May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1515 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 7, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/05/07 hea d: C omm ittee o f Sup ply [Mr. Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d call the Committee of Supply to order. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 International and Intergovernmental Relations The Chair: Are there any questions or comments to be offered with respect to thes e e stimates? We would cal l on the Ministe r of International and Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Jonson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to discuss the estimates for the Mi nistry of International and Intergovernmental Relations and the 2003 business plan. First of all, though, I would like to introduce some people from my ministry who are with us this evening.

I f they might s tand when I go through the list: G erry Bourdeau, Deputy Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations; Garry Pococ k, assistant deputy minister, Canadian intergovernmental relations; Way ne Cliff ord, assist ant deputy minister, international relations section; someone that is not yet here this evening but is here in spirit, I’m sure, Helmut Mach, A lberta trade representative in our trade policy s ection; Susan Cribbs, director with the Canadian intergovernmental relations section; Lori Sajjad, director of corporate services; Kathryn Wiegers, communica- tions director; and Douglas Mills, my executive assistant.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s worth noting that I have just introduced more than 10 percent of the staff in my ministry. I think it is safe to say that we are a small or ganization with the capability of doing good things. Ex amples are the i mportant role m y ministry played and cont inues to play in securit y, Kyoto, softw ood lumber, and international travel. The m andate of the m inistry is to provide leadership in the ma nagement of A lberta’s inte rnational a nd intergovernmental relations. Much of our work is policy related and strategic, not program delivery.

IIR works closely with f rontline ministries to negotiate important agreements. We also plan confer- ences and missions for the Premier and other ministers. IIR is a sour ce of information and advic e to departm ents on managing the relat ionships wi th key playe rs. We take t he lead departmentwise in trade negotiations, on national unity issues, and discussions at first ministers’ meetings and Premiers’ conferences.

The ministry also lead s t he developm ent of gov ernmentwide strategies and policies for Alberta relations with other international governments, organizations such as the World Trade Organization, and federal, provincial, and territorial governments. There are three goals, Mr. Chairman, in our overall business plan. The first goal focuses on relations within Canada by “promoting the interests of, and securing benefits for, Alberta as an equal partner in a revitalized, united Canada.” We see Alberta effectively participat- ing in a Canadian federal system that better ser ves the n eeds of Albertans.

We believe that Alberta can provide effective leadership that supports a strong, united, and secure Canada. The ministry’s second goal focuses on “promoting the interests of, and securing benefits for, Alberta from strengthened international relations.” IIR wor ks on interg overnmental rela tionships th at facilitate the two-way flow of goods, services, people, and invest- ment between Alberta, the United States, and other trade partners. We also take a strategic approach to Alberta’s international relations to effe ctively pr omote the province’s interests and prioritie s to foreign governmental decision-makers.

The third goal of this ministry is “promoting the interests of, and securing benefits for, A lberta f rom gre ater tra de and inve stment liberalization, domestically and internationally.” Mr. Chairman, we do this by working to expand trade liberalization and foreign market access for Albertans t hrough internationa l trade and investment agreements. We als o support expa nded Canadia n internal trade liberalization to promot e the free flow of goods, services, capital, and labour across the nation of Canada.

IIR’s three goals support goals in the government of Alberta’s business plan that state that Alberta will have a prosperous economy and Alberta will have . . . An Hon. Member: They can’t hear you. Mr. Jonson: They can’t hear me? The Chair: Hon. members, apparently we’re having some difficulty hearing. With this wonderful, marvelous technological ear aid I’m able to hear the hon. minister, but apparently no one else is. So we would invite those who wish to co nverse very softly to do so and those who can’t to go out to the outer parts of the Chamber. We’re sorry for this interruption, hon. minister.

If our technology is failing us, you could speak louder. Mr. Jonson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve lost my touch since being a high school principal, so I’ll have to crank it up a bit. Mr. Chairman, part of our work is ensuring that Alberta will have a financially stable, open, and accountable government and a strong intergovernmental position in Canada. My ministry is divided into three sections: Canadian intergovern- mental relations, international relations, and trade policy. I will now take a few minutes to discuss the key initiatives in the year ahead for each of these sections.

The Canadian int ergovernmental relations s ection w orks wi th other government ministries to c o-ordinate relations between the province and the f ederal g overnment to ensure that Alb erta’s interests are prom oted and protec ted as an equal partne r within Canada. The

section takes seriously its responsibility for ensuring that federal initiatives respect Alb erta’s constitutional r oles and responsibilities, inc luding fede ral acti vities in ke y a reas such as health, environm ent, and soc ial progra mming. Thi s s ection w ill continue to work with other government departments to develop strategies in place on a range of federal/provincial issues, issues such as the fisc al imba lance, Se nate re form, and the three initiatives identified recently by the Premier.

These a re regularly scheduled annual first m inisters’ meetings, a guar anteed prov incial role in international agreements in areas of provinc ial responsibility, and Senators appointed from a list of provincial nominees. Implementa- tion of these suggestions by the federal government would begin to address the concerns not only of Albertans but of western Canadians as well. The climate change issue also rem ains at the forefront.

After winning important c oncessions from the fede ral gove rnment to mitigate the economic impact of the Kyoto protocol, we will hold Ottawa’s feet to the fire, at least figuratively, to ensure that they live up to the ir pr omises. Canadian intergovernmental relations will continue to provide support to the Ministe rial Ta sk Force on Security. As w ell, this s ection will continue t o provide str ategic support to the Prem ier at f irst mi nisters’ meetings, Premiers’ conferences, and other federal/provincial meetings. In the ye ar ahead we will w ork hard to e nsure that A mericans

1516 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 understand that Alberta values their friendship and will continue to welcome them warmly. Continued emphasis will be placed on our membership in o rganizations such as the Alberta-Alaska Bilateral Council, the Montana- Alberta Bilatera l Advis ory Counci l, the Council of State Governments – West, the Alberta-Idaho Task Force, and the Pacif ic Northw est Economic Region. We will enhance Alberta’s profile in key international markets by developing mutual relations, including f urther deve loping Alb erta’s nine tw inning relationships and revitalizing our relationship with the Mexican state of Jalisco. The

section will also work to renew international governance projects in Ukraine, South Africa, and Mexico to help them establish effective management systems in their governments. The tr ade policy

section a lso work s with a variety of Alb erta ministries and with other Canadian governments. It helps develop provincial policies on Canadian international trade agreements such as the agreement on internal trade and the various agreements that are dealt w ith at the W orld Trade Organization. The

section c o- ordinates the provinc e’s involvement in nation al or international trade disputes. They advance t rade opportunities for Albertans by working to remove barriers to trade. As w ell, the t rade poli cy

section provides analysis on trade figures and the economic factors that affect trade. Our trade experts will continue working with their provincial and federal government colleagues to find a long-term, durable solution with the United S tates on the softwood lumber di spute. A s you know, the Alberta government is very concerned about the impact of the U.S. trade actions on the Alberta forest indus try. The Alberta forests

section has been kept up to date on the process and continues to support our approa ch to this is sue. Whi le progre ss has been made, significant differences remain, Mr. Chairman. The same can be said about the wheat di spute between Canada and the United States.

While we work in co-operation with the federal government and the other provinces in developing agreements, let me be clear that the province actively represents and promotes our own provin- cial interests. 8:10 Staff will also continue to work to ensure that Alberta’s interests and priorities are clearly represented during the ne west round of World Trade Organization negotiations this fall in Mexico, espe- cially in th e areas of agriculture, trade remedies, and services. At upcoming international trade negotiations the trade policy

section will work to ensure the free flow of goods, services, capit al, and labour within Canada. I will now, Mr. Chairman, move on to the topic of the ministry’s budget and staf fing le vels. W e are a small ministr y in ter ms of budget and staf f. The 2003-2004 budget o f $6. 468 million has increased by $384,000, or just over 6 percent, from last year. This is the first increase in several y ears.

The increase allows us t o respond to three main fi nancial pre ssures: f irst, the 2 pe rcent governmentwide salary increase for staff; two, continued support for the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, based out of Ottawa; three , increased travel costs for international business missions. I would like to take a moment to touch on these increased travel costs. If you’ve taken an airplane anyplace in the past little while, you c ertainly k now how ti cket pric es have gone up beca use of increased security, fuel costs, and a number of other factors.

Travel by the Premier, cabinet ministers, and Alberta government officials is vital to e xpanding tr ade and bring ing fore ign inves tment to Alberta. Alberta is a globa l player, with 40 pe rcent o f our job s coming from exports. I t is impor tant for A lberta and t he Alberta government to be an active player in the world economy in support of our private sector. Expanding i nternational trade is only one benefit of international travel.

Relationships that Alberta builds with other jurisdi ctions ar ound t he world th rough in ternational trave l allow the Alberta government as well as Alberta’s public and private sectors to share and learn best practices. They also result in stronger and more enriching cultural and educational ties. As for s taffing i n my ministry, IIR has 53 sta ff, and that, Mr. Chairman, is unchanged from the previous year. Finally, a brief outline of how we measure the ministry’s perfor- mance.

Since the ministry outcomes are often long term or depend on externa l factors, they are quite frankly difficult to present as quantitative data. We solici t i nput from a varie ty of government ministries and other sources to help us measure how we’re doing and to identify areas i n wh ich we c an improv e. We m easure our performance through clie nt survey s, seconda ry ec onomic and sociodemographic indicators, and polling results. The ministry takes all of these measures and provides a detailed narrative record of our achievements, activities, and documents such as our annual report.

We also do assessments on key initiatives after major conferences, trade negotiations, or international missions. These documents help us track our progress in meeting our goals in both an effective and efficient manner. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on the e stimates for International and Intergovernmental Relations. Our new business plan and b udget lay ou t how we will m eet these priorities for the province in the y ear ahead. I would be ha ppy to ans wer any questions or hear com ments from my Legislature coll eagues.

In advance, I would like to commit to answering any of the questions in written form that I’m not able to address tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an. Happy to be able t o participate in the debat e tonight on Int ernational and Intergovern- mental Relations. I, too, would like to welcome al l the minister’s staff that are here this evening and thank them and those who aren’t here tonight for the work that they do.

Over the ye ars I have had some opportunity to work with some of them and some staff from other departments who have been attached to IIR on va rious trips and events that they were organizing, and they’ve always been very friendly, very easy to work with , and certa inly very good a t their work. So thanks to all of you and to those from the department that aren’t here. Most of my remarks tonight will focus on issues as opposed to the budgetary amounts because a s the m inister sa ys, it is a s mall department in terms of dollars.

Mostly I’m happy to see that there’s a bit of an increase there because I think it’s been squeezed a little bit over the last couple of ye ars. Nev ertheless, t hey need to be accountable as all other ministries are, and we will be asking some financial questions. My first c omments tonigh t are goi ng to be about PNWER, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. Mr. Chairman, it’s been my honour over the years, for many years, to have gone as the opposi- tion representative. I’ve been here for 10 years.

I think I’ve gone there for nine years, attended nearly every conference, and have been quite supportive of the mandate of PNWER and Alberta’s leadership role in that organization over the years. I’m sorry to say that I won’t actually be p articipating any longer. [int erjection] Well, there’s been a real c hange in direction i n terms of how t hat all-pa rty committee has been organized and presented. In the past, pa rticularly under the le adership of the Me mber for Livingstone–Macleod, opposition members hav e be en warm ly

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1517 welcomed and encoura ged to bec ome involved. In f act, in th ose days it was not unusual for opposition members to chair committees and to take a really active participating role in a variety of functions. When I go to conferences or am a part of any kind of a committee, I go to work. I go to bring something to the table, not just to warm a seat and not jus t to be the token opposition representative.

Especially when I’ve been involved with an organization for years, I believe that I have something to offer, to bring to the table, and I have always worked in a very co-operative fashion and tried to meet the goals of what the Alberta mandate is and work to that end. Even in the early days of PNWER, when there was sometimes a question about whether or not it was supportable, I certainly held the line on the government position an d gave it some time, and I think that it was proven to be an accurate assessment of what was going on.

But this last time a t PNWER prov ed to be not quit e such a n interesting experie nce. I certai nly ex perienced what it’s like to become a token opposition member. At the conference I was very interested in getting actively involved in the comm ittee that was dealing with invasive species. I participated in those discussions, talked to our PNWER chair, and I believed at that time was given some direction t hat I would ta ke a par t in mee ting the rol e for Alberta on the invas ive spec ies discus sions ov er the w inter and getting ready for the ne xt summer session.

In fact , I mist akenly believed that I would be the Alberta chair for that.

Subsequently, I had some correspondence and discussions with the departments and people who are from Agriculture who are working in that field who I have worked with for many years on invasive species, getting ready to pull some information together, only to find out that meetings had been called a nd a chair f rom Alberta had be en appointed, and of course I was conveniently left out of any discussions or any informa- tion. [interjections] Now, I can hea r a lot of members groaning about that , but y ou know it’s very important, I think , if you’re going to say that you support all-party committees on a national level or an international level, that in fact you put your money where your mouth is and do something more than just straight token representation.

So I figure that my time is better spent other places where I can actually make a diffe rence and make a contribution. So I will n o longer be supporting any ac tivities with PNWE R, and I do tha t regretfully because I think that it was an interesting experience. Even though it was time away from my family and at a time of the year when there are many other things that you could be doing, I found those experiences. . . [interjection] I don’t care where it is. It’s abysmal that people could be invited to participate and then completely left out of the loop when the discussions are had.

So, at any rate, I won’t be participating. Given the small numbers we have on this side and the lack of interest that the government has shown, I doubt very much if we will in the future have opposition members participating at that le vel. I w ill be quite ha ppy to tel l anyone who’s interested why I’m no longer involved. Mr. Lund: Because Liberals are an endangered species. The Chair: Minister, you’ll get a chance to speak later. 8:20 Ms Carlson: Yes. The Minister of Infrastructure is correct.

In this province there is no doubt that Liberals are an endangered species, and I have s ome know ledge w ith regar d to them be ing both an endangered species and the kind of invas ive spec ies that t he government members might represent and so really had an opportu- nity to bring something to the table there. [interjection] He agrees with that statement, Mr. Chairman, and I’m happy to see that after all these years we finally find something that we can agree on.

Never- theless, that’s the end of that role for me, so I’ll share that informa- tion with the minister and his department, and they can do whatever they want with it, which is probably nothing. My first question for the minister is in terms of lawyers’ expenses and involvement in interna tional dispute s.

Can you tell us how much you budget in a year for legal fees, a percentage, or how you decide what the projections might be for what the expenses can be on international disputes – and parti cularly I’m thinking of things like softwood lumber or countervailing duties – and then also how you choose the legal firms that represent y ou? Is it on a historical basis? Do you c hoose by ten dering? D o you choose by are a of expertise? Do you bring in more than one law firm sometimes to be able to expand the knowledge? Do you choose from the north and the south or alternate or both?

Whatever information you can share with how you make those decisions. So if you could answ er that question first for me. Mr. Jonson: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would just comment briefly on the member’s first t opic. Certa inly, as far as PNWER is c on- cerned, we have valued the opposition members’ – and I’m talking about plural over the years – participation in that particular organiza- tion.

Perhaps, as it is noted, it is not the place tonight to go into the specifics of your concern, but I did want to put on record that if there are certain approaches that have to be corrected in this regard, I will certainly undertake to look into it. With respect to lawyers, Mr. Chairman, this is an item that I think will be best answered with a written reply, which I undertake to give to you. Three different direct ions that we have w ith respec t to lawyers.

With respect to major, long-term assignments such as that which Claire Reed has with respect to the softwood lumber f ile, as I understand, she is on retai ner, and then according to th e amount and intensity of the actual product which she’s expected to perform, there would be additional compensation. With respect to much of the ongoing activity of this department, however, we do have the Department of Justice. As far as I know, they’re not billing us directly yet, and that is our major source of expertise.

Then it is quite true that on specific items – for instance, with respect to the analy sis that w as done on the Kyoto iss ue – lawyers who were deemed to be expert in that field and the law that surrounds that issue of interna tional agr eements wer e retaine d. That’s as fa r as I think it would be useful to go tonight, a nd I’ll provide a more detailed reply to you. The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. m ember, I wonder if we might as a com mittee agree to a brief reversion to Intr oduction of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests The Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many members in this Assembly may be of the opinion that I am the expert on issues of low-income benefits such as AISH and SFI. It’s time to come on the record because the man who actually did most of the thinking for the low-income review comm ittee is today with us in the mem bers’ gallery. I would li ke to intr oduce to y ou and through y ou to the members of this House Mr. Vasant Chotai, who is an employee with the Human Resources and Employment department and indeed one of our utmost authorities on issues of low-income benefits.

I would ask him to rise and accept the warm welcome of this Assembly.

1518 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 International and Intergovernmental Relations (continued) The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, M r. Chairman. Befor e I star t my com- ments again, because the minister has a soft voice and because lots of people are talking, we’re having a really hard time hearing him. I mean, I’m only sitting 10 feet away, but also some of our other members, the Me mber f or Edmonton-G lengarry, can’t hea r him either. An Hon. Member: Earpieces. Ms Carlson: Yeah. You know, there are no more.

They’re ordering one now, but in the meantime we can’t hear the responses to half the questions. Just to put that on the record. Okay. So thank you ver y much for that, and I look f orward to your written answer in a little bit more detail. Now I’d like to talk a little bit about the countervailing duties on durum wheat. What’s the Alberta government’s position on this? I think that i t would be m y understanding that you take a slightly different position than the Wheat B oard, so can you tell me what your position is and what you plan to do over the next year with that dispute?

The Chair: The hon. minister, who is going to practically shout into the microphone. Mr. Jonson: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the trade dispute regarding wheat, this is a matter that rests with the Canadian Wheat Board in term s of the pr eliminary decisions that ha ve been m ade with respect to an alleged subsidy in the marketing of wheat. Our role provincially, which is very, very minor, is that in the preliminary determination it was stated that there may be some subsidy involved in the historic ownership of grain cars through the heritage savings trust fund by the government.

I think the calculation of the damage or the hurt that was alleged to be experienced was something in the neighbourhood of .3 percent or something, and that is something that we will oppose as this case works its way through. We do not feel that the determination really is justified, but that is something that we will have to carry forward on behalf of government and work on that part of it. But I’d just like to emphasize that the major case is one with the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board is in a formal sense a creature of the federal government. The Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an, and tha nk you, Mr . Minister, for that answer. Can y ou explain to us in a little more detail the mystery of how you actually work with the other depart- ments in the government? We know that your mandate is to provide strategic direction, but it’s hard to actually follow the process through to know w hen you ta ke the le ad on i t an d when other departments would take the lead on it . So general ly do you have attached specific people to specific departments?

Is there a kind of benchmark when you wi thdraw f rom an is sue and just let the department handle it? We don’t really understand the process. I think it’s good what you do. I thi nk strategic direction is very needed, but I don’t really understand how you decide to lead an issue or to work on an issue and when to w ithdraw and how people are assigned. Mr. Jonson : The simpl e answ er is that we did it a number of different ways depending upon the circumstances. First of all, one model would be that that was shown with respect to the creation of our security task force.

In t hat case, I served as chair of that particular interdepartmental initiative. The people of our staff who were most familiar with that area served as support to the ministerial task force. Very k ey, of course, was Muni cipal Affairs and their people in that area. The Solicitor General was extremely important as well, and a number of other departments were involved.

We led or co-ordinated the overall effort, worked on making sure the goals were there and they were pursued, but a great deal of co-operative effort took place and the staff were assigned accordingly. 8:30 With respect to the G-8 – this is another example – again it was a multidepartment effor t, particula rly inv olving ourselv es and the Solicitor General’s department, and of course there we worked with the officials, particularly the city of Calgary but also the surrounding jurisdictions, in terms of bringing that to fruition. A major part of that was the area that Mr.

Cliff ord was inv olved in in te rms of intergovernmental relations, and he did a g reat de al of w ork co- ordinating, organizing, identifying problems or gaps in the overall plan that evolved between ourselves and the federal government. That is a ge neral descr iption of two different cases that I can provide for you this evening. Just one other thing. We’ll take the whole area of trade in which we work very closely with the Hon. Mark Norris’s department.

We have on s taff an individual such as Helmut Mach, extremely well versed in the who le area of international trade, and he works with that particular department on the various issues that come up in the whole area of trades disputes, whether it’s s oftwood lumber or whether it’s some aspect of promoting Alberta. If he’s called upon, he’s there as probably one of our best people in that particular field. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So if I understand it, it’s like identifying a consulting project, sending a team out to work with the other organizations and pulling together the targets and meeting the objectives. Okay. That’s good. Thank you. Can you tell us, Mr. Minister, how many dollars you’ve got tied up in yo ur budget with the feds for the next year working on joint projects or subjects? One that comes to mind might be any work that you’re doing with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Could you list what they are and tell us how much money you’ve got involved? Mr. Jonson: I would hav e to indicat e, Mr.

Chair man, that I will provide that to the mem ber. I cann ot pull together a figure in my mind this evening to answer that properly. The Chair: Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to that. It’s a more detailed answer, anyway, that you could give in writing than this evening, and that would be helpful. In this spring session, I think it has been, we heard the E nergy minister musing about joining OPEC. Are you doing anything on that? Would you le ad that ch arge, and h ow would you move forward? Who would pay in that case? Mr. Jonson: Am I am correct that you said OPEC?

Well, I do not recall that rem ark, an d if the Minister of Energy said it, he can answer the question.

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1519 Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Chairm an, reluctant as I am to s peak on another ministe r’s estimates, I do f eel com pelled to corre ct the record. At no time had the Ministry of Energy nor the government of Alberta ever contemplated joining OPEC. What simply occurred, through the cou rtesy of the m inister of energy for the s tate of Venezuela, was to express interest in us att ending as an obse rver. This is not unusual, uniq ue, n or would it be a firs t time for the province of Alberta.

So to ensur e distinct clarity, no musing was ever done by this minister with respect to joining OPEC. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an. Well , unfortunate ly, I didn’t b ring the spe cific reference with me this evening, but t he Minister of Energy can be sure that I w ill, and he ca n answer that question in the House, then, at some future date. I’d like to talk about Kyoto now just a little bit. I think, first of all, some general information.

How is it progressing from your perspec- tive, and what happened to lead you to the decisi ons where the provincial government has somewhat softened their stance? Now, you briefly talked about some concessions that you had negotiated with the federal government. If you could give us more detail on that and anyt hing els e th at may b e rele vant to that particular discussion. Mr. Jonson : Mr.

Chairm an, with respect to the overall K yoto initiative or Kyoto topic I’d like to emphasize that we still have on record as a government the overall approach that the government felt was t he respo nsible wa y to go; that is, w e said tha t we w ould develop an Alber ta plan. T he Premier mad e this sta tement very clearly, but a very, very important statement that was made by our Premier was that we want to sit down with the federal government. We have the Alberta plan.

We want to work step by step with the other provinces and territories and the federal government to come up with a reasonable, workable, practical approach to environmental protection g enerally a nd the whole area of greenhouse gases in particular. So that is the overall position and still remains, as far as I know, the position of the government. However, the federal government did move ahead with what we regarded as a very tight timetable. They insisted upon ratifying it. We’re all familiar w ith the efforts that were m ade in Parliam ent, particularly by Mr.

Mills, the Member of Parliament for Red Deer, to try and bring some sense to this o verall debate in the rus h for ratification. The federal cabinet did ratify the accord, and w e are faced with having to deal with the reality that the accord is going to go ahead in s ome form or othe r.

It wa s only re asonable that the government, particularly led by the Minister of Environment, would be involved i n working hard to m ake sure that whe n the accor d began to be implemented, we were having our input, having our say, and I think it is fair to say here this evening that we do feel that we have influenced some of the decisions that the federal government appears to be moving ahead with in a favourable manner. So our overall concern is still out there.

There are still problems with respect to it, but the interests of Alberta have to be taken into consideration as ratification moves ahead, and as t he Minister of Environment has indicated, we are moving ahead with legislation on a thoughtful, measured basis, and this legislation will be necessary for our abil ity to protect Alberta’s interests and to have the least possible negative impact on Alberta. 8:40 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thanks. I’ll just finish up with one more question and then give someone else a chance . Thanks , Mr. Ministe r, for tha t broad overview.

I know we have more detailed questions on Kyoto, but I’ll let someone else ask them. My last issue is on Kyoto, but it’s in reference to an

article that was in today’s Globe and Mail. I’ll just give you a little background on it. It was about “Insurers turn up Kyoto heat,” and it was about what’s happening in Europe. Big Europe-based insur ance companies are consi dering denying some cove rage to co mpanies that aren’t doing enough to re duce output of the gases believed to be contributing to global warming.

Amid fears of shar eholder lawsuits against emitters of so- called greenhouse gases [some insurance companies plan to sta rt mailing out questionnaires that] will ask customers of directors-and- officers insurance what they are doing to pr epare for im minent government restrictions. So, then, depending on what the answers to the questionnaires are, they’re going to decide whether or not in fact they’re going to cover them.

They say that if “a client isn’t doing enough, it may consider refusing the company directors-and-officers liability coverage when, in a few years, [some] countries begin implementing those rules.” It’s an interesting article. Maybe I’ll photocopy it and send it to you. My question fr om this is tha t I t hink this is something you’re going to have to put into the process for decision-making. So, then, what process will you co-ordinate with the federal legislation and your legislation so that shareh olders or director s or owner s of companies won’t get caught between two sets of legislation or . . .

The Chair: I interrupt this to let you know that there is a problem with the PA system. In a few moments some loud noise will occur, and then we wait for a minute, and they’re going to retry it. Just don’t be alarmed at whatever noise is made and know that ultimately it will be in our best hearing interests. Anyway, in the meantime, Edmonton-Ellerslie, please continue. Ms Carlson: Thank you.

Re ally my question is tha t perhaps you haven’t considered this as a possibility at all, but it seems like what’s happening there may be considered at sometime here in the future, so could you give any initial comments on it, and will you build it into your process? When I take a break here, I’ll take a photocopy and send it to you. Mr.

Jonson: Well, I would invite the member, certainly, to send me a copy of the article, and I must indicate that the first that I’d heard of this speci fic activity of the insuran ce industry in the EU was brought to my attention today at the luncheon that we had with our guest that was introduced here in the Assembly. We will undertake to follow up on what may be going on there, but that’s as much as I know about it. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an.

I’m pleased to have an opportunity to sp eak to the In ternational an d Int ergovernmental Relations estimates this evening and to as k a few q uestions of the minister. I’d like to a sk some questions, if I might, about K yoto. The minister has made some comments about the Kyoto protocol, but I’d like to ask: what was the role of the depar tment vis-à-vis other departments? Did they provide logistical support? Just exactly what other depar tments were i nvolved w ith the Ky oto protocol reaction? What steps, I gue ss, is the d epartment taking to address Kyoto down the road?

What are the plans for the future with respect to the agreement? Is the department involved in helping Alberta meet the

1520 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 targets under the Kyoto agreement? If that’s the case, what strategies has the department developed to deal with the federal government with respect to the protocol now that it’s been passed? What options were developed by this department regarding negotiations between Alberta and the f ederal government in putting tog ether a pla n on Kyoto? Were t here econom ic impa ct studies relativ e to Ky oto? Were they done by this department, or were they done elsewhere, does the minister know? Is information from those studies available for the general public?

So those are some questions about the Kyoto protocol. I’d like to also ask the minister about the task force that is headed up by former Premier Peter Lougheed with respect to advising the government on the Kyoto protocol. Could we have some informa- tion with respect to the cost of that committee to operate? What is the status of the committee right now? What’s it doing?

Could we have, I guess, a bit of a report on the activities of the committee, the number of people involved, and the kinds of resources that are being put at their disposal and the kinds of outcomes that the government is looking for fro m that committee? Again, is there a time line for tabling the information from that committee? What is going to be done with respect to letting Albertans know ab out the w ork of the committee and the kind of progress that they might hope that that committee would be able to report?

There have been a number of international trips by various MLAs in a variety of government departments over the last year or two. Maybe if the minister is willing, I would stop, Mr. Chairman, and see if there is some reaction t o the firs t two top ics, the Ky oto protocol and the Lougheed committee. The Chair: Before we call upon the hon. m inister to respond to those questions, I wonder if we might just take a momentary break while the audio engineer does whatever magic he or she may do. So if we could just wait for a moment, please.

I think we’re now ready to operate, so we’ll call upon the hon. minister to respond. Mr. Jonson: Mr.

Speaker, first of all with respec t to the questi on about the funds i nvolved, I do not have thos e dollars a nd cents before me, but certainly we would be prepared to provide you with answers in that regard. 8:50 Secondly, I think it’s important to just think back to the time that this whole Kyoto issue, to put it politely, blossomed forth as one of the major issues before the nation of Canada but a lso specifically Alberta, and w e felt that it w as impor tant to look a t the whole situation regarding the possibili ty of implementation and t o bri ng together a cross

section of people very knowledgeable in the various aspects of dealing with industries that emit greenhouse gases. So we had an individual on the committee from labour, we had people who were directly invo lved in th e oil and gas indust ry, we had people involved in some of the org anizations of petroleum and indus trial business, and if I recall, it was about a 12-person committee.

It was chaired by Prem ier Loug heed, and I attende d, and norma lly the Minister of Environment was there as well, and we just went through what were going to be the implications of Kyoto and how we could best constructively but forcefully respond to what was happening at the federal level with respect to its implementation. The current stat us of the committee is I think y ou’d say – “on hold” is probably not the best term. It’s still there. We still will look to it for advice if there are additional issues that come forward with respect to the whole matter of Kyoto implementation.

Another area in which they provided advice was with respect to the structuring of Bill 37, I bel ieve it is, whi ch is bef ore the L egislature but not planned for passage until the fall. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, M r. Ch airman. I’d start ed on some questions about international trips by various MLAs and cabinet ministers who go abroad with the legitimate purpose of promoting the interests of the province.

Sometimes I don’t think that w e’re fully informed or even fully appreciate the value of those trips and what has been gained by the members being involved in them, so I wonder if the minister could tell me if there is any sort of overall co- ordination governmentwise of international trips, or is each depart- ment responsible for the ir own plan? Is there sort of a standard expectation?

For instance, I know t hat when w e go on parl iamentary tri ps outside the province, when we come back we’re expected to submit a report of some kind, not usually extensive, but some sort of report to indicate what was learned o r what the ben efits of the tr ip were, particularly to taxpayers. Is there any such requirement, and is that requirement standard across departments? Is there ever any follow- up in te rms of the ef ficacy of t he trips and whether we’re really getting good value? Are we going to the right places? Is there, as I said, a co-ordinated approach?

Is there any co-ordination between International and Intergovernmental Relations and the Public Affairs Bureau? In terms o f the tr ips t hemselves, wh o is the one t hat ends up deciding that they should be undertaken? Is there ever a comprehen- sive reporting of the trips in one place, or are they sprinkled throughout the departments? So any information about the trips and the co-ordination and the reporting that comes from them.

I know that particularly w hen ministers are going, there’s usually a press release saying that this is where the minister and his st aff or t he entourage are going, this is their itinerary, and this is what we expect to accomplish. Again, is that standard across government? Is that something that w e can expect for every trip? When the Premier travels – for instance, when he was in New York in the latter part of last year – it gets reported that the Premier is there, usually in the media.

Again, in terms of the outcomes of the trip we often aren’t privy to the longer range goals that have been achieved, so I wonder if that’s dealt with in any way by the department or within government as a whole? I’d like to talk just briefly about the Senate. I wondered if steps have been taken to advance the elected Senate? Now, the m inister made some c omments about it, but just whe re are w e? I th ink they’re poised to appoint a new Senator f or the provinc e. Is intergovernmental affairs involved in that appointment in trying to influence the actions of the federal government?

Just what is the state of discussions with the government over that? Just one, maybe two, areas and then I’ll leave the questioning for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman. In terms of exporting water, which department is being consulted on this issue? Again, it’s an interest of several departments, so what is the role o f International and Intergovernmental Relations in the expor t, and wha t background work has been done examining the issu e? Is t here a policy that’s being developed?

We hear statements every once in a while, but is there a comprehensive rationale for the position that the government is going to take or has taken on water export? The last topic for now that I’d like to ask some questions about is the whole business of counter terrorism. Can the m inister give us some idea of who the department is consulting with and the kind of crisis management plans th at are in place should something unto- ward happen? T he border was c losed in southe rn Albert a for a

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1521 while. When that happens, w hat kind of pro tocol is in place to assure that that’s don e orderly and the inte rests of Albertans and Canadians are protected? Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jonson : If the member doesn’t m ind, I’ll go backwards in answering the questions.

With respect to counterterrorism and the role that we have through our overall security task force, as I believe the Solicitor G eneral ha s indicate d a number of tim es in this Assembly and at other locations, we do depend upon the Canadian intelligence service, CSIS, and the RCMP for advice and updates and the provision of information as needed in their judgment.

Of course, in terms of the overall counterterrorism plan, as y ou call it, we are also organized in such a way through the security task force that we call upon all of the law enforcem ent agencies in the province to f ulfill their roles as pr ovided for in the pl an. I thin k, however, it’s important to appreciate that the counterterrorism effort has to be something that is well planned, well organized, only used when necessa ry, and ot herwise out of sight, out of mind, not becoming a subject for the reporting of details sort of day by day.

That’s the nature of this type of an initiative. 9:00 With respect to water export, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member has some sp ecific concern here. I’m quite sure – and I was just reviewing it a short time ago – that the policy of Alberta is no bulk water sale, tr ansfer, et cete ra. I know that p articularly in tim e of water shortage this always starts coming up, sometimes in a positive light and sometimes in a negative one, but the policy is still there in terms of out-of-country bulk water transfer. Travel. We have a process in government whereby travel is co- ordinated through t he Prem ier’s office.

Our departm ent is ve ry much involved i n commenting and he lping and f acilitating where needed or where requested. We do, as you’ve indicated, provide usually a preliminary news release as to what the purpose of the trip is, where it’s going, what the objectives are. Then, in all the cases that I’m familiar with, any major type of trip is reported on in terms of its results or what was accom plished through a news release as well. I would not say that that is true in 100 percent of the cases because the re ar e tri ps t hat occu r eve ry y ear. Perhaps the re’s nothing significant to report.

It’s just business as usual, and on we go. But, yes, we do report on our travel. It’s not secret in terms of where we’re going. If there was an inquiry as to what the specific cost of a given trip was, we could provide that. We don’t normally go into those details, but it’s not something that we’re in any way hiding. Dr. Massey: Just one follow-up, Mr. Chairman. I unders tand the crisis management. I mean, for the plan to be effective, parts of it have to be private.

I guess the t rick is: how do you as sure the opposition and Alber tans t hat the plan is there, that if t here are problems, there is a good plan in place to react to that? I’m not sure there’s an easy answe r, but at some p oint there has to be some accountability to people just to make them feel secure. Mr. Jonson: Well, I take the member’s comments seriously, and I’ll see if there ’s a bette r way of us being able to try and g ive t hat assurance without in a negative way affecting the potential effective- ness of the overall plan. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr.

Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hav e just a few questions for the minister, and these are in regard to the business plan. I’m referring first to page 271, y our key result 1.3 strategy. This goes on to say: “Develop policy recommendations and strate- gies on national unity and other related issues as they emerge.” My first question in regard to this strategy is: what policy recommenda- tions has International and Intergovernmental Relations developed on national unity?

Along the same theme, given the recent strain in relations between Alberta and the federal government, what steps is International and Intergovernmental Relations prepared t o take to alleviate this current strain? I think we all realize that we have to have a good work ing relationship with the f ederal government, and the animosity that certainly appears to occur has to be diminished. We’re certainly not pointing at one side or the other here, as in the majority of disputes it’s rarely totally on one side or the other. So if the minister could please inform us about these relations.

Also, has extra funding been provided to Inte rnational and Intergovernmental Relations to deal with this current strain in federal/Alberta relations? Continuing with the business plan on page 271, a gain with key result 1.3 strategies, I’m looking at the bullet: Work with the fe deral g overnment, o ther pr ovinces, the p rivate sector and other key stakeholders to update and strengthen coordi- nated poli cy responses to iss ues re lating to the secur ity o f the province and people of Alberta. If the mini ster could pl ease inform us: w hich stakeholders is t he department working with?

Who in the private sector has been assisting International and Intergovernmental Relations on matters of security?

Again, just to reinforce the issue that the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods had brough t up, I th ink that A lbertans certainly are more aware and certainly more concerned about safety since the events over the last two years have occurred. [Ms Graham in the chair] As well, on page 272 of the business plan – and I’m looking at key result 2.1 strategies – it goes on to say: “Take a leadership role on issues of Canada /U.S. integ ration (incl uding harmoniz ation of standards, common perimeter, border crossing).” If the minister could please tell us if hi s ministry has consulted with any outside business groups or industry stakeholders on the issue of Canada/U.S. integration.

If there h ave been som e consultat ions, if he would please provide us with a list of those who have been consulted. On the same key result 2.1 strategy, what strategies have Interna- tional and Intergovernmental Relations employed to take a leader- ship role? In other words, is there any proof the minister can provide that we have taken a leadership role as the bullet indicates that we would do? As well, how has Internat ional a nd Intergovernmental Relations helped to ke ep goods and s ervices as w ell as pe ople flowing across our border during the past year?

We certainly know that because of international events security at the borders has tightened up and the flow of traffic certainly has slowed. Continuing with the business plan, again under the key result 2.1 strategies, it goes on to say that we w ill “provide intelligence and policy advice to Alberta stakeholders on U.S. issu es and develop- ments.” If the minister could please tell us: who is this advice provided to? How does one access this advice? Do you have to be in big business, small business, or what? Who has the availability to this information? If he could also tell us: what form does this advice take?

So with those few questions, I’ll take my seat and listen to some responses. Thank you. 9:10 Mr. Jonson: Well, Madam Chairman, first of all with respect to the

1522 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 matter of the pro vision of advice the qu estion is: do we offe r and provide advice to the private sector? Yes, we do if they’re looking for advice as to how to make contacts with respect to a certain type of business in a country where they would like to have the doors opened in term s of opening up business. We’re not t he onl y department, however, that works in that particular area. Economic Development, the Hon.

Mark N orris’s department, is very m uch involved when it c omes to providing or f acilitating busin ess connections and agreements and trade back and forth between our province and other parts of North America and the world. You mentioned the whole issue of cross-border activity. We have participated as a prov ince through our department in the CanAm cross-border alliance, I think it’s called. I guess you’d have to say that it’s a formal organization which involves representation from the United States and from Canada. There have been a number of meetings held.

One w as a m ajor confe rence in C algary, that I remember attending, where we had very, very good representation from the United States. There has been back-and-forth discussion about the various security issues that exist at the border. Also, it’s been very, very useful because the emphasis there on both sides of the border is that we want to keep trade going, that we want to see tourism keep goi ng, that we want to s ee individua ls reasona bly treated, but on the other hand that cannot be done in a manner which jeopardizes the safety of, you might say, the countries involved.

So that particular initiative is still going forward. You raised a question w ith respect to our partne rs in term s of developing our ove rall security plan, and they are industry, local governments. Local governments, of course, have always been very, very key to our overall disaster preparedness program, and they are linked into the overall security initiative in the province. The energy industry was early identified as one which could possibly be a target of terrorism, and the ene rgy industry has been, I think , ver y c o- operative in terms of working towards a good plan in this province.

I can go down the list. There are certain things with respect to other industries such as agriculture that have to be looked at as well. Of course, Alberta Health and Wellness is very much one of the players that potentially would be ne eded in hav ing a good s ecurity an d disaster response program. Now, what did I miss here? I think I miss ed one topic i n th e middle there, Madam Chairman. Mr. Bonner: I do have an additional ques tion ju st on the security and disaster services.

Obviously, when we look at this whole area, there has to be so me co-ordination with the military, whether it be security or disaster services. They do play an important role, particularly when we look at these events of a larger, major disaster. If the minister could please tell us how his ministry works with either the military or with the reserve, whoever it may be, and just expand a little on what our role is in working with those two organizations. Mr.

Jonson: I think, Madam Chairman, all members realize that the command of the armed forces and the command of the re serves is under the auspices of the federal government. I think the best way to describe the relationship is that if in the course of some develop- ment it is identified that there is a threat so significant that it would require, in the judgm ent of our o verall leadership in our sec urity plan, the h elp of the federa l governm ent through the RCMP or through the armed forces, then w e would h ave to make that case.

But I think that what you’re asking, you know, is: is the plan the type of plan where it’s a given that they’ll be involved in whatever potential threat is identified? They’re not under our command; that’s what I’m trying to sa y. We have to ide ntify through the pr otocol that’s involved in the overall plan the justification for their use. The Acting Chair: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Norris: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to rise to talk for a moment to the minister about th e effectiveness of his department.

As some of the hon. members opposite alluded to, our departments do a lot of work together, and it’s an honour to work with them. I see several of them sitting up there who I’ve traveled with, and for the amount of work that goes into arranging those trade missions, which I think are vital to Alberta’s future in exports, they should be commended, and the minister should be commended for the work that he does in that regard. To that end, I di d have a c ouple of questions for the minister regarding plans for the future. We talked about . . . Ms Carlson: Point of order, Madam Chairman. The Acting Chair: Yes.

Would you like to elaborate? Point of Order Questions by a Minister Ms Carlson: This is a question of explanation. I’m not sure what the citation is. Traditionally in this House ministers have not asked questions of mi nisters duri ng budgeta ry deba te. The time is restricted for all private members, and there have been former rulings in this House. Mr. Norris: No. Ms Carlson: Yes. And there have been some discussions with the House leaders about this. So I want a ruling on this, please. I think we need Parliamentary Counsel involved. The Acting Chair: Are your remarks just about concluded? Mr.

Norris: They are, but I think that as a member of this Assembly I have every right to talk to the minister on any case. We’re allotted specific time, and I’d like to use it to ask the minister som e ques- tions. But in the essence of goodwill, Madam Chair, I will get to my questions, as you have discussed. [interjection] Well, you’re just wasting time. The Acting C hair: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, unless you can quote some authority for why the hon. minister can’t make a comment – I don’t know if he has any questions – I don’t think you’ve made a me ritorious point of order.

A fter the first hour in estimates there is no restriction on government members speaking, so I don’t find that you’ve made a point of order. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Could I just mak e a comment then? We’ll take this u nder ad visement, and I’ll follow this up at a future date. The Acting Chair: Very good. Hon. Minister of Economic Development, continue. Debate Continued Mr. Norris: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and to the House. I appreciate the indulgence in hearing my comments.

As I was saying, the hon. mini ster is responsible for the interna tional trade portion and the off ice r epresentation, and our department, as I said, has worked closely in the trade aspect. We have seen recently a number of events federally that have caused us to think that we might need

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1523 a position in Wa shington, D.C ., or Ottaw a, Ontario, for m ore intergovernmental and less trade, and we recognize that the expertise that your department has is really where that should lie. So I’d like to get some sense f rom the minister as t o if there are any plans to open some form of office in Ottawa or Washing ton or both. If so, how will that be staffed, and what role would IIR play in that? The other question that I had is with regard to the ongoing trade negotiations that we have in the United States.

Would an office in Washington, D.C., with somebody from your department facilitate quicker responses to those concerns? 9:20 Mr. Jonson: Madam Chairman, first of all I’d like to emphasize that our relationship with respect to the United States has always been one of IRR ’s and the Al berta government’s priorities in term s of making sure that i t is a posit ive one and tha t we cont inue to be supportive of our great neighbour to the south and hopefully work to make that be a reciprocal arrangement as well.

In direct ans wer to the minis ter’s question, right now we’re working hard at build ing on existing multilateral and sectoral relationships and arrangements that exist between the two countries. We’re looking at a number of trips or missions to the United States dealing with various topics of mutual interest , and as a long -term initiative we’re giving consideration to more formal representation in Washington, D.C., than we currently have. So the initiative that the minister has asked about is one that is in the thinking an d probably before too long the formal planning stage. The Acting Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I ha ve a few more questions on the business plan for the minister. I’m referring to page 272, key result 2.2, and the statement goes on to say: Provide information and advice to clients and partners (A lberta offices, Canadian posts, foreign embassies and consulates) so they can help promote Alberta’s economic, political and social strengths internationally.

So if the mi nister could please provide us with a list of which Canadian posts, foreign embassies, and consulat es the department has been in contact with and how the department interacts with these various agencies abroad. As well, if the minister could also provide us with what type of inform ation is usually provided to these Canadian p osts abroad, whether it’s econom ic inform ation on Alberta, tourism, whatever else. I have one last question for the minister, and this would be from the business plan on page 275, Approval Ratings: Intergovernmental Relations.

According to the graph the approval rating for intergov- ernmental relations dropped from 73 percent in 2001 to 64 percent in 2002. Can the minister explain this drastic drop in the approval rating? Thank you. Mr. Jonson: Well, first of all with respect to the app roval rating, Madam Chairman, I’m pleased to report that it’s gone up again.

So I think th at probably with a number of the troubling iss ues in the world during that particular year along with the dispute over Kyoto implementation and so forth and perhaps what might have been judged as less than ideal progress with respect to dealing with some of those issues, the measures may have dropped a bit, but they have certainly rebounded. I thi nk that that is an indica tion that the department and all sides of government have been w orking effec- tively to deal with those issues that were current in that particular year.

The mem ber h as a sked for what amounts to quite detailed information on – I expec t what is required is the vario us missions that we’ve taken and what the goals of the missions and so forth were, and we would undertake to provide a written answer with re spect to that, Madam Chairman. The Acting Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think I just have one more question left, and that’s on the issue that we hear the Premier occasionally muse on, and that’s the separation issue.

How does your department deal with this situation when it comes up, and have you taken any steps to address the issue from any perspective? Mr. Jonson: Well, Madam Chairman, certainly this particular term, separation or separa tism, comes up pe riodically in the history of Canada. It seems to have been a recurring phrase; it’s not just the province of Alberta that is sometimes thought to be the originator of such comme nts.

I’d like to state very, very strongly that Albe rta wants to be a participant, a province, a very significant part of this great nation of C anada, a nd we a re not involv ed in conside ring separation. The Premier has very clearly articulated that we want to be a province. We want to be a participant in a renewed an d strengthened Canada where there is a better balance in terms of the allocation of the funds that are collected from the nation, in terms of its application to the provinces. We want to certainly see the whole area of the Senate discussed and hopefully a plan for improvement developed there.

We have as a province a number of initiatives that we feel strongly about. I expect that we’ll be into a time right now with the new govern- ment of Quebec where there have been indications that the newly elected Premier, Mr. Charest, has some ideas about how to strength- en the nation of Canada to develop a better balance in t erms of powers and access to revenues within Canada to make sure that the jurisdiction over programs and responsibilities within the nation of Canada that are clearly the responsi bility of the provinc es is respected by the federal government.

So we are taking the initiative under the leadership of our Premier of looking for a renewal and an improvement in the over all rela tionship betw een th e pr ovinces, particularly the western provinces, and the federal government. Ms Carlso n: Madam Chair man, we thank the minis ter for hi s questions tonight and look forward to the m ore det ailed written responses. That concludes our questions on this department. The Acting Chair: Thank you.

After considering the business plan and proposed estimates for the Department of International and Intergovernmental Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, are you ready for the vote? Hon. Members: Agreed. Agreed to: Operating expense $6,468,000 The Acting Chair: Shall the vote now be reported? Hon. Members: Agreed. 9:30 The Acting Chair: Any opposed? Carried. The hon. House leader. Mr. Hanco ck: Thank you, Madam C hair. I’d m ove that the Committee of Supply rise and report and beg leave to sit again.

1524 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 [Motion carried] [Ms Graham in the chair] The Acting S peaker: I’d like to recognize the hon. Mem ber for Medicine Hat. Mr. Renne r: Thank yo u, Madam Speaker. The Com mittee of Supply has had under consideration certain resolutions, reports as follows, and requests leave to sit again. Resolved that a sum not exceeding the following be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, for the following department. International and Intergovernmental Relations: operating expense, $6,468,000. The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Does the Assembly concur in this report?

Hon. Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker: Any opposed? So ordered. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I wish to call the Committee of the Whole to order. Bill 28 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 28, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003.

The House amend ment that is bei ng circulated t o Bill 28, the F OIP Amendment Act, is nec essary to clarify the power s of the Privacy Commissioner in reviewing the decisions of the motor vehicle registrar to release information from the motor vehicle registry.

Section 16 of the FOIP Amendment Act requires . . . The Chair: Thank you for moving it. We will call this amendment A1, and we’ ll no w a wait copies to a rrive at the desks of hon. members. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Cha irman. I’ll just make a few comments relevant to the amendment that has just been circulated in the House. The amendments are minor in nature; however,

section 16 of the FOIP Amendment Act requires a change so that the request for the commissioner to review a decision of the registrar can only take place on the initial dec ision of the regist rar for a specified purpose. Also, the amendment for

section 24(

b) is just for clarifica- tion.

Section 25 is amended to have

section 24(

b) come into force on royal assent so that the necessary regulations could first be put in place. And last, the net effect of the amendment is to make it clear that people can only appeal the decisions of the registrar that are set out in the notices. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That should summar ize the amend- ments. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strikes me as being quite typical of the w hole problem involved w ith t his committee and h ow t he bill evolved.

This should have been something that was figured out before the bill was submitted to the Assembly. Mr. Smith: Agreed. Ms Carlson: Well, I see that the Minister of Energy agrees with me. There are enough staff and resources, and there was enough time for thi s co mmittee to bri ng fo rward a go od, qua lity bill. This specific concern around the disclosure of information from personal driving and motor vehicle information was a key concern that was heard from times prior to this comm ittee having even met , so it’s amazing that the government couldn’t get it right.

I have a que stion abou t this am endment t hat I’m hoping the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs can answer before w e have further debate, a nd that’s in A (

b) where it talks about: in the proposed

section 74.3( 2) by str iking out “ person ask ing for the review was given notice of the decision” and substituting “date the notification of the decision was published.” Could he give us some information on what the expected publication process is? Where? How often? Who is going to see it? Could he clarify that f or me, please? Mr. Lukaszuk: Certainly. Mr. Chairman, the parameters would be outlined in the regulations, and part of this amendment is to allow the cabinet a nd the council to develop r egulations for it.

So the parameters for that particular question, in answer to the question of the member, would be contained within the regulations, so it would be premature for me at this point to comment on the parameters as they will be set forth by the cabinet in the forthcoming regulations. Ms Carlson: Well, Mr. Chairman, that makes me hate this amend- ment even more. Why does everything have to be done by regula- tion behind closed doors? Why can’t we just have a process where the decisions are made and set out and people reading this amend- ment and seeing it will know what the process is?

We just want to know where the information is going to be publ ished. Maybe the minister could add some light on this particular issue. Mr. Lukaszuk: I am sad to h ear tha t the Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie is not pleased with the bill. However, I must assure y ou, Mr. Chairman, that our primary concern was to satisfy Albertans and not the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. However, the reason that some of the decisions are being put into the regulations and not into the act itself is to allow the legislation more flexibility.

The Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie will appreciate that this is a rather fluid piece of legisla tion. She w ill apprec iate that this partic ular act is not reviewed every half year or so but rather in much longer periods of time, so there is a requirement to have flexibility built into the act. Now, having parameters for such things as notification in regulation will allow the minister and the department more flexibility, and they will be able to adjust them to satisfy those who actually utilize the act, which may very well be, q uite often, members of the Of ficial Opposition. Thank you. 9:40 The Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1525 Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs what . . . Mr. Smith: Is that the guy who called me Baghdad Bob? Mr. M ason: The Minister of Ene rgy asks about que stion peri od today, and I can tell him that I sat bolt right up in bed last night at 4 a.m. with that brain wave. I had a hard time getting back to sleep. I was so excited, Mr. Chairman, just that I woke up in the middle of the night with an idea. Who hasn’t had that happen to them before? The Chair: Hon. member. Mr.

Mason: The chairman quite rightly calls me back to the subject at hand. I’d like to ask the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs what happens in the interim before this

section is procl aimed and t he regulations developed? What happens then? Perhaps he could answer that or maybe the minister responsible could. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Chairman, we’re not talking here about a long period of time. We anticipate that this piece of legislation will be proclaimed someti me ar ound the 20th of t his month, a nd the regulations will be developed prior to that. So there is not a long gap of time that we’re looking at. Mr. Mason: What happens in the meantime? Does it m ean that people have no protection against their information being transferred for commercial purposes in the interim? Mr.

Lukaszuk: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Edmonton-High- lands is aware of the fact that we are not now in a situation where we don’t have

an act that’s in effect. We have FOIP legislation that’s in effect and in power right now, so the powers entrenched in that act will prevail up until such time that the new legislation is proclaimed and regulations developed. The Chair: Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much for your flexibility, Mr. Chair- man, on this point. My concern is this – and I t hink the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs picked up on a g ood idea in the committee – an d that is th at people give their information f or motor vehicle purposes for specific reasons: for the registration of their vehicle and that it ca n be insured a nd all of the legal aspects that go with the regulation of motor vehicles. Yet what happens is that this information is provided to commercial operators that have no relation to those functions, specifically parking lot companies, insurance compa nies, a nd so on.

They use this inf ormation f or commercial purposes, but the information was not collec ted from people for that purpose. They are not informed that this information will be used for those purposes, and quite rightly the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs along with some others of us in the committee thought that this was a problem, but of course it steps on the toes of some pretty big interests who are used to getting this information so that they can operate their b usinesses. So the com mittee brought for ward the reports.

Now, what my concern is here – and if somebody can lay this to rest, I would very much appreciate it – is that there’s no necessity on the part of the government to ever proclaim this section. My concern here – and I could be wrong, and I’d be happy to be corrected – is that this pa rticular

section m ight not ev er be procl aimed a nd therefore jus t not be in the bill. That w ay the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, who made this motion in committee, looks good, doesn’t lose any face, but the government doesn’t have to step on the toes of commercial operations that have come to depend on this information, and that’s what my fear is about this amendment, Mr. Chairman. If somebody can set my concerns to rest so that I can sleep soundly through the night, then I would be very happy. Thank you. Mr. Coutts: Mr. Chairman, let me answer this question so that the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands can have a restful sleep with both eyes closed and not one ey e open. The provisions in the act itself that are unrelated to this partic ular amendment that the hon. Member for Edm onton-Castle Downs is bringing f orward on th e amendment – the select committee of the Legi slature put into the report that cri teria should be developed for developing access standards, and we are developing those access standards at this point in time through a ste ering committee between Transportation an d Government Services.

Those access standards will be put in the form of regulations that the very legislation we’re discussing here tonight is enabling to happen. So I will have to proclaim the act to make sure that the regulations are abided by. Let me reassure you, hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Highlands, that that i s going to be proclaimed just as soon as we possibly can. The transport safety act is going to be proclaimed on May 20 of this y ear, so it’s going to have to be done before t hen. Ba sically, that’s the same answer to Edmonton-Ellerslie’s question earlier. Ms Carlson: Mr.

Chairman, I just want the Member for Edmonton- Castle Downs to c onfirm that what he re ally intended to say here tonight was that this is a fluid piece of legislation. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure what connotations or denotations the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie is trying to derive from the term “fluid.” What I’m saying is that this piece of legisla- tion is enabling legislation allowing the minister and the cabinet to develop the parameters and the scope of the regulations which will be attached to the act.

So, in that sense, indeed, it is fluid because it is an enabling piece of legislation allowing for regulations. [Motion on amendment A1 carried] The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar on the bill. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly interesting to see Bill 28, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, work its way through the Legislative Assembly. It was a learning experience for this hon. member to be a part of the same committee that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs served on that led to Bill 28.

There were certainly a lot of i ssues brought forward by v arious group s fro m across the province, and some of those issues were reflected in the report that cam e before the Ass embly and some were not. There were many m atters d iscussed, a nd there w ere m any opinions expressed. Certainly, when one lo oks at this legislatio n, we are going t o respond to the request of Mr.

Cliff Chatterton of the War Amps, and we are making clarification regarding financial information, whether it’s bank acc ounts, credit card inf ormation t hat should not be disclosed without the individual’s consent, and we are establishing criteria for bringi ng publ ic bodi es under F OIP in r egulation, not policy, and allowing the Information and Privacy Commissioner to refuse to conduct an inquiry under some circumstances.

1526 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 9:50 Now, when we look at FOIP and the FOIP laws in this province and how they have developed in the last 10 years, I think certainly it has been unsuccessful in bringing open, transparent government to the public. We have seen a continuous narrowing of the disclo- sure requirements. We see excessive fees being charged. Informa- tion is unaffordable, and I think that is very, very unfortunate. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are some very good things about this legislation, but there are also some issues that have to be addressed before this bill can be supported. The number one concern from this member is, of course, fees, and if we look at

section 93 an d th e whole issue of fees and who is t o pay and what, high fees should never be a barri er to citize ns receiv ing inform ation from their government. There is an ongoing historic case between myself as the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, the Globe and Mail, and the Department of Justice. This is an important case because it is one of the very few times that the Privacy Commissioner has had to have been excluded for one reason or another, and an adjudication inquiry pursuant to

section 75 o ccurred, and in this ca se the Hon. Mr. Justice T.F. McMahon became the adjudicator, a Court of Queen’s Bench justice from Calgary. It is interesting to note not only what the hon. justice has had to say about FOIP but what other individuals have had to say about FOIP as well. Mr. Justice McMahon in a decision that was mad e public last spring states among other things:

(26) In decisi on No. 96-002, the Commis sioner in Al berta d e- scribed two principles to be considered when determining whether a record relates to a matter of public interest under the Alberta Act. The first is that it was in tended to fo ster o pen and t ransparent government, subject to the limits provided. T o that I would add accountability. The right of the people to require that government account to them i s fundamental to a stron g democracy. It is with our consent that we are governed by others; that con sent is given conditionally upon good government.

The decision to continue or withdraw that consent requires that the people have the information required t o make an informed decis ion. Access to information legislation is a means by which people get that i nformation from sometimes reluctant government hands.

(27) The second principle ide ntified by the Co mmissioner is that the use r should pay. W hether this is a “ principle” of acce ss t o information leg islation is do ubtful. I n any e vent, it begs the question of w ho the “user” really is. As we ll, this Act expressly provides for several exceptions to that “principle”, one of which is central to this review. That expresses a lot, Mr. Chairman. Also, one must consider the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, in the decision by Justice McMahon:

(25) The Supreme Court of Canada in Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) . . . considered the federal Access to Information Act . . . [Justice] La Forest . . . although dissenting in the result in that case, described the legislation’s purpose in these terms at para. 61: The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ens ure f irst, t hat citiz ens ha ve th e information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain account- able to the citizenry.

As Professor Donald C. Rowat explains in his classic artic le, “How Much Administrative Secrecy?” (1965) . . . Canadian Journal of Economy and Political Science at page 480, . . . Parliament and the public cannot hope to call the Govern- ment to account without an adequat e know ledge of what is going on; nor can they hope to

part icipate in t he decision - making process and contribute their talents to the formation of policy and legislation if that process is hidden from view. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we consider this case and the fact that there was a substantial red uction in FOIP f ees, in one case f rom roughly $60,000 to $2,500 for the national newspaper the Globe and Mail and $500 for the Member for Edm onton-Gold Bar, that is a significant change, and I’m very a nxious to see that this case replaces the com missioner’s ruling that we have bee n using since 1996 in decision N o. 96-00 2.

Certainl y, that indicates that the second principle a s identified by the commissioner, “that the user should pay,” is not really that accurate. It is described by the hon. justice as a doubtful principle. So in the course of debate on this bill, hopefully we will get th e answer. The hon. Minister of Government Services could perhaps provide that.

This decision is a clear case, an indication that all is not well w ith our curre nt FOIP legis lation, and c itizens, whether they’re Official Opposition members, whether they’re citizens from any region of the province, should feel comfortable a pproaching their governm ent to see k in formation, and fees should not be a barrier to that information. Now, when we look at Bill 28,

section 2 is generally positive by expanding the definition of personal information to include biomet- ric infor mation.

Section 3(a), as I understand it and as I r ecall, is housekeeping, and

section 3(

b) is more significant since it clarifies what is meant by a registry. A registry henceforth will only be one authorized or recognized by an Alberta statute or regulation. If the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs could table a list in the Assembly for all the regis tries that would be c aptured by this amendment, I think that would be beneficial. Otherwise, Albertans would be put to reviewing thousands of regulations and hundreds of statutes looking for provisions creating or enabling a registry. Now, I believe that the hon. member may have been attempting that with the amendment. If the hon. member could clarify that, I would be very grateful. 10:00

Section 3(

c) dese rves some explanation. While we kno w what happened to the reg ional health authority elections, the futur e of regional health authority elections is still unclear. It is hard to think of an objection to this change, although it is not clear what election means. Now, if the me mbers of a board of an a gency hold an election and the board members e lect an executive of one or more officers, is that not an election? Does it mean an election under the Local Authorities Election Act? One can only assume that they are talking about an election by citizens in a community, but this is not clear.

Section 4 certainly has merit since it reduces marginally one of the broadest and most cited exemptions to disclosure, namely

section 16. Now,

section 5 inv ites the que stion: wha t is t he “prescribed manner?” Prescribed by regulation or by government policy? Will the sponsor particularize now or at least commit that the regulation, if that is the means of subscription, will be shared with the Assembly before it becomes law? In

section 5(

a) the wording is changed to more generally provide that the notice must be “given to.” Now, does th is mean that you have to prove tha t the third pa rty must have r eceived the writ ten notice? Will that impede giving notice in compelling circumstances where time is of the essence? Not likely, since if you refer to

section 83, there is a definition of what is meant by “given to a person.” It sets out four different ways that noti ce may be given to a pe rson. You must cross-reference sec tion 17 of Bill 28 here since that amends

section 83. The ex planation has not been giv en that I’m aware of, Mr. Chairman, of why

section 1 7(2)(

d) is being deleted. Now, presumably the deletion of

section 17(2) is due to the Health Information Act, and if that could be clarified before we proceed, I would be grateful.

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1527 Now, the new

section 29(1) seems innocuous although one may be able to make the point that there is no qualification in

section 29 that the fees be reasonable. There continues to be concern that if a public body annou nces tha t it will sell, for exam ple, hospital utilization rates but at a high cost, say $10,000, they can refuse to honour an access request under

part 1 of the FOIP Act. The amendment to

section 30 makes some sense and reduces some burden on pub lic bod ies, I beli eve, withou t compromisin g the purposes of the act. Now,

section 10 of the bill and the proposed change to

section 37 clarifies what was always intended with the FOIP Act. It is individu- als who may request correction.

Section 11 of the bill is a positive change. It mirrors an exclusion from the definition of personal information in the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. It does not, however, allow the disclosure of e-mail addresses, but this is seen as more of an oversight in that statute.

Section 11(

b) clarifies the intention of the provision and warrants support.

Section 12 of the bill would allow the release of personal informa- tion for any purpose if the other qua lifications are m et. You w ill note that the e xisting pr ovision in

section 43(2), that requires a postsecondary body to hav e a wr itten agr eement with ce rtain elements, will be eliminated. What explanation does t he pro vince have for removing these privacy safeguards? How does it just ify them? Can the government provide particulars of concrete problems posed by the existing provision for postsecondary educational bodies? Now,

section 13, Mr. Chairman, could be pr oblematic. If y ou appoint an independent officer of the Legislature, you want th at person to have a term suff iciently long that they are not under pressure to worry or fre t about reappointment. If th e term is, say, only two years, is the commissioner not likely to feel less secure than with a five-year term? We certainly don’t need a commissioner who is constantly fretting about whet her his dec isions wi ll irritate government and possibly jeopardize his reappointment. A longer term at least reduces that type of distraction.

Section 14 clarifies that the powers under the Public Inquiries Act are available to the com missioner for any of his adj udicative functions.

Section 15 is significa nt. It dramatically expands the power to refuse to hold an inquiry. It does not detail the kinds of conditions or circumstances that should be addressed in making such a decision. As a result, this decision is at the sole, unfettered discretion of the commissioner. It would be more appropriate to have the legislation indicate the conditions that should be assessed by the commissioner in making such a decision. After all, there is no right of appeal from the commissioner. Now, in light of that, I believe this is as good a time as any, Mr. Chairman, and at this time I would like to propose an amendment to

section 15 of Bill 28. I’m going to provide the chair with the signed copy and an additional 89 copies, I believe. I will take my seat until the amendments are distributed. Or can I read it into the record now, please? 10:10 The Chair: This amendment will be known as amendment A2. In the 42 secon ds remaining, hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Gold Bar, you’ll move it and explain. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 28, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amend- ment Act, 2003, be amended in

section 15 in the proposed

section 70 by striking out clause (b). That would certainly alleviate the concern that I just expressed, Mr. Chairman. It would reduce the expansion of the power s to ref use to h old an inquiry. T his legislation as i t currently exists does not deta il the kinds of conditions o r circum- stances that should be addressed in making such a decis ion by the commissioner. I don’t think that the commissioner need s those powers at this time. Thank you. The Chair : The hon. Member for Edmonton-Cast le Do wns on amendment A2. Mr. Luk aszuk: Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an. The Me mber f or Edmonton-Gold Bar in his amendment is requesting that

section (

b) be struck out, a

section that allows the commissioner to refuse an inquiry if in the mind or opinion of the commissioner the circum- stances warrant refusal to conduct an inquiry. Mr. Chairman, I must point out for the record that the commis- sioner is an ind ependent body . His off ice is inde pendent of t he government. He is a n offic er of this Legis lature and the refore nonpartisan, and he has been appointed as a watchdog, as a steward of the independence of this particular piece of legislation. Now, we have chosen to have this office present and to have an individual with this capacity to hold this independent of fice.

It would be very difficult to understand why we wouldn’t then trust the individual to make a decision on whether circumstances warrant or do n ot warrant conducting an inquiry. If we trust in his learned judgment to make a decision, a decision that is final on matter s of inquiry, why would we not then trust him to make an equally sound and educated decision on the matter of whether circumstances warrant or do not wa rrant an inqui ry?

Removal of this particular subsection of the act woul d create a situation where the commis- sioner would be forced, compelled to conduct an inquiry in the most frivolous of requests and have n o op portunity to use his o wn judgment. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll certainly be brief because the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie has expressed an interest in participa ting in debate as we ll on ame ndment A 2. However, I would lik e to point out to the hon. Membe r for Edmonton-Castle Downs that secti on 70 in the curr ent act is adequate.

I don’t think we nee d to drama tically expand to the commissioner the power to refuse to hold an inquiry. The commis- sioner may refuse to conduct an inquiry pursuant to

section 69 as it is now. My research indicates that

section 70, the current

section 70, refusal to conduc t an inquiry, has only been used twice in seven years. So why do we need to expand the power of the commissioner any further? Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to support this amendment. I think it’s well done. I respectfully disagree with the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs in his

interpretation. There is no doubt that the commissioner has been given the mandate to make these decisions, but as my colleague from Edmonton-Gold Bar said, it has been v ery seldom used in the past. So we c ertainly wonder why those powers would be required to be expanded at this particu- lar date.

1528 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 I don’t recall in the m eetings that we’ve had hearing any strong argument to increas e the circ umstances whe re the commissioner would have the ability to refuse to conduct an inquiry. If we take a look at the legislation before the amendment, it seemed to be quite comprehensive. The commissioner could refuse to conduct an inquiry pursuant to

section 69 if in the opinion of the Com missioner the su bject-matter of a reques t for a review under

section 65 ha s been dealt with in an order or investi gation report of the Commissioner. So that’s a pretty wide latitude as it is now. To a dd an y mor e latitude in that

part icular regard begs the question of what kind of circumstances th ey’re anticipating. We should have heard that debate through the committee at the time when the committee held its heari ngs or in som e sort of submiss ion, and I rea lly don’t remember seeing anything in that regard. I would urge al l memb ers in this As sembly to support this particular amendment put forward by Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons p reviously stated, I would urge all members to vote against this amendment, and I would call for the question. [Motion on amendment A2 lost] The Chair: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn debate on this matter. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Mr. Hancock: Mr. Chairman, I’d move that the committee rise and report progress. [Motion carried] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Mr. Renne r: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. The Co mmittee of the Whole has had under consideration and reports progress on Bill 28. I wish to table copies of all amendments considered by the Commit- tee of the Whole on this date for the official records of the Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the Assembly concur in this report? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Opposed? So ordered. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 23 Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and move third reading of Bill 23, the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act. The bill will result in historic legislation for this province.

The Children’s Services ministry responded to families of children with disabilities and other key stakeholders who expressed concern that the unique needs of childre n with disa bilities w ere not b eing sufficiently addressed within the provisions of the child protection legislation. Through this bill the ministry will provide distinct and separate legislation for children with disabilities and their families.

The Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act will provide a spectrum of proactive and family-centred services and supports that will preserve, strengthen, and empower fam ilies of ch ildren with disabilities. Bill 23 reflec ts the rec ommendations of t wo com mittees the ministry established to develop the new legislation. Under the new act the resources for children with disabilities program will focus on early intervention, family-centred supports, as w ell as better co- ordination and integration of services.

As soon as the bill is passed, regulations stemming from the new legislation will be developed in consultation with parents and other key stakeholders. 10:20 Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud of the proposed Family Support for Children with Di sabilities Act. T he new le gislation w ill ensure greater consistency in services for children and families and will also ensure that families and children receive appropriate services based on their assessed needs. A fam ily’s capacity to promote t heir children’s healthy growth and development will be preserved and strengthened through this new act.

I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill 23. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m plea sed to have an opportunity to make some comments this evening about Bill 23, the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act. I think we’d be remiss, Mr. Speak er, if we didn ’t put on the re cord the opposing views on this bill. T here are those indivi duals and parents who enthusiastically support the legislation and are happy to see it here at third reading this evening, but we also heard some concerns raised about the bill.

Those concerns were raised when w e were in the committee stage of examination. Just briefly, there w as a conc ern that the bill might medicalize disabilities and that in that way it might be a step backwards. There was a concern that the definition of disabilities was extremely narrow and another concern that there were provisions in the bill for income testing. Now, those were, I think, the three major concerns that were raised with us.

As I sa id, the supporte rs of the bill were v ery pleased, and we consulted with a number of the interest groups and, again, found only one of those groups opposed to the legislation. We supported it all the way through, Mr. Speaker, and are pleased to support it this evening. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 23, Family Support for Chil dren with Disabilities Act.

This w ill replac e provisions in the Child We lfare A ct for handicapped children’s services, and it will provide a framework by which service plans are developed in consultation with the family and agreed upon. The Alberta Associat ion for Co mmunity Livi ng is strongl y supportive of this act and have made a number of good points as far as the types of improvement that it represents.

They indicate that this legislation recognizes the inherent capacity of families and that many families only want and ne ed limited assistance in orde r to ensure their children with disabilities hav e the op portunities for a life comparable to chil dren w ithout dis abilities. I n addition ,

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1529 families and children with disabilities who require greater assistance will also have access to the supports they require. Mr. Uditsky, the executive director of the AACL, says: Not a singl e chil d with di sabilities sho uld be le ft wi thout the support he or she needs to be sustained within a family. Too many children with disabilities end up in the child welfare system because their families did not receive the support they required.

He believes the legislation will help to ensure children with disabilities can look forward to a future where the ir inh erent need to grow up a s part o f a lo ving family is sustained. So on balance, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrat opp osition is prepared to support this act. However, there are some reservations. Of course, in t his act a s in ma ny others the devil will b e in the details. The conte nt of servi ce plans a nd agreem ents reg arding support and therapeutic care will be entirely determined by regula- tion. Well, what else is new?

There is a role for regulation, but it is still, I think, a flag of caution that we should be aware of. It may be necessary in order to cover a wide range of possibilities, but there is very little in the act itself which describes in any detail whatsoever what services a family may expect. I think it’s useful in terms of appeals that there will be an appeal committee, people appointe d by the m inister.

The major concern that we foresee from some parents of children with disabilities is that therapeutic service plans, suppor t agreements, and so on, do not provide suffici ent fu nding, and these are li kely to be th e mo st common basis for appe al. So m uch will de pend on not only the regulations but the programs, policies set by the minister, and who in fact t he minis ter appoints to th e appeal bo dy. If they’re not favourable to these types of appeal s, then we may again f ind a significant buildup of people who are not receiving all the support they need. Similarly, Mr.

Speaker, the concern again arises that these types of programs and level s of support under these types o f programs have in the past been set according to factors that are not enti rely related to the appropriate level of servic e that people should be receiving but can be affected, of course, by the government’s fiscal planning or lack thereof. So I hope that we will see these programs designed first and foremost and funded to a level that is dependent on the needs of those children and their families that are required. So all in all, Mr.

Speaker, I’m not going to speak long on this bill but indicate that with those reservations we think that it is a positive bill and commend the minister for bringing it to this Assembly, and we are pleased to support it. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Mem ber for R ed Deer-North to close debate. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Helen Keller, due to a severe illness before the age of two, was deprived of sight, hearing, and the ability to speak. Her courage, faith, and optimism in the face of such overwhelming disabilities had a profound effect on all she touched.

The accomplishments of Helen Keller stand as a symbol of the potential in all of us. Helen Keller sai d: “I thank God for my handicaps for, through them, I have found myself, my work, and my God.” Perhaps with the help and support that Bill 23 proposes for families of chi ldren with disab ilities, they too will accomplish all they are meant to accomplish in this life.

I’m pleased t o close deba te on Bill 23, t he Family Support fo r Children with Disabilities Act. [Motion carried; Bill 23 read a third time] The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if we might have agreement from the Assembly to briefly revert to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly two people who have traveled at length in time to arrive at this moment.

They have waited for over 25 years for the legislation that we will pass tonight in Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. They are among the 44,000 adoptees, siblings, and birth parents who signed a petition in 1992 urging th e Alberta gove rnment to open adoption records. Thanks to the Ministe r of Childre n’s Services, the Member for Calgary-Buffalo, and their very competent team, adoption records in Alberta are very close to being opened. My constituent from Red Deer-North, Mrs.

Sandra L adwig, has been working for 25 years on behalf of adoptees and birth parents to help them find their birth families and to ha ve adoption r ecords opened, and Mrs. Marg Wood has been searching for 22 years for her birth mother. They are here tonight, even though the roads are closed between Calgary and Lacombe, to witness the passing of third reading of Bill 24, a v ery momentous event i n their liv es and the lives of many.

I would ask Sandra Ladwig and Marg Wood to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. 10:30head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading (continued) Bill 24 Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I’m p leased to rise and move third reading of Bill 24, the C hild Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. I am proud and honoured to support this bill. It has come about as a result of a lot of hard work and consultation with Albertans. During Committee of the Whole a concern was expressed by the hon.

Member for Edm onton-Mill Woods about the cha nge in terminology f rom “protection” to “ intervention.” The c hange in terminology from “protection” to “intervention” does not change the fundamental test for determining whether child welfare involvement is warranted. Intervention services as defined in the bill include both protective servic es, the se rvices provided i n s ituations w here children are removed from parental care, and family enhancement services, the services provided to support and preserve families.

Before either form of intervention service is legally authorized, the child’s survival, security, or development must be in danger. There was a suggestion that the definition of neglect and specifically the reference to the guar dian’s failure to provide essentia l medic al, surgical, or other remedial treatment should be based on information from a medical professional. The director of child welfare cannot simply make a determination regarding a parent’s failure to provide essential medical or surgical treatment without information from or a recommendation by a m edical profess ional.

All inte rventions based on a parent’s failure to provide necessary medical or surgical treatment require the involvement of the medical professional, and

1530 Alberta Hansard May 7, 2003 indeed most if not all of these cases are brought to the direct or’s attention by medical professionals. A clause authorizing intervention when the condition or behaviour of a child pre vents his or her guardian from caring for the child i s being repealed. The re peal is being done because the grounds for intervention on this basis have been inappropriately used by parents to relinquish responsibility for their children in situations w here there is parent/teen conflict.

This approach is not consistent with the fundamental philosophy underlying the act that parents and families are responsible and accountable for their children. Under the Alberta response m odel support c an be provided to families experiencing these difficulties. The hon. member was concerned with the wording in

section 2.1 that states, “A director, when it is appropriate, must inform a child of the child’s procedural rights under this A ct.” Inclusion of the words “when it is appropriate” is necessary for two reasons: one, to inform a child of their rights that pertain to their particular situation; and two, to prov ide flexibility for the direc tor of chil d welfare to provide only such information as is appropriate in the circumstances. This flexibility is necessary when dealing with young children who may lack the capacity to understand their rights.

Regarding the elimination of the role of the Children’s Advocate to investigate complaints, removal of t he investigatory role of t he Children’s Advocate reflects the concept of advocacy in a collabora- tive and supportive manner . Syste mic issu es identif ied by the advocate will continue t o be re ferred to the Children’s Services department and addressed through enhanced quality assurance processes. Concern was raised over the removal of a parent’s ability to apply directly to the court for a permanent guardianship order.

One of the fundamental prin ciples underlying this legislation is parental accountability and responsibility. Allowing a parent to abdicate their guardianship responsibilities is inconsistent with this principle. If a parent is experiencing difficulties in dealing with a child, supports to the parent may be available through the Alberta response model. If the child is in need of intervention and permanent guardianship is the appropriate response to the child’s needs, the direct or of child welfare will m ake the application t o the court f or a perm anent guardianship order.

The confidentiality provisions in this act are as stringent as ever. They have been redrafted to align with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and continue to protect the privacy of families while at the same time enabling the director of child welfare to share information in an appropriate way when disclosure is in the best interest of the child. An issue was raised that provisions for shortened cumulative time in care will simply process children into the adoptive stream sooner and lessen the government’s financial obligation for these children. Mr.

Speaker, on e of the goals o f this act is to achieve earlie r permanency for children who are under the guardianship of the child welfare director. The purpose of legislating cumulative time in care is to ensure t hat a child does not lang uish in the chi ld welf are system. The need for early permanency was a major theme that emerged from the public c onsultation proc ess. Re search s hows th at th e accelerated pace of d evelopment for young c hildren increases the need for stability and the opportunity to form a permanen t bond in the early year s.

The s hortened cum ulative time i n care w ill be facilitated and supported by other changes in the act. In particular, concurrent planning will strongly emphasize early efforts to reunify the child and the family. Changes to the secure services provisions reflect a conceptual shift in the purpose f or confinement. The basis for placing a child in a secure s ervices facility will be cris is intervention. Child w elfare workers have experienced some success in stabilizing the behaviours of a chil d. However, they do not have the necessary expertise to perform mental health interventions.

If a child requires treatment for a mental health issue, they are best referred for treatment within the mental health system. In regard to ch anges in t he private guardianship provisions, we must remember that private guardianship is an important permanency option for children in the ca re of th e child w elfare director. The private guardianship provisions have in f act been s trengthened to ensure that only those indivi duals who a re capabl e of prov iding proper care to a specific child can obtain private guardianship status with respect to th at child.

Su pport will certainly be ava ilable to families who choose to take on this important responsibility. In regard to the issue of adoption the move toward open adoption records, as reflected in the proposed amendments, is responsive to stakeholder feedback on this issue. With respect to existing adoption records the legislation strikes a reasonable bal ance b etween the rights of an adopt ed p erson to acc ess their inform ation and the interests of birth parents who may wish to maintain confidentiality. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, Bill 24 reflects what was heard from Albertans during the lengthy review of the Child Welfare Act. The amendments in the bi ll not only pre serve the rights of parents and children but also enhance them. The government’s obligation toward older children who are transitioning to adulthood h as been enhanced in the new part of the act dealing specifically with youth.

I am conf ident that Bi ll 24 will a mend A lberta’s child we lfare legislation to better the lives of children, youth, and families and will also st rengthen the way Alberta Children’s S ervices is able to support our most precious and vulnerable citizens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. It’s been a long journey through a very long bill with a l ot of changes to where we are this evening, ready to approve it in third reading. I do take exception to the comm ents about the Childre n’s Advocate. It’s a bunc h of poppycock.

What’s happened to the Children’s Advocate in this bill is that he’ s been emasculated. T o say t hat the adv ocate ca nnot investigate and now must be in a supportive role is a disservice to the children in this province. I’m upset that that’s the view that’s been taken. The Children’s Advocate should be an independent officer of this Legislature, and this bill I think takes away some of the powers that the advocate now enjoys.

A further c omment I have is the fa ct that w e won’t s ee the regulations, and I still feel that it’s the obligation of the government to put those draft regulations in place before we pass bills in thi s Legislature. We’ve had the ex ample where that w as done by the Department of Energy, and I think it served all of us well. As the Minister of Childr en’s Services has said: the de vil’s in the small print; what the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. Those regulations with respect to this bill are particularly impor- tant.

I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t, before the bill is approved finally this evening, hear from the minister maybe once again about the amendments that w e passed last we ek, am endments that I supported with respect to adoption. Since we passed those amend- ments, there’s been some concern raised, not just locally but from a network of individuals across the country a nd internationa lly. I think it might be appropriate f or th e minister to make some co m- ments with respect, again, to those amendments. With that, I conclude my comments. Thank you.

May 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1531 10:40 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services. Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and speak to a couple of the issues that the hon. member opposite requested, and in doing so I’d like to just pay a huge tribute to the efforts of my colleague from Calgary-Buffalo, who has gon e through extensive consultation on this bill. I t’s been a pleasure to work with him in that regard as it was a pleasur e to work as we ll with the hon. Member for Red Deer-North on the previous bill. Mr.

Speaker, one of the comments that has been made this evening and has been made twice on bills 23 and 24 is the co ncern a bout regulation and the development of that regulation and to make sure that in the interval following the passage of these bills, there’s proper and due consulta tion relative to the f ormulation of reg ulation o n absolutely every aspect of both bills. T here will be consult ations continuing as they did before the bills on t he r egulation a nd the framework for that regulation.

It’s been very clear to me that that’s the only way that we will get the right product, and I can assure the hon. members opposite that we will do a very thorough and mean- ingful consultation. We’ve already spoken to a number o f people that will be involved, that were heavily involved in their commitment to the bills in their present form. In terms of the amendments that were passed last week relative to adoption, I would like to put it this way. While the adoption records have been conce aled, a v ery scant f ew, a very few exce ptional circumstances h ave come across the m inister’s desk for release.

Those have been predominantly those situations where medical information on ancestors was necessary to save lives. It was a very excruciating and a very narrow window of opportunity for anybody to be passed out, if you will, to have their adoption records released. The amendments that have been passed by this Leg islature, I’d like to comment, would in fact assure that almost no records but an exceptional few would ever be held back.

Those would be held back predominantly if the a doptive f amily knew of some pa rticularly excruciating and extenuating circumstance that would necessitate a sober seco nd l ook by t he minis ter prior to any release of those records.

We could identify incest, date rape, or some other particu- larly heinous situation that may well cause that adjudication by the minister to be determined to be in the child’s best interest to retain and enclose that record until such time – and the a mendment goes still further – that if the adult adoptee chooses to ask for releas e of those records because they have determined that they were adopted, have found another circumstance that alerted them to that fact, then they would be able to make that choice themselves.

It’s a window of opportunity f or the mi nister to judg e that som e circumstances could be completely held private, but the vast majority of all of those records prior to the proclamation of this bill would be available and would be transparent and would be released as per the intent that we discussed in the original draft of this bi ll in this House. So I give that to the hon. member opposite. One final concluding comment on the Children’s A dvocate. Although I hear the hon. member, I have a much broader view of what the advocate is doing, particularly on the natural advocate side.

We’re still looking at some of the opportunities for the advocate’s expanded role in terms of delivery of service, and I do hope that in the final disposition of this there will be some satisfaction that the words from the hon. member opposite have been heard relative to the importanc e of the independent a djudication of Children’s Services by the advocate. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would stand down but with the hope that this Assembly will acknowledge the very strong and positive work that’s been undergone at some considerable length on this bill. The Deputy Speak er: The hon.

Mem ber for C algary-Buffalo to conclude debate. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to now close debate on Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. [Motion carried unanimously; Bill 24 read a third time] Bill 32 Income and Employment Supports Act The Deput y Speak er: The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Castle Downs on behalf. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise and move that Bill 32 be now read for a third time. Too often people are skeptical about consultations and reports and wonder if any ac tions will come out o f it.

As chair of th e MLA Committee to Rev iew Low-income Programs I kno w that Bill 32 indeed is the proof that the process works. Government listened to the voices of hundreds of people who participated in the review process. We have listened to stakeholders and people who work on the front lines with clients, and we are also taking action, action that also stems from numerous hours of consultation with hundr eds of clients. The MLA committee proposes a new integrated income support program with the flexibility t o meet people’s unique needs and circumstances.

The Income and Employment Supports Act responds to this key recom mendation by bringi ng three i ncome s upport programs – those being supports for independence, otherwise known as SFI, widow s’ pension, and skills de velopment program – and living allowances together into a s ingle integrated income support program. [Ms Graham in the chair] Bill 32 also enables a new benefit structure that will help people meet their basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter and will provide additiona l buil ding blocks to support and re spond to people’s unique circumstances, whatever they may be.

That might mean access to short-term or part-time training programs to upgrade and expand people’s skills. It might mean providing health benefits to some people who leave the program and find employment, and it might mean help getting child support. With Bill 32, Mr. Speaker, we make a direct link i n legislation between income support and employment support.

Instead of having two parallel tracks, we will integrate them into a new approach that focuses squarely on people and helping them have the skills they need to co ntribute to Alberta’s growing economy and meet some shortages in the labour m arket and support th emselves and their families. There will also be building blocks of support for people who are unable to work. We must not lose sight of the fact that even with Alberta’s strong economy there are some people who are n ot expected to move into the workforce. They simply have barriers to employment that cannot easily or at all be overcome. Mr.

Speaker, with the app roval of Bill 32 in this Assembly our plans