February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 109 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/02/25 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parlia mentary democracy as a m eans of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services.

Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Lea rning I would like to introduce some very special people from the public service who are on an orientation tour here today from Alberta L earning: administrative services m anager Audrey Chykerda; the team lea der of public consultation, Ca rla Corbett; the HR planning manager, Dianna Wilk; the HR planning adviser, Darlene Marshall; marketing con sultant Lis a Candido; business integrat ion co-ordinator Maggie Nowak ; and anoth er business integration co-ordinator, Amy Beechey.

I would ask that they please rise and that we salute them with a warm welcome from the House. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly 25 highly motivated and intelligent grade 6 students from St. Martin Ukrainian bilingual school in my constituency who are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Natalie Harasymiw. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of all members of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. S peaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly, first of all, students from Metro College and their teacher, Mr. Jim Zalcik. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm applause of this Assembly. I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 24 students from St. Jerome Catholic school and their teacher, Mrs. Ros e Auge r, and the stude nt teacher , Mrs. Wil ly Hankinson. I wou ld as k them also to ris e and rec eive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Mr. McFarland: Mr.

Speaker, I was surprised as I came in today to notice with great pleasure a constituent of mine and her sister who are in the me mbers’ gallery. I would as k Mrs. Mar jorie Sande, a former classmate that attended high school and wife of a farm family in the Lomond area, and her sister to please r ise and re ceive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od Natural Gas Prices Dr.

Nicol: Yesterday through an application filed with the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, ATCO indicated that it would like t o charge $8.58 per gigajoule for northern Alberta customers and $9.52 per gigajoule for southern Alberta customer s. When compared to this month, that’s a 19 percent increase for those in the north and a 26 percent increase for those in the s outh. This is a full $3 t o $4 above the $5.50 trig ger price i n the price protection a ct. To the Premier. Yesterday the Premier stat ed that Alberta was the only province w ith a Natur al Gas Price Protecti on Act.

H ow wil l Albertans benefit from being the only province with a price protec- tion act, one that will not trigger when they’re faced with an average 24 percent increase in their bills next month? Mr. Klein: First of all, Mr . Speaker, the applic ation, as the hon. leader of the Liberal Party pointed out, is before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, and it is up to the board as to whether those rate increases will prevail or will be approved.

Secondly, we don’t know at this particular time how those increases, if they are approved, will fit into the overal l aver age and w hether they will re sult in the achievement of the trigger price of $5.50 a gigajoule. If it triggers the $5.50 on an annual prorated basis, then I assume that consumers will be eligible for the rebate. Dr. Nicol: Given that other provinces have natural gas price protection built in to their leg islation, why not inv oke the a ct and give Albertans the same protection that other provinces get? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, I’ll have the ho n.

Mini ster of Energy respond, but I don’t know of any other jurisdiction that has built-in protection for consumers relative to natural gas prices. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, while we were listening to the Premier’s comments, the Leader of the Opposition said, “Long-term contracts,” which I guess means the ability to hedge or undertake a contract.

In fact, that legislation will be brought before the House at a future date during this session where we will give Albertans the opportunity, as they have expressed, to contract both natural gas and electricity on a short basis, on a long basi s, in combination with the two, and perhaps in combination with furnace-cleaning services, w ith other types of services. So t hese options will go forward, and they will add to what is already the best and most unique price prot ection program in Canada today. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speake r, to the Prem ier.

Your m inister has just talked about th is as a future fo r Albert a, where they can ge t these kinds of long-term protections that other provinces have now. Our only protection is your price protection act. Why will you not have your government show some compassion for low-income Albertans and give them price protection right now? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. minister pointed out, legislation takes time. You just don’t snap your fingers or wave in the air and say: it shall be done.

It requires legislative changes, and as the hon. minister pointed out, that legislation will be introduced this spring session. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Smith: Well, thanks, Mr. Sp eaker. In fact, if we were to go back to the debate in 2001, we’ d see here that the le ader of th e opposition party says: We have to ma ke sure t hat p rice level we’re going to protect is contingent upon and ti ed to the pri ce we use in t he budge ting

110 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 process for revenue generation and revenue estimation within the province. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. In fact, th e critic from the opposition also stood up during that debate and said: “This could wind up costing us billions of dollars. What criteria will determine who gets a rebate? . . . A lbertans are going [to have] to pay for this.” We have to be ve ry, very careful here, and we are. There is a very good program in place. It’s unique in Canada, and it will protect Albertans at a point when it tri ggers into effect.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, there’s a difference be tween being cautious and careful and being protective. Utility Costs Dr. Nicol: Most of us in Alberta are able to make budget changes in order to pay the high cost of utilities c aused by deregula tion. However, Albertans with low incomes are being forced to choose between heat and f ood. To the Pre mier: how is th is government going to ensure that citizens don’t have to make the choice between heat and food next month? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, that’s a very insensitive and irresponsible statement to make. First of all, the legislation we have relative to the natural gas rebate program is unique in Canada. No other jurisdic- tion has that kind of legislation in place. Secondly, the hon. minister will be introducing legislation as it pertains to how gas companies purchase their gas and budget for that gas relative to the consumers. 1:40 Mr. Speaker, the cost of food, the c ost of electricity, the cost of natural ga s: it’s an ever increasing thing, and the hon. member knows that.

Wha t we try to d o through var ious gover nment programs is to shield low-income Albertans from rising c osts, whether those are rising costs in food, rent, gas, electricity, clothing, or any oth er commodity. That’s what we refer to as social safety nets: to help those in society who truly need help. Dr. Nicol: The safety net doesn’t work if you don’t trigger it, Mr. Speaker. To the M inister of Seniors. Some seniors living in subsidized housing are telling us they now have to pay separate bills for utilities that were once included in their rent.

Is there any program in place that the minister can use to help them when they now are being faced with increased utility bills in their subsidized housing? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Woloshyn: Thank yo u, Mr. Speak er. The key words in the comments were “subsidized housing.” Some of the rents do include utilities; some of them do not.

Along with the subsidized housing program, we do have the seniors’ ben efits program, and altho ugh that program does not go di rectly to utilities, people who a re currently receiving cash from the Alberta seniors’ benefits program can apply for special needs to help them with onetime expenses of a specifi c n ature. In doi ng so, that also alle viates some of the problems, and hopefull y they can me et their ongoing obligations with a bit of ease.

We currently monitor the situation and keep track to ensure that we don’t have anybody falling through the cracks, and I would stress to all members here and to people listening that if you know of seniors who are suf fering undue hardship, pl ease let the department know or contact my office. Dr. Nic ol: My next question, Mr. Speaker , is to the m inister of human resources. Many SFI and AISH recipients, when threatened with utility disconnection notices, must use all available resources before access ing o netime emer gency assista nce through y our department.

Does “all available resources” include any kind of a cut into their food budget or their rent, or what other aspects do they have to deal w ith before they can trigger the suppo rt through that utility program in your ministry? Mr. Dunford: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re entering our second year of providing assista nce to Al bertans w hen disconnec t notices a re received. As a matter of fact, the amount of Albertans’ money that we used last year in order to do this was $1.6 million.

We have no forecast at the present time as to what might be involved this year, but an Albertan that receives a disconnect notice on, really, either a natural gas or electricity utility c an come forward, can seek assis- tance through our dep artment. We, of c ourse, have sc reening mechanisms, and we have entitlements that must be met, and we’ll continue to be as flexible as we can to help as many Albertans as we can. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Foster Care Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A statem ent of claim has been filed w ith the courts that a lleges that a mothe r was s exually abused while in foster care and that in January of 2001 her daughter, also in care, suffered burns, broken bones, and lacked proper medical treatment. My questions are to the Minister of Children’s Services.

Given that the m inister is in a con flict of intere st protecti ng the reputation of the department while also needing to legally represent children who may have suffered while in the care of that department, will the minister follow the advice of successive Children’s Advo- cates a nd establis h an exte rnal revi ew pane l to invest igate a nd compensate proven victims? Ms Evans: You know, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of allegations – allegations – in a statement of claim that has been filed in the court but not yet delivered to me or to any of the other officials that have been identifie d in the sta tement of claim, the hon. member has chosen today to give us a release that really, effectively, damns the system, and I find t hat offensive. I find it of fensive on behalf of those families that are involved. In their rele ase they state tha t we hav en’t paid attention to t he previous Children’s Advocate relative to an exter nal review committee.

Almost imm ediately we acted not with an ex ternal review committee but with changes to the CWIS so that immediately if a child is hurt by anybody in any place in any circumstance and they are in care, it is fl agged on the C WIS and is imm ediately directed to the Children’s Advocate so that the Children’s Advocate has immediate access to absolutely every situation that could result in a thorough investigation of the claim that the child has been hurt in any way. We ha ve made a techn ological improvement that is extremely positive and is working well. Mr.

Speaker, I think that, further, the hon. member is aware that we’ve had a John Doe case representing 429 alleged cases that’s still not back from the courts with any decision on that . When it i s, it may cause us to review it again, but presently this system is working

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 111 extremely well. The advocate a ppears satisfied, and we have frequent meetings and regular reportings. More importantly, as soon as a child is hurt, someone is there to follow up and investigate on their behalf. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: given that the minister is willing to place d etails of chi ldren up for adoption on the Internet, has she op ened the f iles of t hose 400 children in the Calgary lawsuit? Ms Evans: Mr.

Speaker, I will not divulge all of the preparation by the government in terms of the cases, but there was a very thorough review done. It was presented in the courts, and we are waiting for the results of that court case. I think the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I have to believe that the hon. member o pposite would like the sa me thing that t he government would, and that is children safe and well protected and due diligence on their behalf. We have initiated this past year, this fiscal year, a complete review of the foster care system. We’ve had phase 1 of that review done.

The things they’re asking for in their release are a day late and a dollar short. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: does the department follow the national guidelines for foster care in Canada, which includes providing legal representation for children in care? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, in the statement filed I noticed some very severe allegations relative to whether or not we act in the best interest of gove rnment or in the best interest o f the child. T he mission of this department is to act in the best interest of the child.

In almost every case this gover nment exceeds all of the Canadian standards relative to child protection, child care, and representation for children who are injured. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Education Funding Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Growing class sizes, crum- bling schools, sc hool board def icits: these are t he real-life conse- quences of the government’s education policies. The government’s mindless refusal to fund the arbitration settlements, cuts in plant operation and maintenance grants, an d the imposition of a c ap on grade 10 credits are creating this crisis.

M ore and m ore scho ol boards are spea king out ab out the disas trous consequences of the government’s shortsight ed policies. My quest ions are to the Premier. How can the government claim that there is n o financial crisis in our schools when yet another school board, Red Deer public in this case, is sounding the alarm about deep cuts in programs and staffing? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speak er, I have the opportunity to trave l the province and do that on a number of occasions quite frequently, and nowhere have I seen the k ind of situation des cribed by the hon. leader of the third party.

We don’t see crumbling schools. We don’t see kids going without. What we do see are good stories, wonderful stories about what is happening in our education system. You know, if this hon. me mber would get out f rom under t he dome, if he would examine what is really happening in the education system, he would see that the eighth annual biology competition was written by 5,300 eligible contestants at 408 schools across Canada in April 2002. Three Alberta schools rated in the top 10 schools in the country.

These scho ols were Old Scona academic school in Edmonton, which took first place, Western Canada high school i n Calgary in fourth p lace, and Ross She ppard high sc hool in ninth place out of 408 sc hools across the country . Al berta’s Travis Murdoch . . . 1:50 The Speaker: Perhaps, hon. Premier, we can get to

chapter 2 a little later. The hon. leader. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If everything is as hunky-dory as the Premier claims, why are Elk Island, Red Deer, St. Albert Catholic, Edmonton public, and a growing number of parents, many of them in my own constituency, finding it necessary to speak out about the crisis in their schools, thereby risking punishment from the Premier’s government? Is the Premier seriously suggesting . . . The Speaker: Hon. leader, you ca n’t have four questions i n on e

preamble. Mr. Klein: To carry on, he named eight schools, and I’ll name one school, and that’s Alberta’s Travis Murdoch of Salisbury composite high school in Sherwood Park. He placed among the top 10 students in this competition, and he tied for seventh place, Mr. Speaker. So, obviously, there’s a school that’s doing a wonderful job. We can talk about the almost 6,000 students from across Canada who participa ted in t he seventh Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge in November 2002, and the top contestants in a region are named provincial champions.

The gold medal honours for Alberta went to Peter Zhang of Sir Winston Churchill secondary school in Calgary. Obviously, that school is doing a very good job. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How m uch more d o clas s sizes have to grow, how many teachers have to be laid off before the government takes meaningful action to address the growing financial crisis in our schools? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we obviously have taken action. We ar e obviously continuing to take action because, for instance, success in mathematics is not hing new to Alberta students.

Alberta students consistently achieve at the top levels around the world, and that was demonstrated at the 2002 International Mathematics Competition in Glasgow, where a gold medal was awarded to Alexan der Fink of Queen Elizabeth high school in Calgary and a bronze medal went to Robert Barringt on Leigh of Old Scona a cademic high sc hool i n Edmonton. These t wo Alberta members were on the six-member Canadian team. In other w ords, one-third of the Canadian team came from Alberta. It couldn’t be all that bad. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Alberta Supernet Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta government’s high-speed network project, Supernet, is scheduled to be completed soon. However, it was recently brought to my attention that there is

112 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 a legal dispu te between Bel l We st and i ts subcontra ctor Ax ia NetMedia Corp. whic h could cause delays. My co nstituents a re looking forward to having their libraries, schools, and hosp itals connected with Supernet but are wondering how the dispute i s affecting the project. My questions are to the Minister of Innovation and Science. What is the status of Supernet cons truction in the province? Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, imagine if you were a student in Rocky Mountain House that wants to take a class in Red Deer and have a live discus sion ove r a distance of 85 kilom etres. T hat’s happening right now because of the Supernet connection. But the hon. me mber is correct. There a re some time l ines in place that we have built into the co ntract to b uild Supernet. Our business plan calls for some performance targets to be met, and we are currently not meeting those targets precisely, and the 2003 year is going to be a pivotal year in order to complete this construction on time. Mr.

Johns on: To the same minister: what a ssurances can the minister give my constituents that the project will be completed on time and on budget? Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have a contract in place, and our primary contractor, Bell West, is under contractual obliga- tions to complete the build of the net work by the end of the year 2004.

We intend to hold Bell West to that contract and are working with them diligently to ensure that this year, 2003, we proceed quickly on the build sc hedule, connect our libr aries, c onnect our hospitals, our schools s o that we can deliver services to Albertans over the network. Mr. Johnson: My final question to the same minister: what effect, if any, is the lawsuit between Bell West and Axia NetMedia having on the Supernet project? Mr. Doerksen: Mr. Speaker, there is a commercial dispute between Bell West and Axia currently before the courts, and you know that I can’t comment on that dispute.

Bu t what I wi ll say is that my responsibility is to the pe ople of A lberta to m ake sure that the network gets built and, secondly, more importantly, once it’s built – because it will be built – to make sure that services are delivered over that network, because that is where the real value of Supernet is going to take place. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Enron Natural Gas Rebate Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago during the provincial election this government played loose and f ast with the taxpayers’ money, and now, two years later, whenever we have another price spike in natural gas, this government is b eing very, very mean. M y first question is t o the Premi er. Now that the Premier has had 24 hours to look ove r the public a ccounts docu- ments, c an the Prem ier pleas e explai n to the tax payers of this province why a grant f or three -quarters of a million dollars was given to Enron two years ago? Mr. Klein: I’d be glad to explain. Mr. Speaker, I’m surprised.

No, I’m not surprised, because i t’s so typical of the Liberals not to tell the whole truth. I’m not saying that they’re lying. I’m just saying that they don’t tell the whole truth. They issue a one-page document which shows that Enron was the recipient of a gas rebate. Enron acted as a supplier under the nat ural gas rebate program. They had one cust omer, Boardwalk Equities. Fr om Lan d Link’s records it would appear that 13,699 living units were assisted under the rebate program through Enron.

In other words, that was through Enron to the company called Land Link to 13,699 either individuals or families living in those units, providing natural gas to Boardwalk Equities and all their customers. This number was submitted early in the program when Land Link was still considering payments per residential unit. Since all of these living units are in commerc ial buildings, they were then switched to the $6 a gigajoule rate at the end of January. Land Link is not sure of the actual number of living units. It migh t be higher .

The total amount paid to Enron was $1.181 million, not the three-quarters of a million, as a matter of fact more: $756,954 in March 2001, $509, 220 in April 2001, and a $10,978 payment based on the final reconciliation in Dec ember 2001. That is all the information I got but perfectly legitimate. Enron was a corporate entity at that particular time r epresenting the interests of over 13,000 Albertans in living units who were deserving of a rebate at that particular time in accordance with the policy set down by the government.

If this hon. mem ber ha s any pr oblems with that, then stand up and tell those 13,000 people that they ought not to have received rebates. 2:00 Mr. MacDonald: Again to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: if it was good enough then for t he residents of Boar dwalk Equities to receive a rebate, why are you being so mean with them now? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we are not being mean with them. As a result of that r ebate progr am and in order to end the ad hoc-ism relative to rebates, we put in a piece of legislation that says that when the annual average reaches $5.50 a gigajoule, then the rebates will kick in.

It was there to provide certainty relative to the protection of consumers. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: what good is giving rebates afte r the price of natura l gas is above $5.50 f or perhaps a period of time of up to a year when Albertans can’t afford to pay their bills now? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker , that is wrong. That is not true. Albertans can. Everyone in this Legislative Assembly, I’m sure, can pay their bills . Thousands upon thousands upon thous ands of Albertans can afford to pay their bills.

The bill s on average – on average – are low er than in a ny other j urisdiction in the cou ntry. Any other jurisdiction in the country. I am sick and tired of the Liberals telling Albertans how bad it is here. You know, they talk about, “Oh, well, it’s better in Toronto,” or “It’s better in Montreal.” Well, Mr. Speaker, when the opposition compares households in Q uebec or Ont ario wi th households in Alberta, the com parison should be fair, bu t they’ve never been known for fa irness. N ever. They’ve been known for political trickery; that’s all. They have never been known to be fair.

Where would y ou as a ta xpayer prefer to live? Edmonton or Montreal? Edmonton or T oronto? Right now monthly electricity bills in Edmonton are about $1 higher than in Toronto. Right now. Today. [interjection] I’m saying that right now they’re $1 higher in Edmonton than they are in T oronto, and , yes, they are about $20 higher in Montreal, but Quebeckers pay a 7.5 percent sales tax which results in about $1,700 in higher taxes a year for a typical two-child

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 113 Quebec family. When you factor in higher fuel prices in Quebec – and they are higher – and when you factor in higher property taxes and when you factor in higher income taxes and other higher costs in Montreal, the two-child family in Montreal is paying over $3,500 more a year in taxes and fees than the two-child family in Edmonton, which is 14 times more than the savings they enjoy over Edmonton on electricity bills. So let’s be fair about it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry.

Federal Research and Innovation Funding Ms Graham: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed does have the floor. Ms Graham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are to the Minister of Innovation and Science. Last week the federal budget announcements included some $2 billion for innovation and some $3 billion for sustainable development and environmental initiatives across the province.

Based on my involvement with the Alberta Research Council and the Alberta Science and Research Authority, I’m interested to know whether the minister has been able to determine if Alberta will be able to utilize any of this new funding for our priority areas of ICT, energy, and life sciences. Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, in S eptember 2001 provincial ministers along with our federal counterpart met and agreed that as a nation we needed to move Canada’s research intensity from 15th place in the world to fifth place in the world.

Our own throne speech last week continued to reinforce our commitment to our life sciences strategy. It continued to commit our efforts to the Energy Research Institute strateg y, i ncluding a coal demonstr ation plant, a nd the money that has been identified through the fed eral budget, which, incidentally, came down the s ame da y and, as t he member has pointed out, was in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, will be money that w e will be able to use to help us achieve our object ives i n Alberta. Ms G raham: Mr. S peaker, my secon d qu estion is to the sa me minister.

It’s my understanding that near ly one-q uarter of the innovation money, some 500 million dollars, has been designated for the Canada Foundation for Innovation , or CFI, and it is to assist research hospitals with their infrastructure, so I’m wondering if we will be able to us e this to hel p us build t hose cent res for health research that have been on the books for four years both at the U of C and the U of A. Mr. Doerksen: Mr.

Spe aker, so mething tha t we ar e ver y p roud about in Alberta is the Alber ta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, and over the years of its ex istence we have contributed over $700 million into research in that area. The member correctly points out that both the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta have p roposals in to e xpand wha t they c all the hea lth research innovation centres. The initiative is something that we as a province support, and as money becomes available, we will make these things happen and continue our excellent reputation of research into those areas.

Might I just comment, Mr. Speaker. One project that we are world renowned for is commonly known as the Edmonton protocol, which is research into the is let transplants for the cure of diabetes or the management of diabetes. It is a real br eakthrough and something that we are very proud about in our province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Graham: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question, again to the same minister. The minister has referred to our own throne speech from last we ek where it was declared that w e intend to accelerate our Alberta energy research strategy.

So, again, has the minister been able to determine if we can utilize any of the $3 billion to help boost our efforts in this regard? Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all Albertans to actually log on to the I nnovation web site and actually read the strategic thru st th at we hav e with our Energy Research Institute. They really cover f ive m ain area s: mana ging ca rbon dioxid e, increasing the value of bitumen, burning clean coal, improving oil and gas re covery, and finding alternat ive ener gy sour ces.

Our challenge is going to be to make sure that the contribution that we get from the federal government will in fact go towards the initia- tives and the priority areas that we’ve identified as a province. Swan Hills Waste Treatment Facility Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, from January 2001 to March 31, 2002, Swan Hills waste treatment plant lost $9.5 million, and at least two- thirds of last year’s revenue came from waste trucked in from outside Alberta.

Furthermore, this government plans to keep operating and dumping cash into thi s environmental liability and has confirmed this fact by signing a long-term contract with Earth Tech (Canada). To the Ministe r of Infra structure: why does this government even consider negotiating much less signing a contract with a subsidiary of a company that is on shaky financial ground, has settled claims involving Enron-esque accounting practices, and has former officials facing civil fraud charges? Mr. Lund : Well, Mr.

Speaker , anybody that care s abo ut th e environment will be very pleased with the agreement that we have just signed. It allows that plant, which has done a tremendous job of cleaning up toxic waste in Alberta, to continue to operate and to be in business for at least another 10 years, cleaning up and helping the environment. 2:10 But get ting directly to the h on. member’s question, in fac t we checked with the Securities Commission before we went into this agreement. They found no problem with the company.

We checked with other people that may be interested in the financial situation and the integrity of the company and found no problem. So as far as the incident with some of the top officials of the parent company in the United States it has no im pact on the c ompany in Al berta. As a matter of fact, they have a great presence in Alberta currently and right here in the city of Edmonton. They operate the plant that the city of Edmonton built in conjunct ion with TransAlta a number of years ago, the plant that processes all of the waste from the city of Edmonton.

They ’re doing a treme ndous job, and th e ci ty of Edmonton finds it very successful. Mr. Bonner : Mr. Speake r, to the sa me minister: wh y does t his government throw good money after bad at an outdated facility like Swan Hills when there is cheaper, safer, and on-site technology for waste disposal available from companies like Eco Logic Inc.? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, it’s very obvious that that member and, I

114 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 believe, that party , because I’ve had questions on this parti cular facility from them before, must not be inter ested in prot ecting the environment. We on this sid e of the House a re intere sted in preserving the environment and, in fact, enhancing it. Swan Hills has processed over a hundred thousand tonnes of toxic material from Alberta. They’ve also processed pretty well all of the PCBs that will be found in Alber ta.

When you look at that record and consider what would have happened to those toxic materials had Swan Hills not been built, I really wonder who’s concerned about the environ- ment. Us or them? Mr. Bonner: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: give n that Eco Logic Inc . ha s muc h ne wer an d be tter tec hnology than what’s available at Swa n Hills, when will this government start putting taxpayers ahead of moneymaking opportunities f or multina tional corporations, and when will they shut down Swan Hills? Mr. Lund: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it’s certainly our desire and plan to keep Swan Hills operating, and as long as there’s waste generated to be t reated a nd to protect the environment, we hope that we can continue to operate that plant. But the fact is that we just went through a process dealing with multinational companies and one that is a maj or multina tional com pany in the world look ing at tox ic waste. They looked at it all over the world. It was very interesting. They came back and said to us that the Swan Hills plant is the best in North America. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. Crime Prevention Mr. Masyk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I and my constituents in still struggling Edmonton-Norwood continue to be concerned about the amount of crime in our neighbourhoods. It’s a problem that seems to be growing with no end in sight. My question is to the Solicitor General. What is the government doing to address the high amount of crime committed in low-income areas such as my constituency? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s no question that police and communit ies are fa cing a n umber of challeng es with crime in their areas.

We’re dealing with gangs, we’re dealing with violent crime issues, we’re dealing with cybercrime, we’re dealing with child pornography, right down to vandalism and property crime. The best way to address these problems is working with the police and involving the community in crime prevention at a local level. One of the thing s that I’ve seen that has been very successful is having community leaders get together to meet with the police and discuss their local needs and problems and work on them together. My department does provide support to help police and communities work together on crime prevention.

The com munity mobilization program has supported more than 200 projects in Alberta since 1988, and this year $2 million will be going to community-based projects. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Masyk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s very encouraging. To the same minister: has the government ever given any consider- ation to all are as, including to the tax payer, in itiatives such as possibly a prisoner exchange with jurisdictions such as Russia so the prisoners and lawbreakers would really reconsider breaking the law twice? Mrs. Forsyth : Well, Mr. Speake r, while I understand t he hon.

Member for Ed monton-Norwood’s frustration, I’m not sur e that that’s the answer. Alberta’s correctional facilities are not Club Feds. Our conditions at our provincial prisons are spartan: we have small, black-and-white TVs; we have no pool tables; we have no access to the Internet. All our inmates must do work to give back to the community. If they are not ill or if they’re not enrolled in a program, they’re out working. Serving time in Alberta provincial prisons is punishment enough. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Masyk: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Thes e initiatives are very encouraging, and hopefully we can continue to work together. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Protection for Persons in Care Act Review Ms Blakeman: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker. An MLA committee is currently reviewing Alberta’s Protection for Persons in Care Act. The act now provides a mechanism to investigate claims of abuse or substandard ca re for a dults in publicly funded ca re facilities, including hospi tals, nursi ng ho mes, a nd lodges.

My questions today are to the Minister of Community Development. Can the minister tell us when the report is being publicly released? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. This is indeed a very important piece of legislation that comes un der my charge. I’m happy to tell you that the MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner with the co-chair from Edmonton-Norwood have consulted and met with a number of individuals, stakeholders, you might say, from across the province. That report is being prepared, and we’ll be considering it very shortly.

Ms Blakeman: Could the minister answer why the committee wasn’t charged with establishing standards of care? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, when this bill was first brought in, in 1998, by the hon. Member for Highwood, it was understood then that it would be approximately a five-year process to see how it worked out. We are attempting very much here to improve what is already a fairly good bill, but I know that the consultation process yielded some excellent recommendations and suggestions because some of the indiv iduals inputting into that proc ess did contact me directly, and I did meet with a few of them.

So the member will just have to be patient a little while longer, and she’ll get all the answers in the forthcoming report and the recommendations . I can as sure you of that. Ms Blakeman: The report he still hasn’t said is being released. Given that includin g fa ilure to prov ide reasona ble care in the definition of abuse may increase complai nts, is this gove rnment considering the creation of a special court equipped with investiga- tors or an ombudsman to deal with senior abuse issues? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’ll have to wait and see what we can do.

I’m equally concerned, as I know the member is and as are all members in this House, about the care for seniors and for all

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 115 those members who are in a publicly funded, in whole or in part, facility. I can t ell you that we receive upwards of 400, 500, 600 complaints of alleged abuse. They’re all looked at very thoroughly, very car efully. Our intenti on here is t o try and strengthen thos e particular preventative circumstances from occurring in the future, and we will do that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Utility Costs (continued) Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Natural g as prices have returned to their record highs of two winters ago. In fa ct, ATCO’s March gas rate of $8.58 per gigajoule is only slightly below the January 2001 rate of $8.77 per gigajoule, which precipitated the $150 per month rebates. All told, hom e heating costs ar e up 62 percent in just three months. T o th e Pr emier: with pow er bills almost doubling and h ome hea ting costs up 62 percent in this the coldest season of the year, how the heck does the Premier expect Albertans, especially seniors and others on fixed incomes, to pay their utility bills this winter? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speake r, I’ve e xplained s o many times in this Legislature that we do have a unique in Canada piece of legislation, that provides consumer protection down to $5.50 a gigajoule when the yearly average reaches that amount. I would also point out to the hon. member that this is more generous than any other jurisdiction in the country , that natura l gas pric es on ave rage throughout this province are lower than any other jurisdiction in the country.

I also pointed out that we do hav e very generous social safety nets for those people who are facing higher costs relative to food, clothing, shelter, gas, electricity, and any other commodity. This is not a bad province in which to live, especially if you a re in the low-income range, with the variety of programs that are available to assist low- income people. 2:20 Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, if this rebate program is so generous, can the Premier please explain to people that are paying high gas prices why they’re not getting a nickel? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, why they are not getting a nickel is because the average price of gas is below $5.50 a gigajoule. When the yearly average reaches that amount, then that will be the trigger point. Mr. Speak er, I know that I paint ed the Libe rals as being no t entirely truthful in their assertions. Mr. Mason: But we’re worse. [interjections] Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, to repeat what he said, just for the record, he said, “But we’re worse.” He took the words rig ht out of my mouth. Mr. Speaker, what they like to do is compare.

There was a time not so long ago, when the former rebate program was in place, when indeed some consumers i n this co untry paid absolutely nothing – absolutely nothing – for natural gas. I can tell you that relat ive to electricity relative to my condo in Edmonton – and I felt quite guilty about it – I paid a bsolutely nothing for one solid y ear. S o, yes , people are upset when they compare this year’s bill to the same bill last year, when the y were receiving the benefit of rebates. Then I can see why people would be very upset.

You know, I think that if the hon. member is to be honest and is to be reasonable about it all, he would go out and point this out to consumers, but I don’t think he will. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The government only offers free gas in election years. Why has it changed its policy from letting easterners freeze in the dark to making Albertans freeze in the dark? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to know of any Albertan who is freezing in the dark.

Please, bring that case to my attention, and I will make sure pers onally that it is looke d after an d those people are looked after. I want to know. This hon. member has made a statement, and it is not within the rules of parliamentary procedure to tell lies in the Leg islature. He has said or im plied tha t people are fr eezing i n the dark in this province. I want him to bac k that sta tement up or stand u p an d apologize in this Legislature. head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Alberta Treasury Branches Mr. Rathgeber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The time has come for Albertans to think se riously about the futur e of A lberta Treasury Branches. I’d like to talk about why I believe that it’s time that our government consulted with Albertans regarding the poss ibility of privatizing or selling the ATB. ATB was created in the 1930s b y a Social Cre dit government eager to help Alb ertans fight the deva stating effects of the Great Depression. At that time banks in rural Alberta were shutting down, and the government used ATB to provide financial help to Albertans, especially rural Albertans, who were feeling the effects of a severe depression.

For the next 60 years A TB wor ked hard to serve the financial interests of both rural and urban Albertans. However, the mandate of our government is much different than that of the Alberta government of the 1930s. Instead of seeking interventionist solutions to business problems, we let the market run its course and interven e only when the we ll-being of Albertans is affected. Morever , while it is true t hat some charter banks are closing branches in rural Alberta, this does not m ean that they are nonexistent in these communities.

In fact, many charter banks retain local representatives, who work out of their homes or in partnership with other local businesse s. As w ell, loans a nd other fina ncial services can be accessed over the Internet or by tele phone, and banking can be done through local ATM m achines. Further, the presence of credit unions is only getting stronger in rural Alberta, so to suggest that rural Albertans will have no place to do their banking if ATB were privatized is just not true.

Today Treas ury Bra nches provi de more tha n half a m illion Albertans with a broad range of financial services including personal banking, comm ercial ba nking, l oans, and mutual funds. These services are provided in 144 branches and 130 agencie s in both urban and rural Alberta. S imply put, ATB is a full-scale financial services organization that com petes with charter banks a nd credit unions to provide first-rate service to Albertans. On top of all this, ATB is in great financial shape right now. The economy is strong, and ATB is posting impressive numbers. It is clear to me, Mr.

Speaker, that ATB has become much more than a reliabl e alternative to the charter banks and credit unions. ATB has become a major player in its ow n right and an attra ctive

116 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 asset, that this province could sell for a hea lthy p rofit. If this province were to sell AT B, we would reap a great benefit, w hich could be used to pay down Alberta’s debt or to fund health, educa- tion, or any other number of services that Albertans desire. In my view, the time to enter this discussion is now. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Shane Homes/Ernest Manning High School Learning Partnership Ms Kry czka: Thank you , Mr . Sp eaker. I n my co nstituency o f Calgary-West a very unique, successful P3 has developed since 1997.

It’s a private/public partnership in learning between Shane Homes and Ernes t Manning high school. It’s not a P3 inv olving infrastructure or the school building. It e ngages students and the private sector and the staff in learning inside the building. For six years students and Shane employees have been working together to design, construct, finish, decorate, landscape, and market several new homes. Students involved in the building construction and draf ting and desig n learn all aspects of the hom e building industry from Shane’s team of professionals. The partnership has created four homes over the years.

Griffin Manor 1, 2, 3, and now 4 – Griffin is the school’s mascot – are slated to be open in April in the new Calgary-West community of Cougar Ridge. In add ition to giving students a hands-on experience, Ernest Manning has secured more computers equipped with CADD, computer-assisted drafting and design software, a must-have in the industry. Like many students, Shane Wenzel, vice-president of sales and marketing, had a diffic ult time deciding w hat career path to follow. The partnership takes so me of that pressure away for students by exposing them to a true work environment.

The homes created through the partnership are built at cost – and this is where building comes in – with the proceeds from the sale of each going to the Ernest Manning Griffin fund. Shane also pays royalties to the fund every time t he student-designed floor plan is used. To da te Shane Homes has donated $45,000 to the fund. This partnership is a fantastic hands-on learning opportunity that enriches the lives of students and encourages joint community effort and funding for school-based activities and programs.

Key stake - holders, including planners, politicians, an d en trepreneurs, who would readily dismiss the notion of infrastructure P3s would surely benefit from learning about the success of the Shane Homes/Ernest Manning learning partnership. It is a business venture and a win/win for all involved. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. School Councils Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the beginning of public education in this country parents have been closely involved in the school system as pa rent/teacher assoc iations, throug h home and school associations, or, more recently, through school councils. School councils in their current form were given their mandate in the mid-1990s. Alberta Learning has even prepared a school council resource manual, which among many things describes the roles and responsibilities of school councils. Among their roles it says: “The school council may advise the principal on any matter relating to the school . . .

It m ay similarly wish to a dvise the school board [or] Alberta Education.” Among the respons ibilities t hat Albe rta Learning recognizes for school councils is to “actively represent the views of the school community and become as influential as possi- ble.” Mr.

Sp eaker, I genuinel y hope the school counci ls in Edmonton-Riverview and across this province really do become as influential as possible, for in the past month I’ve met with 13 school councils, and if they are at all representative of other school councils in Alberta – a nd I suspect they are – then public education in this province has a powerful, passionate, and determined advocate. 2:30 Several thin gs have been i mpressively co nsistent acros s my meetings with school counc ils.

First and forem ost, parents are profoundly committed to public education, recognizing that it not only serves their children best, it serves all of society best. They are also deeply concerned about threats they see to public education in Alberta: programs being cut, classroom sizes g rowing, resources disappearing, and buildings deteriorating. Parents are demanding that school councils lead the way in fighting for public education. To do this, school councils must be able to communicate openly with all parents in their schools and in a nonpartisan manner. Mr.

Speaker, today I am asking school boards and the Minister of Learning to res pect school councils’ right to com municate and to listen carefully to what they are saying. Above all, I’m here to praise and commend the school council m ovement across this province. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Goods and Services Tax Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been hearing a lot lately about frustrations with Ottawa for a variety of reasons. One of the main causes for this frustration has been the GST.

It is easily the most hated tax in the country and is often cited as a reason to separate, but I have always wondered about this. It seems to me that the GST is just about the only tax in this country that’s never been raised. That’s primarily because it is visible. Who would dare to try and raise such a visible sales tax, a VST? So following this princi- ple, maybe we should make all taxes visible if we really hated taxes and wanted to stop tax increases. Frankly, we hav e the opposite case now : a plethora of HSTs, hidden sales taxes, that are being raised all the time because we don’t know about it.

In fact, this game goes so far in this country that it seems to me that some political movements have based much of their platform largely on op position to the GST while other political parties seem to be out fl eecing the angry by promoting other false solutions to lower taxes such as first demonizing capitalists and then raising business taxes to great fanfare knowing that the people are cheering only because they think their own personal taxes will be lower as a result. It is poppyc ock, of c ourse.

A ny tax, levy, or additional burden placed on any business of any kind is really just another hidden sales tax by proxy because that cost is expected to be immediately passed on to the consumer in the higher prices of goods and services. The businessmen get the blame while bureaucrats get the booty, but we pay and pay either way. Heaven forbid that any government should try to lower business taxes as we have done, which, of course, would just result in lower consumer prices a nd more e conomic de velopment. Now, why anyone would be opposed to that, I don’t know, but they are.

I think it is high time we start talking in this country not just about how much we are paying in taxes but how we are paying those taxes. For those who hate the GST, I suggest that they carefully examine the downsides of all other forms of taxation first. They will find that the GST is the least of all e vils, I think, and at the v ery least it’s certainly not a reason for breaking up the country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 117 head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Mrs. Ady: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I ris e toda y to presen t a petition from my constituency signed by 85 Albertans petitioning the government to increas e current provincial funding for public education. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting today a p etition signed by 53 Albertans aski ng the Legislat ive Assembly to urge the government to immediately raise the minimum wage to $8.50 an hour and index it to the cost of living, as has been done with MLAs’ salaries. head : Intro duc tion o f Bills Bill 10 Health Information Amendment Act, 2003 Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Health and Wellness I am very pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Health Informa- tion Amendment Act, 2003. [Motion carried; Bill 10 read a first time] Bill 14 Securities Amendment Act, 2003 Mr. Hlady: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce B ill 14, the Securities Amendment Act, 2003. The amendments in this bill wi ll provide g reater protection for investors, allow A lberta busine sses im proved access to capital markets, and mak e the curr ent regula tory env ironment m ore efficient. It will also lay the foundation for improved security laws when national reforms are made down the road. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 14 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I m ove that Bill 14 b e moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Bill 15 Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 2003 Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 15, the Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 2003. This act will bring existing legislation in line with current business practices by updating wording, clarifying stakeholders’ responsibili- ties and roles, and strengthening enforcement activities.

Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 15 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. S peaker. I move that Bill 15 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Bill 16 Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 16, the Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amend- ment Act, 2003.

This act cla rifies the rules a round recreational access to public land leased f or grazing and encoura ges co-operation and respect between recreation users and the leaseholders. [Motion carried; Bill 16 read a first time] head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Clerk: Pursuant to Standing Order 37.1(2) I wish to advise the House that the following document was deposited with the Office of the Clerk on behalf of the hon. Mr. Mar, Minister of He alth and Wellness: pursuant to the Regional Health Authorities Act,

section 14(3), Capital Health Authority Annual Report 2001-2002. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At this time for the convenience of all members of the Assembly I would like to table two documents. The first document is a publication from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and it’s Natural Gas Prices in the North American Market. The second tab ling I have th is afternoon is a m emo from the Human Resources and Employment minister to the hon. Premier and all hon. government members of this Assembly.

It’s dated February 4, 2003, and it’s a public relations exercise to help them get around the utility disconnect notices that are going to go to AISH and SFI recipients as a re sult of the dramatically high utility prices in this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, M r. Speaker. I h ave two tablings today. L ast week in m y response to the thr one speech I mentioned several arts groups which had shut down, and I’ve since had an e-mail from one of them announcing that it in fact has resurrected itself.

So I’m tabling five c opies of their note a nd a poster announcing their next event, which is Mile Zero Da nce, the 2nd Annual Dance Lab Open Forum. My second tab ling – sli ghtly delayed; I apologize – is the five copies of the progra m for the inaugural gala of the Davi s concert organ which took place at the Winspear Centre last September. This organ was partially funded with a generous donation from Dr. Davis in memory of his wife. Excellent, excellent performance. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry.

118 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 Mr. Bonner : Thank you very much, M r. Speake r. W ith your permission I have two tablings today. The f irst is the req uired number of copies of a letter from the Northern Oilfield Contractors Association to the Sl ave Lake Chamber of Com merce. This is outlining their conce rns on t he ongoing dif ficulties that they are having doing their business on Crown land here in the province. 2:40 The second tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a copy of the program from the north division station grand open ing ceremony, a new police station in northeast Edmonton tha t will serve the constitue nts of northeast Edmonton for many, many years to come. This took place on January 16, 2003. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have five copies of a media release issued by Red Deer publi c schools to table toda y. The release is about the looming staff reductions and class size increases which will result from a million-dollar shortfall that the school board is facing.

The chair of the school board, Ms Jefferies, expresses her frustration by saying, “It’s a terrible shame that this province, with all its wealth, cannot seem to find adequate funding for the education of our children.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. I’m tab ling a letter from Mr. Rolf Lehmann dated February 24, 2003, ad dressed to the Premier. Mr. Lehmann is very concerned with the tremendous rise in natural gas pr ices.

He dr aws the Premier’s attention to his election promise to shield Albertans from prices rising above $5.50 Canadian and is requesting the Premier to send him his rebate. The Speaker: Additional tablings? Hon. members, before calling Orders of the Day, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour for me to introd uce to you an d throu gh you to members o f t he Assembly two individuals in the members’ gallery.

They are Trish Vandermeer and Samuel, the lovely wife and handsome son of our esteemed colleague from Edmonton-Manning. I would ask that you would join with m e to give them t he traditiona l welcome of this Assembly and if they would please rise. Thank you. head : Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 11 Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move second reading of Bill 11, the Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003.

The Auditor General Act was originally passed in 1978. Apart from some minor changes it has not been subject to any significant amendments since. Our new Auditor General, Mr. Fred Dunn, has requested these amendments to add clarity to his role. The f irst proposed amendment, which is on page 1, number 2, of the bill , would provide for a statutory oath of office similar to other officers of the Alberta Legislature. Information in the custody of the Auditor General should not be dis closed outsi de the provisi ons of the Auditor General Act.

Having a legislated requirement for an oath of office would help e nsure that c lient infor mation obta ined by the Auditor General remains confidential. The second amendment, which is on page 1, number 3, of the act, corrects a draft ing error i n the origina l Auditor General Ac t. Replacing the references to the Lieutenant Governor in Council in

section 10(2)(

b) with the Executive Council and the President of the Executive Council respectively would make this

section consistent with

section 17(2), where the Auditor General can perform special duties at the request of the Executive Council. Next up is a housekeeping amendment that is on page 2, number 4, of the act to replace the reference to Provincial Treasurer with the Minister of Finance and remove some unnecessary wording. There are also a few other places later on w here Provincia l Treasurer is updated, on pages 9 and 10. The fourth proposed amendment on page 2, number 5, has several matters dealing with the access to information.

Section 14 currently gives the Auditor General needed access to information to complete audits for all organizations where he is appointed Auditor by statute; for example, government departments, regulated funds, and provin- cial agencies. It is proposed that

section 14 be amended to provide this same standard right of access to audit information and duty to co-operate with the auditor for other organizations where the Auditor General is appointed the auditor as permitted under

section 11(

b) of the Auditor General Act rather than th e statutory requirement. In addition, s ection 14 w ould also be a mended to clarify that t he Auditor General has appropriate access to information to fulfill other duties he has under the act, such as

section 15, to review the results of a Crown-controlled corporation’s audit.

Section 14 should also be amended to ensure t hat it applie s to former public employees, public officials, and personal service contractors. The

section would also be amended to ensure that any information provided to the Auditor G eneral duri ng an audi t, examination, or special duty should be privileged and not subject to disclosure. Again this ability to maintain control over confidential client information allows the Auditor General to properly consider and vet his recommendations and reports before they are disclosed to the public. T he Auditor G eneral shoul d not be com pelled to disclose confidential audit information in any court proceeding. The next amendment on page 3, number 6, of the act would be a proposed

section that the Auditor General may compel any individ- ual possessing information relevant to any audit or special duty of the Auditor General to attend before the Auditor General and answer his questions under oath. The Auditor General is the only legislative officer who does not have the power to compel evidence under oath. This amendment would bring us in line with the rest of Canada. Next, there are amendments to

section 17 on page 5, number 7, of the act to clarify the mechanics of how an Auditor General’s report on a special duty is to be presented to the Assembly. To date there has not been any problem i n tabling the se special reports, but the amendment just clarifies the process for the future. Finally, on page 5, num ber 8, of the act the amendments clarify how the Auditor General would distribute a report to Members of the

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 119 Legislative Assembly when the Hou se is not in session. Aga in, while this has not been a problem in the past, the amendment would add certainty to the process in the future. This package of amendments will assist the Auditor General in his role and contribute to our commitment to openness and accountabil- ity. I urge all Members of the Legislative Assembly to support this bill, the Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m really pleased to see this bill come before the Assembly, or at least certain parts of it. It’s long past time to see it, so I com mend the government in having followe d through on the r ecommendation of p revious auditors general to in fact make these changes. Just a couple of questions that I’d like to raise and comments that I’d like to make as we look at this bill in second reading. I heard the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview mention that there was contemplation of having the Auditor General have to sign an oa th similar to other legislative offices. My question is: why similar to? Why not exactly?

And how many of the other legislative offices are already required to do this, and which ones are n ot? That’s just a small bit of inf ormation, and b ecause the gov ernment has mor e resources than I do, they can do the work to find out the information. 2:50 I’m wondering what the concern is in asking that the A uditor General not disclose any information received by his off ice under this or any other act. What’s the concern? Is there a concern about speaking to the media? I’m assuming that it’s covered that he can report through the Public Accounts Committee.

I k now that the government puts these things in for a reason, and I’m looking more specifically for the reason behind that particular change. The second question I had. I’d like to know the history and the context of chang ing the se ction in w hich it talked about special warrants, and what’s been omitted is “for the fiscal year in which the special warrant is signed.” That’s now being omitted from the act, and I’m questioning why that’s the case. It doesn’t refer to the fiscal year. It si mply says that they would be regarded as a supply vote, and I’m curious as to why that has been done.

I’m pleased to see the addition of the Crown-controlled organiza- tions or other organizations. One presumes this is going to include some of the delegated administrative organizations over which the Auditor General is the auditor and see the inclusion of those into the act. Finally. We’ve been waiting for that one. Also the distinction of having “ present or f ormer . . . employ ees, p ublic officials or personal service contractors” also captured in the net of those who the Auditor General can ask for ex planations f rom.

It’s also capturing those same former or present employees from the Crown corporations and other DAOs. Again excellent. Really glad to see that. I think that the most important change that’s been proposed in this piece of legislation is the ability of the Auditor General by notice to require any person to come before him to give evidence under oath. This was sadly lack ing and much commented upon in the West Edmonton Mall scenario, and certainly the previous Auditor General had made it pretty clear that he felt he needed to be able to do that and was not able to.

Along with that is being a ble to com pel the production of written documents, records. There’s quite a bit i n here about c ontempt of court, t hat it’s regarded as a contempt of court if a witness fails to appear or fails to produce the records that are being asked for. Excellent. I think that if we’re going to be serious about this, then the legislation has got to have the teeth in it to do it. It does exclude previous auditors general from being called to give evidence relating to any rec ord or other information obtained by them when they were performing the job.

So there ar e some cas es, I think , that we ’re never going to k now about. I was hoping that a couple of other areas might get changed along with this. The Auditor Gene ral reports to the Public A ccounts Committee, which is , of cours e, an all- party c ommittee of t he Legislative Assembly.

My long-standing concern there is that the committee has historically restricted itself to meeting only while the session is sitting, and as we’re having fewer and fewer sitting weeks, we have fewer and fewer meetings in which we can meet with the Auditor General and as a committee scrutinize the public accounts of various ministries. So this year I expect we’ll get through about 11 out of som e 24 minis tries, which I thin k is a c oncern, and I continue to press for accommodation to be made for, in fact, both the Auditor General to be able to complete his job and for the committee to be able to complete theirs.

The way we have the Public Acco unts C ommittee in Alberta is shared by only one other in Canada. That’s wher e we go through ministry by ministry. All the other provinc es and territories work with their Audi tor Gene ral and m embers of t he opposition and members of the gov ernment to choose the issue they want to examine. Then all of the witnesses and the information are culled together, and the committee meets to scrutinize a particular issue or series of issues. We don’t do that in Alberta, and we may want to consider being able to do that in certain circumstances.

The other issue that I wanted to raise around the Auditor General and its relationship with the government was my concern over the number of times an Auditor General is having to repeat a recommen- dation before the gove rnment is in fact accepting it. If y ou look through the Auditor General’s report, even the most recent one, 2001-2002, between pages 11 and 18 it lists all of the numbered recommendations that are appearing in this year’s Auditor General’s report. Now, the numbered recommendations are the most important ones.

If y ou actually read throug h the docum ent, which I h ighly recommend, there are add itional u nnumbered recomm endations, which the Auditor General is careful to point out they’d still like to see done, b ut they’re not tracking the pe rformance of whether, in fact, they a re reac ted to. But t hey’re most c learly wanting the government to both react to and implement the numbered ones. I am really surprised by how many there are that are reading: we again recommend that the depar tment of so and so; we aga in recommend timing of approvals.

I mean, I haven’t counted this, but in each department up t o 50 percent of the recommendations have not been implemented by the government. You know, if we’re going to go to the effort and the commitment as a Legislative Assembly to put an Auditor General in place a nd charge them w ith certa in responsibilities, it seems to me that we should follow through on the work that the Auditor General then provides to us. To, I think, waste the time of the individual and the o ffice to have to k eep repeating and re-explaining what’s des ired is not a good use of that s et of resources.

So if the government is looking for a way to save some money, perhaps if they just implemented some of these recommenda- tions, we wouldn’t even need such a large Auditor General staff. So I’m looking forward to the re sponses to the questions tha t I have raised. As I say, I’m, I think, the longest serving member now of the current Public Acc ounts Committee. I’ve been on it seven years. [interject ion] I know; it is a badge of courage.

I am v ery pleased to see the se changes being implemented, parti cularly the ability to compel witnesses and require records and information to be produced and the inclusion of the Crown corporations and other agencies. Up to now there’s been a belief or an understanding or a

120 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 desire that certain agencies would be looked at, but, in fact , the Auditor General had no way to compel the organization to work with them, so this really is capturing everyone. Now if we could just get consolidated reports, which include things like the universities and the schools and som e of the other recommendations the Auditor General has been m aking to t he government for some tim e, then we’d be in much better shape.

But I’m quite pleased to see this legislation, and with the exception of the few questions and concerns I’ve raised, I am ha ppy to sup port this bill, which is Bill 11, the Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003, in se cond reading, and I know that a couple of my colleagues wish to speak to it as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:00 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I ris e to speak to Bill 11, Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003, in second reading. I just want to preface my comments on the bill by simply observing that something like this has been far overdue.

I’m glad that some action is being taken to pay attention to some of the recommendations that have come forward from the Auditor General’s office in the past. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The record with respect to how the government has responded to the recommendations that come down from the Auditor General has not been encour aging in the pas t. I just look at the per centage of recommendations that received a positive response and action from the government.

Starting in 1994-95, 8 percent of the recommenda- tions received any attention from the government; the following year 11 percent; i n 1996 -97, aga in 11 percent. Then thing s begin to improve a bit. I would like to acknowledge this. I n 1997-98 35 percent of the re commendations received some attention – no, not yet implemented. Sorry. I want to correct myself. The record has worsened, actually. In ’98-99 44 percent of the recommendations received no attention from the government. In 2001 67 per cent of the recommendations received absolutel y no atte ntion.

In 2 001- 2002 80 percent of the recommendations had not been implemented by the government. So it’s not a very encouraging record. That’s the context in which this House is looking at Bill 11. Bill 11 does take a few steps forward. Therefore, for that reason and for those aspects of the bill whi ch show s ome m ovement forward, I will be sup porting those sections of the bi ll.

The most important one, of co urse, is the recognition here that the Auditor General need s to ha ve the power s to co mpel wit nesses to co me before the Auditor General to provide information that is deemed appropriate or necessary by the Auditor General.

The ATB/W est Edm onton Mall inquiry that the the n Auditor General was requested to undertake showed a very glaring difficulty and problem with the existing legislation in that it revealed that the Auditor General had no powers to compel evidence that is of critical importance in sorting out the allegations and the matters of concern to Albertans, to the public, t o this Assembly. So the then A uditor General expressed his frustration for not being able to do the job that he was asked to do because of the w eaknesses and the gaps i n the existing legisl ation wi th res pect to the powers of the Auditor General.

So that o ne shortcoming of the exi sting legislation will have been addres sed if and when t his bill bec omes a law and is passed through the Assembly and receives royal assent. There are some other matters which are quite routine housekeep- ing types, you kno w, th at have been taken care of because of the changes in the titles of the m inisters. The Financ e minister is in place of the Treasure r. Th e chang es which have bee n made a re routine. The y don’t really require any debate. I’m glad that that housekeeping is being done as we speak. I draw attention to

Section 14.2, Noncompellable Witness, I think on page 4 of this bill. That raises some concern in my mind as to the reasons behind excluding from the list the former Auditor General and employees o f the of fice of the Auditor Genera l from being compelled if necessary in th e judgment o f t he current A uditor General to come befo re the Auditor General and give evidence. I think the public interest would be served best if the Auditor General is in fact given that a bility to compel former Auditor Generals or employees of the Auditor General’s department to be witnesses. So I need to really hear some sort of explanation and, indeed, a defence for the exclusion of the li st of people under

section 14.2. I’m not convinced that that’s a desirable feature of Bill 11. The fact that we’re making some progress in terms of implement- ing some rec ommendations and particularly this critical one, as I said, you know , the ability of the A uditor G eneral to compel witnesses to come before an inquiry held by the Auditor General, is certainly a positive ste p forwar d, and I wa nt to congra tulate the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview for including that in this bill.

I will have an opportunity for closer scrutiny of the bill as we move into the study of this bill in committee, and I’ll be considering making amendments to address the concerns that I have or may have from a closer reading of the bill at that point. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks for the moment. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise with a great deal of encouragement and hope when I see the bill the Auditor General Amendment Act, 2003, as introduced by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview.

Now, anything that can be done to imp rove the s crutiny or the me ans of sc rutiny that the Audit or General would have over the expenditures of this government I think is noteworthy and should be supported by all hon. members of this Assembly. Now, the idea that the Auditor General must take an oath of office before beginning hi s or her dutie s I guess would have merit. It certainly would have merit, but I don’t know if it is truly necessary that the Auditor General take an oath.

When you look at how much work the Auditor General has to do, I suppose taking a few minutes of his or her time to take an oath is harmless. When you consider that this is a government that has increased spending – and this is supposed to be a fiscally responsible, prudent government – by 50 per cent in just short order, that would be one reason why the Auditor General has his or her work cut out for them. Look at the increase in the cabinet portfolios; we’ve gone from 16, I believe, to 24.

And, you know, with the expansion of the cabinet portfolios you als o see the expansion of the de puty ministers, the assistant deputy ministers, this person, that person, so it increases the workload. There’s no doubt about it.

When you have this combina- tion of increased spending and increase in the size of government, then anything we can do to streng then the posit ion of the A uditor General must be supported by all members of this House. 3:10 Now, someti mes we f orget just exactl y wha t the role of the Auditor General is, but from my perspective on the Public Accounts Committee one can se e first hand the im portant rol e th e Auditor General has in the affairs of this province. We can go through and we can debate a budget , and the money can be spe nt, a nd so me

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 121 people forget about the amount of money that’s being spent and how it’s being spent, but not the Auditor General of Alberta and his staff. They work very hard, and the result of their hard work is, of course, the report that’s issued usually in the fall from their office respec- tively talking about each and every department. Mr. Speaker, when y ou look a t just prec isely what the Auditor General would do – let’s have a look at Infrastructure.

The Auditor General, of course , will go thr ough ever y depar tment, but let’s specifically look at Infrastructure and Bill 11 here as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. If it could help out the Auditor General in just one small measure in the annual look at how money is being spent in the Department of Infrastructure, then, again, let’s support it. Earlier this afternoon we talked about energy rebate programs and the role of Enron. Enron Direct Limited Partnership received a grant from Infrastructure of $756,000.

I was pleased to learn the details of this from the Premier, but the P remier, Mr. Speaker, may have been confused in rolling one fiscal year into the other. Either that or there was a restatem ent of balance sheets, because from three- quarters of a million dollars the figure was, I believe, $1.6 million or $1.46 million. It was in the din of question period, and it’s difficult to hear the other side, but there was a different amount. Certainly, if that’s not the correct amount then the Auditor General will check all that out and determine that this money went where it should have gone.

One need s to b e assured and have the confidence that that energy rebate program went to where it was intended. The hon. Government House Leader is anx ious to participate in the debate here. When we look at the energy rebate programs and what was said by the Auditor General in hi s last re port, it’s quite interesting. Cer- tainly, I appreciate the information as it was given this afternoon by the government. It’s one of the very few time s that I’ve had the opportunity of asking a question and I actually got a detailed answer. It’s a historic day, Mr. Speaker. Energy rebate programs. I’m going to quote, Mr.

Speaker, from the Auditor General’s report. During 2000-2001, the Ministry introduced the Natural Gas, Propane and Fuel Oil Rebates prog ram as w ell as the M arket Transition Credit Program. The total exp enditure for these pro- grams during 2000-2001 was $790 million. Payments in the fiscal year 2001-2002 to the end of July totaled $197 million. The natural gas, propane, and fuel oil rebates were given in respect of the four- month period January to April 2001.

Now, the Auditor Genera l mentions in here tha t a consulti ng company was e ngaged “ to adminis ter certain e lements of the program,” and there was an audit done of the expenditures from the natural gas, propane, and fuel oil rebate p rogram. The A uditor General recognizes here that th e program was e nding. How ever, there were some recommendations and observations made.

These recommendations “reflect principles of good business practice and should be considered in the design and administration of any new program,” and I can only imagine that what must be holding up the natural gas rebates program now is the government trying to get a good handle on this and following the Auditor General’s recommen- dations so that they can make sure that every penny – every penny – goes to those who are in need of it and qualify.

The Auditor Gen eral is recommend ing t hat “changes to grant criteria be approved in writi ng by the Minister prior to any grants being paid pursuant to the changed criteria.” The Auditor General is also recommending that the ministry “keep minutes of meetings to provide evidence of decisions and pre vent los s of knowledge that could be useful in other programs.” Now, this report goes on to say – and this is why it’s so important that we strengthen the role of the Auditor Genera l in this prov ince, and thi s is why I’m g oing t o support the hon. member’s bill.

The Minister of Infrastructure issued two Mini sterial Orders delegating to ce rtain Mi nistry offic ials th e autho rity to pay the natural gas, pr opane and fuel oil r ebates according to the criteria attached to those Minister ial Orders. While the Ministry was putting the program into effect, it identified a number of issues that resulted in changes to the cri teria. The Minister did n ot approve these changes in writing until May 16, 2001, w hen amend ed Ministerial Orders w ere issue d.

Accordingl y, an y grants made before the change cr iteria w ere imple mented on May 16, 2001 (when they were officially implemented by the Ministerial Orders) were unauthorized to the extent that they were inconsistent with, or in excess o f the limits pre scribed by, the criteria in the or iginal orders dated February 12, 2001. For the hon.

Government House Leader to somehow think that my questions earlier regarding Enron were out of order or whatever – I mean, whenever you look at the Auditor General’s report, perhaps I’m not diligent enough in my work and perhaps I should have had an opportunity t o ask m any more questions re garding this rebate program and who got the money. Certainly, the Auditor General is very, very concerned, and we need, each and every one of us, to take this annual report home with us.

I can be quite confident that this is on the Mini ster of Infrastructure’s best-seller list and he c ertainly does read the Auditor General’s report page to page, cover to cover. I would encourage not only members of Executive Council but all hon. members of this Assembly to ke ep a keen e ye on w hat the Auditor General is telling us in the annual report. 3:20 Now, the Auditor General also has some comments regarding the monthly re porting proce ss for uti lity com panies.

T he Auditor General recommends that the Ministry of Infrastructure establish an appropriat e monthly reporting process for utility companies to ensure that payments to consumers comply with Mini sterial Orders and expenses are properly recorded in the accounts. The majorit y of t he r ebates tha t occurred before w ere paid to consumers through monthly billings of utility companies. One only has to look at the public accounts. It’s another document that makes for a great read, and I can’t wait for the next year of public accounts documents to be table d in t he Assem bly by the hon. Ministe r of Finance.

They’re very interesting reading, and they’re an accurate snapshot of where every tax dollar in this province is going. I don’t know how, for instance, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business feels about this, but I think that if they are not, they should read those public accounts in great detail.

When we look at the rebate program again and we realize that the ministry made advance payments to utility companies – the system of internal control did not monitor payments by utility companies – and we find out that the minister is developing an audit proce ss to check the validity of payments made by utility companies, I certainly hope that process is finished and we can look for some sort of price protection fo r Alberta consumers.

I’m sure the departm ent has complied with the Auditor General’s recommendations here and we can have a r ebate pr ogram for those Albertans w ho are not as fortunate as us in this Assembly, who receive yearly increases in our annual salaries, and particularly those people on fixed incomes can look forward, under the guidance of the Auditor General, to a natural gas rebate program. The Acting Speaker: Hon. member, the time has run out. Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member as he went on about the gas rebate program and how it all evolved and the very important role that the Auditor General played in the

122 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 auditing and the comments that the A uditor General made, but the hon. member’s comments would tend to have one believe that there was somethi ng wrong with the payment to Enron and t hat it somehow didn’t fit. Now, I would ask the hon. member if in fact he is indicating that there was some money going to Enr on that the y were not entitled to and that the homeo wners that received that money via Enron were not deserving of those funds, as he seemed to be indicating. Mr. MacDonald: I guess that commentary was posed as a question, Mr. Speaker? The Acting Speaker: Yes.

Under Standing Order 29 we have five minutes. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Certainly, if the hon. minister had been listening carefully to what I had said initially, firstly, in the fiscal plan that has been outlined in the public accounts that ended in March of 2001, Enron received a payment of three-quarters of a million dollars from the Department of Infrastructure.

Now, the Premier earlier today in question period indicated that that payment was well over a million dollars, and in the noise that was go ing on here in question per iod I could not determine if it w as $1.4 mi llion or $1.6 m illion or wha tever t he amount was, but the amount was certainly greater than this. I gave the Premier the benefit of the doubt in my remarks because I thought that surely it must have b een over two fiscal years because public accounts ends from one year to the next at the end of March.

We’ll only have to wait and we’ll see what occurs next year, and perhaps there will be an additional $750,0 00 or $600,00 0 to Enron Direct Limited Partnership in the public accounts. I’m willing to wait. I’m willing to have the patience in that measure. As far as the whole energy rebate program goes, it’s the Auditor General that has que stions, and I believe the Auditor General has every right to question and to observe what they audit in a minister’s department. The Auditor General is pointing out some very valid concerns.

I certainly hope that before the nex t energy rebate program comes – and I certainly hope it does come – all the wrinkles that were in this fi rst progra m are ironed out. Surely you’ve had time since we’ve seen the price spike in natural gas r ebates to do something about it. Thank you. Mr. Lund: As a follow-up to my original question I believe the hon. member is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and he certainly just indicated that either he is not doing his job as chairman of Public Accounts or their money is being wasted. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that there was more than one cheque to Enron, and anybody that knows anything about the program knows full well that there were a number of payments in the program and then at the end of it there was a reconciliation of all of the accounts done to make sure that in fact the money went to the people that were entitled to the funds. Of course, the comments that the Auditor General made are very valid, and we take their comments very seriously and do rectify any areas that the Auditor General might think are wrong.

So I guess my question to the hon. member would be: does he see any value in continuing this exercise of public accounts? Mr. MacDon ald: Yes, to the hon. Minister of Infra structure, I certainly see a validity in public accounts, and I would be willing to share with the hon. minister . . . [Mr. MacDonald’s speaking time expired] The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, unfortunately, the only time that we’ve allocated is five minutes for this Standing Order 29, and that has left us. The hon. Membe r for Edm onton-Beverly-Clareview to close debate. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to thank the opposition for their comments and questions in regard to Bill 11, the Auditor Genera l Ame ndment A ct, 2003. The questio ns wi ll be answered I guess in Committee of the Whole, and thanks again for your positive comments. I urge all members to vote in favour of this legislation, and I call for the question. [Motion carried; Bill 11 read a second time] Bill 8 Health Foundations Act Repeal Act The Acting Speaker: The hon. Minister for Health and Wellness. Mr. Mar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1996 we enacted the Health Foundations Act at the request of health authorities so that they could set up agent of the Crown foundations to help them with fund- raising. These founda tions al lowed healt h autho rities to take advantage of fe deral tax incentive s for donat ions to th e Crown. Those tax ince ntives were removed by the f ederal government in 1997. All of the foundations are now disbanded, and the regulations that established them have already expired. So Bill 8, the Heal th Foundations Act Repeal Act, removes this obsolete legislation from the books.

Bill 8 does not affect other health authority fund-raising bodies. The regional health authorities foundations’ regulations are outside of the legislation that is being repealed by this amendment act. Under the r egional health authoriti es’ foundation regulation regions will continue to operate their own foundations, and they will continue to operate foundations that the former hospital districts had established under the Hospitals Act. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House for support for Bill 8 with the confidence that this support will not affect regional fund-raising efforts. Mr.

Speaker, it’s my pleasure now to adjourn debate on this. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 3:30 Bill 4 Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003 The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I t’s my pleasure to move second reading of Bill 4, the Alberta Personal Income Tax Amend- ment Act, 2003. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the introduction of this bill, this is a fairly straightforward bill that primarily has to do with housekeep- ing amendments to the a ct to bring i t into conformity with federal legislation.

Members, if I could just take a few minutes to go through a little bit of information on the act, then I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions that arise, if any, during the committee stage of debate.

Hon. members, the proposed amendments do the following: clarify rules for calculating the tax liability of various individuals, clarify that total gifts claimed in Alberta for a year are equal to the amount claimed federally for that y ear, ensure that A lbertans r eceive the intended amounts for the royalty rebate, and increase the equity of the tax system by ensuring that residents of other provinces are not treated less fairly than nonresidents of Canada.

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 123

Section 6 amendments clarify rules for calculating the tax liability of various individuals, including ensuring that nonresidents are only taxed on the taxable income they earn in Canada and simplifying the rules for cal culating t he tax lia bility of deceased individuals. A number of amendments are consequential to changes in the federal act and are required as a result of the tax collection agreement. Other amendments, in particul ar those made to sections 1, 5, 38, and 39, are consequential to the amendments to

section

Section 11 amendments clarify that the total gifts in any tax year for provincial purposes are equal to the total gifts that are claimed in that year for federal purposes. Amendments to

section 25 are consequential to amendments that were made to

section 48, the minimum tax provisions, in the spring of 2002, a nd amendments to sec tion 48 resulte d in the val ue of royalty tax rebates for minim um taxpayers bei ng sm aller than intended. The amendments to this

section will rectify this situation. We also want to ensure that residents of other Canadian provinces will receive t he f ull political donations credit and royalty rebate. Currently the legislation allows nonresiden ts to c laim the full amounts of these credits but only allows residents of other provinces to claim a prorated amount. Finally, ame ndments to

section 42 will clarify the order an individual must use when applying for various credits to their tax liability. I ask members of the Assembly to support Bill 4. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I have two questions, please, for the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, and the first is in light of the comments from the Minister of Infrastruc- ture. The Acting S peaker: Hon. member, the prov isions of S tanding Order 29 don’t apply to the mover. I recognized you to speak on the bill. Mr. MacDonald: Oh, goodness.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was just anxious to ask some questions. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do have a few brief comments here on Bill 4, the Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003, a nd I do thank the hon. Membe r for Medicine Hat for sponsoring thi s particular bil l. As he has men- tioned, the object of this bill introduces amendments to provincial legislation to bring it into harmony with federal personal income tax legislation. Just by way of background t o Bill 4, Mr.

Speaker, there was an Alberta Personal Income Tax Am endment Act that was p assed as Bill 21 duri ng the session in the spring of 2002. This bill added a subsection (6), dealing with the provision for taxing Canadians who live outside of Alberta a proportion of the taxation year, to

section 6, Amount of Tax Payable, of the original act. Now, then, as we ll, Mr. Speak er, the m ajority of am endments being presented in Bill 4 are modifications to the existing act for the purpose of clarifying the language, making this act consistent with the federal act, and making this act consistent with itself. Be cause of its nature and because it is a housekeeping bill, we certainly will support this bill. I would als o like to note i n the discuss ion here today , Mr. Speaker, that there are only two significant changes found in Bill 4. The first change is that subsection (7) is added to

section 6, Amount of Ta x Payabl e, and the a dditional subse ction outlines how the Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act should be read in the case of an individual who died during the calendar year. In that case, taxes will be calculated based on income earned during the taxation year. Now, as well, a second significant change to Bill 4, the A lberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003, is a change to

section 39, Business I ncome in Albert a. This s ection, Mr. Spe aker, falls under division 5, R estrictions on Credits, and Bill 4 removes political contributions and royalty tax rebates from the calculation that determines the m aximum amount tha t can be de ducted under various s ections in the Alberta Personal Incom e Tax Act. T his change will likely impact the amount available for deductions. Now, then, as well, Mr.

Speaker, there are other matters that this particular bill does intr oduce and does speak a bout, but t hese ar e quite minimal and really should not require an awful lot of debate, and I do look forward when we do get into Committee of the Whole to make some more comments at that time. So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I’ll cede the floor to any others that wish to make some comments on Bill 4. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, just for your clarification the five minutes allocated under Standing Order 29 do not apply to the first two speakers. They apply to subsequent speakers. Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, are you rising to speak on the bill? Mr. MacDonald: Yes, please. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you ve ry much, Mr. Spea ker. I w ill be brief at this time. I have t wo questions in r egard to B ill 4, the Alberta Personal Incom e Tax Amendment Act, 2003, for the hon. member, and if they’re answered in committee or in the routine of the debate, that’s fine.

Earlier in the hon. member’s remarks the member stated that we have to ensu re that Albertans receive the intended amounts for the royalty rebate, and I am hopeful that we could get a clarification on this, please. What precise ly are w e talking about here t o ensure Albertans receive the intended amounts for the royalty rebate? If I could get some clarification on that, I would be very grateful. Also, in regard to I believe it’s

section 39, how will this change, if at all, the way political contributions in this province are dealt with? Those are my questions, and in the normal course of debate, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will await an answer. Thank you. 3:40 The Acting Speaker: Standing Order 29 kicks in now. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat to close debate. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I’ve listened to th e com- ments and questions of the members who have spoken on this bill, and while I could probably answer most of the questions today, I think it’s probably most appropriate to wait until the bill comes back to the House i n the com mittee stage, and I’ll ha ve much m ore detailed answers prepared. At this point, then, I would ask that we call the question on Bill 4. [Motion carried; Bill 4 read a second time]

124 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 Bill 9 Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate February 24: Mr. Cardinal] The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks ve ry much, Mr. Speaker. This bill was introduced very briefly last night by the minister responsible. At this point my understanding is that there is support in princ iple for the bill.

It has thre e purposes: to man date a unique identifier code to help with the tracking and enforcement of e xploration projec ts, equipment, and compa nies; to al low inspec tors of e xploration projects to increase their scop e of work. It allows the adoption of codes from other industries into the exploration regulations, and it’s also allowing the minister to issue stop orders. So this amendment is really only dealing with the exploration part of the larger Mines and Min erals A ct. As I said, we’re e xpecting to support this, although there ar e a fe w rese rvations t hat have been brou ght forward.

It does give some good clarification of the act, and it’s also giving sharper teeth to the enforcement of the act. If there’s one thing that I hear about sort of consistently in this area from my constituents is that they don’t understand why something would happen and why no one knew about it, and a big part of that is monitoring and enforce- ment. I know that when the government looked to lay off a number of government staff to have smaller government, I don’t think people recognized that the first people to go would be those frontline staff who provided the monitoring and enforcement work for the depart- ment.

So I’m pl eased to s ee that the re is a s tronger enfor cement coming back in here with more power g oing to the inspectors and also allowing the minister to issue stop orders if necessary. It is also mandating, as I said, the unique identifier code, which should benefit again the monitoring and enforcement and the administration of the act. Where we h ave is sues wi th the am endment i s the autom atic adoption of codes from other indu stries, which we think could be problematic. There are too many references to regulations which are not spelled out. The contents are not known.

So we’re saying: well, we’ll happily accept all of this, but what exactly are we accepting, and what’s in the other r egulations that are being linked to th is or added on or accepted? There is an additional concern that the minister is empowered to exempt almost anything from the act a nd its regul ations. I w ould hope that the g overnment wouldn’t take this to the extreme, but it has happened before wher e we ha ve a m inister tha t can ex empt virtually anything, then they do, and I think that that rather under- mines the purpose of the whole act. So we have to be very careful about how that pow er is use d.

I think the re’s a positive side t o what’s being proposed here. We just have some reservations about the escape clauses, the ability of the minister to exempt things, and this inclusion of references to regulations from other industries into these exploration codes. There are a number of sections in the bill that are mostly house- keeping, which is appropriate. I know that the government has been attempting to go back and look over its legislation and try and update it, and that’s a very positive thing, I think.

Certainly, I’ve been one to complain in the Assembly before that the legislation is antiquated in some cases because nobody has ever checked it or updated it. So I’m pleased to see that there is some updating here, a bit of house- cleaning and housekeeping going on, things like updating the name and including the name of the former act where it needed to be. That sort of thing needs to come through the Assembly , but I recognize that it is, in fact, just housekeeping.

There are sections here that talk about giving the cabinet consent to reconsider “decisions of t he Minister [regarding] t his Act, the regulations or an agreement.” This is not a major change, but it is an explicit reference to the ability of cabinet to reconsider the decisions as the next logical step after reviewing the decisions. So reviewing the decisions of the minister. We’re also looking at changes that allow the minister to exempt operations being defined as exploration rather than devolving this power to a regulation.

So we wonder why any operation would be allowed to be exempted from their rightful definition of exploration, but it’s not that big an issue here. I think the real issue is: why is the power being giv en to th e minist er rather than to the regulations? Shouldn’t these decisions be accountable to cabinet? We have some tweaking of words in certain sections. I do notice that in one subsec tion the m inister is be ing allowed to “exempt a person who prop oses . . . explora tion from the require ment” of operating with an approved exploration program. We’re wondering why.

I’m look ing for jus tification from the gove rnment on t his change. Surely, if there is a person who is proposing an exploration, they should be operating within an approved exploration program. Why would they be separated from it or exempted from it? So I’m looking for why this has been brought forward and proposed. I’m just looking t o see if we hav e any ot her reall y expl icit concerns, and I’m not seeing that many.

As I say, I think it’s a good idea to u pdate i t, t o cl arify the lan guage, c ertainly, to al low for stronger monitoring and enforcement, and I’m particularly pleased to see the stronger enforcement provisions, but I do have concerns whenever we’v e got a m inister tha t can operate un ilaterally, particularly to excuse an individual or a company from the require- ments that everybody else is expected to conform to.

That becomes a question of equality then, and in understanding the government’s constant talking about level playing fields and free market forces and all of that, I think the point is that it’s supposed to be an equal opportunity for ev eryone to compete and th rive. But if y ou start taking some organizations or individuals off to one side and saying, “You get special treatment because you don’t have to conform to this particular regulation,” then we’ve got a problem. It has to be pretty clear why that agency or individual is being allowed not to have to conform.

I think it should be public and well publicized if there’s a good reason for doing this, but I’ve yet to hear the explanation from the government as to unde r what c ircumstances or s ituations they would be exp ecting to make use of that particular provision in the legislation. Now, I know that o ur critic is looking forward to making addi- tional comments on this as soon as she is available to do so, but at this point I’m happy to have had the opportunity to speak briefly in second reading on Bill 9, the Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 2003. Thank you. 3:50 The Acting Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One has a quick look at Bill 9, the Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 2003, and certainly there are questions for the hon. Member for West Yellowhead and the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. One looks at this, and one has to wonder if these changes are being made to accommodate the further development of the diamond industry in northern Alberta, and perhaps this would even be of some assistance in accommodat- ing potential development of the coal bed methane industry in this province. Now, I have questions regarding this legislation.

When you think

February 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 125 that the Minister of Energy is talking in the newspapers ab out diamonds being his be st friend, certainly it’s not electricity prices and deregula tion. We s ee the suc cess of the diam ond mining industry in the Northwest Territories and some of the potential for development here, the enthusiasm the hon. Member for Whitecourt- Ste. Anne has for that industry to develop north and a little bit east of Whitecourt.

I certainly hope that this establish ment has not become a victim of globalization, but at the Blue Ridge tavern there are some r egulars there w ho have for 20 years predicted that diamond mining will be a viable industry in this province, M r. Speaker. I certainly hope that they are right. Getting back now to coal bed methane, I don’t know if this bill is addressing this specifically or not. It is difficult to develop coal bed methane where there are large holdings of private land.

If someone on the government side of the House could explain the definition of private lands here and if this definition is an attempt to iron out the difficulties there will be for coal bed methane production. [The Speaker in the chair] In southern Alberta there are certain companies doing testing on coal bed methane production. I was hoping at one time to visit one of those test sites, but my hop es we re dashed w hen the public relations person from that company sa id: “Thanks, but no thanks. We don’t want to see you there on our property.

You can certainly meet with some of the people or talk to them by telephone.” Ms Blakeman: Did they run you off? Mr. MacDonald: Well, they didn’t exactly run me off; they didn’t invite me, in the first place, to run me off. They were lukewarm to the idea, and I was s ort of disappointed because I thought that the more anyone knows about the de velop- ment and the potent ial of c oal bed m ethane in this prov ince, the better off all parties would be. Certainly, this was top secret, as far as I was concerned, and I thought: oh, well, if you’re going to be that way, I’ll just go to the Internet.

I did, and I was surprised to learn of some of the suc cess st ories of coal bed m ethane and s ome of the problems. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if Bill 9 is the legislative route to deal with those problems. Certainly, when you consider what we can do here – and I’m not suggesting for a minute that the Minister of Energy or any other minister in this province, as a matter of fact, would adapt codes that are used for the production of coal bed methane in the Powder River basin by our neighbours to the south. Water is just drawn off those coal bed methane deposits and left on the surface. Now, the hon.

Member for West Yellowhead may think that that’s a good idea, but I’d bet many of the constituents out there would not, that water just left on the surface. It’s not working out in America, and I can’t see how it would work here. But there may be a good potential use for that water, and that would be to enhance oil recovery. We’ve discussed this in this Assembly before.

If we were to simply adopt the code that is occ urring in the Powder River basin, I think we would be looking at an environmen- tal nightma re, but perha ps this gov ernment has other pl ans and they’ve got some sound solutions to the problem of that water just being left on the surface. A large percentage of that water cannot be used for anything, really, because, unfortunately, it has virenium, it has mercury, and it has traces of arsenic in it.

So to leave it on the surface is not the answer, even though you can in the short term get this increase in natural gas production through the use of the coa l bed methane. I’m told in estim ates debates here last spring that 8 perc ent of America’s lower 48 production is coming from coal bed methane, and it looks like we’re going to have the same potential here. With a little bit of research and thought I think we may be a ble to avoid some of the mistakes that have been made to the south of us as far as the environment is concerned.

Now, if the intent of this bill w ith these amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act is to facilitate the further development of the coal bed me thane industry, well, then, certainly that has merit. Mr. Speaker, when one also considers the diamond industry in this province, and if it’s in its infancy, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, then it is something that we have to foster and en courage but not for one moment at the sake of the environment. I have the same cautions that were echoed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre, a nd that is tha t one would ha ve to keep an eye on the discr etionary powers that have been left to the minister. Ministerial power has been known, unfortunately, to be not in the interests of all those concerned. With those questions regarding the Mines and Minerals Amend- ment Act, Bill 9, I shall cede the floor to another collea gue of the Assembly. Thank you. 4:00 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, my under- standing, sir, is that you’ve already spoken. Is this not correct? Mr. Bonner: To Bill 9? No, I haven’t, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: No? Okay.

My information is wrong. Please proceed. Mr. Bonner: This is to speak. If there are questions wit h respect to . . . The Speaker: First of all we’re going to deal with the questions that would be in ord er. Are there qu estions for the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Gold Bar? Then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill 9, the Mines and Minerals Amend- ment Act, 2003.

It is a bill that is sponsored by the Ministe r of Sustainable Resource Development, and I think it’s a ver y timely bill, particularly, in fact, for the reasons that were outlined in a letter that I tabled here today by the N orthern Oilf ield Contrac tors Association. We are having these difficulties in northern Alberta right now. As the hon. Membe r for Edm onton-Gold Bar has indica ted, with the potential of huge diamond mines in northern Alberta – certainly their geologic exploration has indicated the presence of kimberlite, which of course is the ore from which we mine diamonds.

Kimberlite is present in a numbe r of areas in northern Alberta, and certainly for the benefit of all Albertans and particularly the residents of northern Alberta I think it is essential that we do have some type of legislation in place which is going to try to eliminate the pro blems that we currently ar e encounter ing in norther n Alberta . I know that all parties that are involved with these difficulties are certainly working hard to come to some sort of a reasonable solution that will benefit all parties.

When we look at Bill 9, the Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, it does have a number of highlights which I think are very proactive, which will certainly give guidelines to the people who are going to be puttin g in the ef fort and the companie s that are going to be developing sus tainable resources in the provinc e. It w ill be pro-

126 Alberta Hansard February 25, 2003 active to th e poi nt th at, h opefully, a l ot of d ifficulties wi ll be eliminated and the dev elopment of these resource s can conti nue uninterrupted. One of the high lights that I was particularly glad to see in t his piece of legi slation, Mr. Speaker, was tha t this wi ll allow for the mandating of a unique identifier code that will help the monitoring and tracking of exploration projects and equipment. In the sparsity of northern Alberta this would certainly be a great asset.

Now, then, as w ell, this pa rticular bill will allow ins pectors unencumbered access to exploration sites. Certainly, for the benefit of many concerns that we do have surrounding exploration sites, this will give Albertans a knowledge that people are on the scene that will take care of all saf ety and environmental concerns that they have. As well, I see that Bill 9, Mr. Spea ker, al lows the adoption of codes wholesale into regulations, and once again we see that this will allow certainly a pretty tightfisted approach whe n it come s to the monitoring of wha t is happening .

This bill will al so allow the minister to issue a stop order on exploration projects. Once again, I think that this is a very good highlight of the bill. Any time these inspectors do come up with irregularities that they are not in support of, in this particular case it will allow the minister the power to issue a stop order on exploration projects. Now, then, I see a couple of other highlights here. This bill will delegate much power to unknown regulations, and once again I do have some concerns when we start pu tting a lot of legislation into regulations.

Certainly, at so me poin t many of these should be debated on the floor of this Assembly, and all parties in the province should have knowled ge o f them. As w ell, I would like to hear additional debate, Mr. Speaker, and certainly further clarification on the highlight t hat this par ticular bill has pr ovisions so that the minister can exempt pretty much any project from regulations. That to me raises a red flag, that we do have to have a situation where we do not have the se types of pow ers in the h ands of one particular person. When the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre was going through the bill, she did some analysis, and there were a few points that she was unable to make . I would li ke to cont inue where sh e left off, particularly under

section 6(a). We are a little confused as to what is really going on in this particular subsection. Certainly, once we do get into Committee of the Whole, we will have the opportunity to get greater clarification, so I won’t go into that too far at this point. There is no easily discernable subject of the sentence, which makes it virtually impossible to interpret. It would appear that cabinet will make regulations “respecting the research, testing, authorization or approval” of products described in the regulations. Essentially, Mr.

Speaker, the government is setting up a program which would hav e far-reaching powers a s to what techniques and encryption can be used for exploration in Alberta. You know, this again gets back to a discussion we had during question period today as to: what do we do when it comes down to technologies? We see, for example, with hazardous wastes that we have old te chnologies which use incin eration, and certa inly that is not a state- of-the-art type of procedure for disposing of hazardous wastes.

There a re newer technologies in inciner ation, and we would like to see that they would be included in this particular bill and that any minister would not be able to say which technologies are u sed an d wh ich aren’t. As well, in se ction 6(

b) w e want t o look at w hether or not t his subsection sh ould a