Alberta Hansard — 27 November 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20071127

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2207 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/11/27 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Let us pray. From our forests and parkland to our prairies and mountains comes the call of our land. From our farmsteads, towns, and cities comes the call of our people that as legislators of this province we act with responsibility and sensitivity. Grant us the wisdom to meet such challenges. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Athabasca-Redwater. Mr.

Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of yourself I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 19 grade 6 students from Neerlandia in your constituency. They are accompanied this afternoon by teacher Jim Bosma and parent helpers Jina Greilach and Jannie Slomp, Rudy Sybesma, Garry Wood, Evelyn Krikke, Patrick Fountain, and Krista Fountain. They are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly 29 bright and wonderful grade 6 students from one of my favourite schools in my constituency, and by that I mean Ormsby school. These 29 students are joined by Mrs. Liz Branco, Mr. George Diduck, and Mrs. Joanne Zuke on a tour of the Legislature. They’re in the Assembly today to experience some of question period and to see what hon. members on both sides of the House do as we conduct ourselves in this Assembly and, you know, deliver democracy to the people of this province.

I would ask them to please rise, and I encourage all my colleagues here to give them the traditional warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted today to have the opportunity to introduce through you and to all members of this Legislature 45 of Edmonton’s brightest students from the constituency of Edmonton-Rutherford, in fact St. Augustine school. They are accompanied today by two teachers, Mrs. Nancy Darwish and Mr. David Masluk, as well as three parent helpers, Mrs. Valerie Mallon, Mrs. Laurie Simons, Mr. Ken Ferguson.

As my colleague from Edmonton-McClung said, they’re here today to watch the proceedings of the House and learn a little bit about our democracy. I would invite them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour and privilege today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly four distinguished members of the Alberta medical profession.

These gentlemen along with nearly 50 other doctors and staff from the Alberta Medical Association are in the Legislature today to connect with their respective MLAs, share their views and concerns with their elected representatives, and learn more about our system of parliamentary democracy and, quite frankly, how to influence us to the greater good. I would ask that our guests stand when called but that the Assembly hold its applause until all of our visitors have been recognized. I won’t introduce all 50 by name, but I would like to personally introduce Dr.

Darryl LaBuick, president of the Alberta Medical Association; Dr. John Huang, chair of the AMA’s government affairs council; the hon. Dr. Grant Hill, former interim leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons and former Member of Parliament for Macleod; and Dr. Michael Auld, a constituent of mine from Edmonton-Whitemud. I’d ask all of the other members of the AMA group to stand and join them, and I’d ask the House to give them our warmest welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sitting in your gallery today are two gentlemen.

First will be Mr. Carlo Amodio, the president of the National Congress of Italian Canadians for the Edmonton district, and Mr. Leopoldo Sorgiovanni, producer of the Italian radio station here in Edmonton on World FM. Both of these individuals have been decorated with the cavaliere de la república designation by the Italian government. They’re here to observe statements and tablings of petitions relevant to a possible closure of the Italian consulate in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to introduce to you and through you two guests.

My first guest immigrated to Canada from Ethiopia. His name is Ibsa Befakadu. He now lives in Edmonton and volunteers much of his time as a human rights and peace activist, volunteering with Amnesty International. My second guest is Mary Boloweza, who is visiting her friends Sylvia Krogh and Alan Boyle in Edmonton. Mary is from Blantyre, Malawi, Africa, and works as a tourist information and HIV/AIDS prevention person in her home country. On behalf of my constituents I would like to ask both of my guests now to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly.

Thank you. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Italian Consulate Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. What makes Alberta a great province to live in, do business in, and raise our children in is due in part to the diverse ethnocultural makeup of our citizens. Our Italian community, now boasting some 67,000 Albertans, is definitely an important part of our social and economic fabric. Why do I make reference to our Italian community? Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is because Alberta’s Italian community is concerned with the Italian government’s recent decision to close its Edmonton consulate. This is an occurrence for all of us to be concerned with. Presently Italy is Alberta’s eighth-largest export market, with annual exports averaging $156 million. We also import some $429 million worth of goods from Italy, which include some of their famous wines, olives, and tiles.

Italy is also an important partner in academia, where the University of Alberta has created a Faculty of Arts in the town of Cortona in Tuscany and where the U of A is a signatory to an agreement of academic and scientific co-operation with the University of Siena.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072208 Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Italy serves as the head office of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; therefore, it is a hub for many multinational agriculture projects. Mr. Speaker, Italy is important to Alberta, and as such I urge all members of this House to contact the Italian authorities and respectfully encourage the Italian government to reconsider their decision to close their consulate in Edmonton, Alberta. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Foothills. Jan Hudec Mr. Webber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past weekend at the World Cup downhill ski race in Lake Louise a friend and an Albertan made history. Calgarian Jan Hudec crossed the finish line with the fastest time, which is th e first time in the event’s history that an Albertan, let alone a Canadian, has won at home. It must have been an incredible feeling for the 25-year-old to stand on top of the podium in front of friends and family, singing O Canada, especially considering all the things that he has been through over his lifetime. He’s battled through multiple knee surgeries, including one that left him off the hill for almost a year.

Other athletes might have packed it in and moved on, but not Hudec. Adversity and following a dream runs in his family. When Jan was a baby, his parents escaped communist Czechoslo- vakia, which included a harrowing trip in a leaky, homemade boat across the Adriatic Sea. They eventually came to our province, and Jan grew up on the world-class ski hills of the Alberta Rockies. His victory is a sign of great things happening in sport in our country. The 2010 Vancouver Olympics are just over two years away. The excitement is building across the province for good reason.

With our tremendous facilities and successful athletes the road to 2010 travels through Alberta, and it will also return here after the Olympics are done. I ask that all members of the House join me in congratulating Jan, his teammates, and his family for this historic win. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 1:10 Alberta Utilities Commission Act Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By introducing Bill 46, the Minister of Energy proved that this government has lost its credibility with Albertans and does not trust Albertans.

Fuelled by a culture of entitlement and arrogance, this government doesn’t want to hear what Albertans think, and now it’s trying to silence them by implementing Bill 46. After it was caught allowing a government body to hire private spies to spy on citizens, this government should have apologized to the very citizens it spied on. It should have fired those responsible, including the Minister of Energy, and made fundamental changes to how the EUB operates. Instead, the minister refused to accept responsibility, refused to hold anyone accountable, and introduced the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, Bill 46.

Just when the public’s confidence in the regulatory system was at its lowest, the Minister of Energy has delivered a knockout punc h. Bill 46, if passed, will forever destroy Albertans’ trust of this government and of the energy regulatory process. After the spy scandal Albertans demanded more transparency and accountability. Bill 46 eliminates both. The government has been repeatedly defending this autocratic legislation, claiming that it has been misinterpreted, claiming that the concerns of Albertans are false. They point the finger at people who they see as troublemak- ers.

These troublemakers are simply fearmongering. And who are these troublemakers that the government has identified? They are rural landowners. They are people who do not believe a government should spy on its citizens. They want true consumer protection. They are the mayor of Calgary. They are the Environmental Law Centre. They are the Pembina Institute. They are members of industry. They are urban utility consumers. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I remind all hon. members of this House that it was the government’s own member, the Member for Lacombe-Ponoka, who on November 7, 2007, told a crowd of Albertans . . . [Mr.

MacDonald’s speaking time expired] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Ukrainian Famine/Genocide Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With deep respect, I rise today to acknowledge the memorial tribute that took place last Sunday regarding the man-made famine th at was forced on the Ukrainian people in their homeland in 1932-33. During this communist- imposed famine, millions of men, women, and children perished because of an ideologically driven communist Soviet government in Moscow.

The purpose of the communist Soviet government was to break the spirit of the Ukraine and drive its people into submission to their totalitarian rule. Grains and other food were taken by the ruthless communist authority and kept away from the starving citizens. Mr. Speaker, the Soviets later sent their advisers to China and to Vietnam and used the same method to implement the communist ideology. As a result, millions more people suffered and perished in those two countries. In 1954 my parents brought our family away from the communist regime, and my grandparents could not make the trip.

I still remember the last goodbye to my grandmother. Part of our family suffered and perished in a similar famine created by the same communist policy. Every year I have attended the Ukrainian famine memorial tribute in Calgary, and I share the deep feelings for the victims of the Ukrainian famine. I know that our Premier and the MLA for Edmonton-Mill Creek attended the same tribute in Edmonton last Sunday. Our thanks go to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and their local organization for co-ordinating these important tributes.

Our thanks also goes to organizers who helped to erect the first monument in Canada right here in Edmonton in tribute to the victims of this horrific man-made famine. As we remember those who perished, let us honour those who survived to tell us about the inhumane policy driven by the commu- nistic socialist ideology. Vichnaia pamiat’. Eternal memory. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Vocational and Rehabilitation Research Institute Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Vocational and Rehabili- tation Research Institute, the VRRI, is an indispensable part of the social fabric of Calgary.

Described as the gem in the northwest, located in Calgary-Varsity, the VRRI is a multi-use hub of activity that offers so much to the community. Providing excellent services to people with disabilities is what they are well known for. Are you aware that thousands of families avail themselves of its day camps, swimming lessons, birthday parties, preschool programs, and parent/child drop-in activities? The VRRI runs the only nonprofit bottle depot in Calgary, and they go to Calgary sc hools with messages about recycling and going green.

The VRRI also operates Calgary airport’s baggage retrieval service, serving 11 million passengers a year.

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2209 All of these socially responsible businesses operate with a fully integrated workforce, where people with disabilities work side by side with others to get the job done. With all the activity at the VRRI let’s not forget the primary reason for its existence: to be leaders in innovative services and research to support persons with disabilities to live as valued and contributing members of the community.

They’ve been trailblazing and providing a wide array of research and services for 40 years, but the fact of the matter is that the VRRI’s 40-year-old building on five acres of land in the University Innovation Park is not sustainable for the disability services and community resources that it continues to provide. So the VRRI has been doing their homework, planning and seeking the resources needed to build a world-class facility for the next 40 years and beyond.

They are working hard to find the very best ways to support people with disabilities in the community at large, and they are very deserving of the support of all of us here today. I urge all MLAs to throw their support behind this institute as it continues its progres- sive and proactive evolution to meet the needs of the growing and aging population of Albertans with all levels of ability. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Goodwill Industries of Alberta Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise in this Assembly today in recognition of Goodwill Industries of Alberta.

On November 9 I had the pleasure of attending their annual charity fundraiser. This event really brought home to us how important it is to support Albertans with disabilities. Disabilities can do more than simply impair a person physically. They can over- whelm individuals with feelings of helplessness and despair. That’s why I believe it’s incredibly important for us to take a moment to acknowledge the good work being done by G oodwill Industries of Alberta.

Goodwill is an international nonprofit agency that was founded in Boston in the late 19th century by Reverend Edgar Helms to offer a hand up, not a handout to impoverished members of the community. Today they still uphold this notion, valuing the independence, sustainability, and dignity given to an individual through the power of work. Goodwill’s mission is driven by donations. They operate thrift retail stores stocked with gently used household items from the community, both providing these goods at affordable prices and recycling items to help our environment.

Every dollar earned counts towards enriching people’s lives. When you support Goodwill, you’re making a difference in the community by helping them provide employment and training services to individuals with disabilities and other barriers to employment. It’s important for all Albertans to be proud of who they are and to continue to strive for a better quality of life for themselves, their loved ones, and their communities. This is what Goodwill Industries is all about. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr.

MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly today, and it reads: We the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to launch a full public inquiry under the authority of the Public Inquiries Act into spying practices by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) and the Minister of Energy’s oversight role of the AEUB. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This particular issue is not going away, so today I’m actually tabling 26 more signatures on the petition which reads:

Whereas the ongoing rent affordab ility crisis is contributing to Alberta’s worsening homelessness situation, we, the undersigned residents . . . hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government . . . to take immediate, meaningful measures to help low-income and fixed-income Albertans, Albertans with disabilities and those who are hard-to-house maintain their places of residence and cope with the escalating and frequent increases in their monthly rental costs. Thank you. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Lethbridge- West. 1:20 Mr. Dunford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of several southern Albertans. It’s regarding, of course, the passage of Bill 45, Smoke-free Places (Tobacco Reduc- tion) Amendment Act, 2007, and asks us to “not dilute its contents so as to compromise the version approved at second reading.” The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a petition with some three and a half thousand names on it, Italian Albertans expressing their dismay relevant to the closure of the consulate. head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon.

Associate Minister for Capital Planning on behalf of the hon. President of the Treasury Board. Bill 56 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 (No. 2) Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the President of the Treasury Board I beg leave to introduce Bill 56, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 (No. 2). This bill will provide additional spending authority in the amount of $1.5 billion to 16 departments of government for purposes of savings and for capital projects.

Because it is a money bill, His H onour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this bill, recommends the same to this Assembly. [Motion carried; Bill 56 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to table the appropriate number of copies of amendments to Bill 46 as well as a background document explaining the amend- ments in more detail.

Albertans have expressed their views about this bill, and we have responded to the concerns, particularly those about landowner participation at utility hearings and about continu- ing to allow third parties to apply for funding when they intervene.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072210 I look forward to further discussions about this bill and in particular these amendments when it comes before this Legislature at a later date. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. One is from the very successful open house of the North Edmonton Seniors Association that their more than 600 volunteers held there recently, a very successful day.

Then also one from the circle of safety family violence program from the Aboriginal Consulting Services Association of Alberta, a document outlining their services. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of a letter from Dave Denholm concerning the cancellation of a program for outpatients at the Edmonton General hospital. The program provided valuable physical therapy for seniors with a variety of health problems. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs.

Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. The first is from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in reference to building quality child care together. They are writing on behalf of their private child care members in Alberta to raise their specific concerns about how the proposed regulations will impact their human and financial resources. The second is from William Parker, a letter out of concern for the proposed child care licensing regulations. The third is from Cathy Pasula-Jones about the proposed changes to child care licensing regulations. The Speaker: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling five copies of a letter to the Premier from the president of the Coalition of Seniors Advocates, Stan Nykiel. The letter is requesting that the province of Alberta “immediately re-instate the Seniors’ program that existed in the 1990’s, exempting all senior citizens from having to pay the education portion of their tax bill.” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have tablings today.

My first group of tablings are proposed amendments from the Official Opposition regarding Bill 46. The first one is an amendment to

section 8(2). The second amendment is to

section 8(5). The third amendment is also for

section 8, striking out subsections (3) and (4), and the next two amendments are trying to clear up some of the confusion that has been caused by this govern- ment regarding

section 9. These amendments were prepared with the able help of Mr. Joe Anglin. Also, I have a constituent letter here from Mr. Garry Grykuliak. It is concerning changes to the Alberta labour code. I have another letter from a constituent, Mr. David Lunt, also concerned about Alberta’s labour laws and how they can be improved. I have a third letter from Quinn Nichols. It is also concerning the Alberta labour code and how it should be improved. My last tabling is from Mr. Roger Berger. It is a letter indi cating that we need to make the labour code fair. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste.

Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of the seniors’ centres funding report presented by the Seniors Advisory Council for Alberta and the Alberta Council on Aging to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. I’d like to thank the more than 200 seniors’ centres that helped with this report. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tabling copies of letters I received from seven of my constituents, all urging us to revamp Alberta’s antiquated labour laws to ensure fairness for all working people in Alberta. One of their ideas, for example, is for full legal recognition of bargaining rights, including the right to strike. These letters are from Angel Rowsell, Michelle Rowsell, Lois Boyd, Vivian Crowell, Nancy Forget, Zodie Kebede, and Charmaine Smythe. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to table the appropriate number of copies of an e-mail from Wendy Nelson asking this government to not put in passing lanes but actually twin highway 3, on which her daughter Ashley was killed when rear- ended and pushed into oncoming traffic a little over three years ago. With this e-mail I am also tabling the appropriate number of copies of Ashley Nelson’s 2003 graduation photograph. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have five tablings. They have come from my constituents A.

Meads, Glenda Tarnowski, Shernett Paes, Mary Kutschke, Eufemia Cabarrubias. They are all concerned about Alberta labour laws and strongly believe in major changes to encourage fairness to all working people in Alberta, strongly urging this government to implement and support changes to our province’s antiquated and unfair labour laws and to bring Alberta labour laws into the 21st century. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have five copies of a letter to His Excellency Gabriele Sardo, the Italian ambassador to Canada, encouraging him and his government to continue with the tremendous opportunities with the Italian consul- ate here in Edmonton as well as the over 70,000 Italians that are represented here in our great province of Alberta. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following document was deposited with the office of the Clerk on behalf of the hon. Mr. Melchin, Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: a report dated 2007 entitled Seniors’ Centres Funding Recommendations,

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2211 presented by the Seniors Advisory Council for Alberta and the Alberta Council on Aging to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. head: Oral Question Period Soccer Ban on Religious Headgear Dr. Taft: Alberta and Canada are proud to welcome people from all corners of the world. Just the other day in Fort McMurray I was speaking with people who came to Alberta from the Middle East and are thrilled at the welcome they receive. They told me, and I quote: if God were ever to outsource running the world, he should give it to Canadians. But sometimes, Mr.

Speaker, we slip up. A few days ago a 14-year-old Muslim girl in Calgary was ejected from a soccer game for wearing a hijab. She left the field in tears. My question is to the Premier. Does this government see this as an issue of religious and cultural freedom and of human rights or not? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue relating to a sporting event. The minister responsible has been involved and working with the two organizations, and the minister responsible may wish to comment. The Speaker: The hon. leader. 1:30 Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This incident is the latest in a long line of needless controversies that should be behind us, including the wearing of turbans, religious symbols, and the like. The Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, who is also responsible for the Human Rights Commission, said yesterday that he has to support the referee’s decision. My question is to the Premier. Why is this government allowing soccer rules to trump basic human rights? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the minister is supporting, I believe, the referee who made the decision but has also advised that he will meet with the parties to make sure that this doesn’t occur, to work out an arrangement. In this particular case the referee was only following, apparently, the rules and regulations that he’s supposed to for safety reasons, according to the association. The minister has offered to intervene, meet with the two parties, and I know that we’ll be able to resolve this situation. Dr. Taft: We should not be allowing so ccer rules to trump human rights in Alberta, Mr. Speaker.

Safety was cited as a reason for disallowing Muslim girls from wearing hijabs during soccer games. I don’t think this is about safety. After all, we live in a province where this government allows child ren to ride all-terrain vehicles without helmets, even though many Alberta children die in ATV accidents every year. Again to the Premier: will the Premier take steps now through Alberta’s human rights legislation and commis- sion to ensure that this sort of incident does not happen again in this province? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to ATVs, the minister responsible will be bringing forward regulations and/or legislation, if necessary, on public roads. Apparently, he wants to get involved with private land. I guess that’s his business, but that’s the Liberal way. Anyone who believes that they have been discriminated against by any amateur sports organization because of religious beliefs can contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It’s their responsi- bility to hear the case, and they will listen to the individual and make the appropriate decision. That’s their role. It’s not the govern- ment’s.

It’s the Alberta Human Rights Commission that’s assigned this responsibility. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Treasury Branches Investments Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Treasury Branches is a treasured institution in Alberta and plays an important role in Alberta’s prosperity, particularly outside the major urban centres.

The government has an important obligation to ensure that it fulfills its mandate to the people of Alberta, yet the ATB recently revealed an $80 million loss due in part to exposure to the highly speculative U.S. subprime mortgage sector. Ultimately, the exposure could be far higher. This is more than just another bad day at the office for the Department of Finance. My question to the Minister of Finance: can the minister explain what happened? Why was the ATB in a position where it was exposed in this way to such risky ventures? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The ATB’s total exposure to asset-backed commercial paper, which, by the way, is not all subprime mortgages, is about $1.2 billion. They’ve been reassessing this. They’ve been looking at this very carefully. They determined through several consultants as well that their exposure, their potential for loss, was around $79 million. They certainly hope that this won’t occur. To put this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, that’s about a 6 and a half per cent writedown which occurred. The National Bank of Canada, which is exposed considerably more, took a 25 per cent writedown. Would we sooner have had no writedown?

Absolutely. But 6 and a half per cent is better than the rest. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Well, thank you. To put that in perspective, $80 million would help an awful lot of seniors, would hire a lot of nurses, and would feed a lot of hungry schoolchildren. The Minister of Finance claims that he has no legislative authority to control ATB investment policy, but the Alberta Treasury Branches Act actually provides clear authority for this government to set some rules about the ATB investment strategies.

To the Minister of Finance: given that the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook, why does the minister allow the ATB to take on such risky investments, which any responsible financial adviser would recommend against? Dr. Oberg: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I find that incredibly humorous, what he just said. This whole subprime mortgage issue, the asset- backed commercial paper, is an issue that has hit all financial institutions: the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, TD Bank, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and so on. As I stated before, the National Bank of Canada was exposed for 25 per cent.

The ATB is conservatively estimating $80 million, or roughly 6 and a half per cent of their financial exposure is what the writedown is. Ultimately, we hope none of that writedown will occur, and in fairness it may well be that none of that writedown occurs. The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072212 Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the ATB is a valued institution in this province. It’s been there for people when other institutions have not. But under this government the ATB has gone way beyond its original mandate, into high-risk U.S. investments and large Bay Street corporate financing. Alberta taxpayers are on the hook for this added risk. To the Premier. It’s one thing for this government to own a financial agency that supports rural Alberta; it’s quite another to own what amounts to a quasi-bank that com- petes with the credit unions and chartered banks.

Does this govern- ment have any interest in reinin g in the ATB, or does it plan to continue operating what amounts to a full-fledged bank? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, just listening to the member, he’s made two statements that are totally wrong. First of all, he’s talking about $80 million. This is a writedown. It’s not something that comes to the government that the government allocates to different programs. This is a writedown, and those securities that do not fail will go back into the revenue side. That’s very clear.

The other thing is that this government is a very, very strong supporter of the Alberta Treasury Branches. It has a very good board in place, which has increased the assets of the Alberta Treasury Branches. It will continue to not only serve rural Alberta but every Albertan. I see them in Edmonton and in Calgary and in any other major city in Alberta. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Sustainable Water Management Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sustainable water manage- ment in Alberta is a vital issue for all Albertans.

The introduction of up to 15 upgraders in the Industrial Heartland will have serious consequences for our water supply, and this government is about to pass yet another bill for interbasin transfer from the Athabasca River to the North Saskatchewan. To the Premier: is the Premier going to set limits on regional water use, or will we continue this unsustain- able practice of pulling water out of the north for the south? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the interbasin transfer that the individ- ual was talking about is with respect to treated water.

In terms of the process and how hearings are held in terms of any transfer of water or allocation of water, I’ll have the Minister of Environment answer because it is a very detailed public process. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a guiding principle in making wise water decisions, and it relates to the need to know how much water we have and where it is. Unfortunately, the government continues to make decisions about water without the critical knowledge that we need. There is no complete mapping of aquifers in the Industrial Heartland, according to the department.

We still don’t know the relationship between surface and groundwa- ter, and there’s no independent assessment of cumulative impacts. To the Premier: will you continue to make decisions on massive upgraders without this key information? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member knows perfectly well that the government recently talked about and implemented, in fact, for the Athabasca and is in the process of doing the same for the North Saskatchewan an in-stream flow need that recognizes the quantity of water that is required to maintain the ecological viability of any particular water stream.

The cumulative effects regime that is in place ensures that we do not exceed that minimum amount of in-stream flow need that is re quired to maintain the economic viability of any river in this province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As all of us know, Alberta is experiencing industrial development on a massive scale, particularly in this area, and the environmental consequences of unrestrained, unmanaged development are extremely serious. Already in the capital region there are water concerns, and this is before the extra upgraders.

One of these concerns is that a major groundwater aquifer has been contaminated under the Industrial Heartland, the Beverly Channel. That aquifer has already had a significant degree of contamination. To the minister: does the minister have any scientific evidence to assure Albe rtans that this channel or others will not be further degraded by these 15 upgraders? 1:40 Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, this issue was discussed at the time that we talked about cumulative impact.

We talked about the fact that there has been monitoring of this particular issue for some 30 years and that there has been no appreciable change and that the cumula- tive impact program that was put in place is designed to ensure just that: that there will be no significant impact on groundwater. That’s why we talked about the need to manage the sulphur that will be stored as a result of the developmen t in the area, to ensure that we maintain the viability of the groundwater in that particular part of the province. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon.

Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. New Royalty Framework Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. While the Premier claims to be raising royalty rates, his Minister of Finance is setting the stage for a bait and switch of epic proportion. Usually govern- ments wait until after an election to break their promises, but just yesterday the Minister of Finance told big oil executives that the new royalty structure might have to be dramatically changed to suit the suits. The royalty consultations are still on but only behind closed doors and only with big oil. Ordinary Albertans are being left out in the cold.

To the Premier: having already caved in to big oil by keeping Alberta’s royalties among the lowest in the world, what assurances do the people of Alberta have that you won’t sell them out again and give away even more of our wealth to your corporate backers? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, once again, a number of allegations that are totally wrong. An Hon. Member: You always say that. Mr. Stelmach: They say that I always say that. Well, because they always make those wrong allegations. That’s why I’m saying that.

Our Justice minister has very publicly tabled lists of all of the individuals that he met with while we’re listening to all Albertans with respect to the positions they’ve taken on the royalty regime. To say that we’re meeting behind closed doors is wrong, simply wrong. Unless the member has something else to offer, have him ask another question because I’m not going to answer something that allegedly is totally wrong.

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2213 Mr. Mason: So allegedly totally wrong. Well, Mr. Premier, it’s well known that both the Conservatives and the Liberals collect significant political donations from big oil. With the Liberals saying virtually nothing about royalties, the Conservatives are scrambling to keep the donations coming. Now the Finance minister has suggested that the royalty review was due to Tory leadership candidates jumping on a bandwagon.

On the one hand we have a Premier trying to convince Albertans that he’s delivered a fair share, and on the other hand we have a Finance minister saying something else to the people who really pull the strings of this Tory government. My question is to the Premier. Why is he telling Albertans that he got it right when his Finance minister is telling big oil that maybe he got it wrong? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the Minister of Finance answer the latter part of that question. This government is committed to the royalty framework. There is no part of it that’s negotiable in terms of the 20 per cent.

We are working with the oil industry. We’re working with those that supply services. Once again, the implementation period is January 1, 2009, and for a very good reason: so that we have an opportunity to meet with all Albertans during this period of time to make sure that the implementation is done right. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, the Finance minister is suggesting that there will be dramatic changes to the royalty regime. I understand that he claims he’s been misquoted.

I would like to challenge the Minister of Finance to table the speech that he gave to the oil sands executives down in Calgary so that we can see what he really said. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d be more than happy to do that from a couple of points of view. First of all, the comments about change in the royalty review were in regard to a review of the royalties. It was put out that it was going to occur every five years. I suggested that the hon.

Minister of Energy had been misquoted on that and that it is actually 10 years and beyond and that we hoped that this framework would last forever b ecause there’s price and volume sensitivity built into it. Second point, Mr. Speaker. This was an oil sands conference that the media was at. This in no way was behind closed doors or anything at all like that, so I really don’t know what the hon. member is talking about. Realistically, the hon. member should start attending some of these things as opposed to listening to CBC. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ethics in Government Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The smoke and mirrors continue, and the deception is greater than ever. Our Premier says he’s going to post an imaginary guard at his front door and make sure any Albertan registers before he comes in and speaks with him. All the while his campaign donors and his buddies go in the back door and go golfing to discuss important matters. My question is to the Premier. If he wants to be open and honest with Albertans, will he record and report who he meets with and make it public to all Albertans? Mr.

Stelmach: First of all, it’s about minus 15, so I’m not going golfing today. I can assure you of that. The other, Mr. Speaker, is that I made a commitment to all Albertans that we’re going to pass two pieces of legislation, one very important, that’s the lobbyists registration, and the conflicts of interest. Those bills are proceeding through the House. These are good bills, and I know that the House will support them and so will the hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Well, Mr. Speaker, hopefully he’s not going this evening on a flight south to do some golfing. Mr.

Speaker, the Lobbyists Act will be even less effective than the gun registry, and he might as well open up a volunteer gang registry. His own party members go out and solicit donations from sc hool boards, counties, towns, and other things. Will the Premier send a strong message and stop having taxpayers fund party fundraisers? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the hon. member is not aware of some of the clauses in the Municipal Government Act that do not allow municipal officials to use public funds to participate in any political function, to buy tickets.

That not only includes the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberals, and the NDs, but the Alberta Alliance, I believe, unless they play by different rules. Mr. Hinman: Mr. Speaker, he knows that he’s been getting donations in there and has to keep returning them, so he needs to tell his party members. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier please explain to Albertans how the Lobbyists Act is going to protect Albertans and the taxpayers who spend an exorbitant amount of money with such things as the Milk River bypass, where the meeting was held but it was discontinued? The Speaker: No.

We’re not going to accept that question. Within a matter of minutes from now this particular bill will be in commit- tee. We’ve had second reading. We’re in committee stage. That’s not an appropriate use of question period for this. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Land-use Development Framework Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quality of life depends on our commitment to protecting our land. Unfortunately, our need for oil makes us forget this.

To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: will you commit to a system for conservation offset to balance lands impacted by development? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to tell the House that very shortly I’ll be bringing the land-use framework draft to the cabinet and to the Premier. Caucus will look at it over Christmas and January. We’re bringing it forward. Those issues are addressed at length and quite specifically in the land-use framework. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even with the small amount of land that is protected, there are no standards to ensure that the provincial land is managed with the same level of care. To the same minister: will you implement a mandatory provincial parks management program to ensure that Alberta’s land is used and maintained properly? 1:50 Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud of this government’s management of public lands. In the green zone and forest areas our

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072214 integrated land management is reducing the footprint, the impact, of forestry and oil and gas activities by significant amounts. The target for the integrated land management is in the 15 to 20 per cent reduction. Two of our pilot projects are achieving reductions of impact in the 40 to 50 per cent range. In Crown grazing leases in the white zone we have policies in place to protect native grasslands. So we have nothing to apologize for. I’m quite proud of our public land management. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Provincial parks and protected land improve the quality of life for Albertans. Unfortu- nately, other sectors within our economy such as oil and gas can impact the quality and sustainability of the protected land. To the same minister: when will we see a provincial land-use strategy? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, I’ve already answered that question. You’ll see a land-use framework in January. I want to make it very clear that the object of the land-use framework is not to stop growth; it’s to manage growth. This party understands that good environmental policy costs money.

The best environmental regimes in the world are in wealthy, prosperous countries. That’s what we’re going to do: we’re going to have a strong economy and a strong environmental regime. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Alberta Utilities Commission Act Amendments Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before question period I noted that the Minister of Energy tabled amendments to Bill 46, which will be discussed once they come before the Legislature during the committee phase later this session.

I know that many of my constituents, especially those in rural areas, have expressed concerns about this legislation. I am hopeful that these amendments will address many of the concerns I’ve heard, and I would like more information from the Minister of Energy. To the Minister of Energy: can you advise the members of this Assembly how the legislation will address concerns raised about third-party groups who wish to intervene during regulatory or rate hearings? The Speaker: Well, the hon. member would have heard my comments to the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner before.

This had better be policy questions and nothing specific; otherwise, we’re moving on. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most certainly, the government’s policy with respect to the ongoing development of the infrastructure required for utilities in the province of Alberta is going to be very clearly laid out and debated as we go forward. As I’m sure you know, the amendments, of course, are imminent, and we will deal with them in due course. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question for the same minister is: how will thes e amendments address landowners’ concerns . . . Dr. Taft: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Prins: . . . particularly those who feel that they won’t be able to participate in hearings? The Speaker: Okay. There’s a point of order on it. I’m not going to rule the question in order unless there’s another item, so no. If you have a third one, go with it. Mr. Prins: No. That’s it. The Speaker: Do you still have a point of order? Dr. Taft: No. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne.

Treasury Branches Investments (continued) Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As was mentioned earlier today, the Alberta Treasury Branch is an institution that represents a pillar of financial strength and independence for both rural and urban Albertans alike. But I am very concerned about the losses reported and the investment strategies undertaken. The minister is concerned, too. I quote: I don’t want them coming back and saying we’ve had to do another writedown.

To the Minister of Finance: how can Albertans continue to put their trust in the Alberta Treasury Branches if even you are concerned that the actual loss is higher than what’s being reported? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Under the due diligence that I have as Minister of Finance I wanted to be absolutely sure that that was the correct number. I did not want the Alberta Treasury Branch to be coming back two or three or four months down the road and saying: by the way, there needs to be a further writedown.

The asset-backed commercial paper has been a large issue in the banking industry, and we had to ensure that these were absolutely accurate numbers. I am confident in the Alberta Treasury Branch, that the numbers that were put forward by them were the correct numbers, that they had the due diligence applied to those numbers. Hopefully, that $79 million writedown will not be realized as a loss. Hopefully, the asset-backed commercial paper issue will turn around and will survive. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Investment in risky, asset- backed commercial papers is not normally recommended by financial consultants, so I do have concern that the board of directors for Alberta Treasury Branch would feel that it’s an appropriate move. To the Minister of Finance. It is within your legislative powers to ensure prudent loan and investment standards. Can you explain why this $80 million loss happened? Should it not have been avoidable with these high-risk investments? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, obviously, there has been a writedown of $80 million, and as I stated previously, we would sooner not have had any writedown at all.

Two years ago asset-backed commercial paper was looked upon as being a very positive investment with high returns, and indeed at some point in time it did give better returns than other investment modalities. This is something that has caught

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2215 the whole financial industry in North America in investments that have decreased liquidity, which has caused significant issues with them. Is the Treasury Branch any worse off than any other financial industry? The answer is no. At 6 and a half per cent I am confident that . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Yukon Territory the Official Opposition considered this type of risky investment of public money serious enough to call for an audit, and they got it.

The Auditor General of Canada has agreed to investigate $37 million of public money invested in high-risk credit markets, so for us to call for an investigation regarding more than double that amount seems quite reasonable. To the Minister of Finance: will you be asking for a complete audit of the financial decision-making processes and risk management policies within the Alberta Treasury Branches to ensure that public money is not lost due to unnecessary financial gambles? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, once again this side of the House is way ahead of that side of the House.

The Auditor General has been working very closely with the Treasury Branch and has been involved with the Treasury Branch right from the start on the asset- backed commercial paper issue, and indeed the $79 million was done in conjunction with the Auditor General. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Elbow. Support for Seniors’ Centres Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Council on Aging has partnered with the Seniors Advisory Council for Alberta, which I chair, to learn about the financial status of seniors’ centres in the province.

From our findings recommendations were developed to help the seniors’ centres access the funding that some of them may need to remain open. More than 200 seniors’ centres helped with this report. My ques tion is to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Can the minister tell us what he’s doing to address these recommendations, and when is he going to do them? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d first like to thank the Alberta Council on Aging and the Seniors Advisory Council of Alberta for their outstanding work as they go around the province and meet with seniors and seniors’ organizations to get the feedback and help us ensure that our programs do meet their needs. There are three recommendations in this report that came back to us on seniors’ centres in particular. One is to provide more information on all the sources of financing and funding that could be available to them. We were happy to see that we could act on that quickly.

The other is to get into some of the financing sources that seniors’ centres could access. One of those in particular would be easy for us to start actively working on instantly. The other will take a little bit of time. Excellent report. Mr. VanderBurg: Well, I thank the minister for the pat on the back, but I guess I’m looking for a more conclusive action. The FCSS funding of more than $60 m illion is available, but many of these seniors’ centres complain that they don’t get access to that funding. Can the minister explain why not? Mr. Melchin: Mr.

Speaker, family and community support services actually provides substantial funding for seniors’ organizations and family organizations throughout the province. About 80 per cent of those funds are provided from the provincial government, and about 20 per cent of the total funding from FCSS actually goes to seniors’ organizations, many of them to seniors’ centres. So they are actually accessing it. It was intended that this structure would be community based, that they could respond to the individual and local needs.

In that respect, I am pleased to see that this program continues to be a viable support of seniors’ centres and programs. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. VanderBurg: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. Surely, there are other sources of funding that seniors’ centres can apply for. Utilities are an issue that our seniors’ centres are all facing, probably the number one issue. Can the minister explain maybe other sources of revenue to volunteers for these centres? 2:00 Mr. Melchin: Mr.

Speaker, one of the recommendations that they did give was to ensure that th e new community spirit program for charitable giving be designed so that seniors’ centres receive donations that would be eligible for matching funds from the community spirit fund. Now, that’s been designed, and it’s certainly working with our colleagues in the other departments to see that that would and could qualify. That is the intent of the spirit of giving. That is what makes our seniors’ organizations very viable as a volunteer base and the charitable contributions and the support from the local people. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Elbow, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Logging in Watersheds Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s approach to forest management on the eastern slopes of the Rock- ies/Kananaskis is unacceptable. It’s an approach that privileges industry over environmental well-being in a vitally important region. Our concern is not with the forestry industry. It’s with what this government allows the forestry industry to do and where they allow them to do it.

Our problem is with a minister who thinks: “If you want to see real water problems, sit back and do nothing; let nature take its way. That will cause worse problems.” To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: how can a minister in this portfolio be so afraid of nature? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, we’ve explained to our friends across the way many times that water is the highest value that we manage for in our forestry in the eastern slopes. We work closely with our counterparts in British Columbia on both the pine beetle and the fire strategy. Half their questions are: why don’t we follow science?

The other half is: let nature take its course. The message from British Columbia is very clear. They sat back and listened to messages like this in the late ’90s. The result is that they lost 90,000 hectares of lodgepole pine. We’re not going to make the mistakes that were made in British Columbia. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cheffins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the 2004 elections Spray Lakes Sawmills, the forestry company who has the forest manage-

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072216 ment agreement in Kananaskis Country, gave $2,000 to the current Minister of Sustainable Resource Development’s election campaign. That same minister refuses to make public his Progressive Conserva- tive leadership campaign contributions. There’s a clear potential for a conflict of interest arising when the minister responsible for forest management agreements has a history of campaign support from the company holding the FMA for the most sensitive region in this province. The question needs to be asked.

Will the minister release his donor list so that Albertans know the full situation here? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, Spray Lakes Sawmills has operated in the Cochrane and Kananaskis area since the 1940s. They are a family- owned local operation. If you visit Cochrane, I’ll be happy to take you out there. The local community centre is donated by Spray Lakes. They’re the kind of company that have helped build Alberta – north, south, and centre – and I’m very proud to have them as constituents. Mr. Cheffins: Are you in a conflict or not is what we want to know.

Continued clear-cutting in this area is having a negative impact on Calgary and the surrounding region’s watershed. It is ruining the valued leisure and recreation resource in this area, and it hinders attempts at wildlife protection. Will the minister do the right thing: end these damaging logging practices and declare this entire area a fully protected provincial park? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, nothing will damage more the watershed and recreational value of the eastern slopes in Kananaskis Country than devastation by pine beetle and/or forest fire. That’s what we’re managing the forest for. That is our goal.

I’ve met with the Friends of Kananaskis. We’ve discussed it. We share the same outcome. We see recreational watershed as the highest use. But the question is: how do you achieve that? Again, we’ve learned from British Columbia and we’ve learned from the Canadian Forest Service that sitting back and doing nothing is not the solution. It didn’t work in British Columbia. It won’t work here, and we won’t make those mistakes again. Affordable Housing Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, according to CMHC the average two- bedroom apartment in Calgary is currently $1,075 to rent, and we know it’s going up.

R ecent figures from Stats Canada show that over 20 per cent of Albertans earn less than $12 an hour. Those working for $12 an hour in the city of Calgary would have to work 69 hours a week to afford this average, ordinary apartment. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Could you explain to these people how the Alberta advantage is supposed to work for them? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member very much knows, there is an influx of people into this province, and this government is very much trying to address the challenges of a hundred thousand people coming into Alberta and providing housing. We do have a program that is in pl ace looking at providing 11,000 more units into the marketplace over five years. Also, Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of this government is very much to deal with the individuals that are in need, and through the rent supplement and other programs we are going in that direction. Mr. Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess working 69 hours is okay by this minister.

The other figures from Stats Canada show that 36 per cent of Albertans earn less than $15 an hour. Again to the same minister. Also, at the same time housing prices are going up. Mortgage payments would cost twice as much as rent. House payments, if they went that route, would cost three times as much. They’re between a rock and a hard place. What do we say to these hard- working Albertans who can’t afford to buy, and the rent keeps going up. What is your message to them? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been working very co- operatively with the municipalities.

In fact, in the city of Calgary through housing support this past year we have given them $63 million, and those municipalities have that autonomy to be able to choose how they feel that funding should be spent – whether it should be spent on rent supplement, whether it should be spent on new units, whether it should be spent with support from different agencies – to work for the betterment of their community. Mr. Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of Albertans that aren’t sharing in this so-called Alberta advantage.

Apartments being turned into condos means this: what cost you $1,000 a month in rent now will cost you $2,000 a month for a condo plus $33,000 down payment. This is a crisis. My final question to this minister is simply this: does the minister finally get it? In the short run there are only two things you can do: rent increase guidelines and a moratorium on conversions. For the sake of thousands of Albertans, will you at least take a look at this and commit to it? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to say that the Premier brought forward a task force that the hon. member sat on.

The hon. member also brought forward in that task force some of the directions that this government is using at this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you also that when we look at the delivery of services in the two communities, it is in conjunction with the municipalities; it is in conjunction with the agencies. All of these individuals are working in the best interests of where the needs are most needed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Affordable Housing in Calgary Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the unprecedented population growth in Alberta, our Premier is right in putting affordable housing among the top priorities of our government. However, some of my constituents have expressed concern that they are struggling to find rental accommodation that is affordable for themselves and their families. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. With the mandate given to him by our Premier on affordable housing needs for my constitu- ents, what is the minister doing to address this affordable issue in Calgary? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member brought forward: what is the government doing? As I stated earlier, the government is looking at programs and assisting municipalities: $63 million for Calgary; $45 million for the city of Edmonton. In fact, recently $60 million was announced for rural Alberta to support units. Also, I want to say that, in fact, last Friday we had an announcement that was made for $ 450,000. That was a Canada- Alberta affordable housing project that was very much a co-

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2217 operative effort between the municipality, the agency, and two levels of government. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My only supplemental question is to the same minister. Given that the housing demand is outstrip- ping supply, is the government participating in any other projects to address affordable housing in Calgary? Mr. Danyluk: Very much, Mr. Speaker. We very much look at what is needed the most, as I talked about before: the number of units, the rent supplement, the homeless and eviction prevention fund.

We are bringing forward programs. But this is a challenge. We need to look at housing in different ways. We need to look at homelessness in different ways because this challenge is not going to go away. And we are doing exactly that. This Premier has brought forward a secretariat to end homelessness over 10 years. The Speaker: The hon. member? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Confined Feeding Operations Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his 2006-2007 annual report regarding confined feedlo t operations the Auditor General noted that the Natural Resources Conservation Board “cannot demonstrate that it uses its resources effectively to manage the risk of environmental harm.” The risk identification was incomplete, reports were lacking important information, and this issue was raised previously in the Auditor General’s report in 2003-2004. My questions are to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Why has the NRCB not addressed the issue in the past three years? Dr. Morton: Mr.

Speaker, I can only answer that question with respect to the last 11 months, and I can say that internal reforms are under way to address the Auditor General’s concerns. Mr. Bonko: Environmental risks at confined feedlot operations are a significant concern to Albertans. They’ve raised it in the past, and they continue to raise it, especially over this wintertime. When we receive calls and letters from outraged Albertans about filthy water and pouring manure on the land, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development said that these concerns should be taken up with the Natural Resources Conservation Board.

Yet it’s clearly not working. When is the minister going to oversee the NRCB and ensure that they’re taking responsibility for these actions? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now making baseless accusations against good people who work on the Natural Resources Conservation Board. He didn’t give a single specific example. He’s just making things up. I’m not going to answer questions like that. Thank you. Mr. Bonko: Okay. The Auditor General has described very clearly what needs to be done to address environmental concerns at CFOs.

To the minister: will he finally commit to fully implementing all of the recommendations outlined in the Auditor General’s report 2006- 2007? Is that specific enough? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, like the other departments of this government, we absolutely are committed to resolving any problems identified by the Auditor General, but we decide how to solve those problems. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Italian Consulate Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No longer than a month ago I had the honour of hosting the Italian ambassador to Canada here in Edmonton. During our discussions many areas of potential co-operation were explored. Learning of the imminent closure of the consulate definitely was bad news not only to me but to all Alberta Italians. My question is to the Minister of International, Intergov- ernmental and Aboriginal Relations. What impact, Mr. Minister, will the closure have on Edmonton and Alberta? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. member for the excellent work he’s been doing here rallying the troops in terms of the Italian community, with over 70,000 proudly living here in Edmonton. I could give you an example. Did you know that Italy is one of the top 10 exporters, of course, that Alberta deals with, which is very important? The employment opportunities, the tremendous jobs that are provided here, and also the tremendous traditional value that Italians have brought to Edmonton are significant not only to this city but to all of the province of Alberta.

I want to say that we are working very closely with the consul general relative to keeping the office open. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: since the value, not only economic but also cultural value, is of such paramount importance to this province, what is the minister doing to prevent the closure of the consulate? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say what I am doing and this government is doing is.

I tabled in this Assembly earlier today a letter which was sent on behalf of our government to His Excellency Ambassador Gabriele Sardo in Ottawa. We’re encouraging him to meet with us as well and are also reminding him of excellent examples of Italian companies who are doing work, in fact, in my own constituency of Fort McMurray, where over half a billion dollars are being spent. That is being done by Snamprogetti, which is, as you know, an environmental company that is building three hydrotreatment plants in Fort McMurray.

It’s another example of Italians who are working with their expertise here in our province, and we welcome it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton McClung, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Energy Efficiency in Government Vehicles Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta has adopted the lead filter standards to reduce emissi ons in public buildings, yet this government seems to lack an implementation strategy to modernize its vehicle fleet in a similar way. Can the Deputy Premier explain to Albertans why similar steps have not been taken to reduce vehicle emissions? Mr. Renner: Mr.

Speaker, the issue with respect to emissions of the

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072218 government fleet is something that came up quite frequently during the public discussions we had on climate change this summer. I can advise the member that it’s the government’s intention to respond not only to that issue but to a number of other issues as we bring forward our updated climate change strategy. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister, then. Alberta currently produces the bulk of Canada’s fossil fuel emis- sions.

The minister should know that at present technology is available to reduce automotive emissions and is being deployed in provincial service fleets in ju risdictions like British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. To the minister: will the government commit to making our provincial vehicle fleet more energy efficient and less polluting? I appreciate the answer. My question, then, is: when? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues. There’s the government fleet of vehicles, and then there’s the broader perspective of vehicles at large. There are two issues related to this.

One is that older vehicles tend to be much more emitting than the newer vehicles, so as the vehicle fleet in Alberta begins to move into newer vehicles, there will be a natural improvement. We’ve also been working with CASA, and they’ll be presenting at their next board meeting, on December 6, a program that will include incentives, antitampering, a hotline for visible emitters, and inspection and maintenance issues. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was mostly interested in the government fleet itself, automobiles that are under the control of this government.

The Alberta Liberal caucus has always viewed fleet conversion as a measure for reducing emissions and mitigating environmental stresses: things like hybrid, ethanol, or NGVs, for example. The government should lead by example and demonstrate its commitment to reducing emissions. Can we expect the same from this government, or will they continue to be oblivious and resistant to the realities of climate change? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government should lead by example too.

That’s why I as the Minister of Environment am leading by example by buying and using and driving a hybrid vehicle, and I’m encouraging all others in govern- ment to do the same. In answer to the first question, I answered that clearly this is something that the government needs to take under consideration. At times it is appropriate. At other times the use of hybrid vehicles may not be available to serve all needs, but clearly that’s the direction we should be heading in. 2:20 The Speaker: Hon. members, that was 82 questions and responses today.

On a lighter note I would like all to know that, actually, the Sergeant-at-Arms leads all of us by example. He rides a bicycle to work every day. Speaker’s Ruling Use of Laptop in the Chamber The Speaker: Now, hon. members, during Oral Question Period I received a number of notes with respect to an item that I think I have to clarify. In the letter that I sent to all hon. members March 5, 2007, with respect to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 20 different items were covered. One was called 17, Laptop Computers in the Chamber.

Essentially, my request was that laptops are not to be used during the question period or on ceremonial occasions. Today when we had Members’ Statements the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow used not a laptop but a notebook. That brought forth a number of notes. So a dutiful investigation was conducted during Oral Question Period, and the response was that, yes, a notebook was held in the left hand and was read from. That is a no-no. That violates the rules of the Assembly.

I suspect that in ensuing months and in ensuing years there will be another technological innovation that will come forward, but that is generally covered under the whole guise of the laptop definition. There was no point of order. head: Orders of the Day head: Private Bills Committee of the Whole [Mr. Marz in the chair] The Chair: Hon. members, I’d like to call the committee to order. Bill Pr. 1 CyberPol – The Global Centre for Securing Cyberspace Act The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. It’s my pleasure to stand and make a few comments with respect to Bill Pr. 1, CyberPol – The Global Centre for Securing Cyberspace Act. This bill essentially is an effort by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo to establish a centre which has a very, very good purpose. The bill itself sets out the purpose on page 2,

section 3, where it says: The objects of the Centre are to use the funds entrusted to it to establish, construct and operate an international centre for the co- ordination and advancement of public safety, intelligence gathering and government response related to cybercrimes such as child exploitation, financial systems fraud, threats to critical infrastructure and intellectual property and identity theft. I can tell you that all of those threats, all of those crimes are indeed serious crimes that we are facing today.

I will use the example of child exploitation to give you some example of how it has grown over the last handful of years. In 2003 Alberta established its first specialized prosecutor in the area of Internet child exploitation. In 2003-2004 throughout Canada there were something in the order of 60 prosecutions of child exploitation involving the Internet, child pornography, and such. I can tell you that it has grown, Mr. Chairman, so that today here in Alberta alone we have in excess of 60 cases before the courts.

In other words, one jurisdiction, this jurisdiction, has the total that there was in 2003 throughout Canada, and we now have four dedicated prosecutors in this specific area dealing with nothing else. All I’m talking about, so we’re absolutely clear, is the one crime of several that are mentioned here, namely child exploitation. The object of CyberPol is also to deal with financial systems fraud, which is huge, threats to critical infrastructure, intellectual property, and identity theft, which are also huge.

Indeed, the federal government has just recognized that by introducing legislation in this session to enhance the criminal law with respect to identity theft. So I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is indeed very, very important work that the CyberPol centre proposes to do. This government is completely supportive of this initiative. We

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2219 think it’s a wonderful initiative. This initiative, however, is in its very, very early days. I know that people have been working hard, the people who are behind it, in trying to raise dollars to support a business case, to support a feasibility study, and, indeed, have I believe received funding from the city of Calgary and also from the federal government. We as a province are prepared to provide funding for a feasibility study and a business plan, and I believe that the hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security will be able to speak to that.

What I want to say today to the Assembly is that the government is supportive of this idea. I personally as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General see this as a potential incredibly important tool in dealing with Internet-based crime, which is a proliferation and which requires incredible skill, which, candidly, we do not have enough of at this particular point in time either in Canada or in Alberta.

Furthermore, this is an initiative which would see CyberPol here in the province of Alberta, and we would be able to provide guidance and leadership, not only for all of Canada but also for North America and, indeed, probably Europe, the way the proposal is being structured. We need to know the answers to a number of questions before we determine what type of vehicle is appropriate for the centre. What we have in this particular act, Mr. Chairman, is essentially a corporation by private bill, and that is what it is trying to do.

I think the issue here that I want everybody who is interested in this to understand is not a lack of support by the government – we have complete support for the idea – but, rather, the idea of committing to this particular vehicle today when a number of questions have not been answered. Those questions, I respectfully submit, require a business case and feasibility study to be done so that they can be answered. We need to clarify roles, functions, mandates, and day- to-day operations of the centre.

Some of the specific questions, I think, that need to be addressed are: should the centre have the authority of a law enforcement agency? Should there be government oversight of the centre? Should the centre be a public body for the purposes of FOIP? With regard to the sharing of information, it’s unclear whether the centre itself, as opposed to law enforcement agencies that work within the building provided by the centre, will actually collect or have custody and control of any personal information which it could share.

I know that there has been some guidance provided by the FOIP commissioner with respect to this particular bill. When I read it, I could tell that there were a number of questions that were left unanswered. Obviously, whatever goes forward will have to comply with the laws of Alberta and Canada as appropriate. Other structures that can be considered for an organization like this are quite numerous. We have the possibility of a society under the Societies Act of Alberta. We have the possibility of a nonprofit corporation under

part 9 of the Companies Act of Alberta, a for- profit corporation established under the Business Corporations Act of Alberta, a nonprofit corporation established pursuant to the Canadian Corporations Act, a statutory corporation pursuant to a private act, and a statutory corporation pursuant to a private mem- ber’s or government bill. Of c ourse, Bill Pr. 1 is the statutory corporation pursuant to a private member’s bill. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government I wish to say that we are supportive of this particular program.

We are prepared to provide funding with respect to a feasibility study with respect to some business planning. That is the responsibility of the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security, and he will have further to say about that in due course. We firmly believe that more work needs to be done there before we can proceed with this particular bill today or, perhaps, at all. Once we have more information with respect to the matter, it may be that a different vehicle, a different corporation will be appropriate for the go-forward on this. For the time being, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to move that the debate on the matter be adjourned. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: 2:30 Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole Bill 1 Lobbyists Act The Chair: Are there any amendments, comments, or questions to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amend- ment, and I have sent it to the table already. It’s held by the table under the heading of L1. The Chair: We will just allow the pages a moment to distribute it, and we will refer to this amendment as amendment A3.

Okay, hon. member, you may proceed. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, as the House is aware, I have worked closely with the not-for-profit sector in trying to make sure their voice is heard in this Assembly on the debate around the Lobbyists Act. This is one of the things that they would really like to see happen. I know it’s a bit unusual b ecause what the amendment is asking is under the Regulations section, which is

section 20, appearing on page 19 of the original bill. They’re asking that a subsection be added in that says, “Any exercise of the above regulatory powers must involve consultation with the voluntary sector to address adverse impacts of any regulation.” What they’re really seeking here – and I, obviously, agree with them because I’ve brought forward the amendment – is to try and enshrine a consultation process with the members of the not-for-profit sector when regula- tions are being made or changed for this Lobbyists Act.

Now, for those of you that have been following along with this debate, you’ll know that a fairly large group that was classified under the not-for-profit sector has been excluded now from the effects of the Lobbyists Act. One might say: well, why, then, are you still trying to make sure that this group is being consulted under regulatory changes? The reason is because there’s still a number of not-for-profit organizations that are captured under the Lobbyists Act, and regulations that will fine-tune the act will likely affect that sector. Let me give you an example.

One of the qualifiers, criteria, or tests in the act is around whether you’re paid or not paid. But there is a clause in there that talks about being paid in other ways, and in the voluntary sector, charitable sector, no, we don’t pay our volunteers – and we certainly rely on volunteers – but we do try and recognize them in other ways. Some organizations for their annual general meeting pay for all their members and their spouses to go to a retreat, which may well be in quite a nice place and might be regarded by some people as a darn nice treat. What’s that worth?

Should that be counted as part of a payment, perhaps? If the government starts to make regulations through this Lobby- ists Act that will reflect upon that NGO sector, sooner or later that is also going to travel into the part of the NGO sector that has now been exempted out of this bill. I think it’s important that the NGO sector is included with some sort of consultation because what happens here is really going to affect them in a very immediate and

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072220 visceral way. So the amendment is asking that that consultation be enshrined. I’m noticing that the Member for Calgary-Lougheed is involved in a very energetic conversation, and I’m wondering if, perhaps, he and his colleague might like to step outside with it. I’m sure he wants to keep going with it, but maybe he could take himself outside. I’d appreciate that. I’ve done the example of the trip, for example, for the individual and a spouse, but at what point do you include gifts? Is there a value?

For example, often at a volunteer appreciation night volunteers will be given a token. They’ll be given a coffee mug, let’s say, so everybody gets a coffee mug. All right. Do we count that as payment? I’ll put that in quotes. All right. The government may decide that a $5 coffee mug is indeed deemed to be payment. Okay. Fine. But what about the volunteers who didn’t come to the appreciation night and didn’t get their coffee mug? What happens to them? Are they now a different kind of volunteer? Are they an uncompensated volunteer versus a compensated volunteer?

Do we now treat them differently in what they’re doing? I think it’s important that we recognize that there are still a lot of details to be worked out in this act, and I think it’s important that the NGO sector is included in what happens, that they’re consulted. There’s no expectation here that they would have a veto power, that they would somehow dictate what was happening, but they really want to know what is going on, and they want to be consulted in how these regulations come forward. That is the essence of this particular amendment.

I hope I have explained it satisfactorily, but I would like to get all of my col- leagues in the Legislative Assembly to support it. I realize it’s a bit unusual. I’m the one that’s usually standing up here shaking my finger at the government, saying, “Thou shall not make regulations behind closed doors,” and now I appear to be saying, “You can make regulations behind closed doors if you consult the group that is going to be affected by it.” I suppose it could be read that way.

I still am no keener on having regulations developed as part of legislation than I was before, but I am speaking on behalf of a group that is very concerned about how this will affect them, and they want to make sure that they will be consulted. Without it being in the legislation, that consultation – you know, this minister, I’m sure, would say: absolutely. He would do that, but ministers turn over every two years. We have no guarantee that the next one or the next one or three or four down the road would honour that same commit- ment that the first one might have.

This is trying to make sure that we have an ongoing requirement that that sector is consulted and consulted in a thorough way. Having said that, I’m not sure if I have a few members who want to speak in support of it – I hope so – but I do urge all members to support this amendment. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this amendment is extremely well intentioned, but I would ask that the House not support it.

This would set, perhaps, a potential pr ecedent for suggesting that in every act which has regulations, there would be a litany put into the act of who should be consulted before regulations be promulgated. The reality is, of course, that there is consultation before regulations go forward, but more than that, we now have in this House a process which the House can avail itself of with the all- party committees, where a minister can in fact refer potential regulations to a committee for review ahead of time, or the commit- tee can determine that it wants to review the regulations once they’re passed.

So there are opportunities in the area of regulations which should have greater public scrutiny or discussion, or if there are concerns about them, there are opportunities for those to be deter- mined. 2:40 Again, I understand the sentiment behind this. Certainly, the issue that the hon. member is concerned about and one that I and many members, if not all members of the House, are concerned about is that we do not want to put undue regulation, undue framework around voluntary organizations that are doing wonderful things in our communities and our province to build our province.

As I said when I spoke to another amendment earlier, we already find ourselves in a position where because of the acc ountability frameworks that are in place, we find voluntary organizations spending a lot of their time and effort and passion applying for grant money and a lot of their time and effort and passion accounting for the grant money and some of that time running bingos and fundrais- ers so they can actually fund their activities and not e nough time actually doing the activity that the people are passionate about.

If there’s anything we should do, it should be to unleash those organizations so that they can actually expend their passions on the good works in the community. We probably can’t get there from here right away because we have this fondness for accountability structures. Even the hon. Minister of Employment, Industry and Immigration brought in a program this year for the homeless and eviction fund. I thought it was a brilliant program because at the front end of it it basically said that we’re not going to put an undue amount of strictures around it.

We’re going to let the front-end people use their judgment and make the expenditures that are necessary to help people. The first piece that comes back, of course, is a question of: “Are you giving some money to people who shouldn’t get it? How can you be accountable if there aren’t more rules?” All of those sorts of issues. Well, we shouldn’t be doing that, and we shouldn’t be doing that particularly to volunteer or ganizations, wasting their time and effort on an overabundance of accountability. I’m afraid that with this amendment we’re going to actually add to that burden.

All sides of this House agree, I think it’s fair to say, that voluntary organizations and volunteers are very important to the fabric of our community, and we shouldn’t unduly restrict them. Obviously, the concern about regulations under this act is that you don’t want unintended consequences. You don’t want to catch volunteers. I think that that’s understood in terms of any regulation that comes forward.

There needs to be discussion with affected parties before they’re promulgated, but if by chance you miss that or if by chance there’s an unintended consequence, there’s a venue for reviewing those regulations at our all-party committees. I would suggest that that’s a more appropriate route to go. Ms Blakeman: Sorry, I can’t remember the rules, which I shouldn’t be admitting, but may I speak again in an amendment without closing the debate? The Chair: We’re in committee. You can rise as often as you wish. Ms Blakeman: We’re in committee. Thank you. Just double- checking.

I hear what the minister is saying, and I understand that. My only caution about that is the same concern I’ve had all the way along about that. It’s government controlled. It’s the minister supported by a majority government who will vote a referral of something to

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2221 a policy field committee, and/or the policy field committees are set up with a majority of government members on the committee itself. So once again this agenda is controlled by government, and a non- for-profit representative or an individual not-for-profit has no way of getting an agenda item up in front of one of those policy field committees without convincing the majority of the government members to in fact support it. I would agree with the minister except for that process itself has problems in it. That’s my argument around this.

I’m sorry, I don’t accept that that is a valid replacement for actually putting it in the legislation because, once again, it continues to be controlled by government. I guess what I could say is, you know: how happy would the government members of today feel if members on this side formed the government in a few months and they start controlling all of those committee memberships? How pleased are they going to be at that point with the government controlling all of it? I think the answer is: not so much.

So you can understand my small alarm at hearing that the way that that sector could try and be involved in consultations is depending on a majority of government members to allow it onto the policy field committees. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just rise to briefly comment and support the amendment from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Clearly, the major issues that we’ve heard about in Bill 1 are from nongovernment organizations, nonprofit organiza- tions, who are deeply concerned that the existing bill will seriously impact their sense of freedom and their security about lobbying, and at the same time they’re being excluded in some areas where they feel very powerfully the need to participate.

Examples abound in our recent history of NGOs having to respond to fairly draconian changes in the regulations or in the implementa- tion of guidelines, and as the minister himself has stated, there are tremendous implications if there are fines or if there are found to be irregularities according to this new act. This, I think, will help us to encourage meaningful consultation. It will enable nongovernment organizations to feel that they are being meaningfully involved in decisions that ultimately will affect their viability and their ab ility to do the good work that they have been doing.

There is no evidence that this would be seriously delaying or denying any of the good purposes of a lobbyist act. I think, in short, that this will satisfy a significant number of nonprofit organizations particularly and make it much more accountable, much more democratic, and much more likely to include relevant and important considerations in government. I’ll be supporting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will be supporting this amendment.

With respect to what the hon. health minister and Government House Leader had to say in arguing against this amendment, the sense that I have from the voluntary sector people that I know is that they would be quite happy to take a few minutes out of their day from time to time to be consulted by the government over the exercise of these regulatory powers. The Government House Leader made some very valid points about the stress that’s put on voluntary sector people and organiza- tions following the rules of accountability and so on and so forth.

That is true: it does sometimes very much get in the way of those volunteers’ ability to do what their passion is. But this amendment, I believe, Mr. Chair, speaks to part of their passion and their need to be informed and be part of the process, so I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise and speak in support of the amendment introduced by the Member for Edmonton-Centre. Consultation with the voluntary sector to address the adverse impacts of any regulation is very important.

Recently, you know, so many NGOs, the charitable organizations, and volunteer organizations in my constituency approached me, and they think this is not fair. They shouldn’t be exempted, and they said to voice their concern in the Legislature, so that’s the reason I’m supporting this amendment. I think we shouldn’t exempt them from the Lobbyists Act. I know lobbying itself is not a bad thing, but excluding important institutions, es pecially those volunteers – we have I think 3 million volunteers working all over Canada.

I don’t know the exact number of volunteers in Alberta, but they are doing a wonderful job for our community, and they shouldn’t be exempted. We should consider them as a servant, just like all the MLAs and Members of Parliament and some other elected officials. Thank you very much. 2:50 The Chair: Are there others? Are you ready for the question on amendment A1? Ms Blakeman: No. A3. The Chair: A3. Thank you for that, hon. member. [Motion on amendment A3 lost] The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a second amendment, that I have already sent to the table in a package labelled L2. If you would be so kind as to ask the pages to distribute that at this time. The Chair: We will refer to this as amendment A4, and we will just allow a moment to have them distributed. I believe you can proceed, hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment A4 is striking two sections in each of two schedules. In

schedule 1, which is page 21, under

section 1(3)(

c) it’s striking the

section that says, “Any individual who formerly occupied a pre- scribed position with a prescribed Provincial entity.” That’s actually repeated under

schedule 2 and appears on page 25, and exactly the same clause is struck again. What these are are

definitions, essen- tially. Earlier in

schedule 1 it says, “For the purpose of

section 2(1) of this Schedule, ‘former public office holder’ means,” and then it gives a long list. I’ve already talked about how the face of volunteerism is changing in our province. We’ve long ago left behind the 1950s, when all of the nice housewives were available during the day to go out and volunteer for all kinds of good works. We are now dealing, for the most part, with families where two parents are working, where children are very involved in a number of activities – parents

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072222 actually have to volunteer for those activities – so the availability of people’s time and dedication and resources as well, if we’re talking about donating money, is really quite precious. The concern that was voiced to me was that if we describe people that used to hold a position with a provincial entity as being named under one of the groups of people with whom lobbyists couldn’t associate, we’ve essentially said that someone that used to work for the Alberta Mental Health Board, for example, couldn’t volunteer. That, I think, could be problematic for us.

We don’t have a huge pool of volunteers to pull from. We’re not New York. We don’t have millions of people that we could use as a volunteer pool. We’re a lot smaller than that. It’s harder to find volunteers with expertise in certain areas. I think what we’ve done here is we’ve discouraged or in some cases made it wrong to allow someone who used to hold a position with a provincial government entity to be involved with a volunteer organization.

Now, we have exempted the charities and sort of the good-works, charitable groups out of this, but you are still dealing with things like professional associations, chambers of commerce, the Alberta Medical Association, who was in here today, business groups, umbrella associations, unions, for example. They are still looking for volunteers and people willing to serve in their executive positions as well.

Especially when you start looking at some of the groups that need a specialized interest and a specialized background – at least it would be a really steep learning curve for somebody else to pick it all up – I wonder if it’s really advisable for us to be cutting out people who may have gained their expertise by working for a provincial entity or, more to the point, formerly working for a provincial entity. The request was made to me to see if we couldn’t agree to exempt those individuals in this one particular section, which would open up that pool of volunteers.

I agree, and I was clearly willing to bring the amendment forward and to argue for it. I hope that others in the House will see how difficult it can be to recruit volunteers in this day and age, especially when we’re looking at specialized or niche groups, where the hope is that there would be some kind of knowledge around the organization from the people who become involved with it, especially in executive positions.

I mean, our civil service is not huge, but it’s a good pool of volunteers for us to be pulling from, and to say that anyone that formerly worked for a provincial entity is out, I think we’ve narrowed that pool of experts that might be able to contribute by quite a bit. I’m encouraging members of the Assembly to support this amendment. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t really have a lot to add except that I’m certainly supportive of this amendment and would echo the comments that have been made by my colleague from Edmonton-Centre, particularly when it comes to striking

section 1(3)(c): “Any individual who formerly occupied a prescribed position with a prescribed Provincial entity.” As was pointed out, this could encompass so very, very many individuals and, in fact, limit the pool of those who might be willing to serve in this capacity. A number of my caucus colleagues and I were recently in Grande Prairie, and we met with the Grande Prairie and region chambers of commerce.

This was one of the concerns that they raised, actually, so I’m going to guess that if the Grande Prairie chambers of commerce have that concern – and I know that they do a lot of work with the Alberta chamber – this is something that chambers of commerce across the province would share with many, many others. As my colleague from Edmonton-Centre was just whispering in my ear: the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It goes on and on and on.

In fact, I can think of several examples: certainly, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, people that work for that entity now who previously worked with provincial government entities. I can think of similar examples with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and I’m sure the list is endless, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I think this is probably more far reaching than was contemplated when the act was first drafted. I think it would be the appropriate thing to strike these two sections from the proposed legislation, as is being suggested by this amendment.

I do support it, and I would urge all of my colleagues in the Legislature to do the same. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I at first glance cannot accept this amendment. We had a discussion with the Ethics Commissioner when we looked at that, and we were trying to expand who should be included in terms of conflict of interest, a cooling-off period. We eventually moved that it wasn’t only cabinet ministers that had this sort of influence; it was people that worked, say, in the Premier’s office and for some of the cabinet ministers.

If we look at the previous bill, we were trying to do that. Here we seem to be lessening or watering down some of the impacts of people that would have that sort of influence. It’s not that they can’t do it forever, Mr. Chairman; it’s a cooling-off period. These people could have as much power. 3:00 In other words, I’m worried about moving on the L obbyists Act and watering it down as we go along to the point where it might be meaningless. I think that any individual who formerly occupied a prescribed position – we’ve already taken out the voluntary sector generally, so it’s not going to im pact them.

So it’s going to be precisely, it seems to me, the people that we might want to know are lobbying the government. You know, unless somebody can tell me differently, I see no reason why we should not have that in (c). If this was a concern, it should have been dealt with. Probably the people that had more time to look at it were the people in the policy field committee. They must have thought it was important for a reason. Unless something I’m missing totally jumps out at me, I think that’s why you want those particular people there, because they may have influence. We want to know who’s talking to government.

It’s not that they can’t talk to government. But who is talking to them? That’s the whole point of a lobbyist registry. Again, I accept the argument from the nonprofit sector, but we have already taken them out of the picture. So who else is left, Mr. Chairman? We are concerned that there are some people from some of these groups that are mentioned. I’d like to know if they’re talking to the government. That’s precisely what a lobbyist registry is. Not that it’s illegal or anything else, just that we know who’s talking to them. That’s the whole purpose of the Lobbyists Act, Bill 1.

I certainly would not support removing 1(

c) from this act. Thank you. The Chair: Are there others? Are you ready for the question on amendment A4? Hon. Members: Question.

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2223 [Motion on amendment A4 lost] The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We’re back talking to Bill 1. Bill 1, as you know, Mr. Chairman, was the flagship bill for this legislative session. It was referred, as you know, to one of the four standing policy field committees, which met over the summer a number of times and invited feedback and input from members of the public, identified stakeholders.

They did in fact come back to us with recommendations both in written submis- sions and also in oral presentations when they appeared before the committee. Some of the recommendations were dealt with earlier in the Assembly, and now we’re talking to the bill itself. Let me tell you a bit of history from the committee, Mr. Chair- man. You don’t need me to remind you b ecause you sat on the committee as well. We had a fairly extensive discussion in the committee about the words “to communicate” with a public office holder, and we spent some time trying to narrow it down and define what constitutes communication.

It was an area where the commit- tee actually had some serious discussions and serious thought on the idea that lobbying in itself, as you know and agree, is not forbidden. It is not prohibited. Lobbying is something that goes on and should be allowed to continue to go on. However, we wanted to give clarity to the word “lobbying.” We arrived at the destination, if you will, that lobbying is basically attempting to do two things.

You’re either attempting to influence policy or you’re attempting to influence funding decisions, maybe securing funds for your organization or, you know, setting policy where funds can and should be allocated over where funds cannot and should not be allocated. So policy decisions and funding decisions. Now, if I can draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to page 3 of the proposed act, that’s the

section that talks about the

interpretation. What does the act do? What does the act attempt to accomplish?

Section 1(1)(

e) talks about lobbying, and it says here as it’s worded: “lobby” means, subject to

section 3(2), (

i) in relation to either a consultant lobbyist or an organiza- tion lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence. Then it lists various areas from s ection (

A) all the way to

section (G), talking about the development of any legislative proposal, the introduction of an y bill or resolution, th e development or the enactment of any regulation or any order in council, the awarding of a grant, a decision by Executive Council, and so on and so forth. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer that clarity, building on the excellent discussions and presentations we had in the Standing Committee on Government Services, and as such I am proposing an amendment, which I have already delivered to the table. I’ll await its distribution. The Chair: We’ll refer to that amendment as amendment A5.

You may proceed, hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As hon. members know, the registrar and the Ethics Commissioner expect the registry to be up and running fairly soon after this bill passes. If we consider the fines and we consider breaches of the act, some body who fails to register will be held accountable. Somebody who registers and fails to report will be held accountable. What this amendment is trying to do is tighten the bill a little more and offer that clarity which I talked about. Somebody might appear before the Ethics Commis- sioner or a court of law even and say: “Mr.

Ethics Commissioner or Your Honour, I was not attempting to influence any of these areas. I was basically stating my mind. I was making an expression. I was making a statement.” I am afraid that this might be used by some people who maliciously and intentionally break the law, basically, and breach the act by saying: I was not attempting to influence; I was basically making an observation or making a comment. So I think that this amendment should be agreeable to all members of the House. It is basically making a good bill even better.

It is tightening it up in such a way that if you consider this a loophole, it is not going to be available for those people who maliciously want to break the law, maliciously want to circumvent or sidestep the lobbyist registry, that we’re all eager to have passed and have implemented, you know, in this Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I invite comment, and I’m hoping that members of this Assembly are going to agree to this amendment and help make a good bill even better. The Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, am pleased to stand to address amendment A5 to Bill 1, and I also served on that commit- tee, as you are aware, I’m sure. I think that this is a very good amendment. I believe that it does tighten it up, as my hon. colleague has noted, because to my mind it really does make it too easy to get around what really should be the intent. The intent is that if you are lobbying or you’re speaking to someone, the information that should be available is: who spoke to whom, and what did they talk about?

I don’t think that the details of that conversation are particularly important, but it really has to be registered at some point in time. So that’s why I believe that the words “in an attempt to influence” make it too easy. 3:10 One of the things that came up in the committee was that we spoke about transparency, openness, and accountability. I believe that the way it sits, it will not a ddress those three parameters that really should be respected in this process.

We talked about some- thing that was interesting in a way, and it was called reverse onus, and that was going to be about who actually was responsible. This is a conversation that I’m hoping will still come up at a later date. I believe that if we had that reverse onus, where in fact the onus is on the elected official to say whom they’ve spoken with, where they spoke to them, and what they spoke about, it would take away all of these abilities or intents for someone who wants to get around this bill. So for those reasons I’m supporting this amendment.

I hope that the House has paid attention to why they should be supporting it, and therefore I will. The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise and speak to amendment A5, which I think does exactly what the member has indicated. I think we would be wise to support this amendment because we want to give clarification to the whole issue of lobbyists. We want to tighten up the regulations around lobbyists, and we want to be seen doing that as well. I think this does both.

I think it tightens up the regulations in a couple of key areas, and it is seen to do that as well and sends a powerful message to the people of Alberta that their provincial government is serious about a lobbyist registry act. I think that, quite frankly, when you look at the substance of the

Alberta Hansard November 27, 20072224 amendment, which is to strike out the phrase “in an attempt to influence” and substitute the phrase “with regard to,” and then you read it the way that the legislation would read, it makes a lot of sense in regard to that. So if the amendment were adopted, it would say, for instance: “lobby” means, subject to

section 3(2), (

i) in relation to either a consultant lobbyist or an organiza- tion lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder with regard to (

A) the development of any legislative proposal. I could go on because there are a number of sections there, obvi- ously, as opposed to reading: “in an attempt to influence” the development of that legislative proposal, et cetera, et cetera. Again in subclause (B): (ii) only in relation to a consultant lobbyist . . . (

B) to communicate with a public office holder with regard to the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of the Government or a prescribed Provincial entity. This reads considerably more strongly than “in an attempt to influence the awarding of any contract.” My colleague from Edmonton-McClung I think is right that when you phrase it in terms of an attempt or an intent to influence, you leave a very large amount of wiggle room for the alleged lobbyist, if he’s called on it, to say: well, no, that wasn’t my intention at all; I wasn’t really trying to do that.

I think that if you change the language to “with regard to,” that makes it good and clear to everybody – to prospective lobbyists, to lobbyists registered and not yet registered, to anybody considering getting into the lobbyist business, to MLAs, to cabinet minist ers, to anyone involved in the process of government – what the expectations are around that. Clarity like that I think makes for better legislation. So, Mr. Chair, I’ll be happy to support amendment A5 when it comes to a vote. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular amendment I will support b ecause I think it makes g ood sense. I don’t know how you would talk about a, b, c, d, and e, the semantics. You say: I want to talk to you, but I don’t want to influence you. I think this makes it clear, and I hope the government would take a look at it. If you’re going to di scuss these matters, the semantics are fairly important because, as I say, the person said: I just happened to be chatting with the minister about this, but I didn’t really influence him or try to influence him.

Now, I don’t know how you have a discussion about a bill or any other matter coming from the government without having some bias towards it, and I think this amendment says that discussion about this – and we don’t get into that debate about what’s an attempt to influence or not – about a particul ar bill or resolution or anything coming from an order in council: if there’s been that discussion and you’re a lobbyist, we should know about it, plain and simple. So I think this does add to the bill, and I will support it. Thank you. The Chair: Are there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. Mr. R.

Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I would like to point out that this amendment was approved by Parliamentary Counsel on the 20th of March 2007. Of course, you will understand that that was actually in advance of Bill 1 having been referred to the policy field committees. In fact, I’m quite sure it was the first bill that was ever referred to the policy field committee on government services.

I think it’s important to note that because what that shows me is that my colleague from Edmonton-McClung actually had these concerns way back in the spring, prior to any discussion ever having taken place at the policy field committee. I know that in speaking to my colleague from Edmonton-McClung and other members who sat on the committee that this particular issue, this particular wording was discussed at length during the meetings of that Government Services Committee and apparently never really came to any full resolution, certainly not to the satisfaction of the Member for Edmonton-McClung.

You know, what we’re doing here when we debate these individ- ual amendments, of course, as has been discussed previously, is trying to make what we believe is a good bill even better, even stronger. I just feel that we leave too many doors open too far when we don’t nail down the wording exactly.

If what we really mean is that an individual has to register as a lobbyist if they’re discussing a particular issue with a minister, we don’t mean whether or not they were attempting to influence because if they’re required to register as a l obbyist and they’re having the discussion on a particular issue with a minister, as an example, clearly that’s why they’re doing it. They’re not chatting over coffee. This is an issue that is important to the lobbyist. It’s important to the relative minister or whoever it might be that is being lobbied.

To leave the door open by saying that it would only qualify under this legislation if, in fact, there was an attempt being made to influence is just a little too broad. In the last amendment I discussed how I didn’t feel that when the drafters of the bill drafted the act, they intended it to be that broad.

In this case I would have to think that the drafters of the legislation actually intended it to be as broad as this amendment contemplates, and narrowing the wording to simply talk about an attempt to influence I believe doesn’t capture the intent of the Premier when he first contemplated bringing forward a lobbyist act. And I don’t believe it captures the intent of the drafters of the bill when they put it together. I, too, speak strongly in support of this amendment, and I would encourage all hon. members to support it as well. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. 3:20 Mr.

Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my great honour to rise and speak in support of amendment A5. If we really want to strengthen Bill 1, which is a good bill, we must consider the intention of the lobbyist. In this amendment the Member for Edmonton-McClung is trying to say that we should clarify the difference between intention and influence. It’s very important because with this amendment we will be able to clarify more about intention and influence. If we really want to strengthen this bill, we should clearly make important changes. This amendment is very important.

This definitely will make this bill even better. That’s the reason I support this, Mr. Chairman. If we find out the difference between intention and influence, we definitely will be able to see the intention of people who come and see the government, who apply for grants, or who apply for con- tracts. The public has every right to know. We will definitely, you know, strengthen this bill with this amendment. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A5 lost] The Chair: Are you ready for the question on Bill 1, Lobbyists Act?

November 27, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2225 Hon. Members: Question. [The clauses of Bill 1 as amended agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? Carried. The ho

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20071127
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20071127 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3640f448568e959ab6f52d63d3e3ec1ae0ebaef5

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