Alberta Hansard — 27 November 2002, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 2)

20021127

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1563 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:30 p.m. Date: 02/11/27 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank You for Your abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. We ask You to ensure to us Your guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you a person with a lengthy record of public service to the people of Alberta. He was first elected to the Alberta Legislature in 1982 as the MLA for Edmonton-Norwood and as the New Democrats Leader of the Official Opposition from 1984 to 1993. Mr. Martin served the Alberta New Democratic Party as a member of the executive for over 15 years. His public service record continues today, as he is currently the public school trustee in w ard D. He is seated in y our gallery , and I ask him to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to also introduce to you and through you Ms Lynn Odynski. As a former community health nurse Ms Odynski completed her graduate work on school councils at the University of Alberta. She then served as chair of the Edmonton School Council, an area council of the Alberta Home and School Councils’ Association. As chair she promoted the need for parents to be active and legitimate partners in their children’s education. She continues to believe strongly in this partnership and is currently a public school trustee in ward C in the city of Edmonton.

She is seated in your gallery, and I’d ask her to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I call on the first individual to do introductions, I do believe that this is the first time in the history of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta that all of the pages today are women. The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 32 grade 6 students and their teachers, Mrs.

Natalie Gago-Esteves and Ms Laurie Ewald, from Brander Gardens elementary school in my constituency of Edmonton-Whitemud. They, of course, are here today to observe and learn about the Legislature and about govern- ment, and they’re seated in the members’ gallery. I’d ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. R E V . A B B O T T : T h a n k y o u , M r . S pe a k e r . I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o introduce to you and through you to all the Members of the Legisla- tive Assembly 47 visitors from Calmar school.

They are led today by two teachers, Mrs. Sue Biddell and the mother of one of our pages – that’s Natalie Wilson’s mother – Mrs. Jeanette Wilson. They also have with them today some parent helpers: Mrs. Buehner, Mrs. Hughes, Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Snider, and Mrs. Stepanko. They are seated behind me in the public gallery, and I would ask them all to please rise and receive a hearty welcome from this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KLAPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly visitors from Covenant Christian school, just south of Leduc in our constituency. They are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Colette Hayes, Mrs. Mary Geiger and parents and helpers Mrs. Ineke Van Beek, Mrs. Melanie Samuelson, Mrs. Linda Cameron, Mrs. Lore-Lee Wagner, Mrs. Monique Tolsma, Mrs. Jenny Ruysch, Mrs. Susan Schuurman, Mrs. Nynke Miedema, Mrs. Debbie Pequin, Mrs. Elly McGowan, Miss Trish Rudiger, Mrs. Karen Gengler, Mrs. Laureen Van Raamsdonk, Mrs. Carol Klooster, and Mrs. Leah Schmidt.

I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s certainly my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 21 guests. They’re from Newbrook school, first time ever in this Assembly since I was elected in ’97, and they are accompanied by teachers Wayne Croswell, Mrs. Shirley Frederick- son, parent helpers Tony Kwasny, Mrs. Val Ferguson, and bus driver Mr. Nick Kuzyk.

They’re seated in both the members’ and the public galleries, and I’d ask them to please rise and receive this warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. STELMACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have the pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly visitors from the constituency of Vegreville- Viking. They are here seated in the members’ gallery. They’re a number of families of home schoolers that have visited our office this afternoon. They’re led by Mr.

Barter, and they’re from the Chipman and Lamont area, and I would ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great honour for me to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Mr. Peter MacKay, the MP for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough and also the Progressive Conservative Party House leader. Mr.

MacKay is out here finding out and learning what Albertans believe is the right way to bring together two federal parties and make things happen and create a very strong opposition to the Liberals in Ottawa. Along with Peter is his assistant, Maureen Murphy-Makin, and I’d ask them to please both stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly three guests who are in the public gallery. They are Mrs.

Arati Jaiswal and her husband, Colonel (Retired) V.K. Jaiswal, who are visiting from Nagpur, India. They are visiting their daughter

1564 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 Madhvi Russell, who is the executive manager with the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights. They’re also accompanied by my husband, Jack. They’re seated in the public gallery, and I’d ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MR. LUKASZUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They say that in politics friends come and go, but enemies only accumulate. In the public gallery I have three friends that haven’t gone yet, and it’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you Mr.

Christopher Sowa, Mrs. Irene Sowa, and Mr. Eugeniusz Gergont. I would like them to rise and accept the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and to all my colleagues in the Assembly a very, very energetic young man who’s a r ecent graduate of the University of Calgary with a master’s degree in environmental sciences and management. His name is Jan Triska. Jan is the project co-ordinator for ARK, Albertans for Ratifying Kyoto. Mr.

Triska splits his time between Edmonton and Calgary and works tirelessly to get the right informa- tion out to Albertans on the issue of ratifying Kyoto. He is here to observe the Alberta Legislature in action today and is seated in the public gallery. I’ll ask Jan to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly nine residents of the Beverly Senior Citizens Lodge.

I have been honoured to represent the Beverly lodge for many years at two levels of government, and I’m pleased that they have come to see their government in action, including the tabling of a petition on health care that was circulated in the Beverly lodge. It is always a particular pleasure to introduce the people who have helped build Alberta, Edmonton, and the Beverl y area. Visiting us today are – and if they’d please rise when I call their names – Bill Boratynek, Rose Taje, Emily Credgeur, Olga Myshyniuk, Peter Myshyniuk, Clarice Stephens, Ann Kuny, Nancy Mozak, and Edith Brown.

I’d also like to extend my congratulations to Olga and Peter, who celebrated their 58th wedding anniversary this past Saturday and who have rescheduled their celebration in order to be with us today. So I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. 1:40 head: Oral Question Period Health Care Spending DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, this spring we asked the Minister of Health and Wellness for a cost-benefit analysis on services provided at the Holy Cross hospital.

The minister’s response: “to date, no analysis has been conducted or sponsored comparing the relative costs and benefits of health services provided in specific facilities in Alberta.” In other words, no evidence that contracting out saves money or improves our services. My question to the Minister of Health and Wellness: how can the minister justify expanding private health care delivery in Alberta when he has no evidence that this is more cost-effective or improves service? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, our eyes are clearly on the future and not on the past.

We have undertaken an enormous undertaking with the Mazankowski report. We have asked a number of extremely qualified individuals to provide us with some guidance on the direction to go. Across this country, with the exception of Mr. Romanow, I might add, the idea that there is a role for private-sector providers of publicly delivered and paid-for health services seems to have gained some support in virtually every province and territory of this country. We do see evidence of it in British Columbia, in Ontario, in Quebec, right here in Alberta, where services are being provided. Take, for example, MRIs.

But for the involvement of the private sector we would not have the capacity to do the MRIs that we do as we do now. We have invested, of course, in our own MRIs. We invested in a number of MRIs publicly, and we were able to significantly increase our capacity within the public system. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is is that there is an important role for the private sector to play in the delivery of health care services.

I would suggest that an individual who is ill will go into a facility, and the only operative questions in their mind will be: does this place have the resources, the people, the skills, and the equip- ment to diagnose me and treat me so I get better? They do not ask: who owns this place? THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But as manager of the public purse he should be making sure it’s done at a low cost.

Given that the recent report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information provides that health care spending in Alberta is sustainable, why does this minister continue to deny that evidence and claim it is not so? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Canadian Institute for Health Information. However, I would suggest that

definitions of sustainability may differ from time to time and from place to place. When people talk a bout sustainability being expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product and somehow suggest that that means that it’s sustainable, well, that is not a particularly meaningful measure. Looking at gross domestic product as the denominator and expressing health care expenditures as a percentage of that denominator is not valuable.

Let’s say that Kyoto goes ahead and our gross domestic product drops dramatically and our health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP go from 4 and a half percent to 15 percent. Does that make it more sustain- able? I don’t think so. DR. NICOL: To the minister: why is the minister so reluctant to table any evidence in this House to support his changes to the health care system? Is there no evidence? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves, and I refer the hon. member to the historical fiscal

summary of the province of Alberta where we can clearly demonstrate that the expenditures on health care have clearly risen since 1992-93 expressed as a percentage of the overall spending of the provincial government. We started off in 1993-94 somewhere in the range of roughly something in the magnitude of 24 or 25 percent of every dollar in this province being spent on health care. Now, in our current year, we’re in the range of about 36 percent, and it’s rising. The reason why it’s rising is because of drugs, an aging population, new procedures that we’re able to do, and new technology that’s available.

So, again, taking a look at what it appears that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Romanow both have associated themselves

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1565 with is the idea that we should just spend more on the status quo, that we want the status quo system that will be more expensive. Well, we think that there’s a better way of doing this, that we need to look instead at what the outcomes are that we want and to drive our direction in the way of getting to the outcome of having an affordable, sustainable, accessible, high-quality, publicly paid for, publicly administered health care system. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, they still refuse to put standards down so we can judge their performance. Rural Health Services DR.

NICOL: The new meaning of two-tiered health care in Alberta is better quality urban and a lower quality rural tier. Perhaps this government’s plan for rural health care is superboards in urban centres managing 1-800 health lines for rural Alberta. My question again to the Minister of Health and Wellness: how much money does the minister expect to save by creating a handful of superboards and superregions to deliver health in Alberta? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has got more baloney to sell than Oscar Meyer. It does not matter whether you are in rural Alberta or in urban Alberta.

People have reasonable expectations with respect to the delivery of health care. Now, that doesn’t mean that you will have exactly the same system operating in rural Alberta as urban Alberta, and in fact in urban Alberta there are also concerns with respect to accessing the health care system. Urban people are suggesting that there are enormous issues with respect to unacceptable wait lists in various areas, and there has been a general view that there should be a decentralization of the delivery of services.

On the subject of the number of regional health authorities again this is an issue that for most Albertans is completely invisible. People are not concerned about the number of regional health authorities. People are concerned that there is a system that is there when they need it, and that is the more important issue, Mr. Speaker. Let us not get caught up in this business of who administers this particular facility. Let’s only concern ourselves with: is health care delivery of a service there when we need it? DR.

NICOL: To the minister: would the minister table in this Legislature any cost-benefit analysis that you have done creating this handful of superboards or superregions to deliver our health care? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward with our goal that I’ve stated earlier in this House, and that is with respect to the delivery of health care. The administration of health care is far below in terms of the priorities in the minds of Albertans than is the delivery of health care, and that’s our focus. DR.

NICOL: Again to the minister: why has the minister not allowed rural Albertans any say in how their health care services will be delivered? Where was the consultation? MR. MAR: That’s patently untrue, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that our members, who make up . . . MS CARLSON: Ask your backbenchers if they agree with you. MR. MAR: Well, okay. Let’s see. How many rural members does the Liberal opposition have? Mr.

Speaker, if rural Albertans are concerned about their level of health care, they have certainly taken opportunity to express it to members of the government that represent rural Alberta. 1:50 Romanow Report THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. I hope, hon. member, that your question will be heard. There seems to be a lot of chattering from your neighbours. DR. TAFT: I’ll do my best, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health and Wellness has arrogantly rejected the Romanow report before even seeing it as if he had nothing more to learn. [interj ections] My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, I’m going to give you another chance to begin, but I’m going to apply the same rule to the other hon. members in the Assembly. Please proceed. DR. TAFT: My questions are to the Minister of Health and Well- ness.

Why does the minister so irresponsibly dismiss the Romanow recommendations as being “drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin” when he hasn’t even seen the report? MR. MAR: I regret referring to the report as being drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin. I meant a postage stamp, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Romanow has really disclosed virtually all of his report in speeches that he has given to Harvard University, to Memorial University, to people in Washington in the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, it has been much like the dance of a thousand veils: he has revealed all the veils except for the last three.

So there isn’t anything that we should expect out of Mr. Romanow’s report that he hasn’t already disclosed. I think the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview has a pretty good idea and would be able to put together the key recommenda- tions of the Romanow report based on what he has seen in the newspaper and accounts of what Mr. Romanow has had to say in the media. I don’t think that there will be any surprises coming to him either. DR.

TAFT: Given that the Romanow commission was publicly open and accountable while the Mazankowski commission was chaired by a paid lobbyist, why has the minister rejected the Romanow report before it has even been made public? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, we’ve said all along that if – if – some- thing came out of the Romanow report that would be constructive and helpful to us moving forward on the goal that I stated about a publicly paid for, administered, accessible, high-quality health care system that’s sustainable, then we, of course, would be the first ones to embrace that idea and a dopt it and employ it in this province to move forward on the yardsticks towards that goal. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mazankowski has prepared an outstanding set of recommendations that this government’s moving forward on. It is of great interest to Canadians that Mr.

Mazankowski’s report contains a number of recommendations that are consistent with Senator Kirby, a Liberal Senator, I might add, who has come to similar conclusions, and that suggests to me that both Mr. Mazankowski and Senator Kirby were really thinking about health care delivery and were not locked up in ideology.

1566 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 DR. TAFT: Well, given that the minister has not only marginalized himself with his comments but marginalized this government, how does he justify throwing away Alberta’s voice on this important national dialogue? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, let us examine what has happened across this country. Let’s look at the Fyke commission report. Let’s look at the Claire report. Let’s look at Senator Kirby’s report. Let’s look at work that has been done by Mr. Mazankowski.

All of them have come to the conclusion – whether they come from the background of economists, health care professionals, academics, individuals who work within the system, patients that work with the system – that the status quo is not an option. So we are taking steps forward in moving on this goal of improving what is already a good health care system. Either the Leader of the Opposition or the Member for Edmonton- Riverview talked about CIHI earlier. Let us look at the data in CIHI. Let us see, for example, the results after having a heart attack.

The five best places in all of Canada to have a heart attack are right here in the province of Alberta, where you’ll get the best treatment anywhere, Mr. Speaker. We’re looking to improve on that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Health Care Services DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, began his extensive public consultations 18 months ago, he issued a challenge to advocates of private, for-profit health care.

Romanow said: show me evidence that for-profit health care saves money or delivers better health outcomes. Well, the privatization advocates have failed to deliver, Mr. Speaker. The emperor has no clothes. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. What evidence, if any, did the government provide to the Romanow commission that private, for- profit health care saves money or improves health outcomes, and will the minister table that evidence in this Assembly? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, that is really avoiding the question. The question is really about the delivery of health care, not its manner.

Whether it’s Senator Kirby or Mr. Mazankowski or whether it is the Premier of Newfoundland or the Premier of Ontario or the Premier of British Columbia or the Premier of Alberta, we have all come to the conclusion that we should focus on the delivery of health care and its outcomes, and the issue of whether it is delivered in a not- for-profit or by private provider or by the public system is a secondary issue. People only care that the service is there when they need it. DR.

PANNU: Since the minister of the government has no evidence to present, when will the government take off its blinkers and acknowledge that Albertans would get more services with less money through public health care than they will through privatiza- tion, delisting, and user fees, that this minister is proposing to do? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, if having blinkers means that you have an unfailing direction and a vision of where you are going, I am guilty as charged, but that is much better than closing your eyes and shutting your ears to all other possible options. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR.

PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this minister doesn’t have a secret plan to delist services, why is the government’s promise made to the Alberta Council on Aging that there won’t be cuts in seniors’ prescription drug coverage only good until the end of next year? Why did you make that promise? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, we have the most accountable, up-front, transparent business plans and results reporting of any province in this country. We’re proud of it.

We expect that Albertans should hold this government accountable for the results that we achieve with the money that they give to us through taxes, so the suggestion that there’s some secret plan – I mean, we’ve had press releases about this allegedly secret plan. I fail to understand how the hon. member can characterize our plans to look at the types of services that we should provide in a rational and in a reasonable way . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister will continue. He does have the floor, and I’m going to ask my two hon. colleagues to just button it. The hon. minister. MR.

MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at how we can sustain our health care system, and we are again focused on results. We want to make sure that our health care system provides the kinds of services that help people get better, and if it means that we have to take a look at all of our services and ask what criteria should be applied to them to ensure that people get what they need when they need it, we’re not afraid to do that. Mr. Speaker, with respect to drugs, drugs are an area of great concern.

It is estimated that there can be a prescription error rate of something in the magnitude of 20 to 30 percent. Now, that is anecdotal. I do not have something that I could table before this hon. member, but suffice it to say that when it comes to drugs, we want to make sure that we don’t stand in the way of somebody who has a condition that can be alleviated by a prescription drug. On the other hand, we must also be cautious that we don’t prescribe things that don’t help people or, in fact, even worse, can harm people. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 2:00 Provision of Abortion Services MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of my constituents are very disappointed to hear that recently the Expert Advisory Panel to Review Publicly Funded Health Services has advised the minister of health that they have singled out one medical procedure and will exclude it from their final recommendations. That one procedure is abortion.

My question to the Minister of Health is: what justification can the minister offer that one medical service can be determined by a single doctor as medically necessary and paid for and all other medical services require the review and advice of an expert panel? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very difficult question to answer, but medically necessary abortion services will continue to be paid for by the Alberta public system. As is the case with any insured service, the government must rely upon professional judgment of physicians to determine which procedures are medically necessary.

Now, the expert panel indicated that there would be some difficulty with respect to jurisdiction and legal issues if they were to deal with this particular service. I agree that that is true. Nonethe- less, I will say that medically necessary abortions will continue to be paid for by our system.

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1567 THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, given that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has not defined medically necessary in their guidelines and the expert panel refused to do so, how is the minister going to deal with this issue of medically necessary? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that it would not be incumbent upon the judgment of the Minister of Health and Wellness to determine what is medically necessary.

We do rely on the College of Physicians and Surgeons to establish clinical practice guidelines that help physicians guide their decisions about what is medically necessary. These physicians do follow these guidelines when making decisions about abortions for their patients. If a physician deems an abortion to be medically necessary, our system will provide it as required under the Canada Health Act. MR.

MARZ: Well, given that in a recent survey 72 percent of Albertans stated that they do not wish to fund non medically necessary abortions, will the minister, then, appoint a committee that’s responsible and willing to take on this task of defining medically necessary, consult with Albertans, and resolve this issue once and for all? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of this statistic nor the methodology that was used to derive it, so I won’t comment on the particular numbers, but I will say that this is a very, very emotional issue for many Albertans.

There are two very distinctive views on what the resolution should be, and there appears to me to be no common ground that will satisfy both at the same time. We have to try and distance ourselves from the emotion of the issue and deal only with the facts which are before us. First of all, the Canada Health Act requires us to provide medi- cally necessary services through the public health system. Physi- cians determine medical necessity using clinical practice guidelines. A review by any committee, whether the expert panel led by Dr.

Westbury or others, would not change the facts on which we base our decision to fund abortions. Finally, if a physician deems an abortion to be medically necessary, Alberta’s publicly funded health care system will provide the procedure as required under the Canada Health Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Drivers’ Licences MR. MacDONALD: Thank you.

Canada’s new antiterrorism legislation could force all Albertans to retake their driver’s test and prove citizenship in order to receive a new driver’s licence in light of the insecurity of the current system. The holes in Alberta’s privatized registry system were proven yet again by two break-ins at the same Edmonton registry office last week. It is very distressing to consider that with a fake Alberta driver’s licence a terrorist could obtain any number of false documents including a passport and birth certificate. My first question is to the Minister of Government Services.

How can this government guarantee the authenticity of any proof of citizenship when issuing new drivers’ licences given that the security of drivers’ licences has been compromised? MR. COUTTS: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question. We have a protocol in place for registry agents’ offices to follow when it comes to citizenship papers, the primary citizenship papers and secondary citizenship papers to be presented in front of a registry agent.

As well, we also have the documentation of drivers’ licences in our database, and that particular process is part of our policy that the registry agents use in identifying legitimate people coming up and looking for not only a proper identification but a proper driver’s licence in the province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. Again to the same minister: are the recent thefts of driver’s licence making equipment as good an excuse as any for this government to revive its plan to make all Albertans carry smart cards? MR. COUTTS: Mr.

Speaker, what we’re looking at is an improve- ment to our driver’s licence manufacturing facility by going to a central manufacturing facility that is safe and secure. It is not our intention at this time to look at an y other cards. This is strictly a driver’s licence proposal that has been put forward. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. Again to the same minister: if all Albertans were to retake their driver’s exam and get new drivers’ licences, how on earth does this government propose to avert the utter chaos that would occur from that? MR. COUTTS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is strictly speculation, and as much as I respect the individual who brought that forward and made that public yesterday and as much as I respect the question that has come from the hon. member opposite, we’ve taken the initiative within our department this morning to take a look at the federal security bill and the regulations and the legislation around that. We’ll be doing a thorough analysis to see if it’s actually true that every Albertan would have to take a new test and get a new driver’s licence. We’ll do our thorough investigation of that and confirm that with Albertans as time goes on.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Long-term Care Facilities MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the impact of an aging population is already being realized in Alberta, especially so with residents in our long-term care centres. Many have complex health needs that require a much higher level of care.

The Calgary health region, for example, while working to balance its budget, has been decreasing staff and, thus, the hours of care the residents receive in their long-term care facilities, and many upset residents and families have written me and my colleagues over these changes. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. What assurances can the minister offer to senior and disabled residents of their long- term care facilities that they will not suffer as a result of the reduction in care hours? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I have looked into this particular matter on behalf of the hon. member, and I can assure her that for the Calgary health region and other health regions throughout the province the well-being and comfort of their patients is an issue that they take seriously. The change that’s being referred to by the hon. member in Calgary is a minimal one. It will amount to a reduction of five and a half

1568 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 minutes of care per patient per day, which in a 24-hour day is not a particularly large change, but it will save the region $2.5 million. Now, I am being assured, Mr. Speaker, by the regional health authority that that $2.5 million will be reinvested in improving their facilities and in the care of their residents. This is in addition to the Calgary health region adding $4.6 million to long-term care funding, including the addition of 47 beds this year and an additional 50 long- term care beds each year – each year – over the next five years. MS KRYCZKA: Mr.

Speaker, my next question is also to the same minister. Many residents of long-term care facilities were already concerned about living conditions prior to these latest changes. What is the minister doing to improve the living conditions in Alberta’s long-term care facilities? 2:10 MR. MAR: Well, first of all, Mr.

Speaker, over the last five years we have provided $280 million in capital for funding and upgrading of long-term care beds, but the recent findings of a long-term care review told us that many facilities are out of date with the contempo- rary needs of residents that are there, and we need to listen to these recommendations. We are implementing nine different strategies to improve continuing care in Alberta. One of those strategies is the regeneration of our long-term care centres. We want to create better environments for residents and improve care for clients with complex needs.

Three- and four-bed wards will be phased out by the year 2006, and we are enhancing the skills and increasing the supply of workers that can provide assistance in this particular area. Seniors’ Benefits MS BLAKEMAN: Mr. Speaker, for several months seniors across this province heard that the government would be cutting them off from Alberta Blue Cross coverage. An information bulletin was sent from the department of health to Tory MLAs saying that coverage was not in danger of being cut, but no one would or could deny that a committee had been struck to examine age-related benefits.

My first question is to the minister of health. Are there any other plans to have Alberta seniors pay more for services that they used to get for free? MR. MAR: No plans at this time, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you. My next question is to the Minister of Seniors. Can the minister tell us: what are the criteria and time line for the age-related benefits committee? MR. WOLOSHYN: That, Mr. Speaker, is not my committee, so I can’t give her an answer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

Then as the Minister of Seniors could I ask you to please find out about this committee and get some information through to me? MR. WOLOSHYN: For my own edification I’ll be pleased to do so, and I’ll share the information with the hon. member. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Automobile Equipment Infractions MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I drive down the streets, I’m seeing all kinds of automobile equipment infractions.

I’m seeing blue and green headlights, red and blue turn lights in the front of vehicles, blue turn lights on the rear of vehicles, and other various modifications. On a ride-along with police they point out these infractions but don’t do anything about them because they say that the Alberta statutes are either unenforceable or the fines are so small that ticketing is not worth the effort. Also, for $200 curbers can get any patched-up, written-off car back on the streets, and percentages of mechanically unsafe cars on our streets are much too high. My questions are all to the Minister of Transportation.

Could the Minister of Transportation tell this Assembly why digression from established regulations regarding automobile equipment is given such low priority in Alberta and enforcement is very rare? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. STELMACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. All Canadian jurisdictions, including the province of Alberta, place top priority on equipment legislation. There are certain penalties and regulations under the Traffic Safety Act that, of course, monitor and help enforce some of these various modifications to equipment that the hon. member has mentioned.

We are currently reviewing fines in some of the areas that the hon. member has brought forward, and these will come in force, of course, once discussions have been completed with Alberta Justice, and then we go through a process through standing policy. We’re looking forward to implementation sometime in mid-May of this year. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you. Since any digression from established regulations for colours of lights and vehicle design pose a safety hazard, why are you not doing something immediately to curb these modifications? MR.

STELMACH: Under our current legislation any modifications, as mentioned by the member, are against the law, and police do enforce these violations. However, as the hon. member had brought forward in the past, some of the fines for these modifications, so to speak, are less than the cost of repair, et cetera. As a result, we are reviewing that whole policy, coming forward with changes. I know that I will be getting support for this legislation. MR. YANKOWSKY: Will the minister consider bringing in some form of enforceable auto inspection program to get mechanically unsafe vehicles off our roads and streets? MR.

STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, we’re not going to make mandatory inspections. At least, we’re not entertaining that at the moment. However, we are working very diligently with the Minister of Environment in terms of working out a plan to ensure that any modifications to muffler systems are such that do not increase not only the noise level but also the amount of emissions. With the co- operation of the Minister of Environment we will be bringing the policy forward in this House soon. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1569 Day Care Review DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Serious staffing problems confront Alberta day cares. In April 2001 the Minister of Children’s Services told the House that the Clelland day care report was not yet ready to be tabled. Seven months later, in November, we were again told that the report was not ready, and 11 months after that, in March of this year, we were told that the report was still not ready for the House. My questions are to the Minister of Children’s Services. After 19 months is the Clelland report ready to be tabled? MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I think it’s fair to say that the Clelland report was part of a number of reports that have been done not only on the basis of day care worker thoughts and observations and recommendations but on work that we have done further to the Clelland report to look at a system of providing early child develop- ment within centres in Alberta that will make meaningful and effective differences in the lives of the people who subscribe to day cares. Let’s come back to the basic tenet of providing day care service in Alberta.

It is to provide supports to families who are the number one providers of services to children. Our system of providing subsidies to families who have low incomes so that they can make proper choices in day care has been the premise of being able to provide quality day care and qua lity assurance in day cares in Alberta. One of our findings at the outset through our work on the Clelland report pointed out something that’s been a very difficult hurdle in overcoming how we would do anything different in providing supports for families taking their children to day care. That was the fact, Mr.

Speaker, regrettable as it may seem, that some day cares charge the province more – in other words, through the subsidies of the family – than they would charge families who did not require subsidies. It was that discovery through the implementation of a process of learning about day cares and through the Clelland report that created a great difficulty. Mr. Speaker, if we were to examine the books of every day care to follow through to make sure th at this wasn’t a common practice – and I don’t believe it’s a common practice – we would have some difficulty in equalizing the supports.

What we will come out with before Christmas of this year is a report that has been approved that I think will satisfy many of the issues of day care parents or parents subscribing to services in day care and will be met favourably by day cares and workers throughout this province. DR. MASSEY: My question is to the same minister. Why won’t the minister share this publicly paid for Clelland report with Albertans? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be sharing only part of the information.

At the time we release our report and discuss the recommendations with Albertans, we will provide some background information relative not only to the findings in the Clelland report but the findings of other studies that we have done on this subject. DR. MASSEY: To the same minister: when can we expect to see the Clelland report? 2:20 MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, you can expect – and I said it in my answer to the first question – that before Christmas we will provide assurances to Albertans that th ey have been listened to, reports relative to all our findings on the day care issue, that we would bring them forward at that time. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Balancing Pool Shortfall MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In the govern- ment’s desperation to keep a lid on electricity bills just before the last provincial election, so many rebates were paid out of the Balancing Pool that it was left with a $345 million deficit. Three guesses as to who is going to make up that deficit. The Balancing Pool’s annual report says: “It is expected that a charge to consumers will be levied in the future to collect the anticipated short-fall.” My question is to the Minister of Energy.

Will the minister level with this Assembly and with all Albertans and tell us by how much electricity prices will have to rise when the $345 million Balancing Pool shortfall is added to customer bills? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Balancing Pool has announced that there will be no charge or credit to consumers in 2003. I think that’s the first important fact. Secondly, the deferral account changes each year, Mr. Speaker, based on the results of the Balancing Pool operations and on electricity prices from now to 2020.

In a marketplace that is in excess of $5 billion between now and 20 years from now there will be fluctuations, positive and negative, and the Balancing Pool, which is an appropriately skilled group, will advise the government and will advise consumers appropriately on how much credit and how much deficit sits in the Balancing Pool. The original decision to dispose of the assets that were held in the Balancing Pool was one that got consumers their very own money back as quickly as possible. It was paid out in a 12-month period. It was a prudent decision. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR.

MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, given that the assurance has been made that this will not be added to bills in 2003 and, further, given the minister’s assumption that bills would be coming down in 2003 and 2004, can he tell us approximately how big the deficit is expected to be in 2004 and how much that will translate into in terms of an incr ease in people’s power bills in the year 2004? THE SPEAKER: Well, that’s a lot of detail, hon. member. MR. SMITH: That’s correct, Mr. Speaker; it is a lot of detail. THE SPEAKER: Well, there is a provision for detailed information.

It’s called Written Questions. The hon. member. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please tell us: given that the black hole in the Balancing Pool deferral account is not going to get considerably bigger as a result of this year’s sales of the Clover Bar, Sheerness, and Genesee power contracts, what effect will that have on bills? MR. SMITH: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, that is substantial detail. We would be more than pleased to entertain a written question or a return.

I can say that the Balancing Pool has announced successful sales of certain tranches of 100-megawatt levels from the Balancing Pool into the private sector, and that will be added to the balance sheet, the income statement of the Balancing Pool, and on a regular basis and under generally accepted acc ounting principles the Balancing Pool comes forward and tells the government and all Albertans exactly what the status of their account is.

1570 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister wants to supplement? MR. NORRIS: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite has continued after the Energy minister for several days now, talking about energy deregulation and its negative effects. I’d like to actually offer some information to him that I think he’ll find very interesting. Since 2000, when deregulation started, the number of total immigrants into the province is up over 35,000, the number of international skilled workers . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, please. [interjection] No, no, no, no. Sit down. The hon.

Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Infrastructure Funding MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that our Alberta government emphasizes partnerships – I call it the G3 partnership – among three levels of government in developing community infrastructure and given that the in frastructure plays a vital role in the development of the economy and the life of Alberta and also given that a few projects in my constituency are applying for such funding, my question today is to the hon. Minister of Transportation.

In the G3 partnership what were the past year’s ICAP funding and achievements? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, Alberta has a very strong relation- ship, of course, with its municipalities, and in co-operation and consultation with those municipalities it was agreed that the primary priority of ICAP, the infrastructure Canada/Alberta program, is water and wastewater, followed by efficiency upgrades to municipal buildings. These are energy-efficiency upgrades. Then a second priority would be roads and bridges.

I’m proud to say that all those applications that have come forward were centered around upgrades to water and wastewater. Now, the whole ICAP is broken down into three areas. The first area is, of course, the entitlement that comes to every municipality based primarily on a per capita funding. Second, of course, is rural municipal green. Third is projects that are nominated by both the federal and provincial governments. On the provincial side most of the nominated projects are again related to water and wastewater.

As a result, we have greatly caught up with the badly needed projects in the province of Alberta with respect to the green side, water and wastewater. To date the total program is about $169 million or so. One point some million is administration; the rest all went into the projects. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To me the ICAP program is quite a successful partnership, so what I’d like to ask the same minister is: what about the P3 approach, that is the private/public partnership, in your areas of responsibility? MR.

STELMACH: There are, of course, further discussions with Transportation, Infrastructure, and Finance with respect to moving P3 projects for road construction and possibly vertical infrastructure, buildings. To date we have had good su ccess with private/public partnerships. A new bridge was opened just recently, 50 percent of the cost borne by the private sector. It’s a bridge over the Brazeau River. Of course, relationships with the Department of Transporta- tion in terms of private/public: we’ve outsourced to the private sector all of the engineering project design and maintenance.

That has saved anywhere from 28 to 35 percent in all of those categories. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Unemployment Rates MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An unemployment rate of 5.8 percent is not good news for all Albertans. My questions are to the Minister of Economic Development. What is this minister’s department doing to increase the employability and decrease the deplorable rate of unemployment for aboriginals in Alberta, since 17 percent of aboriginals, on average, and a whopping 27 percent of those on reserves are unemployed? THE SPEAKER: Now, hon. minister. MR.

NORRIS: If I may, Mr. Speaker? THE SPEAKER: Please. MR. NORRIS: Thank you. The basic premise that 5.8 percent unemployment is troubling is not correct. In actual fact, most economists will tell you that a 5 percent unemployment rate is relatively low by anybody’s standards. In fact, there’s a skilled labour shortage in Alberta, upwards of 30,000 people, due to a white hot economy, so if people don’t have jobs, it’s not for lack of trying. There were a number of questions in the member’s comments.

Referring specifically to aboriginal people, I have worked very closely with the minister of aboriginal affairs, and she may want to supplement. We have a number of programs ongoing with compa- nies such as Syncrude and Suncor to look at ways of getting aboriginals to not drop out of school and to get into apprentice training courses. I’d be happy to provide the hon. member with the information on those courses in due course. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. 2:30 MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister says that if people don’t have jobs, it’s not for lack of trying, how does he relate that to the average duration of unemployment for Albertan workers 45 years or older, which is 24 weeks long, compared to 13 weeks for the labour force as a whole? Those people are trying to get jobs. MR. NORRIS: Well, clearly, Mr. Speaker, I would never indicate that anybody who is trying to get a job isn’t trying in sincerity.

Not being in my mid-40s, I can’t relate to the hon. member’s question as well as she might be able to, but I have no way of knowing what happens on those job interviews or what they do in the course of their employment search, so how can I comment on that? I just can’t. MS CARLSON: Well, perhaps the smart-aleck minister can relate to this one: what measures are being taken to narrow the gap between the youth unemployment rate of a staggering 11.2 percent when the provincial average is 5.8? MR. NORRIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, last year it was rookie and softball and weakest link.

Now at least there’s “smart” in the title, so I feel like I’m improving a bit.

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1571 I have every belief in the Alberta economy. In fact, I know full well that in the Minister of Learning’s department there are pro- grams which accelerate people who don’t want to necessarily go to university to get into trades. We’re doing as much as we can through SAIT and NAIT, Mount Royal, and Grant MacEwan, which are some of the best institutions in all of Canada, and we will continue to provide opportunities.

But, in actual fact, the best way to provide job opportunities is to provide a low tax base, continue to provide solid government, which we do, and have the best economy in all of Canada, which we do. So jobs are plentiful. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to supplement. MS CALAHASEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really important to be able to address the concern that the hon. member has brought forward.

She is right in terms of looking at the unemployment rate of aboriginal people, but in this province we’re doing a number of things which are really important when talking about skill develop- ment and education. As a few examples, we’ve got the Calgary Urban Aboriginal Initiative Committee, which is collaborating with the Metis Nation of Alberta and Treaty 7 in development and implementation of a skills training program. That’s one example. HR and E and petroleum land administrator training, Stoney tribal administration, Suncor, Olympia Energy, and UtiliCorp.

HR and E, Treaty 7, and Metis Nation of Alberta zone 3 labour market development units project involving SAIT and Bow Valley College. First Nations resource training project involving four nations with industry, federal government, HR and E, and Petroleum Industry Training Service. Gift Lake employment training project working with PITS and Edge Petroleum. Petroleum Project 2000, Northern Lakes College, are training aboriginal workers in the High Level area for employment in the oil and gas industry. In fact, Alberta Learning has been involved with the Metis Nation of Alberta.

We’ve granted 44 native education projects for school jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I can go on with some of the really great projects that have been going on, but I think it’s really important to address that issue. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. minister, thank you very much for that supplementary answer. There is a provision in the Routine, of course, for ministerial statements, that the hon. minister might want to take advantage of. Hon. members, before we proceed, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MR. MASKELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 54 talented students from Afton school. Afton is an arts alternative elementary school, and I’m certainly looking forward to attending their Christmas production in a couple of weeks. Unfortu- nately, they’ve just left the Assembly. Accompanying the students today are their teachers, Miss Erin Wilkes, Miss Brianne McBride, Mrs. Sherri Larson-Ashworth, and teacher aide Ms Lisa-Marie Szyron. I’m also pleased to introduce parents Mrs.

Sarah Schwartz, Ms Teri Urquhart, Ms Elaine Daly, Ms Monica Velt, and Mr. Brian Noorman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly Anand Sharma. Anand is the chair of the Council of Alberta University Students and is in the public gallery. With your permission I would ask Anand to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. HUTTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me to rise today and introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a fine exchange student from Germany. Felix Wilke is a 17 year old from Minden, Germany, and he is staying with a wonderful family in my constituen cy, the Gordons, which includes one of our pages, Maya Gordon. It is a pleasure for me to introduce him, and if he would please stand and receive the warm welcome from this Assembly. head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. St. Albert Children’s Theatre MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this Assembly to acknowledge the incredibly spirited creativity and demonstrated artistic talents displayed by the adults and children in St. Albert Children’s Theatre. Boasting 20-plus years in growth, St. Albert Children’s Theatre is a program that is unique in concept. It teaches a wide spectrum of artistic facets including dramatics, vocals, and dance. This program is educational and beneficial to youth, giving them the opportunity to acquire a variety of skills that will last them a lifetime.

Opening on the 29th of November is their current production called Footloose, which is the story of a free-spirited kid who reminds a local minister that it’s no sin to be young. So I would like to acknowledge all those who are involved in St. Albert Children’s Theatre. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Cerebral Palsy Association Bikeathon MR. RATHGEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and recognize and congratulate members of the Alberta Cerebral Palsy Association who very recently c onducted a very successful stationary bikeathon.

Specifically, in the members’ gallery today are Ronda Blasco, Carolyn Brown, and Ralph Leibo from the Alberta Cerebral Palsy Association. Several members of this Assembly had the opportunity to participate in the stationary bikeathon. I was one of the participants in this fun-filled event, and Ralph, who suffers from cerebral palsy, was also a willing participant. The team that I was on was the celebrity team, and I might add that the Member for Edmonton- Castle Downs and also the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona participated.

The entire event raised in excess of $3,000 dollars for the Cerebral Palsy Association, and a good time was had by all. I’d ask all members of this Assembly to recognize the Alberta

1572 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 Cerebral Palsy Association for their fine dedication to finding a cure for this disease. Thank you. St. Mary & St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate St. Mary & St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, located in Edmonton-Ellerslie, and their congregation on celebrating two milestones in their history in Edmonton. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the church and the launching of their Canadian Coptic community centre project.

The mission of the centre is to serve the community by promoting the spiritual, physical, and emotional well-being of all through love, caring, and compassion. The CCCC is committed to building a healthy and safe community by promoting, supporting, and strength- ening family values and spirit. As a multifaceted wellness centre the aims are to provide advice, counseling, and programs on a variety of issues to satisfy spiritual, social, health, educational, and recreational needs. The centre will provide a community focal point and gathering place in a safe and supervised barrier-free environment.

They will facilitate events and activities through partnerships and co- operation with other nonprofit organizations. We wish them every success in the years to come. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. Redwater Area Forest Fire MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In May of this year we had a large forest fire near Redwater which threatened homes and possible life. Today they’re still putting out peat moss hot spots. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to recognize the great service our volunteer firefighters provided to our community.

They not only came from Redwater but from the whole of Sturgeon county and surr ounding municipalities. I’d like to recognize the excellent leadership provided by Sturgeon county fire chief, Bart Clark, and Redwater’s chief, Andy Makowsky, the numerous community groups and individuals for their assistance in preparing meals and providing security. Also, special thanks to the Edmonton garrison military personnel for providing relief for those volunteer firefighters who worked 10 to 12 hours, many of them high school students. Please join me in saluting all firefighters in this province for a job well done.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. 2:40 Northeast Alberta PDD Regional Conference MR. DANYLUK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The fourth annual northeast Alberta PDD regional conference was recently held in St. Paul and attended by people from all over Alberta. This year’s theme, Building Community Capacity for Individuals with Develop- mental Disabilities: Opening Our Hearts, Our Minds, and Our Doors, clearly reinforced and recognized the importance of community support, co-operation, and innovative ideas.

The conference also provided a unique opportunity and experience for our students from the regional high school to translate the board’s business plan into a multimedia art project inspired by Inuit story quilts. Congratulations to organizers Donna Desjardins, Don Schultz, Glen Christensen, the regional high school art students, and all of the other community partners for a job well done and another phenomenal success. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dunvegan. Edward and Stella Pimm MR. GOUDREAU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the 2002 Alberta 4-H Hall of Fame inductees, Edward and Stella Pimm of Berwyn. Induction into the Alberta 4-H Hall of Fame is the highest honour that 4-H leaders can r eceive. Edward and Stella Pimm joined the ranks of 55 volunteers inducted into the 4-H Hall of Fame since it began in 1971. The 4-H Hall of Fame recognizes men and women who have made significant contributions to the 4-H program, agriculture, and rural life. Their leadership exemplifies the 4-H motto of learn to do by doing.

They live out the 4-H pledge of service through their commitment to their club, community, and country through a ll activities and le vels of the organization. Mr. Speaker, Edward and Stella Pimm have made volunteering in the 4-H program a way of life for themselves and their family. In addition to their significant work with 4-H, they were honoured individually as Berwyn’s citizen of the year. In 1989 the Pimm family’s contributions to agriculture and rural community life earned them the Alberta farm family of the year award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr.

Chuck Chamberlin DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and recognize Dr. Chuck Chamberlin, an exceptional educator and environmentalist and a person of extraordinary commitment and passion for community service and common good. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods and I had the privilege of working with Chuck for many years at the University of Alberta. Chuck Chamberlin came to this province in 1969 from the University of Minnesota and joined the Faculty of Education, where he retired as a professor of education in 1995.

During his tenure at the U of A he published an impressive number of articles in scholarly and professional journals for teachers. After retirement from teaching, Chuck immersed himself in a cause most near and dear to his heart, the protection of the environment. He has served the Sierra Club for many years as a member and leader and served over the years as issue leader for Sierra Club’s urban sprawl campaign and encouraged municipalities to embrace the concept of smart growth. As well, Chuck Chamberlin has worked as a volunteer for many years both with my constituency office and my office at the Legislature.

His contribution has been a godsend. He has continued this extraordinary commitment until a few months ago, in spite of the fact that he has been battling cancer for many years. As I pay tribute to Chuck, I invite my colleagues in the Assembly to join with me in honouring this dedicated educator, passionate environmentalist, and model citizen. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. head: Statement by the Speaker Calendar of Special Events THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, as we’re closing the month of November and as we do have the process of Recognitions in the House, the chair would just like to advise that November, this week and other weeks, will also be covered. What invariably happens is that when recognition is given to some types of weeks and recogni- tion is not given to others, my office does receive inquiries why such is the case.

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1573 November is also Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Month, Diabetes Awareness Month, Family Violence Prevention Month, National Community Safety and Crime Prevention Month, Osteoporosis Month, Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. September to December is part of the United Way f und-raising campaign. October/November is our time for the March of Dimes campaign. October to December is the Christmas Seal campaign. The time frame October 21 to December 15 is the missing children calendar campaign. November 1 to December 15 are Girl Guides mint cookie weeks.

November 24 to 30 is National Home Fire Safety Week. November 24 to December 1 is National AIDS Awareness Week. November 25 to December 6 is White Ribbon Week. Hanukkah will begin on November 29 and go through December 7. November 28 to December 4 will be the time frame for the Toys for Tots cam- paign, and November 28 to December 24 w ill be the Christmas kettles appeal. November 30 will be St. Andrew’s Day. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. MR. JACOBS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I would like to present two petitions today, one on behalf of the Member for Livingstone-Macleod, who has received a petition from 73 Albertans living in his constituency petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government of Alberta to deinsure abortion. My other petition is on behalf of 20 Albertans from the constitu- ency of Cardston-Taber-Warner, again petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government of Alberta to deinsure abortion. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to present a petition signed by several members of the Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan constituency. These constituents request that abortion be removed from the list of insured services as provided by Alberta Health. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the petition signed by 20 residents of St. Albert and area urging the Legislative Assembly to “remove abortion from the list of insured services that will be paid for through Alberta Health.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m presenting today a petition signed by 83 Edmontonians, primarily residents of the Beverly Senior Citizens Lodge, petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to “not delist services, raise health care premiums, introduce user fees or further privatize health care.” head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. Bill 38 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (No. 2) MRS. NELSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Justice I’d like to beg leave to introduce Bill 38, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (No. 2). Mr.

Speaker, the elements of this bill have been reviewed by the members opposite, and we request that it pro ceed in the normal fashion. [Motion carried; Bill 38 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table five copies of the communique released by Canada’s provincial and territorial ministers of energy and environment at their joint ministers’ meeting in Halifax on October 28, 2002. The communique lists the 12 principles agreed to by the provinces and territories as being the necessary basis of a national plan to address climate change. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Innovation and Science. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this afternoon. I’d like to table copies of the 2001-2002 ICORE annual report. ICORE, of course, stands for informatics circle of research excellence. The second tabling would be a copy of the 2001-2002 Alberta ingenuity fund annual report. The third tabling is copies of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research triennial report for 1999-2002 in the form of a 2003 calendar as well as the financial statements for 2001-2002 in this session of the Legislative Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, copies of all these reports have been previously sent to MLA offices, and I encourage them to read them because these highlight some of the very successful things the province has done in the areas of research and medicine, science, and information communications technology. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have six tablings today.

First, the College of Chiropractors of Alberta annual report for the year ended June 30, 2002; the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association radiation protection program 2001 annual report; the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta radiation health administrative organizational annual report for the period of April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002; University of Alberta authorized radiation health administrative organization annual report, 2001-2002; University of Calgary authorized radiation health administration organization annual report for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002; Alberta Dental Association and College 2001 radiation health and safety program annual report, January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MR. LORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today in the Assembly to table the requisite number of copies of the review of school construction and operating cost committee’s interim report and preliminary findings which highlights innovative ways in which significant savings might be realized when building new schools in our province. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.

1574 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table five copies of the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta on the termination of pregnancy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. The first is a carefully handwritten letter from constituent Mike Wolfer in which he notes that at the present stage his AISH payment is $855 a month while his rent has just gone up to $475, and he can’t afford to pay for other things like fresh fruit.

My second tabling is also on AISH from Richard Gagne, and he is noting that “with the cost of living constantly going up and the AISH amount is not, people just can’t afford to get the [most] basic needs met.” Finally, a letter from the office manager of the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of Northern Alberta noting that on behalf of adult members of their association that are receiving AISH she would ask that we “appeal to our provincial government to see the need for an increase in benefits.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have one tabling today. It’s appropriate copies of a letter dated November 8. It’s from Ms Patricia Brownlee of Calgary and is addressed to the Minister of Environment, copied to me. She expresses in this letter deep concern about the Alberta government’s opposition to the ratifica- tion of the Kyoto protocol and its general failure to protect the environment of this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings today.

First I am tabling five copies of a speech deliv- ered by Senator Douglas Roche, formerly a distinguished Member of Parliament for the Progressive Conservative Party, entitled Demanding Conservative Government Action for the Homeless, addressing the Edmonton housing and homelessness conference.

Senator Roche pointed out that “the poor and homeless in Canada have been forgotten” by governments more interested in “appeasing big business than social justice” and that “persistence of poverty in Alberta . . . is outrageous.” He believes that it’s time that political leaders responded to the voices of marginalized people, calling for social reinvestment and a building of a more inclusive society. I have some other tablings, Mr. Speaker.

The first one is copies of an electricity bill from some individuals who own a recreational property at Square Lake, and they have only been there since Labour Day three times, but the charge for one month for their bill even though they’re using almost no power is $160. Secondly, I have another electricity bill sent to me by a seniors couple in Edmonton. They are paying $63 for a small condominium and live on a fixed income.

They write, “We could not have made it last year without the rebates and wonder how we will survive this year.” My fourth tabling is also an electricity bill for a three-bedroom house in Wetaskiwin. The charge there, including all of the administration fees, is 8.18 cents per kilowatt-hour. They have sent me several bills that show their electricity has gone up from $105 in July of 1999 to $500 in the year 2002. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have an electricity bill from a farm near Westlock.

The bill was $535 three years ago when there were two families and a significant amount of livestock on the farm, including 80 cows and 60 horses. It is now $600 to $900 per month, even though most of the livestock has now been sold. Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Documents THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the next member under this part of the Routine, the chair wishes to advise the Assembly that the sheer volume of the tabling by the Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, roughly some 6,700 postcards, requires a slight relaxation of the rules concerning tablings.

To meet the requirements of Standing Order 37(3) would mean that there would have to be a minimum of 10,000 pages to provide an additional four copies, which would consume significant resources. Members may recall that the chair relaxed the rule on December 8, 1997, with respect to a great number of cards presented during the national unity debate.

In keeping with the 1997 ruling, the original postcards will be kept in the Clerk’s office for the historical records of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta, but for this occasion, the library and the opposition will receive a copy of the first page with a notation that the original can be viewed at the Clerk’s office. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table 6,126 postcards which I have received on behalf of the Minister of Seniors at the National Housing Day of Action vigil on November 22, 2002. These cards, signed by concerned individuals in a concerted campaign, urge the provincial government to provide funding to construct necessary, affordable housing as quickly as possible and continue to fund emergency and supportive housing needs. Our thanks to all those who co-ordinated the campaign and to those who signed the cards. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Motions Climate Change Action Plan 33. Mr. Jonson moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, consistent with its commitment to protecting Alberta's environ- ment, hereby endorses and accepts the following principles agreed to by all provinces and territories on October 28, 2002, to provide the basis for the development of a national climate change action plan.

(1) All Canadians must have an opportunity for full and informed input into the development of the plan.

(2) The plan must ensure that no region or jurisdiction shall be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden and no industry, sector, or region shall be treated unfairly. The costs and impacts on individuals, businesses, and industries must be clear, reasonable, achievable, and economically sustainable. The plan must incorporate appropriate federally funded mitigation of the adverse impacts of climate change initiatives.

(3) The plan must respect provincial and territorial jurisdic-

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1575 tion.

(4) The plan must include recognition of real emission reductions that have been achieved since 1990 or will be achieved thereafter.

(5) The plan must provide for bilateral or multilateral agree- ments between provinces and territories and with the federal government.

(6) The plan must ensure that no province or territory bears the financial risk of federal climate change commitments.

(7) The plan must recognize that benefits from assets such as forest and agricultural sinks must accrue to the province and territory which owns the assets.

(8) The plan must support innovation and new technology.

(9) The plan must maintain the economic competitiveness of Canadian business and industry.

(10) Canada must continue to demand recognition of clean energy exports.

(11) The plan must include incentives for all citizens, commu- nities, businesses, and jurisdictions to make the shift to an economy based on renewable and other clean energy, lower emissions, and sustainable practices across sectors.

(12) The implementation of any climate change plan must include an incentive and allocation system that supports lower carbon emission sources of energy such as hydro- electricity, wind power generation, ethanol, and renew- able and other clean sources of energy.

And be it further resolved that this Assembly, in the absence of agreement on a national plan by provinces and territories, denounces any unilateral ratification by the federal government of the Kyoto protocol in violation of the principles of constitu- tional law, convention, federalism, and long-established practice whereby the federal government must adequately consult with and seek the consent of provinces prior to ratifica- tion of international treaties or agreements that affect matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or that require provincial actions or legislation to achieve implementation where imple- mentation will result in significant harm to the economy of Alberta and of Canada.

MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the re solution that is before the Assembly this afternoon represents a strong statement from Alberta in support of the 12 principles that all provinces and territories agreed must be respected in any national plan on climate change. These principles were developed at a joint meeting of environment and energy ministers in Halifax on October 28, 2002, and they signify that all provinces and territories stand behind a made-in- Canada approach to climate change. The 12 principles, Mr. Speaker, are not vague or ambiguous. They are clear statements that will protect Canadians’ interests.

They ensure greenhouse gas emissions are reduced across the country without sacrificing the economic prosperity of Canada. The fact that all provinces and territories, without exception, agreed to the principles speaks to the tremendous w ill across this country to tackle the issue of climate change in a way that makes sense for Canada and accommodates the unique needs of each province. Rarely is there such unanimous agreement among all provinces and territories.

But despite the provincial unity and agreement on this issue, the federal government still intends to ratify Kyoto by the end of the year and released its own Kyoto implementation plan on November 21, 2002. Mr. Speaker, this plan was not shown to the provinces prior to being released and provinces were not consulted about its content. Even more troublesome, Mr. Speaker, the plan does not ade- quately address the 12 principles agreed to by the provinces. In particular, it totally disregards three of the principles that are of great importance to the provinces, those being principles 2, 6, and 7.

These three principles ensure no region or jurisdiction bears an unreasonable share of the climate change burden. They emphasize that the federal government has an obligation to financially back its climate change objectives and not simply leave these costs to the provinces. They also recognize that benefit from assets such as agricultural and forestry sinks must go to the provinces.

However, the federal government plan also fails to answer the question of how the Kyoto targets will be met and at what cost, questions that provinces and Canadians have been saying must be clearly answered before a decision regarding Kyoto ratification is made. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the federal government has opted to act unilaterally on this matter, but it is certainly not uncharacteristic, particularly on the issue of Kyoto. The federal government has ignored the concerns of the provinces from day one.

Ottawa has not undertaken any meaningful consultation with the provinces about Kyoto, the issue of whether or not to ratify it, on the nature of ratification, and how it will be implemented. Provinces called for a first ministers’ meeting on climate change, but Ottawa refused. Then in September the Prime Minister took the astonishing step of announcing his intention to have Kyoto ratified before the end of the year despite the fact that meaningful consultations with provinces had not occurred. 3:00 Mr.

Speaker, some say that it is not possible for governments to co-operate on this issue because the federal position is so different from the position of most provinces. However, I believe a co- operative relationship on change is possible. There are certain examples where the federal government and provinces have worked well together. The development of a health care dispute mechanism was done su ccessfully, and we’ve worked co-operatively on the softwood lumber dispute. The G-8 conference held in Kananaskis, in southern Alberta, was a success.

I can attest personally to the fact that federal officials and ourselves and the two governments generally worked together to make that an overall success. All governments can work together on a made-in-Canada climate change plan that makes sense for Canada and the provinces. We can provide a framework represented by these 12 principles for that co- operation to begin. Alberta is certainly willing to tackle the issue of climate change. In fact, we are the only government in Canada to put our words into action.

Not only have we released a detailed plan on how we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, but we have backed that plan up with legislation which is currently before this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s approach will bring substantial but more gradual reductions in emissions. It involves actions aimed at reducing emissions, investing in research and technology, providing leadership, and adapting to change. It is based on partnership and working with industry, consumers, and all Albertans to address climate change.

The plan is designed to be cost-effective while achieving meaningful long-term emission reductions, unlike Kyoto, which will simply move the creation of emissions to other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, the fact that Alberta is the first government in Canada to release such a detailed plan is not surprising. Alberta has shown leadership on climate change for many years. We led the way by establishing Climate Change Central, a unique public/private sector organization that has been working since 1999 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta through research, education, and conservation measures.

1576 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 We have also taken major steps to improve the energy efficiency of Alberta government facilities. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Alberta has moved beyond the rhetoric and beyond the good intentions to meaningful action. We have said time and time again that we are willing to work with other provinces and the federal government on a broader Canadian plan to address climate change. However, the federal government’s response has been: it is Kyoto or nothing.

The Prime Minister and his Environment minister have been clear that they plan to ratify Kyoto before the end of the year despite the fact that many reports show that implementing Kyoto will result in significant harm to the economy of Alberta and Canada. At this point we are hopeful that the Prime Minister will recon- sider his position, but if he does not reconsider, Alberta has other avenues to explore within the legal and constitutional realm.

The province’s legal position will depend on how the federal government intends to implement Kyoto, and we do not yet have a clear enough implementation plan from them, even though two federal plans have been released. Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution the federal government cannot legislate within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The development, management, and conservation of nonrenewable resources is exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, Alberta can challenge the federal government if its implementation plan intrudes into Alberta’s jurisdiction.

There are also constitutional questions surrounding the ratification of Kyoto. Mr. Speaker, there is clear precedent in Canada that the federal government must undertake meaningful consultation with provinces and obtain their consent before ratifying a treaty that impacts the areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or where implementation requires provincial action. The federal government has done this in the case of many international trade agreements and many human rights conventions, but it has not happened with Kyoto.

Alberta’s Kyoto External Advisory Committee, chaired by former Premier Peter Lougheed, is looking at these legal and constitutional areas and will be providing advice to the Alberta government on how best to proceed. In the meantime, this resolution is one more step that Alberta can take to call on the federal government to stop its unilateral approach and work with the provinces and territories towards resolution of this particular matter. Mr.

Speaker, I understand that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of nine major conferences that have been held on this particular topic since the initial concept of the Kyoto accord was developed about, I believe, eight or nine years ago. The activity in Canada, of course, I think is indicative of our priority that we put on the environment, but we certainly have to develop a plan which will work and which will fulf ill the needs of Alberta and protect its economy. It has to provide for the needs of the whole nation and protect our economy as well.

One cannot help but wonder why at this particular point in time our neighbour to the south, that has certainly been examining the accord over the years, has chosen to not stop protecting the environ- ment but, in fact, is moving forward with their own particular plan adjusted to their particular needs. Likewise, our Commonwealth sister country of Australia has been involved for a great time and has with due consideration decided not to become part of the accord, although again, as I understand it, they are developing many environmental measures that will be designed to protect their climate overall.

It raises the question, Mr. Speaker, as to the viability of the Kyoto accord, and it emphasizes, I think, and underlines the importance of us as Albertans being part of a Canadian program which is going to be sure to provide the reductions in emissions that are sought but, at the same time, not damage our economy and allows the country of Canada to continue to grow and prosper and to be able to serve its people as well as the many countries that we are associated with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m happy to have an opportunity to speak to Motion 33, which is the government’s own 12-step program, as they see it, on climate change. As with any of these programs they are very, very good in theory, and the principles as outlined here sound excellent and, certainly, very motherhood and apple pie, but as with any of those programs the problems really come with the application and the

interpretation. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no hope that this government will interpret these principles as I see them. However, I still don’t have much hope that they will interpret them in a manner that most Albertans would find to be . . . 3:10 DR. MASSEY: Preferable. MS CARLSON: Yes, to them and acceptable to their families. So we go forward with this motion cautiously and take a look at what’s been said so far and what we hope will be said in the remainder of the afternoon.

The minister didn’t do very much to eliminate my concerns in terms of explaining the principles one by one and going into some detail on them. The way these principles are styled in the motion makes it very difficult to object to most of them in principle, and in practice it will be quite easy to manipulate them into the interpreta- tions we’ve seen and in the way the government perceives things. For instance, when the government talks about protecting the environment, what they really mean is mitigating damage by industrial activity.

I see protecting the environment as ensuring that we have a sustainable environment for generations to come. Same sentence, quite different

interpretations, and that is the basic problem with these principles as they are laid out. If we take a look at the background on this particular document, we see that at the joint meeting of energy and environment ministers in Halifax on October 28, 2002, a document entitled Provincial and Territorial Statement on Climate Change Policy was released at that time. The purpose was to establish principles agreed to by all of the provinces and territories that would guide the development of a national climate change plan.

These are the same ones as we see before us now, but not all of the 12 principles in the motion have received federal approval. There are reservations a bout three of them. As the province has said, acceptance of or willingness to negotiate on the principles as a prerequisite to co-operation with the federal government – there’s been little co-operation between this province and the federal government or other provinces at this point in time. So it becomes, then, very difficult to negotiate when you won’t sit down at the table or when, as we saw the Minister of Environment do, you rudely get up and leave.

If we take a look at the 12 principles and we take a look at the end of the motion where it talks about “in the absence of agreement on a national plan,” which is primarily denouncing any unilateral ratification, and then goes on to talk about how that plays out, what it’s really calling for is for the federal government to consult with the provinces. But there’s an inherent contradiction in this, Mr. Speaker, in that this province is demanding consultation from the federal government when they refuse to go to the table themselves. So how do they see this being resolved in a timely fashion? They don’t.

In fact, what they want is a fight. They are hoping that the advice they’re going to get – and I must say that I did see that huge

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1577 troop of senior lawyers from the Justice department coming into the Assembly yesterday after 5:30. I know that this province will go well armed to that particular discussion and hope that they will get a constitutional challenge ability, but that isn’t the right answer for Canada, and it isn’t the right answer for us as participants in a global community. So I really raise some cautions and some concerns about that and hope that this provincial government truly has a good- faith intent to negotiate, because so far it doesn’t look like that’s happening.

I’d like to take the principles as laid out here one by one and talk about them a little bit. The first one talks about: “All Canadians must have an opportunity for full and informed input into the development of the plan.” Well, that’s an excellent principle, and we ask for that kind of principle to be applied to all of the major decisions this provincial government makes. But how do we see them actually interpret that?

Time after time we see who they consult as being, for the most part, special-interest groups or consultation done through a process that is not open, that is not transparent, and that is not verifiable. So we would hope that when they take a look at this principle in this regard, they don’t hold the federal government up to a standard quite different from the one they apply to themselves. I’d like to see the bar raised for everybody. Let’s know what the consultation process is. Let’s know that it’s open to whomever wishes to participate.

Let’s know that it’s going to be open in a manner that is accessible to all people, that it is completely transpar- ent, and that the information they get is verifiable. So nothing less in this particular case than something equivalent to forensic audits would be satisfactory, in my opinion. Then let them use that framework as a model for all future consultations in this province on key issues. The second principle talks about the plan ensuring that “no region or jurisdiction shall be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden and no industry, sector, or region shall be treated unfairly,” and so on.

Also sounds very g ood when you first take a look at it, but we don’t have any

definitions. What do the terms “unreason- able” and “unfairly” mean? I know for sure, having listened to this government for 10 years, that their

interpretation of those terms is quite different than mine, and how they apply to sectors and individuals and consumers and the environment is also quite different than mine. So I’m hoping this afternoon that we’ll get someone who will stand up and define them, but it’s how these get applied that really matters the most. This government, the Alberta government, has said before that the determination of undue burden can only be made by the jurisdiction accepting the burden. Well, this just sets up every body for a huge fall. The principle likely applies to the terms “unreasonable” and “unfairly” as well.

If this is the case, then it’s likely that each region will claim that it has been assigned an unreasonable burden and that each has been dealt with unfairly. So, then, if each region, sector, and industry has exclusive rights to determine the reasonability and fairness of its treatment and no other authority, who can claim otherwise? So what happens then is that you get a huge deteriora- tion into a situation where no meaningful plan could ever be implemented. What we need is some sort of ability to, first of all, define those and then someone who can interpret whether or not that, in fact, has happened.

If everybody just takes their toys and goes to their corner and says, “It doesn’t work for me because it’s unfair,” we never get any agreement. So definitely we need some definition here, and there needs to be someone who can do the arbitration when people and industries and sectors and governments don’t agree. I don’t see any provision for that here, and that would’ve shown some leader- ship on behalf of this government if they’d have done that.

You know, if they’d just give us a cursory definition of those two terms and then propose some sort of an arbitration met hod, I would be prepared to support this principle. The third one talks about: “The plan must respect provincial and territorial jurisdiction.” This is going to be one, I imagine, that is going to be quite controversial as time goes on because it hasn’t been determined yet, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the federal government tackling environmental issues in our province does or does not exceed their jurisdiction or interfere with Alberta’s.

There have been ongoing disputes, there have been all kinds of discussions about this in the past, but we don’t have, I don’t think, any clear answer on this. Environmental issues are not exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government and, I would say, are also not the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, so let’s get some definition there too. We take a look at the fourth principle. It talks about including the “recognition of real emission reductions that have been achieved since 1990 or will be achieved thereafter.” Well, this is one that I really like.

I think that this is excellent to have in there. I would be very dismayed if it wasn’t in the federal plan when they roll it out. Certainly those organizations, companies, industries, governments who have taken action since that date, 1990, should have acknowl- edgment for the work that they have done, and there should be some way to measure that work and to give them credit for it. This to me should have been the first principle. It’s really a fundamental building block of any kind of plan being able to go forward and be achievable.

So this one is good, and let’s hope we see it at the federal level and that we don’t need to take too much time discuss- ing it. 3:20 The fifth one talks about “bilateral and multilateral agreements between provinces and territories and with the federal government.” Well, of course, to do that, you’ve got to go to the table. So if they’re not prepared to go to the table at this stage, what exactly does this particular principle mean ? I think it means they just get together and discuss it, but it could also mean: do you want subsid- iary agreements between the provinces?

So we would need to know then: what would those agreements look like? What would be in them? How would they expect to roll those agreements out? What would be any of the triggers for breaking the agreements? Those kinds of things we need to know, just more information. It just isn’t here, and we need to see that. The sixth principle talks about ensuring “that no province or territory bears the financial risk of federal climate change commit- ments.” Well, this is an interesting principle.

Does this also mean that no province or territory will bear the financial gain of federal climate change commitments, because, Mr. Speaker, there will also be some gains. We don’t see any talk about that. So I would suggest that you can’t have it both ways. If you won’t take the risk, then you can’t have the gain. So some of that discussion should be had. [interjection] Exactly. That’s exactly right. So do they really mean here that no one province should bear the entire or majority of financial risk or that none of the provinces or territories bear any financial risk?

Not laid out here and left wide enough open that it could be interpreted any way the provincial government wants to. Certainly, we think that not one province should bear all the risk, but there is some burden to be shared here. As consumers we will bear some of the cost and some of the risk and we will also benefit from those gains. As we see technological changes and innovations, we as consum- ers benefit from that. If we are sloppy consumers and overuse resources, then we will pay the price for that. That’s just normal market conditions. I’m not sure why a free market government

1578 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 would be so concerned about look ing at this kind of protectionism for their own risks, because they for sure are the first at the trough when there’s money to be had. So I have some concerns about that one. Principle 7: “The plan must recognize that benefits from assets such as forest and agricultural sinks must accrue to the province and territory which owns the assets.” Also, this is one that I heartily agree with and wish it had been closer to the top of the list.

It’s very reasonable, and for me it goes without saying that this is the way that this should happen and just makes good sense. It’s reasonable. It provides an incentive for provinces to maintain or develop the carbon sinks that will come under their juri sdiction and to sustain their own industries in the manner that they have in the past, so I think this is excellent. Principle 8 says that “the plan must support innovation and new technology.” In some ways this is a good principle. I like it too, and in some ways the province is moving forward on this.

But, you know, we don’t have a definition of “support” here. Once again, is this province asking the federal government to do something that they are not prepared to do? While we see money going into research and development and while we see the province looking at doing retrofits for their own buildings, we heard yesterday in debate a number of people in this Assembly who did not support dollars or funding or grants or loans for consumer retrofits. So, on the one hand, the feds are expected to support innovation and new technology. Does that just mean that they’re going to support it on the business side too?

What about the consumer side? This province is clearly on the record as not wishing to do that. I hope they change their mind. I hope that what we see is a full definition of innovation and new technology which includes financial support at both the federal and the provincial levels as we move through this transition time and that it truly reflects a real need being faced on the front lines by consumers today; that is, some sort of access to funding for retrofits. Retrofits are not cheap; they are expensive.

If we expect all of us to move forward carrying our share of the need for technology upgrades, there’s got to be some sort of provision in there. So let’s see what they do on this. Principle 9: “The plan must maintain the economic competitive- ness of Canadian business and industry.” What does this mean? The way I interpret it, it looks completely unrealistic, b ecause I don’t see in here any differentiation between rewarding businesses who are best in class and rewarding businesses who do nothing. Could we see some

definitions in here? As it stands, I don’t like it all. Principle 10: “Canada must continue to demand recognition of clean energy exports.” Once again, what do they mean? What does “recognition” mean? Does it mean global recognition? Does it mean money? Does it mean credits? There are no

definitions in here. So let’s get some information so that we can know what it is that we’re supposed to be debating in this particular principle. The 11th principle: The plan must include incentives for all citizens, communities, businesses, and jurisdictions to make the shift to an economy based on renewable and other clean energy, lower emissions, and sustain- able practices across sectors. It’s ironic that the government plan, as we’ve seen it, doesn’t include any of these provisions, Mr. Speaker, but they certainly expect the feds to ante up. Let’s talk about who should provide that kind of support.

We all know that the most effective support comes when it’s closest to the source. Do you want the federal government, who are very removed from the people, to develop these kinds of plans, or should that support come at the most direct level? What I would like to see are municipal funding grants to look at consumer incentives b ecause that’s the level of government that ’s closest to the people. It can provide often the most effective and efficient kind of service. So this government could show some leadership by taking a look at that. At the very least, they should look at doing it themselves.

Hopefully, they’ll do this. It’s my belief that on a global level what we see is that plans or laws that desire to meet non status quo targets have incorporated into them incentives. This government is quite happy to talk about that, particularly the Minister of Environment, who is on record as saying that. They see incentives for businesses and jurisdictions in the form of penalties, like fines and imprisonment and so on. So what does this government mean with this application when they talk about incentives? Do they want negative ones? Do they want positive ones? Are they willing to participate?

Are they willing to look at delivering incentives to the most direct level of availability and adaptability, which I believe is municipal government? It doesn’t talk about that here. The 12th principle talks about: “The implementation of any climate change plan must include an incentive and allocation system that supports lower carbon emission.” This one looks like it’s alluding to an emission credit trading system. I hope they read the Leader of the Official Opposition’s sp eech yesterday, because he talked extensively about how this could be put in place and be operable and move us forward on this.

So, of course, this is a principle we support because it is very consistent with the Official Opposition’s proposals. If they need more information or detail on that, I know for a fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition would be willing to participate in that discussion. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MS DeLONG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this resolution this afternoon.

I wanted to speak to this resolution because it touches on the best way to protect Alberta’s economy and environment, but it also shows a deep understanding of how federalism should work in this country. 3:30 I emphasize the word “should” b ecause the resolution stands in stark contrast to the debate going on right now in Ottawa. Well, we can’t really call it a debate; can we? What’s going on there is a Prime Minister unilaterally steamrolling any opposition.

It’s one individual on an extended retirement tour who has disregarded the concerns of the provincial governments that would be forced to implement the Kyoto protocol at the ground level. But in the resolution before us today we see a difference.

We see governments of all political stripes from all regions of the country and on different sides of the Kyoto debate who are able to agree on 12 common principles centred around one common theme: that the essence of federalism should be fairness so that no jurisdiction suffers for the benefit of the other and that no laws are passed without a healthy, honest discussion between all governments concerned. All provinces have agreed to the principles enshrined in this resolution. That should count for something. In my mind, it shows that the provinces have at least said: let’s ground this discussion in reality.

Given reality, Mr. Speaker, it will be clear why I don’t want to see a Kyoto plan; I want to see a Canadian plan tailored to Canadian realities. Today I want to highlight those Canadian realities so that we can all get a sense of what it is we’re really talking about. Canadian reality number one: Canada produces only 2 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse gases. Two percent; that’s it.

November 27, 2002 Alberta Hansard 1579 AN HON. MEMBER: What percent? MS DeLONG: Two percent, and by the way, it’s only 1/10,000 of a percent of the total worldwide Kyoto gases that they want to reduce in Kyoto. As it should be, Kyoto cheerleaders say: what does it matter? Well, it matters quite a bit when the United States, which produces about a quarter of the world’s man-made greenhouse gases, isn’t even a party to Kyoto. It matters when China and India, two of the world’s largest producers, have no reduction targets under Kyoto.

It matters a whole lot when we consider that roughly half of the world’s countries – half of them – who have less stringent pollution laws than Canada, are not party to Kyoto. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] There is no incentive for nonsignatory nations to reduce their output of greenhouse gases.

Given that many of them won’t sign on to Kyoto because they have no intention of reducing their output, what is the point of forcing industry to comply with an impossible time line meaning losses to their bottom line and our economy when not so much as a dent will be made in the overall amount of global greenhouse gas emissions? Canadian reality number two: we’re the only North American country with targets to meet under Kyoto.

The President and Senate of the United States had the wisdom not to ratify this accord, and because of this, while one of our major exports is clean energy to the United States, we would get no credit for those exports under Kyoto. It’s as though the protocol envisions a world in which the only countries that exist are those that have signed on.

Further, southern Ontario is flooded with smog from the northeast United States, so while we force automakers to either shut down or reduce manufac- turing levels, all in the name of ostensibly reducing pollution, more than enough pollution will come sailing over the border. This leads me to wonder: just how does Canada benefit by crippling our manufacturing industry if we’ll see no real improve- ments in the air quality?

What do we say to the plant technician who will lose his job because a narrow-minded federal government failed to work with the provinces or industry to get a deal done that works in the best interests of all involved? It’s time for the federal government to stop and take a breath and not ratify this flawed protocol. Canadian reality number three: we have no European bubble. It’s been speculated that countries in the European Union will not have to make any reductions whatsoever to meet the targets set by the Kyoto protocol. This is because they have signed on as a bloc of countries rather than individually.

So what we’ve got there is a mixture of robust economies like Germany, stagnant former eastern European economies, traditionally low polluters like Norway and other Scandinavian nations, and other countries which do not have a heavy reliance on manufacturing or resource development. This mixture allows the European nations to assess their strengths and weaknesses and make deals which at minimal cost result in minimal actual change in their emission levels. Essentially, these countries trade off with one another in order to strengthen the overall economy of the European Union.

For them Kyoto is about economics, not the environment. It makes them money while it breaks our back. All of this has drastic implications for the Canadian economy. While the other signatories to Kyoto are either European countries that have something to gain by signing the protocol or developing countries that have no targets, Canada is the only country that will pay a heavy price, and of all the provinces it is ours that will bear the lion’s share of that price. Let’s talk about our province, and let’s talk about some Alberta realities.

In doing so, let’s refute the critics on the front steps of the Legislature who say that we’ve done nothing to protect our environ- ment. Alberta reality number one: in 1990 we started provincial cleanup air strategy consultations so that all provinces could become involved in Canada’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Like the resolution before us today, that’s federalism at its finest. I’d argue that the federal Liberals could learn a thing or two. Reality number two: since 1999 the amount of electricity gener- ated from wind energy in Alberta has doubled.

We’ve worked with industry to develop new, cleaner ways of producing petroleum and natural gas. Flaring has been reduced dramatically. We’re working on new technology for clean-burning coal. Alberta reality number three: the Alberta plan, which has recently been developed by the Minister of Environment, provides a compre- hensive framework for reasonable, well-thought-out actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re protecting the environ- ment, and we’re ensuring that our economy does not take a hit that it cannot withstand.

We want to ensure that our ec onomy can not only withstand environmental action but can actually thrive under- neath new legislation. We need to work with the people who are most affected by it. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Alberta reality number four: Kyoto will mean economic ruin in this province. Some Albertans believe that Kyoto will only hurt the energy sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kyoto will affect all parts of the Alberta advantage, right down to the family-owned corner store. If we allow Kyoto to drive business from Alberta, it means fewer jobs.

It means less money in the pockets of Albertans. There is a better way, Mr. Speaker. Let’s work with the environ- mental groups and industry. As today’s resolution suggests, let’s keep getting together with other provinces to design a Canadian plan to accommodate Canadian realities. Let’s work with our researchers in our universities who are on the cutting edge of designing clean technologies for Alberta’s industry sector. Let’s have an open discussion with industry and work to set time lines and tough emission standards that, unlike Kyoto, they’re actually capable of meeting.

These are the initiatives we are focusing on. This is what other provinces are talking about. We’re talking about a plan that achieves real results, one that actually improves the environment, one that does not unfairly penalize the average Albertan for working hard in a successful province. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, and this is what this resolution is all about. I therefore support this resolution and call upon all the members of this House to do so as well. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 29(2) we have five minutes allocated for questions to the hon. member. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the member please tell us whether or not she would support a provincially supported retrofit consumer program, like Manitoba has had for many years or like the territories has had for many years, where there would be a fund available, either through a loan or granting program, for consumers to do retrofits on their homes? 3:40 MS DeLONG: That’s something that the private sector could handle very well. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands.

1580 Alberta Hansard November 27, 2002 MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the hon. member if she can tell us how much actual CO 2 has been reduced in the province since 1990 as a result of the steps that she claims the government took at that time. MS DeLONG: I’m not sure how much greenhouse gases have been reduced, but I am very aware of the pollution that has been reduced in Alberta since 1990. Our flaring program has been extremely successful working with industry, and we have by far exceeded our targets when it comes to pollution. MR. SMITH: I’d like to ask the member a question, Mr.

Speaker: if she would compare or care to comment on the efficacy or the efficiency of having Albertans reduce their electrical consumption during the peak time from 4 to 8 and using market price signals. Would that be a more effective way of doing it than offering direct cash incentives to the marketplace, thereby distorting the market- place? THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MS DeLONG: Thank you very much. I think that’s an excellent idea. That’s something that we would be able to institute without paying to either consumers or industry, and it would result in less pollution.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s clear that the member didn’t understand the question that I asked earlier. The point is not whether or not the private sector can provide services. The point is: can consumers afford to retrofit their homes? The answer is in large part no. Does she support a program, a loan or a grant, where consumers would have access to money for retrofits? MS DeLONG: I personally am replacing my two-pane windows with three-pane windows, and, yes, the payout is going to be over several years.

It is something that you can actually save money on in terms of retrofitting your home. Some of the easier things that save a tremendous amount of energy and reduce pollution have to do with just going around and finding the places in your home where air is escaping or where the cold air is coming in. There’s a tremendous amount that you can do to reduce your bills and reduce pollution that way. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Is the hon. member aware of the comments made by the Minister of Environ- ment, who clearly says that CO 2 is not a pollutant, that global warming and air pollution are two different things, and is she also aware that while flaring has been reduced in Alberta, the venting of natural gas – and that means a lot of methane, which is a more aggressive greenhouse gas than CO 2 – has actually increased dramatically? Is she further aware that since 1990 the amount of CO2 that has been emitted in Alberta has increased by over 30 percent?

MS DeLONG: Yes, I am very aware of the difference between pollution and greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are what we are breathing out right now, CO2. It’s nontoxic. It’s naturally occurring. In fact, plants cannot exist without CO 2. It’s something that is required in our environment, and it’s totally different from pollution. It’s pollution that we need to concentrate on much more than so- called greenhouse gases. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you rising to speak? MS CARLSON: No. A question. Has the time expired? THE ACTING SPEAKER: I believe the time has now left us.

Before I recognize the next speaker, may we briefly revert to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. MS CALAHASEN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today I have the great pleasure of introducing two wonderful ladies who are seated in our members’ gallery. One is from my constitu- ency originally, who has now moved to Edmonton. Her name is Kim Thibeault Caudron, and she hails from Joussard, Alberta, where the fair usually is held.

With her is a good friend of hers, Yasmine Shaheem, who is from South Australia, visiting Kim in Canada, so she’s been touring Alberta the last month to see what it’s like. I think we should give them a warm welcome from the Legislative Assembly. head: Government Motions (continued) THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make just a couple of comments on the information that’s been put forward in this motion. First, I would like to note that my constitu- ents in Edmonton-Centre support the ratification of Kyoto. AN HON.

MEMBER: Not all of them. MS BLAKEMAN: Well, the ones that live there and vote, as compared to the many MLAs that I’m delighted to have actually live in the constituency who maybe vote somewhere else, are very supportive of Kyoto. I want to put that on the record because they’ve made it very clear to me that they expect me to do that. Further to that, Motion 33 is not to be seen as an either/or situation. If it is in conjunction with the ratification of Kyoto, then we’re all for it. If it’s an either/or situation, there is not the support in the constituency of Edmonton-Centre for that.

The next thing I would like to say is: I’m not a federal Liberal. I don’t think there’s been a cheque that’s been cashed in my name to join that party. I want to make that clear, because I know that members of this House are very fond of constantly pitching back on us and attempting to have the provincial Liberals accept responsibil- ity for what’s happening on the federal level. I don’t think my colleagues here on the Conservative side are any happ

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20021127
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S2 20021127 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	20f0ca8350242cc933e56c7c567a7e816ef5c152

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