Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Bill 35 - Government Organization Amendment Act, 2008

October 29, 2008 - Committee of the Whole

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have heard what the Member for Lethbridge West, who is speaking for the Minister of Infrastructure, has said about this bill. I am sure this is a person of integrity and that if they say this, they believe it. However, unfortunately, that individual will not always be around to stand up and say that they guarantee that this is the case, and I’d rather have it written in the legislation, and that’s what’s missing here.

When he talks about, you know, how this is just giving the government opportunity to take advantage of some land sales or some things where timing might be of the essence, that always needs to be balanced against protection of the public asset and of taxpayers’ money and, of course, transparency and accountability of the government. I am not hearing from the sponsor or from the Member for Lethbridge West, frankly, any proof or any assurance that that balance is being achieved with this bill. In fact, I would argue that the balance is not being achieved with the bill.

Of course, the offending section for me is that although there are provisions in 10(3)(a), those can be ignored because of the additional powers that they’ve given themselves under 10(3)(c), which allows cabinet to make a sale totally outside of and not subject to the other safeguards that have been put in place. In fact, what’s actually being done in this bill is the antithesis of what the member claims is being done in this bill, and that’s my issue with this.

I also am increasingly aware that this government prefers doing business with P3s. We heard this morning – yeah, it probably was morning – in this House about how certain school boards feel that they were not offered a choice. It was: take a P3 or don’t get a school. Of course, school boards that are trying to provide schools for their students are going to take the P3, but they certainly didn’t feel they had a choice. As this government chooses more and more delivery of public health through P3 health facilities, through school board facilities . . . [interjection] They were indeed. This is from Public Accounts on October 7, 2008. I’m reading the Hansard, and that’s exactly what they said: “If we didn’t go along with the P3s, was there an alternative? We were told no. It had to be P3s.” Well, there you go.

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t have to table this.

Ms Blakeman: No, I don’t because it’s in Hansard, and people can look it up. Now it’s been referenced, so they can look it up twice.

This government clearly prefers P3s. Okay. Fine. Well, not fine, but accepting that for this argument, do we have P3s, then, and P3 situations considered into the mix when we see the government allowing to make sales outside of these boundaries? Are we now talking once again about taking public assets and delivering them over for private profit? That’s never acceptable in my terms.

If you’re going to be a private business, go ahead. There are lots of good private businesses, and they supply a lot of things that we need and want in this society, but as soon as you start taking public money, you’re into a different ball game here because it is about making sure that there are opportunities for transparency and accountability in a way that we generally do not have a relationship with the private sector. I think that that transparency and accountability needs to be enhanced. You must conform to the standards that are set for government, not lower them to standards that are currently acceptable in the private sector, and I think that has been amply demonstrated, for example, by what we’ve seen happen in the financial markets in the U.S.

I would argue back, against what’s being presented here by the Member for Lethbridge-West, that that is exactly what is not happening here. I would need some much clearer examples of where he could demonstrate to me that this opportunity would exist, where he would be able to also demonstrate where the protection of the public asset, the transparency, and the accountability would stay in place. That has not been offered as part of this discussion, but it may well be. We’re in Committee of the Whole. There’s opportunity for people to get up repeatedly.

Overall, what I do see here along with the continuing enabling of P3s to deliver and be the recipient of public service and public dollars is a systematic dismantling of legislative controls on spending. I think that’s what I’m seeing here as well. The very thing that didn’t save Canada but left us in a better position given the financial meltdown in the U.S. is that we tended to have better controls – and lots of financial people have admitted this – in Canada. We had more legislated limitations on what people could do in those markets, and that left us in better shape. We were far more protected, and the public was protected. The investors were protected. We did it better.

Why are we now watching one of our richest governments turn around and systematically lift those legislative controls on spending? I think that should be great cause for concern. It is following a pattern that this government has followed before. I mean, that’s the thing you get when you’ve got a government that has been in place for coming close to 40 years now, I think. In tracking that same government, you can clearly see the choices they make where they start to repeat history, and that’s the point we’re at right now because exactly the same thing happened in the early ’80s. The financial economy started to get a little wonky, the controls were taken off by the government, and we got into serious trouble and took a long time to dig ourselves out as a result of that.

I would speak against what is being contemplated in Bill 35, the Government Organization Amendment Act, 2008. I know that a number of my colleagues are also interested in commenting on this bill, so I will take my seat. Thank you.

Amendment A1

Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, I’d like to speak in favour of the amendment because this amendment actually addresses the concerns that I was raising when I spoke previously to this bill by removing that kind of…

Mr. MacDonald: Cabinet authority?

Ms Blakeman: Well, yeah. I was going to call it a get out of jail free card, but that’s not appropriate in the circumstances.

Taking out that exception clause of 10(3)(c), which allowed that decision-making to happen outside of the parameters that had been set in order to ensure accountability and transparency – that’s where my concerns were, and that’s exactly what this motion is doing:striking out that subsection (3)(c). So I’m very happy to support this.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m pleased.

Ms Blakeman: You’re most welcome, hon. member. I’ve been trying to follow the Member for Wood Buffalo…

Mr. Boutilier: It’s Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo.

Ms Blakeman: My apologies. Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo. Thank you for the correction.

I actually didn’t hear the member notate that particular constituency in his comments. He just referenced the Auditor General’s report but nothing specific. So I’ll admit you have me a bit baffled there about your concerns, but I’m sure you could put something on the record about it. I just didn’t quite understand how it pertained to what was being discussed by the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Yeah, this would solve my problems with this bill, actually, and I’d be very willing to support it if we could pass this amendment. So I’m urging my colleagues in the Assembly to pass amendment A1, that has been moved onto the floor by my colleague the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.