Province of Alberta The 27th Legislature Second Session Alberta Hansard Thursday, November 5, 2009 Issue 56 The Honourable Kenneth R. Kowalski, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 27th Legislature Second Session Kowalski, Hon. Ken, Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock, Speaker Cao, Wayne C.N., Calgary-Fort, Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Mitzel, Len, Cypress-Medicine Hat, Deputy Chair of Committees Ady, Hon. Cindy, Calgary-Shaw (PC), Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation Allred, Ken, St.

Albert (PC) Amery, Moe, Calgary-East (PC) Anderson, Rob, Airdrie-Chestermere (PC) Benito, Carl, Edmonton-Mill Woods (PC) Berger, Evan, Livingstone-Macleod (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Sustainable Resource Development Bhardwaj, Naresh, Edmonton-Ellerslie (PC) Bhullar, Manmeet Singh, Calgary-Montrose (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Advanced Education and Technology Blackett, Hon.

Lindsay, Calgary-North West (PC), Minister of Culture and Community Spirit Blakeman, Laurie, Edmonton-Centre (AL), Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition Official Opposition House Leader Boutilier, Guy C., Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (Ind) Brown, Dr. Neil, QC, Calgary-Nose Hill (PC) Calahasen, Pearl, Lesser Slave Lake (PC) Campbell, Robin, West Yellowhead (PC), Deputy Government Whip Chase, Harry B., Calgary-Varsity (AL), Official Opposition Whip Dallas, Cal, Red Deer-South (PC) Danyluk, Hon. Ray, Lac La Biche-St.

Paul (PC), Minister of Municipal Affairs DeLong, Alana, Calgary-Bow (PC) Denis, Jonathan, Calgary-Egmont (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Energy Doerksen, Arno, Strathmore-Brooks (PC) Drysdale, Wayne, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (PC) Elniski, Doug, Edmonton-Calder (PC) Evans, Hon. Iris, Sherwood Park (PC), Minister of Finance and Enterprise Fawcett, Kyle, Calgary-North Hill (PC) Forsyth, Heather, Calgary-Fish Creek (PC) Fritz, Hon. Yvonne, Calgary-Cross (PC), Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Goudreau, Hon.

Hector G., Dunvegan-Central Peace (PC), Minister of Employment and Immigration, Deputy Government House Leader Griffiths, Doug, Battle River-Wainwright (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Solicitor General and Public Security Groeneveld, Hon. George, Highwood (PC), Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Hancock, Hon. Dave, QC, Edmonton-Whitemud (PC), Minister of Education, Government House Leader Hayden, Hon. Jack, Drumheller-Stettler (PC), Minister of Infrastructure Hehr, Kent, Calgary-Buffalo (AL) Hinman, Paul, Calgary-Glenmore (WA) Horne, Fred, Edmonton-Rutherford (PC) Horner, Hon.

Doug, Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert (PC), Minister of Advanced Education and Technology Jablonski, Hon. Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC), Minister of Seniors and Community Supports Jacobs, Broyce, Cardston-Taber-Warner (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Agriculture and Rural Development Johnson, Jeff, Athabasca-Redwater (PC) Johnston, Art, Calgary-Hays (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL) Klimchuk, Hon. Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC), Minister of Service Alberta Knight, Hon. Mel, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC), Minister of Energy Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Liepert, Hon.

Ron, Calgary-West (PC), Minister of Health and Wellness Lindsay, Hon. Fred, Stony Plain (PC), Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security Lukaszuk, Thomas A., Edmonton-Castle Downs (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Municipal Affairs Lund, Ty, Rocky Mountain House (PC) MacDonald, Hugh, Edmonton-Gold Bar (AL) Marz, Richard, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (PC) Mason, Brian, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (NDP), Leader of the NDP Opposition McFarland, Barry, Little Bow (PC) McQueen, Diana, Drayton Valley-Calmar (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Environment Morton, Hon.

F.L., Foothills-Rocky View (PC), Minister of Sustainable Resource Development Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (NDP), Deputy Leader of the NDP Opposition, NDP Opposition House Leader Oberle, Frank, Peace River (PC), Government Whip Olson, Verlyn, QC, Wetaskiwin-Camrose (PC) Ouellette, Hon. Luke, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (PC), Minister of Transportation Pastoor, Bridget Brennan, Lethbridge-East (AL), Deputy Official Opposition Whip Prins, Ray, Lacombe-Ponoka (PC) Quest, Dave, Strathcona (PC) Redford, Hon. Alison M., QC, Calgary-Elbow (PC), Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Deputy Government House Leader Renner, Hon. Rob, Medicine Hat (PC), Minister of Environment, Deputy Government House Leader Rodney, Dave, Calgary-Lougheed (PC) Rogers, George, Leduc-Beaumont-Devon (PC) Sandhu, Peter, Edmonton-Manning (PC) Sarich, Janice, Edmonton-Decore (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Education Sherman, Dr. Raj, Edmonton-Meadowlark (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Health and Wellness Snelgrove, Hon. Lloyd, Vermilion-Lloydminster (PC), President of the Treasury Board Stelmach, Hon. Ed, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (PC), Premier, President of Executive Council Swann, Dr.

David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL), Leader of the Official Opposition Taft, Dr. Kevin, Edmonton-Riverview (AL) Tarchuk, Hon. Janis, Banff-Cochrane (PC), Minister of Children and Youth Services Taylor, Dave, Calgary-Currie (AL) VanderBurg, George, Whitecourt-Ste. Anne (PC) Vandermeer, Tony, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (PC) Weadick, Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC) Webber, Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC), Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations Woo-Paw, Teresa, Calgary-Mackay (PC) Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Employment and Immigration Zwozdesky, Hon.

Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Minister of Aboriginal Relations, Deputy Government House Leader Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Clerk W.J. David McNeil Clerk Assistant/ Director of House Services Louise J. Kamuchik Clerk of Journals/Table Research Micheline S. Gravel Senior Parliamentary Counsel Robert H. Reynolds, QC Senior Parliamentary Counsel Shannon Dean Sergeant-at-Arms Brian G. Hodgson A ssistant Sergeant-at-Arms J. Ed Richard Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Gordon H. Munk Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard Liz Sim

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1753 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, November 5, 2009 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Thursday, November 5, 2009 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Deputy Speaker: Let us pray. We give thanks for Your abundant blessings to our province and to ourselves. We ask for Your guidance in our deliberations in our Chamber and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s with great pleasure that I rise to introduce to you some very special guests seated in both galleries who during this past weekend spearheaded another incredibly successful fundraiser and food raiser for Edmon- ton’s Food Bank. In three short days this group, with significant help from the community, helped raise over $61,000 in cash along with three truckloads of food, all of it to help feed the needy in Edmonton and area. I’m going to ask each of them to rise as I call their names and to remain standing until all have been introduced. We have two groups.

First, from the Punjabi Media Association we have President Gursharan Singh Buttar, Gurbhalinder Singh Sandhu, Gurnam Dodd, Amarjit Singh Purewal, Laat Bhinder, Dr. P.R. Kalia, Harjit Singh Sandhu, Kamal Layal, Rajwinder Kaur, Harjinder Ahluwalia, Vattandeep Singh Grewal. Representing the four gurd- waras in our area are Paramjit Singh Ubhi, Surinder Singh Hunjan, Darshan Gill, Gurdial Virdee, Avtar Thind, Gurcharan Sangha. If I’ve missed anyone, please join us and rise as well. I think that’s our guests. Mr.

Speaker, this group of individuals, which represents primarily the Sikh community, has done an incredible job for the third year in a row. They did it in honour of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of Sikhism, who was born over 500 years ago and believed that food should be provided to those in need. In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues from Edmonton- Manning, Edmonton-Ellerslie, Edmonton-Mill Woods, Calgary- Montrose, and Calgary-McCall for their tremendous support of this group and their efforts. [Remarks in Punjabi] Many thanks. Thank you for coming. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Zwozdesky: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly five additional very special guests who just launched a North American first from right here in Edmonton, Alberta, earlier this week.

The people I’m about to introduce to you are extremely passionate about education and health care, particularly for our children, and it is in that vein that they have created an educational resource animation tool called IBERA, a software package, as it were, for use in schools throughout the world, with a particular focus on but not restricted to aboriginal children. It has already been introduced in Australia, where it was born, and now it’s coming to North America through our province.

I would ask that these promoters and issuers and caretakers of IBERA please rise as I call their names, and we will then applaud them together. First is the CEO of Native Counselling Services of Alberta in Edmonton, Dr. Allen Benson, who now hold the rights for North America. He’s joined by four guests from Australia, including Leigh Hughes, project director of IBERA; Shaun Tatipata, an aboriginal health worker and clinician from the Australia area; Mr. Anthony Castro, an aboriginal islander; and Kane Ellis, who is also from the Northern Territory.

Gentlemen, your product, IBERA, will revolutionize the knowledge of health and the human body, and it will help in the delivery of that understanding to our children. We are very grateful, and we wish you much success with IBERA. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the hon. Premier it’s my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through to all Members of the Legislative Assembly a group of young folks from the Vegreville Composite school. I believe they are seated in the members’ gallery.

They are accompanied by teacher Ms Tracy Cook. I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Mrs. Ady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a very special constituent of mine named Shirley John- ston. She and I can relate to each other because she’s long suffering. She has been following her husband around the world.

Now she lives in Calgary-Shaw, but she has also called home the Canadian Forces bases in Baden, Germany; Gagetown, New Brunswick; and Calgary. She is the mother of four sons: Ed, Eric, Don, and Darcy. I also know that her mother and her three sisters are very special to her, as is her pet schnauzer. As I said, she is very long suffering. She is married and is the wife of the hon. Member for Calgary-Hays, and next week they’ll be celebrating their 36th wedding anniversary. I would ask Shirley if she would rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder.

Mr. Elniski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to make two introductions. My first introduction is 33 students and staff from the Coralwood academy in Edmonton-Calder. The Coralwood Adventist Academy features a Christian education program, offering both in-classroom and home-schooling support. With us today are teachers Mrs. Marian Rochford, Mr. Colin Forde, and Pastor Dan Rochford. I’d ask you all to please rise and receive the traditional greeting of the Assembly. My second introduction this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is a family from St.

Albert who is involved with the Chrysalis organization in my constituency. They’re here with us today to help us raise the awareness for National Down Syndrome Awareness Week. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you today Miss Alyssa Garstad, Miss Taylor Garstad, and parents Kevin and Alanna Garstad. I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm greeting of the Assembly. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 11 very

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091754 distinguished Albertans. They are members of the Petrolia 60 Plus seniors’ group. They are President Nick Malychuk, Past President Betty Mullen, Secretary-treasurer Grace Smith, and members Mrs. Joyce Coen, Mrs. Jacqueline Moulden, Mrs. Nellie Shymko, Mr. Ernie Smith, Mrs. Marie Sandford , Mrs. Shirley Sorobey, Mrs. Mildred Malychuk, and Mrs. Joyce Williamson. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their dedicated service to the community. I’d ask them to rise and receive our very warm welcome. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Service Alberta. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an extreme pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to this Assembly three extraordinary guests sitting in your gallery from my constitu- ency, Edmonton-Glenora: Tanya and Michelle Ponich and their mom, Rosalind Mosychuk. I’d like to mention quickly that some of the members may recognize Tanya and Michelle’s last name from Mr. Michael Ponich, who served as a Social Credit member for the Vegreville constituency from 1944 to 1955, and was their grandfa- ther.

Michael Ponich served this province greatly in this Legislature, and his family continues to make a profound impact on those around them. His granddaughter Tanya is a shining example of this. When Tanya was born, she was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome and leukemia, not expected to live more than a month. When she continued to recover, the doctors realized they had misdiagnosed her leukemia and that Tanya had defied the odds, only the first time of many. Throughout her life Tanya has continued to prove that Down’s syndrome makes life difficult but will not hold her back.

She became a part of an early childhood intervention pilot program at Mayfield elementary school, which integrated her into the regular classroom until the end of high school. Mr. Speaker, Tanya also partakes in an extensive exercise program. She remains an advocate for people with disabilities, giving speeches in the United States and Canada. Tanya has even written a 20-minute pilot for her own soap opera, entitled Murder, Madness and Mayhem. It has taken sheer determination not only by Tanya but by her entire family to give her the support she has needed to get to where she is today.

Please join me, all members here today, to give her the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly Rick Fraser. Rick is in the members’ gallery. He’s a constituent of Calgary-Hays. He was born and raised in Calgary. He’s a proud husband to Mishelle and father to Carson and Thaine Fraser. He’s an advanced life support paramedic in the city of Calgary for Alberta Health Services.

He also represents over 500 paramedics as president of the Calgary Paramedics CUPE local 3421. He has worked in EMS in Alberta since 2001. He is also a paramedic instructor at the University of Alberta Augustana Faculty in Camrose. He’s also a director in Calgary-Hays, and he’s a strong advocate for a strong and sustainable health care system for Albertans through empowering allied health care professionals. I’d like you to give him the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise and introduce to you and through you to the Assembly 12 nursing students at the University of Alberta. They’re here today representing Alberta’s nursing students who feel frustrated that the job opportunities that were available when they began their training have gone, but the shortage of nurses in Alberta remains. They are among 80 per cent of the current graduating class who may have to leave Alberta to find work in provinces which still acknowledge that they need to hire nurses.

My guests will be standing together tomorrow with hundreds of other nursing students on the steps of the Legislature to show unity in opposing the restructuring of Alberta Health Services. They have a common goal of quality public health care for all Albertans. I would now ask that my guests, who are seated in the public gallery, rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. They are Shannon Harrington, Natalie Cloutier, Emily Caird, Aneta Chodorski, Amy Walczak, Ashley McEwen, Stacie Heck, Molly Ryks, Jenna Tiedmann, Kristine Torres, Catherine Turner, and Carly Burdziuk.

Please give them a warm welcome. head: Members’ Statements The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Remembrance Day Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday morning at 11 this great nation will fall silent. Canadians from coast to coast will pause to remember and revere the momentous sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made to safeguard our shores, defend our freedoms, protect human life, and keep peace around the globe.

In Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa Canadians have risked and sometimes lost everything to protect human life and human rights from warlords, rogues, and tyrants. Their sacrifices have ended wars and prevented wars from the birth of this nation to this very afternoon. While we in this Assembly often quarrel about the issues of the day here in Alberta, I know we all share at least one common trait: the enormous respect and gratitude we feel for every Canadian who puts on a uniform to keep the peace and defend our country.

Here’s to the men and women, past and present, who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms, our way of life, and for many innocents around the globe. Here’s to the families and friends of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Without their support and sacrifice our armed forces could not function. On November 11 we will remember. Your valour fills our hearts with pride and eternal thanks. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary – Edmonton- Calder. Tanya Ponich Mr. Elniski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad we’re north.

I’m truly honoured today to rise again to speak about National Down Syndrome Awareness Week and the outstanding visitors that we have here today, with both Tanya and Alyssa, their terrific sisters, and their great parents. Tanya was born with Down’s syndrome and over the years has become a real advocate of hope and support for individuals with Down’s syndrome in Canada. She is a voice of strength and courage for each person that is labelled disabled and seeks to provide support to those in need. Tanya’s accomplishments are very impressive.

In 2008 she was selected as Global Edmonton’s woman of vision because of the

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1755 support and leadership that she provides to others in the community. She has been featured in books and has made presentations to audiences across Canada and the United States. One of the most interesting connections between this Assembly and Tanya, of course, is her grandfather, who we heard about earlier, Mr. Michael Ponich, who was the MLA for Vegreville from 1944 to 1955. During that time he also served as party whip. It is a pleasure to have Tanya here today to celebrate her accom- plishments in the community, just like her grandfather’s so many years ago.

I would like to thank both Tanya and Alyssa and their families for taking the time to join us here this afternoon. It’s the perseverance, strength, and energy that allows them to tell their stories that will motivate others in their community to raise aware- ness and support for individuals with Down’s syndrome. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Vancouver 2010 Olympic Torch Relay Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to join Albertans and all Canadians as we celebrate the countdown to the biggest show on earth, the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games. One of the greatest symbols of the games, the Olympic flame, will arrive in Alberta tomorrow, re igniting our Olympic spirit and reminding us of the tremendous legacy we created in Calgary in 1988. The flame will arrive in Alberta for a quick but memorable one-day visit to Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray, and Cold Lake before heading into Saskatchewan.

Along with my constituents I am honoured that Grande Prairie will be the first stop on this epic two-stage trip across our province. We will welcome the torch relay back to Alberta on January 13 for eight unforgettable days. All Albertans will have a wonderful opportunity to experience the Olympic spirit in action. By the time the flame returns to B.C. on January 21, it will have travelled to 76 Alberta communities and covered nearly 3,400 kilometres of our province, carried by a thousand Albertans. Most Albertans will be within a one-hour drive of our extensive torch relay route.

I encourage all Albertans to visit alberta.ca/vancouver2010 to find a map of the torch relay route and the celebration site nearest you. Let’s show Canada our Olympic spirit and celebrate the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay. Civic Participation Ms Woo-Paw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity to deliver my fifth civic participation presentation during Canada’s Citizenship Week, which is intended to encourage all Canadians to reflect on the value of citizenship.

Through these presentations, organized by groups such as immigrant-serving and community- based organizations, I had the opportunity to talk about civic participation and Canadian citizenship, to encourage people who do not yet feel that they are full members of society that not only is it never too early to be engaged in society but that it’s critical that they find ways to impact positive change and to model for their children active citizenship.

These candid sessions offer all participants speaking different languages opportunities to dialogue beyond the spectrum of civic participation, from volunteering to political participation, but also to examine barriers to meaningful and full participation in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some encouraging trends that I have observed from these recent encounters. The participants are diverse in terms of ethnicity, age, and professions. Most are skilled workers or trained professionals.

The youth group I presented to on Saturday afternoon was attended by about 25 young people from different parts of the world. Similar to other sessions these are newcomers who have only been here between a few months to a few years. 1:50 Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the collective, more strategic focus on integration in our society versus the traditional focus on recruitment and settlement of immigrants from community groups, governments, and funding bodies alike.

With greater acknowledge- ment of the important role institu tions in society need to play in communicating the importance of engagement, community groups have the support to provide people the tools to participate, and participants are motivated by understanding the significance and benefits of active participation. I believe we are heading in the right direction in creating the kind of dynamic and active citizenship that our public policies intend. Thank you. head: Oral Question Period The Deputy Speaker: First question for the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. H1N1 Influenza Immunization Dr.

Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The last two weeks have shown that not only is this health minister incapable of managing the health care system, but we have a Premier who is unwilling to admit mistakes and take real action that would protect the interests of Albertans. To whichever minister is responsible for health care in this pandemic we are in today: what is the explanation for this government policy to delay regularly scheduled immuniza- tions for serious diseases, including meningitis, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and rubella until December or January? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Health and Wellness I want to make a couple of comments. First of all, let us remember that we’re not just dealing with an Alberta situation here; we’re dealing with a world situation. This is a pandemic. In short, what that means is that the supplier, in this case GlaxoSmith- Kline, is obligated to try and help the entire world with the amount of vaccine that’s required. We have responded as best we can, and I think our health care workers deserve some applause for the good job that they’re doing. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it the policy of this government to make scapegoats of bureaucrats rather than have an inept minister do the honourable thing and resign? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, again, on behalf of the Minister of Health and Wellness let me just indicate that as soon as issues were found out pertaining to what I assume the member is driving at, action was taken. A full investigation has been launched, and it’s going to be completed as soon as we finish the next round or two of vaccinations. We hope to have that done before Christmastime, so let’s be patient.

Let’s deal with the priority today, and that is those people most at risk. That’s what we’re focused on doing. Dr. Swann: Let me ask it in a different way. Is it the policy of this

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091756 government to deny responsibility for the minister of a ministry and let a bureaucrat fall for a minister’s problems? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the policy of this government is to look after the needs of all Albertans, in a priority order in this case. That is clearly what we are doing. We were fortunate to have received the immunization packages a little in advance. Media got the message out. We got the message out. Unfortunately, there was not enough v accine at that time. There is more vaccine now available to us, and we’re dealing with those priority issues right now.

Our policy is to help those people who are at highest risk, and that’s why today the program started to help out those children who are between six months and less than five years of age. Tomorrow we’ll deal with

part 2, which will be pregnant women, and then we’ll go on down the line to help out everyone that needs the help before Christmastime. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Second question. H1N1 Influenza Immunization for Aboriginal Albertans Dr. Swann: Mr. Speaker, two months ago we in the opposition sent a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations stressing the need to have plans in place to deal with First Nations, one of the risk populations.

A focused response clearly is needed, and the federal government has affirmed this, putting it in the highest risk category for H1N1 immunization. To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations: were you consulted on the decision to delist high priority immuniza- tion for First Nations for this week? Were you consulted? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, if this is dealing with First Nations on reserve, then clearly that is a matter under the purview of the government of Canada. We have worked with the Public Health Agency of Canada. Our officials have also worked with Health Canada. We’ve worked with Alberta Health Services.

We’ve worked with the Ministry of Health and Wellness. To my knowl- edge, the vaccines were provided. Now, they, too, might be following in the footsteps of others in that there might be a shortage of vaccines. It’s a world-wide problem, Mr. Speaker. It’s not just First Nations; it’s not just other Albertans; it’s a world-wide problem. It’s a national shortage in our country. We’re dealing with it with very capable health care providers doing the best job that they can. Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister doesn’t seem to want to answer questions today.

Were you consulted before the decision was made to remove First Nations from this week’s high-risk vaccination program? Were you consulted on this? Yes or no. Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, that’s a different question. The first question was about First Nations, and that’s under the purview of the government of Canada. They don’t necessarily have to consult with me. Did they personally phone me? No, they didn’t. Did I personally phone several reserves to make sure they got the vac- cines? Yes, I did. Now, in terms of high-risk groups I spoke with the Minister of Health and Wellness every day for the past number of days.

In fact, as early as yesterday I have been assured that we will be providing the vaccine on an as-scheduled basis as quickly as possible to the Métis settlements, which do come under the jurisdiction of Alberta Health Services, and to other high-risk priority groups. Dr. Swann: As of today, Mr. Speaker, 439 people have been admitted to hospital with H1N1. Can the minister tell this Assembly how many aboriginal and Métis people are among those in hospital due to H1N1? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, that’s a very difficult question to even attempt to answer because not everyone who is of aboriginal extraction self-identifies. It’s up to them if they wish to do that. So it’s almost an impossible question to answer. Let me take that question under advisement and see if I can find some statistics for the hon. member. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Critical Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite what this govern- ment claims, the case for massive transmission development is anything but proven.

Two professors of economics and engineering at the University of Calgary yesterday put out a scholarly paper stating that the power lines between Edmonton and Calgary, the ones that the government wants to force on Alberta consumers, the ones that the government wants to call critical transmission infrastructure, are “an overbuild that is not warranted by its economics.” In a proper regulatory system, of course, these opinions would be heard by the regulator and would influence the regulator’s decision. To the Minister of Energy: why do you want to cut experts such as these out of the regulatory process? Mr.

Knight: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to be clear about one thing, and that is that the government of Alberta did not proclaim anything about critical infrastructure. It’s AESO. AESO is an independent group of about 250 technicians and engineers that have the ability and the resources to determine what is necessary for the electrical transmission system and the electrical system, generally speaking, in the province of Alberta. I didn’t determine this; AESO determined it. Relative to the situation with the HVDC, Mr.

Speaker, what I will say is that there are many people with differing opinions relative to what technology should be employed. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Which would make a good case for continuing to have those experts express their opinions in front of the regulator that this minister wants to do away with. You know, this government isn’t willing to hear experts who disagree. Its favoured approach is instead to spend taxpayer money to manipulate public opinion.

Yesterday this minister doggedly refused to answer my very simple question about the government’s pro Bill 50 propaganda campaign. The government is spending taxpayers’ dollars trying to convince Albertans that they just have to pay billions of dollars for new transmission lines. It’s time to answer the question, Mr. Minister. How much is this costing? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I’m not exactly sure what it is that the hon. member would like me to answer.

If he wants me to answer the question around how much of AESO’s budget is expended giving Albertans information that they desire and need relative to this system, I guess I could make some attempt to find out what number that would be. But I have to tell you that as far as the whole business is concerned about who is putting information in front of the public and who isn’t, I think that at this point in time it’d

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1757 be fair to say that almost every stakeholder is putting information in front of consumers. 2:00 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Geez, this is f unny. Not every stakeholder is spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars advertising on radio, on television, and in the newspaper. The minister dodged my question yesterday when he would not state in this Assembly how much this propaganda campaign is costing. To the minister: how many taxpayer dollars are you spending on advertising on this pro Bill 50 campaign?

Simple enough for you? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I don’t know what consti- tutes advertising. Apparently, he’s an expert in the field. So if he would like to send me a letter that indicates which pieces of this stuff he considers to be information for consumers and which pieces he considers to be advertising, perhaps what we could do for him then – you know, he’s the expert on advertising. He told me that yesterday. That’s fine. If he’s the expert, let him tell me which pieces are advertising and which pieces are distributing information that Albertans want.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. H1N1 Influenza Immunization (continued) Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. You know, there are so many empty seats on the other side today, you’d think the next election had already happened. The government has made a scapegoat of the bureaucrat who let the Calgary Flames jump the queue for the H1N1 vaccine. Alber- tans want to know why this government repeatedly encouraged masses of low-risk people to get vaccinated when the clinics first opened and why the vaccine wasn’t exclusively targeted for high- risk groups from the start.

If a bureaucrat was fired for letting a hundred people get ahead of the vulnerable, w ill the Deputy Government House Leader tell us who’s going to be fired for encouraging a few hundred thousand people to go ahead of the high- risk people who needed the flu shot first? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to stay focused on is the fact that today is the beginning of a revamped immuniza- tion program which, by and from all reports so far – I know it’s early in the day – is going quite well.

I have already indicated in an earlier question what is going to happen with respect to the issue in Calgary, and I’ve also indicated that that will be done as soon as the immunization program is completed. We hope to have that done by Christmastime. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much. Mr. Speaker, the bureaucrat who was fired was operating in a leadership vacuum where nobody knew what was right, what was wrong, who was supposed to be getting priority, and who wasn’t.

Why won’t the Deputy Government House Leader admit that the people who were responsible for this vaccine were operating in a leadership vacuum where anything could’ve gone wrong and often did? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there’s only one thing that went wrong, if at all, and that is the shortage of vaccine. We just have to explain that very carefully. That particular supplier has now guaranteed an additional number of doses. Those doses are being rolled out on a priority basis, as I have indicated.

We will continue doing that until the needs of the most vulnerable are met, and then we’ll deal with those who are not as high at risk. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. There’s only one thing that went wrong, and that was that the wrong party is in the government of Alberta at this time. From where I sit, the leadership vacuum that is crippling the government is obvious. I look across the way, and no one is here to answer for Albertans.

Instead of scapegoating one individual, a low-level bureaucrat, why won’t the Deputy Government House Leader admit that the chaos and confusion surrounding this entire vaccination program ultimately comes down to a total failure of leadership at the highest level? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, we have the priorities, we have outlined them, and I resent the hon. leader of the third party referring to me, who’s providing good, solid information, as somebody who’s not here. You know, here we are. You’re asking questions, and we’re providing you answers.

The fact that you don’t want to believe the truth: that’s up to you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo. Government Accountability Mr. Boutilier: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MLAs from all political parties bring great ideas to this Assembly because we’re connected to the elected bosses who elect us and who we follow. My question to the acting Premier today would be simply this: is this government being run by elected people or by nonelect- ed, politically appointed people ba sed on the contradictions we’ve been seeing in the last seven days? Mr.

Horner: The hon. member well knows that this province is being run by a Premier with vision, with leadership, and with a very strong team of elected officials backing him from across this great province. Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, ideas that are brought to this adminis- tration are either heard or not heard. I know there is much frustra- tion on that side from people stopping their ideas from coming forward. The minister of health in this very Assembly said that there would not be a long-term care in Fort McMurray to 2012.

He has contradicted the Premier when the Premier was in my city council three weeks ago and said in front of hundreds of people that it would be done. Can you explain the contradiction of the minister of health and the Premier of this province, who promised my constituents it would be done? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bringing up a conversation which I wasn’t privy to, so I can’t say what the Premier said. I can’t say what the minister of health said. The hon. member is obviously saying that he believes that this was said and that he believes a commitment was made.

We’ll take it under advisement and advise the Premier. Mr. Boutilier: I have to really ask the question: who is running this asylum? Is it elected people or is it nonelected people? There are great ideas over there, listening to Albertans at coffee shops,

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091758 bringing them here, but they fell on deaf ears. This weekend the question will be: will you be listening to the people of Alberta or to people that are nonelected in politically a ppointed pos itions? My question is: when will the listening start for MLAs in terms of the ideas they bring falling on deaf ears in this administration? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously feels that he’s not being heard from where he’s at. I would encourage the hon. member to come over to any one of the ministers who are on this bench. Come and have a chat with us.

We have an open-door policy. I would suggest to all of the hon. members here: are you being listened to by this government? I think the answer would be a very solid yes. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Condominium Property Act Consultation Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Shoddy construction practices continue to leave condo boards and owners burdened with large repair bills after the developer is out of the picture. Albertans are still expecting action from this government on new legislation to protect condominium owners. To the Minister of Service Alberta.

This is yet another example of inaction from your department. Why has Service Alberta still not completed a review of Alberta’s condominium legislation? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Condominium Property Act we are right now working with Munici- pal Affairs and a number of other ministries, moving into a consulta- tion process beginning early next spring. The Condominium Property Act was last revised in 2001, so it’s indeed time to look at it.

There are letters that come across my desk and the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ every day, so there are a number of concerns out there that we need to deal with. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s what the minister has been promising all along. Can the minister provide us with an actual timeline with actual deadlines for when she will bring forward this stronger legislation for Alberta’s condominium owners? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, with respect to the Condominium Property Act you have to take into account the building code as well, which is with Municipal Affairs. Part of a really good consultation is making sure we hear from all stake- holders and respect the opinions of everyone who’s at the table. Being that it was last reviewed in 2001, we knew it was a very lengthy process. That’s why we are beginning it next spring. As a matter of fact, the letters that we are getting are already being funneled into the department and being looked at as we speak. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister again: will the minister commit to including in the legislation tough new sanctions against shoddy residential construction practices? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, that would be with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but it’s important to note that in the letters that are coming across our desks, there are a lot of concerns out there, as the hon. member has raised. That is some- thing we want to look at with respect to when individuals purchase property, that they know what they’re getting into, whether it’s a condo or whether it’s a home.

That’s really important to myself in my role as minister of consumers. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. 2:10 Vancouver 2010 Olympic Torch Relay Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great day today to be an Albertan and a Canadian. [Mrs. Leskiw sported red Olympic mittens] My constituents are really excited about welcoming the torch relay to Cold Lake to morrow as it makes its first trip through our great province. A local community committee has been working extremely hard to organize this celebration in my constituency.

My first question is to the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation. How are Albertans involved with the torch relay as it travels through our great province? Mrs. Ady: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, we are feeling the love. We’re feeling the spirit. [Mrs. Ady sported red Olympic mittens] It’s been 20 years since the torch came through the province of Alberta, and tomorrow that torch is re-entering this province, first going to Grande Prairie, then going to Fort McMurray, and then to Cold Lake, and you know, we’re excited.

As you heard earlier, a thousand Albertans are going to carry the torch through some 76 communities. A recent Travel Alberta guide that was put out shows where all those torch relays are going, where the celebrations are going to be. I would encourage all members to look, and I’ll be tabling this. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplement is to the same minister. What else is being done to shine some of the international spotlights on Alberta around the games? Mrs. Ady: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we’re going to be promoting Alberta business, culture, and tourism because we know the world is watching. We announced already seven world cups that will give us a little taste of what to expect in 2010 as well as 450 hours of international TV coverage reaching 150 million viewers. This is a wonderful moment for Alberta, and we’re going to take advantage of it. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplement is to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit. Can you please tell me about how Alberta artists and performers are involved in the torch relay? Mr.

Blackett: W e l l , M r . S p e a k e r , I ’ d s a y t h a t m y h a n d s f e e l somewhat naked. Mr. Speaker, of the 18 communities that are participating in these celebrations, they’ll all involve local artists who will showcase the diversity, people, and cultural flavour of their regions. The arts are

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1759 an integral part of our cultural identity and our strength. These celebrations provide our province with the opportunity to showcase who we are and what we’re made of. It gives them the freedom to create and the spirit to achieve. They will show the rest of the world what we here in Alberta already know, and that is that we have among the most astonishing level of artistic talent and accomplish- ment within our borders. The government of Alberta, through the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, is providing each of these 18 communities with up to $10,000 for these celebrations.

Charitable Gaming Consultation Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Solicitor General why he was sending Huey, Dewey, and Louie – I mean, three backbench MLAs – out on a taxpayer-funded junket to various pl aces around Alberta to have meetings on casino table revenues. In my estimation this is a complete waste of money.

Given that a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly is already in place and their members are already paid, why did this minister not have Alberta charities consult this all-party forum inst ead of wasting taxpayer money on sending these backbenchers out to attend closed-door meetings? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Mr. Lindsay: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I addressed that question yesterday. While the hon. member is referring to a circus, the only circus is in the tone of the question that the hon. member is asking.

It’s pretty simple mathematics when you look at sending 10 to 12 members across the province through consultation instead of three government members who are doing it basically on expenses because they’re already maxed out on their committee pay. So it’s a savings; it’s not an extra expense. Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find that answer quite amazing because we have these all-party committees, and people come in and present to us. It really is amazing. So my question to the minister: do you know how these all-party committee meetings work? Mr. Lindsay: As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, I know exactly how the all-party committees work, and they do great work in the mandate that they’re set up for. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess then he knows how they work, and he chose not to use them, and he chose to waste taxpayer dollars. Nevertheless, a resolution from the 2008 Progressive Conservative Association AGM proposed by the constituency association of Drayton Valley-Calmar stated: Provincial Pooling of Casino Slot Proceeds.

To the same minister: is the Alberta government now instituting this motion that has the apparent goal of taking revenue raised in Calgary and Edmonton and Lethbridge and other major centres and spreading it throughout the province? Mr. Lindsay: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that the information I’ve got back from the great committee that’s doing some great work in the province, meeting with all of the charitable organizations across this province, is that they’re all committed to working together to ensure that there’s fairness in the gaming model.

At the end of the day I’m sure the report that’ll come back from the three MLAs will indicate that, and we’ll move forward. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Critical Electricity Transmission Infrastructure (continued) Mr. Prins: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A new study released by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy yesterday concluded that the proposed Calgary-Edmonton HVDC – that’s high-voltage direct current – lines are an overbuild. To the Minister of Energy: are the conclusions reached by this study correct? Is this a case of overbuild, or is it a staged prebuild? Mr.

Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been a tremendous amount of interest relative to the build-out of transmis- sion in the province of Alberta. The most contentious piece at the moment seems to be this idea that we should or should not build high-voltage direct current lines in the province of Alberta. I believe that the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary was looking at this from the point of view of: what is this HVDC system’s eventual capacity? It is a lot. What I can tell you is that this will be a staged development.

Once we have the linear pieces of this infrastructure in place – and, by the way, the linear pieces are less expensive to build than AC lines – we can build onto them and work for the future of Alberta. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Prins: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question to the same minister. My constituents continue to be lobbied by various interest groups who state that there has been no public engagement with respect to these lines. Can the minister shed some light on what public consultation has actually occurred on this matter? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, of course, you know, the situation relative to transmission reinforcement in the province of Alberta is something that’s been worked on for a number of years. What I can tell you and what I can tell all Albertans is that, number one, since 2007 relative to this issue of transmission there have been over 300 public open house meetings where any and all Albertans were invited to come and share their opinion with respect to what it is we’re doing.

I don’t think that there’s any other piece of public policy that’s been moving on the landscape here in that period of time that has had anywhere near that amount of public scrutiny. If they want to come, please do. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy alone has held more than 20 meetings on this piece of legislation in the past couple of months. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Prins: Thank you. My final question is to the same minister. Given what the AESO has heard in landowner consultations, why is it so important to build these HVDC lines as opposed to AC lines? Mr.

Knight: Well, there are a number of reasons, of course, Mr. Speaker. The first one would be, as I have indicated, that we can stage the development of these lines, start off with a thousand megawatts on each of these lines, and then it’s plug and play after that. When we need to reinforce the system further, you could put a thousand megawatts at each end by adding AC/DC conversion on the ends of the line. You don’t have to go back and tr ouble land- owners. You don’t have to go back and build new infrastructure. You don’t have to go back and create a situation where you put Band-aids on the system every 10 years.

This is built for the future.

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091760 It can be staged and developed in a manner that best suits Albertans in the long run. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Grade 12 Diploma Exams Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of my inability to interpret educational bafflegab, I have prepared a translation test to help the Minister of Education qualify and quantify his responses from yesterday, upon which he will be graded, with his results published by the Fraser Institute. HB pencil ready, Mr. Minister. Multiple-choice tests (

a) assume that there’s only one correct response, (

b) emphasize the final product over process, (

c) are easy and inexpensive to mark, (

d) any or all of the above. Letter only, please. 2:20 Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, being a slow learner, I missed the first part of the question, so I can’t answer the (a), (b), (c), or (

d) part. Mr. Chase: Grade 12 students don’t have those options. Question 2. The Ministry of Education’s justification for giving equal value for an entire year’s work to a two-hour multiple-choice test is (

a) students who have slacked off throughout the year deserve one last chance to redeem themselves, (

b) primarily designed to justify the Ministry of Education’s existence, (

c) teachers’ profes- sionally varied and cumulative evaluations of standardized curricu- lum aren’t to be trusted, (

d) all of the above. (A), (b), (c), or (d)? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the type of problem we try to avoid by having experts design exam questions which are valid and reliable and actually test functional knowledge and ability to calculate, all of those things, the si x things that I mentioned in the House the other day that are necessary to test in a reliable manner. This particular teacher s hould go back and learn assessment qualities. Mr. Chase: Well, I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, but due to budget cuts we had to remove the written rationale portion of the multiple-choice test. Question 3.

When selecting a successful college or university applicant, a variety of factors are taken into consideration including (

a) the student’s academic record throughout their high school experience, (

b) a singular focus on their departmental exam mark, (

c) their extracurricular interests, including community involvement, (

d) both (

a) and (c). Would the minister like a lifeline? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, most of us would know that colleges and universities, postsecondary institutions across this province, first of all, put a great deal of reliance on the Alberta diploma because the Alberta diploma is based on a standardized assessment, which gives a reliable indication of a student’s ability. Not only in Alberta but institutions across North America accept the Alberta diploma. In fact, other places want the Alberta diploma because it has such a strong standard.

Other jurisdictions don’t have that kind of reliabil- ity, so their marks get degraded. The fact of the matter is that most postsecondaries look beyond the actual marks now. They under- stand that internationalization, community service: all of those things are important. Depending on the faculty and depending on the purpose, they look beyond the marks. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. PDD Funding for Community Agencies Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Seniors and Community Supports likes to throw out the occasional pla titude about support to people with developmental disabilities. Yet, as usual, when cuts happen, those who can least afford it are first on the chopping block. The minister has in the past admitted that front-line community agency workers aren’t paid anywhere near what they should be and that this interferes with disabled Albertans getting the help that they need. Why, then, would the minister allow the PDD board to roll back plans to deliver already-budgeted modest wage increases to these same workers?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the member opposite is speaking about the $14.4 million that we released to the board to be paid to the front-line workers as a one-time bonus. In our budget this year we did budget a larger number, but as everyone here is aware, there is an economic downturn. Instead of disappoint- ing the front-line workers by giving them something that we didn’t have, we made sure that they got something that we did have.

Since 2005-06 we’ve added $74 million to this program, with an increase of clients of about 2 per cent. Ms Notley: Well, Mr. Speaker, the needs of people with disabilities don’t change just because we’re going through an economic crisis. Funding that was in place was already sadly lacking. PDD has told community agencies to expect 10 to 15 per cent cuts next year, which has forced them to cancel the wage increase, and it’s also forcing them to cut other essential programs.

How can this minister suggest that the already meagre budgets for agencies that support the developmentally disabled have any room for further cuts? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any cuts of 10 to 15 per cent. I’m assuming that the member opposite must have got this information from the same source that was incorrect last time when they made other announcements that were highly incorrect. Once again, I’m not aware of any cuts of that nature to the PDD program. Ms Notley: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what community agencies are hearing from PDD.

Now, just a year ago the minister said: “We fully recognize that adult Albertans with developmental disabilities who have behav- ioural, mental health, or other complex needs require specialized supports.” You can’t attract the workers who provide these special- ized supports if all you offer them is minimum wage or just a little bit above. How can this minister claim to care about people with disabilities while not ensuring that we maintain the funding for the supports that she admits they need? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, this year we did give $14.4 million to the agencies.

We had another $6 million that we produced for the increase in clients for the agencies and, besides that, another $5 million for complex-needs residents. There is no doubt in my mind that I care about our PDD clients. I’ve proved it in many ways. Mr. Speaker, one more point that I’d like to make. The member opposite forgets to mention that at the beginning of this year we did give a hundred dollar per month increase to 95 per cent of our PDD clients through the AISH program as well. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1761 WorldSkills Calgary 2009 Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As we’re all aware, the 2009 WorldSkills competition was held in Calgary during the week of September 1 through 7. I recognize the importance of providing opportunities for Alberta’s youth to foster these important life skills. My questions are to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. What was the cost of the 2009 WorldSkills competition, and what benefits did it provide to the competitors? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the event was a tremendous success.

For any of us who were able to attend to see what happened, Calgary certainly enjoyed the benefits of that. We invested $24 million into the WorldSkills competition as well as $1.7 million to transport thousands of Alberta students to that. Having had the opportunity to speak to some of the students and some of the teachers who attended, they t hought it was a tremen- dous, life-changing experience for many of their students. More than 59,000 students attended WorldSkills, Mr. Speaker, and had a first-hand opportunity to avail themselves of different trades of some of the best and brightest of the world.

More than 151,000 visitors from across Canada, across Alberta, and across the world came to Calgary, where two distinguished Albertans received medallions of excellence for their achievements. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, Alberta decided to give $16 million in state-of-the-art equipment from the competition, part of our investment, to the schools and the postsecondaries in this province. I think that’s a tremendous benefit. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental to the same minister. Mr.

Minister, there’s talk about the WorldSkills legacy, donating new equipment to Alberta schools. What schools benefited from this program, and what criteria were used as to where the equipment went? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, all 45 school jurisdictions and postsecondary institutions that applied received equipment, and the school boards were responsible for deciding the type of equipment they were looking for, the type of equipment that would fit best in their high schools in their jurisdictions.

As well, the postsecondaries submitted their applications, and they were ranked based on the priorities that we have within the department as to the areas of expertise that each of these colleges and postsecondary institutions wanted to put into their high-demand programs. Again, it was all done in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration from both departments and from all of the school jurisdictions that applied. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplemental to the same minister: how are programs like the registered apprenticeship program benefited by the WorldSkills legacy? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the RAP apprentices are enrolled in CTS courses throughout this province in postsecondary and in high schools, and the high schools and postsecondary institutions now have flexibility given the new equipment. This was state-of- the-art equipment, so our students are now working on equipment that they will see in industry when they leave our postsecondary and high school institutions.

I think that’s a tremendous benefit not only for our RAP apprentices but also for high school students, who may just decide to stay within the K to 12 system and get the training that they need to further their careers and further their education once they leave those institutions. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose. 2:30 Employment and Immigration Spending Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The public accounts of Alberta list many examples of this government’s out-of-control and wasteful spending.

To the Minister of Employment and Immigra- tion: why did the minister waste $2.6 million on bonuses to senior management last year when other necessary programs for people in the ministry ran short of cash? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have contractual obligations. We set targets and we set certain objectives that have to be met, and if those targets are met and the objectives are achieved, then we will pay the bonuses, as we’ve done in the past. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister knows that the targets were not met, the objectives were not met, but the bonuses were paid anyway, and other people who needed services did without. Now, again to the minister: why did the minister waste $565,000 last year advertising in the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune when other needed programs for people in the ministry ran out of money? Mr. Goudreau: Mr.

Speaker, there are a couple of mandates that we have as a ministry, and one is to be ready to have the right people with the right skills at the right places for the future operation of the province of Alberta. We all know that we will be short of people in the very near future, as we were up until a few months ago, in the province of Alberta. We still need to be ready when the pendulum swings the other way. We need to be able to maintain our presence around the world to be able to attract the types of people that are required in this province. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Again to the same minister: why did the minister waste $1.1 million last year hiring Geneva Health International to recruit nurses from overseas when this very government now refuses to hire the nurses that were recruited in the first place? That’s a complete waste of money and a very stupid policy. Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, a lot of that work was done when we did have a high demand for individuals, professionals of all types, including those that have trades.

We target certain demographics across the world, and we are spending our money in areas of the world that we feel will benefit Albertans the most. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East.

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091762 Charitable Gaming Consultation (continued) Mr. Bhullar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Charities in my constitu- ency have expressed concerns about the amount of money they receive from holding a casino event, how the proceeds are pooled, the length of time it takes in between their casino events, and the number of volunteers required to work at these casino events. To the Solicitor General: what are you doing to address these very impor- tant concerns? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many rural and urban Albertans told this government that they are unhappy with the issues that the hon. member has referred to. We listened and formed a three-member committee to look at these issues. This cost-efficient committee has heard from 862 eligible charities during 13 meetings to date to gather input and ideas. Two more meetings will be held in northern Alberta next week. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhullar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. My constituents say that this review is pitting Calgary charities against rural charities and that cities will lose out. Mr.

Minister, is this the case? Mr. Lindsay: Well, from the chirping across the bench, Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member is right. Let me be very clear. Our government does not believe in pitting one region against the other. The MLA committee has formed to respond to specific concerns from charities about how casino events are scheduled, how gaming proceeds are distributed, and the number of volunteers that are required. This process is about this government’s commitment to help ensure that Alberta’s charities can earn revenue to support their many worthwhile projects and services.

In 2008-2009 roughly 3,500 licensed charities raised $252 million in proceeds from casino events, $252 million. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhullar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the same minister. There’s been a little bit of criticism from across the way that the consultation process is done in secret and that the process is flawed by having participants work in round-table discussion instead of making formal presentations. Would the minister please inform all members of this House why this particular method was chosen? Mr. Lindsay: Mr.

Speaker, information on the MLA committee meetings and processes has been publicly available since I first announced this committee in September. Possibly if some members opposite would have taken the time, they could have added some valuable input to this committee. The round-table format of these meetings allows eligible charitie s to share perspectives and work together to try to find potential solutions on the issues raised. Participants have said that they appreciated the opportunity to participate in this process.

Char ities that can’t make the meetings can still participate by sending in written submissions. This government is looking to find th e most equitable solution to the concerns raised by these charities, and that’s why we’re asking them for their thoughts and their ideas. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Continuing Care Fee Structure Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A concern that has been brought to my attention is the lack of information that is available regarding changes to continuing care.

Hopefully the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports can clarify some of the concerns that I have. Is the minister considering changing the fee structure for accommodation rates for continuing care facilities? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans at this time to change any of the fee structures for continuing care, for long-term care, or for designated assisted living. Just so that the member knows, last year about this time an increase of 7 per cent was allowed for long-term care accommodations, and we helped to support about 8,700 seniors who were in long-term care at that time.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that, Madam Minister. The next time that this may come up, would you have public consultations to ensure – let me put my two questions together, and then I’m down to one. Actually, would you have public consultation, and would you ensure that the rate for the seniors would never be above inflation? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, public consultation and consultation with our stakeholders is a very good thing, something I would consider for making any serious move in continuing care.

As far as any predictions about what the increases may be and if they would never go above the cost of living, I can’t promise anything at this time, but I know that at this time no increases are being decided on or considered. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Identity Theft Mr. Benito: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With today’s technologies it’s possible to be a victim of theft without ever seeing the thief. Identity theft, in par ticular, is one of the fast-growing crimes that can devastate a person’s finances and entire life.

The criminals are getting smarter with the use of technology and always seem to be one step ahead of the police. My questions are for the Minister of Service Alberta. Given that your ministry is responsible for consumer protection, my constituents are asking: why aren’t you doing more to educate Albertans about the dangers of identity theft and how to prevent it? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Service Alberta. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, identity theft is one of the fastest growing types of fraud in Alberta today.

Service Alberta works with the Solicitor General, local police and law enforcement agencies, and other groups to help prevent identity theft, and certainly it’s highlighted during the anniversary of safe communities week. We have a number of resources in place to educate Albertans about how to prevent identity theft, including presentations to seniors. There’s a lot of information out there. The award-winning DVD video called Changing Faces teaches Alber- tans how to protect themselves from identity theft.

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1763 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Benito: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Identifications such as drivers’ licences and birth certificates contain valuable information that can easily be used to steal someone’s identity. To the same minister: given that identity thieves adapt so quickly, what is your ministry doing to ensure that drivers’ licences and birth certificates are as current and secure as possible? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta’s drivers’ licences and birth certificates are one of the most secure documents in North America. We introduced a new, secure, state-of-the-art licence in 2008. As a matter of fact, some of the latest security features were just updated earlier this year. It’s really important that we try to stay ahead of the counterfeiters and always, always update our technology. 2:40 Mr. Benito: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: what does your department do to prevent, investigate, and prosecute people who try to get false information or identification through a registry office? The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the registry offices and the excellent work all of the agents do across Alberta, we have a special investigations unit and front-line staff to watch out when criminal action is taking place. We use facial recognition technology to verify the identity of people applying for drivers’ licences or ID cards. As well, the information is in the vehicle system, which is reviewed by Service Alberta for irregulari- ties. When staff do uncover these situations, we act quickly and get the police to investigate, charge, and prosecute.

Last year alone our department investigations resulted in 133 criminal and 36 regulatory charges being laid against 56 individuals. The Deputy Speaker: We have concluded question period. We will continue with Members’ Statements in 35 seconds. head: Members’ Statements (continued) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Centennial of Grouard Ms Calahasen: Thank you. On September 27, 1909, the community of Grouard was officially incorporated as a village in the new province of Alberta, and the residents honoured Bishop Grouard by naming the new village after him.

After all, a year after his conse- cration as a bishop, in 1891, he visited the St. Bernard Mission in Grouard. A hundred years later many people gathered in the small village to commemorate Grouard’s 100th birthday. Grouard’s history is rich and fascinating. In 1912 Grouard became a hub for many people.

By 1914, five short years after its founding, over 1,000 residents called Grouard home and enjoyed the services of two schools, a dentist, four doctors, an eye specialist, three churches, a steamship company, a local newspaper, an active board of trade, 20 general stores, two department stores, a hardware store, two bakeries, two butcher shops, a tire shop, two jewellers, three implement agencies, a flour and feed store, two laundromats, six livery barns, a harness shop, three blacksmith shops, two motor garages, five real estate offices, five poolrooms, a motion picture theatre, a skating rink, tennis, baseball, and hockey clubs, a domin- ion lands office, a government telegraph office, a Royal North-West Mounted Police headquarters, a public health officer, an immigration hall, a hospital, a fire engine brigade, two sawmills, a bowling alley, a 24-piece brass band, two law offices, two drugstores, a post office, numerous restaurants, a rural telephone system, and a 16-kilometre- long main street named Bouillion Street.

In other words, Grouard was growing to be a well-established community, on its way to being recognized as the capital of the north and the first city in the last great west. However, Mr. Speaker, the confidence in the future of Grouard as a major bustling metropolis would not be sustained. Economic development at the time relied heavily on railway development, and in 1915 it was decided that the newly developed Edmonton, Dunvegan, and British Columbia Railway would bypass the town of Grouard to the south by a mere 12 miles.

This established the railway towns of High Prairie and McLennan, causing Grouard’s population to drop by two-thirds, and the portage/water routes died. Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the Assembly to join me in commemorating a remarkable 100 years of history for my hometown, Grouard. Education Funding Ms Notley: Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s education system is on the brink of a government-inspired crisis. We need to protect funding for public education, not cut it.

With an anticipated $340 million expected to be cut from the 2010 budget, school boards, teachers, and parent councils have united in their recognition of the dire consequences should these cuts go ahead. Moreover, the uncertainty and fear arising from the prospect of these cuts is creating chaos in a system that is already struggling to meet surprise mid-year budget clawbacks. If that’s not enough, the province has given education stake- holders a brief opportunity to have any impact on revisions to the School Act, which many believe have already been drafted.

Vague requests for stakeholders to weigh in on questions of governance are issued while straightforward discussions with the school boards this would affect are avoided. In the midst of talk of restructuring and profound funding cuts the government is also reviewing its provision of special-needs supports to Alberta kids. One of the items on the chopping block: coding, one of the few mechanisms of certainty in a system that has been increasingly destabilized by the actions of this government.

Finally, while these very significant changes are being discussed behind either partially or completely closed doors, the government has spent unnecessary dollars consulting experts, only to invite the public stakeholders to draw pictures of what they think the future of Alberta’s education should look like. The title of this initiative? Inspiring Education. Where is the inspiration in threatening transformative cuts to the public system while maintaining an increased level of funding to the private schools?

Where is the inspiration in having parents fund raise for their schools by working casinos to meet the basic instructional needs of the classroom? Where is the inspiration in driving school boards to increase class sizes, limit special-needs and literacy funding, and close community schools? This government is not inspiring education for our children at all. Rather, it is stifling the very future of this province with short-sighted and uninspired solutions offered up in the middle of self-generated chaos. Stop the cuts. The future of Alberta’s children depends on it. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091764 head: Presenting Petitions The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. Mr. Amery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition signed by 74 Calgarians.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to: • Grandfather the rights and status of all currently-practic- ing Registered Massage Therap ists . . . in Alberta in a manner that they may continue their practice undisturbed and, when necessary, gradua lly upgrade to newly-pro- claimed standards of training, so as not to force current therapists to lose their ongoing income whilst upgrading and so to ensure that clients of said therapists will be able to use their insurance coverage in order to pay for massage services from current therapists.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My first set of tablings are copies of correspondence from Calgary-Varsity constituents Neil Thurber, Habib Syed, Nasser Hamid, Janet and Gary Moore, and Aldred Epp, all of whom have asked to have me voice their opposition to Bill 50 for reasons including, and I quote: trying to circumvent the public’s view; planning is not benefiting Albertans; pushed through and decided upon behind closed doors; alternatives must be explored, but Bill 50 would prevent them from being identified and debated publicly; and a proper public and industry review can result in a more realistic solution. My second tabling, Mr. Speaker.

I have the requisite number of copies of correspondence from Calgarians Gabrielle Enns, Isabell Emery, Jennifer Reddy, Jenny Regal, Kelly Russell, Kelly Water- man, Antonella Fanella, Dave Roseke, Michelle Coolidge, Sarah Clarke, Marlies Sargent, Brenda Herring, Ken Yasenchuk, Meghann Springett, Alicia Motuz, Tim Kitchen, and Patricia Paterson that was sent to the Minister of Education and the Premier urging them not to cut funding for education because it is more important in these times than ever to invest in our children’s futures. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table the requisite number of copies of a research paper from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy done by Jeffrey Church of the department of economics and William Rosehart and John MacCor- mack of the department of electrical engineering at the U of C entitled Transmission Policy in Alberta and Bill 50, worthwhile reading for the Minister of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Mrs. Ady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table five copies of the Travel Alberta festival and event guide that features the Olympic torch relay and the Alberta World Cup events. 2:50 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table for information, please, a letter that I wrote on July 27, 2009, to the board chair at that time of the Edmonton public school board regarding the whole issue of school closures and the demographics that are used to make those decisions regarding school closures. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mrs. Sarich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table five copies of the annual report of Alberta Education’s Speak Out student engagement initiative. The report, entitled We’re Listening, outlines what thousands of high school students have said about their education in online forums around the province and at the annual student conference held in Edmonton this May.

The input these students offer has informed many department initiatives, including Inspiring Education, and I encourage all members to read it and learn what Alberta students had to say. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk: on behalf of the hon. Mr. Lindsay, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security, re- sponses to questions raised by Mr. Hehr, hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo; Dr. Brown, hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill; Ms Woo- Paw, hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay; Mr. Mason, hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood; and Mr. Kang, hon. Member for Calgary-McCall on May 6, 2009, in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and Services. On behalf of the hon. Mr. Stelmach, Premier, return to order of the Assembly MR 4, asked for by Ms Notley on behalf of Mr. Mason on April 20, 2009. head: Projected Government Business The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Given that next week is the constituency week, at this time I would ask the hon.

Government House Leader to please share with us the projected government business for the week commencing on the 16th, which is government business on the 17th. I understand there may be a need for night sittings by then. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, November 16, in the afternoon, of course, is private members’ business.

In the evening we would anticipate second reading of Bill 51, Miscella- neous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 53, Professional Corporations Statutes Amendment Act, 2009; Co mmittee of the Whole on Bill 48, Crown’s Right of Recovery Act; Bill 54, Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 55, Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 56, Alberta Investment Management Corporation Amendment Act, 2009; and for third reading Bill 46, Gunshot and Stab Wound Mandatory Disclosure Act, of course depending on prog ress on some of those bills this afternoon.

On Tuesday, November 17, in the afternoon for second reading we would anticipate dealing with Bill 50, Electric Statutes Amend- ment Act, 2009, and in the evening second reading of Bill 57 and Bill 58 as well as Committee of the Whole on bills 51 and 53, third reading on 48, 54, 55, and 56, and as per the Order Paper.

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1765 On Wednesday, November 18, in the afternoon second reading on Bill 50, the Electric Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, and in the evening second reading on Bill 59, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 60, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 61, Provincial Offences Procedure Amendment Act, 2009; Committee of the Whole on Bill 57, Court of Queen’s Bench Amendment Act, 2009; Bill 58, Corrections Amendment Act, 2009; and third reading on Bill 51 and Bill 53; and as per the Order Paper depending on progress.

On Thursday, November 19, in the afternoon Committee of the Whole on Bill 50, Electric Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 55 Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2009 [Adjourned debate November 4: Ms Pastoor] The Deputy Speaker: Does any hon. member wish to speak on the bill? The leader of the third party on Bill 55. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2009. Now, this act simply extends the expiry date of the existing act from 2010 to 2016.

It has the effect of extending a bill that would provide for the election of nominees, I guess you could call it, for the Canadian Senate. Of course, the Constitution of the country reserves the appointment of Senators to the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, so that’s how the Senate is currently appointed.

What the government has put in place is that in the earlier days, when they were under, you know, a lot of pressure from the Reform Party, which proposed that we have a triple-E Senate – let me think if I can recall what all the Es stood for; elected was one, effective, and equal – of course, this provincial government bought into that American-style constitutional amendment and created a fiction, which is that we elect our Senators in this province, and the bill that we’re extending provides a mechanism to do that.

I want to say that the New Democratic Party in this country was the forerunner of senatorial reform. Far before the Reform Party was created, the NDP was actively campaigning for a triple-A Senate, not a triple-E Senate. Abolish, annihilate, and abandon is the position that we took and still take today. The Senate in this country is a fundamentally undemocratic institution, and it’s, moreover, a redundant and an unnecessary institution. Attempting to reform it so that it looks like the American Senate really doesn’t speak to the basic issues, the differences between the Canadian and the American Constitution.

In the United States it’s possible for federal, state, and even municipal jurisdictions all to legislate in the same area. So that means that the states, particularly, need to be protected from the intrusion of the American federal government into areas where they traditionally have jurisdiction.

Now, the 10th amendment to the American Constitution also protects states by saying that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” What I want to say is that in the United States, because of the powers of the federal government and the lack of a clear division of powers which we have in Canada, the states need some protection from intrusions by the federal government. So the Senate, which represents the states in Washington, has a purpose.

But here in Canada the provinces have their own areas of jurisdiction under the Constitution, and those can be protected from federal jurisdiction by appeal to the courts. So the argument in favour of an equal Senate doesn’t hold. It remains an undemocratic institution. It’s modelled, incidentally, on the British House of Lords. It was originally intended as a House for the privileged, for people with property, and for 1867 the property requirement was very, very substantial. Now, that’s not changed.

It’s rather modest in today’s money, but at the time it was designed to be an unelected institution appointed by the federal government in order to provide a check on the passions of the mob, or the people, in those days. We think that the Constitution of the country should be changed so that we eliminate the Senate. A number of provinces used to have upper Chambers in this country, and they have abolished them all because they’re unnecessary. I believe that the Senate of Canada is unnecessary as well. So for the government to continue

an act which essentially is a charade – that is to say, creates the fiction that we’re electing Senators when, in fact, they’re appointed by the Prime Minister – you know, is disingenuous and dishonest. I think we ought not to pursue this direction anymore. 3:00 Further, these elections are foisted on Alberta municipalities, who have to conduct senatorial elections in the October elections, and there are additional costs to the municipalities for doing so. To the best of my knowledge the government has never compensated municipalities for adding this cost.

There are, of course, extra costs to administer, count, tabulate, record, and pass on to the provincial government who, in fact, is elected. Mr. Speaker, we think that the bill has outlived the current legislation, has outlived any purpose that it might once have had. The time when Albertans were all excited by the idea of a triple-E Senate has passed, and I think that the government should let the senatorial act expire, as was originally intended. I think the Senatorial Selection Act was passed in 1989. That’s 20 years ago. We don’t need it anymore.

We should stop beating our heads against this wall and stop pretending that we have the right to elect Senators and, instead, acknowledge that the Constitution is as it is and will not be changed. The current amending formula of the Constitution of Canada means that provinces that have an interest in retaining the unbal- anced membership in the Senate can block any attempt to reform it, and they will. Ontario and Quebec w ill block it. Perhaps the Atlantic provinces will block it because they get more seats even than the western provinces.

I think we should just call a spade a spade and say: “Listen, this Senate is fundamentally flawed. It’s undemocratic. It was created on a model of the House of Lords. It’s reserved for people with privilege.” What it’s become, of course, is the ultimate patronage reward in the country. You can’t get better than being made a Senator if you’re a Tory bagman or if you’re a Liberal bagman. That’s where you go. Ms Blakeman: It could be a bagwoman. Mr. Mason: I’ll correct the language. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Mr. Mason: That’s the heaven that you’re rewarded with for being a bagperson. That’s where you go.

That’s the heaven you get to go to if you’ve worked really hard for your – pick one – political party. Ms Blakeman: Are there no ND Senators? Wasn’t Broadbent appointed?

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091766 Mr. Mason: No. Mr. Speaker, you know, it’s filled with Tories and Liberals who’ve raised millions and milli ons of dollars for their political parties, and they are then supported until they’re 75 more than adequately – let me put it that way – by the taxpayers while many of them continue to do political orga nizing and fundraising for the political parties that appointed them in the first place. Mr. Speaker, we will not reform that place by electing or pretend- ing to elect Senators from this province. They’re not actually elected; we just pretend.

We go through the motions and pretend that we are actually picking a Senator. I think this act is actually very dishonest with the people of Alberta. I don’t think the govern- ment should continue the charade of saying that we’re actually picking Senators because, you know, we’re not. We’re just picking people whom we hope the federal government, the Prime Minister, will recommend to the Queen to be appointed to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I certainly think there are many reforms that we can make to our political institutions. One of them is to eliminate the first past the post system.

That means, you know, for example, that with 52 per cent of the vote the Progressive Conservative Party occupies 80 per cent of the seats in this Assembly. That’s just wrong. You know, if you’re looking for democratic change, for things that are wrong, that are unbalanced and undemocratic that you want to change, let’s start with the electoral system we have in this province. Mr. Speaker, we can look a little bit at electoral financing.

You know, in Manitoba they got rid of corporate and union donations to political parties, which skew the decision-making process because, as much as some hon. members on the other side find this concept offensive, money is given to political parties in exchange for the hope that when they’re the government, they’re going to do things for the people that gave them the money. Mr. Hancock: Never. Mr. Mason: The hon. Government House Leader says, “Never.” You know, in many ways the Government House Leader is a bit Pollyannaish.

I think it’s quite cl ear, for example, in this province that the oil companies fund the Conservative Party, have funded the Conservative Party at least until now, because they want a favour- able royalty regime and favourable protection from environmental- ists and all of that sort of thing. They’ve got it to a large degree, but they want a little bit more, so now they’re funding the Wildrose Party because they want to put pressure on the Progressive Conser- vative government to move a little more to the right and give the oil companies even more than they already get.

The amount of money that the oil companies give to both the PC Party and the Wildrose Alliance is very, very large. We should look at the financing of our political process – money buys power – and we ought to extend the current disclosure requirements to cover leadership conventions, even nomination contests within parties. They’re part of the political process in this province.

We know that the Premier and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development still have significant donations that they haven’t revealed from their leadership race, and we know that in the Wildrose Alliance their new leader, Danielle Smith, has refused to reveal where she got her money from. I think that that’s wrong. There are lots of areas, Mr. Speaker, where we could bring about some significant democratic reform to the system that we have: how we elect people, how we pay for elections. We might even pass some legislation ensuring some government accountability or enshrining ministerial responsibility in law.

That might be most useful in dealing with this latest H1N1 vaccination fiasco because the government has abandoned the long-standing parliamentary tradition of ministerial accountability. There are lots of things, if the go vernment is really interested in reforming and democratizing our political system, that they could do.

But pretending to elect Senators, making municipalities pay for the elections, and creating these silly Senator-in-waiting positions, where they wait for years and years to be appointed, hoping that the Conservatives will win the federal election so that they have a chance of being appointed because the Liberals certainly will never appoint them, is a farce, and it should be discontinued. I urge all hon. members to join us in voting against Bill 55. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: There are five minutes for questions and comments. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

I’m wondering if the member is interested in expanding on his last point. Mr. Mason: I thank you, hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, but, you know, I think I covered all of the aspects of this. I think that in practice this has been a farce, and it doesn’t tackle the basic question be fore us of how to make our political institutions more democratic. 3:10 The Deputy Speaker: There are five minutes for comment and question. Mr. Berger: Just a couple of quick questions.

Judging from the comments made by the hon. member across the floor, I’m just wondering if he’s actually offended by democracy in electing a Senator, if that’s the offensive part, or if the offensive

part is actually that his party has never been in power and never got anybody to that level, if that was the offensive part. I just want to clarify those two things. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. That’s a rather insulting question. I think the hon. member, you know, pretends he didn’t hear what I said. I said that the Senate in Canada is unnecessary and undemocratic and that there are a number of steps we can take to make our existing parliamentary system and its financing more democratic. I think that the government should do that.

I assume that he heard that and just ignored it in order to score some cheap point. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations under this five minutes? Mr. Webber: No, Mr. Speaker, not under the five minutes. I would like to speak on this bill, though. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: Any other hon. member who wishes to speak on the bill? Ms Blakeman: On the bill? Yes. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In January of 1992 I was one of the people that was selected from many across Canada to participate in one of the five Shaping Canada

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1767 constitutional forums that were sponsored by the then Progressive Conservative federal government. I attended the conference in Calgary which was charged with exploring alternatives for institu- tions, including the Senate. The five conferences were the federal-provincial division of powers, which was held in Halifax; the Senate, which was held in Calgary; the economic union, held in Montreal; the distinct society, the Canada clause, and the Charter, which was in Toronto; and a concluding conference in Ontario.

I had actually wanted to attend one of the other ones, but now many years later I am actually very grateful that I was able to attend the one on the Senate because I think that more than anything it has continued to stay alive. When I’d gone back and looked at some of the proposals that we were examining at the time, one of the examples in front of me, an

article written by David Elkins from a magazine called The Network, which was a newsletter of the Network on the Constitution, talks about Australia having a triple-E Senate that was elected, equal, and effective and had been since the country’s official creation in 1901 and about what experiences we could draw from that. But the method of electing the Senators was incredibly important, and what was put before us was that the first past the post system used for a senatorial election is not effective.

All it does, actually, is entrench a particular kind of partisanship, and it very much affects the kinds of interests that get represented, and that ultimately affects the functioning of the Senate. So the single transferable vote was the preferred method there. What’s written in here is that the moral is that if you favour quick, decisive action by government, then abolish the Senate. But if you value compromise enough to endure the conflicts between House and Senate which this new legitimacy will bring, then reform the Senate [partly] by making it elected. We look at: what are the key elements of this?

One of my frustrations with this government’s approach toward the Senate is in choosing simply one piece of Senate reform. It entrenches a whole series of things that are really quite unpalatable and which I find it surprising the government would be supportive of. In fact, it entrenches these very things by simply taking the system that is in place and electing members over top of that. What we need to look at is a whole package of things. I spent five days in Calgary in 1992 looking at what this package needs to contain. It needs to look, particularly, at the distribution of the number of Senate seats.

It needs to look at the process to change, which is the constitutional amending formula. It needs to look at the equality of the Senate. What is the purpose of the Senate seats? We have Members of Parliament who are elected on a geographic basis to represent the interests of the people that live in a geographic boundary. The idea of the Senate seats was always meant to work with a much larger constituency or issue base or interest base.

Originally it started out with a sort of regional flavour to it, but if we are going to reform the Senate, it brought into play a number of other, more modern concepts that were open for us. When I look at Bill 55, the government’s bill to open up their Senate bill again – and, really, all it’s doing is extending the dates so that they don’t have to deal with this right now – I’m disappointed because I’ve always seen Senate reform as a huge opportunity for which there is no uptake right now.

That’s disappointing b ecause there are lots of possibilities that we could work with in Canada to help refresh our democracy and to possibly do some pretty interest- ing things. The current amending formula that was being worked with at that time – it’s actually still in place – was unanimous consent for the provisions referred to in

section 41, the consent of Parliament for certain provisions relating to the national government, consent of the provincial Legislature for those provisions relating to the provinces, and consent of Parliament and the provinces relating to provisions applicable to more than one province, et cetera, et cetera. The Meech Lake accord would have made two changes.

The unanimous support of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of all the provinces would have been required for amendment of a number of additional matters such as Senate reform and the creation of new provinces, which currently require the consent of Parliament and two-thirds of the Legislative Assemblies for amendment. Compensation would have been provided to a province opting out of any amendment transferring provincial legislative power to the Parliament. None of this is simple stuff. It all requires a fair amount of hard work. What were the pieces that we were looking at?

Well, number one was that the Senate should not replicate the patterns of representa- tion that were already present in the House of Commons. Another point of real contention was whether the Senate would be allowed to deal with what’s called money bills. We deal with that issue in this Assembly because, essentially, a private member’s bill, which covers anyone that’s not in Executive Council and not a minister – we can’t bring forward any private bill that has anything to do with money. Essentially, the question was around the Senate: would a money bill category be immune from Senate scrutiny?

Really, when you look at it, money bills account for between one-half and three- quarters of the House of Commons business, so not allowing the Senate to consider money bills actually gave them not very much to be dealing with. That was another big piece of what we were looking at. Those powers came into play in a number of ways. We were looking at Senate powers regarding normal legislation, regarding money bills, on ratifying appointments, on constitutional amend- ments, on the role of language and culture legislation.

Could the Senate introduce money bills, never mind commenting on them but actually introduce a money bill, and could the Senate defeat the government? Those were the issues that we were contemplating. 3:20 Where it really started to come home to me was when we looked at what would be entrenched. When I hear the talk about a triple-E Senate, which was very big at the time, what really frustrated me was that I looked at where we were, and I thought: boy, if this is all we did, all we do is entrench an unfairness to my province; why on earth would we willingly do that?

Here’s the distribution that we have: P.E.I. has four Senate seats, Newfoundland has six, New Brunswick has 10, Nova Scotia has 10, Saskatchewan has six, Manitoba has six, Alberta has six, B.C. has six, Quebec has 24, and Ontario has 24. If we just went w ith what’s in front of us with the government’s proposal for electing Senators, we’re forever en- trenched with six Senators. Why on earth would we do that to ourselves? A big piece of senatorial reform, which is the larger picture, is trying to figure out what should be the distribution of seats. We spent a long time on this.

We looked at all kinds of possible distributions. The elected and effective, the triple-E Senate that you hear people talk about, would have basically assigned 10 seats to every single province, so we would have had P.E.I. having 10 seats and Alberta having 10 seats. Well, make that one work for me. Or if you came from Ontario or Quebec or B.C., imagine how you’d feel knowing that you had 10 seats, so did Alberta, and so did P.E.I. I don’t believe that the idea of absolute, equal seats as a distribution was a very realistic or helpful way of looking at Senate reform considering all the other possibilities.

You know, folks, this information is available from me if you

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091768 want to see it. But there were all kinds of possibilities that were considered, going from sort of six seats each for every body except for Quebec and Ontario, who got 10, to a sort of six, 12, 18, and 24 formula, that moved from the sm allest to the largest with that allocation, or one that had six for P.E.I., 12 for everybody except for 24 for Quebec and Ontario. You can see that there are all kinds of possibilities, depending on how you’re trying to sort that out.

If you start with the idea that you’re expecting Senators to not represent people on a geographic basis, that you’re trying to get them to represent either on regional issues – or what I was interested in was representation from other constituency groups. One of the other things that we kept looking at was a certain number of the seats that were set aside and designated for aboriginal representation. I’m pretty sure we were looking at 5 per cent.

Of course, the discussion that went along with that is, “Okay; if it’s 5 per cent for aboriginals and that’s representative of their population base in Canada at the time, we should be saying 50 per cent for women,” which, of course, I was very much in favour of. You also start to work in some of those other mixes like new Canadians or representation from particular cultural groups that are heavily invested in Alberta. You could be very creative and imaginative.

This is a huge opportunity to bring other voices into our chambers of decision, to have those voices represented at the table or at the Senate desk to be able to comment on the legislation that was proceeding through those two Houses. To me, I saw it as a huge opportunity to engage more of our population in this and to have those voices amplified and represented in the House. I was really excited by this concept, and clearly I still am. But you’re not going to get that until you deal w ith how the seats are distributed, and just saying 10, 10, 10 across the board doesn’t work, as far as I’m concerned.

While I was in favour of elected Senates – fine by me – you have to deal with a system that is not a first past the post system, or you just entrench everything. If you’re going to elect, you need to look at your electoral system. You absolutely have to deal with how the Senate seat distribution goes. In order to do that, you must change the amending formula for the Constitution about who gets to weigh in on this. There was quite a good formula that was looked at. I think it was a 7-50, so it had seven of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

The idea was that you couldn’t just have Ontario and Quebec gang up together and amend the Constitution and leave everybody else out. It had to be seven provinces repre- senting 50 per cent of the population, which I thought was a pretty good formula. I was w illing to sign on to that one. Clearly, I s till am. The scope of the Senate power, which I talked about earlier. Would they be able to comment or debate on money bills? Could they even introduce money bills? Could they be involved in ratification of appointments and that kind of thing? What would be the scope of what they did?

There were lots of possibilities here, but the triple-E just didn’t do that. Triple-E is really the most basic approach to senatorial reform and, forgive me for saying, the one with the least amount of flair and creativity to it. Canada is a creative country. We are an innovative country. I’d like to see more innovation brought to this debate than that triple-E.

This is the one that I’m referring to, the one that was developed by McCormick, Manning, and Gibson in their book Regional Represen- tation and then reiterated by Alberta’s select committee on senatorial reform in 1985. “Strict equality of the provinces in the form of identical numbers of Senators . . . The Senate should represent . . . populations . . . purely and single-mindedly.” [Ms Blakeman’s speaking time expired] I’m out of time. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, we have five minutes for questions. Dr. Taft: Yes.

I was absolutely intrigued by the member’s com- ments, and I’m wondering if she had anything else to say. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Well, clearly I did, so thank you for that. I was just talking about the triple-E Senate. I wanted to close off on that because I think it was the most basic approach to senatorial reform. It just looked at absolute, identical numbers of Senators. It looked at an election but did not comment on any kind of electoral reform, so it would end up using a first past the post system.

In fact, we have had, I think, one set or two sets of senatorial elections in Alberta, and that’s exactly what they did. They just dumped it onto the municipalities and said: go ahead and run it exactly the same way. We had no innovation there. For the scope of it they actually moved back a step because once again it was to be done on an absolute representation of the provin- cial population. The criticism that was brought forward during the debates that I attended was in the way it would be applied to the ratios. I’ve already pointed out the differences between Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island.

Really, that’s brought home by the fact that there are probably a dozen Ontario municipalities that have more population than Prince Edward Island in its entirety. We have to have buy-in from the population when we do things like this, a nd that kind of ratio just does not get buy-in. It becomes laughable to people. I think there’s great possibility in senatorial reform. There’s lots to talk about inside of all those categories that I outlined for you. It was a very exciting opportunity to go and spend five days with a diversity of people from across the country talking about Senate reform.

I’m disappointed that it never went any further b ecause I think it should, but I don’t see that creativity or anything else involved in the bill that’s before us. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: Are there other hon. members who wish to speak on the bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview on the bill. 3:30 Dr. Taft: On the bill, yes. Thank you. I realize it’s a brief bill, but it does open, I think, an opportunity to reflect a little bit on the nature of the Senate, which this bill, ultimately, is trying to address; that is, to bring in elected members for the Senate.

I’ve got mixed feelings about the whole business of elected members. Frankly, I can’t remember the last time I had a constituent talk to me about this issue; it’s way down on the public agenda. It doesn’t mean it isn’t significant. I just wanted to bring to the attention of the members of the Assembly an interesting bit of history that I think is worth thinking about in terms of how the Senate is arranged. I am holding in my hands right now a copy of a map from the book called Canada: An Encyclopedia of the C ountry, volume 1, page 17, printed in 1898.

The member for Edmonton-Centre described the number of seats in the Senate per province. What this particular map does is propose what was considered to be the correct boundaries for provinces in 1898. It’s quite a different map than what we’ve ended up with, and it would have quite a different impact on the Senate. There are a total, in fact, of 18 provinces and territories proposed in this map of the dominion of Canada, and it’s quite interesting how

November 5, 2009 Alberta Hansard 1769 different the west and the north would have been and how different the Senate for the west and the north would have been if this had been fulfilled. Atlantic Canada remains the same, except Labrador is broken off and treated on its own. Ontario and Quebec are geographically much smaller and would have smaller populations and, therefore, would have less claim on the Senate. Northern Quebec is actually carved off into a separate territory called Labrador Ungava. British Columb ia remains the same, but the prairies are dramatically different.

You have a province called Athabasca right across the top from the B.C. border halfway into what’s currently Manitoba, and it comes south to an area that’s about 100 miles north of Edmonton. Alberta is cut and basically loses its top third. Saskatchewan loses both its top third and bottom third and ends up as quite a small province, and the southern part of Saskatch- ewan would have been a province called Assiniboia. Manitoba loses all of its north to a new province called Keewatin. It’s an interesting time to reflect on the history of our Senate and the history of the country and how this is allocated.

The fact, for example, as the member for Edmonton-Centre talked about, that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick currently have more seats in the Senate than Alberta seems way out of whack. Maybe instead of just electing Senators, we should actually open up a debate to rethink the entire Senate. The New Democrats want to abolish it. I think there’s actually merit in that perspective. I also think there’s merit in considering other ways to make the Senate more meaning- ful. I think this bill actually falls r eally short of doing something significant. It’s like the easiest way out.

There’s no obligation on the federal government to appoint elected Senators. It’s expensive, it takes up time, and it seems very low on the public radar. So I think this is kind of the lazy way through this particular issue. It’s not bold. It’s not very interesting. It’s not very productive. I guess that’s maybe where we’re at these days with the government. But I think we can aim higher, so I would suggest that we have the sponsoring member take this bill back and throw it wide open to see where the people of Alberta really are because I don’t think they’re aware of where this bill is proposing to take them.

So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take my seat. If anybody wants to have a look at this map, I’ve got it right here, and I’d be happy to pass it around. It’s really pretty interesting. Thanks. The Deputy Speaker: We have five minutes for comments or questions. The hon. Member for Little Bow. Mr. McFarland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I for one would be interested in seeing that map, hon. member. I don’t know of what interest it would have been at that time with senatorial elections or whether they were appointed.

Interestingly enough, my great grandfather came to this province two years before that map, and I’m quite sure that when he was trying to eke out a living south of Pincher Creek raising horses for the North West Mounted Police, he couldn’t have cared less about who and what in the process for the Senate.

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that five generations later, or six with my kids, it probably is an issue, and they probably are interested in having elected, responsible, account- able Senators rather than having somebody that is politically appointed till the age of 75 and really has no responsibility to any electorate except an allegiance to the person who appointed them. So I’d be interested in seeing the map. Thank you very much. Dr. Taft: I’ll send it right over. I’m interested to hear the personal history of the member’s family.

I’m just not convinced, as we debate here right now, that the ranchers around Pincher Creek are going out tonight to discuss whether Senate reform really matters or not. I just don’t think that they are. Maybe they are. I don’t think the constituents of Edmonton-Riverview are, but, hey, maybe we should give them the chance. I think that was the spirit that the member was suggesting. Maybe we should throw this debate open broadly and see where the public is. Perhaps next session one of the members from the government can come forward with a process to revisit the issue of Senate reform.

In the meantime, I’ll shoot a copy of this map right over. The Deputy Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to use the five minutes? Hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, do you wish to speak on the bill? Mr. MacDonald: Yes, please, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, when we look at Bill 55, we see the amendment from December 31, 2010, through to December 31, 2016. I certainly can support this bill. I don’t see anything the matter with it whatsoever.

Other members have expressed a view, but I hope that at some point we will have an elected Senate, not an appointed Senate. I don’t know if I would be around. I’m not holding my breath. I listened with interest to a previous speaker talk about the Reform Party and what they thought of the Senate and what is going on now with Mr. Harper’s government in Ottawa. I was trying to remember the names of all those who have been appointed recently to the Senate. I was trying to remember what the balance is between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Senate. I should know that. I apologize; I do not.

But I do know that there were many people appointed recently from the Conservative Party from all different walks of life and from all different regions of the country. I think we would be better served not only if the Senate was elected but also if there were term limits put on those elections, if one could only sit for a certain number of years. For instance, if you were elected once, you could maybe be elected twice. I think that for some of these appointments that are being made now, individuals can in some cases sit in the Senate for up to 20, 25 years.

In some cases it may be longer. 3:40 I do know that Senators do very, very good work. I had the opportunity two years ago to attend an event where the Liberal Senator from southern Alberta, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, was in attendance. She had organized an event around adult literacy, a cause that she has worked for all her life and has really championed since she has been in the Senate. She has done a lot of fine work to improve the literacy rate for adults in this country. Unfortunately, 1 in 5 individuals has either reading difficulties or cannot read at all.

Not only does she work in Alberta, but Senator Fairbairn works across the country trying to make a difference and reduce that statistic. I think that if we picked a Senator and looked at the work they do, the majority of them have our fine country in mind whenever they do their work, and they do valuable work. The idea that they can be appointed – I would agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Norwood regarding the appointments. In the past there was a perception, and I believe it was true, that only the political

Alberta Hansard November 5, 20091770 elite were appointed, and po litical insiders were appointed. In all fairness, I don’t believe that to be the case now with some of the latest . .