March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 285 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:30 p.m. Date: 05/03/17 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As we conclude for this week our work in this Assembly, we renew our energies with thanks so that we may continue our work with the people in the constituencies we repre- sent. Amen. Please be seated. Vignettes from Alberta’s History The Speaker: Hon. members, our historic comment of the day. On March 17, 1937, the Hon. Philip C.H.

Primrose died in Edmonton, having served as Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor for six months. The Hon. Colonel Primrose was known for his long and distinguished career with the North West Mounted Police, now known as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was the first Lieutenant Governor of Alberta to die in office, and his was the first state funeral in the history of the province of Alberta. As I sit, may I wish all the best to all those of Irish descent. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 83 grade 6 students who are accompanied by their teachers and parent helpers. They are from the Gi bbons school in my constituency. They are seated in the public gallery. I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a group of students and their chaperones sitting in the members’ gallery who are from the Canadian University College, which is an independent school of advanced education in Lacombe. Please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m honoured today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly the hard-working members of the Northern Alberta Development Council, who are meeting in Edmonton today. Joining us are Carmen Ewing from Girouxville, Helen Henderson from High Prairie, Gary Pollock from Swan Hills, Maurice Rivard from Bonnyville, Harvey Yoder from Lac La Biche, and Michael Ouellette from Grande Prairie. They’re also accompanied by three staff members from Peace River: Allen Geary, Audrey DeWit, and Jennifer Bisley. Mr.

Speaker, these individuals are to be commended for their dedication and advancement of northern Alberta development through regional initiatives in partnership with the private sector and community-based organizations. They are seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon, and I would ask them to rise, if they would, and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of individuals in the public gallery that I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly.

I’d ask them to please rise as I call their names. Ed Koning is a Fabry patient and chair of the Fabry Society of Canada. Frank Koning is the father of two Fabry patients and the grandfather of one Fabry patient. Audrey Koning is a Fabry patient and the mother of two Fabry patients and the grandmother of one Fabry patient. Ross Perri is also a Fabry patient, and Helen Tsenekos is president of the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, a national group encouraging the development of an orphan drug policy in Canada. I ask all members to join me in welcoming these individuals to our Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. One of the most important services my constituency office provides is to assist constituents in gaining access to important government services. I’m truly fortunate to have Wes Carter, a social work student and a part-time employee in my office, to help with this work. I would like to introduce him to you and through you to all members of the Assembly. I would ask Mr. Carter to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Mr.

Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly a member of my constituency. Joni Wilde, a teacher from the Magrath high sc hool and the special needs co-ordinator, is here in Edmonton attending the Asperger’s and autism conference at the U of A. I would like her to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m most pleased to rise today and introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a group of 34 students from the La Crete public school accompanied by Mr. Morgan Coates, Mr. Richard Coburn, Mr. Steve Cole, Mrs. Mary Driedger, Mrs. Mary Wiebe, Mrs. Agnes Wiebe, Mr. Peter Neufeld, and Mr. Henry Harder as adult chaperones. They’ve travelled nearly a thousand kilometres to be with us today, and they’re so in tune with the political process that they included on my notes that they want highway 88 paved.

I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Enron Activities in Alberta Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans expect nothing less than the truth from their government. Yesterday in response to a question on government meetings with the disgraced Enron corpora-

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005286 tion the Premier stated: “I don’t r ecall any discussions whatsoever with Enron. None.” And he even went “none” – like that – for emphasis. However, an e-mail between senior Enron officials dated September 2000 has as its subject heading “Project Stanley - Recent Meetings with Alberta Government and TransAlta.” Project Stanley was the code name Enron used for its market manipulation scheme in Alberta. To the Premier: is he now prepared to admit that Enron officials did in fact meet with officials from his government while Enron was ripping off Alberta consumers? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I have no idea if Enron officials met with officials. I don’t recall – and that is the truth – personally meeting with any officials from Enron. If Enron officials had meetings with our officials, I know nothing of that, but I will have the hon. minister respond. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have the specifics as to any meetings with officials. I can say this: Enron clearly was here as a participant in the marketplace. In fact, the investigation and the incidents with allegations to Enron go back to 1999, predating even that question.

Investigations were and did occur. There wasn’t sufficient evidence at that stage to proceed further. New information has come to light. The MSA continues to act on behalf of protecting Albertans by investigating this issue. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you. Again to the Premier: then since the Premier doesn’t know now who met, will he investigate who in his govern- ment did meet with the Enron officials and what they discussed? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has heard the request, and I will assume that he will take appropriate measures. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr.

Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: given that at least 5,600 pages of records of communications between this government and Enron are known to exist, will this government turn those records over to the Competition Bureau for investigation? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the market surveillance administrator will do whatever he deems appropriate in terms of turning documents over to the federal Competition Bureau, but I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, it is the market surveillance administra- tor that initiated the investigation in the first place.

It is they that worked in conjunction with the federal Competition Bureau. At any time when new information comes forward, you want to assess and get to whether it’s valid or not. At this stage it still is just informa- tion. There’s been no evidence to substantiate it, but they take it very seriously. They are examining all the documents they specifi- cally requested. They’ve taken the proactive question, and they are working to protect Albertans. Thank you. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Electricity Pricing Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Enron was not the only company profiting because of this Progressive Conservative govern- ment’s weak and indifferent attitude. This government allowed TransAlta and Powerex to set electricity prices at the Power Pool of Alberta in the spring and summer of 2000, causing consumers’ power bills to skyrocket. The megabucks for megawatts scandal grows. My first question is to the Minister of Energy.

Given that during April of the year 2000 76 per cent of the time that electricity prices were more than $498 per megawatt – Powerex was the reason – why did this Progressive Conservative government sit idly by while Alberta’s electricity market was being dominated by Powerex and prices were skyrocketing? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let’s put some things into perspective. Powerex would only be through a tie-line to B.C. It’s a very minor part of the power. It would only be a maximum of 600 megawatts.

You still had at that stage about 7,000 to 8,000 mega- watts of power that were available to consumers in Alberta. The market surveillance administrator has been a watchdog. They continue to watch prices as they happen throughout the days. If there are any abnormalities, they do investigate and they do follow through on these things. 1:40 Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: given that this Progressive Conservative government gave the hydro power purchase arrangements to TransAlta for next to nothing, hydro being the cheapest source of electricity in Alberta, how could this govern- ment allow TransAlta to set the power prices for so long and for so high without any investigation? Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, one of the great accomplishments of having a market prevail is that those that trade are allowed to trade their goods and services in a marketplace. It’s not a matter of setting prices. Any time you trade a commodity, you bid.

There’s an ask and a bid price, and you trade the commodity. It’s no different on the stock markets. It’s no different in the electricity market. Those things are very regular and anticipated by the marketplace. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: if this Progressive Conservative government is too weak and too indifferent to investigate the Enron scandal in Alberta, how will it now not investigate the price-setting strategies of both Powerex and TransAlta? Do the right thing: protect consumers. Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, we’ve answered these questions numerous times.

The intent is to just try to slander. We still are looking for evidence. We’d invite any evidence. We always ask for the evidence so that we can make the appropriate judicial issues in this. The market surveillance administrator is and does act to protect Albertans every day. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Software Licences for Schools Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Late last year in a deal described as unprecedented, the ministry of learning cut a cheque to Microsoft for $6.3 million for software licences for Alberta’s

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 287 educational institutions, yet just months earlier Ontario signed a remarkably similar deal with Sun Microsystems for little more than shipping costs. My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why was this government so eager to write Bill Gates a big fat cheque when Ontario scarcely had to write one at all? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member raises a question with specifics relative to two sets of contracts which he has neither had the courtesy nor the foresight to provide any information about ahead of time so that he could get an answer to the question. So the public watching and the members of the Legislature hearing that question are supposed to take at face value his assumption that the two contracts are similar in any way, shape, or form, that they deal with the same types of items, that they have any relevance to each other. I’m not prepared to do that, and I don’t think anybody else should be. Mr. Taylor: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: can the minister advise this Assembly and all Alberta taxpayers as to whether this contract was appropriately tendered, allowing all interested compa- nies to compete fairly? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I’d be more than happy to get the details with respect to the contract and provide the hon. member details as are appropriate. Mr. Taylor: My final question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Restructuring and Government Efficiency.

Given these misspent millions, what is the minister’s de partment doing and going to tell communities such as Bruderheim and Strathearn whose schools are threatened with closure in the name of system efficiency? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I’m under the understanding that Bruderheim is staying open. Our department is looking at all the contracts right now to make sure that we are adhering to all of our government policy and rules. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the ND opposition, followed by the hon. Member for Foothills-Rocky View. Southeast Edmonton Ring Road Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On January 25 the Conservative government left the public and the news media with the distinct impression that there would be a small $4 million savings if the southeast Edmonton ring road was built as a P3. However, this is contradicted by an internal document provided exclusively to government MLAs which said that it could cost up to $41 million more to build the ring road as a P3. I will table this document at an appropriate time. My question is to the Premier.

How does the Premier explain the discrepancy between the facts given to government MLAs and the spin given to the rest of us about the comparative costs of building the ring road as a P3 or building it conventionally? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked of me by the media, fed obviously by the ND opposition. My answer to the media was that we’re seeking as many innovative ways of up fronting the costs of infrastructure projects as we possibly can.

I also indicated to the media that this is a 30-year project, and outside of one of the ND opposition none of us will really live long enough to see the completion of the project. Mr. Mason: Well, that’s reassuring, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: why did the government leave the false impression with the news media and the public that there would be a $4 million savings by building the ring road as a P3 when the government knew that it could just as easily have cost $41 million more to do it? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, this hon. member would have us take $43 million out of the bank.

As I said to the media: $43 million for the Anthony Henday, $43 million for something else, $43 million for something else, $43 million for something else. Pretty soon you’re up to $430 million, and then double that and you’re close to a billion dollars. You know, they talk about $43 million as if it’s peanuts. Relative to the actual costs of the project, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. The Speaker: Well, I think we’ll get back to the next one, perhaps. The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: why does the government keep pretending to be transparent about P3s when they fail to disclose information relative to the actual costs if the government had built it through conventional means? Will he table the documents? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll defer to the hon. minister. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The number that the hon. leader of the third party is referring to is $451 million, which was a public-sector comparator, which was a public-sector estimate on that particular project.

On any public-sector comparator there is a 10 per cent on either side, which brought it up to $497 million. The actual amount came up to $493 million. [interjections] The Auditor General has been involved in every step of the process. If they want to laugh, laugh at the Auditor General. Senate Reform Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, a majority of Canadians in every province support reform of the federal Senate to make it an effective and elected body. A triple-E Senate has been the priority of Alberta governments for the past 25 years.

Thanks to our Premier, Albertans were given the opportunity to elect four new Senators-elect last November. Unfortunately, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada has now indicated that he will not appoint the four Alberta Senators-in- waiting as part of his new round of Senatorial a ppointments. My question is to the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. What is the Alberta government doing to push ahead the issue of Senate reform and get our elected Senators appointed? The Speaker: The Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Alberta has taken the most significant step compared to any jurisdiction in Canada, and that is to offer Albertans a choice of electing a list of Senators to be appointed by the Prime Minister. What has happened is that even though the Prime Minister talked about some democratic reforms, he stepped away from taking, I think, a leadership role and appoint- ing at least one of the four to the three vacant positions we have

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005288 currently in Alberta. Since the election, the Premier and I have written to our counterparts. The Premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to select from the list. I have met with our counterpart in Quebec, our counterpart in Ottawa. We have met with all of the Senators-elect to talk about the next steps, and we are pro ceeding quite vigorously with other jurisdictions on this particular file. Dr. Morton: To the same minister: do you have other plans to push the appointment of Senators to the second Chamber? Going forward from now, please. Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, we are committed to Senate reform. This year our Premier will be chairing the Council of the Federation. The Council of the Federation, to Albertans, is the meeting of all of the Premiers and territorial leaders, and that will be held in Alberta this year with our Premier chairing. At this time we’re working with the four Senate nominees to see how we can move this onto the agenda. One of them, of course, is to work with department officials in setting up a

schedule for the four nominees to talk to other provincial counterparts and also to the federal government in promoting Senate reform in this country. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Foothills-Rocky View. Dr. Morton: No further questions. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. 1:50 Game Farming Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister of agriculture yesterday clearly demonstrated his lack of understanding of the science of chronic wasting disease and other TSEs and the threat they pose.

To the Premier: does the Premier recognize the danger of chronic wasting disease, and will he ensure that we eliminate the possibility of risk materials entering both the human food chain and the animal food chain? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development respond. But in answer to the

preamble, certainly I’m aware and concerned about the risks relative to CWD and BSE or any other disease that affects animals that might have an impact on the public as well. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I have a fairly good knowledge of the risks associated with CWD, BSE, and CJD, or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, that’s associated with BSE.

As I said yesterday, there has never been a case of CJD that’s been linked back to chronic wasting disease, and to suggest that there’s a health risk in Canada when there is no science to support that association is irresponsible to the industry in this province. I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member doesn’t understand the industry as well as the science. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: if the science does indicate a human health risk, will he commit to a ban on all game farming activities, including the movement of animals and their products?

The Speaker: Hon. Premier, that’s speculation. Dr. Swann: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier finally fulfill his written commitment of December 1992? And I quote: I am fully committed to putting the privatization/commercialization of wildlife issue through a thorough and public assessment. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, that’s a legitimate question. That has indeed been done. As a matter of fact, there was a great debate in caucus – I don’t know if it took place in the Legislature – relative to not game farming so much as game shooting of wildlife that is domesticated on game farms. That was rejected quite soundly.

But we are diligent in making sure that any material that poses a risk to animals or humans is kept out of the animal food chain and, more importantly, the human food chain. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. North American Trade Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. There’s no doubt that Alberta’s trading relationship with the U.S. is a vital part of our economy.

In 2003 U.S. imports made up almost 90 per cent of Alberta’s exports, by far our most important export market. Albertans are concerned about the ongoing trade irritants such as softwood lumber and BSE. U.S. trade laws are extremely complex, therefore making it difficult to resolve trade issues that affect Alberta’s industry. Can the minister tell the House what Alberta is doing to push for freer open trade? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. There are a number of very serious trade issues, most importantly BSE and, of course, softwood lumber.

The department has been working very closely with our federal counterparts in trying to find some solutions to these outstanding issues. Clearly, Alberta has pushed forward some new ideas with respect to North American trade. For example, we’re looking at a customs union, a NAFTA-plus solution to deal with these very complex trade issues, that are costing our economy virtually billions of dollars. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a follow-up question to the same minister.

A tri-national report on March 14 calls for harmonized trade tariffs for nations outside North America as well as a North American energy strategy. Has the government of Alberta been consulted, and will the government of Alberta be a full partner in the development of Canada’s position? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the study in question is an important step in the direction of dealing with some of these trade issues. Really, among the proposals is one of common low tariffs, and another one is looking at the whole regulatory regime, not only Canada/U.S. but Canada, U.S., and Mexico.

We will be working very closely with the federal government, of course, because they’ll be at the table dealing with these issues, to see how we can best position Alberta’s interests. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplement is for

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 289 the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. What effect will the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade’s NAFTA challenge have on the USDA’s next actions in overturning the Montana judge’s decision? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We believe that it’s in the best interests of the USDA and the government of the United States to appeal the decision as soon as possible, and we wait moment by moment for that decision to happen. In order for the appeal to be successful, we believe that the USDA should be concentrating as many resources as they possibly can towards that effort. It’s important to remember that under

chapter 11 the challenges are about financial damages, so even if the border were to open – and we hope it opens very, very soon – the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade would still be available to go forward with their challenge for damages, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Rural Development Strategies Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has entered into another rural development strategic plan.

These plans seem high on ideals but small on delivery, for example the transfer of ambulances, leaving rural municipalities underfunded. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: what other areas are being ignored, such as attracting doctors to rural communities? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with the family physicians and the rural physicians on this very subject. I think we’re well planned, and there’s a good strategy that helps not only the rural doctors but their familie s accommodate to life in rural Alberta.

There’s extensive work going on with the communities, with the health authorities to make sure that there’s work done to network and make rural physicians feel comfortable in communities. With our ARP, our alternative compensations for doctors involved in academic institutions – it gives them an o pportunity to earn money as sessional lecturers – we are doing a lot to both place those physicians in rural communities a nd to network them with local academic institutions. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you.

To the minister of infrastructure: when will this ministry implement the recommendation of the rural development strategy to keep rural schools open? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Transporta- tion. Dr. Oberg: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s abso- lutely great to be able to talk on that question. Rural Alberta has some very interesting demographics these days. One of the things that is occurring is that the number of students in rural Alberta actually seems to be decreasing.

One of the challenges that we have is keeping the rural schools open so that those kids that are in rural Alberta will have exactly the same learning opportunities that the kids do in urban Alberta. One of the ways – and we could go on and on with all the ministries here, such as the Minister of Restructuring and Government Efficiency to deal with the SuperNet. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, we are very much in favour of keeping rural schools open and keeping good education for the rural students. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you.

To the Minister of Restructuring and Government Efficiency: what help other than building the twice- delayed SuperNet can this ministry offer the other ministries to properly implement the rural development strategy? 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Ouellette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was one of the authors of the rural development initiative, and I’m going to grow my rubber arm here and pat myself on the back because I thought it was a very good strategy. SuperNet was a part of that strategy, and it will help with schools that are going down in population a little bit.

In fact, in the last two weeks we’ve just lit up 26 more communities, I think I have here. We’ve opened up Acme, Barnwell, Bearspaw, Beiseker, Bezanson, Bow Island, Burdett, Caroline, Coaldale, Cremona, Crooked Creek, Falun. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Alberta Office in Washington Mr. Shariff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Premier will be travelling to Washington, D.C., next week to officially open the Alberta office in Washington. My questions are to the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations.

What is the role of the Alberta office in Washington, D.C.? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, since 90 per cent of Alberta’s exports go to the United States of America, it makes very good sense to have a full-time presence in Washington. We found out very clearly during the BSE announcement in 2003 that we didn’t have a go-to person. Essentially, the role of the office there is to build relation- ships with our American counterparts. You know, it’s a full body contact sport.

You have to see the people across the table, meet them on a regular basis, and get Alberta’s point of view across to every decision-maker in Washington. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Shariff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first and only supple- mental question is also to the Minister of International and Intergov- ernmental Relations. What has the Alberta office done so far to get the attention of decision-makers in Washington, D.C.? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, clearly, since the office has been fully staffed, our envoy there has had two very important articles in the New York Times , explaining Alberta’s position on energy. It has also set up many meetings with state representatives, met with many of the policy decision-makers. I might add that when we talk about body contact sport, we’ve got a person that’s a good weight to carry on the duty for us in Washington. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview.

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005290 Fabry Disease Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fabry disease is a rare, life-threatening genetic disorder that causes patients to suffer excruciating pain and often leads to kidney and heart failure as well as strokes and premature death. A treatment is available for Fabry patients, but because of the high cost for that treatment, Fabry sufferers cannot afford it on their own. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

When will the government give Albertans suffering from Fabry disease assurance of the ongoing access to enzyme replacement therapy they so desperately need? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to say two things. First of all, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for alerting our office to the fact that this disease was going to be mentioned in the House today because it’s clearly very important for those that are enduring pain and suffering, usually in the fifth decade of their life, to know what is happening with this.

Because of a concern because both Fabryzyme and Replagal were not going to be available, according to the information we had from the drug providers, I raised with the federal government the question about this type of therapy being provided for patients in Alberta or across Canada, where we have some, I believe, 250 people suffering, about 15 in Alberta.

What has been initiated is a review at the national level of how we can conduct clinical trials of this type of therapy when, in actual fact, there are only about 3,000 people worldwide with this disease, and the normal number of people to have such therapeutic assessment is much higher. What the national government has initiated in co-operation with British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia is a review of whether or not we can place a different trial methodology in place to make sure that we can more fast-track these kinds of approvals for patients. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

What we need to know is if the minister is going to help these people. Will you provide bridge or interim funding for the enzyme replacement therapy today until an orphan drug policy or the results of your review come into effect in Canada? How do they get from today to then? Ms Evans: In fact, a bridging program will be in place, and next week our officials will be talking again federally about a national program that can assist with this. I believe it’s fair to say that the federal minister is also engaged. This is a national regulatory problem as well. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

Finally, will the minister be willing to meet with Fabry sufferers before the end of the month to explain this to them personally? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I cannot promise or commit to meet with Fabry sufferers individually or collectively before the end of the month; I am rather cramped for time. But I can assure Fabry sufferers and will do so, both with this type of communication and others, that we are working to do our due diligence so that the most important thing that can happen will be some support for Fabry sufferers with this very costly therapy, which runs at about $300,000 per patient per year.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Border Closure to Canadian Cattle Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government strategy for opening the U.S. border to Canadian cattle is twofold: one is hope and pray, and the real trump card is to cozy up to George Bush. Now, no wonder the government is fa iling to support grassroots Alberta cattle producers, who are launching a legal challenge under NAFTA on their own time and at their own expense. My question is, of course, to the hon. Premier.

How can the government justify turning its back on grassroots Alberta producers, who unlike this government understand that you sometimes have to play hardball with Americans to get their attention? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the whole issue of retaliatory action has been discussed, and we decided not to do it because we do value our relationship with the USDA and the United States administration. I value, personally, my relationship with Vice-President Dick Cheney. I value my relationship and the government’s relationship with President Bush.

We value our relationship with the Secretary of Agriculture in the U.S. administra- tion. That is the administration of the U.S. There’s a different tone, of course, within the political arm, particularly the Senate, and there’s a different tone within the judiciary. The group of cattle people the hon. member alludes to are seeking redress on the judicial side, but we will seek to maintain a very strong and meaningful relationship with the administration. Mr.

Martin: It’s nice that you’re a buddy with Dick and George, but I guess the question that Alberta producers want to know is: how’s it working for you so far in getting the Alberta border opened? Mr. Klein: I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it’s better to be buddies with those people than some of the ND leaders who have come across unsuccessfully in this country from time to time. I’ll tell you that for sure. But I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take a little bit of offence to the comments that we are leaving our producers high and dry on this issue. We are not.

In fact, if the hon. member would care to contact the industry and ask them what their opinion is, he would find that we are working hand in hand with their strategies, including the Alberta Beef Producers, including the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, including the American Meat Institute, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in the United States, including the National Meat Association in the United States, including the USDA. It’s unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that R-CALF, being the left-leaning protectionist group that they are, is closer to the hon. member’s thinking than ours is, and it’s probably unfortunate that he’s not getting that. 2:10 Mr. Martin: Well, there’s a third strategy, Mr. Speaker: meetings. I guess my question, then, is to either the Premier or the minister of agriculture. What exactly is the downside in supporting grass- roots Alberta cattle producers on their challenge? What is the downside to this? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, I’ll have the hon. minister supplement, but I can tell you that the six-point program that has been put in place by this department of agriculture, the Alberta department of agriculture, has gone a long way to sustain the beef industry in this province. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement.

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 291 Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s unfortunate the hon. member hasn’t talked to some of his NDP colleagues across Canada as well because I can tell you that the federal/provincial ministers are working hand in hand in this on a team. They agree with the approach that we’ve taken. The Alberta beef industry agrees with our approach, and those are the grassroots people who are involved in this industry.

We are also taking initiative through our Washington office and legal counsel and legal advice there as well as working, as I said, hand in hand with the legal counsel of the Alberta Beef Producers, with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, and with the other farm organizations that are most definitely affected by this issue. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Electricity Costs Mr. Liepert: Mr.

Speaker, a study on electricity prices by the internationally recognized London Economics group referenced this week at a conference in Banff has concluded that, in fact, purported lower rates in Ontario and Manitoba aren’t such a bargain after all with hidden costs such as taxpayer-funded development of power plants, therefore making Alberta’s rates very competitive. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Has he seen the report, and if so, is he prepared to table it in this Assembly so all members, including the opposition, have all the facts when it comes to questions on electricity rates in Alberta?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of the report. I have not yet seen the report. It’s being finalized later this week. We’re hoping it will be available next week. When it is available, I’ll be more than happy to table that report so all members of this Assembly can see that Albertans truly are getting good value for their electricity and that there is an Alberta electricity advantage. The one thing I would like to say is that there are two key factors that came out of that report.

One, it does talk about how electricity is generated being a very key part of cost of electricity. Those that have substantial amounts of hydroelectricity have the cheapest power. One of the topography issues of Alberta is that we don’t have a lot of hydroelectricity. Secondly and probably more important to see is that in most of the other jurisdictions the provinces accumulated debt, be it through Crown corporations or directly onto their own provincial books, to build and/or pay for this.

If you just took Ontario as an example, if the debt that they’ve accumulated was added to the bill of every Ontario resident, it would add $100 per month for five years to pay for the debt that they’ve not put through the electricity bill. Mr. Liepert: Again to the same minister: is he aware of any similar studies being undertaken which show the true cost of power generation to the taxpayer? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of studies to date looking at and comparing electricity costs across this country and in North America.

Not many of them, if any, have really gone into the true costs of electricity, as the hon. member had suggested. But we do know that if the provinces had shown the true costs, if they had allocated all the costs to the electricity bill, their bills would likely have been in the range of 25 to 30 per cent higher. Those are being added through the taxpayer rates. Those costs, at least in Alberta, are clear, are transparent, and are known. I could cite that even without that, by comparing some bills across the country – Quebec Hydro, for example, did a survey.

They said that Edmonton had the cheapest power rates out of 21 jurisdictions in North America. The only four that beat Edmonton’s rate happened to have been hydrogenerated areas and none of them with the substantial growth that Alberta has had. Mr. Liepert: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As a result of studies and facts and data, what benefits do Albertans receive because we have a competitive marketplace in power versus Crown- owned utilities? The Speaker: Well, hon. minister, we’re getting into a lot of opinions here with respect to government policy, so I think we’re just going to move on. Mr.

Melchin: Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: You have an answer that’s brief? Mr. Melchin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s important. Given all the talk that goes out trying to put innuendos that electricity deregulation hasn’t worked, it’s important that we also talk about the many successes that have been accomplished. Over 3, 300 mega- watts of power . . . The Speaker: Hon. minister, I could not agree with you more. This is not a debate. I ask you and the hon. member to read Beauchesne 407, 408, 409, 410, and a whole bunch of others. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon.

Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Public Service Pension Appeals Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Every day I’m hearing concerns from retired public-sector employees from all across this province regarding the serious concerns that they have with the funding of their pensions and expressing concerns with the inadequate appeals process. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why does this minister allow a pension appeal process that leaves thousands of Albertans feeling frustrated? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have not been made aware by any of the groups in the pension plans that they are dissatisfied with the appeal process. I’d be more than happy to receive that informa- tion from the hon. member with some documentation. We take the management of pensions very seriously, and the pension board takes the management of pensions very seriously. Certainly, if the hon. member has some information that he would like to share with me on the appeal process, I’d be very pleased to sit down and talk with him about it and look at it. Mr. R. Miller: It’s on its way. To the same minister, then.

Why doesn’t this government follow the example of British Columbia and publish very clear guidelines for pension appeals on the government’s websites just like B.C. does? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, again a very good suggestion. I’ll take that. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005292 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then to the same minister: can the minister explain to average Albertans why Steve West gets $180,000 severance for eight months’ work, while Martha and Henry can’t get any satisfaction on their pension appeals? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a bit of a stretch tying those two issues together. One is strictly a contractual arrangement. Pensions, of course, are a contractual arrangement also but of a very, very different kind because you’re looking at retirement dollars in those cases.

As I indicated in my first answer, if indeed thousands of Albertans are concerned because they haven’t an appeal process that’s satisfactory to them, if thousands of Albertans are concerned that they’re not getting the information they require, if you would share that information with me. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not getting, indeed, even tens of letters on the issue, let alone thousands. But I take the hon. member at his word. If he’s getting that kind of information, share it. We’ll discuss it, and we’ll look at ways that we can rectify it. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Energy Innovation Network Mr. Knight: On Wednesday, March 16, a simultaneous launch of the Energy Innovation Network took place in Calgary and Ottawa. The announcement indicated that Alberta in association with other provincial jurisdictions and the federal government will partner with industry and postsecondary institutions to explore innovation programs to enhance Canada’s energy future.

To the Minister of Innovation and Science: what assurances can the minister give Albertans that public money supporting this initiative will be productive? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Doerksen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Energy Innovation Network, otherwise known as EnergyINet, has been work that’s been under way for a couple of years, initiated by the Alberta Energy Research Institute, which really looks to solve and address two long- term problems, and that is having a secure long-term energy supply for all Canadians as well as making it environmentally responsible.

So innovation is at the convergence of energy and the environment, and I’m convinced that this is going to be successful because we do have the support of a number of different provinces, the industry, and the federal government. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects all Canadians, and we have to address this on a long- term, strategic, priority basis. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Energy: to what extent has the energy industry in Canada come on board to support this initiative? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Industry is a major significant partner of this initiative. They see it to their benefit that we continue to view and pursue technologies to improve our extractions and integration of extraction of the hydrocarbon resources that are here. Just as an example, we leave about 40 per cent of the gas and 72 per cent of the oil in the ground in the conventional oils. Just a minor improvement in technology, and we’ll find a whole new Alberta underground. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Environ- ment: what does this initiative do to ensure environmentally responsible development of energy projects? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the pieces of this puzzle are: on one point we have environmental principles; on the other side we have economic principles.

How we link these two principles together is through what I refer to as the technology that the ministers have talked about, and that technology is the link in terms of how we act responsibly to demonstrate to future generations that we are and continue to be good stewards of our environment. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, followed by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Physiotherapy Services Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Strains and sprains are among the most common workplace injuries.

Lost time and pr oductivity from these injuries are a huge cost to employers, workers, and the WCB system. With public treatment like physiotherapy scarce because of health region restriction and delisting because these regions aren’t funded properly, Albertans now look to workplace health plans and the WCB for relief. My question is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Why is this government shifting the cost in provision of these health services to private health plans and the WCB? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question.

To start with, it is an issue that’s been around a long time, but as you’re aware, the WCB is an independent operation funded fully – funded fully – by the private industry, and it’s managed by the private industry. We have as a government, of course, legislation to ensure that proper coverage is provided to employees and employers out there. In relation to selecting the processes they use in order to look after the medical issues they may run into, it is a decision that they make that we’re not involved in. Mr. Backs: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Restructuring and Government Efficiency. Is the emphasis on government restructuring dedicated to cutting services and creating additional and expensive payroll costs for Albertans and Alberta employers? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, that’s a great question because the answer is: absolutely not. Mr. Backs: Another question to the same minister: is the restriction on physiotherapy services an attempt to create lower wage, private, profit centres for friends of this government? Mr. Ouellette: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 293 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Pork Exports Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you as well. As I was eating my bacon and eggs this morning, I was thinking about some of my constituents who are hog producers. They’re concerned by a recent U.S. government decision on pork tariffs. Although they were pleased at the ruling that they are not receiving unfair government subsidies, the antidumping duty was upheld.

My questions are all for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. What is the government doing to ensure fair trading relations with the U.S.? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a topic that’s been covered quite substantially in the House today in question period, but I can agree with the hon. member that we’re quite concerned about groups in the United States that resort to trade actions rather than sitting down and negotiating good trade agreements. The protectionist trade actions impose wide-ranging costs on all of our industry, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member mentioned, we were pleased the U.S. government dismissed the claim that Canadian hog producers are unfairly subsidized, but on the other side of the coin, we were clearly disappointed with the antidumping ruling. It is an investigation that is ongoing right now and will continue. The antidumping investiga- tion is not finished. The U.S. International Trade Commission has to make its final injury determination.

Right now the U.S. is experiencing record pork exports and a period of strong prices, which we believe will make it difficult to argue that the U.S. producers are being harmed by any imports from Canada, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. member. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My only supplemental is to the same minister. What does this ruling really mean for Alberta’s pork producers? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, a little clarity is probably required. At this stage, no antidumping duties will be imposed on swine exports.

However, the U.S. will require bonds or cash deposits on swine imports to be posted by the importers of record. The U.S. investigation into the matter is not over, as I said, but we do expect a final determination to be made on April 18. We remain confident, as I said, that the investigation w ill show that this is not harming American producers. The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling on the first of four to participate today, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Mr.

Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to rise today and introduce to you and to all members of this Assembly eight students from the Rosedale Christian school in my riding accompanied by Miss Diane Klassen, Mrs. Janet Wohlgemuth, Mr. Lee Wohlgemuth, Mrs. Brenda Schartner, and Mr. Delmar Schartner. They’re visiting today and having a tour of the Legisla- ture and have an opportunity here to see question period in action. I would ask them to rise, please, and to receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: Hon.

Member for Peace River, you introduced your charges a little earlier, but they weren’t here. Do you want to say something again? Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The guests that I introduced to the record moments ago have now arrived in the gallery, and I would like to take this opportunity to formally introduce to you and through you to all members of this House a group of 34 students from the La Crete public school accompanied by eight adults.

They’ve travelled about as far as you can travel in Alberta to visit our capital, and I ask these great champions of highway 88 to please stand and accept the welcome of this House. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Mountain of Heroes Foundation Mr. Rodney: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to share an Albertan good-news story. The Calgary-based Mountain of Heroes Foundation recently held their inaugural awards gala dinner. Five local citizens were honoured. Christianna Wood-Roddick, who initiated “Christianna’s cause” at the tender age of 10.

After the tragic death of her mother a year ago Christianna has raised $35,000 for the Aventa program, which her mother founded. Aventa is an AADAC funded group that attends to the addiction treatment of women. Eva Davis, a concentration camps survivor, has raised two successful sons, run a small business, and taught tolerance to a whole new generation, partially through the gift of song. Kevin Mark was on his way to the NHL in 1982 before he was paralyzed from the neck down during a hockey game.

He’s now an accomplished engineer and a distinguished speaker who has personally raised over $300,000 for the Calgary Handi-Bus Associa- tion. As a youth Pat Nixon was aimless and living on the street. He’s gone on to become the executive director for the Mustard Seed Street Ministry, which not only provides food and lodging for the homeless but also supplies employment training to get its clients off the street. Finally, Dr.

Harvey Rabin founded the southern cystic fibrosis adult clinic at the Foothills Hospital in 1979, and he continues to run it today although he is not paid for his time spent as clinic director. Mr. Speaker, my wife, Jennifer, and I founded the f oundation a few years ago, and we thank our board members: Nicki Perkins, a CF survivor who chaired the awards event; her husband, Dean Perkins; Colleen and Dave Zeller; and Wayne Logan. We shared a wonderful evening with our heroes, our sponsors, the public, and the media. Proceeds from the event were dedicated to fund the research of Dr.

Mody, a Calgary scientist who is doing world-class work on cystic fibrosis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to share this good news story. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. 2:30 Canadian Agricultural Safety Week Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize and

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005294 bring attention to the Canadian Agricultural Safety Week campaign, which ran March 9 through to the 16. This year’s theme was Safety is in the Details, with a focus on seniors on the farm. Farmers over the age of 60 represent only 13 per cent of the farming population, but they accounted for almost 40 per cent of the total farm-related deaths in the past five years. One death is too many. This number is unacceptable. We must do better. In 2004 there were more than 1,500 farm-related injuries and 15 farm-related fatalities in Alberta. Sadly, five were children.

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development plays an active role in providing farmers with information that promotes farm safety year-round. This year Alberta Agriculture is involved with a number of contests to increase farm safety awareness among people of all ages. The highlight of this year’s safety week was Farm Safety Idol, which encouraged people to nominate someone they believe is a role model for farm safety. A farm safety newsletter and a kids’ club were also launched. With more than 50,000 farms in Alberta many Albertans are already aware of the importance of safe farming practices.

Canadian Agricultural Safety Week aims to increase awareness for people working at and visiting farm operations because we want Alberta farms to continue to be a safe place to grow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Aboriginal Workforce Participation Initiative Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 3 the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development signed an historic agreement, the aboriginal workforce participation initiative, in the city of Grande Prairie.

I say historic because this partnership is the first such agreement between Canada, a province, and a municipal- ity. Mr. Speaker, we are becoming increasingly aware of the skill shortages faced by employers across Canada, especially in the resource-rich areas of our province. We know, too, that aboriginal people, the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population, constitute an increasingly educated, readily available local work- force eager to take their place in our economy.

Therefore, aboriginal workforce participation initiative agree- ments like the one signed in Grande Prairie represent a win-win solution for all of us. This partnership brings together provincial ministries including Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and Alberta Human Resources and Employment, the federal government, forward-thinking municipalities such as Grande Prairie, and our world-class education system. Most importantly, the AWPI bridges relations between employers and Alberta’s First Nations and Métis people.

Under the aboriginal workforce participation initiative employers undertake to identify both systemic and attitudinal barriers within their workplaces and to work with aboriginal people to reduce or eliminate those barriers. This is another milestone on the road to successful employment strategies for Grande Prairie and region and the full participation of local aboriginal people in Alberta’s econ- omy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Ethical Investments Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in this Assem- bly I asked some serious questions of the Minister of Finance regarding ethical investing or lack thereof of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund. Albertans are particularly concerned about the investment of $10 million in various tobacco companies, but I expanded the questioning to include companies that have question- able human rights records. They might be involved in child labour or even perhaps the manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction.

The Minister of Finance clearly stated that the overriding consider- ation of the Investment Operations Committee was the return on investment or, in other words, how much money we can make regardless of morals or ethics. She went on to correctly point out that the Standing Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund is an all-party committee. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this committee did meet this past Monday, and I’m very pleased to inform the Assembly that the two opposition members who sit on the committee did raise the issue of ethical investing.

It was at that time reinforced by government members on the committee that return on invest ment is the primary factor in deciding whether or not to make an investment in any given company. This raises serious questions, again, as to where we would draw the line. There are now several pornography websites which are publicly traded, and they return a very handsome profit to their shareholders. The same is true of a number of offshore brothels, again known to be quite a profitable industry in jurisdictions where prostitution is legalized. What if marijuana were ever to be legalized?

Are we going to be the proud shareholders in legalized grow ops just because we can make a quick buck? Mr. Speaker, Talisman Energy is an example of a company which recognized and responded to legitimate public concerns. It is our sincere hope that the Heritage Savings Trust Fund Committee will listen to the advice of our members and do the same. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition with 310 signatures on it.

The petition urges the govern- ment to institute a fair and equitable floor price for cattle. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to present the first 102 petitioners on a petition asking the government to “prohibit the importation of temporary foreign workers to work on the construc- tion and/or maintenance of oil sands facilities and/or pipelines.” Many of them, I just note, are from the fine Alberta communities of Mirror, Vermilion, Sexsmith, Coleman, Bashaw, Pincher Creek, Leduc . . .

The Speaker: It’s not really required, hon. member. head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education and Deputy Govern- ment House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places. I’m also giving notice that on Monday I will move that motions for returns appearing on that Order Paper do stand and retain their places.

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 295 head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Bill 30 Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 2005 Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 30, the Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 2005. This being a money bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. [Motion carried; Bill 30 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. Mrs. Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Legislative Offices I would like to table the following documents: the report of the Auditor General on the Alberta govern- ment’s BSE-related assistance programs, dated July 27, 2004, and distributed to hon. members on August 3, 2004, and the 2003-2004 annual report of the Auditor General of Alberta, distributed on October 4, 2004. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Innovation and Science. Mr. Doerksen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to take this opportunity to table an information kit describing the Energy Innovation Network, known as EnergyINet, which was launched yesterday in Ottawa and Calgary. Through this unique collaboration of industry organizations, federal and provincial governments, and the research community, EnergyIN et will initiate and support the development and application of new technologies to ensure a long- term supply of environmentally responsible energy for generations to come. I will ensure that each member of the Legislature also gets a copy. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Strathcona. Mr.

Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As chair of the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities I’m pleased to table the 2004 annual report. Mr. VanderBurg: Mr. Speaker, I would table five copies of a petition presented to me requesting “government funding to establish the building of a long term care facility in the Village of Onoway.” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table five copies of a document entitled Life and Death Sentence of The Addicted Child, written by Maralyn Benay.

The document reviews the life-and-death sentence of addicted youth and strongly supports Bill 202, the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act, or PCAD. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 2:40 Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this afternoon, a follow-up from today’s question period. This first is an e-mail from employees of Enron, and it is dated September 2000. It’s in regard to Project Stanley and recent meetings with the Alberta government and TransAlta.

The second tabling is also in regard to question period, in regard to the prices set by Powerex and TransAlta, and this is the Market Surveillance Administrator Report on Power Pool of Alberta Prices, Summer 2000. The third is a memorandum between legal advisers for Enron, in regard to the report that I just tabled. This is dated November 3, 2000, and regards Project Stanley. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to a comment made by the Finance minister this afternoon and in an effort to aid the process, I’m pleased to table the appropriate number of copies from the British Columbia public service pension plan website outlining in very plain English the appeals process and how it can be accessed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got a few tablings here, and one is from the president of Humpty’s Restaurants International Inc.

It’s to the Premier regarding a province-wide smoking ban, and it calls on the Premier to be a true leader and to let his caucus vote freely with their own hearts and minds on that particular issue. I also have five copies each of five individual handwritten letters all from government members’ ridings regarding requests to deal with the foreign worker issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I would like to table two documents today on behalf of the leader of the NDP opposition.

The first is a background document issued by the Department of Infrastructure and Transportation on January 25 of this year. The second document, which the leader of the NDP opposition referred to during question period today, is titled MLA Questions and Answers, Anthony Henday Drive South East – Public-Private Partnership. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Projected Government Business The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to Standing Order 7(5) I would ask the Government House Leader to share the projected government business for the following week.

That would be the week commencing on March 21 to the 24th. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, March 21, 2005, at 9 p.m. under Government Bills and Orde rs for second reading and in anticipation of completion of Committee of Supply this afternoon, Bill 27, the A ppropriation (Supplementary Supply)

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005296 Act, 2005; Bill 30, the Appropr iation (Interim Supply) Act, 2005; Bill 18, the Alberta Order of Excellence Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 13, the Railway (Alberta) Ame ndment Act, 2005; Bill 17, the Agrology Profession Act; and in Committee of the Whole Bill 2, the Alberta Centennial Medal Act.

On Tuesday, March 22, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders Bill 28, the Municipal Government Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 1, A ccess to the Future Act; Bill 3, the City of Lloydminster Act; Bill 7, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 8, the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 9, Post-secondary Learning Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 10, Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 12, Victims of Crime Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 14, Student Financial Assistance Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 15, Workers’ Compensation Amend- ment Act, 2005; Bill 16, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2005.

On Tuesday, March 22, at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 21 , Hotel Room Tax (Tourism Levy) Amendment Act, 2005; for second reading Bill 10, Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2005, and bills 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, and 25; and under Committee of the Whole Bill 27, Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2005; Bill 30, Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 2005; bills 1 and 6. On Wednesday, March 23, 2005, in the afternoon for second reading bills 18, 19, 20, and 22. On Wednesday, March 23, at 8 p.m.

Government Motion 15, to engross the Speech from the Throne; second readings as per unfinished second readings from Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons; Committee of the Whole on bills 1, 5, 4, 3, and 6; and third reading of the appropriation bills 27 and 30, and as per the Order Paper. Thursday, March 24, 2005, under Government Bills and Orders we are anticipating the attendance of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor for royal assent to bills 21, 27, and 30, should they be completed by then, and second and third reading as per the Order Paper. head: Orders of the Day head: Committee of Supply [Mr.

Marz in the chair] The Chair: I’d call the committee to order. We’d remind all hon. members that although this is the more informal part of the session and you can leave your seats, to be recognized by the chair, you must occupy your space. Of course, the rules of decorum are the same as in the normal session. head: Supplementary Estimates 2004-05 General Revenue Fund and Lottery Fund Agriculture, Food and Rural Development The Chair: I would now recognize the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps before I begin, if I may, I would like to recognize a couple of individuals in the gallery who are with the department. One is the deputy minister, Mr. Barry Mehr, and the other is the chief bean counter for us at agriculture, Miss Faye Rault. Th ey’re up in the gallery to throw things at me if I do something wrong. Mr. Chairman, the majority of the dollars in the supplementary estimates that we’re requesting are to handle the ongoing impacts of BSE on our industry.

As well, what’s extremely important to point out is that the disaster assistance is offset by increases in federal transfers relating to these programs. Approximately half of the assistance, $317.7 million, is allocated to support producers in setting aside calves and market-ready cattle in order to manage the oversupply resulting from border closure. The remainder of the request is allocated primarily to support the development of new markets and products that will help the industry deal with transitioning into new market realities. More specifically, Mr.

Chairman, $30 million is allocated to support the establishment of a market retention and development fund that, as you are aware, is also now being supported by $50 million worth of federal dollars in contributions. So I’d say that that was leveraged quite well. Also, $7.1 million is allocated to support projects that are developing both beef products and markets; $35 million is allocated to support ongoing research into the development, production, and marketing of value-added food products. We have also enhanced our surveillance capabilities, Mr. Chairman.

Twelve million dollars is allocated to help us ensure that we continue to meet our international testing targets. This is critical to maintaining our stature and branding around the world as a producer of a safe, high-quality beef. Other ruminants have been impacted by BSE as well. Therefore, $1 million is allocated to focus on market and product development in this area. As you are aware, the impacts of BSE have spread beyond the beef sector and have impacted the whole farm and farm results.

Consequently, the costs of the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS as we call it, are higher than anticipated, so an additional $86 million is allocated to cover the increased costs of this program, also resulting from the impacts of BSE. 2:50 As you are aware, our industry is also recovering from the most severe droughts experienced in over 130 years. As a result, the farm income disaster program costs were higher than was anticipated, and final payouts in 2004-05 were $11.2 million higher than what had been accrued and projected.

Similarly, our wildlife damage and compensation programs were also higher due to that drought, $7.9 million higher than anticipated. Last, Mr. Chairman, but certainly not least is an additional $10 million to provide support to ongoing operations for value-added initiatives. These initiatives cover all areas of the industry and are seeing positive results with repayments starting to flow from some of the key initiatives that they are involved in. Mr. Chairman, that does conclude my explanation of our requests. It’s very brief because there are only a few items there.

I would prefer to take some questions rather than take up the time of our discussion. If I am unable to give anyone in the House an answer this afternoon, I will certainly seek the assistance of my very capable staff and respond in writing before the end of this session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to get an opportunity to participate in the discussion on the supplementary estimates for the general revenue fund and the lottery fund this afternoon.

Certainly, in the last fiscal year there was significant money spent by the government in the BSE recovery program, close to $500 million. That’s the province’s share. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon. We can point as many fingers in different directions as we would like, but the reality is that many of our small producers of beef and beef products in this province are facing significant economic

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 297 difficulties. There is no one, regardless of whether they reside in urban or rural neighbourhoods, that does not recognize that this is an extraordinary, unfortunate event, and the farmers and the farming community certainly need our support. The only question would be, certainly, how we provide this support. Small producers seem to be the ones that are phoning our constituency office, and they are expressing a great deal of frustra- tion. There are claims that the money, some of the BSE assistance programs, are just simply not getting down to them fast enough.

We are looking at our supplementary estimates here. It was only three years ago that a former minister of agriculture closed some of the rural ag offices, and I’m wondering if at any time the department has considered reopening some of those. Certainly from what I’m hearing, there are significant delays in the processing of some of the assistance packages. Farmers, producers themselves are telling me this. Now, with the central office, I guess we could say, in central Alberta perhaps it’s time to reconsider reopening some of these offices that we closed. Would it help? I don’t know. How much would it cost?

I don’t know. Perhaps the minister can clarify that not only for this member but for the entire House. Now, when we’re looking at the BSE recovery program, we see that there’s $320 million to be spent. There was a great deal of anxiety expressed last year over the $400 million that was spent – where did it go? – and the fact that 10 per cent of it went to the largest packers. How are we to ensure that how this $320 million is going to be disbursed is going to be different?

Certainly, with the margins on cattle – and the hon. minister knows full well the different margins for the American-owned packers in this country and south of the border. They have bigger margins in Canada, particularly in Alberta, and I don’t think we need to be providing them with any BSE money. I think we have to ensure that we look after the small producers, the cow-calf operators, through this crisis. I would be grateful and interested to hear the hon minister’s comments on this. Ag food investment processing. We’re indicating here that we’re going to spend $17 million.

How much of that money will go to some of the smaller initiatives? I’ve heard the amount. There has been an increase in processing capacity in this country by 20 per cent in the last two years. Because it would make a big difference to a lot of smaller operators that are banding together and contem- plating building their own processing plants, how much, if any, of that $17 million is going to enterprises such as the one I just mentioned, Mr. Chairman? Further down we’re looking at agriculture insurance and lending assistance. The CAIS program is going to get an additional $86 million.

Certainly, as I said earlier, I would like an update on how long the applications are taking before they’re processed and cheques are sent out for CAIS. What are the administrative costs of the CAIS program? For instance, to the hon. minister, if we’re going to spend $86 million here in Canadian agricultural income stabiliza- tion, how much of that is going to be used in the administration of the program? Certainly, I would encourage the minister to pursue scientific investigation, whether it’s on a partnership basis with private industry or whether it’s a stand-alone project over at the University of Alberta.

And I want to see this at the University of Alberta, not at the University of Calgary, at the vet school down there. I still don’t understand how that vet school wound up in Calgary, but it did. How much of this money, if any, if going to be used on research into live blood tests to identify a BSE-infected animal? We discussed this earlier in the Assembly in this session, and I would like that clarified at this time. That would be a big step if we could have an affordable live test for BSE.

Meanwhile, now that R-CALF has been successful in their campaign, their lobbying efforts to keep the American border closed to live cattle under 30 months, what consideration is this government taking now to allow, particularly for our export markets to Asia, the demand that some of the Asian markets have that all beef products from all carcasses be tested for BSE? If the American border is not going to open, then we have to look at other markets. We have to give the consumers what they want, and if the consumers want full testing, then I think it is time that we reconsider and provide that.

Particularly, there were two, that I’m aware of, enterprises in the Peace district, one of which unfortunately moved to the B.C. side of the fine Peace Country, but there was interest expressed in having 100 per cent testing. If the Americans are going to deny us access to their markets, then we’re going to have to look after ourselves and our producers.

Has the hon. minister reconsidered previous government policy in light of the fact that on March 7 our border had not opened? 3:00 At this time I believe I will cede the floor to anyone else, or perhaps the hon. minister has some answers for some of my questions at the moment. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very prudent about how we spend this money. One only has to look at the Auditor General’s report from 2003-04. Certainly, it is interesting reading for all members of this Assembly, and there are some very good suggestions here as to how we can administer our BSE assistance packages better.

Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make a few comments with regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. First of all, I would like to thank him for his support in the endeavours that we’ve had with the producers and the ongoing crisis that we have. I know he under- stands that it does affect every point and part of agriculture in Alberta, so I appreciate that. His comments with regard to urban and rural Alberta are taken very much to heart.

All Albertans have been involved in this issue for far too long. In terms of the dollars not getting down fast enough to the producers, I’m going to take a stab in the dark here and assume that that’s probably a question with regard to our CAIS payments and how fast they’re getting out. Mr. Chairman, as you’re aware, 2003 was the first year for the CAIS program, and introducing a program like this during the middle of a crisis like BSE was trial by fire in its best form.

The government didn’t anticipate the kind of response or the kind of complexity that was going to be required, so putting the new program through its paces during one of the most devastating events to hit Canada’s ag industry certainly provided an opportunity to evaluate its overall effectiveness. As well, as with all new programs we started the CAIS program design process knowing that the specific need we were trying to address was to stabilize producers’ income during difficult times. Then we designed that program that we felt would meet that need.

Trying to assess producer interest in a program that is not up and running is kind of like the movie Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come, you’re hoping. Going into the first year of the program, we made our very best estimate of producer participation and expected payment levels based on our experience with the FIDP program, or the farm income disaster program, and the NISA accounts, or the net income stabilization accounts.

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005298 But then, of course, BSE hit and the commodity prices hit, and the magnitude of the BSE crisis and resulting income shortfalls really made it necessary for the governments to go back and amend the CAIS program. It did increase the program expenditures. We’ve now introduced coverage for up to 60 per cent negative margins by claim year. So all of those changes, then, had a kind of a ripple effect.

In order to give producers more time to consider the CAIS program, especially those producers whose eligibility for the CAIS program had changed as a result of the amendments, we had to then extend that deadline. The end result was that for the 2003 program year we had over 32,000 Alberta farmers elect to participate in the CAIS program, and of those more than 24,000 submitted claim applica- tions. But, more importantly, Mr.

Chairman, almost half of those claim applications were received in the two-month period after the original deadline was extended, so we had this massive rush of claims at the very end of the program deadline. I can tell the hon. member that we’ve had an update very, very recently: 87 per cent of those claims are processed, resulting in $176 million that has been paid to producers. I think the hon. member and all members will be glad to hear this. We are on track to have all the 2003 claims processed by March 31 of this year. That is with the exception of those that are missing information.

One of the things that I can’t stress enough is that when – and this is true of any financial program – you’re asked for information, if there’s any holding back of the information, if there are any errors in the information, if there are certain parts of it that aren’t filled out, it’s naturally going to delay the process and the program, and that’s been a cause of concern. It is based on income tax information, so there can be up to a one- year lag between when the disaster strikes and when the producer actually receives a payment under the CAIS program.

We recog- nized that very early on, so to address the more immediate cash-flow difficulties, Alberta introduced the equity loss advances to get money into producers’ hands more quickly. We were the only province at that point to do that, and we are now one of few provinces to do that. Ontario doesn’t do that. Mr. Chairman, the hon. members will be interested to note this: that alone paid $250 million into producers’ hands. Again, this was kind of an unantici- pated side effect of the BSE crisis and low commodity prices.

Going forward, the proposed changes to the CAIS deposit requirement are not expected to have a major impact on our budget expenditures. It’ll have a direct consequence if the changes would be to increase participation levels, and our budget already reflects the cost associated with close to 100 per cent participation level. Of course, should farm incomes in the future be low relative to historical incomes, we would see an increase in producer payments and an overall increase in CAIS program expenditures.

Nonetheless, the CAIS program has been presented to producers as providing a permanent income stabilization and disaster program that they can rely on instead of ad hoc payments. It’s important that we follow through on this promise and continue to support our ag industry in these challenging times. I can add, Mr. Chairman, that the federal minister and all of the provincial ministers, regardless of political stripe, I believe, feel very strongly the CAIS program is the program of the future for our producers.

We do need to make some adjustments to it to make it more responsive, but we are working very, very hard to make sure that we get these applications out. I can also say with regard to the 2004 payments, b ecause that’s another area of concern that we’re hearing as well, that over 9,300 applications for the 2004 interim advance have been received and processed for a value of $254 million. The Agriculture Financial Services Corporation has now received 1, 280 final claims for the 2004 claim year and have paid out a value of close to $5.6 million on that.

The hon. member also raised the issue of rural offices and thought that perhaps that might be a way to speed this process along. I agree that Agriculture needs to be in rural Alberta, and I agree that our offices need to have a better integration to the rural community. I’m not sure that reopening the offices is the way to go. I’m sure it would not have helped in the CAIS issue, as the member pointed out. But we are definitely reviewing how we get our message out and how we get information in, and we’ll be coming forward with some things in the future on that. CAIS.

The program is operated under the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation, the same group that does crop insurance and as well is involved in some of the slaughterhouse lending that they are currently involved in. The member also mentioned that he was curious about the $17 million with regard to new product initiatives and the SRM initia- tives, I believe. Those programs are going to be worked with the scientific community, all of it, not just the U of A or the U of C. I noted his concern about the U of A getting it over the U of C.

I view Alberta as Campus Alberta and would hope that we would be able to do this as a team approach across the province, utilizing not only the U of A but perhaps the U of L, perhaps Olds College, perhaps a number of the other fine institutions in agriculture in this province that are involved in it. So we’ll be looking at any good initiatives that come forward that will help us deal with the SRM removal as well as deal with new product commercialization and research into new ways of doing business.

That’s part and parcel of what we’re trying to accomplish with our slaughter capacity. 3:10 He also asked a question about the dollars of administration on each claim. I don’t in front of me, Mr. Chairman, have the exact number, although I know from memory, and if memory serves correctly, there are only three provinces in the country that actually administer the CAIS program on their own. The rest of the prov- inces are all managed by the federal government.

My information is that our management or our processing costs are considerably less than what the processing costs are for the federal government, but that may be hard to figure out because we’d have to ask them to find that out. We will certainly see what kinds of numbers we can arrive at and bring forward a written response on that. The member also talked about the importance of other market- places, and he may not have been aware that we have already committed $30 million to the beef industry market fund or the Canada Beef Export Federation legacy project. It’s a 10-year program, Mr.

Chairman, that will indeed do much of what the hon. member was concerned about, about reducing our dependency on the U.S. marketplace. In addition, he was talking about maybe there are some other things that we can do to help enter those other markets and men- tioned the hundred per cent testing. It has yet to be proven to me, and certainly in the world theatre no one is telling me that testing an animal under 24 months makes any hoot of a difference as to whether or not they’re going to get into the marketplace. In fact, what a number of these other markets are doing is saying: “You know what?

It doesn’t make sense to test that young because you’re not going to find anything. So why would you have a hundred per cent testing?” I think that what is of more importance and something that we’re looking very seriously at, Mr. Chairman, is the traceability. Traceability of the animal and verification of the age of that animal

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 299 is probably more important to this industry and to the world markets than hundred per cent testing, and we’re going to work in co- operation with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the Alberta Beef Producers on strategies that may do just that. He mentioned a couple of other things with regard to some plants that may have moved to other provinces because we did not do one or another thing.

I would encourage him to find out what the status of those projects in other provinces is just to be sure that he has all the information that he needs to make a valid case for hundred per cent testing. I think I’ve covered most of his comments, Mr. Chairman. The only other comment I would cover is with regard to the Auditor General. We take the role of audit very, very seriously and certainly the role of audit with the prog rams that we’re putting out with taxpayer dollars.

As I understand it, we accepted all of the Auditor General’s recommendations that were put forward and are working to fulfill those recommendations. In fact, on the BSE program audit process field audits are an ongoing process for our BSE programs. To date 58 per cent of the BSE program dollars have been audited through the field audit process, and from an auditing perspective, from going back to my old audit days and my old banking days and business days, that’s a pretty high percentage, and it gives you a pretty good comfort level as to where things are going.

Where instances of noncompliance are noted, producers are required to return payments either directly or through clawbacks through the programs that we have out there. So we have a pretty good methodology of bringing those dollars back, and I’m very, very happy to tell the House, Mr. Chairman, that very, very few concerns have been identified. Less than 1 per cent of audited payments have required any follow-up action. That’s a very good track record, one that my department should be very, very proud of. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for this opportunity to participate in the debate on 2004-2005 supplementary estimates and specifically to make a few comments and ask some questions with respect to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop- ment. I want to start by congratulating the minister for his appoint- ment to the cabinet. This is the first occasion when from the floor of this House I have this opportunity. So congratulations, Minister. I also want to observe, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister seems, certainly, to pay attention to detail and takes his work seriously, has lots to say in response to questions and explanations that are requested, and I’m pleased to notice that. Mr. Chairman, the department, of course, deals with agriculture and then food – I think food industry value-adding is an important part of that responsibility of the department – and then rural development. I notice that in the supplementary estimates, at least, there is no supplementary request being made for rural development. I just want to ask the minister.

Perhaps he would like to comment on the kind of programs and policies that are specific to rural development and what part of the budget of the department in general goes toward providing serv ices related directly to rural development as distinct from either food or agriculture. I’m curious about this, and I think perhaps some other members of the House will also benefit from the information that I’m seeking on this point. Mr. Chairman, the minister is asking for $528,267,000 extra, and the explanation is provided on page 18.

I notice that most of this money, close to $500 million of it, $499,082,000, was specifically used for the assistance related to the BSE crisis in the province. Under that expenditure category there are several areas in which this BSE-related assistance has gone, including $100,000 for the stranded beef export container initiative. I just am wondering exactly what that was or is. Then $30 million to s upport the establishment of a market retention and development fund.

Since these terms are fairly general, from my reading of them, I wonder if this amount includes the $37 million recently announced in the form of BSE assistance. I think it was announced on March 7. Does the $37 million announced on March 7 form part of the total amount, the $499 million something? Another question that I have here is the unfortunate fact that the BSE crisis is prolonged now given the court decision across the border, and cow-calf producers are going to be coming under enhanced and new, unexpected financial pressures. That’s one side of the story.

On the other side we know that certainly the packers have been enjoying huge profits while this crisis has been around. The question has been asked, I guess, before in this House. I’m going to ask the minister perhaps to comment on it again.

What problem does he and the government have with introducing a minimum floor price while this crisis prolongs and continues to afflict the producers in the industry and inflicts huge damage and anxiety and concern and stress on farm families engaged in the production of calves and cows? 3:20 Watching on the news, you know, when people are interviewed, they express extreme anxiety about their own future and how what has taken perhaps a generation to build is likely to be lost now that this crisis is going on and on and on without any clear sign that it’s going to end soon.

In that context what serious reservations and objections do the minister and this government have in seriously considering setting a minimum floor price to ensure that cattle that do go to the packers end up guaranteeing some minimum price to the farming families and ranching families in this province? I’m asking this question here because it’s a lot easier here to dispassionately deal with this issue rather than in question period, where time is short and usually time is spent on avoiding answering questions rather than engaging each other in debate. The next question.

In light of the Montana court decision and the resulting continuing closure of the border for Alberta cow-calf producers, what is the government anticipating in terms of additional assistance required in the next year? We are less than two weeks away from the next fiscal year, and while all of us would hope, we know that the aid crisis is not going to come to an end all of a sudden, you know, by the end of this fiscal year. What plans are in place that anticipate expenditures in the form of ongoing assistance in this respect?

What kind of allowances are being made in the budget so that the minister won’t have to come back for another supplementary request sometime next year? Some other questions. I notice that the wildlife damage and compensation budget has quadrupled in the supplementary estimates here. Initially it was $1.94 million, less than $2 million, and now it has jumped to close to $8 million. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would explain the reasons for this quadrupling, fourfold increase. Is the damage and compensation related to wildlife limited to damage caused to farm crops or fences or what?

Does the compensation go either exclusively or primarily simply to farm families, or are there some other recipients of this compensa- tion? This category needs to be unpacked for my benefit if not for anyone else, so I hope that the minister will explain that. My last question, I guess, at the moment has to do with – two questions, actually – the NAFTA-related challenge that some

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005300 Canadian producers are going to take. I think the minister was asked this question earlier, perhaps in the question period as well. You know, the court challenge that . . . An Hon. Member: Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade. Dr. Pannu: Right. Yeah. Now, the minister during question period said that we don’t like to take the road of confrontation and want to negotiate given that we have good relations with the current administration. You know, NAFTA is a treaty, and it is presumably about fair trade and free trade.

I wonder why the minister thinks that providing assistance to these groups that intend to challenge under NAFTA the border closure for calves and cows will particularly be seen as an offensive and provocative act by the American administration? After all, this is a treaty, and as a treaty it’s available to us to seek redress to the problems that we might see, and there’s no greater issue on which we are seeking redress than the situation in which our cow-calf producers find themselves in this province.

Why is the minister, in fact, not enthusiastic about providing help to this group, which is using a legitimate tool to seek redress to a very serious problem? We all call it a crisis. It has cost taxpayers, you know, more than half a billion dollars already and may cost more. So why on earth are we reluctant to provide support for this group, which is using an instrument which is legal, which is jointly negotiated between us and them on the other side? Why not? A couple of other questions here quickly, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.

As part of this supplementary request are there any monies being asked for here for providing financial assistance to beef co-ops, you know, slaughterhouses, their proposals? There’s one, I think the Tender Beef Co-op, in the Peace River area. Is there any money available in this supplementary request for such initia- tives? I think that these initiatives are important. They will reduce our dependence on the two monopoly slaughterhouse operations in the province controlled by two massively powerful multinationals. Is there any money there, and if not, why not? Mr.

Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity. I’ll sit down and listen with attention to what the minister has to say to my questions. The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the hon. member as well for the kind words of congratulations when he started. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman, I’ll try to be brief. I know we have a lot of other supplementary estimates to go through. It’s tough to be brief when you talk about this department b ecause we have such a wide diversity of things going on in it.

We are kind of centred on the BSE issue in supplementary estimates, so I’m probably not going to give you a real good answer on rural development strategy because that will be coming forward in our upcoming budget. You know, of course, that we just announced the task force in early February and have that essentially up and running right now, and I’m very, very excited, hon. member, about where we’re headed with that. I think there are a lot of very good initiatives in there. It won’t just come from our budget, from agriculture’s budget.

It’s going to come from all of the other budgets b ecause it’s a cross- ministry initiative in a lot of cases when you start talking about rural schools, rural economic development, rural health care, the ability of youth to have something to go to in rural Alberta. There are a lot of different things involved in there. So rather than get into that in the supplementary estimates, I’m going to go to some of your questions, if that’s all right, and we’ll talk a little bit about that. The $37 million is included in this supplementary estimate.

One of the issues that we have coming before us is the specified risk materials: what do we do with them? In my mind, how are we going to take those SRMs, as we call them, and turn them into something that has value again? Previously they had some value; now they have no value. What we want to do is do the research, do the precommercialization work. I know that the hon. member under- stands this type of a process.

We want to do that work, so we’ve put these dollars out there with our academia and the research network that’s out there in agriculture to try to find ways to turn what is now essentially a disposable cost centre into value. So the $37 million is in there. 3:30 The $30 million is to support the establishment of the market retention and the development. That’s to turn our dependency away from the United States marketplace. Currently we are dependent on the United States marketplace for a bout 76 per cent of our export business.

We would like – and I think it’s a target of the industry; this is all coming from the industry – to reduce that dependency to about 50 per cent. That means that we have to find markets for 26 per cent of what we used to do. That’s a fairly daunting challenge. That’s why they’ve come forward with a 10-year plan to do just that. Having been in the international sales business, I know – and I know that you have travelled too, hon. member – it’s difficult to enter new marketplaces; it’s difficult to displace current suppliers in those marketplaces.

So those dollars are there, and they have been leveraged with federal dollars now as well as industry dollars. In fact, the industry will be putting up the lion’s share of those dollars. I had a note here: BSE testing. I’m not exactly sure why I had that note down. I think you had a question on the live testing. Yes. It’s not in this supplementary estimate, but one of the things that we’ve done is through co-operation and collaboration with the Ministry of Innovation and Science we’ve created the $38 million BSE or prion research centre.

Of course, BSE and the folding proteins and the science of all of that is something that we need to understand better so that we can better deal with the products and the by-products that we have. It’s also something that we need to do in the study of zoonosis, diseases from animals to humans. Coupled with that, there are a couple of pr oposals that I have seen that have come forward that believe that they have that Holy Grail of a live test, or what I call the live test. We are following up on them because that would be something the world is looking for.

But we also have to understand that it’s a little bit like the cure for the common cold: everybody thinks they’ve got it, and everybody in the world is looking for it. So we have to be careful about where we put those resources. In terms of a floor price – and I know that this has been a question that has been on the minds of the NDP and some producers in the province.

I can tell the hon. member that the industry, the Alberta Beef Producers, the cattle ranchers, the Feeder Associations, all of those groups that are part of that network – there are people out there who think that a floor price might be the right way to go, but the vast majority of the industry says: no, don’t go there. It’ll be a higher cost for packers, that’s true. So what will happen? They may buy their cattle out of Saskatchewan or British Columbia as opposed to buying them in Alberta. They may close down the number of days that they slaughter.

I can tell the hon. member that if we get less numbers of days of slaughter, that will only compound our problems here. We need to make sure that we have as many days of slaughter going through these packing houses as possible. The other problem with even a temporary floor price is that it

March 17, 2005 Alberta Hansard 301 won’t work. It’s still going to cause a lot of major hardship, it wouldn’t be easy to put in place, and if we just had it in Alberta, that would cause us the difficulties of: what do you do with the cattle that may be crossing back and forth? It’s also the wrong message to send to those entrepreneurs who are in the co-operatives trying to get into a packing house or those investors that are looking at building that slaughter capacity and that value-added.

It’s the wrong message to send them, that we’re going to regulate what their cost is going to be and we’re going to regulate what their margin is going to be. A lot of these business plans that are coming forward are predicated on the market price. You would have a massive number of meetings going on with their bankers and the institutions that they’re trying to get their financing from and their shareholders, many of whom are producers, trying to figure out: can we make this work based on a floor price, and where is the government going to go with the floor price? It causes a lot of grief.

I would suggest to you and submit to you that the set-aside program that we have in place right now is a much better market- responsive type of a price system. It works much better than a floor price because you still have the market forces involved. It did take a little bit of a hit after this announcement prior to March 7 when the R-CALF injunction went into play, but the interesting thing is that it did not drop anywhere close to what the prices had dropped to with the announcement of the other positive tests. That tells me that it’s working, and nationally it’s starting to work.

So I think what we have today, hon. member, is a program that is endorsed nationally by the producers and the members of the industry. It’s also one where, yes, we have some control in regard to the basis levels and some of those other things and the weights of the animals, which allows us some movement in the marketplace, but it isn’t a set control. It’s a much more responsive and much more well-received program than a floor price. Plans in place and ongoing assistance: what allowances in the budget to come up? That almost sounds like: what have you got in your budget coming forward? Can’t tell you, so I won’t.

Wildlife damage and compensation. You noted that the $7.9 million is much higher than the previous year. It is much higher due to the drought conditions that we had and a lot of the damage to fences. It’s an all-encompassing type fund for damage from that wildlife, but I will get more explanation for you on that one, maybe a little more detail on paper on that one. The other question you had was with regard to the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade and their NAFTA challenge. Our fight is not with the American government.

The American government has put forward a proposal to allow trade in our beef through the USDA and to have the border open. On March 7 had that happened, we would be in a much better position. Having said that, our fight is with a court and a protectionist group in the United States. That’s where our fight is. What we need to do is prove to that court that their government is right. So our suing their own government only adds to the R-CALF argument.

I’m not in a position at this point in time to recommend to any of our colleagues in the Legislature that we should be doing something against the U.S. government, who at this point in time is one of our biggest allies in getting the border open. So I think that’s an important differential because what the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade are doing – and they have every right to do this, and I do not want to hinder their approach. They have a right under NAFTA and under

chapter 11 to go for redress on damages caused, and even if the border were to open, hon. member, within 60 days, they can continue on with that challenge. Perhaps at some point in the future – and we’ve all seen these NAFTA things drag out for a long, long time – they may actually see some benefit out of that. You know, I hope they do. It’s something that they probably have a good argument on. Our point is: get the border open. Our challenge is: get the border open. So I want to utilize all the resources that we have to enable the USDA to prove to their own court that they are right.

I don’t want to challenge what the USDA is doing. I would rather challenge what that judge is doing, and we are working in that direction. I think that covers most of the points, Mr. Chairman, and if there are other questions, I’d be happy to answer them. The Chair: Anyone else wishing to speak? If not, I’ll recognize the hon. Minister for Children’s Services. Children’s Services Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to be brief, and if the opposition critic has any questions after I’ve explained where we are, I’d be more than pleased to provide her with some answers in writing.

I know we’ve got six others after me. In total an extra $18 million will be used for child intervention services. Child and family services authorities will receive $14.4 million to cover additional costs for the child welfare service programs. This includes a 4 per cent, $4 million increase in the foster parents maintenance rate. The remaining $3.6 million will be used to implement the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act.

This one-time cost will fund the transition to provide child welfare services under the new act. 3:40 An additional $7.5 million will be used to implement a network of parent link centres across the province. This additional funding will be fully offset by additional federal transfers. Supplementary funding of $5.3 million will be used to fulfill our commitment to the prevention of family violence.

We are using an extra $2.5 million to fund community incentive grants and help communities take action against family violence and bullying, we will continue to develop and implement Alberta strategies for the prevention of family violence and bullying with an additional $1.76 million, and we will use $500,000 for a cross-ministry public awareness and education campaign to help put an end to bullying. We also require $1.1 million to cover increases in insurance and corporate administrative costs. We’ll pay Alberta Finance an additional $400,000 for insurance, and $700,000 will go to ACSC for related costs.

We also are able to use savings from other areas to partially offset increased costs in some of our critical programs. So that really explains the reasoning behind the supplementary estimates, and we’ll intently listen to the opposition. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I think about the provincial budget, I want to give my thanks for the message from Her Majesty the Queen for Commonwealth Day three days ago. Her Majesty’s reference to children, youth, and education in the human family are important to us in Alberta.

I believe that Com- monwealth is a good context in which to look at some of the issues we face here. I’m speaking of Commonwealth not simply as an international organization but as a spirit of sharing and co-operation, whether on the world stage, within the Canadian federation, or in our own province. Let’s take the word Commonwealth. I believe that the shift in thinking from empire to Commonwealth was one of the truly

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2005302 positive signs of how people and governments can evolve peaceably. It was a shift from a relationship based on the domination by one party or group of interests to a point where it is recognized that wealth, resources, and responsibility are shared among the members and that the challenges and opportunities f aced by one confront us all. I’m especially grateful that this experiment in Commonwealth began in Canada in our development of a growing measure of autonomy in the context of connectedness.

Since the first ongoing contact between Europeans and our First Nations, Canada has been in the orbit of three great world powers: France, Britain, and the United States. The issues of dependence, domination, consultation, and connection are not new but an ongoing part of our story. It was Canada’s emergence without revolution or civil war from a dependency on the world’s greatest empire ever, territorially speaking, that paved the way for Australia, New Zealand, and scores of other countries that make up the present Commonwealth.

It was Canada’s internal politics of 80 years ago that led to a re-examina- tion of the relationships between the parts and led to the statement of a new relationship in the 1926 declaration: “They are autonomous Communities . . . equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown.” What better model for a society in Alberta: coequal, responsible communities of citizens united by common transcendent values. Mr.

Chairman, it is a model of our society and its values that faces us as we deal with the Alberta budget. In each specific spending bill we vote on as well as the budget as a whole, there is a reflection of what truly matters to us as a government and as Albertans, as individuals and families in relationship. Many of us feel that our relationships are too private and too precious to be quantified in dollars or regulated by the state.

I note that a former Newfoundland and Canadian cabinet minister has brought up the proposal of legalizing a certain relationship in order to regulate its practice and protect its practitioners. He’s speaking of relationship at the level of a commodity, the exchange of what I get for my dollar. Our most valued relations are more than dollar exchanges, yet what we spend in billions is an indication of what our values and relationships are. As the values that we are professing affect what it is we do, so what we do reflects what our values really are.

I am sure that most of us would not want to see the intimate aspects of our lives assessed in dollars and cents. Yet, Mr. Chair- man, a provincial budget, the billions we spend collectively, is a good mirror of what the prior ities in our rela tionships are. C. Northcote Parkinson, who gave my generation Parkinson’s law and other insights on how we administer and mishandle our wealth, pointed out that corporate boards of directors often approve contracts worth millions on a simple recommendation without discussion then spend half an hour haggling over the price the staff pay for coffee in the lunchroom.

He believes this happens because the million- and billion-dollar contracts are too big for us to get our minds around, so we opt out, step back from these to focus on something we can make sense of. Mr. Chairman, the budget being a statement of the big picture, it is important that we stop and step back to get it right, to get the picture clear and to be clear ourselves on our part of the picture. What does it mean to spend dollars, a measure of energy and value on some things and not on others?

In our parliamentary system it is the government’s side of the House that brings forward the bills that spend public money. Someday, in a more consensual spirit, in a recognition of the principle of common wealth that may change, but for the moment that is the reality with which we must deal. So, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the second party in this Legislature I propose some alternative measures for our investment that reflect another set of values from those we have before us. In Bill 1 the government focuses on postsecondary education.

This costs billions in faculty and facilities, research and infrastruc- ture. It leads to a flow of expertise and investment to the focus of communities and capital. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the greatest learning takes place in the earliest years of life. Here a child not only learns how to orient himself or herself in the world but faces the basic question of value.

Whether she or he is loved and nurtured for what she or he is or for what she or he does to satisfy others, whether she is central in others’ attention and affection or somewhere on the periphery, on the basis of this early education curriculums are structured, and systems are put in place.

Is it better spending to provide the initial supports in having a parent on-site at home or quality and qualified support, if required, which costs at most tens of thousands per year, or to train and pay psychologists, psychiatrists, and other therapists at hundreds of thousands and who charge a hundred dollars per hour at least for intervention once damage in early miseducation has been done?

Is it better stewardship to have both parents competing in the competi- tive economy, leaving a child to decide that he must prove his worth by taking jobs that impress, dropping out of relationships and postsecondary programs that she or he should never have entered? One of the greatest educators of all time stated that the goal of education is to know thyself. This is what happens or does not happen in the early years. If we structure society, the market, and family relationships on a basis of unknowing, we cannot be surprised if the results are flawed.

With our provincial budget I understand that decisions are made through managers to either cut or allow certain expenses. Each region makes decisions about how their funding is to be spent. Child and family services is a difficult area in terms of budget because as other areas are cut back and if the cutbacks involve families, child and family services picks up the slack – example: justice, health, income support, education – b ecause in the end child and family services are responsible for the safety and security of our children.

As well, as the needs and risks become more complex, the services required in upcoming years may become more costly and complex as well. This may be one area where unexpected expenses would apply. Because of demographics some regions are more costly – for example, fetal alcohol syndrome, addictions, violence – depending on the socioeconomic conditions. I do have some questions about costs and possible improvements.

I wonder if some contracted agencies in our province are duplicating services; for example, when more than one agency has a permanent emergency bed set aside for kids while there is an emergency shelter available which always has room. I’m wondering if these funds for unused emergency beds could be put to better use. Another thing is training. I’m wondering why some agency staff cannot participate in the training offered to government workers. Those agencies don’t usually have the budget, and the government workers, I believe, are getting great training. I think that, surely, including agencies would be wise.

I believe there may be innovative ways of working together that are not entertained because of camps and territories within our service provision. Could we also do a better job of creating a better working relationship with youth justice and agencies in providing transitional services to youth leaving the justice system? These steps may be cost-saving through avoiding some unnecessary duplication and supporting each other in common goals. 3:50 As I look at the supplem