member for Red Deer-North. So, now we have the question on the record, and perhaps he'd like to answer that in some way.

So, those are the few comments that I wanted to make on section 13. There have only been two members that have spoken to it, and I can't say that it has enlightened me much on what exactly the bill was trying to accomplish and what specific examples any of the members on the other side could see this bill, coming into force, what situations it might apply in. I've read Hansard, and I've listened to what's been said. Those questions have not been answered. So I would love to have the opportunity in this final and third reading of this bill to have any of those questions answered.

Having said that, I'll take my seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Motion carried; Bill 13