Bill 31 - Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2008
October 21, 2008 - Second Reading
Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me to speak in second reading on this bill. Well, I’m glad I got a chance to say that things were going well for the government on the last bill because I cannot say that when I look at Bill 31, the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2008. There’s something hinky about this bill, mostly because I’m always nervous when the government does an “it’s okay; trust me” bill. If they can’t actually nail this stuff down and put it in legislation and write it out and they have to say, “That’s okay; just trust me,” there’s something wrong.
Before I start on this, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this, in fact, is an omnibus bill. This bill is amending not one, not two, but eight other bills, and – I was going to say “in the olden days,” but in fact it wasn’t that long ago – we have had a change in standing orders that came through in I think 2004 which shortened the time that we have to debate these bills. It used to be that if more than one bill was being adjusted, we would get half an hour to debate these bills because it’s adjusting more than one act, and it would take us longer to debate it. That was changed. So here I am in the position of now trying to talk about eight different bills that are being amended, and I’m still restricted to the same 20 minutes’ worth of time, and I am the only one that gets the 20 minutes aside from the opening debater because I’m the second speaker. Everybody else is going to have to deal with this in 15 minutes.
Moving on. What don’t I like about this? I’ll tell you what I don’t like, Mr. Speaker, and that is that section 82 is being repealed. You go: “Okay. Fair enough. That may be perfectly appropriate.” The innocent version of this is that it’s being repealed because it’s basically in place to just allow for a sunset clause for a bunch of provincial organizations, and you don’t require that sunset clause anymore or you don’t require the agencies anymore. But there were a number of either protections or requirements that are in section 82 that are also going to be taken away, and therefore these protections or requirements are no longer available, and there is nothing put into this to replace them.
When I look at section 82(3), now, this is what was in and is now being repealed, so it will no longer be there. “The discontinuance of a Provincial agency does not extinguish any liabilities of the Provincial agency or relieve any person of an obligation the person has to the Provincial agency.” That’s what was in there before and is not there now. What the heck does that mean? Well, it means that for those regional health authorities that have now disappeared off the face of the Earth, any liabilities that they carried with them are not being carried forward. They just disappear into thin air. Well, does that matter? Maybe we don’t care.
Well, I went and checked in the Health and Wellness annual report, and I looked for things like how many legal actions are out there. Unfortunately, they don’t break down the legal actions for me amongst all of what were nine regional health authorities at the time of the ’07-08 report, but we do start to get a sense of it because, of course, the regional health authorities were the ones that were delivering the health services. If somebody was going to be sued and there was a liability out there for a court case, it would most likely come through the service provider, which is the health authority, and also name the department itself.
What have we got here? Well, at March 31, 2008, the ministry was named in 47 legal actions, the outcome of which is indeterminable – great – but 47 legal actions. I’m presuming – and please prove me wrong, but I don’t think you can – that a good number of those were in fact directed against regional health authorities. Now, 20 of these claims have specified amounts totalling $321.2 million. So you wonder: “Well, who cares? Why does it matter?” Well, it matters $321.2 million or more, possibly. It was noted that this is an indeterminable number.
What we’re having with the repeal of this section 82 is that we’re taking away the requirement that just because an agency is gone doesn’t mean that the liabilities against it are gone, nor does it mean that any person’s obligation to the agency is gone. You know, this wouldn’t amount to very much, I’m sure, but just to make a case in point, let’s say that you had an employee that left and still owed some holiday pay. Well, they no longer have to discharge that. They no longer have to pay it back. That’s wiped off because that requirement would be repealed by what’s in this act. That’s the first piece that popped out for me.
The second piece that popped out is 82(9), which says:
An order under subsection (7)(b) respecting the winding-up or dissolution of a Provincial agency must specify (a) that the winding-up or dissolution must be completed within 15 months after the order is made, and…
Here’s the one you’ve got to love.
(b) that any undistributed gifts, bequests or donations to the Provincial agency are to be administered by a successor organization or the Crown for the same purpose for which the Provincial agency was established.
This is the “trust me” part. You see, we have a number of very generous citizens in this province who have in fact donated quite a bit of money to various – let’s call a spade a spade – health institutions here. When we repeal 82 without replacing it immediately with something else, which is what I’d expect in an act – you often see that, where, you know, such and such a section is repealed, and this is put in its place. We don’t get that with this. We get: such and such a section is repealed.
What’s being repealed here is that requirement that any “undistributed gifts, bequests or donations to the Provincial agency,” which would be a hospital under the Capital health authority or a particular program, for example, “are to be administered by a successor organization or the Crown.” So now we don’t know what’s going to happen with that money. Who’s supposed to do it now? It doesn’t specify. This is the “trust me” part.
I know there was a news story that a number of donators in Edmonton had asked for a meeting with one of the key members of the cabinet – I don’t know if it was the minister of health or not; I won’t say it if I don’t know for sure – and had expressed concern about their legacies and their donations. Would those donations carry on, and would they continue to be directed towards the programs that the philanthropist had indicated was their choice?
Mr. Liepert: Yes.
Ms Blakeman: Okay. I get the confirmation that it was the minister of health. He came out of the meeting, and he said: I have reassured all these people that that will be the case. I’m sure that this minister is as good as his word. However, he is absolutely not backed up by legislation. If he had some sort of a brain transplant or a personality change or got hit by a bus, nothing is going to make the next person or his new version of himself stick to what he said because there’s nothing in the legislation. We are in limbo for a period of time or maybe forever, but as soon as this act passes, that requirement is gone. It’s repealed, and nothing replaces it. I appreciate that the minister said: trust me. I’m sure he did, and they may well trust him, but nothing in legislation backs that up.
Nothing makes it happen. That’s always dangerous because people change their minds. Times change. Circumstances change. There can always be a good reason, particularly with the writing skills of the public affairs department from the government. They always seem able to put a good spin on things as to why the government has changed its mind about why it chooses to do or not do something.
This is my concern, that you take it out of the legislation. [interjection]
I can see that my colleague from Edmonton-Highlands Norwood is eager to speak on this, but he will have to wait his turn. That is a major part of my concern about what’s being presented in Bill 31, that those two acts will be repealed and nothing replaces them. As I’ve shown, there are liabilities out there. We know there are bequests and philanthropic gifts that have been designated, and there’s no guarantee that they would be required to go to their designation.
Now, let me look at some of the other things in here that I also don’t like. This is where we get into the other acts. In section 4 of the act in sub (2) the Alberta Enterprise Corporation Act is amended by repealing 17. Now 17 was basically set up to be discontinued after December 31, 2008. As I said, you know, usually when you get a repeal, you get something in its place. Not with this one. I’m assuming, then, that the government wishes to close the Alberta Enterprise Corporation Act and that it will be so after December 31, 2008. That was not in the comments from the Member for Livingstone-Macleod either time he read the same comments, so perhaps I could get him to address that.
What we’re seeing with a number of the other ones is that originally their sunset clause was 2004. There was an order in council that took them to 2008, and now what we’re getting is that they are taking out section 82, which is repealing their expiry date, and putting in a hard expiry date for the Child and Family Services Authorities Act of December 31, 2013. The same thing for the Premier’s Council on Alberta’s Promise Act: originally 2004, extended to 2008, now goes to 2013.
Now, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act is amended, and if I’m reading this one correctly – I’m wondering how this affects the liabilities – again, it’s entirely repealing section 9.1. It’s not replacing it with anything. One of the things that was in there was about: if some or all of a plan’s administration functions are delegated by or under regulations to a provincial corporation within the meaning of this act and that corporation becomes discontinued as a result of section 82. So they’ve delegated the administration of this down to one of these Crown agencies which would now get a sunset clause. It then goes on to say that “notwithstanding anything in that Act, the delegation is automatically revoked by this section unless the subject-matter of the delegation has previously been otherwise dealt with.”
If a provincial agency that had this pension plans administrative function delegated to it gets wiped out by a sunset clause in 82 – now remember, we’re getting rid of 82, so we’re getting rid of this protection which would allow that the delegation is automatically revoked. Again, I’m getting nothing in place of it. So where we would have had a protection for the administration of the public sector pension plans, that’s gone. Sorry, I didn’t have time to go and look it up and see if it still exists or if this is a shell bill that hasn’t been functioning for some time, but we have no way now of going back and revoking that delegation to a defunct organization. It’s another piece that just hasn’t been clearly thought through. You know, perhaps this is a shell act that hasn’t been functioning for some time. I’m happy to have the Member for Livingstone-Macleod correct me if that is the case.
The other one that is discontinued as of 2008 will be the Travel Alberta Act. I don’t know why, but there it is: gone. The one piece that I haven’t been able to look up – and at this point I’ll have to come back and try to do it during Committee of the Whole – is the School (Compulsory Attendance) Amendment Act, 2003. It takes out section 7 – that’s referring to another section. I’m sorry. You know, when these bills get introduced into the House and two days later we’re trying to debate them, frankly, I just can’t keep up with it. I did the best I could, and this section I haven’t been able to trace all the way back to see what the heck is going on, so I’ll have to deal with that one later.
We have some protections or some requirements that are in place that will now be repealed by this bill, and that becomes very important when we look at the health authorities that were there and are not there now. Interestingly, we have a big time lag here because the health services – man, this title is not sticking to me. You’ve got to get a better name.
Ms Pastoor: Superboard.
Ms Blakeman: The superboard, Alberta Health Services. Come on. All those writers in public affairs can do better than that. Alberta Health Services.
Mr. Liepert: It’s as simple as you get.
Ms Blakeman: Alberta Health is boring, too, and no one can remember. Alberta Health Services doesn’t exist as a legal entity. My understanding is that this act that we’re waiting for is going to come in the spring, so we have a time lag. Here we are at October 21. We’re talking about dumping the sections where we actually have protections in place and instructions about what to do with the existing regional health authorities, and once this passes, we have a morass. We have a no-person’s-land. We have nothing in place because the new Alberta Health Services doesn’t exist, and the old ones are gone, so we have nothing. We have a memorandum of understanding from Alberta Health Services that makes specific reference to this act, the Financial Administration Amendment Act, and the public agencies governance framework. Now, this is the other thing that’s interesting: the public agencies governance framework. I’m sure one of my hon. Colleagues on the other side will jump up and say: “That solves all your problems, Laurie. That addresses all your concerns. It’s all in there. It’s governance, best practices, everything they’re supposed to do right.” Fair enough, but it’s not legislation; it’s a framework. And if they don’t follow it, there are no repercussions. It’s a framework, a nice way of saying that it’s an idea. It’s a plan, but there are no consequences for it. It is not law. It is not sanctioned by this Assembly. It is not part of the Criminal Code. It is nothing. It’s a nice idea. It’s a framework. It’s a bunch of pages that are put together with a staple, that you can read through, and that looks very nice. It has all kinds of things in it, but it’s a framework. It’s not a law. It’s not a statute. It’s not part of the Criminal Code. It is not enforceable.
If the government chooses to absolutely ignore it forever, there are no consequences for that. There’s nothing I can do as an opposition member to say, “You were supposed to do something here” or “You must do something as a requirement of this” or “You didn’t follow your own framework.” There’s nothing I can do about it because it’s not legislation. It will not be a statute. It is not under the Criminal Code. It’s not even a civic bylaw. It’s nothing. I’m sorry. It’s a nice idea. It’s a framework. And I’m not saying that what’s in here is a bad thing; I’m just saying that you cannot put that in place of some legislation and say, “That’s okay; we’re covered,” because we’re not.
Mr. Mason: It’s a nice sentiment, though.
Ms Blakeman: It’s a very nice sentiment. But you know what? I’m not a great fan of sentimentality. I’m not. It’s just that those things that get kind of weepy and pink and frilly are just yuck. No, I’d really rather just have something that was rational and logical and enforceable, with monitoring, performance measurements, targets, and some legality to it.
A big part of being an opposition member in Alberta is having to use those rules as tools to be able to hold the government to account. If the government insists on not giving itself those rules that it can be held to account with, it makes my job a heck of a lot harder. Maybe that’s what the plan is here. I hope not, but I was young and innocent when I came here, and look what happened. [interjections]
What can I say, Mr. Speaker? I think I just proved my point. I know my time is running out here. Those are a few of the concerns that I have around this. I started out by saying that it’s hinky and it’s a trust-me bill. It still is. I don’t like it. I’ll wait for the answers, but right now I’m not supporting it.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog