Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Laurie in Debate

Alcoholic Beverage Pricing

Alberta Hansard – November 26, 2007

Motion 514. Mr. Tougas moved: Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to introduce legislation that will set minimum drink prices in licensed establishments as recommended in the 2006 report of the Alberta Roundtable on Violence in and around Licensed Premises, which will help curb the over consumption of alcohol that may lead to violence.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me get this straight. We have an Alberta government-sponsored panel, the Alberta Roundtable on Violence in and around Licensed Premises, that makes a recommendation that one of the things that should be tried to try and deal with some of the violence and community safety issues – and didn’t we earlier today debate a bill about safer communities? But here we have an Alberta government round-Table that recommends something. That recommendation is incorporated in a motion brought forward by the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

While I’m at it, I went and looked at the AADAC annual report, that was tabled in this very House within the last couple of weeks, and what did I see on page 23? A performance measurement : prevalence of regular heavy drinking amongst young Albertans, 31 per cent, one-third of our young people. Let me read the small print for you just so you don’t argue with me about the facts. Once again, it’s on page 23: “ Regular heavy drinking is defined as the consumption of five or more alcoholic drinks on one occasion, 12 or more times a year for Albertans 15 to 29 years of age.” So in your own AADAC report, your own government-funded agency, it says that this is not a good thing. One-third of our young people are binge-drinking.

Now, “binge” is my word. They don’t say binge-drinking in here. Five or more drinks at least 12 times a year. So two, not one but two of the government’s very own funded . . .

Mr. Elsalhy: Actually, three if you add the safer communities task force.

Ms Blakeman: If you add in the safer communities task force, there are three that have all made the same recommendation, but this government gets up one after another, those private members, on this private members’ day and says, “Oh, no. We really need to leave it up to individuals,” completely negating the work that you collectively as a government have set out in front of us. You make me laugh sometimes. You really do. You have absolutely contradicted the work of your own government.

All of this “Oh, don’t interfere in the marketplace” stuff: you interfere in the marketplace all the time. I wish my colleague from Edmonton-Gold Bar was able to get up and speak with me right now. He could list all the times that you’ve managed to interfere in the marketplace. [interjection] Oh, for heaven’s sake. You want to address the entire situation.

The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River is rising on a point of order.

Point of Order

Allegations against Members

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 23( h), ( i), and ( j), language that’s likely to insult or cause unrest in this House, not a single member on this side of the House stood up and said that this issue should be left to individuals. Not a single one. What we said was that perhaps a well-reasoned, well-researched approach that addresses this issue in its totality might be the approach to take. Not a single member suggested that this should be left to individuals. I would ask the member to withdraw that remark as being flippant and inaccurate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms Blakeman: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I won’t withdraw it until the Blues are available to have a look at what’s been said. Then I’ll look at withdrawing it. I sat here for this whole debate. I listened to it all, every word, and that’s what was being said: leave it up to the individual; don’t curtail it; don’t bring in anything; don’t put any restrictions on the marketplace. So, no, I’m not willing to withdraw that.

I don’t think there’s a point of order here. I think they’re just trying to run out the time so I can’t speak, and it’ll impinge upon the mover of the motion. They’ve been successful in doing that, so I hope you’re all proud of yourselves there, boys. Did you have a good time?

The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, I know that it is Monday afternoon, that we’ve had a long weekend and have come back here, but it has opened up some interesting debates this afternoon. The hon. Member for Peace River rose on a point of order. I guess the subject matter before us today was one on which people were speaking from their heart and their mind. I do not have the Blues in front of me. I do not believe any allegations were made against an individual, but certainly there were statements thrown out at the government. I hope that members will take an opportunity tomorrow to read the Blues and reflect, and if they so wish, they can bring forward a point of order at that time, and we may deal with it then.