Alberta Hansard — 16 April 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20070416

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 561 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 16, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/04/16 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Guide us all in our deliberations and debate that we may determine courses of action which will be to the enduring benefit of our province of Alberta and its people. Amen. Hon. members and ladies and gentlemen, I’m now going to invite Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us in the singing of our national anthem, and I would invite all to participate in the language of one’s choice. Hon.

Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Lorieau, for again whipping us all up with that high level of enthusiasm. One year ago we remembered what you did. Sorry that we’re down to this provincial Assembly today. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, I have three introductions today. The first will be a number of students from Mundare. I wish to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature 18 visitors from Mundare. They’re, of course, accompanied today by their teacher, Andrew Yeo, and Miss Theresa Nelsen. They’re seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. My second introduction. I wish to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 61 guests from Tofield school. They are accompanied today by teacher Mr.

Fred Yachimec, who, if you look at the Hansard, has of course been bringing students year in and year out; Mr. Gilles Daigle; student teacher Megan Tooke – I got a chance to meet her today – teacher’s assistant Mrs. Glenda Metro; and parent helpers Mrs. Kathleen Perrott and Mrs. Cathy Armstrong. A tremendous group of students, a large group from Tofield. We wish them well and ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. It’s a great, great way to start the week, Mr. Speaker. My third introduction today.

I’m happy to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Mr. Ed Perlik, Mrs. Helen Zahoda, and Roman and Lorraine Perlik. These special guests are the grandparents and great-aunt and great-uncle respectively of Robyn Peters, one of our hard-working pages. They have come here to watch Robyn in action in the Legislature. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Ed for many years. Wonderful to have him and his family in the House, both in the gallery and, of course, on the floor.

Something very intere sting: Ed has sa id that the last time he was here, he was here with his social studies class in 1945. I would ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 39 guests from my constituency of Edmonton-Whitemud. Students from the Brander Gardens elementary school are here with us again, as they are every year.

I’ve got to tell you that they did not disappoint with their questions again this year. I find grade 6 students have the best and the hardest questions, and as I say, I was not disappointed again this year by the quality of the questions that they raised. They are accompanied today by Mme Natalie Gago-Esteves, who has been with us at least, I think, seven years in a row now for me; Miss Alissa Sept; teacher’s aide Mrs. Rita Adams; student teacher Mrs. Sabrina Haque; and parent Mrs. Susan Thompson. Of special note, my special assistant Sean Yam was a student at Brander elementary school and had Mrs.

Natalie Gago-Esteves as a teacher. He remembers her as being a passionate educator, and he remembers her fondly. He was very pleased to be able to be reunited today when we were taking pictures. I’d like to ask all of the students and the adult accompaniment to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of our Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m just delighted to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a really delightful woman that it’s been my great pleasure to work with over the past couple of years.

Cheryl Williams is graduating now from the U of A with a bachelor of arts in the history of art, design, and visual culture. She worked in my constituency office in the summer of 2005, and then she came back to volunteer in the office through this last school year, from September of ’06 through until now. She w ill be returning to the U of A in 2008 to pursue a master of arts in the history of Alberta mountain culture. She’s really been a fun, creative, committed woman to work with. I’d like you to please join me in welcoming her. With her today is my fabulous constituency manager, Sarah Crummy.

Sarah serves me and the people of Edmonton-Centre with great, good humour and compassion and efficiency. Please welcome them all. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly Cyndi Deloyer, executive director of Fort McMurray Family Crisis Society. I’d like to ask Cyndi to rise and please receive the warm and traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly three individuals on strike at the Palace Casino. They are Elaine French, Kristina Ratkovic, and Sharlene Pattison. These workers are here on day 220 of this strike, which could have been averted if there were fair labour laws in place to protect Alberta workers. Instead, they are here today to bring attention to their workplace situation after more than seven months on the picket line. Elaine French has been working in the slots department of the Palace Casino for the past three years.

Sharlene Pattison is a bartender at the Palace Casino and has been there four years. Sharlene hails from B.C. and came to Edmonton

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007562 in search of work, as many people do across Canada. Kristina Ratkovic has been at the Palace Casino since 2005 and is a server. They’re joined today by UFCW local 401 representative Christine McMeckan. I would now ask that they rise and receive the tradi- tional warm welcome of this Assembly. Ms Tarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly representatives of the child care sector.

The Alberta Child Care Network Associa- tion provides a forum for sharing information between the child care community and government. It endorses and promotes quality child care on behalf of children and families, supports early childhood training and education, and promotes public awareness and educa- tion about child care. Earlier today I announced a new 1 and a half million dollar bursary that will help child care providers attract and retain staff and help staff in preschool and out of school child care programs to continue their education.

As well as helping to support and attract staff, the bursary program will enhance the sector’s capacity in dealing with opera- tional challenges. The Alberta Child Care Network Association was a tremendous help in the development of the bursary program. The association will be responsible for developing eligibility criteria, accepting and assessing application forms, and distributing funding to successful applicants. Their great work and dedication to the child care industry is a valuable contribution to the future of Al- berta’s children.

I now ask the following members of the Alberta Child Care Network to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly: Diane McKean, Traudi Kelm, Susan Elson, Deirdre Leighton, and Dr. Sherrill Brown, and accompanying them, I see Lynn Jerchel from Children’s Services. Please join me in thanking them and welcoming them. head: 1:10 Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. National Soil Conservation Week Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week, April 15 to 21, is National Soil Conservation Week.

Having worked the land as a farmer myself, I’m proud to note that Albertans are leaders in conserving our land and our soil. In fact, we’re the only province to have legislation specifically designed to protect this important resource. However, it’s what our producers are doing in the field every single day that really demonstrates how Albertans are dedicated to conserving our soil for future generations. Our farmers and growers are using what we call beneficial management practices to combine productivity with conservation.

For example, nearly two-thirds of our province’s cropland is now being direct-seeded to reduce soil erosion and improve the richness of our soil, making it more fertile and moist. Soil conservation also s upports rangeland and woodlot production and is important in maintaining other resources such as water, air, and wildlife habitat. Mr. Speaker, advancing our knowledge will be key to further improvements. Fortunately, Alberta already has a comprehensive soil monitoring program.

This program is unique to North America and possibly world-wide because our 45 monitoring sites fully represent the various topography of our agricultural landscape. For 10 consecutive years we’ve been able to track and assess changes and the cumulative effects that agriculture management has had on our soil. Additionally, this program will help examine other agricultural and soil-related activities, including the implication and impact of climate change. Furthermore, by sharing the data from these sites with academic institutions across Canada, we’re provid- ing valuable learning opportunities for students. Mr.

Speaker, the success of our agricultural sector, food quality, and a healthy environment are all connected to soil conservation. As we recognize April 15 to 21 as National Soil Conservation Week, it’s important that we also acknowledge and thank our producers for being leaders in the agricultural industry and faithful stewards of the land. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Yom ha-Shoah, Holocaust Memorial Day Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Today marks a very important day: Holocaust Memorial Day, or Yom ha-Shoah.

I invite the Legislature and all Albertans to take a moment of reflection as we remember the price the world paid as a result of the senseless and systematic persecution of 6 million people of the Jewish faith during the Second World War. In the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller: First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Finally, they came for me . . . but there was no one left to speak up.

Yom ha-Shoah reminds the world of the atrocities of the Holo- caust as well as the massacre of millions of others during acts of genocide throughout history, Mr. Speaker. Every day we must be vigilant in our defence of human rights. I urge all Albertans to actively promote acceptance of all people and to protect the rights which uphold the way of life in this province. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Volunteerism Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. From April 15 to 21 we will be recognizing the contribution volunteers make to the welfare of our province.

This year’s theme is Volunteers Grow Community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers on behalf of our caucus and, indeed, everyone in the Legislature. Alberta Liberals place a high value on volunteers’ time and effort. Volunteers donate their time in agencies that provide critical services to the residents of Alberta: youth, family, social support, recreational activities, safety, education, wellness, disease support, to name a few, and many others which contribute to the improve- ment of Albertans’ quality of life, like arts and culture.

Many of these organizations are contracted by the government to provide essential services to the citizens of Alberta. They perform these services with repressively small budgets, spending a great deal of their human resources, paid and volunteer, on fundraising to subsidize the government funding of those very services. Few are in a financial position to react to any hardship or emergency that they may encounter. Rising utility costs and the decreased availability of office space are huge concerns.

Recruiting and retaining qualified staff without being able to offer competitive salaries is leading to higher turnover rates, which is often catastrophic for organizations that operate with few paid staff. It is critical th at voluntary organizations get the financial support they need to provide the services Albertans require. Running a voluntary-based organization is not free. These volunteers deserve our admiration and our thanks, but they also

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 563 deserve reasonable funding support for their organizations. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. Ford World Men’s Curling Championship Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to acknowledge the 2007 Ford World Men’s Curling Championship that was held last week right here in Edmonton at Rexall Place and was attended by our Premier, our minister responsible for sports from Dunvegan-Central Peace, myself, and others.

The success of this great event resulted because of many outstanding individuals, beginning with an extraordinary host committee that included president Jackie-Rae Greening, Bonnie Lopushinksy, Ron McGowan, Kris Sakowsky, Tracy Telford, Terry Symyrozum, Katherine Huising, our Northlands Park liaison Leanne Smoliak, and many other volunteers who worked tirelessly in preparing for these special games.

It was great to watch an international tournament that involved teams from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, Switzerland, the U.S.A., and for the first time the crowd-pleasers and heart-stealers, Korea. Congratulations go to our winning gold medallists from Ontario, skipped by Glenn Howard, to the silver medallists from Germany, skipped by Andy Kapp, and to the bronze medallists from the U.S.A., skipped by Todd Birr.

Additional thanks go out to the sponsors of the 2007 Ford World Men’s Curling Championship and to the many businesses from Edmonton and elsewhere in Alberta that contributed. Our final thanks must go out once again to the people of Edmon- ton and area, who demonstrated that our capital city is truly a world- class host. This championship set a world record for participation, with more than 10,000 spectators taking in last Sunday’s final, thus bringing the total attendance for the nine days to a remarkable 184,970 spectators, a record for any Ford-sponsored event and a world record for a men’s-only curling event.

Thank you and congratulations to all the volunteers, the sponsors, the fans, and the athletes who worked so hard to ensure the success of this international curling event. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Sustainability of Social Programs Mrs. Mather: Thank you.

I understand that a majority of busi- nesses that go under in the first two years fail not because of market or management but due to undercapitalization, and in a different realm I understand that most of the public and not-for-profit social programs that fail do so because of a lack of political will to see them through to a point of sustainability. What I want to do today, Mr. Speaker, is create an awareness of the crisis of human capital. We’ve kept these overlapping truths in separate compartments of our minds, and it’s time to bring them together.

We have a province that excels globally in the raising of financial capital and is undercapitalized in the social and human domains. I’m referring not only to our cash investment in these areas but to the attitudes that shape our priorities. For years we have talked of people as human resources, resources we have not renewed, have allowed to burn out and be depleted. We have provided minimal support to those who chose to go into nurturing professions: teaching, nursing, caregiving, and social work.

We have considered these soft career choices in comparison to those who work with hardware, heavy equipment, and finance. At best we applaud their choices with a bland, “That’s nice.” At worst we put them on the chopping block for budget cuts and clawbacks. 1:20 Mr. Speaker, we need to bring undercapitalization here into balance with our overinvestment in the oil sands and construction industries, in the words of the hon. Premier, to deal with the pressures created by economic growth.

We will do this not only by providing sustainable funding to these areas but by restoring a sense of responsibility for each other, the belief that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Camrose Kodiaks Hockey Team Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to congratulate the Camrose Kodiaks, the new Alberta champions of the 16-team Alberta Junior Hockey League. Last night the Kodiaks defeated the Fort Saskatchewan Traders in the sixth game of a seven-game series in front of a capacity hometown crowd at the Max McLean Arena.

The 2007 championship is a nice 10-year anniversary celebration for the Kodiaks and their owners, the Camrose Sport Development Society. In their 10-year history the Kodiaks have won four Alberta Junior Hockey League championships out of six times in the final playoff series, three B.C./Alberta Doyle Cup wins, national junior hockey silver medals in 2003 and 2005, and the Royal Bank national junior hockey championship in 2001.

The Kodiaks now advance to the Alberta/B.C. championship and if successful will represent our two provinces in the Royal Bank Canadian championship to be he ld in Prince George, British Columbia, in May. Nostalgia was also in the air last night. The Kodiaks played their last game of Alberta junior league hockey in the Max McLean Arena and will move into the new 3,000-seat Camrose sport development centre next year, and the Fort Saskatchewan Traders played their last game as a Fort Saskatchewan team as they are moving to St. Albert next year.

They are to be congratulated for a long history in Fort Saskatchewan and especially for their silver medals this year. I want to congratulate the Kodiaks, the players and their coaches – Boris Rybalka, Doug Fleck, and Miles Walsh – the management and their owners, the Camrose Sport Development Society, on another very successful year. I ask all members to warmly congratu- late the Kodiaks, and I wish them all the best on the road to the national championships.

Calendar of Special Events The Speaker: Hon. members, three days were mentioned already today in the Assembly: Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah, yesterday; National Volunteer Week, April 15 to 21; and National Soil Conservation Week, April 15 to 21. There are a number of other weeks and days that I’ll just draw to all members’ attention. April 16 to April 22 is International Astronomy Week. April 17 is World Hemophilia Day. April 17 is Equality Day in Canada. April 20 to April 22 is Global Youth Service Day. April 21 is Law Day. April 21 is also International Astronomy Day. Earth Day is April 22.

Administrative Professionals Week is April 22 to April 28 as is National Immunization Awareness Week as is National Medical Laboratory Professionals Week as is National Organ and Tissue

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007564 Donor Awareness Week. April 22 to May 24 is National Physiother- apy Month. April 23 is St. George’s Day as it is World Book and Copyright Day as it is part of Global Action Week, which goes from April 23 to April 29. April 23 to April 29 is also Global Road Safety Week. April 25 is Administrative Professionals Day. April 26 is World Intellectual Property Day. April 28 is National Day of Mourning. April 29 is International Dance Day, and April 29 to May 5 is Education Week. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev.

Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition of 73 names, signatures, and addresses of constituents of Drayton Valley-Calmar and area who are urging the government to introduce a bill to create a buffer zone of at least one mile from any major water body and thus prohibit approvals of confined feeding operations within this buffer zone to “protect and preserve Alberta’s fresh water sources.” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to table another 78 signatures from Albertans from all over the place but particularly from Edmonton, Gibbons, and St. Albert urging the government to ensure that the remuneration paid to employees working with people with disabilities is even across the sector and to ensure that they’re fairly compensated to be able to retain them, to also improve their access to professional development opportunities, and to “introduce province-wide service and outcomes-focused level-of-care stan- dards.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table today for the information of the Legislative Assembly three letters. As chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee I wrote on March 22, 2007, to both Ms Sheila Weatherill, president and chief executive officer of Capital health, and Mr. Jack Davis, president and chief executive officer of the Calgary health region, to attend a Public Accounts meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. I would like to table these two letters.

I would like to table a response that I was delighted to receive on March 29, 2007, from the Calgary regional health authority indicat- ing acknowledgement of the letter from March 22, and it states in here that the committee can expect to see the Calgary regional health authority in September. To date we have not heard from the Capital health authority, and I anxiously await that letter. The Speaker: Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the appropriate number of copies of a letter representing the Marie Lake protection society expressing grave concerns about the development in the Marie Lake area. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a report called A Crisis of Human Capital, talking about the issue of human capital in the children’s services sector. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to rise and present some letters on behalf of constituents in Edmonton-Manning calling on this Legislative Assembly to support that the accused killer of Joshua John Hunt be sentenced and tried as an adult “due to the nature of this crime, his past criminal history and that he is so close to the age of 18 years.” The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to table the requisite number of copies of two sheets of paper submitted by Mr.

Ted Klimosko, who describes himself as one of those Albertans hurt by the Alberta advantage and one who is ready to leave the province. The first document shows a purchase contract for a condo unit clearly showing him having bought the unit, that it was his basically. The second document shows that clause titled Closing and Comple- tion Date, which states that should the seller not be able to complete the unit, they can just simply refund the money and take possession back and they can sell it to someone else. He thinks that this is not only an inconvenience, but the fact is that he lost money.

He agrees that this province needs a consumer advocate. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my privilege today to table the prerequisite copies of four annual reports: the report of the Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists for 2005- 2006, the Public Health Appeal Board for 2006, the Alberta College of Social Workers for 2006, and the College of Dental Technologists of Alberta for 2005-2006. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have two tablings this afternoon, the first being a letter dated March 30 from a constituent, Azra Ahmad, a new immigrant to Canada from Bangladesh, a single parent, who discusses her difficulty in finding and maintaining affordable housing for herself and her nine-year-old son. The second, Mr. Speaker, comes as a result of myself attending with several colleagues from this Legislature the labour appreciation night on Saturday evening at the Shaw Conference Centre at which the Jim Shewchuk award was presented.

I’m pleased to table the appropriate number of copies of the Shewchuk award program outlining this year’s winner, Ma ureen Werlin, a member of the Canadian professional employees international union who has spent the previous 17 years working with the Alberta Federation of Labour and has done an awful lot, in fact an absolutely impressive amount of work with the Edmonton Epilepsy Association. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk. On behalf of the hon. Mr.

Knight, Minister of Energy, a document entitled Royalty Review 2006: List of Consultant Studies and Software.

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 565 head: 1:30 Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Regional Municipal Planning and Development Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The social, environmental, and economic challenges facing Alberta’s communities do not respect municipal boundaries. Take Strathcona county: a wall of new upgraders on one side, a potential 100 square mile coal strip mine on another, and the proposal for the continent’s largest landfill, taking trainloads of out-of-province garbage, on another side.

Yet the people of Strathcona county have little to no say in these develop- ments because they’re in different counties. To the Premier: will the Premier admit that the people of Strathcona county should have a right to be heard on the future direction of development in this region? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are processes in place when various developers are putting forward proposals for development in municipalities, and adjoining municipalities also have an opportunity to comment on applications that are made.

But this is one area that we recognize as a priority for the government, and that is land-use planning, better co-operation, better communication amongst and between municipalities, and we’re getting on with the job. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The city of Edmonton provides many services for residents outside its boundaries, from transportation and recreation to social services. The city of Edmon- ton bears additional costs because it’s the hub of this region. Edmonton’s development is directly impacted by decisions of other municipalities.

For example, land targeted for a hospital in Strathcona county could conflict with land that is proposed for heavy industry development in Edmonton. To the Premier: what is this government prepared to do to fix regional planning so that Edmon- ton and its neighbours can work together on future growth? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, when I served in two previous capacities, as minister of infrastructure and minister of transporta- tion, I worked with the 22 municipalities in putting together long- term transportation plans.

That has really moved this whole area very positively in terms of some major construction of large, very important roadways to us, to the whole area. We’re continuing to work on other areas in terms of further development in the province, in the capital region, and how we can co-operate further. Although as elected officials every person has their own opinions, which they bring to the meeting, they are working in a very positive direction. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The lack of requirements for municipalities to plan on a regional basis has led to conflicts between neighbouring municipalities across the province. The Alberta Capital Region Alliance is just one example of regional planning that has broken down, leaving the future of the Edmonton region in question. To the Premier: is it still fundamentally the position of this government that regional planning is hands off, or will the Premier consider supporting a forthcoming Alberta Liberal bill that will make regional planning mandatory? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned before in the House, we’re a little further ahead of where the Liberals are in this particular area. The minister responsible for municipal affairs will be coming forward with the kinds of discussions he’s had with the municipal leaders finally after – what? – five years of discussion. All AUMA, AAMD and C, and the two big city mayors have agreed on the municipal sustainability report. That report is being vetted through the various processes, and there will be further information to follow. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Openness and Transparency in Government Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. On what is perhaps the biggest single issue this government will face, the review of the royalty regime, this government flat out stumbles. It appointed someone with a multimillion dollar conflict of interest, a former VP of Shell Canada, to the panel. To the Premier. The head of Shell Canada has written to the Premier explaining that the current royalty framework provides Albertans with a, quote, fair return to the province’s natural resources. End quote.

What assurances beyond some vague oath can the Premier provide that the views of Shell Canada, which opposes any changes to royalties, are not being embedded in the panel and this government by the panel member who still has a mu ltimillion dollar stake in that company? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the administrative portion I’ll ask the minister to respond. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would let the Legislative Assembly know that prior to the attendance of any meeting Mr.

Sam Spanglet, who s its on this committee, sold his shares, sold his stock options in Shell Canada. Dr. Taft: Well done. Well done. The Premier’s lobbyist bill, which is a belated half-step full of loopholes, defines a lobbyist as someone paid to do their work, yet we had an individual appointed to this panel who is clearly in a conflict of interest. Will the Premier admit that there is nothing preventing this kind of incident from occurring again under the lobbying bill that he is proposing? The Speaker: Well, the Lobbyists Act is currently before a committee of the House.

All hon. members have ample opportunity to participate then as part of the debate. Perhaps the hon. leader will proceed to the third aspect of this question. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we brought forward the patronage contracts awarded to defeated Tory MLA Bob Maskell, the Premier claimed it was a problem of perception, stating that “under my leadership perception of this sort will not happen.” However, the appointment of this individual to the Royalty Review Panel raises serious problems of perception.

From cabinet selection to leadership fundraising to the Balzac deal to the Vegreville health crisis the Premier explains it all away by saying that it’s not what it looks to be. To the Premier: does the Premier agree that these issues are serious issues of perception that should not have been allowed to develop under his government? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I said last week in the House and the week before that this government has moved further than any other

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007566 government in terms of openness and transparency. When I say openness and transparency, I mean it. When the issues were raised last week in the House with respect to a contract by a previous member, an MLA, there were some questions raised, and I’ll make sure that we conduct a full internal audit of the billings and make that information public. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Affordable Housing Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s a crisis in Alberta right now. Many Albertans cannot afford a home.

The Alberta Liberals have a basic principle when it comes to housing: everyone needs a home. Many Albertans are facing massive rental increases that are forcing them out of their homes. This is affecting seniors, low- income and middle-income earners, students, people on AISH. It’s a crisis, but this government is fa iling to act. To the Premier: will this government immediately bring in a one-year rent increase regulation as the Alberta Liberal housing policy recommends in order to protect renters? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker . . . [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. Premier has been recognized. Mr.

Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I think there’s a disagreement on the other side of the House in terms of whose idea it is. All I know is that the minister responsible for housing is moving the report through the process. We will be announcing recommen- dations with respect to the report, asking, of course, not only the federal government and the municipalities to work closer together with the private sector, including the province of Alberta. Dr. Taft: Well, massive rent spikes are just one symptom of the housing problems facing Albertans.

In addition, condominium conversions are seriously eroding the available supply of rental units. Some landlords want to convert their apartments to condo- miniums with no regard for the renters who cannot afford a condo- minium. This practice is putting people out on the street with no place to go. Again to the Premier: will the Premier take the advice offered in the Alberta Liberal affordable housing policy and declare a two-year moratorium on condo conversions, except for those from developers who will replace lost rentals with new units? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, this question was raised, of course, on a policy issue by the third party, I believe by the leader of the third party. We said that those recommendations, through the question that the hon. leader raised, will be some of the discussions that we will have around the caucus table to build the recommendations and options in terms of the very critical area with respect to housing. Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an issue in terms of available housing.

But, you know, more and more Canadians outside of Alberta insist on moving to the province because it’s the only province where jobs are available, and that’s why they’re coming here. 1:40 Dr. Taft: One of the impediments facing renters is that even if they find a home they can afford, they do not have the financial means for the damage deposit and first month’s rent. This initial cash outlay is a big impediment to the working homeless and to low-income people in search of affordable homes.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: will this government follow the lead of the Alberta Liberal affordable housing strategy and implement a microcredit for low-income earners to cover the cost of the security deposit and first month’s rent? Everybody needs a home. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to reaffirm that the housing task force has made a report, and we are looking at that report. Some of the issues are because of the growth factor that is involved in this province.

Those are some of the challenges: making sure that people that move to Alberta or that people that are looking for their first home or that are able to rent have that opportunity. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Emergency Hospital Services Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uncontrolled growth and this government’s long history of terrible planning are creating problems across the province, from housing to long-term care to the environment, but the cris is that hits closest to home for most Albertans is our health care system.

A report being considered today by Edmonton city council shows that ambulance red alerts in Edmonton were 15 times higher in February 2007 than they were just one year earlier. Just to be clear: a red alert means there are no ambulances. So if you have a heart attack or a car accident, there’s no ambulance. My question is to the Premier. What is he going to do, and what is he going to tell those Edmontonians and other people in Alberta who don’t have an ambulance when they need one? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health has of course taken steps in this particular area, and I’ll ask him to answer.

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe a red alert actually is when there’s a lack of capacity at the emergency rather than a lack of ambulance to respond. But I can tell the House that I’ve met with both the Capital health authority and the Calgary regional health authority on the issue of emergency wait times and the wait time of ambulances at emergency, and both of those major regional health authorities are moving to put in place matters to deal with them.

In the Capital regi on they’ve put in place the full- capacity protocol, which is not an answer in itself, but it’s a good interim step. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The minister is trying to take credit for the full-capacity protocol, which was developed by the health region, when he should be taking the blame for this government’s lack of planning and investment in our health care system.

When will this minister accept res ponsibility for the ongoing crisis in our health care system as evidenced by the increased emergency room wait times and rampant red alerts? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not trying to take credit for the full-capacity protocol. In fact, the credit for the full- capacity protocol goes to the emergency doctors themselves. Dr. Raj Sherman, who is head of the emergency doctors, was talking to

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 567 the health authorities and to people in government about the implementation of that. Thankfully, Capital health authority agreed early in February to start implementing it, and it’s already showing promising results. With respect to taking responsibility for the other issues in health, of course that’s my job each and every day. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, maybe less talk and more action would be in order. There has been a steady increase in the number of precious minutes paramedics spend waiting to transfer their patients.

It’s gone from 45 minutes a year ago to 63 minutes on average so far this year. That 18 minutes can literally be a lifetime for someone waiting for a paramedic. What action is this Premier taking to get acute care and emergency room capacity caught up after years of population growth and Conservative neglect? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of new beds coming on stream. There’s a considerable amount of reinvestment in infrastruc- ture. That’s on the expenditure side.

But it’s about time we also looked at how we can reduce the number of visits to emergency rooms, and that is reducing the number of vehicle collisions in this province, ensuring that Albertans live a much healthier lifestyle, don’t get involved in those situa tions – of course, these incidents come forward with people on ATVs. We just lost another young person the other day. All of these contribute to the many visits to emergency. So, yes, spend more money, but see how we can reduce the number of visits as well through more responsibility. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Cardston-Taber-Warner Constituency Issues Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Municipal governments are struggling more and more each day with the fiscal imbalance in funding and regulations, that make it costly and impractical to do what is needed. I would like to address three constituents’ problems today. First, the town of Taber needs a new water treatment plant. They have applied to CAMRIF for funding. No news, though.

They have tenders out that are due in May, but without funding and the approval of the government they are hooped, and there will be a delay and a likely cost for taxpayers in Taber. To the Premier: will this government commit to work ing with Taber to resolve the problem before the end of May? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, coming forward on Thursday, of course, will be our budget. That will outline the plan for the year in terms of infrastructure, both water and sewage treatment, critical infrastructure to municipalities.

We are facing those issues in terms of capacity to find people to build all of the infrastructure that’s necessary, but in this particular program that the hon. member mentioned, it’s a federal/provincial program, so both levels of government have to agree on that particular project. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hinman: They need an answer, though, to deal with the tenders. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The border village of Coutts has been fenced off. This is a huge economic barrier for the town. We don’t even have a fence like this for our border between much of Canada and the U.S.

Travellers are forced to walk over eight minutes versus one minute the old way and sometimes in minus 40 weather. This fence should not have been built in the first pl ace, and now this government hides behind safety regulations and says that it’s not safe for adults to cross the road in a 20-kilometre-an-hour speed zone. All they have been asking for is a crosswalk and a gate. Two more years of studies and excuses are unacceptable to the people of Coutts and their visitors. To this Premier: what is this government going to do to address this problem now? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a joint federal/provincial project on the border crossing. I know that there were some issues in terms of the planning. That was a few years ago. I remember that file a bit, but it was a safety issue. It’s also an issue that we’re negotiating with the federal government on because they’re responsible for the border crossing, but we’ll check into it and get back to the hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Mr. Speaker, the crosswalk and the gate are provin- cial. For the last 30 years the Snake River ranch east of Cardston has been fighting a losing battle with the St.

Mary River as this govern- ment has adopted the policy that a pound of cure is better than ounce of prevention. Last fall the transportation department was finally prepared to do something about the washing out of the bridge and the road, only to be stopped by the DFO and Alberta Environment, and it continues to be a problem being bounced back and forth between federal and provincial. Will this government act now and save this road, the bridge, and the family’s connection to the world before the next flood? Mr. Stelmach: Back to the first question, Mr. Speaker.

Even though part of the funding was provincial, the overall development, the planning, was both federal and provincial. With respect to this issue this is somethin g t h a t w e f a c e , t h e Snake River, on a regular basis. There are actually two federal environmental authorities. One is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, of course, under navigable waters as well. So you always have to work with two authorities. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, even to replace a simple culvert on a c ountry road – and that happened in your constituency – you know how long it took for us to get approval.

We’re working with the federal government to try to expedite it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Women’s Shelters Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Second-stage housing is essential to ensure that women and children fleeing domestic abuse have somewhere to go after the immediate crisis has passed. Despite this fact, the government has no clear funding program for second- stage housing in Alberta. Money announced for women’s shelters last week is greatly needed and appreciated but will not address this particular issue.

To the Minister of Children’s Services: when will the government commit to providing ongoing and sustainable funding for second-stage housing across Alberta? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the House that the women’s shelter report was publicly released last week and is

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007568 available to everyone on the website. A couple of days ago I met for several hours with women’s shelters stakeholders to go through the recommendations. I am happy to note – and I’m glad, actually, that the hon. member brought this up – that one of the recommendations is that government work with community partners to “develop affordable and transitional housing” as well as “conduct a cross jurisdictional analysis to asse ss the costs and effectiveness.” Clearly, second-stage housing was a huge part of our discussions and certainly something that we’ll be looking at immediately.

Thank you. 1:50 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Research suggests that for every crisis bed available, two to three second-stage transitional beds are needed, yet in Alberta this number is reversed. Statistics show that while there are 692 crisis beds available to those in need, there are only 297 second-stage beds. To the Minister of Children’s Services: why has the government failed to address the shortage of second-stage beds in this province despite their great importance in disrupting the cycle of abuse? Ms Tarchuk: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I’d say again from our discussions last week that second-stage housing is a priority and is something that we will be looking at. I w ill be moving forward with stake- holders on this issue. Mrs. Mather: In my constituency of Edmonton-Mill Woods and across Alberta the shortage of affordable housing is critical. It was recently reported that 75 per cent of women who returned to abusive partners after receiving services cited lack of affordable housing as the main reason, a 50 per cent increase from 2005. It is clear that affordable housing is a crucial part of any strategy to address family violence.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: when will this government take action to ensure that women and children affected by domestic violence can find the affordable housing they need? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As we have said previously, we acknowledge the concern over affordable housing in Alberta. We are presently going through the process. I do believe that the budget is in three days. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Land-use Development Framework Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. We’re hearing a lot these days about land and water pressures. These pressures are continuing after a number of years of increased activity on the land. We’ve also heard about plans for developing a land-use framework to deal with those activities. My question is to the Premier. What is the status of the land-use development framework? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the land-use development framework agreement has of course been mandated to the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Development. The consultations have begun.

This is going to be a task which is going to require a fair amount of consultation, as we heard today in the House, in terms of the differences amongst municipalities, competing interests of forestry, agriculture, urban sprawl. We’re going to work very diligently in this area because a good land-use agreement is good for the province of Alberta. There are 3.3 million people in Alberta today. What is this province going to look like with 4 million people in a number of years? The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first supplemental question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. What is the land-use framework intended to do? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The work already done on the land-use framework has given us the vision of the framework: the principles and the desired outcomes. It’s a good starting point. Going forward, this framework will develop an overarching policy structure. It will give provincial-level guidance to land-use planning and management.

This framework will give us the approach that we can use to balance the competing and multiple uses that occur on both private and public lands. I believe that the framework will address a number of different issues, including regional planning. There’s a certain overlap there with the minister of municipal affairs to facilitate greater co-operation and co-ordination between towns and cities. It’ll address the issue of Crown lands and also private lands. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: Alberta has an extensive set of regulations already in place, so why do we need a land-use framework now? Dr. Morton: It’s true, Mr. Speaker, that our land-use management process in the past has served us well. But times have changed. We have to update it to reflect the new economic realities of Alberta. That reality is one of hypergrowth both in the economy and our population. It is putting unprecedented pressure on our lands, both public and private.

You often see competing demands on the same piece of land for agriculture, forestry, oil and gas and i ndustrial development, housing, recreation, and conservation. We have to rationalize those activities on the land. I expect that the land-use framework will ensure that the quality of life that we enjoy today will be there for generations to come. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. School Infrastructure in Calgary Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Minister of Education sows P3 seeds across the province, schools are falling apart in Calgary. Last week the roof of Ernest Manning high school proved that it was no match for the spring thaw, and now repairs to the gym floor are at risk. Will this government commit to providing enough funding to ensure that students in this school will not have to skip basketball games, dodge buckets, or even change schools to accommodate this government’s inadequate financial support? Mr. Minister, help us, please. Mr. Liepert: Mr.

Speaker, last year in the budget the provincial government increased the funding for infrastructure and maintenance from $48 million annually to $200 million, a fourfold increase. That

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 569 allowed the Calgary board of education – and I happened to meet with the Calgary board of education on Friday – to fix some 49 roofs of schools in Calgary. We recognize that there’s still more to be done, and that’s why we’re bringing a budget forward later this week. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Flaherty: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ernest Manning is one of the many schools in the Calgary public system that has a roof in serious need of repair or even replacement.

Marlborough school just got its students back to class a month ago, a year after it was closed due to fears that the roof could collapse. Mr. Minister, how many schools have to reach a crisis before the government provides the level of funding needed to protect Alberta’s investment in our schools across the province? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, appropriately so, we provide the funds to school boards, and school boards have their priorities as to what they spend their funds on. The Ernest Manning roof is due to be fixed this summer, so there will be funds for that school.

It’s on the list to be repaired this summer. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Comments made by some of the members opposite suggest that the government is happy to blame school boards and even individual administrators for problems created by years of underfunding and neglect. The reality is that the Calgary board of education’s $466 million deferred maintenance backlog makes it very difficult to respond to emerging maintenance problems.

Will this government stop giving school boards a starvation diet and start providing the money needed to keep our Alberta schools structurally sound and able to equip students to go to school? Mr. Liepert: I’ll repeat once more: we increased the funding for infrastructure and maintenance fourfold in last year’s budget. We have a budget coming this week that will deal with infrastructure and maintenance. One of the things that this go vernment is looking at is some alternative ways of financing schools.

One of those alternative ways is modernization using alternative financing, whereby the mainte- nance is looked after for some 25 years. Now, I know that the hon. members there don’t like to look at other ways of solving problems, but this government is going to do that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Registries Database Access Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Police officers report to me that often those who face high insurance premiums resulting from poor driving records or impaired driving convictions purchase insurance for only one day to obtain a pink card, which then states that they are insured for a whole year. The Insurance Bureau of Canada and individual underwriters are unwilling to tie themselves into the Alberta Registries database, which would allow police officers to verify the validity of the insurance.

My first question to the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security: would having access to this information indeed assist our police officers on the road? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Security and Solicitor General. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the information would be very helpful to get these lawbreakers off the road. I want to say that last year this government announced plans to develop a hundred million dollar computer system that w ill be accessible to all Alberta peace officers.

This system will provide officers on the front line with a wide array of information that could and, hopefully, will include a driver’s abstract and whether or not they are insured. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the Minister of Service Alberta. Since insurance companies benefit from not submitting this information to government as bad drivers are not desirable clients for them, why wouldn’t the minister compel the insurance industry to share their information with our government and help us catch uninsured drivers? Mr. Snelgrove: Mr.

Speaker, Service Alberta looks after the registries of vehicles and the information around drivers’ licences. In fact, when you get your licence plate, you’re only required to present a snapshot of that day, a pink slip. In no way is Alberta Registries able to verify that is even still valid. So the Solicitor General has suggested a system that the police agencies may use, and that might be the appropriate tool, but the integrity and the security of the registry system would not be served in Alberta’s best interests to be open to the insurance companies. Mr.

Lukaszuk: My last supplemental is to the Minister of Justice. How much does the province right now pay in claims annually with taxpayers’ money for uninsured drivers claims? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This issue of uninsured and hit-and-run drivers has been around since the ’70s and is dealt with under the motor vehicle accident claims fund. Currently there is a $6 per registration charge for vehicles registered in the province. Annually there is something in the order of $20 million worth of claims which are paid out.

Those $6 registrations equate to $16 million worth of contributions to that fund, and I can tell you also that some $6.5 million is recovered from those bad drivers because we do pursue them. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Resource Development under Lake Beds Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government often talks about maintaining a healthy environment, yet as usual without independent environmental assessment the Energy and Utilities Board is left rubber-stamping every project that maximizes resource extraction.

The fact that the government approved seismic testing under Marie Lake, a pristine lake in northern Alberta, clearly shows otherwise. Around the lake people are wondering why they are not getting access to government members and getting adequate information to make decisions about this development. To the Premier: does the Premier not see that development under lakes is a fundamental breach of public trust?

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007570 Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, either a couple of weeks ago or last week in the House this item came up, and I said that I’d be working with the minister responsible, the minister of sustainable resources, get all the information with resp ect to what environmental issues there are. Further, with respect to Marie Lake I know that the MLA for the area, the MLA for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, has attended all of the meetings and has brought that information forward to both ministers, so we’ve continued to work. To my knowledge, I didn’t think that the seismic had been approved.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: will the Premier stop the practice of the sale of mineral rights underneath Alberta’s lakes? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this question has come up a couple of times with Albertans at various events and also around our caucus table: when there are certain blocks of land that are sold, how do you carve out any body of water or river? We had a good discussion with respect to that. In terms of the sales that have been completed, there are a whole bunch of things that come forward.

What if somebody buys a lease, and they do some seismic and find out that there’s no oil on it, do they give it back to the province and we pay them back? Of course not. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Development. Your ministry has stated that the planned seismic testing will not have adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Will the minister explain what experts he has consulted, and will he table reports relative to the seismic activity on the lake? Dr. Morton: Mr.

Speaker, I’m very pleas ed to tell this House that my ministry will not authorize any seismic testing on Marie Lake when and if we see scientific evidence that it has probable adverse effect. In addition, I can assure you that I will require scientific monitoring before, during, and after any test to see if there is any adverse effect, and I will ensure that funding will be in pl ace from the operator to mitigate any operational effect, any adverse effect if it occurs. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. St.

Joseph’s General Hospital Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last month the minister of health told us that the incident at St. Joe’s hospital in Vegreville was an isolated incident. We found that not to be true b ecause very shortly thereafter there were problems in Lloydminster; there have been problems in Canmore, many other hospitals. He told us at the time that 80 people could be infected, at risk of contracting hepatitis or HIV. Now, we find out that that number is 3,000. My question simply to the minister: how could the minister’s initial estimate of 80 people be so wrong? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it wasn’t the minister’s estimate that was wrong but the listening of the hon. member. What was said at the time was that it came to our attention because of the review of cystoscopy, particularly with respect to cystoscopy with biopsies, that there were 80 people who had been identified as having had that procedure, that we were going to do a look back at all the records and determine what group of people needed to be followed up on.

It’s been public knowledge that we’ve been following up with the next highest risk after the cystoscopies and endoscopies and those sorts of tests, that tonsillectomies was the next and to broader procedures, to any procedure which involved any invasive process. That’s been clearly in the public domain for some time. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, 3,000 was not the number that even came close at that particular time. My question simply to the minister is that there’s a great worry among people that they are going to go into the hospital and come out sicker rather than healthier.

There is a growing problem within the credibility of the hospital system. My question simply to the minister is this: does the minister not realize that by the government not dealing decisively with this issue, it is hurting – and I stress hurting – the credibility of the hospital system in Alberta? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did deal decisively with the issue. First of all, we made su re that the CSR in that particular hospital was closed and that no further sterilization processes were happening at that hospital so that it got appropriate sterilization procedures.

The public health officer also closed the hospital for admissions for another incident with respect to the hospital. That process is ongoing, and we’re very satisfied that the medical officer of health is supervising that process. So that happened. We also engaged immediately in a look back to see what group of people we should be involving in tests to determine whether there was any possibility – not probability, but possibility – of transferring blood- borne pathogens. That happened. A board of managers was put in place; that’s in place now. So a number of very decisive steps have been taken and more to come.

Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that these things keep coming out, and we hear more and more and more. The point that we were saying right from the start so people have some faith in our hospital system: why do we not now call for a full public inquiry? That’s what people are asking for. Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, the full public inquiry that the hon. member is asking for will not solve any problems. What we’ve got in place is a Health Quality Council review. I’ve asked every health authority and every health profession to review their processes across the province, and we’ll be taking a look at those.

We’ll have their responses by the end of April, and we’ll be bringing into place as a result of that process the necessary processes and procedures to make sure that Albertans have faith in their system and can have faith in their hospitals when they go into them. But there’s no point in alarming Albertans unnecessarily. This situation is under control, and the process to make sure it never happens again is ongoing. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Energy and Utilities Board Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our caucus made the policy decision on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy to restructure Alberta’s regulatory authority of the Energy and Utilities Board into two separate boards. Most of us recall that Alberta had a Public Utilities Board and an Energy Resources Conservation Board back in the 1990s. My question is to the Minister of Energy.

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 571 Why are we taking this step, which some call a backward step, to address the needs of today? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you categorically that this is not a step backwards; anything but. This government has a plan to build a stronger Alberta. We are looking to the future, and this restructuring is part of the plan. We’re managing growth pressures in the province of Alberta. The landscape has changed significantly since 1995, when the EUB was established. There has been a population increase. There has been oil and gas development increase.

There has been the emergence of a very, very solid oil sands development and restructured electrical markets. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. Issues such as land use, surface rights, and environmental protection are major concerns related to the oil and gas development and new electrical transmission projects. There’s a growing need also for more public advocacy. Can the minister advise how this will affect the EUB’s work to address public concerns? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, this province has a world-renowned regulatory system, and this change will enhance that system. We have very stringent approval processes for all energy projects, and Albertans can continue to expect those types of approvals to be made by these two boards. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what does this mean, then, to the 500-kV line application which is currently before the board, given that this process could perhaps be interrupted because of the restructuring? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have a responsibility to ensure that the needs of industry and the best interests of Albertans are protected while we go through this transition. The comprehensive implementation and the transition strategy that we have ensure that all applications, not any particular one, before the board are handled appropriately and in a timely manner. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Community Facility Enhancement Program Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government’s community facility enhancement program grant distribution is out of order. In the year 2004-05 of the over 600 CFEP grants awarded, just 3 per cent of recipients received 25 per cent of the total CFEP funding. To the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture: will the minister admit that CFEP grants are not being awarded on a consistent basis? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Goudreau: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Cer- tainly, CFEP grants are awarded according to applications by our nonprofit registered societies.

The CFEP is not predetermined in terms of how much individuals have. We do have maximum limits, that tend to go up to $125,000, and we allocate those dollars on the basis of applications rather than on the basis of total dollars. Mr. Agnihotri: To the same minister. The Auditor General found that the minister has a great deal of flexibility with grants over $125,000. Will the minister admit that as the size of the grant increases, the rules should be stronger, not weaker? Mr. Goudreau: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, all of them are evaluated on the basis of the organizations, the societies, past activities.

The Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie is right. Certainly, as our numbers increase, we do provide additional scrutiny to the applications. We do make sure that they’re registered societies. They have to be accountable. They have a certain time period to report back to us as to how those dollars are spent. If they don’t do that, then we actually do the follow-up to see how we can reclaim some of those dollars. Mr. Agnihotri: To the same minister: will the minister update CFEP guidelines so that all the potential grant applicants will have an equal opportunity to apply and to receive grants? Mr. Goudreau: Mr.

Speaker, I’m not sure where the member is coming from. Certainly, the member opposite is sort of alluding to the fact that we’re treating different people differently. Every group and every organization has to meet the same guidelines. They fall under the same criteria. We’re constantly reviewing those guide- lines and criteria to keep them up to date, but we don’t pick one organization over the other and have different rules for them. They are the same for everybody. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Minimum Wage Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The organization called Vibrant Communities Calgary in partnership with business groups and nonprofit groups launched the living wage initiative. This idea was launched in the U.S.A. over 10 years ago and established in 130 U.S. cities. The city of Calgary has adopted this initiative by working with the living wage action team. I have recently received a copy of the living wage fact sheet. The question today is to the hon. Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry. Is the minister aware of this living wage initiative and its recommendations to help our Albertan working poor? The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Evans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’m aware of the Vibrant Communi- ties initiative. Our offices in Calgary act as a resource to the group. We’re well aware of their initiatives to assist the working poor. Their predominant thrust is on the living wage. While the minimum wage is a concern of this government – and I’m exploring that – one of the things that we’re trying to do is make sure that Albertans who need training get that opportunity.

For the working poor and other Albertans we provide some $300 million in our department to enhance their training opportunities as a major thrust of helping them cope with the lifestyle. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. Given that Alberta has a law governing our employment standards and minimum wage, what is Alberta’s minimum wage in comparison with those in other Canadian jurisdictions?

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007572 Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, to properly compare minimum wage and all the supplementary benefits provided would take some doing. On the minimum wage alone we are not ranked highly, and I do favour increasing the minimum wage but not until there’s an opportunity to bring back a review, a solid review, to our government to look at the implications. We have about 97 per cent of Albertans that are covered with wages other than the minimum wage.

When I’m meeting with some of the stakehol ders, their theme to me is that generally speaking they’re paying much more than the minimum wage even though they would previously have paid less because in our buoyant economy clearly employers are paying more. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A living wage is defined as the amount of income needed to meet the basic needs, to maintain a safe and decent standard of living, and to have some savings for needs and goals in the future. With the cost of living in Calgary the living wage is calculated to be $12 per hour.

So my question to the same minister: given that employers already pay higher than the minimum wage of $7, do you, Minister, have any plan to look at increasing it to a level closer to the living wage? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, beyond looking at the minimum wage, to look at a living wage, you have to look at several other factors. There are many other supplementary benefits that both the federal and the provincial government provide for people who are receiving the minimum wage.

You have to also look at such factors – and this is one that is cited to me by many of the people in the chambers of commerce, that young people and new workers may be restricted in the number of jobs that they could get if we increase the minimum wage and not recognize that the greater majority of people who are earning the minimum wage receive tips and other s upplementary benefits on the job site. A family member earns a fraction of their total salary given the minimum . . . The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Long-term Care Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A recent report from Ontario shows that antipsychotic drugs, which have serious side effects, are being used on long-term care patients who do not have psychosis or dementia. Almost two years ago Alberta’s Auditor General also observed that some facilities “use chemical or physical restraints, often without adequate documentation, and in a few isolated cases, without apparent medical authorization.” My questions are to the minister of health. The government of Ontario is introducing legislation to deal with the use and to curb the abuse of antipsychotic drugs. Why hasn’t Alberta? The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member raises a very important and interesting question and one which I’m going to be very interested in looking at because I think it’s very clear not only with respect to the drugs that are being mentioned but the utilization of drugs in general that there’s an overutilization of drugs among the senior population, particularly those in long-term care. We need to have a very clear and solid look at that, so I will undertake to do so and find out whether any progress has been made in that area.

I am not aware specifically what decision-making process has been undertaken with respect to that in Alberta, so I will look into it. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that Albertans in long-term care deserve the highest level of care available, but this government is allowing seniors to fall seriously behind other provinces. In British Columbia the govern- ment has set a goal of 5,000 new long-term care beds by 2008. Why hasn’t this government set any long-term goals with specific targets for increasing long-term care beds?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, a very good question. I’d go back to a report that was done by a former col- league in this Legislature, the Broda report, which talked about the continuum of living situations for seniors and those who need living assistance. I think it’s very important that we work not just on the long-term care beds, which is very important, but also on how we support seniors living in their own homes, how we make sure that seniors have the choices about aging in place and not leaving their spheres of influence and the comfort of their neighbourhood.

So we need to look not just at goals for the long-term care, but we need to look at goals with respect to how we support seniors to age in place. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Well, thank you. Mr. Speaker, the only thing we got out of the Broda report was a significant increase in what we charge residents for long-term care. Ontario’s new legislation also includes a resident bill of rights, which wasn’t contemplated in the Broda report, similar to the one that was recommended by Alberta Liberals almost two years ago.

Will the minister finally take advice that would improve the quality of care for seniors and legislate a resident bill of rights which would include the right to refuse medication like chemical restraints and the right to be treated with dignity and respect? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take advice from any Albertan who wants to give advice on how we can treat our seniors better in this province and how we can ensure that seniors are not abused.

Now, the minister of seniors may wish to add to this particular area, but I can say this: this government cares very much about not only the accommodation for seniors, the health care for seniors, but how seniors get to age in place and live with respect and dignity and die with respect and dignity. So I will take advice from anyone on this area, any Albertan on this area. The Speaker: That was 90 questions and answers today, hon. members. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions [The Clerk read the following written questions, which had been head: accepted] Unfunded Pension Liability Q1. Mr.

Miller: What is the total projected cost to taxpayers of the govern- ment’s current

schedule for paying off the unfunded liabili- ties of public-sector pension plans broken down by plan?

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 573 Heritage Savings Trust Fund Investments Q4. Mr. Miller: What was the total value of all Alberta heritage savings trust fund investments in tobacco-based companies at the end of fiscal years 2000-2001 through 2005-2006 and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 7, 2007? Contracted Psychiatric Services Q5. Mr.

Martin: For each of the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 6, 2007, what was the total value of psychiatric services contracted by regional health authorities, RHAs, broken down by RHA, and what was the total value of psychiatric services contracted by the Alberta Mental Health Board? Contracted Clinical Psychiatric Care Q6. Mr.

Martin: For each of the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 6, 2007, what was the total number of psychiatrists con- tracted to provide clinical services for regional health authorities, RHAs, broken down by RHA, and what was the total number contracted to provide clinical services by the Alberta Mental Health Board? Sick Leave Taken by Registered Nurses Q7. Mr. Martin: For each of the fiscal years 2 002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, and 2005-2006 how many days of sick leave were taken by registered nurses, broken down by regional health authorities?

Sick Leave Taken by Licensed Practical Nurses Q8. Mr. Martin: For each of the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, and 2005-2006 how many days of sick leave were taken by licensed practical nurses employed by regional health authorities, RHAs, broken down by RHA? The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given on Wednesday, April 11, it’s my pleasure to move that written questions 2 and 3 be dealt with today.

As per our new temporary Standing Order changes written questions that have already been accepted have been read into the record. Written questions 9, 10, and 11 will stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] Funding Applications to Assist the Disabled Q2. Mr. Bonko asked on behalf of Ms Pastoor that the following question be accepted. What was the total number of funding applications and the total number of applications approved under the assistance to persons with developmental disabilities program and the assured income for the severely handicapped program in fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have circulated an amendment to Written Question 2. We’d be happy to accept the question. We’re proposing an amendment that doesn’t change, I would suggest, the information that’s sought to be received, but we thought we’d better be clear in the wording on this. What we’re proposing is that it be amended in two places.

We’d like to remove the reference to funding applications and just leave in “applications,” so strike out the word “funding” but leave “applications.” Well, first in that respect, applications approved to persons with developmental disabilities are not for direct funding but for support services that are funded by the department through service contracts. We’d also like to remove the word “assistance” from the title of the program as the formal name of the program is persons with developmental disabilities.

It does not include “assistance to.” So the amended question would read: What was the total number of applications and the total number of applications approved under the persons with developmental disabilities program and the assured income for the severely handicapped program in fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006? This should still provide all of the information that is requested. It’s just some wording changes. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore on the amendment. Mr. Bonko: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a friendly amend- ment, and it does still get to the crux of the question that the Member for Lethbridge-East was looking for, so we will accept that. Thank you. The Speaker: Should I call the question on the amendment? Hon. Members: Question. [Motion on amendment carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore to close the debate if you wish. Mr. Bonko: Call the question. [Written Question 2 as amended carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Oil Sands Royalty Reductions Q3. Mr. MacDonald asked that the following question be accepted.

For each of the fiscal years 1997-1998 through 2005-2006 what is the total value of all reductions to Crown royalties under the following categories of allowed costs as refer- enced in appendix L of the Alberta oil sands royalty guide- lines: bonuses paid, corporate, environmental monitoring, hosting and entertainment, municipal taxes, stock option plans? Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Now, this written question is part of our ongoing commitment to the owners of the natural resources of this provin ce, Albertans, to ensure that we are getting a fair share of the revenue that’s generated from the oil sands projects through our royalty structure. Whenever you go through this entire royalty guidelin e, it is interesting to note that

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007574 whether one is paying 1 per cent royalty or paying 25 per cent royalty net, there are a lot of ways or methods or means for royalties to be reduced significantly. Now, appendix L is a list of allowed and not allowed costs.

With our written question this afternoon, again, we are centring around bonuses paid, corporate bonuses, environmental monitoring, hosting and entertainment, municipal taxes, and stock option plans. 2:30 Now, whenever we talk about the bonuses paid, the corporate bonuses paid, these bonuses are allowable costs so long as they are based on the results of an oil sands project but not allowed if they are based on the improvement in the company’s stock or earnings per share. Isn’t it true that the positive performance of an oil sands project would likely result in improvements in the company’s stock?

How exactly – and hopefully we will get the answer to this – does the government separate these two? How is the audit done? How does this audit process work? Who does it? Is it appropriate to have taxpayers – and this is a very good question, Mr. Speaker – paying corporate bonuses to individuals who may not even be Canadian citizens, let alone citizens of this province?

With environmental monitoring – this is something that I followed in the debate on Bill 3, and I don’t think I heard enough of it – we have had a process in place for the last number of years where oil sands projects which used any sort of process or idea to reduce CO 2 emissions could have the costs subtracted from the royalty. I don’t know, and I certainly hope the hon. Minister of Energy can explain to the House and to Albertans that this provision has already been used, that this provision has been used by ABC company, and that this is the result of the use of th is provision.

Now, I would really appreciate that information from the hon. minister b ecause these costs relate to monitoring the air quality, soil, wildlife monitoring systems as well as reducing CO2 emissions. We all realize that this is a generous royalty reduction, but Albertans need a justification for these royalty reductions, and hopefully we will get it. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how these costs for environmental monitoring match up to some of the other costs such as the corporate bonuses. I suspect that Albertans would be very interested to know exactly where their money is being diverted.

Now, the figure for this particular cost will be a reflection of the standards put in place by the EUB and Alberta Environment approval process. There was a lot said about that process in the Radke report, which hopefully we’re going to get an opportunity at some point to discuss during this legislative term. Albertans are concerned about their environ- ment, and I really think they would like to see these figures. Now, hosting and entertainment.

These costs are allowed to the extent that they are costs to the project – food, beverage, or enter- tainment expenditures – to the extent that they would be allowed by the Income Tax Act. In regard specifically to these hosting and entertainment costs this is very questionable, in my opinion. This is a very questionable cost to be putting on Albertans. I see a lot of room for abuse under this provision, and I would like to know, again, how these costs as they come into the Department of Energy are being audited. Is it appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, to have Alberta taxpayers picking up the tab for refreshments on these project sites? In regard to municipal taxes under this Written Question 3 these costs are allowed to the extent that they are municipal taxes and improvement fees. It is interesting to note that the royalty review is focusing not only on royalties but on taxation as well. I hope the review panel will be made aware that the municipal taxes that these project owners pay are actually in some cases partially if not all refunded to them.

Now, I don’t think many people in this province know that the municipal taxes which are paid by these project owners are actually returned to them through this royalty reduction

schedule or annex or appendix, as they call it. Again, I would think that this is a very, very generous regime. I know, Mr. Speaker, that some ju risdictions in the U.S. in the lower 48 states actually allow c ounties or smaller jurisdictions to impose specific taxes on the resources extracted.

Now, there are models for this in Texas, and the Minister of Finance in his leader- ship bid spoke about this or spoke about a system that certainly would allow municipalities a share, even a modest, wee share, as they say, of royalty revenue, but it would be interesting to see to what extent our government pays these companies back for the municipal taxes that they currently are paying. Now, the stock option plans under Written Question 3, Mr. Speaker. These are allowed costs to the extent that they are directly attributable to the performance of a project and only when the costs have been incurred.

They are not allowed if they are an award of stock as a bonus redeemable by a recipient. I would like to know, again, how these costs are audited. How does our provincial government here define “directly attributable”? How do you measure that? Again, is it appropriate for Albertans to be paying for these stock options? When it was brought up in question period earlier, a gentleman named Sam Spanglet, who was a member of the Royalty Review Panel, has – and I was pleased to learn that – unloaded the stock. I hope he has not unloaded it at a loss either.

Certainly, these are all questions that relate to our royalty structure on our oil sands projects. I’m not going to, in the interests of time, go through the entire appendix L, but in the course of required reading for hon. members of this House I would certainly encourage all hon. members to have a good look at this regulation and have a look at how it affects our collection of royalties and how much we do collect. It is very generous.

There is information in here not only regarding corporate bonuses but also information on how we incent the export of bitumen away from th is province into other jurisdic- tions for further upgrading. I know that we’re going to be construct- ing upgraders in the east and north of the city of Edmonton, but we should have a look at this regulation as well and consider whether we should have as an allowed cost, Mr. Speaker, the transportation or pipeline tolls. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy to respond, to partici- pate. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I would suggest to you that there has been much rambling that’s just gone on that had very little to do with Written Question 3. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to explain why I am unable to accept Written Question 3. The rules regarding which operating and capital costs are allowed and which are not allowed in determining Crown royalties are clear. Appendix L, which is referred to in the question, acts as a guideline providing illustrative examples of the types of costs that might be allowed.

This is used to report costs by category, and for that reason details regarding individual items and costs are not available, and that is what is being requested through this question. This more detailed information is addressed through the Department of Energy’s audit process, which looks at the complete extract of a company’s revenues and expenses. It is at this point that these costs are checked and tested to ensure that they qualify. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on-site inspections may even be pursued to ensure that the costs qualify.

If there are any in eligible costs identified during an audit process, they are disallowed, and the royalties are recalculated.

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 575 2:40 For important legal and commercial confidentiality reasons, including our obligation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, individual audit results are not made public. To put this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, our royalty system operates similar to corporate and even, to some degree, personal income tax systems. The department obtains the equivalent of a tax return that provides overall numbers for such things as revenue, deductible costs of goods and services, eligible expenditures, and so on.

These companies, much like a corporate or individual taxpayer, must retain the information related to their projects for audit purposes. Audits are then conducted to ensure that deductions made were eligible and appropriately documented. Due to the fact that the information being sought under Written Question 3 is not available in the form requested, I request that the question be rejected. The Speaker: Others to participate? If not, I will call on the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar to close the debate. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very disappointed but not surprised that this minister would be unable to accept Written Question 3. It’s just another reminder not only to this member but to all Albertans that this government is not open, that it’s not transparent. It pretends it is, but whenever the general public listens to the Minister of Energy, they will certainly realize for themselves first-hand that this is not an open nor a transparent government, nor is the process for collecting these royalties. These are good questions, they’re valid questions, and we need answers.

Now, the minister also neglected to tell the Assembly that if a financial audit is not done on an account in an oil sands project over a four-year time period, it can’t be done. It can’t be completed. He also neglected to mention the fact that the Auditor General in the past in various reports has brought up time and time again the whole issue of royalty calculation and how it works or how it does not work. Again, I’m disappointed that we can’t have any information with Written Question 3. In conclusion, I would encourage the hon.

Minister of Energy to have another look, if he has not already, at the Auditor General’s reports not only from this year but past years. He will see for himself that there is work to be done. Thank you. [Written Question 3 lost] head: Motions for Returns The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given on Wednesday, April 11, it’s my pleasure to move that motions for returns 1, 2, and 3 be dealt with today. There being no additional motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper, there are none to stand and retain their places.

Thank you. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Internal Royalty Review M1. Mr. MacDonald proposed that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of all documents relating to the government’s review of royalties that concluded in 2006 as referenced by the former Minister of Energy in the Calgary Herald on July 15, 2006, including a list of groups, organizations, companies, or individuals consulted, and the total amount of money paid to each group, organization, company, or individual for their involvement. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Motion for a Return 1 is quite important, and hopefully an answer will be provided by this government at this time. I think that last week, for the information of all hon. members of this Assembly, before question period on Wednesday, I did table a copy of that article. Now, the former Minister of Energy indicated that the review was completed and promised to provide documents, as I understand it, to back up his claim. Members of cabinet at the time, some members who are still in cabinet at this time, state that, well, they’re not sure that the review ever happened.

So someone is confused, and we need to find out who that someone is. The hon. President of the Treasury Board states that he has an idea who is confused, and I’m not going to say that it’s the hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, who indicated last fall that the review was dropped. This was in a Calgary Herald

article from July 15, 2006. An Hon. Member: That’s got to be true. Mr. MacDonald: If it’s in the Calgary Herald, you bet it’s true. I know that you have a great deal of difficulty accepting what’s printed in our newspapers from time to time, but my advice to you in this case would be to accept it. Other Tory leadership candidates, whenever they were questioned about this internal review, stated that it had been done. Now, there’s definitely a conflict of information here. Mr. Rodney: Is Enron involved? Mr. MacDonald: Enron is not involved in this.

No, hon. member, it is not, but I can assure you that before June we will get to the Enron matter in this House. Certainly, whenever you look at not only the review and the Calgary Herald’s comment on it, if we look at statements in this House, and if we can’t accept what the Herald had to say – now, this is interesting. This is from question period, Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2006. This is a question from the gentleman who is now the Minister of Energy to the former Minister of Energy on the royalty review. The hon. Minister of Energy was asking last summer if this is the conclusion to the royalty re view.

Of course, the Minister of Energy at that time goes on at length, and I’m glad we didn’t have the 45-second rule then because this is a long response. Certainly, I would urge members of the House to check Hansard from August 24, 2006, and have a look themselves. There is quite an exchange here between the Minister of Energy and the former Minister of Energy. Again, I’m not trying to overload the Minister of Energy with extra work, but I th ink he really needs to read this and accept Motion for a Return 1, that is on the Order Paper in my name.

Now, this is not the only time this has been brought up, not only in question period but also during written questions last spring, about all the details surrounding this royalty review. We need that information. Albertans need that information, and I’m requesting the department to please provide the information as requested in Motion for a Return 1. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy is the respondent.

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007576 2:50 Mr. Knight: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’m pleased to speak to Motion for a Return 1, which I’ll be asking to be rejected today. [interjection] Yeah, it’s an unfortunate circumstance that I find myself in. I find it quite inte resting that this motion is nearly identical to written questions that were addressed in the Assembly last year. Last year. That said, I’ll address the issue once again, as I did last week – last week – during question period. Royalty reviews are part of the Department of Energy’s normal ongoing business.

That ongoing analysis ensures that our royalty framework strikes the right balance, providing Albertans with a fair return on our natural resources and, Mr. Speaker, maintaining a competitive system that allows our economy to prosper. As I pointed out to the hon. member last week, changes to four of our royalty programs were made as a result of work done by the Minister of Energy last year. These changes will increase royalties paid to the province by about $300 million once they’re fully implemented.

I’d also like to make it very clear that the Department of Energy does not pay individuals, groups, or organizations it consults with, as is stated in the member’s motion. However, Mr. Speaker, we did contract the services of experts in the field of royalties to develop studies and reports on royalties. The member may wish to read those nine studies and reports, which are available in the depart- ment’s library. Today the Clerk tabled documents recently released in res ponse to a freedom of information request that is relevant to this motion for a return. There are more than 500 pages of documents in each set.

I encourage the hon. member to review the 500-plus pages of documents tabled today and to make a personal trip to the library so that he can review the reports and studies, as any Albertan can freely do. Mr. Speaker, in light of the relevant and substantive information I have made available to the Legislature and to the public, I recom- mend that Motion for a Return 1 be rejected. The Speaker: Others to participate? Then shall I call on the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar to conclude the debate? Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That was an interesting series of reasons to reject this motion, interesting but also at the same point astonishing, and it’s astonishing for the following reasons. The Conservative government didn’t contradict themselves last May whenever that written question was being debated, like they did last summer over the royalty review and the royalty double-speak, as the Calgary Herald called it, when they all were in a crowded field wanting to be in the Premier’s chair.

Now, the Minister of Energy at the time, who wasn’t in the race for the Premier’s chair, indicated, and I quote: we looked at royalties for quite a while on a number of fronts, and we’ve come back in the interim and decided that we do get a fair share in Alberta. End of quote. This was on August 24, 2006. That statement seemed to cool the chorus, as they state here, from the Tory leadership contenders, most of whom, interestingly enough, last summer favoured a review.

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Development stated at that time and indicated a wish for a close examination of the 1 per cent royalty holiday for Alberta oil sands. Other leadership contenders, including Jim Dinning and Mark Norris and the eventual winner, the hon. Premier, also indicated that they would initiate a public review if they won the leadership. Well, the gentleman certainly has initiated a public review, and full credit there.

When we reject this Motion for a Return 1, this minister and this government are failing to reveal that the government received only a 19 per cent share of oil and gas revenues in 2004 – these are the numbers that are most recently available – when its own target is between 20 and 25 per cent. The province’s royalty take has actually dropped in the last number of fiscal years. I don’t under- stand why this motion for a return would be rejected.

Now, also in August of last year a Conservative MLA and leadership hopeful at that time and now the current Minister of Sustainable Resource Development indicated – and I’m sorry if I offend the Minister of Energy; again I’m going to quote from the Calgary Herald – that he would reopen the issue if elected Premier, particularly the 1 per cent royalty holiday for Alberta’s oil sands. The internal review wasn’t even completed, he added, suggesting that it was dropped after Klein’s crippling leadership review vote just this past spring, which hastened his retirement to late this year.

This is a quote from the Calgary Herald on the 12th of July, 2006. The minister indicated that the consultants aren’t paid. Well, Wood Mackenzie was paid to do this study. They were paid in one fiscal year – and I’m recalling from Public Accounts – $70,000. Then the next year I think it was a substantial amount, much higher than $70,000. Their modus operandi is royalty reviews and structures across the entire oil patch. So I think the minister is really playing with words because taxpayers do pay megabucks for various reports.

I would urge the minister to check out the rules and regulations that are in the Department of Energy library. Sean Kochan from our research staff and myself went up there last summer, and I think some reporters have also been there. It’s not as open and transparent as the hon. minister is telling us. We cannot have photocopies of all that information. In fact, this Global Oil and Gas: Risks and Rewards document, a report prepared for the government of Alberta by Wood Mackenzie – we were only allowed to get photocopies of parts of it.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I must draw to the attention of the Assembly Standing Order 29(3)(b), and I must now call the question. [Motion for a Return 1 lost] The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Public/Private School Construction M2. Mr.

Flaherty proposed that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all feasibility reports, studies, proposals, cost-benefit analyses, correspondence, e- mails, and memos regarding the use of public/private partnership, P3, funding arrangements for school construc- tion conducted from fiscal year 2002-2003 to 2005-2006 and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 7, 2007. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to speak to this request, it would be vital, I think, to the schools across this province who are being tutored or asked to consider this proposal to make sure that we have the data with which to analyze what has been done and know both sides of this question. The motion is crucial for us, and I know that the school boards in St. Albert are very interested in getting this information, if there is any available, to be able to judge how this P3 concept works and some of the issues involved. With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll sit down. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. Mr.

Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s certainly not our nature to keep any information that might be helpful on this, but very little information from 2002 to 2006 or any of the years in

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 577 between would be relevant or even practical to gather. To suggest that we could collect the e-mails and all of this to bring together any kind of relevance to the current situation where we are looking at all forms of constructions costs, certainly, as the Auditor General has suggested, we should. But to take the staff and the time required to go back and bring forward what would be considered mostly irrelevant – Lord knows that we get enough help with information that we not only don’t use but that also has no relevance to what we’re trying to do.

To accept this motion would create an am ount of work that would be not in proportion to any possible benefit from it. With that, Mr. Speaker, and for those reasons we will be rejecting Motion for a Return 2. 3:00 The Speaker: Others to participate? Hon. Member for Edmonton- Decore, please proceed. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it a little disappointing that the President of the Treasury Board and the government itself would be unwilling or unable to provide some documentation or some proof as to their position with regard to P3s.

Yes, it was noted that the Auditor General did and should say that they should explain or at least explore some of the relative benefits of P3s. The Member for St. Albert asked to quantify where the schools are and our position with regard to P3s – we asked for the information – and the government is unable to provide any. What conclusion are we and the public supposed to be left with in regard to the benefits, actual cost benefits, with regard to P3s? We have concerns with regard to the Anthony Henday and the cost overruns with regard to P3s.

Again, this is specific informa tion that we’re seeking so that school boards could be able to identify to their electorate, who in some cases have no chance of getting schools, with the carrot being dropped by developers in conjunction with the government saying: we’ll give you a P3. I am of the belief that it should be the govern- ment’s responsibility to provide construction for schools and to maintain the costs. All the relative information as well as monies funding the schools, upgrading them, and keeping them safe and secure: we need that information. The public needs that information.

What other studies have the government undertaken to be able to provide the public, the opposition, Albertans with that sort of information to be able to justify P3s? The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, in regard to Motion for a Return 2 here under the name of the hon. Member for St. Albert I’m really disappointed in the response from the President of the Treasury Board. I realize he wasn’t President of the Treasury Board last summer when it had a meeting to discuss the financing of the Balzac racetrack project.

Perhaps he s hould have been there. Being the prudent person that he is with the tax dollars, perhaps he should have been there. This was prior to the move to put some funding into that project through the estimates debate in August of last summer. Specifically to the P3s, I would remind the hon. member that through the FOIP process we received documents that indicated that it is a routine measure now for this government to determine whether a project has any merit for a P3, including the expansion to Olds College to facilitate the development at Balzac. There is a lot of discussion on the merit of a P3.

Interestingly enough, this wasn’t to be a P3 project, but there are going to be ponies, ponies, ponies there at some point; there’s no doubt in my mind. I would like to remind the hon. President of the Treasury Board and all other members of this House that this motion for a return should not be rejected. It’s a routine way, unfortunately, for this government to conduct their business: the P3s. The request of the hon. Member for St. Albert is not unusual or anything. It’s of benefit, certainly, to Albertans, and it would be a testament to the commitment to be open and accountable and transparent . . . Mr.

Boutilier: Which we are. Mr. MacDonald: . . . that this government is making. Unfortu- nately, hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, you are not. Thank you. The Speaker: Others? Then I’ll call on the hon. Member for St. Albert to close the debate. Mr. Flaherty: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board used the word “irrelevant,” I think he said. An Hon. Member: How do you spell it? Mr. Flaherty: Well, I’ll ask you to spell it for him in caucus. You can do that.

In this particular aspect of th is program, this business of P3s, we’re talking about a new direction in this province, and for this gentleman to say that it’s irrelevant for 62 school boards across this province that are looking for some leadership in terms of account- ability and the direction they’re going in doesn’t make sense. I happened to have had the honour, sir, of serving as a civil servant, and many of our proposals had to be rational and supported.

This is what you’re asking: 62 school boards across this province to give us some feedback as to should they buy into this or not, and you’re telling me that it’s irrelevant. I’m sorry, sir. I expected more from you, and I hope to see more from you in the future. The budget, now, is the other thing that I think is very crucial in this. When you’re making this decision, you’re not interested in kids. You’re interested in this word “debt.” You’re trying to get rid of the word “debt.” Mr. Boutilier: That’s not true. Mr. Flaherty: You listen carefully. You are. Mr. Boutilier: That is not true. Mr. Flaherty: It is.

When you’re asking school boards to take this on, you’ve got to look at the question of operational problems. None of you has probably been to the schools, sir. You’re asking them to take a look at operational problems, and you’re not even giving it a rationale. It doesn’t make sense. The other thing that seems to be avoided on this whole thing of P3s is the use of community schools. That seems to be irrelevant in this thinking that you’ve shown here today. You’ve got to show some direction on this matter. How is this whole thing going to fit into the community? Mr.

President of the Treasury Board, I expect you to know more. Now, I think the other thing th at’s important is the matter of agreements with municipalities. When you’re looking at the question of agreements with municipalities, you’re changing the structure. You have joint use. When you don’t look at this issue in

Alberta Hansard April 16, 2007578 terms of, again, informing school boards of your rationale for this decision, then I think that it’s a sad day in Alberta for not looking at that. The other thing that’s going to happen – and maybe you could clarify this after you do some research, Mr. President. You can look at the whole question of children’s safety and security. Listen carefully. If you’re planning to build these things around a shopping centre with all the issues of that, then I think that you’ve got to look very carefully at that question.

Then the whole question, again, was the proper use of grounds and facilities and those kinds of things which usually are around a school. In your rationale for doing this, there is no evidence that you’ve done your homework. And you know what, sir? I am really disappointed. I can’t understand how anybody could go out and ask a community school or a school district to get involved in this concept without having some of these questions answered. I thank you. The Speaker: The debate has concluded unless it’s a point of order. [Motion for a Return 2 lost] The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods on behalf of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 3:10 Health Facilities Infrastructure Capital Plans M3. Mrs. Mather moved on behalf of Ms Blakeman that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of all long-term capital plans for infrastructure related to health facilities approved in fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 7, 2007. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This question was submit- ted to find out what sort of centralized planning exists within the department of health when it comes to health infrastructure for our entire province. We want to get a sense of the capital planning process. Health regions submit a wish list – we know that – a wish list of projects to the department, where funding decisions and priorities are made. Rarely do we receive an explanation of why one project was selected over another, and regions are unable to plan for their future growth because the capital planning process is so unpredict- able. It’s a guessing game.

If we had explanations, it would help regions with planning and certainly give us some confidence that there was a plan. We want to know exactly what long-term plans the ministry has for health facilities across the province. The amendment that’s suggested here is a copy of all the health authority multiyear capital plans approved by the health regions and submitted to the minister in fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 and for the period April 1, 2006, to March 7, 2007.

This amendment, I think, should not be accepted; it s hould be rejected, especially in light of this government’s commitment to openness and transpar- ency. We’re against the proposed changes because the amendment goes against the principle of the information that we’re seeking and demonstrates that the information that the department of health should have perhaps just doesn’t exist. The amendment demon- strates that while the government does not have centralized control over health infrastructure planning, they do like to centralize control of the information and ensure that no useful information is revealed.

By failing to provide a long-term capital plan, it appears that once again this government is not capable of long-term planning. We need something that gives us some confidence that there is a plan. Albertans deserve better than this. They need something that will tell them that there is a vision and that we have a plan that will support that vision and bring it to fruition. The Speaker: Okay. The hon. member was speaking on Motion for a Return 3. There is no amendment that has been moved yet. So, hon. Government House Leader? Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I was prepared to move a motion to amend 3 so that we could accept it, that we could make sure that the motion was in a form that we could actually provide that information on. However, I’m given to believe that the motion as amended wouldn’t be acceptable by the member putting it forward, so I don’t see any purpose in going through that process. So I would just suggest that we reject the motion. The reason for rejecting the motion, Mr.

Speaker, is that the motion calls for “a copy of all long-term capital plans for infrastruc- ture related to health facilities approved in fiscal years,” and the fiscal years are noted. Well, in fact, that’s not the process that’s used. What we were going to suggest is that we could provide the health authority multiyear plans which the health authorities approve and forward to government, but I’m given to believe from the representation made by the hon. member that that’s not what they’re after. They, in fact, know and understand that there are multiyear capital priorities put forward.

That’s not going to answer the question that they really want answered, so I would suggest that we reject this question because the question in its current format can’t be answered. There is no answer to it. In terms of the capital process, if that’s what they would really like to have information on, I’d be more than happy to sit down with the critic or any other member and talk about how we do the process. There is, in fact, a capital process. There is, in fact, a capital committee.

There’s a committee of deputies that takes a look at all the projects that come forward and do a priorization of the projects with respect to the need for the projects, how those projects will fit into the long-term delivery process, and then, of course, an alloca- tion of resources to those projects in accordance with the priority that they’ve been given by the deputies’ review and by the capital committee. So there is a process in place, but that process doesn’t conform to what’s being asked for here. I have really no alternative.

I could have asked for an amendment which would give the information about what plans had come forward, but that’s obviously not the information that’s wanted, so I would suggest that the House reject the question. If the hon. member or the person who put the motion on the agenda wants to sit down and discuss the capital process, I’d be more than happy to do it. The Speaker: Others to participate? Then, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods to conclude the debate on Motion for a Return 3. Mrs. Mather: Okay. Thank you. I guess I have a question for clarification.

I think that the hon. member has spoken exactly about what it is we had intended with the question. But the amendment, it appears, would provide us some information, which is better than none. We would like to know how decisions are made in that capital planning process. What are the priorities? Why are some given priority over others? That was the original question. The amend- ment would at least provide us some information, and we feel that some information is better than none at this point. [Motion for a Return 3 lost]

April 16, 2007 Alberta Hansard 579 head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 204 Emblems of Alberta (Franco-Albertan Recognition) Amendment Act, 2007/ Loi modificative de 2007 sur les emblèmes de l’Alberta (reconnaissance du fait franco-albertain) [Debate adjourned April 2: Mr. Cao speaking] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, with 64 minutes available for this debate, four by the hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue from the last debate. An emblem is a symbol, and symbolism is an important aspect of our culture.

Through symbolism we communi- cate ideas, thoughts, and feelings. A Franco-Albertan emblem is a symbol that represents a people’s heritage with a long history of the formation of Alberta. It is long before the formation of our province of Alberta and our nation of Canada. Un emblème est un symbole, et le symbolisme est un aspect important de notre culture. Par le symbolisme nous communiquons des idées, des pensées, et des sentiments. [Mr. Marz in the chair] I applaud Bill 204 because I appreciate and respect what Franco- Albertans have done for our province.

J’applaudis la loi 204 parce que j’apprécie et je respecte ce que les Franco-Albertains ont fait pour la province de l’Alberta. Je crois que l’emblème des Franco- Albertains devrait être identifié comme emblème officiel de l’Alberta. I believe that the Franco-Albertan emblem should be recognized as the official emblem of Alberta. Merci, M. le Président. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my great honour to rise and speak to Bill 204, Emblems of Alberta (Franco- Albertan Recognition) Amendment Act, 2007.

The French commu- nit

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20070416
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20070416 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6feb1b7c5b5d2a890f8289872574c15e70e0588b

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