December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2007 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/12/02 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Welcome. Let us pray. Our Father, we confidently ask for Your strength and encouragement in our service of You through our service of others. We ask for Your gift of wisdom to guide us in making good laws and good decisions for the present and the future of Alberta. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and t hrough you to members of the Assembly 56 grade 6 students a nd th eir te achers Mi ss Collee n Reeder, M s Campbell, Mr. French and parent helpers Mrs. Krause, Mrs. Marko, Mrs. Daniels, Mrs. Kim, Mrs. Lee, and Mrs. Parish from George P. Nicholson school in m y consti tuency of Edmont on-Whitemud. They’re here today to observe and learn with keen interest about our government, and we’ve had an o pportunity to t our our legislative chambers. George P. Nicholson is a new school in the area of Twin Brooks. It’s a wonderful new additi on to our community.

It’s a wonderful new addition for our children, and there’s only one thing that I would mention, that the Minister of Learning might perhaps provide a few more book s for the library . I’d ask the teachers, students, and parent helpers to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of our Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it’s also a pleasure for me to rise today and introduce six fine young people who are committed to safer communities and a more pe aceful Canada.

E ach of the m was involved in brin ging nearly 40 0 young pe ople from across C anada to Edm onton for YouCan’s youth conference on peace building and conflict resolu- tion. For those of you not familiar with YouCan, it’s a national organization that promotes youth-led conflict resolution and violence prevention initiatives. I had t he pleas ure of speaking at the event, and, as I told them, it was exciting f or me to see young Canadians investing their enthus iasm i n somethi ng as im portant and as constructive as peac eful pro blem sol ving. They even had me dancing to Twisted Sister on Saturday morning.

It’s my pleasure to introduce Kyle Dubé, Tara T ancred, Rob Heydari, Bryan Conroy, Cortney Garnett, and Cam Malchow. I congratulate them again on the successful event and ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of our Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to be able to rise and introduce to y ou and through y ou to mem bers of t his Legislature 56 of the most rambunctious, keenest, and friendliest grade 6 stu dents you co uld ever meet. They’re from A ldergrove school.

These bright, eager young people have been touring the Legislature this morning and have also decorated a Christmas tree in the pedway. Accom panying the students are their teachers, Mrs. Christine Steil and Mrs. Sandy Colquhoun. Aldergrove is blessed with a large, very active school council and many, many volunteers. Accompanying the students and their teac hers are some of these parent volunteers: Mr. Ed Cox, Mrs. Shelley Cox, Ms Renae Sauer, Mrs. Cindy Alexande r, Ms Te rry A rndt, Mrs. Tracy Miller, Mrs. Wendy Anderson, and Mrs. Mar lan Ballantyne.

My Aldergrove guests are seated in the public gallery, and I’m ask ing that the y please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Legisla- ture. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of my colleague the Member for Edmonton- McClung, the Minister of Economic Development, to introduce a constituent of his, Che lsea Mitc hell. Chels ea is se ated in the members’ gallery, and if she would please rise, I would ask that all members give her the warm welcome she deserves. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real pleasure for me today to stand in the House and introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legislature a number of people including a number of chiefs of the First Nations communities from northern Alberta.

I’ll introduce the chiefs and some of the members of their band, and then I’ll ask them to rise: first of all, Chief Jerry Nosk ey from the Loon Riv er Cree Nation, Chief Bernie Meneen from the T allcree First Nation, Chief Rose Laboucan from the Driftpile First Nation, Chief Steve Didzena from the Dene Tha’ First Nation, Chief Francis Gladue from the Bigstone Cree Nation, Lorraine Muskwa from the Alberta Treaty 8 health authority, and Daniel Nanooch, an elder. I’d ask all of the m to rise, as well as the other members of their ban d that are there, and receive the warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speak er. I have two introductions today. T he first introduction is Karen Fa rkas and Clyde Hurtig. T hey ar e the owne rs of He art S mart F oods in Sherwood Park, and the y are patrons of the arts and, particularly, supporters of Work shop West. They are m y gues ts toda y, an d they’re shadowing me as an MLA. They’re keenly interested in the democratic process. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. My second introduction today, Mr. Speak er, is a m an I’m very proud of.

Brian Deed rick i s Lacombe born and bred. He was educated at the University of Alberta, and he apprenticed his craft in Europe and througho ut the worl d. My f riend Brian is now the artistic director of the Edmonton Opera and has just opened, very successfully, his firs t production dire cted as a rtistic dire ctor, Turandot. He’s accompanied today by the woman that makes it all possible, and that is Mary Phillips-Rickey. She’s the general manager for the Edmonton Opera, and I know that she does all the heavy lifting. I’m very proud of both of these people.

Please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During question period today there will be some 55 s tudents from Will Sinc lair high s chool in Rocky Mountain House joining us, and they will be accompanied by teachers Mrs. Alanna Cellini, Mr. Nathan Moore, and Mrs. Roxane Melvin, as well as a parent helper, Mrs. Christine Merillis. They will be joining us, as I said, during question period , and they may be leaving before it’s over. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032008 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to take the opportu- nity today to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly two outstanding individuals from Calgary that I’ve the opportunity of meeting with, Mr. Jo hn Merrifield and M r. Jim Wolfe from SAP Canada. If they would stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od Access to Crown Land Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier said yesterday with regard to Bill 49, “It was a case of the leg islation getting out ah ead o f the consultation process.” To the Premier: does your government have time before session ends in a few days to consult all the chiefs of the area to get their buy-in for Bill 49? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about a buy-in, and certainly the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development met with some, not all, of the chiefs today – as I understand, one chief boycotted the meeting – to try and explain the intention of Bill 49.

I would like to point out that Bill 49 is not intende d to resolve the long-st anding conflict between developers and a boriginal people ov er access to public lands. The re is a separate consultation pro cess that is now under way to resolve this issue, and that process has been led by the Minister of Abo riginal A ffairs and Northe rn Devel opment and involves six other ministers. Bill 49 relates to this issue in only one specific way: it reinforces already existing laws against illegal activities on public lands.

The bill reiterates that blocka des and the charging or acce pting of unauthorized access fees on public lands are illegal. And they are illegal, Mr. Speaker. I would rem ind the leade r of the L iberal opp osition that on February 9 he was quoted as saying that the g overnment doesn’t have the courage to do what they have to do: enforce the law. Well, that’s exactly what Bill 49 does. Nothing more, nothing less. 1:40 Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, Bill 49 only enforces half the law. The Speaker: Hon. leader, please. We’re now in third reading stage of Bill 49. The purpose of question period is not to debate the bill.

If there are policy questions, proceed. Dr. Nicol: Just clarifying what I said, sir. It is the aboriginal affairs minister’s job to consult with the First Nations. Why w ere the First N ations not broug ht in and truly consulted on Bill 49 before it was introduced in the House? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I alluded to that yesterday, and I said that perhaps they s hould have be en involve d in those cons ultations relative to the leg islation.

It doesn’t chan ge the f act that t he legislation will go ahead, because it speaks to a matter of the law and the matter of the measures that need to be taken to make sure that the law is upheld. As I explained before, there is a separate consultation process now under w ay, and that p rocess, a s I understa nd, will continue. I will have the M inister o f Aboriginal Af fairs a nd Northern Development explain more relative to the process. Ms Calahasen: Mr.

Speaker, the proce ss on consulta tion, as I’ve indicated in this House, is to be able to work with the First Nations and deal with a process for us to be able to identify how we can look at potential infringement and what would happen to aboriginal and treaty rights. W e need to c ontinue to d o that, and tha t’s very important. On the issue of Bill 49 I ’m sure my colleague from Sustainable Resource Development would like to discuss that further in terms of the recommendation that was brought forward. The Speak er: I’m goi ng to repea t what I just finished sa ying.

We’ve now dealt with Bill 49 in first rea ding, second re ading, committee, and it’s on the Order Paper for third r eading. W e’ll discuss process but not the bill. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, to the minister of aboriginal affairs: given that $6 million was to be spent, can she outline the process that she went through in cons ulting with the First N ations prior t o the development of the bill and the i ntroduction of that bill in thi s House? Ms Calahasen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, so many times I’ve talked about the whole issue of what we’re doing on consultation, and obviously there i s some misinformation and misunder standing a s to what ’s happening. The consultation initiative is to be able to deal with the various ministries who would come to the table to be able to develop guidelines and policies relative to how we work with First Nations on the development of this where it could potentially impact the First Nations’ aboriginal rights and treaty rights. That’s basically what we’re doing. That’s a separate process. That is dealing with that issue on a larger scale.

In terms of t he other proc ess, we are working on the contractor issue and the First Nations. First Nations wanted to get on the page in terms of economic development. We heard their concerns, and we know that we have to be able to deal with that issue and ensure that as we move forward, we continue to work with them on these issues. So, Mr. Speaker, we have some information that’ll be coming out later on this afternoon. Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, M otion 01-11-28-03, passed by Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta: “To reject Bill 49 in its entirety and further that the Chie fs Comm ittee appoint ed develop an action pla n for Treaty 8 (Al berta) to o ppose Bill 49.” This was moved by Chief Waquan and seconded by Chief Meneen and carried unanimously by their assembly. To the Premier: is it the policy of the Premier and of government still to pass this bill when he knows that Treaty 8 chiefs are completely opposed to this bill? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I’ll have the hon. minister who introduced Bill 49 speak to it, if you’ll allow him, but, as I said, that bill is not intended to resolve the long-st anding conflict between developers and aboriginal people ove r access to p ublic lands. I t is a bill to ensure that the law is upheld relative to enforcing already existing laws against illegal activity on public lands. Mr. Speaker, relative to the motion passed by the chiefs, I asked the Minister of Aborigina l Aff airs and N orthern Dev elopment specifically – specifically – what is the problem with the legislation?

Once I know – and if one of the chiefs or all of them would write me a note and tel l me s pecifically, absolutely specifically what they object to – t hen perhap s we can deal with it, but ac cording to the minister there were no specifics. Dr. Nicol: Then to the Premier: will you pull the bill and meet with the chiefs that are in the gallery in this House today so that they can give you their understanding of what is needed to make this work?

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2009 The Speaker: Hon. members, we have a constitutional difficu lty with that question. The bill is the property of the House. No individual can pull anything. The House must now make a decision on this bill. Mr. Klein: Well, after your dissertation, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how to answer that question. I’ll defer to the hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the process a nd just for clarification here, the b ill is the law in general ap plication. We manage over a hundred million acres of public land in Alberta.

Five million of that is leased to various users even in the white area. Of course, there’s a multi multi amount of users across the province. Therefore, that is why we followed the process we did. Dr. Nicol: In a process of rebuilding the trust of First Nations, will the Premier meet with the chiefs in the gallery after question period? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had a formal request, and I’m not considering the request or the demand by the leader of the Liberal opposition to meet with the chiefs as a formal request. If they write me a note, I’ll take it under consideration. Mr.

Spe aker, I would like to say that this is not an issue that relates to aborigina l people or Fir st Nations people only. I t is an issue, as the hon. minister pointed out, that is provincewide. There are instances, well, near the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition’s own riding, where people say: well, you can come onto public land, if it’s leased, if you, for instance, rent a cot in my granary or if you pay me to guide you. Well, that is illegal , because the law clearly states that access to public land shall be free access to public land.

That is respecting the traditional rights of aboriginal people to hunt and fish on those lands, and we respect that. There are instances in southern Alberta, in central Alberta, and in numerous nonaboriginal areas where this practice is ta king place, and all w e want t o do is introduce legislation to make sure that the law is enforced. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Premier’s Trip to the United Kingdom Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. It is interesting to observe just who exactly this government wants to meet with.

The Premier, in discussing his travel plans, announced that he would be meeting with repr esentatives of Ce ntrica, the parent c ompany of Direct Energy . Howev er, ye sterday during questi on period the Premier said: “I didn’t meet with Centrica in London. I ran into a representative of the compa ny and ex changed a few words w ith him.” My questions are to the Premier. Will the Premier disclose where he just happe ned to run into the Ce ntrica representative in London and what the full extent of their conversation was? 1:50 Mr. Klein: I’d be very, very happy to, Mr. Speaker.

The extent of our conversation was very, very brief indeed. I ran into the represen- tative of Centri ca at a joint dinner m eeting of th e cham ber of commerce. Or maybe it was a luncheon meeting. I’m not quite sure. I know that there was food, and I know that it was a joint meeting of the Canada-U.K. Chamber of Commerce. The representative from Centrica was there. The conversation lasted about 30 seconds to 45 seconds, maybe up to a minute; I don’t know for s ure. After “Hi. How are you? Centrica? Oh, I know Centrica, yes. You’re involved in Alber ta. We look forward to your participation.

I understand that you have some matters that are now before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. I hope that they can be sorted out as quickly as possible,” his reply was, “Yes, I do ho pe t hat they can be sorted out as soon as possible.” That was the end of the conversation. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: given that yesterday the Premier said that “they’re hopeful of having their issue vis-à-vis Direc t Ene rgy resolved before the Energy and Utilities Board very shortly,” does the Premier not ev en k now when he’s being lobbied? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I don’t know if the gentleman gave me his card or not, but in no way was I being lobbied. In no way whatso- ever was I being lobbied. That was the extent of the conversation. If I can tra ck down t he ge ntleman, I will g ladly g ive the hon. member his name so he can ask the person himself if, in f act, that person lobbied me. It simply didn’t happen. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: when will this government stop interfering with the decision-making process of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I don ’t know of any instance where this government has interfered, actually intervened, with the process of the board. Relative to the Centrica issue, I have never nor will I ever send a letter, make a phone call, discuss this matter with any member or any staff person of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. It would be improper, and I cert ainly wouldn’t do that. I do n’t know if the member of the opposition would do that, but I wouldn’t do it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. First Nations Economic Development Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For many years First Nations people have been struggling to obtain independence in economic development, and the government has twiddled its thumbs. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has clearly dropped the bal l in term s of consol idation wi th respect to Treaty 8 people on the legislation which is cu rrently before thi s House. My question is to the Premier. Why is it, Mr.

Premier, that the economic development concerns of First Nations people can sit on the back burner for years and years and the government can move very, very quickly and by stealth to take away their rights through a piece of legislation? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to that statement. I take exception to that statement because we have in this caucus, in this Assembly, two aboriginal members: the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. [interje ction] No. One Métis and on e treaty. [interjections] Four Métis and one adopted.

Mr. Speaker, having sai d that, I’m sure that the ND and the Liberal opposition would agree that no one ought to be able to break the law, whether that person is white or a member of First Nations or of an y other descent. No one in Canada should be allowed to break the law, and Bill 49 simply reinforces the right to uphold the law. Mr. Speaker, relative to the consultation and to speak to the issue that the hon. member raise s, fi rst of all, the consultation process

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032010 quite clearly encourage s the Cana dian Ass ociation of Petrol eum Producers and other peopl e who do work on aboriginal traditional lands to ensure that its members utilize fair contracting procedures so as to provide a level playing field for aboriginal and nonaborigi- nal contractors seeking work. That also applies to employment.

We resist s uggestions that an a ttempt be made t o influence the manner – and this speaks to the issue that was brought up previously – in which the Energy and Utilities Board deals with First Nations issues but indicate that industry is entitled to contac t the bo ard directly with its concerns and that Alberta differentiate between the understandable concerns of contractors related to fees and blockades and the less legitimate complaints about the loss of market share to First Nations. I think th at’s very im portant. A s a resul t of rational . . . The Speaker: Hon.

Premier, I think we’re getting into a debate on the bill here, on whi ch we’ve arrived at re ading three now. I’m going to repeat that for the third time. The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The ques tion really is this: why is the government prepared to move very quickly in strengthening the law yet has dragged its feet for years and years in respect to the c oncerns of the a boriginal people and their eco- nomic development? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is absolutely untrue. This member should stand u p and apologize.

There is no govern- ment that has done more for aboriginal people than this government. That is so untrue, so false. He should be ashamed of himself. He should apologize to this House and to the people of this province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . Aga in to the Premier: why is it, then, that aboriginal people and Treaty 8 people are here? Not to observe what the New Democrat caucus is saying but what your government is doing w hen your g overnment sells them out. Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I just received a note signed by five of the chiefs requesting a meeting as soo n as quest ion period is ove r o r immediately after the Assembly is complete for the day. I will meet with the chiefs maybe not today but at some future time in the very near future. I have commitments for the rest of the day, and I’m sure that members of the First Nations have commitments. So I just can’t drop everything and hav e a meeting, but I will pass this on to my appointment secretary. She will contact one of the chiefs, and we will set an appropriate time for a meeting.

That’s not a problem. 2:00 Internet Luring Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I’m very troubled by recent reports of two young g irls who were lured over the I nternet into pot entially dangerous and harmful situations. In the ca se of t he young lady from Lacombe, she flew all the way to Toronto on a ticket purchased by a Toronto male. Fortunately, this played out well as there was a great deal of assistance between police forces and officers that led to a successful co nclusion. Th e m ale in question was apprehended immediately upon the girl’s disembarkment at Pearson international airport.

Both girls in question were only 15 years old, yet no charges were laid. To the Minister of Justice: can the minister explain what he has done to e nsure that Canadian laws protect children in these situations and further explain why charges could not be laid against the males allegedly involved? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General on the first

section of the question. The second one is not wit hin the purview of the House. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the House will know, because I’ve taken every opportunity I can to talk about this issue, we in Alberta have taken a very strong position about the protection of our children and a very strong position with respect to federal laws that need to be changed with respect to protection of children from child pornography and to increase the age of consent.

In fact, this House pass ed a re solution se veral years ago , un animously I believe, encouragi ng the fe deral gov ernment to raise the age of consent. Currently the age of consent for sexual activity with a person is 14 years of age. It would send a clear and unambiguous messag e that children are not app ropriate sexual part ners where significant age discrepancy exists by raising that to 1 6 years of ag e.

Now, this comes into play with respect to Internet luring because the sections of the code with respect to age and consent for sexual activity are the same s ections of the code tha t are re lied on wit h respect to th e Internet luring ch anges that t he federal gove rnment is pr oposing. Strengthening the Internet luring questions will only go so far. We also need to strengthen the law with respect to the age of consent.

With respect to the s pecific case that the member mentioned, I can’t speculate as to w hat information or e vidence the police had with respect to laying a charge, but I can say that it’s safe to say that children in chat rooms are being preyed upon by men who would not otherwise have access to them. When a 15 year old shows up at a meeting, consent is not the real issue. The child will be impressed or intimidated into following through with promises made.

So raising the age of consent to 16 would have protected both of the girls in this situation, raising the age to 16 would have put more teeth into the Internet luring provisions, which the federal govern- ment is propo sing for the Cr iminal Code, and rais ing the ag e of consent would have been essential to allowing a prosecution of this type of offence. Mrs. Gordon: My next question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Sol icitor General. If the pol ice had had timely access to passeng er lists , apprehension of one of the young ladies coul d have taken place before departure at the Edmonton International Airport.

Why can’t the police intervene earlier by accessing passenger manifests without a court order when time is of the essence and lives could be at stake? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the passenger in this case, the young person, had a valid ticket, and she had not committed a crime under existing law before boarding the aircraft. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the person that lured her hadn’t committed a crime. Under federal freedom of information legislation police do not have acce ss to the passenger list.

I also understand that in th is case in question the police w ere able to determine through other methods that the young person was aboard the plane and were able to sa fely apprehend he r and return he r. Airlines and police work in co-operation during occasions that might be deemed to be an emergency or an urgent situation, as they did in this particular case. Mr. Speaker, I also understand that the parents in this case were so pleased with the RCMP’s quick work that they gave the Edmon-

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2011 ton International Airport RCMP detachment a plaqu e of apprecia- tion. The system worked well in this case, and the police need to be commended for their hard work. The Speaker: The hon. member? Southeast Calgary Hospital Dr. Taft: Mr. Speak er, i n 1998 the Premier said of southeast Calgary, “Clearly, [it] has been identified as one of the fastest growing areas, and that’s where the next hospital should be built.” Well, it’s five years later, and this government hasn’t provided a penny for a new hospital in southeast Calgary.

In fact, the Calgary health region is having to turn to private funds to build the hospital. My questions are to the Premier. Why has the Premier broken his word to the people of Calgary by not providing the funds necessary for a new hospital? Mr. Klein: That is not quite true, Mr. Speaker. Really, we appoint regional health a uthoriti es to advi se us on the health needs in a particular region. In this particular case, we are waiting for a formal request from the RHA .

I have had inform al mee tings w ith the president of the RHA, Jack Davis, relative to the approach that they would like to take; that is, that the RHA would like to take vis-à-vis a new hospital in the southeast or the south. Mr. Davis indicates to me that they, being the RHA, would like to pur sue the P3 not ion relative to the construction of a hospital. There ha s never, never, never been a formal request for funds to build a new hospital. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, given the expected $3.4 billion surplus, w ould the provinc e fund a ne w southeast Calgary hospital with public funds if they received such a request? Mr. Klein: That is pur ely hypothetical, Mr. Speaker. We w ould have to exam ine it. It wou ld have to g o through the pr ocess of Agenda and Priorities, on to the standing policy committee, then to Treasury Board, then to cabinet, then to caucus. It would have to have a thorough v etting. We w ould have to l ook at the pr oject in terms of our overall financing requirements.

We would have to have discussions with the RHA rela tive to the scope and the size of t he facility. So there are many, many questions that need to be answered, and only the government can answer those questions. It’s not as simple as the opposition would have everyone believe it is by saying: will you now commit, you know, a half billion dollars or so to a hospital? I mean, if that’s the way that they propose to conduct government, it’s no wonder that they only have seven members. Dr.

Taft: Will the Pre mier assure Calgarians that the ow ners and operators of any new southeast Calgary hospital will not be foreign investors? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, again, that is so hypothetical, so far down the road. We haven’t received any proposals of any form. Admit- tedly, there have been informal discussions relative to the need for a hospital in southeast Calgary, and I agree with assertions that there is a need for the hospital.

I’m sure that MLAs who serve that area agree that there is a need for a medical f acility, a hospital in that area, but as to the design, who will finance it, whether it’s publicly financed or whether it’s alternatively financed privately, those details haven’t been worked out, and I can’t comment on whether or not the RHA would exclude foreign investors. Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that we hadn’t done anything relative to the hospital in south Calgary.

The fact is that we have allowed the assembly of the property in order to accommodate this facility, and we are currently in the process of assisting with the scope of the project as it relates to the programs that will be operated out of that hospital. So to ever indicate that, in fact, there’s been no response from government is absolutely false. The Speak er: The hon. Membe r for Dra yton Valle y-Calmar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 2:10 Diversified Livestock Producers Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Many of my constituents who own and op erate dive rsified lives tock opera tions are v ery concerned that they we re no t included w hen the com pensation programs for cattle producers were developed even though diversi- fied livestock operations were also being hurt by the border closure. My quest ion is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. What ki nd of com pensation w as ava ilable f or diversified livestock producers? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. member.

Diversified livestock op erators were eli gible for each and e very program that was related to BSE slaughter. They were included in the Canada/Alberta slaughter program. They were involved in the fed cattle c ompetitive bid progra m, and in fact because of the necessity of waiting for slaughter capacity, we extended a slaughter program for those diversified livestock operators. So they have had very equitable treatment since May 20. The Speaker: The hon. member. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My only supplemental for the same minister is: how does the minister’s recent announcement of an A lberta mature animal transition program af fect diversified livestock producers? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, because all ruminants were affected by the May 20 BSE discovery in Alberta and all ruminants do not have the same type of operation, we have had to work with ea ch industry, whether it was elk, deer, llama, alpaca, goats, sheep, as well as cattle, to ensure that whatever programs we put in place to support them work for them.

Because bison and cattle have a fairer slaughter market, they will be included under slaughter. Because elk, dee r, and som e of the others do not have that type of meat market developed, in consulta- tion with them we have developed a feed program or something that suits their activity better. We established very quickly, as well, an other-ruminant roundtable, and each one of these groups has a member on t hat, and they assess this on a weekly basis and tell us whether it’s working or not. So, Mr. Speak er, we think we ’re well on the right t rack with diversified livestock in dealing with BSE.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Homeless Shelters Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last month the Minister of Seniors proposed charging homeless people a fee of up to a third of their incom e, if the y have one, to stay at h omeless shelters to foster responsibility. The proposal suggests that the money would

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032012 be saved for a client in order to help pay for damage deposits on apartments. My questions today are to the Minister of Seniors. How does the minister see this plan helping people with mental illness or long-term health or addiction problems? Do they magically receive budgeting and coping skills they didn’t have before? Mr. Woloshyn: Well, Mr. Speak er, she rai ses two very different issues. I was referring to people who have an income who use the shelters as an interim residence, if you will.

In the aftermath of the publicity surroun ding i t, it ’s very i nteresting to fin d tha t some shelters even currently charge for what I was suggesting. The next step is for these shelters to work with the individuals that are paying to have the transition to more permanent housing by helping with the damage deposit and first month’s rent. So that’s something that perhaps we’ll be continuing to see further with the shelter operators.

With respect to folks with other kinds of problems, t here are agencies that work with them, and, yes, they are a concern, and at some point we’ll be trying to determine if there are better places for them to lodge an d to live perm anently. Through our Canada affordable housing program, Mr. Speaker , we ’ve already opened facilities for people who have need for supports across this province, and we’ll be opening more o f them.

So I think i t’s a matter not without cause that Alberta is being looked upon across the country as a leader in providing housing, a leader in the new program that is going forward with the Canada affordable housing program to the extent that if we choose, we can sign on for an additional four years after this particular four-year period is over. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Bla keman: Thank you, M r. Sp eaker.

Again to the sa me minister: can the minister table or show us what studies he consulted that would make a reasonable per son bel ieve that ch arging a homeless person for shelter would create responsi bility? What studies did he look at? Mr. Woloshyn: I would turn the question around and ask the hon. member if she is aw are of the diff erent kinds of clas sifications of people who occup y homeless shelte rs. My under standing is tha t there are some folks in there who can stay in a shelter for up to two years.

There are other folks who are in there for a shorter period of time. [interject ion] A little longer, I’m told from the other side. The people who are in the news the most are the folks who need overnight, shall we say, short-term, emergency kinds of locations. This year, Mr. Speaker, we have been tracking the use of shelters on a d aily ba sis. I’m very pleased to announc e that on a ni ghtly basis the Herb Jamieson shelter in Edmonton has vacancies. We are short of spots for folks who are inebriated, and that’s something that we’re working on currently with the Hope Mission in Edmonton.

In Calgary we hav e made arrang ements with the C algary Drop-In Centre for an additional possible 200 emergency beds until the end of March, and I’m pleased to say there that about 50 of those beds on the average are not occupied. In addition, the province operates the Sunalta shelter, which has a capacity of 150 emergency beds, 50 of which on th e average are not occupied. So curre ntly, if things remain the sam e, we have the si tuation very well in hand in both Edmonton and Calgary. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: the mini ster purporte dly apolog ized for making public prematurely this idea of charging the homeless fees, but is this idea still being worked on behind closed doors? Mr. Woloshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, anytime that she has a question to ask me, I always answer it, and there’s nothing going on behind close d doors. The issue ca me forward w hen I answered a question pos ed to me in Calga ry at t he opening of a shelter, the Ward shelter, and I answered the reporter quite honestly, saying that that was under consideration.

Yes, we will be discussing the viability of it with shelter operators. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that if any shelter operators do not subscribe to it, it cannot b e imposed on them. They are the key to making it work. The government does not get involved directly with their operations. I’m very sure that we’ll see as the days go by that the value of this suggestion will be recognized and that we will have some buy-in from the operators across the province. The Speak er: The hon. Member fo r Cardston-T aber-Warner, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Grain Marketing Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Last fall the Alberta Wheat and Barley Test Market Act was passed into Alberta law. This act allows the mini ster of agriculture to enter into an agr eement w ith either the Canadian Wheat Board or the federal government to allow a test open m arket for wh eat and barley in Al berta. Man y of my constituents were excited by the passage of this law as they feel they deserve the opportunity to sell their wheat and barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board. Their excitement is waning, however, as the marketing situation hasn’t changed in Alberta over the past year.

My question to the Premier: si nce last fall what has the province done to support and assist Alberta’s grain producers in their efforts to convince the Canadian Wheat Board that they deserve to have marketing choice just like farmers in Ontario? Mr. Klein: We’re working on the test market, of course. I don’t know the state of o ur legislation. The hon. Member for C algary- Mountain View is going to introduce legislation, Mr.

Speaker, that probably will be challenged by the federal government, which seems to favour, as th e NDs d o, monopolies and seem s to discount a nd ignore democracy. 2:20 This legislation will say, basically, what the majority of Alberta farmers have been saying, that they want choice. They want choice to market their barley and wheat either through the Canadian Wheat Board or privately contracting that wheat or barley. That’s what the legislation will sa y fundamentally, but w e’re sure that t he federal government will say: “ You can’t ha ve choice. M y gosh; that is democratic. That’s un-Canadian.

My goodness; don’t you realize that this wa s brought in unde r the Wa r Measures Act pr ior to the Second World War? This legislation is needed. My God; we have built a huge bureaucracy to support it.” The Speaker: Once again, I’m not really sure that the purpose of question period is to de bate leg islation tha t still has n ot been introduced. The hon. member. Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. My next question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural D evelopment.

Given the debate t hat has ev olved around t he issue of choice, how can this government be sure that producers in Alberta want m arketing choice? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we had a recent survey that shows that 68 percent of barley growers prefer choice, 64 percent of

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2013 wheat growers prefer choice, and onl y 25 percent would support a mandatory marketing system. That’s of no surprise to us in Alberta. Producers here believe that they are quite capable of making all of the decisions on the investment in their farm, including marketing. Mr. Speaker, we hea r trumpeted by the C anadian Wheat Board that it is a prod ucer-driven, producer-elected organization. Well, one should examine the boundari es for t he electoral districts, and they would find that many of them spread across into Saskatchewan and are not truly representat ive of Al berta.

The second thing that they should note is that ma ny fa rmers in this provi nce, out of frustration with this monopoly , have quit growing board grai ns. That is a shame because we grow some of the best-quality wheat and barley in the world right here in this province. I will tell the hon. member this: thi s government is elected by Albertans, only Albertans, and we’ll fight for Albertans on this issue. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final question to the same minister: now that the government has a clear mandate, what steps are being taken to establish marketing choice in Alberta? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we would like to take the test market, which was passed in legislation by this government last session, to Ottawa, to the minister responsible, for a final result. We’ve worked hard to make sure that this is something very simple, very clear that they could clea rly respond to with a yes, preferably. However, it seems to be a bit dark in Ottawa right now to deal with this, an d I understand that.

But I have requested a meeting with Minister Goodale, who is still responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and have suggested through my staff that I would meet him in Saskatche- wan – I’m very close to that – and try and present our case in a way such that they can underst and tha t this is not against the Wheat Board, that this is not about the demise of the Wheat Board, that it is about offering the fundamental choice to Alberta producers that producers in Ontario have today. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

Old-growth Forests Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. S peaker. The pre servation of old- growth forests has limited economic value, but these forests do make Albertans rich, rich in natural heritage and the knowledge that we are preserving a rare a nd beautiful type of ecosystem. This gov ern- ment’s policies reflect only Albertans’ interest in these forests’ economic value, and this has to change. My question to the Minister of Sustainable Res ource Development: why does this minister maintain policies t hat e ncourage t he destruct ion of old-gr owth forests rather than their preservation? Mr. Cardinal: Mr.

Speaker, by the way the question is f ramed, I don’t believe the member would know what an old forest looks like anyway, but that’s beside the point. I do live in northern Alberta. As an example, my constituency covers all the way to the Northwest Territories and borders S askatchewan. I t’s over 100,000 square kilometres. Dr. Taylor: How many? Mr. Cardinal: Over a hu ndred thousand s quare kilometres, Mr. Speaker. And it is forested. Sixty percent of our province is forested and very well managed. We have one o f the best-managed forest operations in North America.

We have lots to be proud about rather than trying to run the system down. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speake r, then whe n is this m inister g oing to implement the Albe rta forest conservation strategy, a progressive forest man agement vision that was a greed to by industry and environmentalists but which this government simply tossed away? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It’s something we’re definitely working on. There was one clau se in th at partic ular area that I wasn’t in agreement with, and that particular clause, I bel ieve, has been changed now.

When tha t happens, w e’ll go thr ough the process. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister at least move this province toward na tural disturba nce mode l f orest harvestin g, whereby old-growth forest is maintained rather than decimated? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, we do have our fores t management agreements in Albert a, we ha ve our quota systems, we have our commercial timber permits, and then we have our private woodlots, which provide a lot of the wood in Alberta.

In relation to old-growth forest – in fact, the other terminology that’s used, of course, is the Canadian boreal initi ative, w hich is no doubt part of wha t the member is quest ioning in rel ation to old-g rowth forests. I n our forests, I would say, there are som e areas where trees may be a hundred years old, but in general we have a lot of young forests also, which are very, very healthy. When the FMA holders, for an example, do a plan – it’s about a 20-year plan – they have to develop a 10-year plan of how the area is going to be developed.

Then they have a five-year operating plan, and then they have an annual operating plan, which they have to take to the public to develop. So anyone that’s interested, including this member, could participate in any of the public meetings in relation to how our forests should be planned. This member is welcome to come to northern Alberta and enjoy the scenery there and see how well our forests are managed.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now I’ll call upon the first of a number of m embers to participate, but in the i nterim might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a very old friend of mine – well, he’s not that old, act ually – well- known local musici an Acti on Jackson, Lee El wood Mayes.

He’s seated in the public g allery, and along with him is his much better half, I might add, Jacquie Chastellaine, travel agent extraordinaire. Along with them are Le e’s nephew, Dallas James Mayes , and daughter, Raimi Li-Anne Mayes. I’d ask that they rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: Hon. Minister of Infrastructure, your guests are now here.

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032014 Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I di d introduce m y guests earlier, but they weren’t in the House, so I want to take this opportu- nity to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assem- bly some 55 s tudents fr om Will Sinclair hi gh school in Rocky Mountain House. T hey’re accompanied by three tea chers and a helper. I would ask them to rise and receive the cordial welcome of the Assembly. 2:30head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. 2001 Southern Alberta Water Sharing Group Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasur e to rise in this Assem bly today to recogni ze an outst anding g roup in my constituency that has been presented with a prestigious award. The Irrigation Association has granted the distinguished national water and energy conservation award to the 2001 Southern Alberta Water Sharing Group. This group includes the St. Mary irrigation district and is also comprised of the Aetna, Taber, Raymond, Magrath, and Leavitt irrigation districts. These districts were presented with their award at t he Irrigation Association’s 24th annual international irrigation show in San Diego on November 19.

The awards were established in 1982 to honour extraordinary achievements in the conservation of water and energy relating to irrigation procedures, equipment, methods, an d tec h- niques. Mr. Speaker, the 2001 Southern Alberta Water Sharing Group was formed to manage water as effectively and fairly as possible. In the winter, spring, and summer of 2001 southern Alberta experienced abnormally warm and dry w eather conditions. Desp ite the ar ea’s intensive irrigati on in frastructure the below-norm al precipi tation from previous y ears had made the si tuation critical.

By 2001 the water supply had diminished to cover only 60 percent of the rights of its lice nce holders. With this w ater shortage the districts and licensees acknowledged that if they share d the water supply, they could remedy the situation and no one party would be severely hurt. The irrigation districts worked closely with Alberta Environment staff to implement a mutually agreed upon water-sharing contract.

This unprecedented co-operation among irrigation districts, farmers, livestock operations, recreational facilities, towns, villages, industry, as well as local and provincial governments resulted in a system that supported the whole community rather than just special interests. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Southern Alberta Water Sharing Group, and I would like to extend my sincere congratula- tions on the granting of their esteemed award. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Education System Mr. Luk aszuk: Thank you.

Fab ulous t hings are h appening i n Alberta’s education system which definitely are worthy of mention- ing in this House. Even more so, these developments, I suggest to you, should grac e the fr ont pages of Al berta’s newspapers as Albertans should share in this new s with pri de. Nam ely, Mr . Speaker, as you already know, the Edmonton public school board has been recently highlighted in a book entitle d Making Schools Work as the best administered school board with the best educational outcomes in all of North America. That in itself, that achievement, is worth boasting about. However, Mr.

Speak er, the g ood story doe s not end he re. Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the newly elected governor of the most populous state in the United States, California, has just appointed his Secretary for Education, Mr. Dick Riordan. The ex-mayor of Los Angeles will now be head ing California’s enormous and complex school system. As one of his first undertakings in office Mr. Riordan will be visiti ng Edmonton on December 8 of this y ear to better apprise himself of the exc ellence of the Edmonton public s chool board. During his stay i n our city Mr.

Riordan w ill mee t with Superintendent McBeath a nd will v isit sev eral o f our schools, including Jasper Place high school. It is the secretary’s intention to import some of this excellence to his home state. Mr. Speaker, it is too often that we focus on the negative. Obviously, to the outside world our learning system continues to be a shining example of superiority. This distinction is not a product of luck.

It is a product of the su perintendent’s leadership, the school board’s vision, the principals’ educational and administrative skills, and perhaps most importantly it is a product of professional, skilled, and diligent teachers. Mr. Mason: What about the Learning minister? Mr. Lukaszuk: The Member for Edmonton-Highlands is heckling because he does not want to hear good news. As a result of their combined efforts our little and young Albertans are benefiting from the best learning environment on this continent. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what I proudly call Alberta’s advantage.

Also, the Minister of Learning and all of his employee s i n the department should be credited for this accomplishment. Now, this recognition would tempt anyone to say, “We did it,” but I know that we will not rest on this. With the implementation of the recommendations of the Learning report, Mr. Speaker, the best is yet to come. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Programs Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Seniors feel that they’ve lost a lot in 10 years with this government, and they have.

This gov ernment has slashed funding to numerous seniors’ programs and cut others altogether: seniors’ exemption from health care premiums regardless of income or assets, cut; universal funding for dental care, dentures, and eyeglasses, cut; education property tax exemption up to $1,000, slas hed; financ ial support f or building affordable seniors’ housing, slashed; financial su pport for l ow- income seniors for rent payments, slashed; grants up to $4,000 f or home repair and improvement, cut. And that’s just to name a few. But seniors aren’t going to take it anymore.

They’ve mobilized through groups like the Coalition of Seniors Advocates, COSA, in Calgary and Seniors U nited Now, SUN, in Edm onton, and the Canadian A ssociation of Retired Persons, CARP, has opened an Edmonton branch. Seniors want the same benefits they enjoyed before this government started paying down the debt at a record pace using money from their pockets. Middle-income seniors are being impoverished by this government.

The Alberta Liberal opposition belie ves that senior s make a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Alberta and deserve our respect, and t hat’s wh y w e’ve developed an al ternative to the slashing and cutting of programs that has devastated Alberta seniors. The Alberta Liberal opposition wa nts to see universal dental and optical benefits for seniors reinstated, health care premiums elimi- nated for seni ors and all Albertans, peopl e in private health care facilities and homes included within the Protec tion for Pers ons in Care Act or similar legislation, consistent capital funding provided

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2015 for seniors’ lodges, and a body set up specif ically to investi gate complaints of elder abuse, among others. We believe in an alterna- tive to the slash-and-cut swordplay this government has brought to seniors’ programs. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Persons with Developmental Disabilities Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In October o f this year a three-member delegation from Japan visited our province.

This delegat ion is part of a four-y ear mission to lea rn about the services and supports for a dults with developmental disabilities. Their review began by undertaking an environm ental scan of services and supports from around the world. One outcome of this scan was the identification of leading-edge work being done through the mi nistry w ith the support a nd assista nce of pe rsons wit h developmental disabilities provincial and regional boards right here in Alberta. The delegat ion c ame he re to learn about n ew and progr essive community i nclusion mode ls for a dults with disabilities.

The delegates comm ented that Alberta has, and I quote, the most excellent system in the world. They were extremely impressed with the nature of support for rural communities that they saw in north- eastern Alberta, which the y considered to be ex ceptional, superb, and amazing. The delegation heard a presentation from Daniel Desj ardin, a young man with Down’s syndrome who is enrolled at Blue Q uills College and working in the community. The delegation also heard presentations about posts econdary options, em ployment, and community living opportunities. Mr.

Speaker, it is ver y gratifying to know that Alberta is recog- nized internationally as a leader in the area of supporting individuals with disabilities in their local communi ty and buil ding inc lusive communities. Thank you. head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table a petition signed by 1,267 Albertans petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the government of Alberta to “support the establishment of the Chinchaga Wilderness as a legislated protected area.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m presenting a petition signed by 694 Albertans petitioning the Legislative Assem- bly to urge the governm ent of A lberta to “ return to a regulated electricity system, reduce power bills and develop a program to assist Albertans in improving energy efficiency.” 2:40head : Intro duc tion o f Bills The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Bill 56 Alberta Court of Justice Act Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 56, the Alberta Court of Justice Act.

This bill provides the legislative framework for the creation of a unified family court with jurisdiction over all family law and youth matters in Alberta. The bill is being introduced as a starting point for further discussion on the model and the way the model would be enacted with our stakeholders.

The unified family court created by the legislation would greatly improve family law services to Alberta ns by prov iding a sing le forum for resolving disputes, integrated services, specialized judges, and simplified procedures in a new c ourt structur e that f osters informality and helpfulness to self-represented litigants. The new court would also offer greater access for all Albertans, regardless of where they live, and would use existing infrastructure, including the current provincial court locations. [Motion carried; Bill 56 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Bill 57 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2) Mr. Hanco ck: Thank you, M r. Speake r. I also be g leav e to introduce Bill 57, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (No. 2).

The bill makes minor changes to 12 pieces of provincial legisla- tion: the Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act, Builders’ Lien Act, Cancer Programs Act, Class Proceedings Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Forest and Prairie Protection Act, Government Organization Act, Irrigation Districts Act, Judicature Act, Legal Profession Act, Public Sector Pension Plans Act, and Traffic Safety Act.

As is normal with miscellaneous statutes, the contents have been circulated to the two opposition caucuses, and the contents of the bill reflect only those proposed amendments that have been agreed to in advance by all three caucuses. [Motion carried; Bill 57 read a first time] head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Environment. Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise this afternoon to table copies of E nvironment’s 2002-2003 Complia nce As sessment & Enforcement Initiatives annual rep ort.

T his report hig hlights the positive program activities that A lberta Env ironment is taking to ensure that Albertans clearly understand the Environmental Protec- tion and Enhancem ent Act , how it’s implem ented and how it’s enforced. This act, Mr. Speaker, is a testament to the proactive people that we have working in Alberta Environment that try and get out there and educate people in regard to the environment and the Environ- mental Protection and Enhancement Act so that they don’t have to clean up mess es after it’s done.

We hav e a numbe r of good staff involved in this, and I want to congratulate the staff. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table today the appropriate number of copies of the 2001 Vital Statistics annual review. This review summarizes all births, deaths, and marriages in Alberta that occurred during 2001.

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032016 In addition, Mr. Spe aker, I’d also like t o table the appropriate number of copies of the 2002-2003 F reedom of Information and Protection of Privacy annual report. Since the Freedom of Informa- tion and Protection of Privacy Act took effect eight years ago, our provincial government bodies have handled almost 14,000 requests for information and responded to 92 percent of them within 60 days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Mr. Dunford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings today.

The first is the 2002 annua l report of t he Workers’ Compensation Board. The second is t he 2002-2003 annual report of the Consulting Engineers of Alberta. The third is the 2002-2003 annual report of the College of Alberta Professional Foresters. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we have the annual report of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, APEGGA. Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to table copies of the 2003 annual report of the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

It outlines the activities of the council, including the unveiling of the disability strategy last year. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I ris e today to table the requisite number of cop ies of a report listing the new information and resources on the subject of teleworking. It outlines the many benefits to employers, employees, and larger society. The reports are listed on the we b site of the Canadian Telework Association and InnoVisions Canada and should be of great interest to many. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McC lelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table the requisite number of copies of a letter from constituent T. Gerling that has to do with the education system. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today with four tablings. I’d like to start with a petition that wasn’t quite in its right form – it missed the part of the public notice – that’s from students that wanted to protect the access to advanced education by not having tuition fees quite so high.

My second is a series of 23 letters from a group of students that came up to me after a Remembrance Day service at Wilson middle school in Lethbridge, and they were letters by each of the members of a classroom commenting on their classroom conditions and their wish for a good education. The third is a letter from Judy Nygaard, an RN who wants to see the nurses have fair access to their negotiations. Mr. Speaker, the final one is five copies of a pro gram from the Korean Veterans Association.

This was a grou p led by a forme r member of this House that put on a function in Lethbridge to celebrate the 50th year from the end of the Korean conflict. These veterans were in ef fect veterans who didn’t have a w ar. It was a police action until it was finally declared a war, and they’ve had to fight long and hard to get the recognition as veterans that normally comes to members, but in doing so they created a prec edent fo r others who followed in polic e actions in our military to be recog- nized. So on behalf of Mr. Gogo, the former member of the House, I’d like to table these. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings today. T he fi rst is the motion f rom the T reaty 8 First Na tions of Alberta refer red to in the L eader of th e Of ficial Opposition’s question this afternoon. I have the appropriate number of copies of this tabling. The second is a letter from Peter and Barbara Sherrington, who are very concerned about Fortress Mountain and the Kananaskis area and development there.

The third is from Richard Soley, who is very concerned about the Ghost-Waiparous region in Alberta and wants to make sure that overuse, abuse, lack of enforcement, and parties are stopped. The next one is also from Richard Soley with regard to the Ghost- Waiparous becoming a dumping ground. The next one is from Robert and Prisci lla Jan es, who a re very concerned about the commercial development of the Evan-Thomas area in Kananaskis. Then we have a letter from the Alberta Fish and Game Association with regard to their concerns about the possible infection of wildlife by chronic wasting disease.

Steve Temchuk sends us a letter on the Evan-Thomas PRA draft management plan, that he does not like. Doug Engh sends a letter also on the Evan-Thomas area request- ing no further development. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. 2:50 Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of letters from constituents this afternoon. The first is from Beverley Carter, who is concerned about the insurance rates and the capping of the minor accident claims at $4,000. The second is from Patricia Fraser.

She works at the Grey Nuns hospital and is very concerned about the state of negotiations and the possible placement of nurses without their permission. The third is a letter from Orvis Bambush, who is a constituent but owns property at the Cooking Lake airport. Orvis is very concerned that the Edmonton Regional Airports Authority has raised his rent on his property from $450 to $1,657 a year, and he’s going to have to give up his airplane hobby because of that.

The next is from Anne Harris, a registered nurse who is concerned about the state of negotiations and the kind of treatment that they are receiving at the negotiating table. The last is from a reg istered nurse, Be ryl Scot t. She’s v ery concerned about the present climate of negotiations and the effect that that is going to have on nurses in the province. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have only two tablings this afternoon. The first is a l etter from Heidi Lawton from the constituency of Ponoka-Ri mbey.

This le tter is in r egard to t he negotiations between the United Nurses of Alberta and the PHAA.

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2017 The second letter that I ha ve is from Vivian McCarthy. She is from the constit uency of Wetaskiwin-Camrose, and she also has concerns about nurses and the UNA/PHAA contract negotiations. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the request of Leo De Leon, Carmen Vervoorst, and Mecana Tsang I am tabling copies of their letters directed to their MLA.

They’re raising concerns over the nurses’ negotiation, particularly the lack of time spent in negotiation before the request for arbitration, and the curtailment of the demo- cratic process. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft : Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I’m tabling the appropriate number of copies o f lette rs written to me . The f irst is f rom Elsie Shaw of Lac La Biche expressing concern over contract negotiations between the PHAA and the nurses and asking for a contract that will protect patient care. The second is from Shelley Dick to me. She lives in Airdrie.

She talks about the need for a safe contract that will encourage individu- als to go into nursing and stay in nursing. The last is from Shirley Larochelle-Revoy of Irricana, who says, “I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the current contract negotiations between the (PHA

A) a nd the (UNA).” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter I received from J ulia Rowe . Julia is a nurse in E dmonton and li ves in Edmonton-Glengarry and is very concerned over what is being asked of them in the current contract negotiations and the tactics that are being used by the employer in those negotiations. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve got three tablings in total, two I’ll be tab ling on beh alf o f my c olleague from Edmonton- Highlands and one from myself. The first one is appropriate copies of a letter from Haysboro Seniors Resources Group in Calgary dated October 15, 2003. In this le tter the seniors are expressing deep concern regarding the hardship that the 40-plus percent increase for seniors in long-term care is causing. Many seniors are scrambling to find extra money , and in many cases their childr en are be ing forced to cash the ir RRSPs to pay for their parents’ nursing home expenses. The second letter, Mr.

Speaker, that I’m tabling is from Dr. Brian Staples, the c hair of Seniors’ Action and Liaison Team, dated September 25, 2003, address ed to the Minis ter of H ealth and Wellness. Dr. Staples is conce rned with the i ncreasing costs of nursing home operations and the government policy of supporting private nursing homes instead of not-for-profit nursing homes. The last let ter that w e’re tabling is a l etter from Brian George Fozzard of Calgary dated October 24, 2003, addresse d to th e Premier.

He is concerned with “the continuing abuse being heaped upon people with disabilities” in government care and requests that a public inquiry be held in this matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 54 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2) The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Mrs. Nelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to move third reading of Bill 54, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003 (No. 2). Mr.

Speaker, this bill has bee n introd uced in the House to deal with some of the reali ties that we’ve faced this fis cal year and to carry us through for the balance of the year. So I’m pleased to move third reading of this bill. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to have an opportunity to put a few more of my concerns and questions on the record.

When w e talked in supplem entary suppl y, I was able to address a few questions, but we ran out of time bef ore I got even close to being through with a number of the ministries that I directly oversee and then som e questions I had o n tho se that I hav e some general interest in. It’s disappointing when these bills go through the Assembly so quickly that we can’t get questions answered back in time. Specifically, I asked questions about the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and those have not been answered, so I would hope that we would see that occur.

Generally speaking , we ex pect that bills that come in under appropriations are for extra ordinary or unusual item s that occ ur during the year. So this year, very legitimately, there were additional fire-fighting costs, and of course there was the situation we had in agriculture with BSE, which turned out to be very harmful to all related industries, and the gove rnment rightly intervened in that particular area. In terms of the m oneys asked for in the res t of the m inistries, I have some concerns about how their budgeting is done.

We heard many of the ministers stand up and say: oh, you know, this is just the 10 percent contingency in my budget. Well, that doe sn’t actually make sense when they give that as an answer, Mr. Speaker, because if it’s a 10 pe rcent conti ngency that they ’re building into their budget, then that wiggle ro om should a lready be in their budg et. They shouldn’t have to come back here and ask for more money for that. First of all, most of them couldn’t count what 10 percent really was, because the numbers they asked for didn’t jibe with 10 percent of what their ministries were.

But when they come back and ask for more, that means to me, in terms of what they were saying, that they had built a 10 perc ent contingency fund into the ir budgets, w ent through that, and the n also had to come back and a sk for m ore money. So it doesn’t seem like good planning on their part.

I never heard any really good reasons from most of these minis- tries in terms of why they had to come back and get more money and couldn’t do the kind of planning that would anticipate the kinds of needs they had or, in fact, the ki nd of plan ning that, even tho ugh we’re not involved in that process, their own caucus members could

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032018 sit down and say: yes, this is going to be a l egitimate c ost in the coming year, and we should fund th is. How can you measure the success of a program or a minister or a budget if you don’t get the full answer when you’re sitting down at the budget-planning stage? For instance, if we go to the Minister of Economic Development, the operating expenses he’s asking for are $3.5 million. When you think about that, that’s a lot of money for a budget that isn’t very big in the first place.

Why was it that last fall, when they were making the plans for th e budget an d it was going t hrough th e process of debate and so on, he wouldn’t know at that time that he was going to need $3.5 million f or what is labeled he re as st rategic intelli- gence? 3:00 Now, I don’t understand how he could have gotten to the last quarter of this y ear and sudde nly just run o ut of money in this regard.

If they’re doing their proper planning and processing of the dollars and of their specific benchmarking protocol that they’ve got in place, he would have known that he was under budget when he first a sked for the mone y. It i sn’t a way to run a government, a home, or a business . It would be wonderful if I jus t ran out of money at the end of a quarter and said, “Okay; now I need more to run the house,” because suddenly I decided that we needed some- thing else in the house that w as big and not formerly planned for. You spend too much money when you do that.

You don’t meet your overall targets when you do that. You skew the rest of the expenses and revenues in the rest of the government, and you don’t always, then, spend the money in the appropriate venues. Repeatedly people in this province tell us that health and educa- tion are their number one priorities. Repeatedly in this Assembly we hear question s being brought forward that addre ss those s pecific issues, and a lot of them have to do with funding. It isn’t always that we need more money for those areas. We need adequate funding in the first pl ace.

So w hat s hould have be en put into the pl anning stages when budgets were being developed, Mr. Speaker , is a real assessment of what the actual financial needs of the community are, not for just today and tomorrow but in a long-ter m foreca sting perspective, and it’s e asy to do. I know. It’s been done before , maybe not in this Assembly but certainly in other venues, and they can do that. If we have a properly funded system, then we don’t have the same kinds of concerns that we see occurring on a daily basis here.

I can’t possibly imagine that the $3.5 million for strategic intelligence was something the Minister of Economic Development cou ldn’t live without and had to hav e specifically for this quarter and couldn’t take a look at how he could build it into the next budget year coming up. So it looks like that money was coming from the sustainability fund, another good idea brought forward by the Official Opposition in this province. I had s ome other questions with regard to some of the other departments that we saw.

We did talk about Sustainable Resource Development, and in fact the minister was a ble to giv e me what I thought were pretty good answers in that regard. I still think that we chronically underfund fires in this province. Every year since I’ve been here, they come back for more money. I know that fires are unpredictable and how th ey spend the mon ey isn’t always known from day to day, but certainly we need to think a little more strategi- cally about how we’re funding that particular area. The ministe r talked about th e helpfulness of additional water fighting planes.

I saw the helicopters going for water in the evenings this summer when we were on a holiday. They would go into Lake Windermere and pick up the water in the buckets and dump it in the evening, gett ing re ady f or their nex t day’s preparati on for fi re fighting. The m inister didn’t talk about needing anyth ing more there, but he did talk about the planes. Perhaps this is som ething w here he ne eds to sit dow n with neighbouring provinces and the federal government and really talk about it.

If he could show them a cash f low statement that would indicate that what he was saying was true, that having those planes would save funds both in a real sense in terms of being able to cut back in other expenses and in shortening the life of the fires, then I think that woul d be so mething that eve rybody in this As sembly could support, and I think that’s a kind of co-operative discussi on that they need to do. I think that pretty much is the end of the questions that I have on this particular bill. Once again I’ll say it like I have been saying it twice a year when these supplementary estimates come in.

This is a government that could do a far, f ar better job in planning thei r revenues and expendi tures and in how they come ba ck with their hand out to their piggy bank twice a year in this Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d move that we adjourn debate on Bill 54. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 52 Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate November 27: Mr. Mar] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr.

Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is one of those bills that has a lo t of tec hnical im plications t o it, addres sing as i t does how information is collec ted and shar ed and partic ularly electronic information. We are in some ways writing legislation here that sets a direction for the future of a computer system and an information system that we really are only shaping now. So we’re dealing with a lot of unknowns. We have been consulting with various groups on this legislation.

Basically what this bill is intended to do is to change how informa- tion about health professionals is col lected and shared by pro fes- sional colleges, such as the college of physicians and so on, and the government. The intent of this is to use the information in workforce planning, for policy development, and to develop something brand new called the Alberta provider directory, which will be a database of all regulated health providers in the province. The basic purpose of this direc tory is to identify practitioners who are authorized t o access electronic health rec ords.

So y ou can see that here we are putting in place different components for creating and buil ding an electronic health records system. One of the questions that I have right away with my own personal reflection on experie nce wit h health rec ords and c omputerizing health records is: w hat are the costs? T he costs c ould be sim ply enormous. The bill i n a les s important way, I think, probably also ma kes some professional name and title changes. Now, the g overnment has been working for quite a while on establishing an electron ic health records system.

It goes back a couple of years or more, and they’ve been running pilot projects and

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2019 developing syste ms one a fter another until f inally t his fall the electronic health records system was unveiled, and it’s a big ste p. It’s a step about which, frankly, I have mixed feelings. While there are benefits to having a lot of infor mation on a database, there are also real risks and very, very substantial costs in forms of cash and other costs as well, s uch as inva sion of priv acy. So security of information looms large over this whole debate, and it’s a theme that I will return to in debate on this bill and in debate on other issues as well.

Now, with the initial rollout of the electronic heal th records this fall, there are I believe 646 health care providers who are approved to use the system and access those records. By this coming spring that will hav e jumped to over 5,000, i ncluding phy sicians an d pharmacies who will have access to people’s individual electronic health records. So this presents all kinds of problems. Exactly who are these people? What qualifications do they have to see the health records on each of us?

How do we kno w that the y’re actually legitimate healthcare providers? 3:10 To address some of those issues and to facilitate the establishment of this whole electronic health re cords system, the government is establishing through this bill something they’re calling the Alberta provider directory, which is a database, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, of all the regulated health providers in Alberta.

It is being built and developed in collaboration with the western health information collaborative, a process that was initiated, actually, by the Premiers across western Canada and by their counterpart deputy ministers of health. One of the questions I would appreciate the minister answering is: what portion of the cost of developing this is bei ng borne by the Alberta taxpay ers?

Som etimes it’s gr eat to lea d a parade , and sometimes it’s great to let somebody else lead the parade, especially if there’s a great big price tag connected with leading the parade, and I’m concerned that in this particular case we may be in Albert a bearing more th an our fa ir share of the costs of developing this system because we’re so eager in getting it implemented. So that’s some of the background here.

One of our major concerns is that so much of this bill is simply left up to regulation; in other words, we are once again being asked to pa ss legis lation that i s really simply a shell f or a trem endous number of regulations that we haven ’t seen , regulations that presumably are in development. Some are in the back rooms of the government or the Department of Health and Wellness, regulations that can be changed with the stroke of a cabinet minister’s pen.

So when we are dealing with things as fundamental as health informa- tion and who has access to it, I for on e would like to see actual legislation providing a s ironclad s ecurity as we possibly can over what’s in peopl e’s health records and provi ding ironclad security over who gets to see what’s in those health records. Unfortunately, some of that ironclad reassurance is not in this bill. It’s going to be in, we hope, regulations. We ar e being a sked: trust us. Whe n a government says, “Don’t worry; trust us,” we get nervous. So that’s, perhaps, the most fundamental concern that I have and that we have here.

Now, maybe a directory is a good idea, and we might find that it does help in fact to make electronic health systems more secure, but we’ll have to wait and see how this unfolds. For all of that and for all of those concerns, I don’t want to leave the impression that we are unequivocally opposed to an electronic health records system. We are simply raising concerns abo ut how it’s going to be imple- mented and about how it’s going to be secured and how much it is going to cost.

So in looking ahead with this piece of legislation, the government is hoping that by next spring , as I sa id, there w ill be ov er 5,000 health care providers with access to health records. So that makes this particular piece of legislation, I guess, of really urgent concern to the gove rnment. But we are here dealing with a double-edged sword. This bill will allow identifying information about individual health providers to be shared with other audiences, including the health minister and the health profession colleges.

These recipients will be defined largely in regulations; in other words, in addition to these recipients, the bill will allow for information to be shared with other persons w ho are set out in the reg ulations and whom th e minister wishes to share the information with. Well, that’s placing a huge potential loophole in the regulations, because while the legislation addresses a couple of groups specifi- cally, it also allows the minister enormous leeway to determine who else might get the inf ormation collected through electronic health records. It raise s questions.

What sa feguards are there that this information won’t be s hared wi th private health prov iders, f or example, or with drug companies or with insurance companies or with employers? There are simply too many questions le ft unan- swered by this legislation. It also leaves open the question: who will monitor the appropriate use of this data? So I have these concerns, and in raising the issues with oth er stakeholders, they are expressing concerns about how information is going to be protec ted and colle cted. We could certainl y look for clearer

definitions and clearer constraints on that in this legislation. So it would b e terrific if the minister could cl early explain how having this information will better protect the security of Albertans’ health information. How are these changes in the pub lic inter est, how much are these changes going to cost in dollars and cents, and what benefits can we expect from them, benefits measured to as great a degree as possible in dollars and cents so we can compare the costs and the benefits? I think that f or my opening com ments that c overs the biggest number of concerns.

The government has, to give it credit, worked with a number of groups on deve loping this le gislation, groups ranging from all the professional colleges, I think, under the Health Professions Act and a number of other organizations as well. As useful as this he alth inform ation system appea rs that it m ight become, I am not convinced. I remain a skeptic that the system that we are developing here and the system that is requiring us to debate this legislation is actually the right move for us to take .

I am as a taxpayer concerned that tens and tens of millions of dollars, ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars, will be p oured into developing an information system that is of relatively limited benefit. So I have concerns over this bill, and I have concerns over thi s system that it is meant to serve. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on Bill 52 at second reading.

This bill seems to address the new conditions that have come i nto being in t he wake o f the chr onic health r ecords system that the Mini ster of Health and Wellness and the Prem ier jointly launched at the Royal Alex hospital some months ago with a great deal of technological glitter and fanf are.

Cer tainly, when I attended that particular event, I couldn’t help but get the impression that one of the purposes of that particular launch and its format was to draw a ttention to the broad-based supp ort from the medical profession that this bill has. 3:20 I think the question of whether or not information on individual patients with respect to their medical condition, treatments, history

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032020 of medica l pro blems and treatments, inform ation on allergies, different kinds of medications that they may be on at a particular time when they to go see a physician and perhaps need new interven- tions – all of that information would appear to be helpful in avoiding or preventing or limiting mistakes that otherwise can happen in the absence of this kind of information on the records of each patient.

So in p rinciple the coll ection of this information and m aking this information available o n request or on expressed need to A lberta health care providers is something that one can’t dispute. It would seem to be an appropriate thing to do.

The questions that I had then and have now in light of what’s in this bill and what’s not in this bill pertain, of course, to the costs and benefits, the balan ce bet ween the two, both the sort of c osts to launch the health information system, which requires a change in legislation as reflected in this bill, and the operational costs of this and how they’re to be shared as between private practitioners such as doctors and ot hers and the taxpa yers of this prov ince, and the relative benefits that result from it.

These costs related to electronic information gathering, storage, retrieval, distribution, e t cetera , have a tendency to spin out of control because of the rapidly changing nature of technology. The software, hardware, all of those things, change, and those changes are not under the control of the minister, of this government, or this Legislature. Those changes are independent.

They take place because of the technological breakthroughs that continue to happen, and therefore to create a huge dependence of a health system on the critical ro le that the applica tion of the t echnology plays in the process of providing care opens the doors to finding down the road in a few years th at th is po rtion of th e cost s begi ns to snowb all. Having made this huge commitment to the use of this technology, we really have no control over the increasing costs that may result from the adoption of this particular electronic health records system. So the costs are a huge issue.

The other issue related to it, then, is the question of the security of information, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it the case that information when it’s collected can always be either leaked or inadvertently made public; human error is certainly something that electronic systems cannot eliminate completely. So the security of the information and, therefore, the breach of the privacy of individuals the information is about is a massive concern, should remain a primary concern.

Not onl y is it the c ase that the information can be come public through inadvertent actions, but also the decision could be made by various parties w ho have ac cess to thi s inf ormation or have t he responsibility to make decisions about the variety of uses that information may be put to, which ma y mean that such a decision could lead to the flow of this information into the hands of pharma- ceutical companies and other p rivate health delivery agencies and actors in our chang ing health c are sy stem, particularly in this province, where it’s a matter of official policy of this government to involve private heal th provi ders in a lar ge wa y to provide even hospital-based services through private, for-profit activities.

The inform ation would ne cessarily be come available to these providers, and then the inability of the government to dictate to these providers the manner in which this information is used is a matter of concern to me and is a matter of concern to many Albertans. So a health care sy stem that’s being privatized bit by bit provide s th e context in which these concerns arise with respect to the use of the electronic health records system to provide care.

Yes, in theory, as I said, one sees potential benefits to particular physicians or other hea lth ca re providers who are dealing w ith a particular patient at the time to have this information on hand. On the other han d, there is the possibility of huge risks that are also there and that must be addressed.

It is because of these concerns that I’ve expressed with respect to the security of this information that’s collected on medical records for individuals and the issue s of inva sion of priv acy that I hav e concerns about the third part of the bill, which leaves much of the whole range of decisions w ith respect to how this information is going to be used, w ho’s going to be using it , to whom i t may be available, and the silence of this bill with respect to what controls are there in legisl ation to prev ent privat e hospitals and other pri vate health care providers, through contracts to regional health authori- ties, from using thi s info rmation for purpose s for w hich it’s not intended.

Regulations, the bill suggests, would take care of these concerns, but I don’t have access to the regulations. This Legislature doesn’t have access to those re gulations. So we can’t even talk about the efficacy of the regulations that we put in place in order to address these concerns.

Given the absence of information with respect to the regulations and the inability of this House to examine those regula- tions to assure itself that appropriate mechanisms will be in place to protect privacy and t o make security of inf ormation watertight, I have those con cerns that I would hope the minister would l ike to address after we have had a chance as a Legislature to express these concerns and make our initial observations on Bill 52 while we are going through it during its current phase of debate, which is second reading. With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would ta ke my seat. Thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(1)(

d) and (2)(

a) kicks in here for questions. Then we’ll proceed to the next speaker, should there be one. Some Hon. Members: Question. The Speaker: The question is called. [Motion carried; Bill 52 read a second time] Bill 46 Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate November 27: Mr. Boutilier] Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, I actually made my comments last week and certainly am prepared to call for the question on this bill. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Bl akeman: Thanks. Just a coupl e of ques tions that I ha d in reading through Bill 46, Municipal G overnment Amendment Act, 2003.

While I have the opportunity he re – and I’ m t rying t o remember the minister’s comments, and I’m afraid they’re just not sticking with me, so forgive me if I repeat a question here. 3:30 This bill is actually dealing with sort of odds and sods. It’s a sort of licorice allsorts that we’re getting with this. We’ve got a

section that’s talking about expanding the regulations and control of, well, full-contact sports. It’s adding full-contact karate, kick-boxing, and “any o ther sport that holds contests where opponents strike each other with a hand, foot, knee, elbow or other part of the body.” It is contact sports. So it ’s expanding the com mission a nd what the commission establishes “by bylaw for controlling and regulating,” and then there’s that list. It’s adding those other, I guess we could say, newer contact sports to the more traditional ones of boxing and wrestling.

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2021 It’s also adding in the off icials. A nything t hey do under the direction of the c ommission is “not l iable for anything .” The exception to that is that it’s “not a defence if the cause of action is defamation.” So we’ve got one

section that’s dealing with adding kick-boxing and things, and then we g o on to seve ral sections that ar e being amended that are around an off-site levy.

Section 648(2) says that “an off-site levy may be used only to pay for all or part of the capital cost of any or all of the following.” Then it lis ts a num ber of facilities for the supplying of water and w ater treatment, sanitary sewage drainage facili ties, and it ’s adding in “new or expanded roads” that are needed for or “impacted by a subdivis ion.” What we’ve got is this levy providing “for the imposition and payment of a levy, to be known as an ‘off-site levy’, in respect of land that is to be developed or subdivided.” So we’re moving here into a discussion around water, water treatment, sewage, urban sprawl, and public health and safety.

This is where I’m struggling to recall. Is this dev eloped specific to a certain locale? I have Red Deer written down with question marks, and I don’t know why I did th at. So I’m ju st checking with t he minister: what location is this being developed to address? Or is it in anticipation more globally of continued development outside of our metropolitan cities? I’m presuming some of the other growing cities like Grande Prairie and Lethbridge and Fort McMurray. An Hon. Member: Calgary. Ms Blakeman: No. I said “metropolitan.” I include Calgary there.

I’m wondering if the la rger discussion has been had and what those d iscussions are around t his continued out growth f rom the cities. At th e same time, for representatives like myself w ho are representing the downtown areas, that doughnut is being creat ed where every thing is m oving out of t he centre of the c ities and increasingly moving on to arable land as we use up good land on the outside of the cities to do more development rather than looking at that restructuring and revitalization in the centre o f some of these cities.

Cit ies like Fort McMurray are certainly large enough to be dealing with something like this. I know that that’s a city planning issue. I personally wish that this city that I live in would spend more time working with that because we have a number of area redevelopment plans that have been put in place and are then ignored. What this bill is anticipating is part of the overall discussion that we’re trying to have. How much sprawl are we going to have? How much more good farmland do we take up?

And this is exactly anticipating that in that it’s trying to supply the sewage and water tran smission facilities and pipelines to deal with those ever growing subdivisions. So when d oes it stop? How much does this bill facilitate? Forever? I want to know a bit more of the discussion that’s already happened around that and what’s being anticipated.

Of course, water and treated water have particularly now become a public health and safety issue as we hopef ully learn what ha ppens when you don’t learn the lessons as a result of Walkerton and North Battleford and some of the other places that have dealt with problems around water treatment and one presumes good sewage disposal as well. The other thing that was being added in here was around timing, about when something has been started and whether they go under the old act or under the amended act. One of the things that struck me is that we’re looking at a

section where we’re adding in that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations . . . (

b) governing the principles and criteria that must be applied by a municipality when establishing an off-site levy. Again, the off-site levy is the levy that’s put on a subdivision, and that money is used spe cifically to pa y for water treatm ent and disposal. So my question here is: what was being used for principles and criteria before if we’re now asking that they be develo ped? What were the municipalities using? Was there some other act that was in place or was there some other guiding principle that is tucked away in some little book of how to be a good municipality?

Obviously, there’s something being contemplated here. Why is it turning up in legislation in 2003? Finally, I’m wondering if the minister can go over the sections that are getting the change in timing around them. What’s happened is that we had sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 come into force on January 1, 2004, a month from now, just actually less a day. This is now being changed and adjusted. We have “Sections 9, 12 and 18 come into force on January 1,” so they must be ready to go. So I’m interested in: what are the ones that are ready to go and what are the ones that aren’t ready to go?

Those are the ones that are now coming int o for ce on proclamation, so what’s the anticipated implementation date of that proclamation? Are you trying to get it in earlier or after and why? And that’s sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20. So those are the issues that have come to me as I looked through the bill. If I could just go back, why is it that the city controls contact sport commissions?

It just strikes me that with all these other recreational and professional sporting arrangements, that usually comes under a provincial organiza tion, or they dr aw funding dow n through a number of diff erent places, and I’m just intere sted as to wh y the control of this sport rests with the municipalities. Is this some sort of historic situation that’s still upheld and brought along? It’s just a point of interest. It’s not going to stop me voting for the bill, but I’m just wondering why it continues to show up under municipali- ties.

Aside from t hose questions, I don’t see at this point a prob lem with this bill, but I am interested in getting those questions answered by the minister. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 46. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to close the debate. Hon. minister? Mr. Boutilier: No, Mr. Speaker. It’s closed. The Speaker: I’m sorry, hon. minister. You’ll have to help me. No what? I invited you to close the debate. If you choose not to close the debate, that’s fine.

The minister wasn’t voting against the bill. [Motion carried; Bill 46 read a second time] 3:40 Bill 55 Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great pleasure for me to stand here today and move second reading of Bill 55, the Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003. As I said when I introduced the bill, this bill will make changes to the way that farm implement dealers and distributors indemnify their customers, bringing current legislation in line with today’s fiscal and financial realities.

As of January 1, 2004, a statutory compensation

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032022 fund will re place the current bond re quirement needed f or farm implement dealers and distributors to qualify for a licence to operate in Alberta. Now as a condition of licensing dealers and distributors will need to pay annual levies into the compensation fund. Fines for noncompliance will be i ncreased from $25,000 per c orporation or $10,000 per individual to $50,000 for either individual or corpora- tion. Changes to the legislation will benefit farmers if they incur losses due to contract ual obligations being unf ulfilled or warran ties not honoured, for example.

Under those circumstances they can make claims to the compensation fund. A new farm implement bo ard assig ned statutory powers a nd obligations through reg ulations or by the min ister will determine levies paid into and awards paid out of the compensation fund. The new farm implement board will co ntinue to be ma de up of seven members: four producer members, one of whom is appointed by the minister, one distributor member, one manufacturer member, and a dealer member. Aside from the one appointee, members are elected by their affiliations.

The compensation fund will not be allowed to pay out more than what is in the f und. Fur ther, the com pensation fund will be run completely outside of the purview of the provincial government and will have no impact on the government’s budget. The intent of the bill is twofold as it assists p roducers as well as farm implement dealers and distributors. The bond premiums that dealers and distributors currently have to pay have become prohibi- tive.

Due to world events the insurance industry has tightened qualification requirements for bonds, making it next to impossible for some dealers and distributors to become licensed. This govern- ment does not want to be unduly difficult to the businesses here, Mr. Speaker, so we’re making the appropriate changes. With regard t o producers thi s bill wi ll ensure tha t they have a relatively simple course of action to recoup losses due to problems with farm impl ements.

Producers who rec eive com pensation through this fund will forgo the right for further legal claims against the dealer or distributor for the amount paid on the claim. Passage of this bil l will im prove the bus iness climate for farm implement dealers and distributors as well as making sure producers are protected from unnecessary financial loss. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this Legislature to give this bill their full support, and I look forward to other comments. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Spe aker.

I’m happy to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 55, the Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003. As we see this bill, the obj ect of it is to est ablish ne w provisions for the licensing of farm implement dealers as well as to create a mechanism for compensation to dealers who have incurred a direct loss due to the collapse of a sale or lease agreement. We see the bill redef ining the def inition of de aler and dis tributor by clarifying that dealers and distributors also lease farm implements. This is an industry that has long had a tough time operating and surviving.

I remember that m y first case c ourse back in the ear ly ’70s was dealing with a farm implement company, one of the better known ones in Canada at the tim e, who had through a va riety of reasons not been able to sustain its business. That seems to be the kind of cycle that these farm implement businesses go through. They are particularly disadvantaged at this particular time given some of the changes that have occurred in and around insurance and access to insurance for them. At first glance, certainly, I’m supporting this bill because it looks like it’s moving in the right direction.

The bond system under the current act, where an applicant for a dealer’s lic ence must furnish a bond to the Crown, is abolished effective December 31 of this year. Then the issuer must pay back to the licensee the premium attributable to the unused portion of the bond. This bill establishes a new fund known as the farm implement compensation fund, and we see t he revenues collected from levies and assessments and penalties which will be paid by applicants for certified dealer licences. Producers will apparently be charged about $750 as a levy i nto t he fun d. If we could get tha t confirmed in committee, Mr.

Speaker, we’d appreciate it. We also see that th e fund is going to be use d to pay ou t awards for compensation to a purchaser, lessee, distributor, or dealer on a loss incurred from the breach of a sale, a lease, or a lease/purchase agreement. So what this fund does, t hen, is replace the bond, and it wi ll be established by a new board called the farm implement board. We see seven members going on this one, determined by the regulations of the ac t. The board is supposed to hold appeals on issues where applicants for licences have been refused or canceled or suspended.

We also see that the boa rd is go ing to be conduc ting hearings for compensation as laid out previously. The board is responsible for managing the fund, a nd it’s also responsible for setting levies and assessments to gain revenues for the fund. They also have the power to enforce any as sessments by filing w ith the Cou rt of Quee n’s Bench for recovery of debt. If we could have some confirmation of this particular bill.

If there are any parts of it here that we’re not completely correct on or if you have a different in terpretation, certainly we’re looking forward to having that discussion when the bill gets to committee. Right now what we see is that dealers and distributors are required to put up a bond in order to get a licence to carry on business. Since September 11 a lot has changed for a lot of industries.

Certainly, the case has occurred here that we see insurance companies doing what some may be saying is squeezing them in terms of information and refusing to issue bonds and really trying to take a piece of the market and take control of the market. This becomes a real problem, I think, in terms of fair trading and in terms of businesses’ access to markets and ability to do business. We also see insurance companies refusing to insu re dist ributors and dealers. We certainly don’t approve of that. Hopefully, we will see that this bill will start to address that.

Our expectation is that the board will operate in a manner that will help these companies and that we will see some positive changes in this particular industry. Mr. Speaker, I think those are all my comments. I certainly look forward to feedback on those comments when this bill gets into the committee stage. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 55, the Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003.

I think this bill in its intent probably addresses in one w ay an iss ue that has been raised by a number of dealers, farm suppliers across the province. 3:50 The thing that w e have to look at i s that in terms of the process that we’re going at, it’s very similar to some of the other programs for fund creation in agriculture, where these funds are set up for , basically, risk m anagement in a w ay that – you k now, input risk management as opposed to output ris k m anagement.

If t his, in effect, gets implemented, it will probably clarify both for the dealers and for the farmers the relationships that they’re being faced with in terms of dealing w ith each other right now. The re’s uncertainty

December 2, 2003 Alberta Hansard 2023 being created because you now have to question and make sure that each of your dealers is licensed, is carrying the appropriate bond tied to that lice nce, and tha t som e continuity of your dealershi p is available. You need the servicing on your equipment and you need the parts, not just the year you buy it but for the life of that piece of equipment. To have a secondary process like inability to adequately get bonding and insurance affects that continuity that farm producers and farm implement dealers want in their industry. So, Mr.

Speaker, I hope that as we go through this, we look at this and say that this is good for the industry; it’s good for agriculture. If we look at the provisions that ar e in it in the c oncept basis, it’s going to clarify the process of licensing. Well, that has to be done now that we don’t have the bonding tied to it and we have another mechanism for that kind of risk management.

I guess when we look at the establishment of the permanent farm implement board, in a general way this is going to hear appeals both on compensation issues and also from the dealers if they are finding it difficult or if the restrictions being put on their lice nces a re becoming onerous. T hat, in effect, becomes a good process. Is it going to become bureaucratic? That’s only something we can see in time. The process here has to be expedited.

When either a dealer or a producer wants a hearing, there has to be a very timely process in place beca use we have to m ake sure that these things com e to resolution as quickl y as pos sible. W e have t o look at w hat are alternative mechanisms for getting that resolution. We have to deal with it from the point of view of the e xpertise t hat will be on the board. I know t hat the act talks about some of the things, but we have t o look at it in terms of: is it broad based enough to give a perspective?

With the i ntegration of our econom y now, even the agriculture area is crossing over into industrial equipment. Industrial equipment and agricultural equipment are now being sold through the same dealers. That’s good. We’ve got to make sure that we do keep the issues being addressed by the bill focused. So I hope that that understanding and that breadth is included for the people who are going to deal with it. I guess t he fin al main area of t he bi ll is t he farm i mplement compensation fund.

What we’re looking at in this whole process, as I said at the outset of my discussion, is a bill that’s going to he lp sustain players in the industry by having this fund in lieu of bond or insurance. What we need to do is make sure that the accounting in that fund is cl ear, that people are aware of how many dollars ar e going into it, and what the actuarial needs of that fund size might be, what process is going to be there to back it until it gets built to the appropriate size. A lot has to deal with: is it going to become a growing fund?

Not that there’s a relationship between the two of them, but the number of calls w e get a bout the ti re fund ge tting bigger and bigg er and bigger, you know – what a re the actuarial n umbers that, in effect, establish the size and the need for this fund? Tha t would be interesting. I hope that as this moves forward, that kind of informa- tion is made public in a way that people can understand the level of the fee that each of them is going to have to pay to buy into it.

I know that the minister is already talking a little bit about what that fee might be in terms of size, and I guess for comfort both for me as the agriculture critic, for me as the Leader of the Opposition but mostly for the farmers out there, we need to know that that fee is appropriate for the level of coverage and the actuarial conditions that will draw from the f und. I’d ask as we move a head with the implementation of this act that that kind of information be provided for the public and for the individuals involved, because that would give them a sense that there’s meaning behind this.

I guess just one final comment that I’d ma ke before we a gain encourage everyone to support this because the industry needs it is a reflection of the compartmentalization that we’re seeing more and more in our proces ses. T his bill ca me up throug h Agric ulture because of an iss ue in agri culture, yet it doe sn’t cross ove r to the very same issue that ’s been br ought to my office by marke ters, dealers in other indust ries, and by users of products in other industries.

They’re basical ly fa cing the very same crisis i n their ability to get appropriate risk manag ement coverage, whether it’s bonds or insurance. I guess as we go into this, it would be interest- ing to ge t a response from the g overnment as to w hy this w asn’t something that grew from an issue an d an ini tiative taken by the minister of agriculture into something that would meet the needs of all small businesses, all businesses in this province as it relates to risk management. I think this i s a whole issue that we could get into debating: the role of the pri vate sector and t he ro le of the public sector.

We’re simultaneously going through a debate in this House on another insurance issue w here public i nvolvement is sh unned. Suddenly now we have legislation that, in effect, creates a public fund, which, as it grows, may have to be backed by public dollars. That needs to be clarified so that w e can truly understand how that’s going to work. But I think all those issues aside, I’ve raised a couple of questions about the board, about the transparency of the fund, and I hope that the government will act on it. In the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, this is something that the rural community and the ag community specifi- cally need, and I hope that every member of the House sees fit to make sure that the ag industry continues through the fall and on into the future so that we can have the materials and the equipment and the parts for the producers in Alberta. So, again, let’s support this and get it under way, and maybe we can look at the broader context of the needs of all small businesses at a different time. The Speak er: Hon. mem bers, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is now available for fi ve mi nutes. Is t he hon. Mem ber for Edmonton- Strathcona proceeding under that provision? Dr. Pannu: No, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Okay. Would there be members who would like to proceed under the provisions of Standing Orders? Then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona to continue the debate. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I woul d like to make s ome observations on Bill 55, Farm Implement Amendment Act, 2003, in second reading. I’ll be brief. I’ve been looking through the bill and wondering why these changes are needed.

We can attribute all kinds of things to the 9-11 20 01 incident, but I think that’s not reall y addressing the real issue here. 4:00 I think the c hanges tha t are soug ht in this bill i n the form of replacing the curre nt syst em, w here lice ncing fa rm im plement dealers requires getting bonds and getting insurance for indemnifica- tion of risk, is being replaced with a sy stem that from m y first reading, a quick reading of the bill, says that in place of the market we are now ready to bring in a more publicly crea ted board and a fund.

The market seems to have once again failed in this case, and so the pub lic autho rity – the gover nment, the state – fi nds i t necessary to step in. The insurance industry and businesses have really shown a serious weakness over the last few years. We have been talking about the auto insurance sector of the industry and how that has failed drivers

Alberta Hansard December 2, 20032024 and consumers. So all kinds of governments, including the one here in Alberta , are try ing to respond to the fai lure of the insurance industry with respect to the auto insurance area. But here, again, in the case of farm implements farm dealers and producers are finding it now necessary to seek a new system of risk management and indemnification of risk through public means.

I’m not opposing this; all I’m doing is trying to draw atten tion to how this sort of market m adness is giving way , once agai n, t o finding more publicly administered means to provide conditions un der which producers, agricultural indust ry players, implement dealers can operate under conditions that provide some degree of security and satisfactory risk management, which has to be addressed if these players have to stay in the field and work on it. So having said that the market seems to have failed in this case, we’ve recognized it.

We are now turning to other means to replace what the market provided until now, but the arrangements that are being put in place, I think, merit a close scrutiny by this legislature. The farm implement board and i ts composition, therefore, comes into focus a s something that w e should pay close attent ion to to make sure that it rep resents the interests and stakeholders whose concerns and interests this board has been created to address and that representation be appropria te and that the board’s activ ities be accountable insofar as the legislation can make them accountable.

Similarly, I noticed t hat in the se ction on the f arm implements compensation fund in the bill on page 10 under funds there seems to be no provision for star t-up fund s. I wonder if the levies, assess- ments, and penalties that are referred to here as a source of this fund will be sufficient to provide for the funds that are needed as a start- up cost of this new arrangement. I would like the minister to address that issue: whether or not public funds, taxpayers’ money will in fact be needed to start up this new venture, and if so, what’s the magni- tude of the taxpayers’ dollar commitment to this?

Secondly, the question of the range of levies and fines and the size of those lev ies and f ines that c an be lev ied by thi s board both to applications for licences or to the producers who will also co me before this board with certain requests. That matter is left, by and large, to regulations. I think some indication of the kind of levies that will come into play as soon as this present arrangement expires at the end of this month should have been indicated in the legislation itself, at le