December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1957 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, December 1, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/12/01 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon and welcome. Let u s pray . Our Fathe r, keep us mindful of the spe cial and unique opportunity w e have t o work f or our constitue nts and our province, and in that work give us strength and wisdom. Amen. Now would you please remain standing, hon. members, and join in the singing o f our nationa l anthem. We’ll be led today by Mr. Paul Lorieau, and would a ll participa te in the la nguage of their choice. Hon.

Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

The Speaker: Please be seated. head : Statement by the Speaker Chamber Sound System The Speaker: Before we commence, hon. members will know and were made aware of the difficulties we experienced on Thursday last with the sound system which resulted in no sound being available to our television broadcast on Access TV and the difficulty that we had with our Internet video and audio services and over the loudspeaker system throughout the Legislature Building and the Annex.

In light of the uncer tainty as to the abil ity to re pair the sound system before t he start of the House bus iness today , we’ve had officials from Alberta Infrast ructure w ork dilige ntly ove r the weekend with staff f rom the Alberta Leg islative Assem bly to implement a backup sound system for the balan ce of this sitting. Members will note that there are m icrophones on each de sk and speakers at the corner of the Chamber. I would like to advise hon. members that there’s no need to press the white button even though it’s a natural response f or everybody to w ant to press the white button. There’s no need.

We have a system that has been repaired. This is a backup system. If required, it would require about a five- minute recess, and that would only be declared if necessary, should the original system break down again. I want to thank all the Hansard staff, who had the onerous task of producing the Hansard, and I also want to thank the officials from the Department of A lberta Infrastructure who spent the w eekend assisting to work out this particular process. So, once again, the microphone system on your desk is a backup system. The original syst em is i n place. H opefully it’ll function.

There’s no need to press the white button. Thank you very much for your indulgence. head : Introducti on of Visit ors Mr. Jonson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased t o introduce to y ou and through you to members of the Ass embly Mr. Hans-Michael Schwandt, consul general of the Republic of Germany who resides in Vanc ouver. He i s acco mpanied today by his wif e, Dr. He idi Schwandt-Boden, Mr. Fritz Koenig, honorary consul of the Republic of Germany in Edmonton, and Mrs. Barbara Koenig. Mr. Speaker, almost $750 million in bilateral trade flows back and forth between Alberta and Germany each year.

In recognition of the level of trade, tourism, and investment between Alb erta and Germany an Alberta office was opened in Munich two years ago, and Alberta and the German state of Sax ony have f orged a special relationship through a co-operation agreement. The government of Alberta appreciates the diligent work of the consular representatives and their contribution to ensuring Alberta continued success in the global marketplace. I would ask that our honoured guests please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My constitu- ency of Fort Mc Murray is considered the oil sa nds capital of the world or, as the Minister of Finance says, the jewel of the north. It’s my pleasure today to introduce two proud Albertans. One of them happens to be the cha irman o f the Canadian Council of Chief Executives from all over Canada. Of course, his company, again, is part of the billions of dollars that are taking place in the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo. I’d like to ask the CEO of Suncor, Rick George, and his vice-president, Pat O’Reilly, to stand.

They’re here today visiting the Legislature, and I’m proud to say that they truly are a living example of the Alberta advantage. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we speak of the City of Champions, of course everybody immediately thinks of Edmonton and immediately thinks sport s. I’m pleased and proud t o tell you today that we also have ch ampions in the arts. One of those champions is with us today.

I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a friend and a longti me good friend and associate of my wife, Janet. Mr. Glen Huser is an author having three published novels, including the book Stitches, for which on Novem ber 10 he rec eived the Gover nor G eneral’s award for children’s literature. M y colleague from Edmonton-Meadowlark will bring a recognition later on in our agenda, but I’d like to ask award-winning author and Edmonton champion Glen Huser to rise in the members’ gallery and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Mr.

Huser is accompanied by his mother, Mrs. Bea Huser. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Edmonton-Castle Downs has taken over the galleries today, so I will ask for your grace in allowing me a little bit more time. I have 60 visitors from Lorelei elementary school who are being accompanied by Mr. Mark George and Brad Gibson, teachers of the grade 6 classes over there. I had the pleasure of visit ing those c lasses, and their k nowledge on municipal, provincial, and federal politics was just astonishing, and that’s coming from another teacher.

So I would ask them to rise and accept the warm welcome of this Assembly today. Also, Mr. Speaker, I have today in the building but perhaps not in the gallery at this point Lorelei playschool, a fabulous group of 36 visitors, 24 students a nd 12 adults, w ho have cont ributed to our

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031958 Christmas decorations in this L egislature and have decorated Christmas trees in the pedway. I would like to thank them for their attendance and ask them to accept the gracious warm welcome of this Assembly today.

Last but definit ely not l east, I ha ve a ve ry valuab le constituent with u s today, a gentleman w ho is literally a jack-of-all-trades, volunteering his time to many not-for-profit groups in Edmonton- Castle Downs, who definitely is one of m y biggest assets with the Castle Downs PC Association, and who was a tremendous asset in my being able to appear ov er here before y ou, Mr. Speak er. His name is Mr. Colin Brown, a fine gentleman indeed. I would like to ask him to rise and accept your warm welcome as well. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, indeed, a pleasure for me today to introduce to y ou and thro ugh you to m embers of the Assembly 33 bright and active students from Coronation sch ool. Accompanying them today is their teacher, Arlyn Belden, and parent helpers Mark Sulz, Dee Bochar, Karen Bielech, Cara Lee Stevenson. In additio n, accom panying the class is an em ployee of visit or services, tour guide Mrs. Diane Thomas, who is a tireless volunteer in the community of Glenora. When a job is asked to be done in our community, everybody turns to Mrs. Thomas.

So I w ould ask the group to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’m very honoured to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a very wonderful and important family from Red Deer-North. I know that most of you will recognize the president of the provincial PC Party, Mr. Chris W arren, who has worked exceptionally hard this year to keep the party in tune and on track with Albertans.

And we know that behind every successf ul man there’s an even greater woman. Chris is here today with his lovely wife, Sandy, to whom I would like to s ay: thank y ou very much f or all the s upport and encouragement that you give to Chris, because that makes us better too. With Chris and Sandy today are their two children, Mitchell and Natalie. Mitchell is 11 years old, in grade 6 at Central middle school, and Natal ie is sev en years old, in gr ade 2 at G randview elementary. They are here today on a family trip to observe how government operates, because Mitchell is in g rade 6 and s tudying government.

We wish you a very enjoyable visit, and we hope that Mitchell will be able to take a great r eport back to his classroom. They’re in the members’ gallery, and I would ask you all to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. 1:40 Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour to introduce to you and thr ough you to m embers of this A ssembly 25 students who are situated in the members’ gallery. They are participants in School at the Legislature. They are here today. T hey at tend Keenooshayo school in St. A lbert.

The y are seated w ith their teacher, Mrs. Barb Hubbard, and they are accompanied by the parent of one of the students, Mr. Darwin Switner. I would ask them all to please stand and re ceive t he traditiona l warm welcom e of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Today it is m y honour to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly a man who is very well known and well resp ected in northern A lberta. W e are joined today by Chief Archie Waquan from the Mikisew Cree First Nation from Fort Chipewyan.

He’s here in opposition to Bill 49 and to share his concerns. Please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Robe rta Allen and Kevyn Cormack. They are here today to witness me table a letter on their behalf later in the procee dings. They are sea ted in the public gallery, and I would now ask that they rise an d receiv e the tradi tional wa rm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a gentleman who is visiting today from Grande Prairie, Mr. Art Macklin. Mr. Macklin operates a grain and beef farm with his wife and son at DeBolt in the Peace River area. This farm was created from a bush homestead in 1964. Mr. Mack lin is a f ormer pr esident of the National Farmers’ Union and was elected three tim es to four-year terms representing farmers on the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee.

He was re-elected last year to a second four-year term on the Cana dian Whea t Board’s boa rd of direc tors on a str ong single-desk pl atform, repr esenting approximately 8,000 Albert a wheat and barley farmers in district 1 of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would ask Mr. Macklin to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main que stion. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Electricity Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bad public policies on health care, on e ducation, on soa ring auto insurance costs, and on energy deregulation cannot be fixed with a trip to England. My first question is to the Pr emier.

Given that the A lberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties passed a resolution on November 20, part of which reads that Alberta’s farmers, businesses, industry, residents and not-for-profit groups have faced hardshi ps through high er annual energy costs , inconsistent provincial rebate progr ams, unf air and in efficient billing procedures and uncertainty in market supplies and contracts, why is this government continuing to ignore this group of rural leaders who request that the go vernment of Alberta abandon and reverse this process of energy deregulation? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, as is so typical of the Liberal opposition, they want to f ocus on wha t is wrong or what t hey perceive to be wrong or, as I say, the five Cs that make for good news stories, the five Cs of conflict, controversy, chaos, confusion, and confrontation. I choose to f ocus on wha t is good and wha t is right about this

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1959 province. Certainly, all the issues that the hon. member mentioned are issues. They are the day-to-day challenges that this government is required to meet, and we do the best we can in meeting them in terms of serving the needs of all Albertans or as many Albertans as we possibly can. As I tell my own caucus and as I te ll the public and I’ll tell this Legislature today, w e need t o look a t the bigg er picture. People from all across Canada are choosing Alberta as their new home, and they’re doing it in record numbers. Mr.

Speaker, that’s because they are not l istening to the co mplaints of the opposition. The y’re coming here because Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. They’re coming here because Alberta has the lowest tax regime in the country with no sales tax. They’re c oming here because Alberta has the highest average personal disposable income in the country. They’re coming here because we have the highest GDP in the country. They’re coming here because we h ave th e highest spending per capit a on e ducation and he alth care in the country. Mr. MacDonald: You are not listening to farmers.

Given that En max has listed in its last a nnual report long -term debt of $183 million owed to the taxpayers, to the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation, how can this government con tinue to say that there is no public debt as a result of electricity deregulation? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, relative to the specifics as i t relates to financing of electricity, I’ll have the hon. minister reply. Relative to th e assertion in th e hon. member’s prelude, that we don’t pay attention to f armers is absolut ely false and nons ense.

I would remind t he hon. me mber that the majority, I would say, of Members of the L egislative Assembly on the gove rnment side are from rural areas. I would remind the hon. member also that none of their members are from the rural areas, and this is because we pay attention to farm concerns and agricultural concerns. I have to say at this point and publicly acknowledge the fine work done by our Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, especially on the BSE issue. It has b een a tremendous challenge for her.

Believe me; farmers did not look to the opposition for solutions to this serious problem. They looked to the government, and we responded. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: given that the hon. Premier announced that during his trip to London he would be meeting with Centrica, the parent company of Direct Energy, whose application to buy an Alberta energy company is currently before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, does the Premier’s meeting with Centrica in London inter fere with the regulatory approval process here in Alberta? Mr. Klein: I’m sorry, Mr.

Speaker; I didn’t meet with Centrica in London. I ran into a representative of the company and exchanged a few words with him, none of which were related to business other than to have that individua l indicate to me that they’re hopeful of having their issue vis-à-vis Direct Energy resolved before the Energy and Utilities Board ver y shortly . That w as the beg inning, th e middle, and the end of the conversation. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 1:50 Natural Gas Rebates Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday Alberta Energy confirmed that there will be n o consum er gas rebates i n December because prices will not rise above the $5.50 per gigajoule trigger level. My first question is to the Premier. Why, then, are there natural gas rebates for certain agricultural users who certainly, we all know, need this help, and there are none for seniors, there are none for institutions, there are none for nonprofit organizations, and no rebates for other hardworking Albertans? Mr. Klein : Mr. Speake r, relativ e to the iss ue as it pe rtains to agricultural users, I’ll have the hon.

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development respond. Relative to consumers generally, residential consumers, I believe he was talking about natural gas. If that is the case, the trigger price has not been reached, as far as I know, at least not this month. Mrs. McClellan : Mr. Speaker , th is way of deali ng with c ertain agricultural producers is the sa me as it was in the last rebate program.

It recognize s – and I hope the hon. m ember would understand this – that irrigators do not irrigate in the winter months, that dehydrators, grain dryers, and gr eenhouses tend to not have heavy usage in those months. They are treated exactly the same as all consumers, only they have a different five-month period, and it only triggers if it exceeds $5.50 a gigajoule. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. Again to the Prem ier: this govern- ment is again picking winners and losers. An Hon. Member: No. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. You bet. The losers in this case are the seniors.

How can y ou tell seniors living on a fixed income in this province who had to endure high gas prices last April that they are not eligible for the $3.25 per gigajoule amount that is going to other select consumers in this province? How do you say no to seniors? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, once the trigger price is reached – and I bel ieve it’s $5.50 a gigajoule – during the winter months seniors a long with every other citiz en will b e eligible for rebates.

T he hon. minis ter explained full w ell why irrigators and dehydrators are being treated differently in that their high consump- tion rates are during the summer rather than the winter. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: given that the advice to most Alberta consumers last winter was to put on a sweater and we know that that is no longer good enough, when wi ll this gov ernment allow a ll consum ers the opti on of choosing the five months in 2003 that they receive their natural gas rebates as well as other select consumers? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, with all due respect, what the hon. member says doe sn’t make any sense whatsoever. You know, I can just imagine consumers in this province sa ying: I want to take the summer months. Well, of course, they won’t get a reb ate because very little gas is used during the summer months. So it just stands to reason that people want to take ad vantage of the rebate, and the government, being responsible and understanding when usage is the highest, has designated the winter months. That makes sense. It’s beyond me why he would even consider such a thing.

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031960 Private/Public Partnerships for Hospital Construction Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Liberal opposition has asked the following questions on behalf of Albertans and received no response from this gove rnment’s ministers. Since the buck stops with the Premier, I’d like him to answer the questions his ministers can’t or won’t. To the Prem ier: wha t evidenc e can the Premier or his government produce t o refu te the cre dible and ove rwhelming evidence showing that P3 hospitals will cost Alberta taxpayers more and lead to a deterioration in health services? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I don’t think there is irrefutable evidence that shows that. Certainly, there have been some failures relative to P3s; there have been some successes relative to P3s. That’s why we have put in place an adjudica tion committee to do thorou gh due diligence before a recommendation is made to the minister. I can share with the opposition in this Legislature that while I was in London, I had the opportunity of traveling to Swindon, which is west of London, to see a P3 hospital. Mr. MacDonald: Stonehenge. Mr. Klein: Not quite Stonehenge. Unlike the hospital, Stonehenge, as I understand it, is off limits.

The hospital is very much on limits. Now, this is a 500-bed hospital that was constructed by the private sector. The private sector provides all the ancillary services; i.e. the maintenance and, I belie ve, laundry and food services and s o on. The hospital sta ff conf ine them selves to medic al treat ment, Mr . Speaker. The cost is about even, but the fact is that they were able to get a badly needed hospital onstream imm ediately. In this case they had to shut down four hospitals, one of which was built in the ’50s. The other three go right back to the Victorian era. So they needed the hospital very badly.

They were able to get it onstream. The cost, amortization versus lease, is about the same, but at the end of the day , at the end of the le ase period the hospital then reverts entirely to, I believe, the district health authority. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you. Well, this is very interesting. When the Premi er met with t he offi cials at t he Great Western hospital in S windon, did the y t ell him tha t the cos t of this P3 hospital soared from £45 m illion to £90 m illion and ultim ately to £148 million? Did they tell him that? Mr.

Klein: No, nor were they that concerned, because the one thing that they did point out, Mr. Speaker . . . [interjection] Now, I don’t know where the hon. member is getting his information, but maybe he should travel to Swindon and find out for himself. The hospital officials I met with said that the price that was quoted was the price that they paid. So if the builders w ent out o f scope, if the project went out of scope and it cost more, then that fell on the shoulders of the contractors, not on the hospital. Dr.

Taft: When the Premier met with the U.K. officials about the Great Western hospital in Swindon, a P3 hospital, was he informed of the bed shortages and increases in staff and patient complaints? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, they replaced exactly the number of beds that they closed down, but Swindon is a growing community, so they are now adding to the facility. I believe they’re adding about 120 beds to the facility. The project is now under construction. Again, it’s a P3 project. There was a quoted price, and that is the price that the health district is required to pay: no more, no less. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Long-term Care Accommodation Rates Dr. Pannu : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past su mmer the government chose to gouge long-term care residents with close to 50 percent hikes in fees, causing hardship among Alberta seniors and their families. The government defended itself by claiming in a news release that the increase was needed to improve the quality of care.

Since then, Extendicare, an operator of 13 long-term care homes in Alberta, has posted a 75 percent increase in profits and credits much of its improved profit picture to long-term care fee hikes in Ontario and Alberta. My questions are to the Premier. If jacking up fees by 40 to 48 percent was supposed to improve the quality of care, why are the increased fee s im proving the profit s of companies l ike Extendicare? 2:00 The Speak er: I’m not sure t hat that’s a question tha t can be answered under administrative competence. We’re dealing here with the profit margin of private-sector companies.

I have no idea how a government can respond to that. Dr. P annu: My next question, Mr. Speaker: given that seniors’ groups like FAIRE are asking for the Auditor General to do an audit, will the Premier show some leadership and ask the Auditor General on behalf of the government of Alberta to do an audit of how the increased fees are being used, and if not, why not? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I think the Auditor General – I stand to be corrected – is an officer of the Legislature, and I have no authority to direct th e Auditor Gen eral to do anything.

If th is Legislature wants to direct the Auditor General to investigate a certain aspect of government or an outside agency, I guess that’s the prerogative of the Legislature. I wou ld have no proble ms – I’l l say that publicly – with the Auditor General investigating anything, because I’m quite co n- vinced, relative to long-term care fees, that they are, indeed, in line with the actual cost of providing the service, considering that we’re still subsidizing, I think, long -term care, basic care to the tu ne o f about – what? – $70, $80 a day.

I’ll have the hon. minister respond, and perhaps he can provide the absolutely correct information. Mr. Woloshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made quite clear first of all that of the 14,000 people that are in long-term care, some 10,000 of those are receiving su pport from Alberta Seniors to the point where very few, if any , had a neg ative impact. We’ve also implemented along with this new rate

schedule the possi bility for these people to appeal directly to the ministry after they’ve talked to their operators. With respect to the rate specifically, the semiprivate rate of $42 a day works out to about $1,300 a month, which i s very reasonable and barely covers the operational costs. On some of the things that are a lluded to by the hon. m ember across about what should or shouldn’t have bee n done with t he money, I don’t know where he’s getting his information from. I do know, however, quite clearly that in the Edm onton area, Mr .

Speaker, there were some 500 beds that were facing closure if rate increases weren’t implemented fairly quickly, and these were not by private operators.

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1961 It’s also very important to point out that a significant number of the operators in this province are the public health people, so a good portion of this money for the increased rates goes right back into the health authorities’ coffers. So I feel that the ra tes are very fair. W e’ve done everything possible to help people who are short on finances, and we’ve left the door open to look at special cases of any nature. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Pannu : Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

My last quest ion to the Premier: given that seniors and their families are complaining about a contin uing and f urther decl ine in serv ice quality since the rate increase, how can the Premier justify a rate increase as a means to improve care when the opposite seems to have occurred? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I have received – well, I don’t know, but I don’t see it as notic eable or c ertainly prominent in my mail – complaints about the leve l of car e being re ceived by seniors in assisted living or long-term care centres.

There might be the odd occasion when that happens, and those situations are investigated on the complaint basis. Dr. Pannu: How many? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, as an aside, the opposition leader said: how many? As I say, I just don’t see it as a great item relative to the cards and letters and mail and phone calls that we get. I w ould just say, you know, a handf ul over the co urse o f maybe a mon th or two months or three months, but they are individual complaints. Mr.

Speaker, the increase in fees was put in plac e to reflect the realities of the situation and to bring us up to where we should have been some years ago relative to offsetting the costs of pro viding a tremendous service. Drug Addiction Research Mr. Lord: Because of its psychedelic side effects the drug Ibogaine was declared illegal in the U.S. back in 1970, and this classification has prevented it fr om getting any serious scientific studies since then, despite its underground reputation for being able to cure any drug addiction w ith as littl e as one s ingle dose .

Recentl y it has attracted the attent ion of a ha ndful of to p r esearchers who a re reporting considerable success, and since it is not illegal elsewhere in the world, a controversial new clinic has just opened in Vancou- ver. The proponents of that clinic have offered to come to Alberta to treat a few drug addicts here for free. My questions ar e to the minister of healt h. Are t here opportuniti es for us in Albert a to promote serious and credentialed resea rch and dev elopment programs to look for potential medical cures for drug addiction? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr.

Speaker , the best a dvice tha t I ha ve mos t recently is that the drug Ibogaine has not been approved by Health Canada for use in this country unless it’s been approved specifically for investigational or research purposes. Researchers who do want to work with a drug that is not approved for use in Canada have to apply to Health Canada for permission to conduct clinical trials.

The clinical trials that will be a pproved by Health Canada must me et scientific requirements of Health Canada, and the methods of study are included in a review by an ethics review boar d to e nsure protection of the research participants. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there are researchers who wish to investigate this particular drug and its use in breaking drug habits of individuals, there are sources o f funding in this pro vince ava ilable to such researchers to investigate potential medical therapies.

For example, the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research on behalf of the Department of Health and Wellness administers a health research fund. That health research fund provides opportunities for relevant, high-quality health research across the entire spectrum of research areas, sir. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lord: Thank you. Is there any work that your department is currently doing in regard to drug addiction research specifically as it pertains to such drugs as Ibogaine or 18-methoxycoronaridine? Mr. Mar: Not to the best of my understanding, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Lord: Does your department track or otherwise quantify what costs we ar e incurring in our health c are system which might b e avoided if we could reduce or eliminate substance abuse and drug addiction? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the cost to the health care system would be difficult to estimate because the potential maladies associated with addictions are innumerable. I did, however, take the opportunity to review a report that was published on this subject by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. It estimated that the cost to Canadian society for abuse as at 1992 was estimated at some 18 billion dollars a year.

Of course, here in the province of Alberta AADAC, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, offers a variety of prevention and cessation programs ai med at reducing addictions in Alberta, including methadone programs to help break addictions to opiates, and provides counseling. In Alberta we provide close to some 60 million dollars an nually for AADAC’s add iction p revention and support programs. Access to Crown Land Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, this spring the Prem ier announced that his government would contribute $6 million to finding a solution to the conflict between First Nations a nd o il field contractors in the Slave Lake area, yet last week government ministers couldn’t tell us what they did with the money and who they consulted. N ow the chiefs of Treaty 8 are telling the Alberta Liberal opposition that they have not been consulted on this issue. To the Premier: why did the government fail to consult with the chiefs of Treaty 8 before Bill 49 hit the Legislature? 2:10 Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I’m glad that Ch ief W aquan is in the gallery today, because we would like to express to Chief Waquan our apologies. It was a case of the legislation getting out ahead of the consultation process. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Developm ent is looki ng into the m atter, and we’ll be discussing this with the chiefs of Treaty 8 to sort it all out. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, how does the Premier respond now to the chiefs who are telling him that Bill 49 has to be withdrawn? Mr. Klein: It’s not a matter of withdr awing the bill, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a matter of perhaps delaying the bill until this consultation takes place. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier be willing to put an

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031962 exclusion clause into this legislation for those First Nations who will be negotiating with oil field contractors? Mr. Klein: I’m not about to get into that right now. It hasn’t been discussed. But I’ll have the hon. minister respond as to the action she plans to take from here on in relative to this situation. Ms Calahasen: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, there are two processes we’re talking about here. The first process has to do with the issue that she’s talking about.

As a matter of fact, I want to talk about the fact of the irresponsible action by the member in terms of inciting civil disobedience. I really feel strongly that we have to be able to look at the whole issue of what this is all about. Number one, we have to be able to dea l, especially when we’re talking about trying to attempt an amicable solution to ever ything that’s been occurring. There have been some concerns expressed by a number of people. There have been some concerns expressed by First Nations.

What we have done is we hired a consultant who went out and talked to the various groups to see what needed to be done. These recommendations will be brought to the current specific areas that we need to deal with. Those ones are, number one, that we have to be able to ensure that we work with the First Nations, and that’s very important. That’s what we’re attempting to do. Secondly, Mr. Speak er, we’re trying to ma ke sure that we deal with the issue of the oil field contractors. I know my colleague from Sustainable Resource Development would like to talk on behalf of Bill 49.

However, on the consultation issue we’ve been working with the First Nations. I’ve met with the Treaty 8 First Nations. I’ve met with the all-chiefs summit. I’ve met with a number of First Nations who are willing to meet with us. My t eam has been sent to work with the various First Nations so that we c an con tinue on the consultation process, but we have to be able to ensure that we also deal with other issues as they come up, because it was their leader who said that we have to deal with all these areas, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Postsecondary Education Funding Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Funding inequities between Calgary and Edmonton can cause major concern for residents in both cities. Recently a University of Calgary document provided financial data on inequities in funding between the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta of $1,052 per student higher in Edmonton. My question is to the Minister of Learning. Is this the case? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Well, thank yo u very much, Mr. Speaker.

T his is a question that has been asked and has been publicized for probably the past six or se ven years. The hon . Member fo r Medi cine Hat looked at this exact question in the year 2000, and I will report back what he said. I will also report back as to what the differences are as of today. I will say that in their last funding year that we have the informa- tion for, which was ’01-02, there was actually a $1,500 difference between the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta on an FTE basis. Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is programs such as agriculture and forestry.

An agricultural and forestry program accounts for 100 percent more than an undergraduate arts program. At the University of Alberta there’s 2.4 percent of their enrollment taken up in agriculture. In medicine and dentistry, for example, there’s a difference of 2. 3 percent. This progr am in itself is five times the cost of an arts program, and so on. The actual difference e nds up being 20.2 pe rcent, which is, in essence, the difference in funding between the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta. There are also differences in masters’ programs and PhD programs. So, Mr.

Speaker, in order to let the hon. member know, we look at this constantly, and the actual numbers are very similar when you take into account the program mix. This is something that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat found out in his review in the year 2000 as well as our figures here today. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is again to the Minister of Learning. Would a third-party study of funding differences prove these inequities? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this recently.

In the year 2000 w e undertook a f ull revie w of the postseconda ry funding system. This was done by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat – these are the reports that came in – and he actually made quite substantial changes , which w ere instit uted. Right now we ar e looking at the Learning Commission, where one of the recommenda- tions is that we undertake a review of the total postsecondary system. That is still under review and is yet to come back. The Speak er: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Postsecondary Education Tuition Fees Dr.

Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. In 13 y ears tuition at the University of Calgary has gone up about 375 per cent. If this trend continues, chi ldren i n ki ndergarten tod ay will be pay ing roughly $16,400 a ye ar in tuition. My question is to the Pre mier. Is the government satisfied that Cal gary’s parents should be looking at saving at leas t $65,000 to cove r the futur e tuition cos ts of thei r children’s degree programs? Sixty -five thousand dollars , Mr. Premier, if the trend continues. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, it’s hypothetical, to say the least , and highly speculative.

As you know, we’re going through the recom- mendations now of t he Learning Commission. The hon. minister will be address ing the who le issue of postseconda ry educ ation. None of us can foresee what the circumstances will be 16 or 17 years down the road. W e try to predict as best we can, but perhaps t he hon. minister can shed some more light on it. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The numbers that the hon. m ember had put forward are true when you go back.

But the issue is that when you go ahead – the numbers at the University of Calgary, for example, are that their tuition increase is limited this year to $276. Following this, it is limited to $276 plus the c ost of living, so do the math. There’s no way that the numbers can be that high. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the Premier: given that the latest government policy c hanges e ffectively remov e any re straint on

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1963 tuition, how high will tuition rates have to go before the government takes some action? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that stat ement is not accurate. That statement is not accurate at all. Bill 43, as I under- stand it, and we’re talking about law as opposed to policy, includes a new tuition fee policy that replaces the current 30 percent tuition cap with other controls – with other controls – to ensure that tuition increases continue to be predictable and manageable. Dr.

M assey: Again t o the Premi er: giv en the im portance tha t Albertans place on pos tsecondary education a nd the fina ncial resources of our prov ince, why isn’t tuition here the lowest in the country? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where we stack up in terms of other universities in other jurisdictions across t he co untry. Perhaps the hon. minister can respond. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The University of Lethbridge is roughly number 40 out of 50 unive rsities w hen it comes to tuition.

T he University of Alberta and the Univ ersity of Calgary are numbers 24 and 25 respectively out of roughly 50 or 53 institutions around the country. There needs to be something corrected here, and that is tha t the tuition policy does in fact place limits on the amount of dollars that the tuition can be increased by. At the University of Calgary, which is the example that the hon. member has used, the amount is $276 per year this year. Following this year, it is $276 plus the CPI. So I really have an issue and a problem when the hon. member is o ut there fear mongering, saying things that are entirely not true.

The Spea ker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. 2:20 Police Services Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Budget deliberations are going on in Edmonton and Calgary and other municipalities across the province, and police services have raised a concern about their financial ability to recruit and train officers so that they can put their resources onto the street and fight crime.

To the Solicitor General: would the minister consider hel ping Alberta police services save money on recruiting and training costs by centralizing police training as recommended by her own policing review? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, M r. Sp eaker. The hon. member has brought to the floor a good question, and it’s something that we’re considering. We support the idea of centralized recruiting, think it’s a good idea, and would be willing to move forward on that. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr.

Speaker, my second and last supplementary: would the minister also consider helping police services save money through economies of scale and allowing them to bulk purchase equipment, weapons, and other supplies so that they can save more money and put more officers on the streets? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Another good question. It wasn’t on e of the recommendations tha t came forwa rd in the policing review that was done some time ago; however, it’s some- thing that we are currently looking at and considering doing in First Nations.

If ther e’s somewhere we can help the police in this province with some cost savings for them, we’d be more than willing to look at it. Private/Public Partnerships Mr. Bonner : Mr. Speake r, since t he Minister of Infr astructure refuses to seriously address questions on P3 projects in Alberta, my questions today a re to the Premie r. When w ill this gov ernment provide evidence that a P3 courthous e in Calg ary w ill not c ost Alberta taxpa yers mo re a nd lead to a deterioration of judicial independence in Alberta? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the question was answered generally, but I’ll repeat my answer.

First of all, before any P3 project is consid- ered, it has to go through an adjudication process. These people are all people outside of government. They’re experts in f inance, developing, law and are much more quali fied than any member of the opposition to make an ap propriate evaluation as to whethe r a project should go ahead or not and whether there can be a savings to the taxpayer. Once that adjudication is made, a recommendation is then made to the minister. The minister follows a very lengthy and detailed process before a project is finally accepted.

I believe it’s about four or five stages that the developers have to go through at their own ex pense. As a mat ter of f act, one of the complaints from the proponents is th at on a project the size of the Calgary courthouse the proponents hav e had to spe nd literally millions of dollars to prepare their cases. That is their own expense and is not included in the cost of the project.

So after all is said and done, there has to be a proper adjudication and proper evidence presented to the minister that indeed this makes sense from the poin t of vi ew of bringin g needed cap ital works projects onstream as quickly as we possibly can and that at the end of the day there is a savings or, at worst, the taxpayer is on the hook for no more. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that again we have not got any provision for evidence to be provided, when will t his government produce evidence to prove that P3 hospitals won’t lead to a deterioration in health services?

That question is to the Premier. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the services in the hospitals have nothing to do with the construction of the hospitals. In the case of Swindon and, I believ e, the ca se here a s well, ba sic requi rements are put forward relative to what is needed in the hospital. In other words, an MRI room, a diagnostic room, operating theatres, emergency: all of the components associated with a hospital are determined by the medical people. The contractor is simply there to build the building and to assume the risks relative to the costs of the building.

In the case of Swindon, the contractor builds at a set price, and the hospital leases it back, but the hospital itself – the medical staff, the board, the policymakers, and the medical people – is entir ely responsible for the way medical services are delivered in the hospital. That has nothing to do with the contract whatsoever. Mr. Bonner: To the Premier: wi ll the Premier, then, table these reports so that Albertans can see that they will not b e paying more under a P3 model?

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031964 Mr. Klein: I’m sorry. There’s only one active proposal right now that I know of . Maybe two. I thi nk that T ransportation has a P3 project for the east extension of the Anthony Henday. Of course, the Calgary courthouse propos al is the m ajor on e and the o nly active one, and I don ’t know the ext ent to whi ch the inf ormation i s available. But, certainly, as much of the information as we possibly can without violating proprietary rights will be mad e available. Perhaps the hon. minister can respond. Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, as I indic ated to the member last w eek, once this whole process has been completed and the final contract is signed so that we can reveal all of this information, we will reveal it. It will all be out in the open. I can hardly wait, if the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition is still in this Assembly, for him to jump up and fulfill the promise that he made to us last week, when he said that he would jump up and praise it once we have the contract signed, because we will show that, in fact, it is good for Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon.

Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Grain Marketing Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In the gov ern- ment’s relentless attempts to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board, a bill was passed last fall that would set up a test market to let grain producers bypass the Wheat Board. We also had the spectacle last fall of the Premier grandstan ding on the steps o f the Lethbri dge courthouse in support of a few farmers who c hose to delibe rately break cus tom law s. This g overnment consiste ntly ig nores the interests of the majority of wheat and barley farmers of Alberta. My question is to the Premi er.

Why does the Prem ier support a tiny minority of grain producers who engage in civil disobedience and law-breaking while failing to support grain producers, who last fall elected pro Wheat Board directors in all three Alberta districts where those elections were held? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’m so glad that a re presentative of t he Wheat Board is here, first of all, to listen to the absolutely ridiculous diatribe coming from the m outh of the opposition NDP member; secondly, to put on the record that we do not oppo se the Wheat Board and never have.

But what we do support is the fundamental democratic principle of choice. Now, I kno w that the NDs just hate the thought of de mocracy. They like the thought of control. Our farmers in this province, not a handful of farmers, have voted 64 pe rcent for choic e to market their wheat, and I believe it’s higher than that, 68 percent, for barley. Choice, Mr. Speaker. 2:30 If the Wheat Bo ard is deemed t o be the ri ght vehicle through which these farmers should sell their wheat and barley, then so be it. Go ahead.

Th e Wheat Board does a great job on the international stage selling wheat and barley, but if a b arley or wheat farmer has next door to him a pasta manufacturer or a bread manufacturer or a cookie manufacturer and says, “Lookit; I just want to grow my wheat in accordance with the quality standards you set and sell it to you, just take it off and sell it to you; you grind it up and you make your cookies rather than going through the Wheat Board,” that is choice. That’s what the opposition opposes. They oppose choice. They oppose democracy. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, given that I consul ted on my question with the director from the Wheat Board that’s with us today, will the Premier apologize to him an d to Albert a whea t farm ers for his denigrating remarks? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the only person who has made denigrating remarks is the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, who implied that he opposes democracy. I’ll point out one more area in which he opposes democracy.

He says that it’s all right for Ontario farmers to market freely and have choice relative to their wheat and barley or in Quebec or in the Maritime provinces or in British Columbia but not in Alberta, not in Manitoba, not in Saskatchewan, not in a small corner of British Columbia, and not in a small corner of Ontario; the rest of the country can do as they wish. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, given that wheat and barley f armers in Alberta, when given a choice, consistently elect pro Wheat Board single-desk directors, will t he Premier stop gra ndstanding on the courthouse steps of Lethbridge in favour of people who have broken the law and actually stand up for wheat farmers in this province? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, these are all small points. I t wasn’t on the courthouse steps. It was in Lethbridge. That part he has right. There were about a thousand farmers there along with our minister of agriculture.

I don’t know if the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition was there or not, but I think he was there supporting the farmers who had to go to such step s as to break the law, which we did not condone. They broke the law, yes. They paid the penalty; some of them went to jail. Dr. Pannu: So civil disobedience is okay. Mr. Klein: No. We did not support civil disobedience. We sa id that it’s a bad law, and it is a bad law. It is a bad law. Any law that prohibits choice, any law that discr iminates against provinces is a bad law, M r. S peaker. The hon. m ember should understand that.

You know, even the words New Democrats, democracy – it defies all the conventions of democracy, all the fundamentals of democracy, yet they s upport it. The New De mocrats, they call them selves, support a monopoly. They do not support democracy. I find it so very, very strange. Mr. Speaker, again I have to remind the hon. me mber that in a plebiscite 64 percent of Alberta farmers said that they wanted choice relative to the marketing of wheat; 68 percent said that they wanted choice relative to the marketing of barley.

That’s a majority. head : Recognit ions The Speaker: Hon. members, 30 seconds from now I’m going to call upon the first of seven members to participate. Duane Daines Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of a great Alberta cowboy, Duane Daines. Duane Daines was one of the best cowboys this province has produced. He’s competed in nine National Finals Rodeos, won three Canadian all-round champion- ships, won the Canadian saddle bronc championship, and also took home the $50,000 Calgary Stampede title.

But Duane’s life changed instantly in 1995, when in his 17th year as a cowboy an accident in the bucking chute left him paralyzed. In 1995 Dua ne was leading the race f or cowboy of the y ear. His accident occurred w ith eight e vents left, and hi s fello w cowboys didn’t want to compete. They wanted to ensure that Duane would win the cowboy of the year title. Duane would have none of it. He told his com petitors to k eep fig hting the tit le, a nd they did, but Duane still won. He was far ahead. He was that good.

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1965 Mr. Speaker, in November Duane Da ines was awarded the Red Carpet award for outstanding ambassador by the Canadian Paraple- gic Association for his efforts in helping the disabled lead active and independent lives following an injury. As well, Duane is also a 2003 inductee into the Alberta Sports Hall of Fame. If this doesn’t count as an inspirational, made-in-Alberta success story, I don’t know what does. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Duane’s accomplishments, and above all I am proud that I can call this great man a constituent of Innisfail-Sylvan Lake.

I call on the Assembly to give him the recognition and respect his efforts deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Glen Huser Mr. Ma skell: Mr. S peaker, I ris e tod ay to rec ognize an ac com- plished Alberta author who is using his talent to make a difference. Glen Huser of Edmonton won the 2003 Governor General’s literary award in children’s literature for his novel entitled Stitches. Stitches is a story about two resilient outcasts who struggle to survive being different in a small town.

With themes of self-disc overy and empowerment and an off-beat sense of humour Glen Huser makes it impossible for readers not to care about the struggles children face when confronted with vicious bullying. A former teacher/librarian I am pr oud to have known for many years, Glen is the author of tw o other novel s, Grace Lake and another children’s novel called Touch of the Clown. He is also the founder of Magpie, a quar terly magazine that showcases student writing and graphic s. He has served on the board of directors of both the Young Alberta Book Society and the Edmonton

chapter of the Children’s Literature Roundtable, and he is the long-st anding children’s book reviewer for the Edmonton Journal. Glen currently teaches in the department of elementary education at the University of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Members of the L egislative Assembly join m e in congra tulating Glen Huser on receiving the 2003 Governor General’s award in children’s literature. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. World AIDS Day Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. Today, December 1, is World AIDS Day, Red Ribbon Day.

I’d like to recognize Bob Mills, HIV Edmonton, and all the others who worked so hard to keep this issue on the front lines. This is a frightening time for those who contracted AIDS in t he ’80s and early ’90s and were able to survive and even thrive using drug cockta ils and other trea tments. These same treatments are finally failing, and those w ho have been living positive are dying. For those of us who lost friends and family and went to too many funerals, that time is coming again. This was brought home to me when Bob Mills die d this fal l after a 14 -year triumph over HIV/AIDS.

He was an effective, persistent advocate. 2:40 I spoke at an HIV Edmonton event last week, and their theme was Stigma and Discrimination. As I lo oked around their office at the posters, the pamphlets, the books, I thought: this organization has worked hard to help us understand. That ’s not easy in Albert a, a province where it is okay, even encouraged by government leaders, to talk about building fences around various programs and leg isla- tion as though to extend rights to gays and lesbians takes them from others. Human rights is not a finite bucket of rights.

To allow a stigma to continue is to allow discrimination to continue. So HIV Edmonton and their partne r agenci es work on. In Alb erta th ere i s mon ey, research capability, legislation, medicare. We can do b etter. We must do better. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Edmonton Minor Hockey Mr. Masyk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To day I ris e a we ek and change after the Heritage Classic. A name comes to mind, and it’s Red Hetchler. Mr. H etchler has been helpi ng Edmonton k ids for over 40 year s, voluntee ring in m inor hockey . The Mem ber for Edmonton-Glengarry knows all about Red. Mr.

Speaker, he’s helped the Hawks and Whitemud West hockey clubs merge and watched over the years as they expanded from three teams to 15. As director of northwest zone midgets God only knows how many hours Red put i nto each of these te ams in addition t o watching over 100 hockey games each season. I’d also like to recognize some coaches, Wayne Gelmich and Ken Neal of P aranych Wind. Mr. Speaker, they work tirelessly every practice night, and they’ve convinced me to give them a hand, so I’ve been putting on the skates also.

I’d like to name some of the players on the team starting with Ryer Alyn, Mark A rsenault, A rrol Bernar d, Jami e Cava nagh, Scott Christensen, Kendal Da Costa, Ryan Griffiths, Barrett Jack, Logan Key, Frederick Kitts, Da niel Lef ebvre, G avin Masy k, M itchell McKenzie, Stewart McNabb, D arrel Morin, David Palm er, Jacob Trudel, and Kyle Bernard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ISO Certification Mr. Lord: Mr. Speaker, ISO 9000 is the world’s most recognized business process re-engineering methodology.

It is a roa d map to follow which is designed to create maximum consistency of quality and efficiency of process within any organization, and its results in terms of improving customer satisfaction and reducing complaints are truly remarkable. ISO 14000 adds the additional environmental benchmarks, making sure that the product or service being offered is being man ufactured in the m ost environm entally responsible manner possible.

ISO certification is sweeping the world outside of North America and is rapidly becoming a prerequi site for do ing any business internationally, although almost no governments at any level have discovered or tried to im plement it yet. That ’s why I am proud to recognize the city of Calg ary f or their ac hievement in rece ntly becoming the largest and virtually only city on planet Earth to have achieved independent ISO 14000 certification citywide. Mr.

Speaker, the ISO proc ess truly creates a paradi gm shift in governance within any organization, and while it wasn’t easy to do, Calgary doesn’t have to just claim to be one of the best run cities on the planet anymore; we can now prove it. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Council of Alberta University Students and Alberta Colleges and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I congrat ulate the coalition of the Counc il of A lberta Univ ersity Students and t he

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031966 Alberta College and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council. Using a wide range of political action strategies including launching a web sit e, pu blic demonstrations, personal lobbying, and formal presentations, they worked to make Bill 43 a bill that better reflects student interests.

The changes that the coalition effected with respect to student association gove rnment are im portant, and a lthough they were unsuccessful in challenging those aspects of the bill that deal with tuition, they’ve been effective in raising and keep ing this issue on the public agenda of this province. Many student leaders were involved in the campaign.

At the risk of making a serious omission, the efforts of ACTISEC’s Stu Sherry, chair, and Brett Bergie, provincial director, as well as CAUS chair Shirley Barg, vice-chair Chris Samuel, and executive director Melanee Thomas along with Lee Skallerup, president, and Jennifer Pelley, vice-president external of the Graduate Students’ Association need to be recognized. They are worthy of the confidence placed in them by over 180,000 postsecondary students in this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Kelsey Armstrong Ms Kryczk a: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

I am very pleased t o recognize in this As sembly a very capable y oung la dy, Kelsey Armstrong, who also happens to be a constituent of mine in Calgary- West. Kelsey was re cently granted a Rutherfor d scholar a ward, which is a $1,500 scholarship awarded yearly to the top 10 Alexan- der Rutherfor d scholarshi p recipient s in Albe rta based on their diploma examination marks. This year 16 awards were granted, with marks ranging from 97.6 percent to 99 percent. Kelsey’s average was an amazing 99 percent, which makes her one of the top students in Alberta.

Kelsey has attended pub lic s chools Oly mpic He ights ele mentary, Bishop Pinkham junior high, and Central Memorial high school. She is in business this year at the University of Calgary. Congratulations, Kelsey. I’m absolutely sure that you and your family are very proud of your outstanding academic achievement. Thank you. The Speaker: And congratulations to the Member for Calgary-West for being the onl y member participating in Recogni tions to day to follow Standing Order 7(6).

Calendar of Special Events The Speaker: I might add, hon. members, as we’ve now arrived at December, that there are also these other following recognitions that might be appropria te for members to rec ognize. N ovember 25 to December 6 is White Ribbon Week. November 24 to December 24 is Christm as kett les appea l; this is by the Salva tion Arm y. A s already indicated, today is World AIDS Day. December 1 to 7 is National Safe Driving Week. December 2 is International Day for the Abolition of Slavery . Decem ber 3 is Inte rnational D ay o f Disabled Persons.

December 5 is In ternational Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development. December 6 is National Day of Remembrance and Acti on on Violence A gainst Women. On December 6 is the Santa Shuffle. December 7 is International Civil Aviation Day. December 10 is Human Rights Day. December 14 is the Festival of Carols; December 14 as w ell is International Chil - dren’s Day of Broadcasting. December 15 to 31 is the holiday fire safety campaign. December 18 is International Migrants Day. Of course, December 20 to December 27 is Hannuk ah. December 25 is Christmas Day.

December 26 is Boxing Day, and December 29 is International Day for Biological Diversity. head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I ’m presenting a petition signed by 57 Edmontonians petitioning the Legislative Assembly to “urge the Government of Alberta to reinstate paying for repairs to privately owned equipment such as scooters and power wheelchairs.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speak er.

I ’m tabling a petition with 325 signatures calling on the government to “return to a regulated electricity sy stem, reduce power bills, an d dev elop a program to assist Albertans in improving energy efficiency.” head : Intro duc tion o f Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Bill 55 Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003 Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to request leave to introduce Bill 55, the F arm Implement Amendment Act, 2003, for first reading.

This bill will make changes to the way farm implement dealers and their distributors indemnify thei r cust omers a nd will bring the legislation in line with today’s financial realities. [Motion carried; Bill 55 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move that Bill 55, the Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003, be moved under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a number of tablings this afternoon. The first is a letter from the general manager of the Bar C Ranch Resort, located northwest of Cochrane. They’re very concerned about a logging project that is expected to happen in the region, and they are in negotiations with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development on this. The other series of letters I have are all very much opposed to any more commercial development in the Evan-Thomas area, and these letters are fr om Carol yn Fisher, Stev e Arthur, Jeanne K imber, Colleen Campbell, Kathryn Milne, Stephen Mahaffey, and Peter and Barbara Sherrington.

The y live throughout A lberta and a re very concerned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. 2:50 Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Wi th permission I would table letters from Denise Gitting, Alan Besecker, Pauline Worsfold in Edmonton-G lenora; Che ryl Mits chke, Ca ndice How rish in

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1967 Calgary-Mountain View; an d Kat herine Woo dcock in Calg ary- Cross, all nurses who are distressed with the state of negotiations and are particularly disturbed about the provisions that would see them placed anyplace in the region. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. Earlier today I introduced Roberta and Kevyn, and they along with four other members of their group had met to perform a sacred pagan ceremony in front of the Legislature.

They were interrupted by two security officers and asked to cease their behaviour immediately and leave the grounds or they’d be charged with trespassing. They were very concerned about that. My second tabling is from Gail Pederson. Gail is a nurse and is very concer ned over w hat is being asked of them in t he current contract negotiati ons and the ta ctics tha t are being used by the employer in those negotiations. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

With permission I’m tabling four letters today, c opied to me but written to the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, from Lori Deverdenne, Alan Besecker, Linda Brockmann, and Dianne V inet expressing grave concern over the negotiations between the health regions and reg istered nurses and especially the impact these may have on patient safety. Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Documents The Speak er: Hon. members, I’ve raised this now on several occasions. To table letters written to other members, I have no idea what purpose that serves. I have no idea how that fulfills the criteria we have for tablings.

I’m going to repeat what I said before. I’m going to ask the three House leaders to meet over the winter to try to get a handle on this. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports (continued) Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a request from these individuals to table these letters, so I’m following through on that.

These are written by Barb Heinz and Lisa Heinz to their MLA for Grande Prairie-Wapiti and T anice Ols on to her ML A for Calgary-Egmont expressing concerns about a lack of full negotia- tions between the nurses’ union and the regional health authorities and concerned about safety for both Albertans and nurses. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I ris e today to table the requisite number of copies of three different reports. The first is an index of abstracts regarding research into 18-methoxycoronaridine.

Of particular interest are the studies showing 18-MC’s potential to eliminate nicotine addictions. The second o ne is an in dex of lab ext racts and publications on ibogaine, as is t he third, w hich is an inde x of 112 abs tracts and reports titled The Ibogaine Bibliography. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. I hav e two tablings today. First I’m ta bling a le tter from a senior, M iss Pauline K nittle of Edmonton, dated Nov ember 17, 2003.

Miss Knittle is deeply concerned with the erosion of seniors’ benefits, increasing poverty among seniors, and the overall continued neglect of seniors by this government. She is as king the g overnment to treat seniors with dignity and res pect and re verse those policie s which a re hurting seniors. The second document, Mr. Speaker, is a document from Catherine Ripley, dated November 12, 2003. This document was prepared by the Whitemud Coalition of Schools and is asking the government of Alberta to accept the Learning Commission’s recommendations and substantially increase education funding. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a letter from Mr. Art Macklin, dated November 18, 2003. He i s co ncerned w ith the Al berta gov ernment’s attack on the Canadian Wheat B oard and is r equesting the Premie r and the minister of agr iculture to d evelop a positi ve proposal on grain marketing that adds value for Alberta producers. The second tabling is a letter from a senior, Mr. Clarence Huibers. He is worried about the increasing cost of deregulation, resulting in serious financial hardship to seniors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Orders of t he Day head : Written Ques tions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Proper notice ha ving been given on T hursday, November 27, I w ould now move that written questions appe aring on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head : Motions for Retur ns The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Proper notice having been given on Thursday, November 27, I will now move that motions for retur ns appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, did you want to rise on a point of order? I have some correspondence in my office suggesting that you do, but you have not given me any notice of that. Mr. Mason: No, I did not gi ve you notice, Mr. Spe aker. I do however have a concern about a request for another private mem- ber’s bill. The Speaker: Well, why don’t you make a very brief statement on a point of order?

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031968 Point of Order Private Members’ Public Bills Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will then, and I appreciate your as king m e to do that. I ’m concerned about the request for early consideration for third reading of a bill that has not been dealt w ith, let alone passed, at committee stage. I g uess the concern is twofold.

First of all, that would make it very difficult for the private member’s bill that I’m sponsoring to even be dealt with before the end of this sess ion of the L egislature, but m ore impor- tantly I think it sets a precedent which would make it more difficult in the fu ture for all private mem bers’ bills to be given equal consideration. That’s just the very essence of my point. The Speaker: Hon. members, I’m going to jus t take a couple of minutes to deal with this matter because it only occurs i n th e perceived dying days of a session.

It does not occur any other time, and it onl y appli es to private members’ days. So some time w as spent over the weekend, in fact, looking at this and prepar ing a statement in anticipation of this. In essence, the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul had requested early consideration of B ill 208 in Com mittee of the W hole in the memorandum to the Speaker tabled in the Assembly on November 19, 200 3.

O n Wednesday, November 26, 2003, the chair tabled another memorandum from the same me mber r equesting that Bill 208 be given early consideration at third reading stage if – and this is the key word: if – it passes Committee of the Whole. The practice that has been followed is that a member may request early consideration of his or her bill by writing to the chair so that the letter c an be table d at leas t one sitting day bef ore the bill in question is t o be consider ed.

The bi ll which i s the subjec t of the request will be considered after debate is concluded on the bill then before the Assembly or the committee, assuming that no other bills have reached their due dates under Standing Order 8(5). This was the practice that the chair outlined on November 27, 2001, at pages 1284 and 1285 of Alberta Hansard for that day. In this case there are no other bills that must come up for consideration. However, the member sponsoring Bill 209 is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to debate the principles of the bill at second reading.

The chair would like to indicate that the only direction is found in Standing Order 9(1), which states that private members’ public bills shall be taken up in order of precedence. In order to maintain some certainty, the chair finds that Bill 208 will proceed to committee and, if passed, then will proceed to third reading today.

In an effort to ensure that the sy stem is fair and equitable to all members, the ch air would w elcome suggestions by m embers and their House leaders over the winter on this issue of early consider- ation of private members’ public bills so that a procedural policy could be put in place for the spring 2004 session, one that would be very clear at the initiation of the session. The chair’s view is that a member should not be able to request early consideration of his or her bill at the next stage until it has passed the previous stage. If that were the rule, then the Member for Lac La Biche-St.

Paul would not have been able to request early consideration at Committee of the Whole until his bill had passed second reading. In closing, the chair wants to note that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta has since 1993 been a le ader am ong Leg islatures in allowing for consideration of private members’ business. The chair recognizes that improvements can b e made and looks forward to receiving suggestions about changes to the process.

In a nutshell, today we will proceed with committee on Bill 208 and, if it’s passed, then proceed to third rea ding of 208, a nd we’ll review this in the future. 3:00head : Publi c Bil ls and Orders Other than Governm ent Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deput y Chair : Hon. members, we’ll c all the com mittee to order. Befor e we proceed with the bill that is be fore is, may we briefly revert to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr.

Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s an honour for me to int roduce three constituents and one const ituent from Vegreville-Viking. First of all, I’d like to introduce the constituent from Vegreville-Viking, Mr. Victor Chrapko, and from the constitu- ency of Lac La Biche-St. Paul Mr. Len Krysarneski, Tom Melnyk, and Mike Warholik. They’re here for a meeting. If I could ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Any other introductions?

Bill 208 Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act, 2003 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It g ives me great pleasure t o rise in t he Assembly this aft ernoon to bring the discussion and debate during Committee of the Whole for Bill 208, the Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act, 2003. Today’s society is highly contentious a nd argum entative, with litigation seem ing to be com monplace.

Priva te landow ners and occupiers must now more tha n ever c oncern themselves with t he issue of liability. The fear of a potential lawsuit is enough to prevent landowners from permitting recreational users on their property. As mentioned previously, the purpose of Bill 208 is to reduce the current level of liability that landow ners and occ upiers ow e to visitors on their property. This bill reduces the burden for owners, and as a result recreational users would be treated the sam e a s trespassers regarding legal liability. Mr. Chairman, it is

section 6.1(1) that states: The liability o f an occupier to a pe rson who use s the premi ses described in subsection (2) or a portion of them for a recreat ional purpose shall be determined as if the person were a trespasser. Therefore, owner s and oc cupiers w ould not be held li able for anything that is com mon prac tice except t he death or i njury to recreational visitors due to th e willful and reckless conduct of the landowner or land occupier . Bill 208 w ould reduce the liability owed to visitors and place the responsibility on recreational users for their actions.

I believe that the landowner or occupier cannot assume the risk for visitors on their property, nor should they have to. I want to point out that Bill 208 pertains to lando wners a nd occupiers that grant per mission wi thout a cost or fee. S ection 6.1(1)(

a) states that if the landowner or occupier “receives payment for the entry or activity of the person” or, in (b), “is providing the

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1969 person with living accommodation on the premises,” the liability will not be the same as that of a trespasser. The reduced liability would not apply if the landowner or occupier charges a fee. Mr. Chairman, I believe that visitors and recreational users must incur the respons ibility for the choice s they make and the ac tions they pursue. They must also be m indful of the consequences that may ar ise fro m their choi ces an d acti ons.

For ex ample, if my neighbour asks for his family to cross-country ski across my field and I decide to grant them permission, then I don’t feel that I should be held accountable for any accidents. If one of the children or he himself for that matter should break their leg or sprain their ankle, they should not be able to sue or hold me accountable. It seems logical to me that the choices that recreational users make are their own. The users should assume the risk and not be able to hold a landowner or occupier responsible.

I would like to further clarify that if Bill 208 were enacted, there would remain specific situations where the landowners or land occupiers could be liable. Bill 208 provides a safeguard to landown- ers where the safeguard is necessary. It is not a blanket measure that completely exempts or absolves individuals from liability. Bill 208 would not provide protection if a person is injured as a result of an occupier’s or landowner’s reckless or willful conduct.

To add some clarification, willf ul or reck less inte nt may be infer red when a landowner has know ledge of a highly dangerous situation or intentionally creates a haza rdous condition. It i s when the land- owner fails to remedy a situation or warn against danger, knowing there is potential for people to get hurt. I want to assure all members of this Assembly that Bill 208 deals with recreational use rs and visitors. This bill does not protect an employer from liability for injuries suffered by workers in agriculture or in forestry.

This legislation will not exempt farmers or ranchers from accidents that may involve a hired man and o ccur on their premises. Mr. Chairman, the leg islation proposed in Bill 208 is essential. This is not a new issue or a topic that hasn’t been studied but, rather, a much-needed initiative. Many provinces have recognized the need to protect landowners and occupiers and have enac ted legislation providing that safeguard.

British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prin ce Edward Isla nd, and Saskatchewan al l have legislation in one form or another that pertains to recreational users and the lia bility that is owe d to them. The provi nces that do not currently have legislation are now reviewing and researching the best way to leg islate and sol ve th e pr oblems o f occ upiers’ lia bility. Although each province’s legislation differs in form, these provinces have acknow ledged and taken ac tion to protect landowner s and occupiers. Mr. Chairman, this leg islation is not unique to C anada.

Ev ery U.S. state ha s legislation on i ts boo ks that a ddresses the issue of landowner liability, and most offer priva te landow ner protect ion from liability. These laws are referred to as recreational use statutes. While the statut e and the ty pe of prote ction it offers varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the protection is still provided, and limits are set to the liability that is owed. This type of liability protection is not a recent trend either. Many American states have had this legislation for over 10 years. In some cases the legislation has been in place since the early 1980s. Mr.

Chairman, Albertans, as do I, view this province as a leader, and we must conti nue to do so. In 1973 Alberta became the first province to codify an Occupiers’ Liability Act. It is now time for Alberta to update its legislation. This bill is not about favouring one group of Albertans over another. It’s not about giving preference to farmers and ranche rs; rather, it’s about updating our laws so they reflect the curre nt situation a nd provide prote ction to landow ners and occupiers. Bill 208 will ease the threat of liability and aid in guarding against potential lawsuits. 3:10 Mr.

Ch airman, I look f orward to the continued di scussion and debate by my hon. colleagues on this legislation. I encourage a ll members of this House to carefully consider these much-need ed initiatives and vote in favour of Bill 208, the O ccupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act, 2003. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportu- nity to speak in Committee of the Whole t o private member’s Bill 208, Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act.

I think this is the third version of occupiers’ liability legislation that I’ve seen in t he As sembly in my seve n ye ars. Th is is n ot my favourite version, I will admit. I felt that an earlier version that was brought forward by the Member for Livingstone-Macleod was, in fact, a better version, but it was hoisted by a government member at the time, and there went that. So this is what we now have in front of us. On the one hand, the shift in perspective that is brought forward by this bill, I think, is what does not sit comfortably with me.

The assumption that the person that can best gauge the difficulty or the lack of saf ety – the risk, the onus i s now put e ntirely onto the recreational user. I think, in fact, that common sense would tell us that the person w ho’s most likely to understa nd the risks of using any given piece of land is the owner/occupier. So there has been a shift in the perspective that this bill is taking, and that’s what’s not sitting as comfortably with me as I would like. But we have a problem in this provin ce.

We have a number of recreational users who cannot get acce ss to trail systems in w hich they can enjoy their chosen recreation. Ther e are some large national and provincial organizations that have been trying for some time to organize long trail systems that people can hook into and use as recreational users, be they horseback riders or s nowmobilers in the wint er o r hi kers or c ross-country s kiers and, in some cases, motorized vehicles like quads or motocross bikes. We understand that it’s a good idea for people to get out and get exercise and to be active and to use these trails recreationally.

Because of the w ay things have developed in th is province and historically how unused land has been allocated, how unused railway lines were sold off when they were no longer nee ded by the rai l companies, t hat has gi ven us a s lightly different approach to this problem than we see in some of the other provinces. Our problem is that we do need to be able to go through private owners’ land, land that’s privately owned, in order to hook together some of these other trail systems that are av ailable to us. W e need to get perm ission from landowners to do this.

That has been very difficult because the law as it stands right now puts the onus almost 100 percent on the owner/occupier of the la nd, and t hey sim ply w eren’t willing to assume the risk because they had to take all of the risk. I would have argued that there needed to be a sharing of this, but this bill is coming forward with a flipped perspective, which is that 100 percent of the risk is assumed by the recreational user. Is thi s risk worth it? Should we be supporting that in this Assembly? It’s a tou gh call.

I’m personally struggling with t his because I’m on record repeatedly in this Assem bly as being supportive of these multi-use trail systems. As a snowmobiler I’ve often talked a bout how I take my recreational tourism dollar out of the province

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031970 because there’s not enough interesting, challenging riding on a trail system available in the province. We do have some provincial organizations. The Alberta Snowmo- bile Association is one I’m thinking of that has started its own trail system and levies its own user fee on it, but frankly I find the user fee high, and therefore people tend not to engage with that particular association unless they’re living right next door to or very close to or have very easy access onto one of the existing trail loops. Then it’s worth the money for them.

But for someone else that’s further away – I mean, it was getting into the range of a couple of hundred dollars a machine for a trail system that didn’t exist near you but might some day in the future, may be, and this is w here this bi ll comes in. Could that trail system exist? Would we be able to ride a t one point from one end of Alberta to another without breaking the law, which is what many people currently do by riding in the ditches of the highways? Can we get that trail system that went from one end of the provinc e to the other?

It’s not going to be ea sy here, but I think it could be accomplished if we can do something to encourage owners of priva te land to c ome along with us a nd join in on this. That’s why we need occupiers’ liability, and that’s why we need this act. I think there’s the larger issue of tourism and economic develop- ment in this province. We still haven’t hit that right. Many of the snowmobilers that I know – my own family and I still load up our machines and go to B.C., where the government invests in the trail system, where they pro vide su pport and funding to the local snowmobile clubs.

Those trails that I’m thinking of in McBride, in Valemount, in Clearwater, in Tête Jaune Cache, in Revelstoke are groomed. There’s someone from the club. They have the grooming equipment. It’s good equipment. I t’s large enough to handle the demand that’s placed on it, and somebody is being paid some kind of an honor arium to groom those trails on a regular basis. They often have little chalets and things that are up on the mountain where you can stop and have lunch or warm up or whatever you need. So it makes it very attractive to go and ride there.

Of course, your money stays in to wn because you’re renting a hotel room and y ou’re eating your m eals there. You’re probably buying some tourism mementoes while you’re in the town. So we have a lot of Alberta tourism dollars that are going into B.C. and into Montana and Wyoming that we could be keeping here in Alberta. People would be very happy to be here in Alberta i f we had the infrastructure to support it, but we don’t, and it’s not on the horizon. So I guess the first step is this bill.

If we can get this bill, then we can start to get those negotiations, and I would rather see multi-use trails that are supported more publicly than to have the sort of this is my trail or my particular sport’s trail, and you can’t come on it. I think that’s just going to cause us a whole other series of problems here. I would pre fer to support the multi-use trail system that we have with the Canada trail system or with Alberta Trailnet, which is the provincial version of that. As I say, this is not my favourite version of this.

I think there is somewhat of a redeeming feature in it in that it does make clear that if there is a total failure of duty of care, the onus would be on the occupier to make it clear and to take steps to protect people coming onto the land from some known hazard. So if you’ve got, you know, a gravel pit or something that’s not clearly marked, you’re in trouble. You need to be doing something t o let people know. Or if you’ve recently dug a pit for a reservoir, you need to mark it so people don’t ride into it and have a nasty accident there. 3:20 I’ll support this bill but very reluctantly.

If this is the only way we’re going to get it passed, then I guess this is what we have to do, but I sure would have preferred other means of doing it. As I say, I think I’ve seen three versions of occupier liability come forward, and for whatev er reas on the gove rnment m embers are not w illing to support the other versions. The first one, I think in ’97, was hoisted. I can’t remember what happened to the second one, that was brought forward by the M ember for Medicine Hat, and now we’ve got the one from Lac La Biche-St. Paul.

So if this is the only thing on offer and this will lead us to a multi-use trail system in Alberta, then I’ll support it, but I w ish it could ha ve been done a bit di fferently. We’ve got to get those trail systems developed and put some support into the volunteer organizations that support it if we’re going to have a thr iving touris m industry and ecotouris m industry here in th is province. Got to take these steps or our money is just going to keep driving over the border, and that’s not helping us a t all her e, and we’ve got the potential for it.

So thanks f or the opportunity to offe r my th oughts on this particular bill. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill 208, the Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act, 2003. I want to indicate right at the beginning that I am prepared at this point, during Committee of the Whole, to support this bill, and that’s because it addresses one of the major issues surrounding recreation corridors in our province, for which I have the responsibility.

The Alberta government was asked by numerous stakeholders to address, in fact, the needs, i ssues, and concerns r elated to a bout 17,000 kilometres of existing trails and future recreation corridors in the province, and those stakeholders and the issues that were brought forward represe nted concer ns from adjacent landowners, f rom agriculturalists, farm ers, for estry companie s, the tra il operators themselves, motorized and nonmotorized trail users, in some cases municipalities, a nd so on and so on.

So, for that reason, I was pleased to initiate a recreation corridors legislative review back in August of 2001 and to appoint an MLA committee, that was chaired by the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, from whom we’ve heard just recently in this House, along with other colleague members from Calgary-Currie and West Yellowhead, with respect to this review. Now, the hon. member who chaired the review and who has just spoken and his com mittee, in my view, represented us ver y well during that entire legislative review process.

That particular process took place over several months, in fact longer than a yea r, and the results have now come i n, but during the e ntire process the cha ir indicated regular updates regarding concerns that stakeholders had about this very issue of liability and also som e possible suggested solutions that were presented to him and the committee and which were subsequently discussed by that very committee.

I know that this issue is also referenced in the committee’s report – that is to say, in the report of the Rec reation Corridors Legislative Review Committee – because they have now submitted that to me, and I am reviewing it as we speak. Mr. Chairman, the committee has, as I said earlier, done a very, very thorough job in p reparing that report, and I’m doing as thorough a job as I can with my staff now in reflecting on it.

Those members worked very hard to involve the public in the process, and they consulted with a very wide range of stakeholders, and occupi- ers’ liability related i ssues were certainly front and centr e, so to speak, dur ing many o f those meetings. Las t yea r, in fac t, the committee proposed that a provincewide public consultation be held to examine the issues regarding recre ation corridors and to ensure that Alberta ns had an oppor tunity t o provide input through th at process, including this very important issue of occupiers’ liability.

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1971 I just want to report to the House during this stage of the d ebate on this particular bill that during the process of public consultation on this ma tter of r ecreation corridors, t rail usage, and so on , we received more than 1,000 written responses to that committee using a workboo k, and that was of course made available on-line and by mail-out and so on. W e also had a n umber of workshops, other public meetings, a big provincial forum, and in conclusion it was an extremely thorough process.

The fe edback, I should say , was a lso recei ved from over 500 participants who attended var ious of those wor kshops and publi c meetings, and those meetings occurred, Mr. Chairman, throughout the province in places like Strathcona county, Drumheller, Stettler, Edson, Fairview, Slave Lake, Bragg Creek, Lethbridge, and St. Paul, and I think that virtually in every one of those locations a nd elsewhere, perhaps, the issue of occupiers’ liability was raised.

That all concluded with a very large provincial forum, and again at the provincial forum this matter of liability was raised, and I should say that over 70 re presentatives from provincial stakeholder organiza- tions attended that particular forum. The discussions throughout the public cons ultation focused on five areas, and the fi rst o f thes e was the issue of liabili ty. T he second was safety and policing. The third was operation, mainte- nance, and accountability, the fourth was privacy and access, and the fifth was environmental stewardship.

In the report that the commit- tee has now sub mitted to me th ey have provid ed some very, very insightful and valuable advice and recommendations regarding each of these f ive areas . I’m taking that report right now throug h the process, and I sincerely hope to be able to r elease it to the publi c once I’m finished that particular process, but we’ll just have to wait and see until the process concludes.

However, with respect to the proposed amendments to the existing legislation that have come before the Legislature this year, such as the changes to the Petty Trespass Act, the Line Fence Act – or was it the Line Fence Amendment Act? – it would seem that we are very in tune with the input that the R ecreation Corridors L egislative Review Committee also received from Alberta ns and wit h the matters that are also referenced here today in Bill 208. Therefore, I think it’s very timely to consider the amendments before us to the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

I should also p oint out, as I unde rstand it, tha t Bill 16, the Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, will also address the issue of liability of landowners and occupiers at least in part and insofar as it relates to public land with agricultural disposi- tion holders, and onc e proclaim ed, Bill 1 6 should rem ove the common duty of care, as it’s known, that i s owed by owners a nd occupiers of agricultural dispositions to recreational users who use their lands for recreational purposes.

Now, with the introduction of Bill 208 the common duty of care owed by landowners or occupiers on other land used for recreational purposes will also be addressed and removed. So in the end, Mr. Chairman, under Bill 208 bef ore us at t he moment landowners or occupiers would only be held liable should they display any willful or reckless conduct toward a recreational user that results in injury or death. Bill 208 is in line w ith what the committee heard during the extensive consultation process that I outlined a little earlier and, more specifically, that the re sponsibility should be placed on the user.

At least, that’s what I believe they heard. Alberta landowne rs and occupiers, however, remain very con- cerned about trails and about rec reation cor ridors and about individuals entering and using their land for recreational purposes. I’ve met wi th n umerous ind ividuals an d gr oups mys elf, and I understand what those concerns are. So if we can address and lessen the potential for serious injury liability concerns, perhaps we might even see a r eduction in some of the concerns that have been expressed by landow ners and by adjacent landowners a nd by occupiers and so on and so on.

I have indicated, however, that when this whole issue of recreation corridors and trails and so on crosses municipal land, it has to first receiv e the appro val of the local municipality, and I know that they are concerned about this issue as well.

So if we are able to see Bill 208 pass and if it becomes proclaimed and so on, this may actually reduce the insurance requirements for municipalities and trail ope rators and pe rhaps encourage safe and responsible participation as part of the commitment that numerous people have to a recreation corridor de velopment, to the operation and maintenance of those trails, and so on. 3:30 I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, that recreation trails and corridor development in our province are very important, and there are many benefits associated with responsible recreation corridor and recre- ation trail usa ge.

In f act, in the 2000 Alberta r ecreation survey walking, hiking, backpacking, bicycling, and camping rated in the top 10 activities for individual Albert ans who w ere surv eyed. Moreover, in our province and elsewhere across the country physical activity on recreation corridors is seen as one way to en courage healthier lifestyles a nd to reduce he alth care expenses in the long run. Recreation corridors al so offer some v ery g ood potential f or tourism and economic development, as the previous speaker jus t indicated, because they do dra w visi tors to an a rea and pro vide opportunities for small business.

But, again, I would stress that it’s a question of doing it in a responsible and caring manner that respects the rights and privileges of the landowners, the occupiers, and adjacent landowners and also provides for a safe and clean and healthy lifestyle. Still, th ere are those benefits potentially available to local communities. Of a c ouple of the trails that I’ve been to and se en, one in particula r is up in the Elk Point area, w hich I belie ve is represented by the hon. Member for Lac La Bi che-St. Paul.

It’s called the Iron Horse Trail and is particularly symbolic of a very successful way to implement this particular issue of recreation trails. We drove, I think , the entire trail, or most of it, last year, and I’ve been to others as well. In any case, I am pleased that through the consultation that h as been done and by listening to Albertans, we have f ound so me solutions already – one of them is provided for here in Bill 208 – to the complex issue of liability as it is impacted by recreation trails and corridors. That having been sa id, Mr.

Chairm an, Alber tans are anxious, I think, for some resolution to som e of thes e important issues. The Recreation Corridors Legislative Review Committee has done a very thorough and e xcellent job, and at this time I want to just say thank you to them for what they’ve done and to the chair for what he’s done with respect to that review and with respect to what he’s brought forward here for our consideration under Bill 208. Of course, members of my staff and others within the department also were very strong contributing members to some of this review process, and I want to say thank you to them.

We do recognize that for many, many Albertans who provided input during the legislative review, this is an important issue. Particularly to the committee for their hard work on Bill 208 and addressing what is a very complex and difficult issue that interrelates with so many issues I say thank you for the work that they have done. With that, Mr. Ch airman, I will ta ke leave and allow others to speak after me. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031972 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportu- nity today to join debate in Committee of the Whole in regard to Bill 208. In my discussions I’ll be focusing on sections 5 and 6 of the act, and more specif ically I’ll attempt to explain why there’s a growing need to amend

section 6 of the act. Alberta is a vast province blessed with natural wealth and beauty. As a result, every year thousands of tourists and outdoor enthusiasts come from all corners of Canada and the world to experience our province in her natural setting. They come here to explore, to see, to learn, to ta ke adva ntage of all the outdoor activit ies that our province can offer them. Time and time again our landowners and occupiers have shared their land with those seeking adventures in the backcountry.

However, as of late more and more landowners and occupiers have been hesitant to allow tourists and other recreational land users onto their properties. As the owner of 160 acres I, too, was one of those landowners. An Hon. Member: That’s at Sangudo; isn’t it? Mr. Maskell: Sangudo it is. The reason behind this is that owners and occupiers fear that they will be held liable for any injuries incurred by those who use their lands for rec reational purposes. T he source of the problem , Mr.

Chairman, is the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the fact that while it protects the rights of recreational users, it does not protect the rights of owners and occupiers who allow these users onto their properties. Currently under the act recre ational l and u sers en joy th e same privileges as visitors. Specifically,

section 5 of the act maintains that a landowner owes his visitor a common duty of care, which means that the owner is responsible for providing the visitor with a reasonably safe environ- ment pertaining to the purpose that he was inv ited for. At first glance this may sound fair until one realizes that the definition of a reasonably safe environment is so broad that it requires the owner to anticipate and be aware of all the possible ways which could result in an injury to the visitor. Not only that, Mr.

Chairman, but the act also requires the owner to assess the magnitude of potential injuries and determine the ef fectiveness of the me asures he has to tak e in order to minimize the risk to his visitors. Well, Mr. Chairman, when you consider the fact that this defini- tion of common duty of care also applies to recreational land users, you can clearly see why an owner or an occupier would be hesitant to allow these folks onto his or her pr operty. To illustrate this, in many of the rural areas throughout the province ranchers allow their livestock to wander about their p astures in order to feed.

These ranchers are also known to allow snowmobilers and other outdoor enthusiasts to use existing tracks and trails which happen to cross their land. If for some reason a number of their animals happen to wander off toward a path used by snowmobilers and one of the sleds happens to collide with an a nimal, unde r the Occ upiers’ Liability Act the rancher would be re sponsible f or any inj uries incur red by th e snowmobiler. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect the owners and occupiers to be liable for such injuries, and we cannot hold them accountable for accidents they cannot foresee.

What’s even worse is that under the act the only way that they would not be liable for such accidents would be if they m ade snowmobilers sign a waiver or d ocument which would abso lve liability and specify that recreational users are entering the property at their own risk. How ever, w e c annot expec t our owner s and occupiers to hold waiver forms in their hands at all times in ca se someone wants to run a snowmobile across their property. This is simply absurd and im practical, and it is pr ecisely why s o many owners are tentative to let tourists or outdoor enthusiasts onto their properties.

This is a real shame, Mr. Chairman, because there’s no reason why responsible folks should n ot be allow ed to enjoy the experience of Alberta’s b ackcountry and all of the a ctivities associated with it. I know tha t our landowne rs and occupi ers would be more than happy to let others onto their property because it is simply not the Alberta way to build fences and block others out. However, if their generosity is paid back in frivolous lawsuits, then I can’t blame them for their current stance. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman , with Bill 208 we ca n remedy this unfortunate situation.

The bill proposes amending the Occupiers’ Liability Act to ensure that the burden o f liability placed on land- owners and occupier s corresponds to the burden of responsibility placed on recreational land users. The bill would accomplish this by adding two new subsections to

section 6 of the act, which, in turn, would place the definition of recreational users a nd visitors in the same category as trespassers. As a result, under the new amendment the owners and occupiers would owe recreational users and visitors the same level of liability as they would to ordinary trespassers. In other words, while owners and occupiers would still be he ld accountable for willful or reckless conduct causing death or injury, they would no t be liabl e for acciden tal injuries suffered by recre- ational users while pres ent on their la nd.

By pla cing a burde n of responsibility on the recreational user, this amendment will not only add a degree of fairness to the w hole liability process, but it w ill most importantly encourage owners to allow access to their lands for recreational use. This will in tu rn mean that Alberta’s natural wonders can be enjoyed by all. 3:40 Furthermore, Bill 208 also serves to remedy a legislative issue that has been lingering for over four years. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, in May of 1999 this House passed Bill 31, the Agricultural Disposi- tions Statutes A mendment Act, which a ddressed a wide ra nge of concerns pertaining to ownership and land disposition issues. From the liability standpoint the act proposed that the Occupiers’ Liability Act be amended so that owners or occupiers of agricultural disposi- tions would owe the same duty to recreational landowners as they would to tresp assers. In other w ords, if a user were injured while present on land belonging to an agricultural disposition’s owner or occupier, he would enjoy the same rights as a trespasser.

The importance of Bill 31 was that it not only reduced the burden of liability that was being placed on disposition owners and occupi- ers, but it also encouraged them to allow others to use their property without havi ng t o fea r th at t hey c ould potentially face frivolous lawsuits. Just as Bill 208 does, Bill 31 proposed to make recre- ational users more responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, Bill 31 was never proclaimed. However, a large number of its r ecom- mendations were brought forward by Bill 16, which was passed in May of this y ear.

The bill’s rec ommendations also included reducing the liability burden placed upon leaseholders and occupiers. While bills 31 and 16 address the liability issues specific only to agricultural disposition ow ners and occupiers, Bill 208 takes a broader look at this problem a nd addresse s it on behalf of all landowners and occupiers and users. I sincerely hope this Assembly will recognize the value of this important piece of legislation. As I previously mentioned, Alberta is one of the best places in the world for outdoor recreation.

I believe that enthusiasts from all parts of Alberta, Canada, and the world should have t he opportunity to enjoy all that our province’s backcountry has to offer. Our landown-

December 1, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1973 ers and occ upiers have already indicated t hat they are w illing to grant access if they are gua ranteed protection from those who act irresponsibly and take advantage of the system. Bill 208 enables us to provide our landowners and occupiers with this security, and as a result, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues here today to vote in favour of this legislation. Thank you very much. The Deputy C hair: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 208, the Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational User

s) Amendment Act. Fi rst of a ll, I’d like to thank and c ommend the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul for his work on th is important issue. I fully support Bill 208 f or three main reasons. First, as a rural MLA I’ve heard many stories of accidents and injury on p rivate property where people have taken legal action and been successful in doing so ag ainst landowners who ha ve granted permission for people to go on. In s ome cases, where landow ners even hadn’t granted permission, they were still sued successfully for people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

Second, I believe it will help to build and restore a core fundamental value of our beau tiful province, and that is one of com munity spirit and c o-operation. Third, I’m a strong believer in individual responsibility, and that’s where I personally feel that Bill 208 strikes the strongest chord. Just like community spirit and co-operation, individual responsibility is a part of our cultural fabric that sets Alberta apart from many other parts of the country. A quick look at Bill 208 may lead one to believe that it’s a n uncomplicated and simple bill to understand.

However, a longer and deeper study reveals that this bill is much more than just about legal issues. It’s about the intrinsic beliefs that founded this province and made it what it is today. As a landowner and rural MLA I’ve heard stories of people asking for permission to access land and either damaging their equipment or being injured and threatening to press charges against the original landowner. Quite f rankly, Mr. Chair man, these stor ies are very disheartening. Over the years I’ve regularly asked my neighbours to access their lan d when I’m snowmobiling or horse back riding or hiking and taking

part in other outdoor activities, and for the vast majority of those r equests I’m granted entrance to someone else’s land. As a good neighbour and frien d I feel co mpelled to do the same when asked by someone i f they can use my land. I only ask that they use respect. However, I can just see one lawsuit close our open and shared communities. This leads to my next point, that

section 6.1 of the bill will take the fear and doubt out of landowners’ and occupiers’ minds and will restore our comm unity spirit, openn ess, and co-operation. When Alberta was create d in 1905, it was mainly a rural prov ince. The new residents of the province were very community oriented, mainly because it was a matter of survival. Over the years these roots and values of co-oper ation, sharing, and openness have been instilled into the Alberta culture.

It’s only a very recent phenomenon that one would hear of a lawsuit by someone who was granted permission to use the land against his neighbour or the occupier of that land, all of this after the community-minded people grant entrance to their land and to the public. Mr. Chairman, the scary part of this phenomenon is that it onl y takes a few high-pro file cases to occu r before the y spread like wildfire through the countryside. In a matter of a decade or so we could possibly transform this magnificent province from one of the most open and trusting to one of the m ost closed and fearful.

As legislators we have a unique opportun ity to head off the potential turn towards fear and distrust and put Alberta back to a place of co- operation and trust. T hat is the place that this province is accus- tomed to, a place of community openness and reciprocal trust.

Section 6.1 of Bill 208 has another important consequence for Albertans. It restores individual resp onsibility as a cornerstone of our province’s ethi cal and cultural f abric. Mr. Chairman, our government has worked hard and long to place individual responsi- bility as an integral part of our philosophy. Albertans have accepted and embraced this responsibility to the point now where it’s seen as a part of our Albertan philosophy and culture. Alberta is a province that endorses and supports actions of entrepreneu rship, free- spiritedness, and risk-taking.

However, when these a ctions a re taken, our culture in Alberta reciprocally feels that the onus is on the individual to take full responsibility for his or her actions. Many of our government’s social programs are designed to help Albertans be less dependent and make individuals take responsibility for their lives. Our social programs have been developed to give a hand up, not a handout. The polici es and philosophi es of thi s government for a num ber of y ears have been that individuals are given the utmos t freedom to develop t heir live s, and with th at freedom a duty of responsibility must be taken.

Even with all of the attempts made by this government to increase individual responsibil- ity over the past dec ade, it can be e asily argued that in the are a of civil law we are losing th e battle of creating a cons ciousness of individual responsibility. It is for that reason that as elected officials we must move forward to pass Bill 208 as another tool to build a more respectful, independ- ent, and responsi ble Albe rta. Bill 208 is in sync w ith existi ng government pol icy and Alberta culture, a nd for that reason I encourage all members here today to support it.

I’d like to switch gears a little bit now , Mr. Chairman, and talk about Bill 208 and especially

section 6.1 and how it relates to other provinces’ legisla tion. I belie ve it’s i mportant to look at other jurisdictions to see what wor ks and how we can adju st ou r own legislation. I find it interesting to note that British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Nov a Scotia, Princ e Edwar d Island, and Saskatchewan all relieve landowners and occupiers of liability for damages incurred by recreational users who are granted permission to use land.

All of these provinces still hold landowners responsible for not creating dangerous environments with the intent to do harm to the recreational user or damage to their property. This is a very important part of our own leg islation, a nd I am pl eased tha t it’s remaining constant in Bill 208. From the outsid e Bill 208, se ction 6.1, m ay look like a s imple legal amendment. However, a deeper look into Bill 208 touches the very fundamentals of what A lberta was founded on and has now become. Community spirit, openness, and co-operation have been part of this province since it was born.

The deep sense of personal responsibility that a majority of Albertans associate themselves with is being undermined by frivolous lawsuits in which people ar e passing responsibility from themse lves to other citiz ens or to the government. I’m not sugge sting t hat Bill 208 will solve Alberta’s personal responsibility problem. However, like any other problem it must be chipped away a t piece by piece. This bill fixes a piece of a much bigger problem which with dedication and hard work will be solved. Therefore, I encourage all members here today to vote in favour of Bill 208 as part of that rebuilding process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Alberta Hansard December 1, 20031974 3:50 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It gives me pleasure to join in this debate on Bill 208, the Occupiers’ Liability (Recreational Users) Amendment Act, 2003. I have listened with great interest to the previous speakers and their remarks. While it is a bill that on the whole makes a lot of sense, I think it would not be out of place for me to raise a few cautionary flags at this point, specifically with regard to

section 6.1 of the bill. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about how Bill 208 will have a variety of benefits for Albertans. If passed, the bill would lead to increased recreational activities among Albertans, which, it can be argued, is good for the body, good for the m ind, and good f or the soul. Moreover, we have heard that thanks to Bill 208 we might be able to at lea st partial ly ste m the ti de of f rivolous legal action clogging up our courts. Those actions are preventing some serious litigation from h aving its day in cou rt.

Las tly, we’ve also heard about how Bill 208 would strike a blow against those who wish to abdicate personal responsibility and who, instead, are willing victims to whatever trivial or nuisance event that may befall them. Mr. Chairman, all these are, of course, good and welcome results. There’s no need to further expound on these points. I think previous speakers have spoken in both passionate and eloquent terms about these benefits. Bu t I wonder: w ill all the se presum ed benefi ts outweigh any drawbacks that may result from passage of this bill?

This is not necessarily a contentious piece of legislation, I think, but I’ve grown somewhat concerned about its timing and its fairness. Allow me to ela borate on these two co ncerns for a few mo ments. Mr. Chairman, the m atter tha t Bill 208 addre sses has been the subject of both private members’ bills and government legislation in years past. In 1999 B ill 31, the Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, r eceived royal a ssent b ut rema ins as yet unproclaimed.

Similarly and more recently, Bill 16, the Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amendment A ct, 2003, also mad e its way through this House and received royal assent on May 16 of this year. Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that in many ways this year’s Bill 16 is an update d version of the erstwhile Bill 31, and while I realize that there’s quite often a delay between the day a bill receives royal assent and the day it is proclaimed into force, I wonder if there is any reason why Bill 31 has yet to be proclaimed.

Looking at Bill 31 and the bill before us, Bill 208, we see that the similarities as far as occupier liability is concerned are many. The main difference that I can discern is that

whereas Bill 16 limits liability to the recreational user, this change applies to leased land only. Bill 208, on the other hand, extends liability protection