November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1931 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/11/27 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this As sembly, we renew our thanks and ask that w e may continue our work under Your guidance. Amen. Mr. John McInnis October 19, 1950, to November 26, 2003 The Speaker: It is with sadness that my office learned today of the passing of former member John McInnis on Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at the age of 53 years. Mr.

McInnis was first elected to t he Alberta Legislature in the general election of March 20, 1989, and served until June 15, 1993. During his ye ars of s ervice he repres ented the c onstituency of Edmonton-Jasper Place for the New Democrat Party. During his ye ars in the Legislature Mr. Mc Innis serve d on the Special Standing Committee on Mem bers’ Services, the Standing Committee on Pu blic Aff airs, and the Spec ial Comm ittee on Constitutional Reform. With our admiration and respect there is gratitude to members of his family who shared the burdens of public office. Our prayers are with them.

In a moment of silent prayer I ask you to remember John McInnis as you have known him. Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. Amen. Please be seated. [as submitted] head : Statement by the Speaker Failure of Sound System The Speaker: [Not recorded] The speaker system doesn’t work, so let’s proceed. head : Introducti on of Visit ors The Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Friedel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly the members and staff of the Northern Alberta Development Council.

They’re here in Edmonton today and tomorrow for mee tings. Onc e each y ear we hold a meeting in Edmonton s o we can get together with all the nor thern MLAs and the folks in Edmonton who we deal with and do business with. It’s my pleasure to introduce these members, and I’m going to ask them to rise as I call their names and to remain standing: Sandra Cardinal, member from Kikino-Lac La Biche, Wendell MacEachern from Fort M cMurray, Ron Faulkner from McLennan, Maurice Rivard from Bonnyville-Cold Lake, Mike Mihaly from High Level, Doris Courtoreille from Kinuso.

Our staff: first of all, my executive assistant, Gladys Gammon; Tom Baldwin, the executive director of NADC; Jennifer Bisley; Jan Mazurik; and Brad Bishop. I would ask that we show them the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you and to members asse mbled a per son seat ed in a w heelchair in your gallery. His name is Sam Sullivan. He’s a Vancouver city council- lor and a founde r o f the T etra Soci ety of No rth Amer ica.

As members know, persons with disabilities often need custom-designed assistive devices, perhaps like a special loop of velcro or a flexible cell p hone ho lder or so me wheelchair modi fications. The Te tra Society brings sk illed volunteers together with pers ons with disabilities who need such assistive devices to improve their quality of life a nd perhaps he lp th em do the ir jobs m ore easil y. We ’re fortunate to have the Tetra Society operating in Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge.

I’d ask members assem- bled to please welcome Sam to the Alberta Legislature. head : Introduction of G uests Mr. Jonson: Mr. Speaker, today it’s my privilege to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 19 students from Rimbey Christian school. They are accompanied by teachers Kathy Nieuwenhuis and Wendy Dolman and parent and teacher helpers Jim Buist, Gail Loov, Shawn Rode, and Anna Van Haastert. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment.

Mr. Dunford: Well, thank you, Mr. Spe aker. I have the honour today of introducing a group of five guests. They’re led today by Dr. Austin Mardon, Ken and Dax Noden, Arthur Lau , an d Miroslav Moravecky. All five guests are from the AISH activist community and are seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask all members of the Legislature to give them a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Maske ll: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. On behalf o f the hon.

Member for Edm onton-McClung i t gives me gr eat pleas ure to introduce to you and through you 25 grades 5 and 6 students from Parkland Immanuel school and their teacher, Mr. Bernie Van Raalte. Also accompanying the students are parents Mrs. Idelle Peters, Mrs. Shirley Rypstra, and Mr. Albert Nieuwenkamp. The group is touring the Legislature today, and I would ask them to rise as you please join me in giving them the warm Legislature welcome they s o rightly deserve. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Highwood. Mr. Tannas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is m y pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to member s of th e Assembly 12 students from the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta who are enrolled in legislative process and legislative drafting, which is taught by Mr. Rob Reynolds, our Senior Parliamentary Counsel, and Mr. Peter Pagano, our Chief Legislative Counsel. They are seated in the mem bers’ gallery, and I would ask them to now rise an d receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed my pleasure to introduce to mem bers of t his Cham ber two f ine gentle men: the president of ATCO Electric, Mr. Dick Walthall, accompanied by his colleague from ATCO Mr. Bart W est, who also is an honorary colonel of the 408 tactical helicopter sq uadron stationed here in Edmonton. I would ask these two gentlemen to rise and accept the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031932 1:40 Mr. Klapstein: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly two groups of students from the New Sarepta community in my constituency. The first group is f rom N ew Sar epta elem entary school, 56 vi sitors including teachers Mrs. Carrie Erdmann and Mrs. Lynn Chalmers, parent helpers Mr s. Janice Embury, Mrs . Eilee n Radawetz, Mrs. Mary Anne Ba bcock, Mrs. Lorraine Spurrell, Mrs. Barbara Volk- man, Mrs. Joyce Tiernan, Mrs. Shelle y Schmidtke, Mrs . Connie Vandenberg, and Mrs. Dianne Simpson.

The second group is from New Sarepta community high school, 23 visitors with teacher Mrs. Ki rsten Newman and parent helper Mrs. Cindy Payne. I’d ask them to rise and please receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Today is an histor ic day. Several government MLAs ha d lunch with several ATA l ocal presidents. In fact, they bought, so that was really good. We had a great time discussing class sizes and class com position as well as some Learning Commission recommendations.

I’m going to as k these people to stand as I call out their names and to please remain standing until the end, and then we will welcome you. First of all, w e have the AT A district rep for central west, Jere Geiger; Gary Hansen, president of Wetaskiwin local; Brenton Baum, president of Timberline local; Sheila Fraser, president of Black Gold local; Tarynne Dirk, public education chair of Black Gold regional; Chris McCullough, president of Red Deer separate; Ed Somerville, president of Red D eer public; Lou Edwa rds, preside nt of Wolf Creek; and Bob Worsfold, president of Chinook’s Edge.

I’d ask my colleagues to please welcome them. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Mr. Ouellette: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I rise on be half of the hon. member from t he Wainw right constituency to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 26 visitors from Amisk school. Accompanying them are their teachers, Mr. Travis Stachniak and Mrs. Patti Houde, and parent helpers Mrs. Gina Vetter, Mr. Bob Amundson, Mrs. Shelley Drever, Mrs. Leanne Matthews.

I’m not sure if they’ve got into the gallery yet, but if they are in the public gallery, I’d like them to stand and we’ll give them a big welcome from the Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to introduce to you and t o this House two politically engaged young Albertans who have campaigned tirelessly over the last several months against the removal of the tuition cap in the province.

They are Shannon Phillips, co-host of a radio show called Rise Up: Radio Free Edmonton, and Melanee Thomas, who is executive director of the Council of Alberta University Students. They are seated in the public galler y, and I’d now ask them to r ise and receive the tradi- tional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and t hrough you t o the Assembly Mr. Kenneth Dombrosky. Mr. Dombrosky was injured in October of 1981.

He’s been through the appeal process for WCB many times and has no further recourse barring the establishment of a long-standing claims tribunal. My constituency office in Edmonton-Highlands has been assisting Mr. Dombrosky with his concerns. I’d ask Mr. Dombrosky to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and t hrough you t o Members of the Legislative Assembly Rob H arris. Rob is a new p ublic affairs officer in my department.

If Rob can hear me, I’d like him to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Environment. Dr. Taylor: Thank y ou, Mr. S peaker. I’m ple ased to ris e and introduce to you and through you to the House a number of people that have made the Water for Life strategy work, and I’ll be making a ministerial statement on that in a minute. We have here from my department Bev Yee, Justin Toner, Robert Harrison – Peter Watson is not here – and Valerie Mellesmoen, my communications director, who, I can assure you, does a very difficult job.

Would those people please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head : Ministerial Statements The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Environment. Water Management Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today and talk about what I consider will be the most important iss ue of the 21st century, and that’s water. In Alberta our quality of life and life itself depends on a healthy and su stainable water supply for the environment, for our communities, and for our own economic well- being. As ev eryone here know s, Alber ta is fa cing sig nificant pressures on its wa ter resour ces.

Population growth, dr ought, agricultural and industrial development are increasing the pressure on water supplies. This government is committed to wise manage- ment of Albe rta’s wa ter and to e nsure th at we h ave a heal thy, sustainable supply into the future. As a reflection of that commitment, I’m pleased to announce that earlier today on behalf of my colleagues I released Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability. Because water is vital to all Albertans in all areas and all communities across the province, their opinions and ideas played a vital role in the development of this strategy.

An extensive provincial consultation process began almost two years ago. There was an ideas generation group, public outreach and consultation, and a minister’s forum on water. Albertans from all corners of the provinc e contributed to thi s, Mr. Speaker. As a result, we have a truly Alberta-made solution: Water for Lif e. No other jurisdiction in the country is trying to do this broad Water for Life strategy, as we’re doing here. Later this afternoon I will table the appropriate number of copies, Mr. Speaker.

Albertans told us that this Water for Life strategy is a blueprint for how citizens, communities, industries, and governments would work together to ensure that Albertans have safe drinking wa ter, that Albertans have health y river systems, that Al bertans have healthy ecosystems, and also that Albertans want water managed effectively to support sustainable economic development.

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1933 In order to fulfill these commitments and meet the specific targets, the actions outlined in this strategy revolve around three core areas: knowledge and research, partnerships, and water conservation. By working together, all Albertans can improve their knowledge. We can take steps to ensure that we have a vital and safe supply of water for drinking and for the ecosystem and for the economy. I believe that if Al bertans ar e going to continue to bene fit from a re liable source of clean water, we all have to change the way we deal with water – you, Mr.

Speaker, myself, everybody in the House. In conclusion, I will say that this is an evolving document. As we move forward, we will see things that need to change, Mr. Speaker. We will see things where we need to add m ore dollars in terms of development. So it is evolving. Finally, I’d like to thank my colleagues who sit in the H ouse. I couldn’t have done i t without the m. The y’ve been supp ortive. They’ve offered constructively critical comments when necessary. So thanks to all my colleagues. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We agre e that water is a crucial issue for this century. This is a time for wise decisions to be made for the future. We have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren. Theref ore, we applaud the g overnment for f inally starting the process of developing a water strategy. We applaud that first step they are taking in developing an education system for water conservation. But th at doesn’t t ake the process ne arly f ar enough. W e’re looking for leadership. We’re looking for vision. We’re looking for goals and measured outcomes. We haven’t seen this in this water strategy.

So we need this government to take the next step and make some har d decisions: to inventory the wat er that w e have i n this province, to determine what kind of usages we can make of the water we have and where development can occur. Then we have a place where we can devise t he strate gy f or the futur e. We ne ed this government to not pass the buck and make municipalities responsi- ble for metering, and they have no responsibility there.

If it takes dollars, if it take s an y other kind of assista nce, this g overnment needs to make that commitment, because right now more than half of this province does not have metered water going into households, and that is really irrevocably bad in terms of looking for long-term water conservation. So while this government has taken the first baby step, the pa th that we’re on leads up a steep hill, and they’ve got to be way more aggressive before we see the final outcomes. Thank you. 1:50 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, you would like to participate? Mr. Mason: Yes, please.

The Speaker: Under our rules we would need unanimous consent of th e Assemb ly bec ause y our party is not a re cognized pa rty because of the two seats it has in the Assembly. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, and thank you to all my colleagues in the Legislature for this opportunity for me to participate. There is much to like in the Water for Li fe strategy announce d today by the Minister of Environment. Water is essential in life itself.

Climate change, combined with ongoing growth in population and industry, is putting pressure on this essential resource. The focus on conserv- ing and redu cing water use i s commendable, as is the ini tiative to improve drinking water quality in all Alberta communities, large and small. At the sam e time, serious que stions remain, Mr. Spe aker. For instance, increasing amounts of our finite water resources are being used by the oil and gas industry for enhanced recove ry schemes. Once injected, this water is lost forever.

Will the government put some teeth into its standards to phase out these uses by the energy industry? Secondly, I hope t he government won’t use the looming water crisis to go on a da m-building spree. There is curre ntly a push to build a dam on the Red River. Finally, the water strategy must not turn bulk water into a market commodity to be bought, s old, and possibl y expor ted. The New Democrat opposition will be watching closely as this water strategy unfolds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od Water Management Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, the government’s water strategy has been carefully crafted. After two years and much stakeholder consultation what we have is a splashy ad campaign and a water strategy full of holes. My questions are to the Minister of Environment. Why are you waiting until 2007, after the next election, to discuss “economic instruments” – in other w ords, charging for water – as a necessary tool to meet water conservation objectives? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that if you look at the strategy, it’s a 10-year plan.

Before we do move forward on anything, we have to gather information. Our knowledge base is not adequate to make app ropriate decisions in some areas at this time. So there has to be a ga thering of knowledge, a gathering of scientific information. So in te rms of econ omic instruments, we have to first of all determine: what is the economic value of water to our society? We have to determine that. Secondly, we have to determine issues around the context of the actual cost of delivering water to you.

For instance, we do not know the true cost of account ing in deliveri ng water to the mem bers’ houses in Edmonton or Lethbridge or wherever they happen to live. So we have to determine economic value. We have to determine, as I say, the true cost of accounting in water , which we estimate will take us anywhere from one to three years to do in consultation with Albertans, and at that stage, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to consult with Albertans on other issues. Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, to the sa me minister: how effective will your water strategy be given that you still don’t have an inventory of water resources in this province? Dr. Taylor: Well, that’s exactly the point I just made, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the budget for the water strategy, about half the budget is operational and about half is capital, and on the operational side we readily admit that we need to develop a knowledge base. That’s what the strategy is about.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031934 If I could point out, Mr. Speaker, around Edson we have a fairly good idea of where the groundwater is. Around the Milk River basin we have a fairly good idea where the groundwater is and how much there is and of what quality. But for much of the rest of Alberta we don’t have tha t information. So as we m ove forward, bef ore we make decisions, we have to develop a knowledge base, and I think the member will appreciate that. Dr. N icol: To the sa me m inister, Mr.

Speaker : why does your strategy not ope nly discuss a plan to co nserve water th rough metering of residential and industrial users? Dr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, one of the main thrusts of our s trategy, one of the three main points, is conservation. I mean, how can you be any clearer than to say con-ser-va-tion. It’s very clear; it is one of the main points. Metering for both industrial and homes is very important. I said it at the ne ws conference, and I’ve said it many times before: if water is metered, people use about half the amount of water than where it is not metered. Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, it’s good to hear him talking so positively about metering. The government’s water strategy includes plans for, and I quote: developing a wate r allocat ion transf er system t o ensure a via ble market exists. End of quote. To the minister: does this mean that the licence holders w ill be able to sell sur plus wate r from their licence and profit from a public resource that is given to them free? Dr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we already have in southern Alberta the water allocation transfer system.

If I go back to 2001, as the member knows, in the irrig ation districts, because they could get a bout 50 percent of their water for the farmers in each district, they allowed farmers to transfer water to another person. So, in fact, they need a lot of water. If you didn’t have enough water, I could transfer, sell water to the member here. The system is in existence today, and it will continue to be in existence. What it does is it drives water to its highest value use. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Nicol: Thank you. The m inister is talking about determining market value for water.

How a re you going to do that unless you have a truly open market that’s accessible to all Albertans, not just the transfers that you’ve talked about where one irrigation farmer can transfer to another irrigation farmer? Dr. Taylor: Actually, Mr. Speaker, in southern Alberta in the South Saskatchewan River basin it is broader than just irrigation farmers. Anybody that holds a licence in the South Saskatchewan River basin can transfer water to another user, and it’s up to them to determine what sort of deal. Do they transfer it for one year? Do they transfer it permanently? Do they transfer all of it?

Do they transfer part of it? Th at system w as in existence, and we see that sy stem being expanded to the rest of the province. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. To the same minister again: will this kind of system that he’s talking about allow for interbasin marketing of water as well? Dr. Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker. In Alberta’s case we have legislation that says that if there’s going to be any interbasin transfer of water, we have to have a special act of the Legislature. If you remember, as I’m sure you do, Mr. Speaker, last year I brought forward

an act to allow an interbasin transfer around Red Deer, and that’s the way we’d have to go. Even in spite of that, if he’s suggesting that we will sell water to the U.S., that is clearly prohibited in Alberta law. Municipal Regulation of Oil and Gas Development Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, residents of rural Alberta have given up on this government ever fixing its energy deregulation mess. At a meeting last night resid ents an d councillors from t he county of Strathcona started planning how to regulate the energy industry at the municipal level because this government has failed to do it at the provincial level.

To the Minis ter o f Munici pal Affairs: will the government support the efforts of the residents of Strathcona county to regulate the energy industry at the municipal level? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilie r: Thank y ou, Mr . Speaker. To the hon. m ember, municipalities are im portant stak eholders in t he EUB dec ision- making process. They often participate in the process along with the residents and ratepayers.

Municipal submissions to the EUB could include a comprehensive municipal planning policy on oil and gas development as well as consid ering t he com munity’s long-term growth patterns and sensitive landscapes. 2:00 Now, oil a nd gas dev elopment is seen to be benefi cial to al l Albertans. The importance of the provincial interest is reflected in the fact that oil and gas wells, batteries, and pipelines are specifically exempted f rom loca l municipa l planning aut hority unde r the Municipal Government Act. The specific section, actually, is 620, for the hon. member’s benefit. Furthermore,

section 619 of the MGA provides that the decisions of the EUB take precedence over municipal statutory plans, land use bylaws, and planning decisions. Mr. Bonner: To the same minis ter: given that municipalities feel that the Energy and Utilities Board ignores their interests, when will the government start to defend municipalities’ interests and recom- mend a review of the EUB’s mandate? Mr. Boutilie r: Once again, Mr. Speaker , to the hon. me mber,

section 619 of the MGA does state that the decisions of the EUB take precedence over any municipal statutory plan, land use bylaw, and planning decision. That is what’s taking place, but clearly it is not pre-emptive of citizens and municipal leaders participating in the EUB process in te rms of the concerns that the hon. member has raised. Mr. Bonner: To the Minister of Energy: why is the government’s record on regulatin g oil and g as deve lopment s o bad that the municipalities feel that they have to do it themselves? Mr. Smith: Well, the short and simple fact, Mr.

Speaker, is that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is not doing a bad job. In fact, if you look at the most recent press release with respect to gas prices, you can see that gas prices have been reduced. Mr. Speaker, the important

part is that this resource belongs to all Albertans. All A lbertans be nefit. For exam ple, the count y of Strathcona, located immediately adjacent to Sherwood Park, has the highest municipal machinery and equipment tax income in the land

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1935 because of the way it processes petrochemicals. So, for God’s sake, let’s take a look at where the money comes from. It’s very clear that we operate in the interests of all Albertans, and it has ruled on an all- Alberta basis. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Natural Gas Prices Mr. Mason: Thank y ou very much, Mr . Speake r. Yesterday Calgarians learned t hat December ATCO natural gas bi lls would jump by 20 perc ent, somet hing whic h would hav e trigg ered the government’s elusive gas rebates.

Today Edmontonians learned that to save the gove rnment from issuing gas rebates in a nonelect ion year, they w ould be stuck paying f or the gas used by Calgarians. Calgarians are no doubt relieved to dodge higher energy bills from this government, but Edmontonians are outraged and are demanding to know who stands up for Edmonton. My ques tion is to the Minister of Energy and Member for Calgary-Varsity. Will he stand up for Edmontonians and northern Albertans and direct the EUB to tell ATCO to take a long walk off a short pier? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if I were telling anybody to take that walk, it would be a m ember of this Assem bly, the one who has actually just asked the question. In or der to correct the erroneous

preamble, he would only have had t o listen to the response to the former question fr om the Me mber for Edmonton-Glengarry. The EUB acts in the intere sts of a ll Albertans. It w alked through the process with ATCO. In fact, I think we should be quite thankful that gas rates aren’t as high tha t they would kick in this rebat e and, in fact, are at a lower price. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary is to the Minister of Finance and Member for Calgary-Foothills.

Will she stand up for Edmontonians and northern Albertans and ensure that funding for Calgarians’ natural gas rebates is made available so that Edmontonians don’t have to pick up the tab? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Difficulty hearing the question? Actually, it’s the same question as the previous one. It was directed to you as both a minister and a member for Calgary: are you going to stand up for Edmonton? Mrs. Nelson: Same answer. Mr. Smith: Can I supplement that, Mr. Speaker? The Speaker: Yes. Mr.

Smith: It’s very evident that the member does not realize that the job of the government of Alberta, the job of the majority leaders, the job of the government under Premier Ralph Klein is to stand up for all Albertans. The Speaker: We won’t mention names because that violates our rules. Now, to the hon. member, your third question. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To the Prem ier and Member for Calgary-Elbow: will he stand up for Edmontonians and northern Albertans and encourage his ministers . . . The Speaker: Okay. Now, hon. member, we know that we have an audio problem, but did the member look?

The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Family Violence Mr. Ducharme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Family violence is a very serious issue. Last year there were six deaths attributed to spousal abuse in this province. In 2001 there were five deaths. My question is to the Minister of Children ’s Services. What is the government doing to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, the issue of family violence is one that’s horrific. It’s a trag edy that af fects us all.

If you put it i n purely economic terms across Canada, it’s a tragedy that costs Canadians either in the workforce or through health care or through other counseling services $4.2 billion estimated annually. In Alberta we have taken great pains over the last year to initiate a number of things. In c o-operation with the Al berta Council of Women’s Shelters and with the RCMP we have a memorandum of understanding for protocol so that when issues of domestic violence occur, the RCMP are very clear on the management of that, and the shelters in receipt of the individuals are very clear.

The interrogation of those that m ay have perpetrated violence is something that is a learned response by the RCMP. Mr. Speaker, today we are system- atically training RCMP officers across Alberta, all 2,200 of them, in the manner in which they respond to domestic violence cases. Mr. Speaker, we’re doing more. We have prevention programs for family and community services . The Premier has an nounced a roundtable where we can take a look at the community partnerships, our collaboration strategies.

With the other ministers that are on the Alberta children and youth initiative, all nine ministers are working together to pu t the ir pi ece of ac tion firmly for ward to make a difference both at the community level and in the way government responds to the issues of domestic violence. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Ducharme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is also to the Minister of Children’s Services. Can the minister tell us: what is the goal of the provincial family violence roundtable and when it will be held? Ms Evans: Mr.

Speaker, early in the new year, probably during the month of February, we will have mini regional roundtables to get the collective views from local reg ions on how we should manage domestic violence, family violence issues, and look at bullying as well in those communities and in those regions. We have planned to have an Alberta-wide roundtable on May 7. Mr. Speaker, on familyviolenceroundtable.gov.ab.ca you can learn more or register your support or become involved in the roundtable.

Every MLA w ill rece ive inf ormation about roundtable s in their region, and we a re working right now to put togethe r that proper team of support so that all of the venues that may need to be covered, including elder abuse, justice issues with the Justice minister and the Solicitor Ge neral – in every single s olitary area w here fa mily violence touches the society in Alberta, we are looking at providing supports for their involvement relative to the roundtable. Mr.

Speaker, one more comment to the me mber opposite, who does a considerable amount in his community to curb the issues of family violence and profile the need to s top and ma ke Albe rta violence free. Government is not and cannot be alone in resolving

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031936 this problem. This is a problem that rests in the homes of the nation and a problem in Alberta homes, and everybody, including those individuals involved, must be involved in finding sol utions to resolve family violence. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, is that it ? Okay. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. 2:10 Natural Gas Prices (continued) Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

To the Minister of Energy: after ATCO Gas’s initial rate filing for December, why did natural gas rates change and increase by $8 per month on average, or 36 cents per gigajoule, for northern Alberta consumers and drop by $25 a month on average, or 97 cents per gigajoule, for southern Alberta consumers? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member k nows full well that that’s an answer for ATCO and should be directed to the gentlemen that were introduced earlier in the Legislature today. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the same m inister: how much of this extra $8 per month from northern Alberta consumers will be used to subsidize consumers in southern Alberta? Mr. Smith: I’d refer him to the three answers, Mr. Speaker, to the previous questions from the Member for Edmonton-Glengarry and the Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: given that the minister’s performances at mime for Alberta TV watchers will certainly be better than his performance as Energy minister, will this government force ATCO to wait until after the next provincial election to recover those costs from its southern Alberta consumers, just like it did with electricity bills after the last election with deferral accounts? Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there’s not enough time left in question period to correct the errors in the

preamble, but I will say that the process of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, which has the best reputation in North A merica if not g lobally, for the work that it doe s in regulating an industry that has delivered in the last three year s some $24 billion in hard cash d ollars to he lp this province move toward the most prosperous economic jurisdiction in North America – they do a good job, the y did a good job, they’re doing a good job today, and I expect them to do a good job tomor- row. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview.

Consultation with First Nations and Energy Industry Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My constituents need some c larification betw een the g overnment’s consultation process with our Fir st Nations and the contra ctors’ issues dealing with oil and gas exploration and development in northern Alberta. My questions toda y are to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Developm ent. Can the ministe r please illuminate the difference betwee n c onsultation initiatives and the contractors’ issues? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Calahasen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, unfortunately, there have been erroneous reports that have led to some confusion. I would like t o state th at the con tractors u sing the government’s consultation process are two completely separate p rocesses. However, there is a connection between the two, and the connection is that the contractor issues are a symptom of consultation processes not yet completed. So we’re trying to deal with these specifically in different ways. I just want to talk about the aboriginal policy framework, which is a government policy.

It has actually committed Alberta to work with the First Nations and aboriginal communities and industry to improve aboriginal participation in the ec onomy. As a r esult, the consultation initiative was championed by my ministry in the spring of 2003, and we were able to ge t $6 milli on, which was shared between six ministries: Sustainable Resource Development, Energy, Community Development, Environment, Justice, and of course Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This was to ensure that the development of regulatory processes affecting land and res ource management was to occur.

This also meant that we would work with the First Nations and make sure that we began a c onsultation proc ess, because, Mr. Speaker, once we develop the consultation policy and the guidelines, First Nations and other aboriginal communities and industry and governments will have a better understanding of our individual roles and responsibili- ties. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Danylu k: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . My only supplemental is to the same minister.

I think that I heard most of it, but I need to know: what has occurred to date, to now, and when can we expect a policy or guidelines to be completely in place? Ms Calahasen: Mr. Speaker, so fa r we have met with representa- tives from First Nations and industry and a number of other groups that had wante d to be invo lved. W e have j ust begun the second round of meetings to ensure that we know what they have told us and to confirm what they have said to us. Whatever we do, we want to move forward and make sure that we listen to all parties that have been involved.

This is a complex issue, and change can’t be made overnight. However, improving and developing mutually beneficial relationships among industry, government, and First Nations is an integral part of the wor k we are committed to ful filling. It’s our intent to have that policy ready by spring of 2004. Universities’ Business Plans Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, for several years the Minister of Learning has asked universities to submit business plans for his approval. To that minister: what process of review does his department undertake with these business plans? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr.

Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Each and e very institution under the Government Accountability Act is responsible to submit business plans to me. We review the business plans and, essentially, file them, give any comments, if we have any comments, back to the m. We do not change and have not yet changed these business plans. The only institution that is exempt from this is the Banff Centre. I ncluded in Bill 43 is the m andatory ability for the

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1937 Banff Centre to submit business plans to the minister for approval as well. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank y ou. Has the Department of Learning eve r requested changes to a university’s business plan? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, off the top, I would suggest no, but I know that there may have been some very minor ones in the way that the business plans are formatted. There have never been any major ones. Dr.

Taft: Given that provincial government funding for the Univer- sity of Alberta is below 50 percent of the university’s total budget, on what basis does the minister assume the right to control the business plans covering 100 perce nt of the univ ersity’s expendi- tures? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, in Alberta we have a huge interest in our postsecondary education, not just on the operational side but also on the capit al side.

I t’s absolutely imperative that we know what the unive rsities are d oing, th at we kn ow th e directi on the colleges are tak ing, that w e know t he directi ons the te chnical institutes are heading in, in order for us to budget, in order for us to plan. The ac cess fund is a perf ectly good example of tha t, where we’re able to say: this is where w e want to go. Un iversities and colleges and technical schools then say, “Well, we want to go in this direction,” and it becomes very much a combined effort. Mr.

Speaker, it’s absolutely critical that the public of Alberta – the public of Alberta – have the knowledge of the business plans of the postsecondary institutions of Alberta. I find it very hard to believe that this hon. member would not want the public of Alberta to have the ability to see the business plans. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Deerfoot Trail Extension Mrs. Ady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the last three years the constituency of Calgary-Shaw and the constituency of Highwood as well as th e entire city of Ca lgary have been watching with some excitement and anxiety as the construction of the De erfoot T rail extension has been proceeding. As you know, this is an important part of the north/south trade corridor, and it is very much hoped in my neighbourhoods that it will relieve some of the traffic congestion. My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

I understand that the long-aw aited Dee rfoot Tr ail exte nsion is going to open o n Friday, and I was wondering if the minister could tell me if this large and important project has been able to stay on budget. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m extremely pleased to announce on behalf of our colleagues here in the Legislature and on behalf of all Albertans that, yes, we are going to officially open the extension of the Deerfoot Trail tomorrow. This is a $100 million project that has come to completion.

It is a three-year project, and it’s about a month off sched ule, with outstanding results by our contractors, our consulting engineers, given all of the many people in the construction o f that road. Not only will it improve the safety of the traveling, motoring public in that particular area an d the s urrounding communities, but, as the hon. mem ber m entioned, it is a c ritical im provement for our north/south trade cor ridor, and in the end it helps improve our competitiveness in the marketplace. 2:20 Mrs. Ady: Mr. Speaker, I only have one supplemental question.

I have had the privilege of driving down this extension and was so impressed with the beauty of the valley that it goes between. As you know, it crosses the Bow River, and there are fish a nd wildli fe habitats there. What did Alberta Transportation do to minimize the environmental impacts? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, on the environmental issue, we spent a considerable amount of time with the consulting engineers trying to mitigate all of the risks to the environment. The first thing done was to build a bridge, so to speak, for the wildlife to pass under the highway during the construction.

We also had to put a fence along the hi ghway to ensure that we didn’t have any deer or coy otes wandering out onto the highway and into the construction. Mo st importantly, the Bow River Bridge was moved about 40 m etres to the west because there was some critical fish habitat that we didn’t want to risk any damage to. We took exceptional care to ensure that any drainage , any ty pe of turbidi ty in the water w as co mpletely minimized or elim inated. As a result, this is a project that we can hold as applying to other projects in Alberta in terms of ensuring the protection of the environment.

Calgary Board of Education Dr. Massey: The Minister of Learning announced with some pride that the Calgar y board of education w ill have a balanced budg et. What the minister failed to ment ion is that that board lost another 260 teachers, 127 support staff, and 25 custodial staff. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. How can the government continue to proudly announce budget surpluses while a major school board in this province was given no choice but to continue to cut teachers and to increase class sizes? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Calgary board of education came in right on budget this year. I believe it was .25 or .025 percent, so the surplus, quite obviously, is minimal. Part of the job of any elected trustee is to ensure t hat they are fi scally accountable. The school boards have another job, which is to ensure the delivery of educational services, and often the fine line that is between, that these large s chool boards ha ve to w alk, has to be managed each and every day. Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about the Calgary board of education is that their results continue to be excellent. The students continue to do well.

The students continue to learn well. Were there issues this year with teachers being let go, contracts not being renewed? Yeah, there were. The Calgary board of education had to make some very tough decisions, decisions that were not easy at all, but they did them in what they feel was probably the best way that they could, and I cer tainly applaud them f or that. I a pplaud them for their difficult decisions, and I applaud them for coming in with a budget that is on-line. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: given that underfunded Calgary schools had to turn to school fees

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031938 and that a parent has calculated that the fees amount, effectively, to a 40 percent provincial tax rate for some families, will the minister do the right thing and offer the Calgary school board some financial relief? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, about a week and a half ago we gave all the boards in Alberta some financial relief to the tune of around $90 million. Thirty million dollars of that was given in July of this year; another $60 million was given now. So that’s a considerable amount of financial relief for the boards of all of Alberta, not just Calgary.

It’s pretty hard to selectively pick one specific board when the money is given out to all boards in exactly the same fashion. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: has the minister considered offering the Calgary board of education some relief thro ugh a o netime expenditure from the province ’s surplus to help pay off their long-term debt? Dr. O berg: Mr. Speake r, this y ear in the long-term debt of th e Calgary public board I believe they’re down to about $12 million or $13 million or $14 million. Their paymen ts are act ually ahead of

schedule from w hat they were, and th ey have contin ued to make them. Again, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the same point that I just made. Over the p ast 10 or 15 years all boar ds ha ve recei ved th e same amount of dollars. Back in May of 1999 we did give all the boards a onetime paym ent of $151 m illion, which was to eliminate all deficits. At that particular point in time, there was about $25 million to $30 million that was turned out that the Calgary board was paid. They continued to make those payments because [inaudible] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Postsecondary Education Funding Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Yest erday the government announced that it is on track to post yet another multibillion dollar budget surplus. T he government can’t seem to f ind enough m at- tresses to stuff this windf all into, y et univers ities, col leges, a nd technical institutes are announcing tuition increases next year ranging from 5 to 10 percent. My questions are to the Minister of Finance.

Why does the government place a high priority on racking up multibill ion dollar budge t surpluses than it plac es on giv ing postsecondary students a break by freezing tuition fees? Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, part of the process that we’ve gone through was to put forward a fiscal plan that balances off the needs of Albertans but also recognizes that programs have to be sustain- able, and in doing that, we recognize that if we ramp up programs in one year when we have banner oil and gas revenues, the next year we likely would hav e to hold back on some of the prog rams, which those guys would like us to do.

We’re not going to do that. We’ve struck a bala nce where we recognize, I believe and our colleagues believe, the needs of the core programs of this government, but we’ve also said: let’s put money aside for when we don’ t have those revenue bases so that those programs are preserv ed and protec ted. That ’s what ’s in the sustainability fund, and we were able this year to say that we ’re going to fully fund that pr otection for Albertans in the long term. Plus, we’ve said tha t we will pu t the balanc e of the dollars into continuing to pay off our debt, which secures the future for our kids and our grandk ids.

Plus, we said that we will add dollars to our capital account. To me that’s the right balance, and I hope that the hon. member will agree with that. The Speaker: The hon. minister to supplement. Dr. Oberg: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked specifically ab out tuition fee s. The ins titutions rig ht now are working under the 30 percent cap that is existing at the m oment. They have the ability to raise their tuitions approximately $276 this year at mos t. I would j ust like t o read som ething that the hon. member said at the debate on November 25: “Mr.

Chairman, it’s of absolute and critical importance that the independence of universities [is] maintained.” Their independence in picking their tuition fees is exactly what is being maintained. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is again to the Minister of Finance. Given yet an other corporate tax cut in this year’s budget, why is the government imposing higher tuition fees on Alberta’s young people, who pay for corporate tax handouts? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speake r, c reating the ri ght framework for t he long-term security of the province becomes critically important.

The structure in this province is one that balances things off, and it’s seen maybe not by this hon. member but by people from the province and from outside the pr ovince. Whe n I go to a Fi nance m inisters meeting and have a nother mini ster say , “Our y oung pe ople are migrating to your prov ince,” they’re coming here because there’s opportunity, there’s a future, and there’s an opportunity for them to have their children have a long-term future. Why is that?

Because we have an attractive package on the fiscal side which includes low taxes overall on the persona l side but al so on the corp orate side, which means that there ar e jobs. There’s a long-te rm economic future for these people coming to this province and for people that live here.

So striking that balance, again, becomes very important, and I can tell you that students co ming out of the university are grateful that there are opportunities for two or three different types of positions for them to go into when they graduate from the universities and the colleges and the technical schools in the province of Alberta. They have the opportunity. That’s not present anywhere else in Canada. 2:30 The Speaker: To supplement, hon. minister? Dr. Oberg: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member made an insinuation that the government sets tuition fees.

It is the govern- ment that limited the raises of tuition fees. In fact, the hon. member in the debate on Tuesday night said that taxpayers also expect as democratic citizens their institutions such as universities to have the full freedom to exp ress th emselves on matters that the members of the universities . . . think are critical to the preservation, protection, and enhancement of public interest and common good. That’s exactly what the universities told us. The Speak er: Okay. The hon. le ader b riefly and the response briefly. We’ve now spe nt six m inutes on this exchange.

This i s question period, not debate period. The hon. leader.

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1939 Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With that kind of balance, one couldn’t even ride a bicycle. To the same minister: why doesn’t this minister get her priorities straight, take the roughly 1 percent of the projected surplus that would be require d to free ze tuition f ees, and g ive postsecondary students a break? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that our government’s priorities are s traightened out, and this hon. member should maybe get onboard. We’re concerned with the people of this province.

We’re concerned with our kids, we’re concerned with our grandkids, and we want to leave them with something that they can afford to sustain and flourish on and be able to have a profitab le future in t his province. This person would destroy that. The Spea ker: The hon. Member for Edmon ton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Flu Shot Campaign Mr. Maske ll: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker. I’m one of the m any thousands of Albe rtans w ho’s had a f lu shot this f all. It’s my understanding that Alberta, in fact, has had one of its most successful flu shot campaigns ever.

I thought I was well protected until I heard media reports that a new strain of influenza known as A-Fujian has appeared worldwide. Media reports claim that the current vac cine holds little protection against this deadly new strain. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Minister, I guess I’m getting cynical in my old age or maybe a little nervous or worried, but I’m wondering: what is the point of Albertans getting their flu shots? The Spe aker: Please, hon. m ember.

Beauchesne 408 says that questions should “not inquire whether statements made in [the press or] a newsp aper are correct.” I hope tha t’s not the int ent of the question. Mr. Mar: Nor will it be the intent of the answer, Mr. Speaker. The A-Fujian strain of flu is closely related to the A-Panama strain of flu, and the A-Panama strain is one of the three components of the current flu vac cine. The provincial health of fice implemented its 2003 influenza plan in Octobe r of this year . I t strongly advises Albertans to get f lu shots.

A lbertans s hould b e awa re of f lu symptoms like fever, aches, chills, and they should limit contact with people when these symptoms are present. Finally, Mr. Speaker, just last week the World Health Organiza- tion reported tha t the curre nt flu v accine doe s offe r signif icant protection against influenza caused by the new A-Fujian strain. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. Seniors – that’s the 65-plus group – children, and people with chroni c health probl ems are extremely vulnerable.

Is there anything that can be done to protect these citizens? Mr. Mar: Well, senio rs, health care worke rs, tho se living with chronic illness continue to be the major target groups for immuniza- tion against influenza. From la st year’s campaign, Mr. Spe aker, roughly two out of every three seniors in this province got a flu shot. This flu season my departm ent has e nhanced the im munization program by offering vaccinations at no charge to anyone living with somebody who is at high risk. We reached our goal of immunizing 90 percent of long-term care residents.

We surpassed our goal of 65 percent of workers in those facilities getting a flu shot. We certainly encourage all health care workers to get the ir annual f lu vacci nation to protect not only themselves but their families and the people that they look after. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental is to the same minister. Is this strain of flu the precursor to a pandemic illness? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, this current flu is not considered to be a pandemic illness.

The World Health Organization has identified this strain of flu as being a minor genetic shift of the virus. I can tell you that within the last tw o week s A-Fujia n has been f ound here in Alberta. As of November 15 we identified 654 cases of influenza, and only 15 of those cases have been the A-Fujian influenza strain. Mr. Speaker, of course, many people will be aware and will recall that earlier this week the province launched its pandemic influenza plan.

The goals of this plan are to reduce the incidence of serious illness and death and to try and reduce the disruption to communities and to try and slow down the spread of such an influenza pandemic when it arrives. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Street Divergence Program Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the 2002 budget debates the Solicitor General outlined her strategy for the street divergence program, which diverts mentally ill people into appropriate programs and away from t he criminal justic e system.

Si x months ago the minister of health talked about the ex cellent diver sion project in Calgary. At the time, he indicated that funding was only secure until March of 2004. My question is t o the Solicitor General. Has the minister decided which ministry will keep this program running? Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This is a program that is clearly run by the minister of health, and if I may, it’s been a very, very successful program. We’ve been pleased with what’s happened.

W e believe that the mentally il l should not be allowed to enter the corrections facilities, and we’re pleased with the program. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Then I will direct the next question to the Minister of Hea lth and Wellne ss. Is the re a tim etable f or introducing this same program into other centres in Alberta? Mr. Mar: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. Ms Blakeman: Why not? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr. Speaker, we haven’t completed our evaluation of the current program. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky.

Grandparents’ Access to Grandchildren Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are all to

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031940 the Minister of Justice. Respondents to th e Albe rta law reform stakeholders report indica ted that gr andchildren s hould have the right to have a relationship with their grandparents. Can the minister tell this Assembly: why don’t grandchildren have this right whether they are from a one-parent or two-parent family unit? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, we don’t set out the rights of grandpar ents, bu t I do remember de aling with changes to the Provincial Court Act.

It was actually brought forward under a privat e mem ber’s bill by the Mem ber for C algary-Fish Creek, now the Solicitor General, some years ago, which provided for grandparents’ ability to apply to the court for access to grandchil- dren when that was being denied by their parents. We did a review of family law. In fact, the bill on family law is going to be before the House today, so I won’t speak directly to that. But in the course of that consultation, of course, it became clear that some Albertans wanted greater access by grandparents and, perhaps, a presumption of grandparents’ right of access.

Others believed that parents should be in the pos ition to make the decision. Albertans recognize that grandparents play a very important role in the lives of grandchildren, and the Provincial Court Act, by providing that right of access, which is going t o be brought f orward into Bill 45, w ill recognize that. Albertans, however, also recognize the need for guardians, who are usually parents, to protect and guide children and for the right of parents to make decisions in the best interests of their children.

We have heard from many parents who say that there’s a financial and emotional cost to contested applications by grandparents, particu- larly when in many cases the courts will also reject the grandparents’ application. So we have to strike a balance, Mr. Speaker, so that we do not prevent grandparents from applying for access, because each individual case has got to be determined within the best interests of the child. The law as it stands now and the law as it will hopefully be is that parents should ma ke the de cision wi th respect to the chil dren.

Grandparents, if they cannot resolve issues within the family, would have the right of access to the cour ts to have t he courts make a determination about what’s in the best interests of the child. 2:40 Mr. Yankowsky: Mr. Speaker, again to the minister. Respondents to the same consultation indicated that when parents deny grandpar- ents access to grandchildren, th ey should be required to provide valid reasons for denying access. Why are parents not required to provide valid reasons for denying their child access to their grand- parents, their larger family unit? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the member is absolutely right. Respondents to the law reform project did say that, but other responde nts also said that applic ations in int act families cause disruptions and ignore the righ ts of parents to decide what’s in the best interests of the children in their care. Clearly, we can’t have it both ways. This is proof of the complexity of the issue and the fact that there are a number o f aspects which have to be t aken into account. We feel that we’ve struck the appropriate balance in what has been determined to be brought forward.

There is no presumption of contact between a child and a grand- parent, but as I said before, when parents an d grandparent s can’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to resolve that dispute and to resolve t hat dispute i n the best int erests of the child, a nd that is allowing the grandparents to apply for a contact order. But it is up to the grandparents to show the reasons why the contact is beneficial to the child and the r easons why the denial is unreasonable.

The court then will take into account the significance of the relationship, if any, and the other aspects of concern which show that it’s in the best interests of the child. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to the high emotio nal and fi nancial costs of thes e disputes. Can the minister advise what steps his department has tak en to address the cost of applica tions for grandparent access or other family law matters? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, of course, in almost all family law matters that go to court, the financial and emotional costs are far too high, and that ’s why we work ve ry h ard to try and encourage collaborative law processes, to try and encourage processes which involve precourt processes in terms of family counseling and family mediation. We’ve developed a series of family law books that help people who choose to make applications without a lawyer. They’re available at the family law information centres in Edmonton and Calgary.

Our department boosts a number of important projec ts to help people work collaboratively towards resolving disputes on their own: as I mentioned, programs of mediation, courts are participating with judicial dispute resolution, and of course there’s the very successful parenting after separation program , all of which ar e designe d to reduce conflict, help parties refocus their energy on the children, and deal with the primary aspect, which, I c an’t say often eno ugh, i s what’s in the best interests of the child. head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: Hon. members, in 30 seconds I’ll call upon the first member to participate in Members’ Statements.

The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Natural Track Luge Races Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ra ces down the S moky River hill near DeBolt, Alberta, in January are designed to put the sport of natural track luge on the path to the 2010 Olympics. Grande Prairie is reaping the rewards of Canada’s success ful Winter Olympics bid by getting to host the first-ever Canadian World Cup natural track luge races January 2 to 4, 2004. It’s the first of many races to be held in Canada during the next several years, all with an eye to getting the sport into the Olympics.

With DeBolt having the nation’s only sa nctioned tr ack to da te, it w ill likely play hos t to future World Cup races. The decision came after Vancouver/Whistler was named as host for the 2010 Winter Olympics. It’s part of a long-range plan to get the sport’s international federation to have the sport in t he Winter Olympics. Grande Prairie will get international exposure as the races are broadcast in central Europe, where the sport draws bigger television audiences than downhil l skiing and is sec ond only to soccer. Again, Mr.

Speak er, Alberta is a leader in C anada, and G rande Prairie is a leader in Alberta. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake.

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1941 Bonnyville White Ribbon Campaign Mr. Ducharme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to recognize the Bonnyville White Ribb on campaign. Th e B onnyville White Ribbon campa ign has the disti nction, along with the c ities of Toronto and S arnia, Ontario, of ha ving the longest-running cam- paign addressing th e issue of men’s violence against women. November 25 through Dec ember 6 mark s White R ibbon W eek.

During this week, men of goodwill wear white ribbons to symbolize their pledge to neither commit, co ndone, nor remain silent a bout men’s violence against women in our society. Many people who talk about violence against women cite statistics that show an incredible number of men victim izing far t oo many women, but one fact about this form of violence stands out m ore than any other: 76 percent of the victims are assaulted by someone they know. It would be too easy to say that women nee d to b e protected from the stranger lurking in the shadow s.

Some people believe that arming women with a whistle or signing them up in a self-defence class could reduce the victimization of women, but it isn’t that simple. Husbands, boyfriends, acquai ntances, a nd co- workers are committing these horrible acts, not just the stranger on the street. We hope that these men will one day take a long look in the mirror a nd see w hat they have bec ome. Ma ybe the y woul d change after realizing the effects of their horrible behaviour. If we saw signs that these problems could be solved without our help, then we wouldn’t need the White Ribbon campaign.

Wearing these ribbons is a way for everyone, especially men, to show their anger toward violence against women. Everyone has a mother, and most of us have a wife, a sister, or a daughter. What w ould happen if they ha d been rape d, beaten, or murdered? Stop and think about the anger and the hopelessness that would stay with you for years if not forever. Imagine the feeling of shame and terror felt by the victim. You must also rem ember that you would most likely have met the man who committed the offence.

There is no de nying that viole nce against women is a horr ible problem with few easy solutions, but there is no doubt that the first step is awareness. I encourage all members to wear a white ribbon and recognize the horror that thousands of women in Alberta must endure. In closing, I wish to commend the local organizers for undertaking the White Ribbon campaign to raise awareness of and to counteract domestic violence in the Bonnyville-Cold Lake constituency. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Adequacy Funding for Education Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report of the Learning Commission has given new urgency for the need to provide a school funding formula that focuses less on equity and more on adequacy. Simply put, adequacy funding provides the dollars needed to ensure that all children perform at a high level. We need a shift in financing from thinking about the number of dollars being put into the system to the number of dollars needed to ensure that students meet specific objectives, a shift from inputs to outcomes. In Alberta adequacy has been defined as the number of dollars that the government dee ms available.

The d ollars decided upon have little to do with students and much to do with politics. These political decisions to cut school funding or increase funding in no way are decisions based on the dollar s needed to m ake poss ible predetermined student achievement. The Learning Commission has provided a useful start in helping us shift our thinking and helping us begin to understand how much money should be allocated to our schools. Recommendations 5 through 9 begin the work of defining outcomes.

We have been given a starting list of i ntellectual, personal, and value e xpectations for specific grades and for high school graduates. Fleshing out that list and assigning the dollars needed to make attainment possible is the heart of adequacy funding. A focus on adequa cy will involve a m ajor change in the way schools operate. We will need b etter systems for diag nosing and tracking the progress of individual students. We will need different organizations that will allow students who complete a course quickly to move on to th e next level without waiting for the start of a new term.

We will need a broader range of assessment practices than are now in use. The commission h as provided valuable direction for learning in Alberta. However, the promise of the commission will be lost if the province fails to change the current approach to funding and provide adequate funds to make the recommendations a reality. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Alberta Seniors Dr. Pannu : Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . The A lberta government is responsi ble for s upporting the w ell-being and independence of Alberta seniors.

It say s that its progra ms and services are designed to help those in-need seniors live healthier lives a nd more inde pendent l ives, preferably li ving i n the ir own homes and their own communities. 2:50 However, since 1993 the Tory government’s words have been contradicted by its actions many times over by making changes to programs that resul t in seniors paying more for necessities. T he following puts a lie to the long-cherished belief that with hard work and perseverance anyone can afford a secure retirement.

Here is that list: loss of dental care and eye care coverage, rental increases for seniors’ accom modations, deregula tion of utilit ies leadi ng t o intolerably high utility bills for seniors, a n increase in the co- payment for prescriptions drugs, and the elimination of health care premium exemptions. In some cases programs have been eliminated entirely. In other cases, means testing has been introduced.

Perhaps the unkindest cut of all took place this summer, that being the unilateral decision with barely a month’s notice to hik e the acc ommodation rates in lon g- term care facilities between 40 and 48 percent. The Coalitio n of Seniors Advocates, COSA, has noted that Alberta seniors have been economically brutalized by the so-called Alberta advantage, that has taken away many essential services and benefits that senior s enjoyed prior to 1997, and that these service cuts have caused unbearable hardship for many seniors.

The Alberta Council on Aging, who are overwhelmed working for and helping seniors, believe that we should all be recognizing seniors’ contribu- tions, not devaluing them. There is a quip that goes something like this, Mr. Speaker: it gets harder and harder to make en ds meet, especially if someone keeps moving the ends. The Tory government needs to stop moving the ends farther apart and stop its attack on the retirement savings of the province’s seniors. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031942 head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I have a petition here. I’m presenting this petition on long-term care signed by 570 Albertans from Edmonton, Bashaw, Bon Accord, Camrose, Hardisty, Killam, Sedgewick, Tofield, Viking, a nd oth er areas of Alberta.

They ’re petitioning the Legislative Ass embly to urge the g overnment of Alberta to recognize and value the contributions and sacrifices the seniors have made in building the Province of Alberta, and treat them with due respect and dignity by reversing those policies that cause unneces- sary financial hardship for them and undermine their quality of life. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, I’m presenting a petition on long -term care signed by 441 Albertans petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to recognize and value the contributions and sacrifices the seniors have made in building the Province of Alberta, and treat them with due respect and dignity by reversing those policies that cause unneces- sary financial ha rdships fo r them and und ermine their quality of life. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have t hree petitions this afternoon.

The first is primarily from citizens in Calgary, and these 353 citizens urge the government to “acknowledge its responsibility in maintaining public education with public funds by increasing the per pupil grant.” The second petition is from 432 Albertans urging the government to acknowledge that t he maintenance and construct ion costs of schools, hospitals and roads are part of the provincial debt and t o consider splitting the budget surplus between monetary debt and infrastructure debt.

The third petition is from 340 Albertans expressing their concern and asking the gove rnment to resolve the cr isis in educ ation by addressing the lack of teaching staff and large class sizes a nd the elimination of many programs including special academic programs and urging the government to increase funding for public education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 3 4(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday we will move t hat written questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places. I’m also giving notice that on Monday we will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and re tain their places. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table with the Assembly today five copies of each of the annual re ports for Municipal Affairs’ deleg ated adminis tration orga nizations.

T he organizations are the Alberta Boilers Safety Association, the Alberta Elevating Devices and Amusem ent Rides Saf ety A ssociation, the Petroleum Tank Management Association of Alberta, and since the Alberta Propane Vehicle Admini stration Or ganization ceased on June 1, ’03, I’m tabling their 2002 annual report. I’m a lso tabling an activity summa ry from our authorized accredited agencies, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doerksen: Mr.

Speaker, I’m taking this opportunity to table five copies of the A lberta Heritage Foundation for Me dical Research 2004 calendar along with 200 2-2003 financial highlights, and the consolidated audited financial statement for 2002-2003. A copy of this document had been pre viously sent to all mem bers of t he Legislature directly from the Albe rta Herit age Foundat ion for Medical Research. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment. Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table five copies of the W ater for Life : Albert a’s Strategy f or Sustainabi lity, tha t I commented on earlier.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Masse y: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. With your perm ission I would table on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for Lethbridge-East, copies of literally hundreds of e-mails and letters that the member has received from people here in Alberta and around the world objecting to the consideration of the develop- ment of the Mil k River dam, indic ating that many st udies have already been done on this, and all have suggested that a dam would be detrimental to the environment. My second tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is five c opies of a letter to me from L aurie Re id objecting to the proposa ls that ar e being put forward by the employer in the current health care negotiations, indicating that they could be ve ry devastating with res pect to t he delivery of health care in the province. And then I have letters from Rose Badura, Betty Patterson, Stella Callender, Antje Toner objecting to the proposals being put forward in the nurses’ negoti ations and de tails [inaudible ] putting the proposals on the table would put on health care system. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr.

MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first is an electricity rate chart that has been created by [inaudible] of Edson, who documents an overall increase in the cost of electricity and natural gas from April 2000 to June 2003. The second tabling is a letter and enclosed

article from Pam Head, a resident of Edmonton, who wants it on public rec ord that she is totally against the idea of deregulating utilities. She stat es th is in regards to the Prem ier: the Premier “needs to regulate the utilities remembering they are a necessity . . .” The Speaker: Hon. member, the tradition is to table the document, not to read it. Mr. MacDonald: My third tablings are letters addressed to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment, from Lethbridge- West, from L. Wa tt, who expr esses c oncern about ne gotiations between PHAA and UNA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1943 3:00 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona I am tabling a background brief prepared by Bev McK ay and ot her promi nent Albe rtans requesting the Auditor General of Alberta to conduct an a udit of long-term care facilities in Alberta. I’m also tabling copies of Mr. Kenneth Dombrowsky’s correspon- dence with res pect to his WCB appeal. Mr.

Dombrowsky was injured 22 years ago and has been fighting appeals since that time, and I’m pleased to table the requisite number of copies of that tabling. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table letters from C ari Smi th, Gwy neth Foster- Newell, I Lut L o, and Janick Hebert, who are all constituents and all nurses writing about their concern f or the la ck of ne gotiations between nurses and the RHAs. I’d also like to table some of the letters I referred to in debate the other da y reg arding insur ance.

T he first is from Tim Pet erson, directed to me with concerns a bout claim s versus insurance and penalties for lapsed insurance; also, the individual I referred to as the Eagle Talon, who’s actually named Janice MacNeil, concerned about her son and the amount that he was having to pay for insurance for a used car; the individua l I refe rred to as Mr.

Mazda a nd his concerns around the $4,000 cap on soft tissue injuries; also, a letter addressed to me from Bennett Moore, concerned about Bill 53 and what the government is proposing for auto insurance; and, finally, directed towards me from Jeff Fixen asking me to vote against the insurance industry’s proposal on soft tissue injuries. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My tablings today are all done with permission and, in fact, at the request of the writers.

They are letters from Ross and Yelena Pambrun, Donna Maxwell, and Angela Krizan, copied to me and addressed to the Member for Calgary-Bow, expressing concern over the nurses’ negotiations. The second tabling is a letter from Susan Kean, copied to me and originally a ddressed to the Member for Fort McMurray, also expressing concern over these negotiations. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Yes. With your permission I have two tablings today, Mr. Speaker .

The f irst is 45 s ignatures from residents of th e Hastings Lake area who are worried about the proposed Tempest gas wells, which have recently been approved by the Energy and Utilities Board without public consultation, and that they may affect both the quality and quantity of potable water. They want the wells tested before and after drilling by an independent, unbiased . . . The Speaker: Hon. member, the intent is to table, not read. Mr. Bonner: My second tabling is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on an application for leave to appeal.

The appeal by the Workers’ Compensation Board was dismissed with costs to allow the respondent, Thomas Shuchuk, to advance a claim against the WCB based on the tort of abuse of public office. The Speaker: Others? head : Tablings to t he Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited w ith the off ice of t he Clerk by the hon. M r.

Mar, Minister of Hea lth and Wel lness: A lberta De ntal Hy gienists Association 2002 annual report, Alberta Dental Assistants Associa- tion 2002 annual repor t, Albert a College of Medica l Laborat ory Technologists annual repor t 2002, Alber ta Colleg e of Spee ch- Language Pathologists and Audiologists 2002 annual report, College of Dietitians of Alberta annual report 2002-2003, Alberta Associa- tion of Registered Nurses annual report 2001-2002, Alberta College of Pharmacists annual report 2002-2003, Alberta College of Social Workers annual report 2002, Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists annual report 2002-2003, and Coll ege of Alberta Psychologists annual report 2002-2003.

By the hon. Mr. Stevens, Minister of Ga ming, a memorandum dated July 22, 2003, from Norman C. Peterson, chairman and chief executive officer of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, to the hon. Mr. Stevens, Minister of Gaming, regarding the Edmonton Northlands violation; A lberta G aming and Liquor Com mission 2002-200 3 annual report; and Horse Racing Alberta 2002 annual review. head : Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess The Speaker: The hon. Official Opposition House Leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you. On her behalf, Mr.

Speaker, at this time I would ask the government to share with us the projected government business for next week. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pl eased to r ise this afternoon to share the projected government business for the week of December 1 to December 4, 200 3.

On Monday , December 1, commencing at 9 p.m. will be government motions 27 and 28 followed by Com mittee of the W hole on Bill 54, A ppropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2); Bill 44, Person al Information Protection Act; Bill 50, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2003; Bill 51, Na tural Resources Conservation Board Amendment Act, 2003; and as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, December 2, commencing in the afternoon there will be third reading on Bill 54, Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2); the n Comm ittee of the W hole on Bill 53, Insurance Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2); second reading on Bill 52, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, and Bill 46, Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2003. Then third reading of Bill 49, Public Lands Amendment Act, 2003; Bill 47, Tobacco Tax Amend- ment Act, 2003 (No. 2); Bill 45, Family Law Act; Bill 53, Insurance Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2); and as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, December 2, in the evening Committee of the Whole on Bill 53, Insurance Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2); third reading of Bill 54, Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2), and Bill 49, Public L ands Am endment A ct, 20 03, and Bill 47, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2), and Bill 45, Family Law Act, and Bill 53, Insurance Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2); and as per the Order Paper.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031944 On Wednesda y, Dec ember 3, in the af ternoon wil l be second reading on Bill 52, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, and Bill 46, M unicipal Government Amendment Act; third readi ng of Bill 43, Post-seconda ry Lear ning Act, and Bill 44, Personal Information Protection Act; and as per the Order Paper.

That evening Comm ittee of the Whole on Bil l 38, Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 2003; Bill 52, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003; Bill 46, Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2003; and Bill 48, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Science and Engineering Research Amendment Act, 2003.

Third readings will be on Bill 38, Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 2003, and Bill 52, Health Prof essions A mendment Act , 2003, and Bill 46, Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2003, and Bill 48, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Science and Engineering Research Amend- ment Act, 2003, and Bill 44, Personal Information Protection Act; and as per the Order Paper.

On Thursday, December 4, in the aft ernoon Co mmittee of the Whole and third rea ding on Bill 53, Insurance Amendment Act , 2003 (No. 2), and as per the Order Paper. head : Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 54 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2) The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Mrs. Nelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to be ab le to sta nd today a nd move s econd readi ng of Bil l 54, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2). Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I was a ble to bring f orward the second quarter in the supplemen tary es timates, and cle arly w e are in a position in this province to deal with some of the pressure points. A lot of them, in fact the majority, are a result of disasters and emer- gency situations t hat have occurred with in our province , and this government clearly responded to t hose disaster requirements and needs I believe faster and with more earnest than any other province in this country.

I know tha t there w as dialog ue last nig ht on supplem entary estimates, and I’m sure that all members and colleagues were proud of the way that, in particular, the ministries with the disasters were able to mov e quick ly and w ith a clea r direction t o help allev iate some of the pa in from the disaster s that occurred in the province, conditions, Mr. Speak er, that we were als o seeing focus on so me priority areas that clearly were necessary to deal with some issues that had arisen through the year. This particular bill ref lects those positions, and I am pleased to move second reading.

At this point, though, I’d like to adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 3:10 Bill 52 Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Mar: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I am pleased t o move f or second reading B ill 52, the He alth Profes sions Amendment Act, 2003. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with health reform, we need to support health professionals in providing safe and effective health services. We’ve already done much to make the health care system more effi cient and re sponsive to patient needs.

In Alberta an electronic health rec ord syst em has been built to g ive heal th providers secure electronic access to current health information when providing patient care. This leading technology, the first of its kind in Canada, gives physicians and other health care providers correct information about a patient’s prescriptions, allergies, and test results. Providers will hav e app ropriate ac cess to pa tient infor mation no matter where the patient lives or where they receive care.

Physicians and pharm acists ha ve alre ady re ported that the electronic health rec ord syst em is an eff ective tool i n maki ng decisions abo ut patie nt care. The sy stem a ims to pr event drug prescription errors and avoid having patients undergo unnecessary diagnostic tests. Physicians say that immediate computer access to patient information and clinical guidelines are helping them to make better decisions about patient care. Mr. Speaker, the electronic health record system also depends on the ability to collect and share accurate and appropriate information about health prof essionals who provide care.

B ill 52, the H ealth Professions Amendment Act, will allow for the deve lopment of a health provider directory, which is a database of all regulated health professionals in the province of Alberta. Bill 52 will give regulatory colleges the authority to coll ect and sha re inform ation on all individual health professionals who will n eed to access electronic health record information to provide patient care. The Health Professions Act was passed in 1999 to regulate all 30 health professio ns in the province .

This legi slation requires a ll regulatory col leges t o foll ow common rules , to i nvestigate com- plaints and set edu cational and pract ice standar ds fo r regis tered members. Bill 52 will expand the information that can be collected and shared about health professionals while protecting their privacy. This bill will require a ll professional colleges to col lect standard information on all of their regulated members.

This data is e ssential to the func tion of not only our electronic health record system but will also ensure that Alberta can provide standard dat a to natio nal initiatives such as the develo pment of a pan-Canadian electronic health record system. The new system will allow for interprovinci al c ommunications on patient referrals, telehealth, and research. Bill 52 will a lso authorize the use of a nonymous and aggregate health provider in formation to help Alberta monitor and plan f or health workforce needs. Professional colleges are asked for changes in how they define themselves and their regulated members.

New professional schedules under Bill 52 will provide new college names and new professional titles to reflect current scopes of practice. T he practice statements for som e colleges have been amended to better reflect the range of services regulated practitioners provide. Mr. Speaker, Bill 52 w ill assist professional colleges and their regulated members to provide safe and effective patient care. Regulatory colleges and health authorities recognize and support the need for these changes to improve patient access and care.

Bill 52 is an essential step in being responsive to the needs of Albertans and to the needs of health care prov iders. T his bill adv ances o ur progress in health reform and helps us build a better public health care system. Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m ple ased to m ove Bill 52 a t second reading, and at this time I wish to adjourn debate on Bill 52. [Motion to adjourn debate carried]

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1945 Bill 46 Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2003 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. The Municipal Govern- ment Act provides the framework for governance in the administra- tion of 357 municipal authorities a nd therefore affects the v ast majority of over 3 mill ion Albertans. This g overnment acknowl- edges the key role of the Municipal Government Act, and it’s firmly committed to ensuring the act’s continued viability and relevance.

After consulting with stakeholders, the government has concluded that ad ditional am endments are appropr iate in st rengthening the Municipal Government Act. Stak eholders such as the Urban Municipalities Asso ciation and the Association of Municipal Districts and Counties along wi th many other stak eholders wer e consulted.

The purpose of Bill 46, the Muni cipal Government Amendment Act, 2003, is to improve the act by doing the following: first, it will provide enabling legislation to allow municipalities to collect an off- site road levy as a condi tion of subdiv ision o r d evelopment, and second, it will enhance the liability protection for municipal boxing and wrestling commissions. In addition, amendments are proposed to change the effective date of provisions in Bill 23, the Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2002, regarding the revised equalized assessment reporting system. Mr.

Speaker, let me begin with those am endments that apply to off-site road levies. Municipalities experiencing rapid growth have requested through the Minister’s Provincial/Municipal Council on Roles, Responsibilities and Resources in the 21st Century an amendment to help offset some of the transportation costs related to new growth. The council is the first of its kind in Canada. Members from this As sembly, including W hitecourt-Ste. Anne, Edm onton- Rutherford and Calgary-Mountain View, join me.

Also sitting on the council of stakeholders are the AUMA president, the AAMD and C president, the may ors of Edm onton and Calg ary, a nd also a representative from Alberta Economic Development Authority. A recent court decision in the MD of Rocky View challenging the validity of a municipality to collect an off-site road levy resulted in a ruling that sufficient authority for this did not exist in the act, one of the purposes of our am endments today.

Prov ision is ther efore proposed to confirm the authority of the municipalities to collect an off-site levy as a c ondition of subdiv ision or deve lopment to help offset some of the transportation and lading co sts that come with new growth. An example of where this would have benefited a municipality is the massive Simons Valley subdivision in Calgary. With a projected population of 50,000 people the development was put on hold by Calgary council last December due to a shortage of infrastructure funds for roadway construction.

An agreement with developers to help pay for the roadways was not settled until the following spring. Now, to ensur e that the process is accountable, transparent, and subject to public scrutiny, provisions will also be added to the act to require off-site levy bylaws to be subject to advertising provisions in the Municipal Government Act and to require s eparate accounting procedures for all off-site levy bylaws, ensuring their accountability.

To p rovide a stronger policy fram ework for setting off-s ite road levies, a new regulation-making authority of the Lieutenant Gover- nor in Council will be included to e stablish principles and criteria that apply to municipalities in setting these levies. This will b e in addition to the ex isting power in the MGA t o set the m aximum amount that a municipality may establish or im pose as a n off-site levy. In the past the re have been challenges made to th e right of the municipality to charge off-site levies as a part of t he development agreement. To addres s this

part icular iss ue raised by our stake- holders and any other potential challenges, a clause is proposed to ensure that those development agreements entered into prior to the coming into force of the proposed off-site road levy provisions are deemed t o have been in force as though the off-site levy was authorized in the act. Mr.

S peaker, f inally, the second s et of propos ed ame ndments would give municipal boxing and wrestling commissions immunity from any liability arising from all combative sports regulated by the commission and cover referees, judges, em ployees, and other officials in the perf ormance of their duties in good faith. T his request was raised by the city of Edmonton on behalf of the Edmon- ton Boxing and Wrestling Commission and also rece ived verbal support from the city of Calgary on behalf of the Calgary Boxing and Wrestling Commission.

Therefore, it is propose d that sec tion 535.1(1) be amend ed to include the follo wing combative sports: full-contact karate, kick- boxing, and all other sports that hold contests bet ween opponents including strik ing wi th feet, hands, knee s, or elbow s. Questi on period is not part of this coverage. It is also propos ed that se ction 535.1(2) be amended to protect officials, comm issioners, r eferees, judg es, and tim ekeepers from liability for anything said, done, or omitted to be done in good faith.

Finally, the proposed l iability protection will be very similar to that provided to coun cillors, municipal officers, and vo lunteer workers of a municipality. 3:20 Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of Bill 23, the MGA Act of 2002, are to come i nto force January 1, 2004. These sections pertain to the preparation of municipal equalized assessments, and the effective date is causing concern for some municipalities.

I’ve heard th eir concern and am very pleased today to say that the amendments – municipalities and their service providers may require additional time to complete those required changes to their sy stems to comply with t he revised equalized assessment and reporting system that was provided in Bill 23. Therefore, it is proposed that sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 of Bill 23 be amended to come into force on proclamation rather than on January 1, 2004. It is further proposed that in

section 13 of Bill 23 the wording of

section 321.1(2) be amended from January 1, 2004, to “by the date this

section comes into force.” Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill addresses the needs of Albertans and will maintain the Municipal Government Act as a model piece of legislation of every similar kind of any place in Canada. With that, Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud to say that these are good amendments, and I would at this time like to adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head : Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The De puty Chair : Hon. members, we ’ll call t he committee to order. Bill 45 Family Law Act The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments? The committee will deal with amendment A1. Are there any

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031946 questions or comments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. member for Calgary-Lougheed. Ms Graham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further to the package of amendments that was introduced and marked, I would like to advise you that follo wing c onsultation with the oppositio n, it has been agreed that the amen dments to Bi ll 45 which are curr ently on t he floor be split up in t he follow ing way to accom modate sp ecific discussion, voting, and subamendments. First, we w ould ask tha t the ma in amendm ent th at w e have proposed will remain amendment A1, that

section B will be broken out to becom e A2, se ction G w ill be broken out to become A3,

section J will be broken out to become A4,

section EE be broken out to become A5, and finally, Mr. Chairman,

section A be broken out to become A6. The Deputy Chair: Okay. I presume that there is an agreement on that. Ms Blakeman: Yes. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the co- operation of the spon soring member and the House leaders in coming to this arrangement. The Deputy Chair: Very well. We shall do accordingly. Ms Graham: I’ll continue, then, Mr. Chairman.

As I mentioned in my remarks on second reading, since the introduction of Bill 45 last spring there has been additional consultation on the contents of the bill over the summer and into the early fall, and government has accepted many of the suggestions received over this period for the purpose of improving and strengthening the content of the bill. Mr. Chairman, there are some 65 amendments in our package of amendments, and although it may seem that this is a high number of revisions, I would like to say that this has reall y been the first opportunity for those who will work with this bill to actually view it.

So these changes reflect the scrutiny which has been brought to bear by the individuals and organizations with expertise about it and who will be working with it. You will see, Mr. Chairman, that the majority of the amendments are drafting changes which improve clarity. There are certain policy changes which extend from those of minor significance to those of, I’ll call, ordi nary sign ificance. We f eel that t here are really only three poli cy cha nges that are of major s ignificance, and I will identify those for members as I give the description of them later on.

Just to sum up, then, the amendments really fine-tune the provi- sions of the bill such that there will be less opportunity for interpre- tation, I guess I could say , for gr eater clarification of int ent, for wording that better harmonizes with the federal Divorce Act, and to remove som e sections that we re, in retr ospect, thoug ht to be not necessary. Mr.

Chairman, I would also like to state that I believe and I think members would ag ree that t here is a higher tha n usual need for clarity in this bill as it will be used very heavily day in and day out by judges, c lerks, law yers, self-r epresented litigants , and others working within the family law system. So it’s very important that the bill be clear and easy to follow, and I think that the amendments that we are proposing respond to this need. It will be my i ntent, Mr. Cha irman, i n the tim e rem aining to summarize the am endments for m embers.

I have grouped t hese amendments together by general subject matter, and although it isn’t my intent to go into each one of the 65 in detail, I will try to hit the high spots, so to speak. Addressing, then, the am endments, M r. Chairman, the first grouping I will c all court jur isdiction and powers and alternative dispute resolution. I would suggest that House amendment A, which defines “respondent” in a less adversarial way, as well as amendment C, which amends

section 4 of the bill to add collaborative processes to media tion and other s ervices which l awyers must bring to the attention of their clients to help parties resolve their differences, go to making the court processes simpler, more family friendly, and are certainly encouraging of the use of a lternative dispute res olution mechanisms. 3:30 The next two House amendments, B and C. Amendment B revises

section 3, the jurisdiction of our Cour t of Queen’s Bench and our Provincial Court, both of which act in this area, but it sets out the jurisdiction of the respective courts specifically in the F amily Law Act.

Section 3. 1 would then deal with procedures to apply when there are duplicate applications and for combining matters. Mr. Chairman, originally the plan was – and the bill so reads – to designate the court by regulation; that i s, what cour t would ha ve responsibility for a lot of conting ent applica tions. Howev er, a question was ra ised about the legalit y of doing this ; thus the amendment to designate the court in the statute. Amendment D is a reference to the elimination of the need for regulations to set out the court that would be required because we are designating the court. I hope that makes sense. Next are a number of amendments to

definitions and court powers which will reduce the adversarialism in the courts and increase the use of alternative dispute resolution. House amendments E, Z, X, KK, MM, QQ, RR, SS, and ZZ are amendments which clarify court powers in relation to the making or varying of orders or declarations. Then, Mr. Chairman, House amendments TT, UU, WW, and XX add court powers to make stays and order costs and c onditions in certain situations. The next grouping rel ates to child support f or children over the age of 18 and the procedures for determining child support, and the amendments here, Mr.

Ch airman, involve two of the m ajor policy changes that we have identified. What the bill basically does is erase the differences between child support procedure for the children of married parents and those children of unmarried parents by harmo- nizing with the Divorce Act, by bringing in a def inition for when child support is payable, and by bringing in the use of child support guidelines which exist in the Divorce Act. So what you will see, Mr.

Chairm an, is the a ddition of suppor t obligations for certain children over the age of 18 but not older than 22 years o f age to balance the obligat ion of the c hild to support himself or herself with th e Divo rce Act obligation t o pay suppor t after age 18 and with the government policy that supports education. We will find these changes in House amendm ents BB, CC, KK(a)(iii), which amend

section 47(b)(ii), defining how a child over the age of 18 would qualify for child support and also requiring the adult child to contribute to his or her own support. The other major change, as I mentioned, is the inclusion of child support gui delines whi ch r eally reflect the curre nt reality that is happening in the courts, because our courts are applying them with great success. So House amendment EE would amend

section 52 to add child suppo rt guide lines and set the rules for when these guidelines may and may not be used. Two addit ional a mendments, I and D D, relate to powers on findings of parentage, and they make it clear that the court can make findings of parentage for child support and can order blood tests in aid of that. The next subject matter of revisions deals with the removal of the person-in-need sup port provisions , which c urrently are

part 3, division 3 of the bill. These re-enact the provisions of the Mainte-

November 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1947 nance Order Act and would impose a legal obligation on extended family mem bers, includi ng gr andparents, parents, c hildren, and grandchildren, to support family mem bers who can not support themselves because of disability or similar causes. Because these sections are rarely used by private citizens and never by government and are no long er consistent with g overnment policy, which is to support the independence of disabled adults, it was determined that these provisions should be removed from the act. In fact, House amendment HH does do that. It strikes out all of

part 3, division 3. This is the third major poli cy change whic h is containe d in our amendments. The next subject matter deals with the clarification of children’s interests and their pa rticipation i n matte rs aff ecting the m. Mr. Chairman, the bill does encourage a focus on the child a nd on th e child’s unique situat ion and best int erests, and it encourages the appropriate inclusion of the chil d in m atters affecting him or her. We find changes consistent with this in House amendments F and J, which have to do w ith the no tice of court procedures on children.

These House amendments amend sections 10 and 16 to ensure that children who are under the age of 18 are properly notified of court proceedings affecting them. We’ve changed the age from 12 years and older to 16 y ears and older, at which point children would be notified of proceedings involving them. As well, it does still leave open the discretion of the court to give notice in other circumstances. House amendm ent K addre sses the best-inter est criteria and amends

section 17(2)(b)(iv) and (ix) and allows for the child’s and guardian’s views to be considered if appropriate in determining best interests. It also amends subsection ( vi) of 17(2)(

b) and 17(3) by improving the definition of family violence as it relates to children. It will include all household members as well as acts of sexual abuse and forced c onfinement, but it w ill exclude normal discipl ine a s might be meted out in the household. House amendments YY and ZZ affect sections 96 and 97 and redraft them to better aim at the protection of children by limiting publication of procee dings and, of cour se, enable the court to do this. The next subject matter would be entitlement to contact with the child, and gr andparents’ access comes und er thi s head ing.

An amendment has been made in response to the Alberta Grandparents Association submiss ion, which g ave input to all MLA s in this regard. House amendment Y would see a change to

section 35(4)(a), which makes the test for obtaining leave to bring an application for contact with the child for grandparents and other nonparents to be less onerous in the case of intact families. The next subject matter is under reproductiv e technolog y, and there are new changes in Bill 45 designed to help infertile individu- als. House amendment G w ould see

section 12, which address es this, improved by using better wording in place of “artificial insemi- nation,” which is viewed as an outdated term and not descriptive of the process, to be replac ed with the new and be tter wor ding of “assisted conception.” It will also improve clar ity about the ways that men, particularly those who have f ertility problems, ca n b e considered biological fathers through assisted conception.

It also allows excepti ons to be m ade in the r egulations t o the rule that anonymous sperm donors are not fathers. 3:40 The next groupi ng surrounds the entit lements and powe rs of guardians of children and trustee ship of chil dren’s estates. These provisions are found in

part 2, division 1. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in Alberta law that all the entitlements and responsibilities of guardians have been codi fied. W here there are dispute s in relation to these powers, they are often difficult ones, so clear rules should help reduce conflict in this regard. I can advise the members, as well, that procedures for obtaining a trusteeship order for children’s estates have been adjusted after consultation with and in anticipation of the planned amendments to the Minors’ Property Act. So the House amendments under this heading, Mr.

Chai rman, are found in House amendment L, which specifies the guardians’ powers and affects sec tion 20(2) and 20(5)(m.1), where there’s a clarification of the guardi ans’ entitle- ments and obligations to share information. Under

section 20(3) there’s a clarification that there’s no financial responsibility associated with guardianship. Under

section 20(5) there is a requirement that the child’s maturity level, which is an evolv ing capacity, must be tak en into acc ount when they make their decisions. Under section (20)(5)(

b) and subsection (

l) are further clarifica- tions of the guardianship powers. Under House am endment O there is a change to ensure t hat in making a guardianship order, there is never a gap in these guardian- ship ord ers, and it als o remov es an unnec essary leave to court application. House amendments P, Q, R, and T speak to the trusteeship of the estate of the child and affect

section 26 such that any eligible person can be a trustee, not just the guardian. As well, it affects

section 28 such that the con sent of the Public Trustee is not nec essary as the Public Trustee will get notice of these applications in any event. It also affects

section 30, which gives the power to the court to help the trustee, where the trustee can now apply for directions. House amendment S wil l affect

section 29, which c larifies the court’s power to review a guardian’s decisions. The n ext s ubject m atter is parenting or ders found i n

part 2, division 2, and involve House amendments U and V, which clarify the definition of parenting time and moves this to a better location in

section 32 a nd als o affects

section 32(3), which is removed because it would likely cause some conflict. It had been included for the purposes of the Hague convention but is now being withdrawn. The next subj ect matter is enfo rcement of time with the child, which is found in pa rt 2, divisi on 4, and is . . . [Ms Graha m’s speaking time expired] Chair’s Ruling Decorum The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, given t hat we d o have some sound problems, it’s very important for Hansard to be able to pick up the speaker’s remarks. I would request everyone to please respect the problem that we have today.

Please, everyone, allow the speaker to be heard by the microphones so that, at least, Hansard can record what’s being said. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Debate Continued Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair man. I’d like to commence the Comm ittee of the Whole debate on Bil l 4 5 by acknowledging and thanking the government for its co-operation in reorganizing the amendments that had been proposed. In general, I am supportive of the amendments that were brought forward in the package by the s ponsoring Mem ber for C algary-Lougheed.

However, t here are a nu mber of areas where I wish to brin g a subamendment or where I had conce rns. I didn’t w ant to be in a position of voting against the enti re package because of c oncerns that I had wit h a few clauses, so I appre ciate the co-operation in pulling those clauses out. I am aware of the time pressure today in that there is a desire by the government to return to the appropria tions bill by 5 o’clock,

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20031948 which leaves about an hour and 10 minutes for this debate. What I would like to do is respond first to the general amendment, amend- ment A1, which is the larger package of amendments, and then I’m perfectly happy to ha ve th at voted. T hen we w ould go on to amendment A2, whi ch is on the c ourts, discuss it, vote on it, and then to amendment 3, which is on assisted conception. I do have a subamendment . Then amendment 4 on notification, amendment 5 on child support, and amendment 6 on

definitions. Finally, I have an amendment to the original bill, which would happen after we’ve voted on all the other amendment packages currently on the floor. To start out, looking at the general pack age, the sponsor ing Member for Calg ary-Lougheed has appare ntly gone through to outline what the government was attempting to do with such a large amendment packag e. There ’s no quest ion that 65 am endments contained in 38 pages is a lar ge am ending doc ument, though I support the government in the work that was done.

This bill was originally put on the fl oor in t he spring s ession and le ft over the summer for people in communities, interested stakeholder parties, to look at it and g ive inpu t. As a resu lt of that input we ha ve the amending package before us. I think the process is a good one, and I’m pleased that it, indeed, has happened. I would make a couple of com ments on the package A 1, th e guardianship order sec tion. I think t hat onc e we hav e fixed the surrogacy and assisted conception sections – and I have amendments to that.

The guardians: here again we’re speaking about a mother and father, and additional guardi ans or alternate guardians can be appointed where necessary. This continues the previous law, and it’s fine. When we lo ok at conta ct orders he re under div ision 3, this is where the test is set out to allow someone to stand in place, the best- interest test. We have some concerns which were brought to me by the Grandparents Association, that felt that the test was too hard, and the Member for Calgary-Lougheed did mention that there had been an amendment in the A 1 packag e to make that eas ier.

I w ould maintain that the test is still too difficult, but at this point it’s come down to a difference in philosophy. The government prefers to have a philosophy of parental rights first and foremost, and that’s reflected in the leg islation.

I would have preferred that the re be a w ider recognition of different kinds of families, and when we’re looking at the best interests of the child, I would have preferred the test be put on the parents to prove why someone else couldn’t have contact with their children, but not a hill that I’m going to die on because I think I’m not going to be able to move them on this, and they have been willing to come partway with this amendment, that they have already committed to this.

I thin k it can be argued that the best interest of the child is an actual test that grandparents meet. 3:50 Now the enfor cement of acc ess to the child, whic h app ears in division 4, sections 38 to 46. This provides the government with powers to address interference with access, and the prov isions are taken directly from the Domestic Relations Act. They are not new. They have bee n around for s ome time, and I re member doing an amendment to the Domestic Relations Act in my time here, in ’98 or ’99, in which the access enforcement

section was inserted, and that did seem to have brought a lot of problems. My con cern now is the same as it w as back then in that these provisions with enforcement of access I believe contain threats of fines and imprisonment that can be used by access parents to coerce or threaten c ustodial pare nts. O ften w e have a situation w here there’s a gender bias built into this. In other words, the custodial parent is still in this day and age more likely to be the mother. The access-seeking parent is more likely to be the f ather.

The fathers often have more financial resources, although I’ve been corrected recently that it’s people with great resources or almost no resources who, in fact, take advantage of the public resources to delay, to go back to court repeatedly. It becomes a form of harassment to continually go back to court on every variance, on every order and challenge everything, and the custodial parent is having to take time off work, arrange for child care, perhaps are losing salary if they’re on wage per hour. If they don’t work, they don’t get paid.

They’re having to look at parking costs and travel costs to g o back ove r and over and over a gain to court to defend themselves. So I stil l have a concern tha t that’s possible here. I have not seen an improvement, and I think we need to look at this, maybe even address this in the future. There are no parallel penalties in place for acce ss parents who refuse to take t he access as ordered by the court except for a very small provision which allows the custodial parent to get reimbursed for actual costs that were incurred. So a parent has said: “Okay. I’m the custodial par ent.

I’ve arranged to go to a f amily reunion in Newfoundland. I’ve bought my ticket. This is the weekend that the access parent is going to take the child or children. I bought a dress for the family reunion.” Then comes Friday afternoon and the access parent doesn’t come. They’re out-of-pocket for the plane ticket and the outfit and t he hotel and e verything else involved. They could apply to the courts for reimbursement. That is the only

section that addresses people that don’t take the access that the court has allowed them. I think there’s an imbalance there. There’s a great deal of effort to coerce custodial par ents to gra nt access. There is no eff ort to encourage those parents that have an access order to actually make use of it and to have formed a relationship and have ongoing access with the child. That is a place where we are lacking as legislators, and we do need to go back and address this. Noncustodial parents are given all the rights of access to children but not the responsibility of exercising that access. Another area that I want to make note of is in

section 71, around financial disclosure . The re are tw o issues he re. One is that the parent need only provide financial disclosure one time per year, and I think that given how much jobs change, conditions change, that is not enough. If we have a p arent who get s a much better job two weeks after their disclosure, that doesn’t matter. That child is still going to go through the next whole year getting the same amount, and the children should be able to benefit right away if a parent, in fact, gets a better job or their financial circumstance improves. They could win the l ottery or inherit m oney.

There a re any number of ways for their financial situation to improve, and in this case t he children do not benefit from that, and they should. We have no mechanism in place to allow that; it’s once a year only. I think this

section is another that needs to be looked a t, perhaps not now – I don’t see the change in what the government has brought forward – but I would urg e the government to consider this perhaps under a miscellaneous statutes or an amending bill. The second part of my concern around the financial disclosure is always around safety. Of