Alberta Hansard — 21 April 2009, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 27, Session 2)

20090421

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

Province of Alberta The 27th Legislature Second Session Alberta Hansard Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Issue 27 The Honourable Kenneth R. Kowalski, Speaker

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

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

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

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

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

Albert (PC), Minister of Advanced Education and Technology Jablonski, Hon. Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC), Minister of Seniors and Community Supports Jacobs, Broyce, Cardston-Taber-Warner (PC) Johnson, Jeff, Athabasca-Redwater (PC) Johnston, Art, Calgary-Hays (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL) Klimchuk, Hon. Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC), Minister of Service Alberta Knight, Hon. Mel, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC), Minister of Energy Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Liepert, Hon. Ron, Calgary-West (PC), Minister of Health and Wellness Lindsay, Hon.

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

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

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

Ron, QC, Calgary-Glenmore (PC), Deputy Premier, Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations Swann, Dr. David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL), Leader of the Official Opposition Taft, Dr. Kevin, Edmonton-Riverview (AL) Tarchuk, Hon. Janis, Banff-Cochrane (PC), Minister of Children and Youth Services Taylor, Dave, Calgary-Currie (AL) VanderBurg, George, Whitecourt-Ste.

Anne (PC) Vandermeer, Tony, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (PC) Weadick, Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC) Webber, Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Energy Woo-Paw, Teresa, Calgary-Mackay (PC) Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Employment and Immigration Zwozdesky, Hon. Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Minister of Aboriginal Relations, Deputy Government House Leader Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Clerk W.J. David McNeil Clerk Assistant/ Director of House Services Louise J. Kamuchik Clerk of Journals/Table Research Micheline S.

Gravel Senior Parliamentary Counsel Robert H. Reynolds, QC Senior Parliamentary Counsel Shannon Dean Sergeant-at-Arms Brian G. Hodgson Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms J. Ed Richard Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms William C. Semple Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard Liz Sim

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 723 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 21, 2009 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon, and welcome. Let us pray. On the Holocaust remembrance monument located on the grounds of the Alberta Legislature are found the following words: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the tormented.” These words were written by Elie Wiesel – survivor, poet, Nobel prize recipient.

May God provide all innocent victims of racism and genocide eternal peace. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: Hon. members, today in the Speaker’s gallery, in the public gallery, and in the members’ gallery are a number of special guests. The Royal Canadian Legion Alberta-NWT Command takes a keen interest in promoting Mr. Speaker’s MLA for a Day program. We’re very much appreciative both of their financial support and their involvement for this annual event, which began yesterday afternoon and will conclude later this afternoon.

In the Speaker’s gallery are members of the Alberta-NWT Command executive council. I’ll ask them to rise as I call out their names. Mr. Don Orr, the Legion’s command president, accompanied by his wife, Beryl Orr; Rod Stewart, command vice-president, and his wife, Joyce Stewart; Dave Horrocks, command vice-president; and Gordon McDonald, chairman, Alberta-NWT Command. Sixty-four students are also here with us today who are partici- pants in the MLA for a Day program. Yesterday the participants spent time at the Royal Canadian Legion, debated a resolution, and toured the Legislature Building.

This morning they were in this Chamber sitting in your chairs as we had a special seminar for them. They also visited with members in their offices, they attended the Holocaust memorial service, and they lunched with many of you prior to Oral Question Period today. These young people are seated in both galleries, and I would now ask all of them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier. Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to rise this afternoon and to introduce to you and through you to other members of the Assembly special guests from the government of Abu Dhabi: Mr. Ghulam Wani is adviser to the chairman’s office, Department of Economic Development; and Mr. Khalid Al Hosani is acting director of the contractors and consultants classification division, Department of Economic Development. Accompanying the delegation are Mr. Neil Windsor, who is the executive director of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, and his colleague Mr. Jim Beckett, president-elect. Mr.

Speaker, Alberta and Abu Dhabi have a friendly relationship and a history of successful interaction. In particular, Alberta has a strong trade relationship with Abu Dhabi as part of our overall trade with the United Arab Emirates. Over the last three years Alberta’s exports to the United Arab Emirates have averaged $175 million per year. It’s important that Alberta continues to build on this relation- ship, which is why I led a mission to the Emirates last year. During that mission I met with government officials and business represen- tatives in Abu Dhabi.

I also had the privilege of speaking at Abu Dhabi’s world-renowned International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that our friends are with us today, and we welcome the opportunity to strengthen our connection with Abu Dhabi. I would like our special guests to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Mr. Lindsay: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a gentleman from my constituency of Stony Plain. Mr. John Rebus is here today in the House to view democracy in action and view the debate on Bill 19. He’s very interested in that bill. John is in the members’ gallery. I’d ask him to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mr. Benito: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is my honour to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a group of 28 seniors from my constituency of Edmonton-Mill Woods. They are led by their group leaders, Mr. Don De La Fosse and Mrs. Joan De La Fosse. One of them told me during our picture taking in the rotunda that she has been in Edmonton, Alberta, for 50 years and that this is the firs t time she has visited the beautiful building of our Alberta Legislative Assembly.

These good-looking seniors from Edmonton-Mill Woods are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly 18 individuals seated in the public gallery who are here today to witness the Committee of the Whole proceedings on Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Area Act.

I do not have a list of their names, but I would ask that they now rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Culture and Community Spirit. Holocaust Memorial Day Mr. Blackett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today we recognize a very significant day in the Jewish lunar calendar. April 21 is Yom ha- Shoah, also known as Holocaust Memorial Day.

The date is recognized world-wide in remembrance of the approximately 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust as well as others who suffered and fought during the horrific events of the atrocity. In Alberta communities and families observe this day by remem- bering and recalling the victims of this catastrophe. Survivors tell

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009724 their stories so that their children and future generations will never forget, all in an effort to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. Earlier today I took

part in a Yom ha-Shoah ceremony organized by the Jewish Federation of Edmonton on the Alberta Legislature Grounds. I urge all Albertans to recognize this very important day and, in doing so, to reflect on our individual and collective roles in the fight against religious, racial, and other forms of hatred. Yom ha-Shoah is a call to all people, not just the Jewish commu- nity, to fight for the common goals of societies that value diversity and protect human rights.

Yom ha-Shoah was officially proclaimed Holocaust Memorial Day by the Alberta Legislature on November 16, 2000, with the passing of the Holocaust Memorial Day and Genocide Remembrance Act. This act proclaims the observance of Yom ha-Shoah and Holocaust Memorial Day, and annually the Alberta Legislature acknowledges the significance of the Holocaust and the importance of Holocaust education. The proclamation itself reads:

Whereas the Holocaust was the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945, and this horrific event is part of our common history as citizens on this earth;

Whereas the Nazis and their collaborators murdered 6 million Jewish people, including more than a million children, during that time of persecution and death;

Whereas the Nazis and their collaborators also persecuted and murdered millions of other people because of their race, religion, level of physical or mental ability or sexual orientation;

Whereas, during World War II, Albertans bravely served as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and many Albertans paid the ultimate price, their lives, to protect and preserve freedom and democracy;

Whereas “Shoah” is the Hebrew term for “Holocaust”;

Whereas it is fitting and right to observe Yom ha-Shoah, the Day of the Holocaust, as a day to remember the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and to honour those who fought to defeat tyranny and genocide;

Whereas this day provides Albertans with the opportunity: - to look within themselves, reflect on the e nduring lessons of the Holocaust and educate their children, their colleagues and their fellow citizens on the perils of hatred, - to consider other times and incidents of systematic violence, genocide, persecution, racism and hatred that call out to us from the past or continue today, and - to reaffirm their commitment to uphold the human rights of all and to value diversity a nd the multicultural richness of Alberta society;

Whereas on Yom ha-Shoah we will remember, for we must never forget; Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows: Holocaust Memorial Day – Yom ha-Shoah. 1 Yom ha-Shoah, the Day of the Holocaust as determined in each year by the Jewish lunar calendar, is proclaimed as Holocaust Memorial Day. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker. History has taught us the danger of ignorance and the result of indifference. We must ensure that a catastrophe such as the Holocaust is never seen again. 1:40 The Speaker: On behalf of the Official Opposition the hon.

Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the minister mentioned, many of us in the Chamber here today partook in the ceremony organized by the Jewish Federation of Edmonton on the Alberta Legislature Grounds. This ceremony was an echo of the many ceremonies taking place ar ound the world recognizing Yom ha- Shoah. It is only fitting that this ceremony takes place around the world as this was a human tragedy that affected all the people in the world. It is traditional in this ceremony that a moment of silence is given for remembrance.

We here must know that true remembrance does not happen in a moment or on a single day. True remembrance requires that we always carry with us our understanding of the crime that was the Holocaust. True remembrance requires us to pass on that understanding to future generations. It is that true remembrance that will prevent this kind of evil from happening again. I would like to quote a short passage from the Kaddish. May there be much peace from Heaven, and satiety, and salvation, and comfort, and saving and h ealing and redemption and forgive- ness and atonement and relief and deliverance for us and for all.

Jamais encore. Never again. The Speaker: Hon. members, I believe that on this occasion the House would provide unanimous consent for me to call on the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, I appreciate being given the opportunity to rise and speak on this important day. Although it has been over 60 years since the Holocaust, the reminder of this horrific time in our history is very much present for so many in our community.

It is vital that we take this time to remember those who fought, those who suffered, and the 6 million that died. The name Yom ha-Shoah Ve Hagevurah, which literally means devastation and heroism day, is truly just that, a time of true devastation of our faith in humanity yet punctuated with acts of heroism that the world has not yet forgotten. By remembering the Holocaust and its victims, we can renew our collective commitment in the fight against anti-Semitism, discrimination, and racism because as a society our work is not yet done. We need to educate and inform.

We need to pay tribute to the victims of these acts of cruelty and inhumanity and continue to build societies where dignity and respect for others are paramount. As one historian so eloquently stated, these survivors have fought for life when there was only death, fought for good when there was only evil, and fought for the future when there was only the past. Their struggles have not only become part of our history but have shaped and prepared our future. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Anniversary of Edmonton Protocol Mr. Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago today a group of researchers from the University of Alberta completed work on a leading-edge medical procedure now known around the world as the Edmonton protocol. This procedure has dramatically improved the health and well-being of Albertans with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes and their families, not to mention so many others across Canada and around the world. The names of these six remarkable pioneers are familiar to many of us: Dr. Ray Rajotte, Dr. Garth Warnock, Dr. Norm Kneteman, Dr. Jonathan Lakey, Dr. Greg Korbutt, and Dr. James Shapiro.

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 725 The Edmonton protocol is now practised in more than 40 institu- tions world-wide, and an estimated 700 patients have received islet transplants over the past 10 years. Here at home the University of Alberta program has treated over 110 patients, making it the busiest and most successful pilot transplant program in the world. Mr. Speaker, approximately 150,000 Albertans currently live with diabetes, and more than 14,000 new cases are diagnosed each year in Alberta. Of these, about 10 per cent have type 1 diabetes. Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the vision and talent of the researchers we remember today, the Edmonton protocol and the many similar advances in medicine and health care delivery that took root right here in Alberta are also a testament to Alberta’s success in develop- ing one of the largest and most highly respected academic health centres in North America, in this case right here in Edmonton. These achievements are indeed an integral part of the Alberta brand, and they are a bridge to the knowledge-based economy of our future.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the research team and to help us as we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Edmonton protocol. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month Dr. Sherman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you may or may not know, March was Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month in Canada. During the month of March the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada campaigns to raise awareness and warn against the risks associated with colorectal cancer.

About 1 in 14 men and 1 in 17 women in Alberta will develop this cancer in their lifetimes. Overall colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Alberta. It also causes immense personal, family, and societal suffering. The main risks of developing this cancer include being 50 years of age or older, having a poor diet that is high in red meat consump- tion and low in fibre, fruits, and vegetables, and, most importantly, getting little or no exercise. Early detection is critical in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Through screening, colonoscopy, and effective chemotherapy treatments this cancer can be treated and even prevented if detected early enough. I would also like to highlight an option for those in the advanced stages of colorectal cancer. The drug Avastin has been successfully used in combination with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. While Avastin is not a cure, research has shown that it can prolong life and improve the quality of life for some patients. However, this is a very expensive option, costing patients $2,000 every other week for treatment.

With that in mind, I’m happy to remind everyone that as of April 1 of this year the govern- ment of Alberta has added Avastin to the list of publicly funded cancer therapies. Earlier today in the rotunda there was an information session on colorectal cancer with the specific purpose of emphasizing the importance of early detection. Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to remind members of this House and all Albertans that provincial guidelines recom- mend that all people between the ages of 50 and 70 be screened regularly for this cancer by booking an appointment with their family doctor for a complete history and physical exam. The key to a balanced approach in a sustainable health system is prevention through living a healthy lifestyle, early detection through screening, and effective, evidence-based treatment. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Travel Alberta Holiday Cards Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Like many members on the floor of this Assembly, many of our guests in our galleries, and numerous Albertans from across the province I’ve been fortunate to visit numerous vacation destinations around the world, and I’m very proud to say that, at least in my estimation, there is not a more beautiful place on Earth than Alberta. That’s one of the reasons why I was pleased to learn that Travel Alberta has mailed out 400,000 Travel Alberta Holiday Cards to Albertans.

These cards demonstrate that Albertans can have a great holiday in numerous fabulous vacation destinations right here in our very own province. This free card offers super deals to Albertans, who are mindful of current economic realities. With families looking to minimize spending, the savings and holiday ideas are very valuable tools to taking holidays without spending too much money. The card also benefits our tourism industry as well as the more than 111,000 Albertans who make their living in this sector.

The holiday card program is a true asset both for Albertans and for our tourism industry, and I ask the members of the Assembly to join me now in thanking Travel Alberta and the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation for providing such a great opportunity for Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. AIMCo Investments Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Public concern and confusion about the AIMCo $280 million investment in Precision Drilling is building.

We’re getting a number of calls, many of them angry calls, from the energy sector describing the investment as a bailout for a company that was in a financial squeeze. How can the minister of finance assure Albertans that this is not a bailout? 1:50 Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I’m grateful for the question from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. It gives me an opportunity to iterate what their executive director, Leo de Bever, said today, and that is that this is a very good investment. This is an investment that the board supported.

In order to find out more – and I’ve indicated this to people who have spoken to me outside this Assembly – about why the board believes it’s a good investment, the board should be consulted. The board is giving an opportunity to address why it’s a good investment. For us in this House we identify in our heritage trust fund the rails between which this f und should operate. They are operating within those rails on asset mix. Dr. Swann: Well, that’s precisely the question, Mr. Speaker. What are the guidelines for these kinds of investments? To the minister.

She herself was mistaken yesterday when she said that the deputy minister of finance was not involved in the decision. It now appears that he was not only at the meeting; he voted on the decision to invest in this company. This opens the door, clearly, to politically driven decisions with public funds. Can the minister assure Albertans that politics are not entering our investment decisions? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly can. I took the

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009726 opportunity to call my critic and to call the leader of the third party today to identify that I had been given the wrong information. Under the legislative framework for Alberta Investment Manage- ment Corporation approved in this House, the deputy minister by

section 4(1)(

b) shall be a member, so we have followed the legisla- tive process. The deputy minister is there. He is performing his duties there as any other director. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here reviewing all of the frame- work for approval of this particular act in 2007, Bill 22, and not once did any of Her Majesty’s opposition members or the third party raise a question about the placement of a deputy minister in this corpora- tion. Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly did raise questions about tens of thousands of dollars of bonuses for those people, which we never got an answer for.

To the minister again. Given that there are other drilling compa- nies standing by that also stand to rebound in these coming months and could use an injection of extra capital, what does the minister have to say to Precision’s competitors, who may want the same treatment? Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, the very purpose of establishing an arm’s-length Crown corporation to deal with Alberta’s investments is to keep political interference out of that. As I was starting to identify, investments in the heritage trust fund, for example, are done on a basis of an asset mix that is approved by this Legislative Assembly.

We had an advisory committee where I shared those with an all-party committee. We looked at those. But we do not get into the day-to-day operations of the board, either the payment of the board members or the staff members or the bonuses. That is the board’s responsibility. The board shall answer to those responsibili- ties. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Auditor General Recommendations Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General yesterday reported on 41 recommendations made since 1997 that have not been acted upon by the government.

These are key recommendations that he called important for immediate response. The Auditor General is the main official watchdog of this govern- ment, how it spends public dollars. There has been no response to some of these audits. These were identified to save waste and inefficiency, and in this recession it’s clearly critical to Albertans that we spend their dollars wisely . To the Premier: why has this government not implemented 41 key recommendations over the last 11 years to address government waste and inefficiency? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, we take the recommendations from the Auditor General seriously, and all ministers are responsible to reply to the report. In fact, the Auditor General as per legislation is supposed to make one annual report. He’s making two, so that means that there are more recommendations and more oversight of government operations. Dr. Swann: What these outstanding recommendations mean to Albertans, Mr. Speaker, is billions of dollars of uncollected resource revenue. The revenue could have avoided a deficit and a devastating set of cuts coming for the health care system.

Again to the Premier: why has the Premier still failed to implement the recommendations for improving royalty collections? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have. In fact, we hired a former Auditor General to review the pr ocess, and the former Auditor General reported in a very public way that the systems we have in place are being followed. Today, of course, there are many opinions expressed on the collection of royalties, especially by the opposition because they’re always looking to keep raising them and raising them higher, hopefully that we may collect more royalties.

Today I can tell you that it’s a matter of not only the low resource prices but the fact that we’ve instituted a new royalty regime that shares in the rewards and high prices, but it also shares in the risks of lower prices. Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, other outstanding recommendations relate to mental health services and inefficiencies in the health care delivery system that could have been improved. Why has the Premier not taken action on the recommendations for mental health services, which could have significantly reduced human suffering as well as saved the health care system? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, this is one area that the minister of health is working diligently to improve service in, both in access and support for those that do suffer from mental illness. It is one part of the area of health that Alberta is leading in so many ways in terms of new programs and access to not only mental health programs but some of those tied to addiction. We’ll continue to do whatever we can to move mental health illness access to programs across the province. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Gaming Conference Mr. Hehr: Mr.

Speaker, in November 2008 the Solicitor General used tax dollars to take a trip to Las Vegas to study gaming. Unlike Kenny Rogers the minister has no idea when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away, or when to run. There is $1.6 million in annual funding provided to the Alberta Gaming Research Institute at the U of A to study gaming. Instead of taking a trip to Vegas, why didn’t the Solicitor General save Alberta taxpayers $4,671 and take the LRT across the river? Mr. Lindsay: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s quite a connection between comparing.

I agreed to going to a very worthwhile conference where we can learn about social responsibility from a world-wide perspective and also get updated on the latest technology in the gaming industry. I’ll leave it at that. Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and his EA spent $425 a day on incidentals and miscellaneous expenses on a three-day getaway. Will the Solicitor Ge neral commit to providing this Assembly with an itemized accounting for this $12,081? Mr. Lindsay: I think the correct number would be $1,200 extra, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this government is open and transparent, and we do put our expenses on the website every month. Yes, this particular trip, I think, was $1,200 over the estimate. That cost is basically a reflection of transportation and hotel costs. Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, I found two rooms for three nights’ accommodation in Vegas online today right on the strip for $852. But Alberta taxpayers paid $1,729.27 for the Solicitor General and EA. Why were these rooms so much extra dough?

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 727 Mr. Lindsay: Mr. Speaker, when we were down in Las Vegas, we did notice that the recession was taking effect there. We know that the recession is larger there today than it was back in November, so the cost of rooms today is a reflection of that. I’m not going to stand up here and waste this House’s time by debating a hundred dollar hotel bill. AIMCo Investments (continued) Mr. Mason: Well, that’s a good introduction to a question about gambling, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we learned that the Alberta government had invested $280 million of Albertans’ money in Precision Drilling.

Investment firm Peters & Co. said in today’s Financial Post that Precision Drilling remains overlevered and may have difficulty meeting its financial commitments. The government is letting AIMCo make a $280 million gamble with Albertans’ pensions. My question is for the Premier. In this time of economic uncertainty, how can you let AIMCo roll the dice with Albertans’ pensions? 2:00 Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as the minister earlier reiterated, the AIMCo board, Alberta Investment Management Corporation, has the responsibility of making the investments. It is arm’s length.

At the end of the year they have to report to the minister in terms of the size and the growth of the assets that are held with AIMCo, I believe in that $70 billion to $75 billion amount. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The government’s responsibility is greater than that. The number of oil and gas drilling rigs operating in the U.S. fell to a six-year low just last week, Canada’s rig count is the lowest it’s been in 10 years, and this government is allowing a board of high rollers to gamble our pensions on an extremely risky venture. My question is to the Premier.

Why are you letting AIMCo and its board gamble with Albertans’ pensions? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I want to just raise a question here in this House, and that is that the hon. member of the third party knows full well that their member withdrew from sitting on the Alberta investment discussions when we had the heritage fund. I think we’d be very pleased to answer these questions. But we have very specific guidelines. We have a very specific act, Bill 22, that was passed, that gives the outline for the parameters of the director function.

There are additional orders given to that board every year through the approval of the business plan, through the articulation of investment management strategies. There are other, further identified issues on investments, what they can do and what they can’t do, that come from our investment department of Finance and Enterprise. I’d be very happy to entertain the minutiae of that question by going back and spending some time with the hon. member and going through the detail of how it’s actually done. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, we’ve been down this road before.

Under the Tory government of Don Getty Alberta got heavily into the busin ess of investing in companies, picking winners and losers, and Albe rtans lost billions. It appears that this government is heading down the same discredited path. To the Premier: why won’t you learn from past mistakes and ensure that Albertans’ investments are as secure as they can be instead of undertaking risk more appropriate to the private sector? Mr. Stelmach: In fact, Mr.

Speaker, all Albertans learned, and that is why this government has given the responsibility to an arm’s- length board to make the decisions without any political interfer- ence. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Cold Lake City Status Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Faced with spiralling costs, uncertainty on future revenue-sharing agreements, a tremendous infrastructure deficit, and the determination not to burden residents with another tax increase in 2010, Cold Lake city council has proposed to dissolve the city status and form a regional government solution. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What assistance is this government going to give the city of Cold Lake to help them handle these recent events? For example, would the government consider forming a new specialized municipality in our region? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, no.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done before this would be considered. We continue to discuss these challenges with the city. We do provide financial assistance through MSI and other supports and programs. We have concerns about a larger municipality potentially dissolving into a smaller one. We strongly encourage the municipalities in the region to find a co-operative solution. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first supplemental to the same minister: given that the city of Cold Lake does not have the money necessary to offer the services that residents require – in addition to this, Cold Lake has the highest urban tax of any city in the province – is there a way to relieve the financial pressure that is placed on its residents while still managing to generate financial support and stability to the city? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the mayor of the city of Cold Lake.

I do understand that the city is continuing talks with the municipal district of Bonnyville a bout renewing their current cost-sharing agreement. Municipalities need to work together. They need to communicate together, collaborate, co- operate. We need to let these discussions proceed and unfold. If that doesn’t work, our department does provide mediation services that are available to go and have discussions with those municipali- ties. Again, I encourage all municipalities to try to work together. Th e Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second supplementary is to the President of the Treasury Board. What more can the city of Cold Lake do to ensure that it remains afloat? As it is a major hub of the oil industry in Alberta, Cold Lake officials have worked with the assistant deputy minister of the Oil Sands Sustainable Develop- ment Secretariat on proposals and have taken all steps that they feel are necessary to receive additional support from the province. Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, it’s true that we expanded the oil sands secretariat to areas like Cold Lake-Bonnyville because of the

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009728 tremendous opportunities and the ongoing operational oil develop- ment in there. It also stretches up into the Peace Country. There are many communities that are affected positively by the oil develop- ment, but there’s also a great cost that comes with it. We’ve seen the cost there from the Esso expansion. All I can tell the hon. member: at least we’re at the table. We do not have a magic bullet to solve these problems. They didn’t arrive overnight; they can’t be solved overnight either.

It’s important that they continue to work with their surrounding municipal governments to a solution. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill. AIMCo Investments (continued) Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s economy suffers from a boom-bust cycle that this government needs to counter. By investing its funds in a drilling company, AIMCo is actually increasing the government’s exposure to the energy sector’s booms and busts rather than counterbalancing it. We’re intensifying our risks rather than diversifying them.

To the minister of finance: does the minister of finance have any strategy on this issue? Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, once again this is a question particular to one investment by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation within the context of their policy. They have invested in a number of Alberta companies, and those kinds of information are public and are published every year.

There’s certainly no attempt here by this government, nor will there be, no temptation entered into to try and influence the type of investments that this particular group is doing when they’re staying within the policy context that this Legislative Assembly has approved. Dr. Taft: The Norwegians have a deliberate strategy to ensure their petroleum fund counterbalances the booms and busts of the energy sector. They also realize their fund could distort domestic invest- ment decisions and imbalance their entire economy, so they require the fund to invest outside of the domestic economy.

My question is to the minister of finance. Has the minister taken a serious look at the benefits of a policy requiring AIMCo to invest outside of Alberta? Ms Evans: You know, Mr. Speaker, that actually is a very interest- ing perspective. I did spend some time talking to them in Norway, where they were absolutely sick about their investments. They lost $92 billion on their fund, and they had even further losses in some of their additional funds.

They’d started out with roughly $400 billion, lost about 25 per cent of it, which is considerably more than we had proportionately in Alberta as losses. [interjections] One of the accusations that I continually get from people, if they’re interested in listening, is that we should be investing in Alberta like every other place. This is the best place in the world to invest. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’m not accusing the minister of anything. I’m trying to engage in a policy debate.

Any institutional investor holding 15 to 19 per cent, which is where this is likely to end up, of a publicly traded company’s shares would normally be entitled to a pos ition on the board of directors. Again to the minister of finance: is AIMCo planning to have a representative on the board of directors of Precision? If not, why not? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question came up from the opposition yesterday, whether there were any plans. There have been no plans that I am aware of. Nobody has provided me any information relative to such a plan.

There is absolutely no way that we could anticipate that AIMCo would become a member of the board of all the various companies and corporations that they have investments in. I’m not even sure of the origin of this type of question, but to me that’s a question that we could certainly pose to AIMCo themselves, and I’m quite sure they’d give the same answer: they don’t see the value. 2:10 Plan for Parks Dr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation yesterday released a plan for parks.

Alberta’s population is projected to increase to 4.6 million people by 2035, greatly expanding the development footprint in our province. Now, while the new plan for parks refers to a process for nominating new parks, there appears to be no substantive objective set out in the plan which would preserve our rapidly disappearing landscapes such as the grasslands region. My questions are for the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation.

Given that the expanding environmental footprint in our natural areas is happening, why is there no specific target in the plan to expand the provincial parks in our grasslands region? Mrs. Ady: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s a good question. Some have said: why aren’t there targets? We set out a process, and I think it would be a bit disingenuous ahead of a process, probably one of the biggest changes in land use, that we set out a target before we go out and consult with those regions.

There is a way to nominate, there is a way to do this, but we need to be in the process because Albertans will decide this based on science and what they want in their park areas. Dr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, in August 2006 it was announced that the Glenbow Ranch, west of Calgary, would be purchased and devel- oped as an Alberta provincial park, and it was anticipated that public access would be allowed within a year or so after the park’s creation. Now we are in 2009; the park is still not open. Why is the minister now advising Albertans that they won’t have access to this park until 2012? Mrs. Ady: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we’re actually hoping to get it open in 2011. But this question has been asked. This park has not been delayed. If you were to talk to the Harvie family, they would tell you how pleased they are with the resources and the planning that we’ve done. To be more specific, we had to do a bunch of studies in this area. There are very ecologically sensitive grasslands there. We want to ensure that the pathway systems and the way we move people don’t destroy the very park – sometimes people can love a park to death – and we want to ensure that it’s done right. Dr. Brown: Mr.

Speaker, all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts perceive that they are being squeezed, overregulated, and moved into fewer and fewer areas in the province. Will the minister assure ATV users in the province of Alberta that they will have an important place in the new plan for parks? Mrs. Ady: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are really looking at a policy around trails in this province. I’ve mentioned many times in this House that myself and the minister of sustainable resources are working together with the recreation trail committee. But as to

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 729 ATVs actually in the park, of 500 parks they’re only in one park designation. That’s the wildland provincial parks. Probably, roughly out of those 32 only half have access, and they’re on trails, and they’re just for staging. We’re not looking at expanding them in the parks but at ways that we can create a better trail system. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Reforestation Performance Information Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his April 2009 report the Auditor General noted that the Department of Sustainable Resource Development has yet to implement a process to publicly report on the effectiveness of reforestation activities. The Auditor noted that there have been plans to report for almost five years, but it has still not been done. To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment: why has it taken your department so long to implement this recommendation? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

I’d like to acknowledge the importance of the Auditor General’s criticisms and suggestions to our department reflected in the hon. member’s question. I can report that the standard that was being developed was changed midstream, in part because of discussions with the Auditor General. I’d like to make it clear to the House that there has never been any question in the Auditor Gen- eral’s reports that reforestation is being done and done well in this province. The issue has been about reporting, public reporting of that, and that’s an important difference. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you.

To view just a sampling of SRD reforesta- tion failures, check out aerial photos of Cataract Creek, Wilkinson Creek, McLean Creek, and the Bragg Creek surrounding areas. Then shudder at the clear-cutting devastation in the Crowsnest. Reports are necessary, not only to reassure the public that industry is complying with reforestation standards but also to make sure that the standards themselves are adequate. The Auditor found no evidence of any internal reports which reviewed or assessed forestation. Why is your ministry not reviewing the effectiveness of reforestation practices in any formalized manner? Dr.

Morton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has gone from solid ground to real thin ice here. It is spring, hon. Member for Calgary- Varsity, and the ice is getting thinner the more you talk. If he wants to cherry-pick around the province at areas that have been harvested recently and are in the process of regeneration, of course you can find some open spots. But I can take the member – in fact, he knows them – to areas that are now being nominated for national or international park status that were harvested 20 years ago, and now the regeneration is so good that they’re being nominated for national park status.

There’s very good reforestation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you. Speaking of thin ice, SRD progress is glacial. Your department certainly knows how to reap but appears clueless when it comes to sowing. By the time your land-use framework is implemented, irreparable damage will have been done to so-called parks and protected areas. The Auditor noted that compliance issues are not compiled and reported in a way which would be able to meaningfully analyze compliance trends across the province.

How can the minister expect Albertans to be reassured that our forests are being responsibly managed when reforestation compliance is not effectively reported or managed? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, I think that when the new Leader of the Opposition took over, he replaced critics and put this one on ice, and we see why now. I’d like to direct the hon. member’s attention to a report on reforestation that was posted on our website in February of ’09, very recent.

I’d also like to refer him to page 50 of the Auditor General’s report, where he says: “We believe this quality control system will bring the necessary rigour to make monitoring for compliance effective when fully implemented.” That is the Auditor General speaking. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Community Spirit Program Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Last week the recipients of the community spirit grant program were announced to Albertans, including some in my constituency of Edmonton- Ellerslie.

My questions are to the Minister of Culture and Commu- nity Spirit. How can you be satisfied with only 1,600 applications to this program when there are over 19,000 nonprofit organizations in Alberta? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first year of any program is a learning experience for everyone involved. Overall there’s a good response from small, medium, and large organizations across the province, but we will work to ensure there are even more applica- tions next year.

We realized when we were halfway through the rollout of the program that we had only contacted 7,000 organiza- tions, so I instructed my officials to contract through Service Alberta and make sure that we had the list of all 19,000 registered not-for- profit and voluntary organizations. We had repeated communication with them to make sure that they all knew about the program. Hopefully, next year, the second year of this program, we’ll have more applications. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question to the same minister: does the minister really believe that this program will be enough to help organizations through the current economic downturn? The Speaker: That’s an opinion. Tie it into government policy, please. Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, this is just one of the community investment programs that are available to the nonprofit sector. Whether an organization receives $1,000 or $25,000, these are new dollars. The new program was introduced in May of 2008 to go as part of a $166 million program to a vital, important sector. It translates to 19 million new dollars to this sector.

We’ve committed another $20 million in the community spirit donor program for this year along with the $80 million in enhanced tax credit. The Speaker: The hon. member.

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009730 Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the same minister. Some of my nonprofit organizations didn’t qualify for the funding. Could the minister explain what criteria were used for the selection process? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, the criteria are pretty simple, and those decisions are made after they have met the criteria through the applications to my staff. The criteria are: do they have matching dollars or do they have matching volunteer hours or do they have matching donations in kind?

Based on that, we make the determina- tion if they’re eligible or not. Over 1,600 organizations applied; 1,496 received funding. I think that by any measure that’s a great program. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. 2:20 Natural Gas and Electricity Contracts Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Both in question period and in the budget debates our caucus has questioned this government’s lack of support for consumers. B ecause of deregulation Albertans are locked into multiyear natural gas and electricity contracts at unreasonably high prices.

To the Minister of Service Alberta: what action, if any, has the minister taken or is the minister going to take to let Albertans get out of these unfair contracts on an annual basis? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to individu- als, to consumers getting out of contracts, we encourage consumers to contact Service Alberta. At any one time we are investigating a number of situations where consumers are confronted at the door and asked to sign up for a contract. It’s important that they contact us. We have tipsheets on the website as well.

We are more than happy to assist individuals and to get the information out right. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is costing my constituents lots of money every month, and they cannot wait forever. To the minister again: when will the minister finally get around to putting this into place? How long do Albertans have to wait for this action? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it’s important to talk in general terms, but if there is, indeed, a particular situation, that individual needs to contact Service Alberta so that we can check into it. I can’t comment if something is going on if I don’t know what the particular question is or the history of the situation or how long they’ve had the contract, those kinds of questions. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about a particular situation here. We are talking about everybody who has signed long-term contracts.

To the minister again: why hasn’t the Utilities Consumer Advocate been pus hing for this kind of protec- tion for consumers? Isn’t that its job? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Utilities Consumer Advocate is involved in interventi ons, but an important part of the UCA is the role of education, educating consumers on any number of issues. We’re in the process of finalizing the hiring of a UCA, and we are looking forward to moving forward on a number of initiatives to ensure that consumers know what they’re getting into and know where to ask the right questions.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Mental Health Services Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The secret government report we leaked yesterday says that Calgary has less than one-quarter of the psychiatric beds in the province, which, as a whole, has less than half the beds and community supports that Albertans actually need. When proper care is not available, patients end up in ER. In 2002 alone over 34,000 Albertans sought psychiatric treatment in emergency wards.

Given that wait times in Calgary’s ERs have climbed to a dangerous 16.6 hours, why has the health minister failed to act on the recommendations included in this internal report? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday. We have made significant commitments towards mental health capacity in this province and are adding beds on an annual basis. We recognize that in the past there have been some gaps, and we are working to address that. Ms Notley: Well, Mr.

Speaker, when you’re 1,500 beds short of the national average, 80 new beds, not all of which are actually dedi- cated to mental health, will only ensure the shortage continues. As a result, people who need mental health care are going to fill up our acute-care beds and our ERs. This is just like the long-term care fiasco, where we’re shorting the system and the result is increased wait times, increased costs, but decreased care. Why, when government has known about this bed shortage for more than two years, is the health minister continuing to fail Alberta’s mentally ill? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the real fiasco here is the position of this particular group, that somehow you have to stick people into a bed in an institution. Over the last number of years we have had a very aggressive policy of ensuring that individuals after treatment are integrated into the community, and that’s been a successful program in this province. Just because some national statistic – we don’t chase national statistics if they don’t make sense. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Notley: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What this government has is an aggressive policy of keeping things secret, and it’s their own internal document that says that they’re not doing well enough. As well, a spokesman from Canadian Mental Health said yesterday that mentally ill people are simply not ge tting the help they need from this government. Last year you scrapped plans to build a psychiatric wing in the south Calgary hospital and have made nothing but empty promises since. Given that mental illness is such a significant health care issue in Alberta, why did the minister refuse to release the report that points the way to improving the system?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that this particular report along with a whole bunch of others helps formulate policy going forward. I’ve elaborated on the policy. The member, I think,

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 731 or her partner over there actually released the report yesterday, so I’m not sure what the point of the question is. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Wild Rose Foundation Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Budget 2009 funding for the citizen-led Wild Rose Foundation was removed, with funding decisions instead now to be made by the community spirit program. My question is to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit.

With the shifting of Wild Rose funding to the community initiative and other government programs, will the criteria now require matching funding on all grants, and will they be restricted to community facilities and functions? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Blackett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to make a point of clarification, funding decisions will not be made by the community spirit program. They will be made by the representatives in our department who are responsible for all the different community investment programs.

Our department right now is looking at creative ways to take the community initiative program, the community facility enhancement program, looking at the criteria for those and seeing if we can get an envelope of money and make that available on a nonmatching basis to these worthwhile community organizations and community projects. Budgetary requirements mean that we have to be creative and collaborative. I know that the sector has to do that, and I ask their indulgence and patience so that we can come up with a worthwhile plan that will work for all Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the same minister. Now that the granting responsibilities previously made by the foundation will be made within the Department of Culture and Community Spirit, what additional staff requirements will your department require? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to say that no additional staff are required because the excellent staff that have worked with the Wild Rose Foundation and helped administer that program for numerous years will still continue to be employed in my department. They will still help with the community investment programs.

Hopefully, by utilizing their expertise and their knowl- edge and their outreach capabilities, we can help enrich our pro- grams that exist for all Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question again to the same minister: what will the net savings be from streamlining the grant process? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can’t emphasize enough that the merging of operations improved the services that we provide to the not-for-profit sector and the vo luntary sector and ultimately to Albertans.

The goal is to make the grant process more efficient, effective, and transparent. In total these programs are being reduced by $7.8 million, but as I mentioned earlier, we’re reviewing the criteria for our other programs to see if by being more efficient, more collaborative we can make money available to those worth- while programs. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Strathcona. Postsecondary Institution Endowment Funds Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Auditor General again highlighted concerns about investments at postsecondary institutions.

Many public colleges and institutions in Alberta do not have goals and policies in place for the preservation of their endowment funds, which total over $100 million province- wide. My first question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. Why has the department not provided any guidance or leadership for these institutions in the management of over $100 million in investments? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the endowments amount might actually be a bit higher than that, but in truth all our postsecondaries are board governed.

They have a certain amount of autonomy that is granted to them so that they have academic autonomy, but they also have some financial autonomy in the sense of money that they can raise in endowments that are given to them, not by this government but by philanthropy from other folks. Certainly, now that we have our new Campus Alberta secretariat and our new Campus Alberta Council of Chairs, these are the types of things that we’ll be talking about on a pan-Alberta approach and recommending to those in stitutions that they bring together a pan- Alberta policy. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.

Again to the same minister. The Auditor previously recommended, last fall, that investments be better monitored at Alberta’s universities. In the year ended March 31, 2008, the University of Alberta lost $46 million on its invest- ments held for endowment, and the Auditor’s recommendation is still outstanding. Why is this recommendation still outstanding given that so many investment funds in the province are losing millions? Your office must show leadership, sir. 2:30 Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I just overheard one of my colleagues say, it’s wonderful to be able to predict the past.

Certainly, there are a number of endowments and funds, including my own RRSP, that have lost a considerable amount of money over the last little while. If we could go back and change history, I’m sure that we could change the losse s that the University of Alberta had on their endowments. We take the recommendations of the Auditor General very seriously, as do all of our postsecondary institutions in the province. The recommendations were to the postsecondary institutions. My recollection is that the university is going to follow the recommenda- tions and take the advice of the Auditor General.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure this House and taxpayers that the Minister of Advanced Education and Technol- ogy certainly takes the Auditor General’s recommendations much more seriously than the President of the Treasury Board. Can the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology tell the House how

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009732 much has been lost in invest ment income while the Auditor’s recommendations go unfulfilled? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot. I don’t have those numbers at my fingertips because I don’t believe that the Auditor General’s recommendations are unfulfilled. If you asked the Auditor General, he would tell you that many of these things take some time to be implemented, some time for new processes or new procedures to come to fruition. We’re going to see that happen over the months and weeks ahead.

Certainly, I expect that all postsecondary ins titutions in our province will take to heart the recommendations not only of the Auditor General but also of the department. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Postsecondary Institution Internal Controls Mr. Quest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday’s report from the Auditor General outlined a number of serious recommendations for postsecondary institutions, particularly when it comes to managing their finances.

One institution, Grant MacEwan College, was identified for being unable to pursue or record campus parking fines over $700,000. My first question for the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology: what is his ministry’s role in ensuring that postsecondary institutions like Grant MacEwan manage their financial resources wisely and responsibly? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per the previous question, you know, publicly funded postsecondary institutions are governed under several acts approved by this Legislature: the Post- secondary Learning Act, the Financial Administration Act, and the Government Accountability Act. All of these relate to public funds that we provide to the institutions. All of these institutions are also board governed, and as board-governed institutions they receive fees or, in this case, fines from other sources, not public funds given to them by this Legislature but other sources.

It is up to them and their policies that they have to develop to manage those. Certainly, the Auditor General is welcome for those recommendations, and Grant MacEwan is going to take them to heart. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Quest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. Another recommendation deals with alleged fraudulent contracts awarded at Bow Valley College. Can the minister tell us his ministry’s role in safeguarding Alberta’s postsecondary students and the overall system from potentially illegal activities such as this? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I’m going to be a bit careful here because, obviously, this is still under some investigation. I think the pertinent points here to the hon. member is that it was Bow Valley that found the irregularities, and it was Bow Valley that called in the Auditor General to do the investigation. The Campus Alberta institutions take the AG’s finding s very seriously.

The Auditor General, actually, in his report commended Bow Valley for timely notification to his office of some suspected irregularities, and I commend the Auditor General for going in and helping us out with this because that’s the way the system should work. The Speaker: The hon. member? The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Persons with Developmental Disabilities Funding Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Seniors and Community Supports provided $24 million from the ’09-10 budget to contracted agencies for recruitment and retention of PDD staff.

This increase is crucial as turnover rates are far, far too high in these agencies and create many problems. To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: can the minister tell Albertans how the $24 million is being divided amongst the six PDD community boards? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is committed to the PDD program and to ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities are able to live and work and participate in their communities. We recognize how very important it is that there be qualified staff to support these individuals.

The $24 million all by itself won’t solve the problem entirely, but it will help. The money is divided amongst the six PDD regions, and there is a funding formula that divides the money up properly. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I actually was looking for the answer to how the formula is delivered, but I’ll go on to my next question. Thank you for that. Can the minister tell Albertans how specifically targeted recruit- ment programs are being used to help these agencies? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, recruiting and retaining staff in our PDD areas are extremely, extremely important.

We have a number of programs that are being used throughout our colleges for disabil- ity workers, and we have private, not-for-profit and private, for- profit organizations partnering in those training programs. The PDD formula that we use is an approved formula that supports all PDD clients throughout the province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you. Again to the same minister: will this increase in funding even begin to bring agency wages to parity with government staff that are working in the same field? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, in the last few years we’ve contrib- uted millions of dollars towards the PDD program. It was 5 per cent just recently, last spring, and prior to that, in November of 2007, it was another 5 per cent. This $24 million will amount to close to 5 per cent again for our PDD front-line staff, and it will bring them closer to the government wages that the member refers to. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Victims Restitution and Compensation Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents and I want our Alberta to be the number one global petroleum industry but also number one globally in toughness against criminal activities. We are pleased with the recent intr oduction of the victims restitution and compensation law. Given the general concern for property rights and the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, my question

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 733 is to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Can the minister explain how this ruling affects Alberta law? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was very good news to hear the Supreme Court of Ca nada’s ruling last Friday. The legislation that we passed was, we believed, constitutionally valid and constitutionally sound. We were pleased to see that the court did what we have always said the court should do, which is reflect the values of the community that we serve.

I think that it’s impor- tant to remember the essence of our act, which is to remove the profits of criminal activity from our communities and to compensate victims. This ruling supports our legislation and the hard work of our civil forfeiture office, and we’ll continue to use this act with confidence to dismantle organized crime in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same hon. minister: since its implementation what progress and impact has our new law had on crime reduction and prevention? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s important. As I’ve said in this House before, organized crime is a business. Civil forfeiture allows the courts to seize the illegal profits of crime and to use that revenue to help victims. This is a tool we can use to target those who victimize others. If you’re dealing drugs in your car, we can seize your car. If you’re running a marijuana grow op from your home, we can seize that home. Something that’s very important is that we make it clear that this legislation puts Albertans on notice.

If you’re knowingly participating in criminal activity or benefiting from criminal activity, you put yourself in jeopardy of losing the tools of your trade or your ill-gotten gains. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. minister: how are the law enforcers in Alberta reacting to this new way of targeting the profits of crime? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve always said, since launching this initiative, that we need to ensure that the police have the tools to do their job.

We’ve been up and running now for four months, and police agencies across this province are referring files to the civil forfeiture office. Our legislation expands and extends the scope of powers that are already available under the Criminal Code. With our legislation we can seize property without a criminal conviction, but it’s always the case, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day the courts will be the ones that will determine the conduct of the police. They will decide whether or not actions taken by the police under legislation are appropriate.

We’re confident in the work that the police are doing with this legislation. They’re taking it seriously, and we know that the courts will apply the law effectively. Thank you. 2:40 The Speaker: Hon. members, that was 94 questions and responses. In 30 seconds from now we’ll continue with Members’ Statements. Oh, I’m sorry. Hon. members, please return to your places. The hon. Minister of Finance and Enterprise had advised that she wanted to supplement an answer. My assumption was that in the first question today that was done, but if the hon.

Minister of Finance and Enterprise wants to supplement an answer, permission will be given now, and an additional question will then come from the Official Opposition with respect to this matter. Does the minister wish to proceed? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it’s been clarified, but I could, in fact, if you wish. The Speaker: I thought it was, so that’s why I didn’t call you. Sorry. You may depart. Boy, once that recess bell goes, it’s hard to retract your decision, isn’t it? head: Members’ Statements (continued) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright.

National Soil Conservation Week Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to this Assembly’s attention that April 19 to 25 is National Soil Conserva- tion Week. Soil and water are two necessary ingredients to sustain human life and produce food. Today it is more important than ever to preserve soil to ensure that future generations will enjoy the same rich benefits of home-grown agricultural products. Development demands often take prime agricultural land out of production. Fortunately, researchers and inventive farmers are setting the bar higher for soil conservation management practices.

Since 1991 conservation tillage practices in Alberta have steadily grown to represent about half of the annually seeded areas. Alberta farmers are effectively using direct seeding, no-till and zero-till practices. A reduced tillage system contributes to the government of Alberta’s climate change strategy as well by removing atmospheric carbon and sequestering that carbon within the soil. Farmers who have adopted these practices have been able to benefit from the Alberta carbon offset market since 2007. Last year, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, 10 of the 25 registered carbon offset projects were no- tillage agriculture, which contributed a total of just over a m illion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalences, or 30 per cent of the total carbon offsets. I’d like this Assembly to acknowledge the efforts of dedicated soil and crop research scientists, professional agrologists, and forward- thinking prairie farmers who developed and adopted soil conserva- tion techniques over the past seven decades. The Dirty Thirties taught us a valuable lesson, Mr. Speaker.

It has been this cumulative effort that has rebuilt, maintained, and improved soil quality across Alberta and western Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Edmonton City Centre Airport Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not far from where I’m standing, the Edmonton City Centre Airport will serve a small number of its 20,000 annual passengers. These passengers will be comprised of oil executives, hobbyists, and members of this Legislature. The small assortment of small craft, mostly jets, have passed through the 217-hectare airport for far too long.

While most cities in North America, especia lly fellow capital cities, would

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009734 welcome with open arms and probably do a lot more than that to have a downtown airport, the Edmonton City Centre Airport has been all but closed to doing business in the downtown. Airports within Denver, Las Vegas, and Chicago, just to name a few, have thrived in an efficient, passenger-friendly atmosphere for decades. I seriously doubt that there are movements in those cities to shut down these lifelines of infrastructure.

However, here in Edmonton there is such a movement to remove this valuable asset that should be used by all Albertans and the many flights that come from the rest of North America. Rather than abandon the airport, we should focus on long-term value added by open skies over Edmonton that are for all Albertans. As it stands, the Edmonton City Centre Airport does not receive or send flights from southern Alberta nor reduce the environmental footprint because of the needless going back and forth from Edmonton to Leduc.

The Edmonton City Centre Airport was extremely viable, but it is purposely being underfunded and underappreciated. This is short-term thinking for a long-term loss. If Albertans are confident that Edmonton will continue to be an important centre, they must ensure that this airport remains. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Primary Care Networks Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday I had the opportu- nity to attend the grand opening of the Lacombe walk-in medical centre.

This centre is part of a primary care network, or PCN, which is a made-in-Alberta success story in providing innovative, flexible, and effective care to meet the needs of the community. Primary care is the first point of contact that most people have with the health system, the point where people receive care for most of their everyday health needs. This type of care is typically provided by family physicians, nurses, dietitians, mental health professionals, pharmacists, therapists, and others.

The Lacombe PCN includes a group of family doctors and nurses and Alberta Health Services personnel who co-ordinate health services for patients. Services may include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of various health conditions and especially chronic, complex diseases like diabetes as well as geriatric concerns. In just three years since the first PCN was launched in the province, there are now 30 PCNs in operation with many others in development. A PCN can be comprised of one clinic with many physicians and support staff or a team of physicians across several clinics.

Each network has the flexibility to develop programs and to provide services in a way that works locally to meet the specific needs of patients while working w ithin the provincial PCN frame- work. Mr. Speaker, since the Lacombe PCN opened its doors, it has already enhanced the working relationship between doctors in my community. It also serves as an excellent example of how we can better connect people and communities to local health care services by matching the correct resources with people’s needs at the right time.

PCNs, or primary care networks, represent a significant step towards achieving the integrated, effective, and responsive health system that Albertans deserve. I know that we will all reap the benefits for years to come. Thank you. head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere. Bill 42 Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 2009 Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 42, the Gaming and Liquor Amendment Act, 2009. The proposed legislation in

part is intended to give police and bar operators a more effective way to address gang violence and problem patrons in and around licensed premises. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 42 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Hon. Deputy Government House Leader, third time: do you want to move a bill? Mr. Renner: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was temporarily disconnected. I would move that Bill 42 be moved to the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood, do you have one? Mr. Mason: I’m a little disconnected, I guess, too, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be going around, but I do. The Speaker: It’s still April. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience today. I would like to table the appropriate number of copies of 10 reports from long-term care workers indicating specific problems on shifts that were short-staffed. These indicate staff were delayed in answering calls from residents, and hazards were created when there was only one staff person available to lift patients where two staff are required.

Thank you. 2:50 The Speaker: Are there others? Hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood, did you have another set of guests that you would like to introduce? Mr. Mason: Yes, I do. Thank you very much. The Speaker: Well, we have to get the approval of the House, though, first, so maybe I should get that. Is it okay, hon. members, to recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood to introduce guests? I won’t ask if anybody disagrees. [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (continued) The Speaker: Proceed. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Ellen Parker, who has made Camrose, Alberta, her home since 1985. Ellen has worked as an educator in numerous capacities since

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 735 graduating from the University of Alberta. She has also been an avid supporter of Canada World Youth exchanges and was a founding member of the former Camrose Waste Reduction Action Committee. She’s here with us today to observe Committee of the Whole proceedings on Bill 19. Ellen is a passionate global activist, participating in campaigns for fair trade, gender equality, aboriginal rights, and the peace movement, and has been the federal NDP candidate for Crowfoot since 2004.

I would now ask that Ellen rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 23 Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2009 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to begin debate on Bill 23, the Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2009. I am proposing legislative changes to improve the assessment complaints and appeals process.

The key objective of my ministry is to have a well-managed, fair, and efficient assessment and property tax system in which taxpayers have confidence. In January 2008 Municipal Affairs staff began a comprehensive review of the current assessment complaints and appeals system. We consulted municipalities, muni cipal associations, businesses, property owners, and taxpayer associations, and we listened to their concerns.

We heard that appeals are taking too long, that there is duplication in the process, there are inconsistent decisions, a lack of access to information, inconsistent qualifications of board members, concerns with a lack of accountability of all parties involved in the complaint, and concerns on costs associated with filing that com- plaint. As a result of this feedback, Mr. Speaker, I am recommend- ing that we amend the MGA to introduce a new process that will improve the efficiency of appeals, improve the quality of decisions, and ensure that Albertans are treated fairly.

The key change will be to restructure the current board makeup. We will create three separate boards to hear complaints about different types of property. This will ensure that a complaint is heard once by the right board instead of twice by two separate boards. It will also eliminate duplication and preserve the taxpayers’ rights to have their complaint heard based on the merits of the case. Under the new system an assessment complaint would go to one of three quasi-judicial boards based on the type or category of the complaint. Each board’s role and area of responsibility would be clear and straightforward.

The first is the local assessment review board. Three trained members would be appointed by the municipality to hear complaints about residential property and farmland. The second is a composite assessment review board. This review board will hear complaints about multifamily residential, nonresi- dential, and machinery and equipment. Two of three members will be appointed by the municipality while the third member will serve as the chair and will be provincially appointed. The elements of provincial oversight and impartiality are being maintained.

I would like to point out that it is only after a complaint is made that the municipality must establish a local or composite assessment review board. For example, in 2007 only 37 municipalities besides Edmonton and Calgary would have needed to establish a composite assessment review board. Mr. Speaker, the third board is the municipal government board. It will continue to hear complaints about the linear property and equalized assessment. We are also proposing that the complaint timelines be changed so the process is completed and decisions rendered by the end of the tax year for most complaints.

We also want to implement realistic time frames for complaints to be heard. Timelines for disclosure will be increased, but we also expect decisions to be issued within the tax year. There will be conse- quences if disclosure requirements are not met.

Other changes proposed include mandating the training of board members to improve the decision-making ability of a board, ensuring an appropriate level of information is available to taxpayers to help reduce complaints, requiring disclosure of relevant informa- tion by all parties to ensure a fair complaint process, placing limits on fees municipalities can charge, and ensuring fees are returned to the successful appellants to ensure the process is affordable and reasonable.

It should also be noted that two or more municipalities may continue to establish joint assessment review boards, enabling municipalities to share assessment review boards’ resources and improve efficiency. Based on our review I believe the changes we are recommending are necessary to provide taxpayers with the understandable, objective, and fair complaint and appeal system they deserve. Ideally, we want the changes in place for the 2010 assessment complaint schedule. I expect that any cost increases such as enhanced training will be offset by cost savings in other areas.

I would encourage all members to support this legislation, and I look forward to any discussion that they may wish to have. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close debate on this bill. Thank you very much. The Speaker: I think that the hon. minister is moving adjournment. Mr. Danyluk: Yes. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Bill 24 Animal Health Amendment Act, 2009 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me today to rise and move second reading of Bill 24, the Animal Health Amendment Act, 2009.

The Animal Health Act was proclaimed in part on January 1, 2009, along with three regulations: the reportable and notifiable diseases, the traceability premises identification, and the traceability livestock identification. The provisions of Bill 24 will allow Alberta to better prepare for an outbreak of a highly contagious livestock disease and respond to emergency situations quicker and more effectively to protect both animal and human health. Time is of the essence when responding to animal disease outbreaks to minimize the extent and financial impact of the outbreak.

The provisions in Bill 24 also ensure that Alberta is better able to minimize the risk to the public caused by those animal diseases that can spread from animals to humans. The proposed amendments to the legislation will revise penalties to ensure that low-risk minor offences are appropriate and not overly punitive, clarify

definitions under the act, clarify licence names to reflect the authority to sell certain types of livestock medicines, add a provision authorizing the destruction of animals that have consumed toxic substances, and make minor administrative changes to facilitate more efficient and appropriate drafting of regulations under this act.

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009736 The development of the remaining regulations is expected to be completed by late spring of 2009. A consultation process has been undertaken to obtain appropriate input from stakeholders that would have concerns. All of the proposed regulations are completely consistent with Alberta’s livestock and meat strategy. The amend- ments will allow us to facilitate growth of a globally competitive, sustainable agriculture and food industry and at the same time ensure public and consumer confidence in food safety.

I look forward to the debate and receiving the support of members for proceeding with this bill. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 3:00 Bill 26 Wildlife Amendment Act, 2009 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise before this Assembly and move second reading of Bill 26, the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2009. Wildlife management involves hunters, the courts, fish and wildlife officers, and the public.

Wildlife management protects habitat and biodiversity, agriculture, and the health and safety of Albertans. The Wildlife Act governs the management of wildlife as a Crown resource and enables the hunting and trapping of wildlife while providing protections and controls where necessary. The proposed miscellaneous amendments to the Wildlife Act will clarify how we plan to deal with some challenges around enforcement, sentencing, and wildlife control measures. Mr.

Speaker, wildlife control measures are needed where indige- nous captive wildlife such as farmed elk, deer, and moose either escape or are unlawfully released from captivity. Wildlife control is also needed for controlled animals, which are nonnative species of animals that require a permit for live possession. Controlled animal permits are allowed for very limited purposes such as zoos and research. Under the Wildlife Act owners and those in charge of captive wildlife or controlled animals must make reasonable efforts to recapture an animal that has escaped.

They must also report the escape within 48 hours after the escape unless the animal is r ecap- tured within that 48-hour period. We also need to ensure that our fish and wildlife officers have the support they need to carry out their other expected duties. At times there have been challenges to the authority of fish and wildlife officers to access land. For example, an officer needs to be given reasonable access to land to respond to a report of dead wildlife in order to determine whether the animal’s death resulted from illegal activities.

The amendments will authorize fish and wildlife officers with increased access to land to respond to reports of dead, injured, diseased, or dangerous wildlife and to monitor hunting activities while still protecting privacy rights. The amendments also ensure that hunters follow the regulations for exporting wildlife. Currently an export permit is required to export wildlife or wildlife parts. Export permits are not issued for certain wildlife parts such as bear paws or bear gallbladders.

It is recognized that exporting wildlife that is banned from export is a serious offence and warrants a potentially higher penalty. An amendment will therefore provide the courts with a higher penalty range to deal with those who have been convicted of this offence. In addition to illegal exporting, we also n eed to ensure that big game and game bird meat is being used appropriately. The Wildlife Act also requires that big game and game bird meat is not wasted, destroyed, spoiled, or abandoned.

Cases involving spoiled meat have been brought before the courts, but there have been problems proving to the courts what evidence was required to show that flesh that was once edible has become spoiled. In some cases fish and wildlife officers have testified to the poor condition of game meat by stating that the meat was no longer suitable for human consumption. Despite these testimonials the court did not accept the evidence that had been entered. The amendments will clarify the rules regarding wastage of big game and game bird meat in two ways. Number one, Mr.

Speaker, the methods to enter evidence that edible meat has been wasted or spoiled will be established and applied in the courts. Number two, the act will require edible meat to be kept fit for human consump- tion, to clarify what constitutes wastage or spoilage. Requiring game meat to be kept fit for human consumption will eliminate the defence that any meat in question was intended for animal food. Lastly, there have been instances where people have incurred losses as a direct result of an offence.

For example, client hunters have had their deposits stolen by persons posing as legitimate outfitter guides who are not able to or do not intend to provide the services. The amendments will adjust the creative sentencing provisions so that a court may order a convicted person to pay restitution to another person such as those client hunters who have incurred a financial loss as a direct or indirect result of the offence. Wildlife management is challenging and continually changing, and these amendments will eliminate certain challenges in adminis- trating and enforcing the act.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Bill 30 Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2009 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Drysdale: T h a n k y o u , M r . S p e a k e r . I ’ m p l e a s e d t o m o v e second reading of Bill 30, the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2009. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Traffic Safety Act. The proposed changes include the following.

A wording change related to the maintenance enforcement program replaces “cancellation” of an operator’s licence regarding maintenance enforcement program payment defaults with “suspension” to address the administrative processes resulting from the different definition of terms. This change eliminates confusion and appropriately identifies those who fail to make payments as suspended drivers. The next change creates a new class of investigators for the carrier and vehicle safety programs and driver training programs.

These investigating officers will be dedicated to carrying out specialized technical functions under the Traffic Safety Act and its regulations. The third amends the definition of peace officer in the Traffic Safety Act and clarifies the definition of peace officer to include the new classifications as well as certain police officers created under the Police Act, including the First Nations police officers. Mr. Speaker, this gives police officers who were inadvertently not included in the peace officer definition under the Traffic Safety Act the authority to enforce the act.

The fourth clarifies the authority to make regulations about the conduct of driver examiners, driving instructors, and the operation of driver training schools. The fifth, Mr. Speaker, adds driver examiners, driving instructors, and the operators of driver training schools to the

definitions of

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 737 regulated person and therefore provides authority for a further compliance tool. The two amendments I just mentioned related to driver training and the operation of driver training schools stem from a 2008 court case and legal advice from Alberta Justice. The sixth clarifies the definition of intersection safety device, introduced in the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2007. It is necessary to specify that these devices are capable of gathering evidence for traffic signal infractions or a speeding infraction or both.

Without the amendment Justice believes the definition may be interpreted that an intersection safety device must be able to gather evidence for a traffic signal infraction and a speeding infraction. The seventh, Mr. Speaker. Finally, this amendment adds vehicle rental companies to the list of businesses whose vicarious liability will be capped upon proclamation of the 2007 Traffic Safety Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn debate today on Bill 30. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 3:10head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Mitzel in the chair] The Deputy Chair: I’d like to call the committee to order. Bill 17 Securities Amendment Act, 2009 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Mr. Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak in Committee of the Whole and present Bill 17, the Securities Amendment Act, 2009.

The proposed amendments are a result of a commitment from the Alberta government and all provinces and territories, except Ontario, to ongoing reform of our securities regulatory system under the 2004 provincial-territorial memorandum of understanding regarding securities regulation. The support received at second reading of this bill is greatly appreciated. I would like to commend all parties for unanimously approving the second reading of this bill. There were some points, however, raised by the opposition that I would like to take the opportunity to discuss.

I believe it was the Member for Calgary-Varsity that did have a concern that the legislation does not address the idea of a national securities regula- tor. I want to suggest that provinces have been responsible for regulating securities markets for decades and have successfully created a national regulatory system through the implementation of the provincial-territorial passport system. This system, Mr. Chairman, allows market participants to deal with the provincial regulator and have that regulator’s decision or approval apply automatically in other participating jurisdictions.

The move to a national regulator could take years. We are ready to move with the passport system now, and we are doing that. Alberta is strongly opposed to a single federal securities regulator. Securi- ties regulation is a provincial responsibility, and the move to a single federal securities regulator would be an intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. That’s just not something that this govern- ment wants to see. I also believe that the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona said she is seeking “a single set of rules that the province played a role” in creating.

I wasn’t quite sure wh ere she was going with that. It almost sounded like she was seeking something that is exactly what we are doing with the passport system, Mr. Chairman. The passport system is a practical model that the provinces and territories, other than Ontario, have implemented to create a national regulatory regime that is flexible and responsive and which respects provincial authority. The passport system is founded on harmonized legislation rules that are consistently interpreted and applied throughout Canada.

Alberta has been a leader in harmonizing legislation, and this bill continues that leadership. In second reading, I believe, the Member for Calgary-Buffalo was concerned that government securities policy means lawyers and other people would have to deal with 13 regulators instead of just one. It is a myth that anyone has to deal with 13 sets of rules. The passport system gives a market participant streamlined access to Canada’s capital markets by dealing with only its home or principal regulator and by complying with one set of harmonized laws.

Despite the rhetoric, there is no empirical evidence to show that a single regulator model could deliver functional improvements to the Canadian securities regulatory system, which is already ranked by independent organizations as one of the best in the world. Bill 17 builds on the work that Alberta has done since 2004 to further modernize, harmonize, and streamline Alberta’s securities laws. I encourage all members of this House to give their full support to Bill 17. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will hand it over. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Not at this point, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Do any other members wish to speak? Hon. Members: Question. [The clauses of Bill 17 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Chair: Opposed? That is carried. Bill 19 Land Assembly Project Area Act The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this? I might add, hon. members, that we are speaking to amendment A1. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you. I will focus on the government amendments. I’ll just wait for the minister’s attention here. Okay. We were beginning to discuss these amendments last week, and we shall continue.

So that the minister is aware, I’m going to be asking a few questions on point C of the amendment, which amends

section 5. This is a pretty major amendment. What’s proposed here is that all of the existing

section 5 is struck out. All of existing

section 5 is actually quite brief. It’s really just two sentences that read: 5(1) Land within a Project Area may be acquired by the Crown by purchase or expropriation.

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009738

(2) Land acquired under this sectio n is under the administration of the Minister unless, before or after the acquisition, the Lieutenant Governor in Council directs that it is under the administration of some other Minister. That’s all of

section 5 in th e original bill. That’s now done and being replaced by a somewhat longer amendment. One of my first questions around the proposed amendment – and I’ll focus on the proposed amendment 5(1), but this also applies to 5(2) – is around the time frames and the fact that there is, as I’m reading this, no reference to a time frame, I don’t think. The proposed amendment 5(1) would read that “subject to

section 5.1, at any time, at the request of the registered owner of land within a Project Area, the Crown shall ente r into an agreement with the registered owner to purchase the land at market value.” Now, first of all, I think the word “shall.” It’s important to note that this is not a “may” or a “can”; this is a “shall.” In other words, this is a legislative directive to the Crown that it must do something, as I understand this. But as I read through this proposed amendment in that section, I am concerned that there is no time frame.

It doesn’t say: shall enter into an agreement within one year or one decade or, you know, to be ridiculous, one century or something like that. There is no time frame. On the one hand it sounds very forceful while, on the other hand, there is an entirely open end to this if I am reading this correctly. I’d like the minister to speak to that because I understand you’d need a certain amount of time to sort out market value, but after all there is a process for doing that here without any time limit on this. My concern – and let’s be honest – is that the wheels of government can turn slowly, sometimes on purpose.

This could stretch out . . . [interjections] Never? Never. Oh, I’m getting corrected by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has never had his department do anything slowly, I guess. Let’s speak hypothetically. Seriously, if the government were to decide that it shall do something over the course of a decade, there’s nothing here to stop it from taking that long. I’d like the minister to speak to that. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to thank the hon. member for the question. The intention with “shall” is exactly as you mentioned.

It is: shall at the owner’s triggering sit down and negotiate for purchase, and we’re talking right away. The clarifica- tion . . . [interjection] Well, actually it does. In the bill there’s reference to where it’s budgeted every year for the purchase of land. Of course, with our past experience we have a general idea of how much land is purchased at different stages on the long-term projects.

In some ways, of course, it’s advantageous to government to do that purchasing earlier in the process rather than later, just so we’re not dealing with the time constraints we have on some projects right close to the time that construction needs to be started. 3:20 The amendment to the bill spells out very clearly the steps that can be followed, and it does state “shall,” which it hasn’t in the past.

Under past legislation – the hon. member is exactly right – the government had the opportunity to pick and choose the time that it wanted to purchase the land according to whatever determinations it made in that particular budget year. But what we’ve moved forward with, to better suit these types of projects, is a situation where the landowner triggers the compensation portion, and the government “shall” negotiate and sit down with the landowner and move forward with purchase of the land when they trigger it.

Of course, the other thing that we see in projects like this is that many people choose to stay on the land and use it as they always tradition- ally have, until they get very close to the time of the project, before they sell the property. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thanks. I appreciate that the minister and I are just trying to clear something up here. I didn’t get a lot of reassurance from that. Can the minister point me to where there is a time frame here?

I mean, quite honestly, and all kidding aside, if a government wants to grind a landowner down, they could take years. They could take a long time for this to occur. Wh ere is the time frame in here? I didn’t get a lot of reassurance from the minister telling me that we have a process. I would like to see something a little firmer in here on a time frame. Maybe it’s here. If it is, show me. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Chair. When the member first started speaking about this, that is where concern comes in, where govern- ment “may” if you change the wording.

When it says “shall” negotiate, the landowner does trigger it. It is budgeted for every year, and that is written in the bill.

Section 5, that you’re referring to, states very clearly that a landowner can sit down to negotiate the purchase of the land by the province. They can bring to the table whatever they feel is material to that negotiation. Should they not be satisfied with that, they can then move to the third party – and it makes reference to the Land Compensation Board or another board as agreed to by both parties, an arm’s-length board – to bring the information to that table and have a determination made there.

Should the landowner at that point still not feel that they’re satisfied with that amount, it can then go to the Court of Appeal. Even after that there is still expropriation at the end of the process. With respect to the timelines on it, obviously, there’s a two-year time period when the consultation and discussion take place on the project before such time as the Lieutenant Governor in Council or cabinet actually have to vote to approve or turn down the project.

At that time, once a decision is made that they would decide to go ahead with that project, the landowner can trigger that compensation at any point from there forward. Dr. Taft: All right. Well, I think you are just going to have to accept that I’m not convinced by that because I don’t see a time frame for this “shall.” Once the pr ocess is triggered, if I’m the landowner, I say: “Okay. I see the project. We’ve taken the time. We’ve worked that out.

Now I want to sell, so you shall as the Crown enter into an agreement to buy it from me.” But I don’t get a lot of reassurance from this that you need to do that even in my lifetime, frankly. Again, you know, I’m looking for direction here. Now, this

section in this amendm ent refers to

section 28 of the Expropriation Act. I won’t profess any expertise in the Expropria- tion Act, but I did just have a page bring me that bill, and I’ve had a quick look at

section

Section 28 seems to give the Lieutenant Governor in Council and cabinet a pretty blank cheque. Again, I don’t see in

section 28 a lot of reassurance to the landowner that something is going to be done in an expeditious time frame or that the outcome is necessarily that fair.

Section 28, as I read it quickly, gives the minister a blank slate, really. I don’t see a lot of reassur- ance for the landowner in

section 28. Do you want to respond, please? The Deputy Chair: Hon. minister, we’re staying with the amend- ments.

April 21, 2009 Alberta Hansard 739 Mr. Hayden: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would suggest to the hon. member that when we say “shall,” I think that’s very direct: shall enter into negotiations. With respect to the trust relate d to the timelines I would also suggest to the hon. member that if I put a number down there and said, “shall negotiate the agreement on the purchase price or compensation to the landowner within a 30-day period,” someone would be standing up and accusing me of rushing the negotiation and frightening a landowner.

If I was to stand up and say, “shall do it within a one-year time period,” someone would still stand up and criticize me for rushing someone or for taking too long and delaying. I suggest, sir, that when we say “shall,” it means that the government shall sit down and negotiate. These, of course, are the people that we’re responsible to represent, and obviously we will do it in good faith. The Deputy Chair: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I would find reassuring and I would bet you that landowners would find reassuring would be something like, “shall in an expeditious manner,” so that if it ended up in court, the court has some sense that taking five years to negotiate it is not expeditious. I agree, you know, that putting 30 days or one year or something could be problematic. But having a flexible time frame that nonetheless would indicate to the minister and ultimately, if need be, to a court that this was to move on expeditiously would be a worthwhile amendment to this amendment. I’d urge the minister to consider something like that.

If I may move on to the next paragraph under this same amend- ment, which is paragraph 5(2). I’ll just leave it – we don’t need to repeat that exchange – but again I don’t see any time frame or time limits on this either. We all know that court cases can drag out for years. Frankly, in any court case, ultimately, an organization like the government is going to have far more power than a landowner just because the government has, for practical purposes, unlimited resources. So I am concerned just about the aspects of that that open things up. I will repeat what I said a moment ago under this amendment 5(3).

I’ll try to abbreviate it a bit here. It reads: If the registered owner requests that the Land Compensation Board make the determination as to the market value of the land . . . And it would do that if negotiations broke down, presumably. It goes on that the Land Compensation Board has jurisdiction with respect to the determination of market value under this Act and may exercise the powers given to it pursuant to

section 28 of the Expropriation Act. That’s what took me to the Expropriation Act, and I read

section 28 as giving just about all power it ever wants to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so I am concerned there. I will move on to

section 5.1 of this amendment, in which the subtitle is Requirement of Land by the Crown. This is just a one- sentence section, and it reads as follows: “When the land within a Project Area is required by the Crown for or in connection with the public project, the Crown may acquire the land by purchase or expropriation.” Now, I have a couple of thoughts on this right away. First of all, I’m wondering why this is needed because there is the Expropriation Act. We’ve outlined a process for purchasing the land. I don’t know why this

section is needed, and I’d be curious to know what the legislative drafters told the mi nister to justify the existence of this. Secondly, my concern is: does this ultimately override the previous sections? In other words, when the chips are down, this would seem to give the Crown everything it needs to just go ahead and barge in, in any case. So why is this

section needed, and does this actually trump everything else, in any case? 3:30 The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the hon. member will see when we move to

section D and the

section being struck out with respect to the Expropriation Act, in the original version of the bill there was a

section there for clarification purposes that the Expropri- ation Act is still available for us e, to give some satisfaction to landowners that that still is an area that’s available to them. It was being misconstrued, I will say, by some people and used to indicate to people that the Expropriation Act, in fact, wasn’t available to them should they need it through this process. When we talk about 5.1, that the hon. member is referring to, there are, of course, two ways that the land can be acquired.

One is through a purchase through the three steps that we spoke about previously, and the other is, at the end of the day, with the use of the Expropriation Act and all of the restrictions and abilities that go with that for the protection of the landowners. That’s still available. Mr. Chair, that’s available to the federal government, to municipal governments, and to the provincial government, and it’s just stating it because we heard from Albertans that they were concerned that their right to use the Expropriation Act would not apply to this bill. Of course, it very much does, and we’ve stated it.

The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Mrs. McQueen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise in Committee of the Whole and speak to Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Area Act. The minister has tabled four amendments, which affect sections 2, 5, and 13. These amendments are the result of members of this government first and foremost listening to the concerns raised by Albertans and addressing those concerns by making the amendments you see before you to the issues that were raised. Since the bill was introduced on March 2, 2009, I have partici- pated in many public meetings.

The first one was in the village of Warburg in my constituency with two of my MLA colleagues. Soon after I attended one in Ponoka, then another in Ryley, where we were joined by the Minister of Infrastructure and several other MLAs. Then I attended two more, in Pigeon Lake and Innisfail, again with several MLAs and the ministers of Infrastructure and Transportation. On each and every occasion we were keen to hear what the constituents’ concerns we re and worked closely with the minister and the department to ensure that they received the feedback we were hearing.

It was from the feedback and the conversations we had with Albertans that the following amendments were drafted.

Section 2(2) was amended and now reads: For the purpose of this Act and the regulations, a project is a public project if the project is (

a) a project related to the transportation of people or goods, which may also include as part of that project a corridor of land for pipelines, pipes or other conduits, poles, towers, wires, cables, conductors or other devices, including any ancillary structures, or (

b) a project related to the conservation or management of water. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes it clear that Bill 19 is designed to facilitate the construction of either a water project or a highway such as a transportation utility corridor. Furthermore, it is explicit that land assembled under Bill 19 can only be used for

Alberta Hansard April 21, 2009740 things like pipelines or transmission lines if and only if that land has already been assembled for another purpose such as a transportation utility corridor. Mr. Chairman,

section 2.1 has also been amended. Part (2) of this

section now reads that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may not designate an area of land as a project area if more than 2 years has elapsed since the plan of the proposed project was made available to the public.” In our discussions Albertans expressed concerns about the duration of consultations and advocated for a finite consultation period. This amendment gives those constituents peace of mind, assuring them that any consultation would be completed after two years.

At that point the government would have to make a decision regarding whether they are going to proceed with the original plan and designate that land a project area or whether they are not going to follow through with assembling that land. Mr. Chairman, the amendments to

section 5 ensure that if the government chooses to designate a particular piece of land a project area, the landowner is fairly compensated.

Section 5(1) reads: “At any time, at the request of the registered owner of land within a Project Area, the Crown shall enter into an agreement with the registered owner to purchase the land at market value.” In essence, at any time after the land is designated a project area, the landowner can choose to begin the negotiations to sell their land to the Crown. This means that a landowner can choose to maintain ownership of their property, continuing to use it until the government requires it, or they could choose to sell it immediately. Ultimately it is the landowner’s discretion. Further to this, Mr.

Chairman, if an agreement cannot be reached about the market value of the land, part (2) of this

section allows for the owner to apply to the Land Compensation Board to determine the market value of the land. Should the registered owner choose to exercise their rights in part (2), part (3) applies to the Land Compen- sation Board, allowing them the ability to establish the value of the land just as they would if the request were made under the Expropri- ation Act. This provides them with several powers in order to draw a conclusion on the value of the land, including allowing them to hold formal hearings and to physically inspect the property. In the event that a determination

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20090421
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L27 S2 20090421 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1e3dea1f7e42a69022e298fff1d5a69c4e20352a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).