Alberta Hansard — 20 March 2003, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 3)

20030320

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 639 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 20, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/03/20 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this As sembly, we renew our thanks and ask that w e may continue our work under Your guidance. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests Mrs. McClellan : Mr.

Speake r, it giv es me great pl easure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the staff of the communications branch of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. We rely on these individuals day in and day out for a wide ra nge of com munication servic es. The y are in the members’ gall ery, and I would ask them to s tand and rem ain standing as I introduce them. First, director Terry Willock; assistant director David He nnig; publ ic affairs off icers Ke rilyn Ha milton, Andrew Horton, Sharon J ensen, Mar ie McDonnel l, and Michael Norris; and Louise McGinnis, branch administrator.

I would ask that all members of the Assembly give our guests a very warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Deputy Premier just indicated, we also have some members of Municipal Affairs here as well as members of our intern program, perhaps the youngest staff of any par t of Cana da, and it ’s my pleasure to introduce those youthful-looking people that are part of Municipal Affairs t oday.

We have – and I’ d ask t hem to ris e as I int roduce them – Laura Buckingham, Cathy McEnaney, Chr istine Ke ndrick, Ia n McCormack, Terry Brown, and Wendy Peters, and our interns are Rispah Kiptoo from Red Deer, Jayne McPhee from Spruce Grove, Brandy Cox from Beaver county, and June Wilson from the town of Millet. Please join me in welcoming them to the Assembly today. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Norris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We alway s talk about what a wonderful, glorious province Alberta is, and in that context I think we have to recognize the people who built and left us this glorious province, our seniors. Today it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you 24 members of MATT, which stands for the Ma ture Adult s Third T hursday of Rio Terrace Moravian church. They are joining us here today. They’re forming a group for the wes t end of Edm onton, which is going to be a remarkable benefit for all of us.

The y’re here in the members’ gallery and public gallery, and I would like all our collea gues t o thank them f or joining us a nd thank them for lea ving us s uch a wonderful province. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to introduce through you and to the Assembly two wonderful people, John Buie and his son Nic olas Buie. John is the direct or of hum an resourc es and organizational effectiveness for the Department of Energy. I’d ask them to both rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Learning. Dr.

Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to intro duce to you and thro ugh you to t he Legislative Assembly a visitor fr om New Brunswic k. His na me is Claude Laberge, and he is the principal of James M. Hill Memorial hig h school in Miram ichi. Mr. L aberge has been here for t he last two weeks, and in talkin g to him just prior to the s ession, I asked him why he had come here, and quite simply it was to see why Alberta students do so well. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my plea sure to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 31 visitors from Sir George Sim pson scho ol in St. Al bert. The y are seated in the pub lic g alley, and they are ac companied by their teachers, Mme Gabourie and Miss Walker, and by parent helpers Mr. St. Pierre, Ms Rowland, Mrs. Heatley, Mrs. Zimmel, Mrs. Thomp- son, and Mr. Wilkie. I would ask them all to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce t o you and th rough yo u today to all of the Assembly a group of stude nts from Calgary. The y are from the Queen Elizabeth high school. They’re in grade 10. There are 42 of them here. They’re accompanied by their teacher, Sarah MacLeod, and by two interpreters, since the school also includes people that are hard of hearing. So we have tw o interpreters. We have Dee-Dee Kay, and we have Laurel Villegas-Pryde a nd also a g randparent helper, Mrs. Roberta Leav er. So if these young pe ople and their accompanying adults would stand, we would love to show you our appreciation.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Mr. Masyk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly two guests who are sea ted in th e public ga llery this aft ernoon. Shirley Saunders, w ho hails fr om Kelow na, B.C., w as ask ed to participate in an intercessory prayer team at the G-8 summit held in Kananaskis, Alberta, on June 26 and 27, 2002. The second guest is my brain trust at the constituency office, my assistant, Joan Wynnyk. I would ask Joan and Shirley to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly.

Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the great things about Canada is the success stories, and I’d like to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly a fine Canadian success story today. Mr. Ernest Schultz is seated with two gues ts in the public gallery, and I’d ask him and his guests t o rise if they c ould, p lease. Mr. Schultz was born into a pioneering homestead family in the Bashaw- Ponoka area.

He grew up on a farm, served in the RCMP, and then went on to become a very succes sful car dealer and owner of car dealerships in both Alberta and B.C. He al so happ ens to be my wife’s uncle. I would ask all of you to give him and his guests a very warm welcome.

640 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 Mr. Lougheed: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to you and the members assembled Mr. Tom Pearson from Dow Chemical, a resident of Fort Sask atchewan and me mber of the cham ber of commerce. head : Ministerial Statements The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. Old Strathcona Fire Mr. Norris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and others. A week ago today a terrible thing happened in Edmonton. I ’m talking, of course, about the fire in Ol d Strathcona.

As y ou know, sm all business owners are the backbone of the Alberta economy, and our province is renow ned as a l and of ris k-takers, entrepreneurs, and pioneers. As a f ormer s mall bus iness ow ner myself I know the passion with wh ich these individuals pur sue their bus iness. It is truly a labour of love. So today I’d like to extend our heartfelt condolences on behalf of the government to all those Old Strathcona business owners who lost their establishments last week in this tragic fire. I’m sure no words that I c ould say would accurately describe the loss tha t they f eel.

The neighbourhood is dear t o all of us in Edmonton a nd, indeed, Alberta. I would also like t o com ment on the bravery that wa s demon- strated by the firefighters of Edmonton in dealing with this, one of the most major fires we’ve had in a long time in the city of Edmon- ton and, indeed, the province of Alberta. I’d like to leave you with a thought, though, Mr. Speaker. To the people of Strathcona. You’ve certainly lost the bricks and mortars but not the heart and passion that drove those small businesses.

You will begin again, and when you do, know full well that the Alberta government will be supporting you in every thing you do. In th e meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Th e Official Opposition agrees that small business owners are the backbone of the Alberta economy. Also as a former small business owner I understand the dedication, commitment, and hard work these individuals undergo. The vibrancy that small businesses bring to our communities does not go unnoticed.

The Old Strathcona small business owners who lost their businesses in last week’s tragic fire played the additional role of preserving the ex traordinary historical significance of this community in Edmonton. We in the Official Opposition would like to extend our deepest condolences to the Old Strathcona business o wners and their families who lost their businesses in the tragic fire. Also, we extend our condolences to the employees of thes e b usinesses who find themselves without em ployment after this horrible incident. Our thoughts and su pport are with t hem as the y begin the proces s of rebuilding.

Additionally, we would like to tha nk all of the police and firefighters who worked so hard to save a real historic area of this city. Thank you. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speake r, I would l ike to reques t unanimous consent from t he Assembly for the hon. Mem ber for Edm onton- Strathcona to make a brief response to the minister’s statement. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank yo u very muc h, Mr . Spe aker. I than k my colleagues for the consent that they have so generously granted.

Like all Edm ontonians I w as shocked and distressed by last week’s fire that destr oyed several buildings and f amily run busi- nesses in Old Strathcona. Thankfully, no one was hurt or injured, though a number of animals at the Scales & Tails pet shop were lost. Whyte Avenue is special. It’s the cultural and artistic centre of the city. There’s a piece of our history, and it’s the pride of the south side neighbourhood that I’m proud to represent. It pains me that the heart of this vibrant area has a huge hole in it.

I salute the efforts of the firefighters who courageously fought the fire under extrem ely difficult circ umstances and stoppe d it from destroying even more of our heritage. As the MLA for the area I want residents and business owners in the area to k now that I will w ork with the city , Old Strathc ona Foundation, and the province to do whatever I can to assist the area and the business owners to rebuild. This set back will only be temporary. The spirit of Edmontonians is strong. I’m sure we will rebuild this part of Whyte Avenue in a way that reflects the history and vitality of Old Strathcona. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od Time Allocation Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, on December 4, 2002, the Premier told this House “that opposition, really dissent, is the essence of democracy. It is the fundamental underpinning of democracy.” This government isn’t practising what it preaches. It has invoked closure on contro- versial legislation at lea st 30 time s since the Premier has come to power.

My quest ion to the Government House Leader: given that not all opposition members have had a chance to speak to Bill 3 and fairly represent their constituents, why is this government invoking closure through time allocation? Mr. Hanco ck: Well, Mr. S peaker, it’s a nove l concep t that a Government House Leader might be called to account in qu estion period, but I’m certainly happy to respond to the question on behalf of the government. Time allocation is a rule of this Assembly and, quite frank ly, the rule of a number of Legislative Assemblies, including the fede ral House.

I mig ht j ust, in response to the question, point out that in the federal House time allocation is used routinely on almost every pi ece of business by the federal Liberal government. Time allocation, which is not closure but which is fair warning in significant advance of an event that there’s going to be a limited amount of time left in committee, is an appropriate tool to let all members of the House k now that onc e a suf ficient amount of debate has occurred or a sufficient amount of time has been allowed for debate, the re has to be an opportunity to move on.

As a ll members know, debate is unli mited, potentially, in committee. A member can speak as many times as they wish to speak. Now, if you take a look at, for example, the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, whi ch is one of the moti ons that’s been put on notice for time allocation, there have been seven and a quarter hours of debate on the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendm ent Act. In th at debate two members of the opposition have participated once, three members have participated twice, two me mbers have par ticipated three times, and two members have participated four times. In al l that time, Mr.

Speaker, particularly in committee – Liberal members participated for 187 m inutes in committee, which is a l ine-by-line analysis of a bill – not one amendment has been introduced.

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 641 Dr. Ni col: To the Min ister of Ene rgy: is it the p olicy of t his government to always limit debate about energy deregulation since the government also invoked closure on deregulation when it was last brought before this House, in 1998? [interjections] The Speaker: I hope the Minister of Ene rgy was able to hear that question. Mr. Smith: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Ministry of Energy has been a ctively involved i n consultation on Bill 3 for a two-year period, culminating in this legislation brought before the House.

As has been brought up in the House, a part of the consulta- tion process w as eve n to in clude the Me mber f or Edmonton- Highlands on the consultation list. It has been dis cussed through various committees: the Alberta Advisory Council on Electricity, that was a multistakeholder group; the business improvement group subcommittee; the retail businesses subcommittee. This is the most consulted-on bill that I have ever been involved in. Dr.

Nicol: To the Minister of Human Resources and Employment: given that this government neglected to hold proper consultation and then went behind union’s back and now threatens to stop debate, is it the p olicy of thi s government to tr ample the ri ghts of w orkers without any input from the labour community? Mr. Dunford: No, Mr. Speaker. I think there have been many times that the re cord would show where we’ve engage d in quite an extensive consultation. This time is different. There’s no question about that.

I think I’ve bee n op en and ca ndid with everyone, including the members of this House, that a request was made by one of the parties to a collective agreement process. We have responded to various requests that were made. As a matter of fact, to try to at least provide f or inform ation – I don ’t know that I could say consultation – hon. mem ber, imm ediately after the joint press conference that we had with the Minister of Health and Wellness, I immediately proceeded upstairs in this building to a room w here there were quite a number of union leaders in this province present.

I think it was a half hour or more that we were able to then discuss some of the aspects of this particular bill. I’d like to congr atulate all of the people, then, that have spoken inside this Legislature about Bill 27. I think they’ve been very direct on what their opposition was. The positions have been articulated in a very forthright and clear manner, and I believe that most things that could be sa id in oppositi on to this bill probably already have been said. Tuition Fees Dr. Nicol: Tomorrow the University of Calgary makes an important decision.

The board of governors will decide whether to make up for years of government underfunding by going to students for yet more tuition money, this time over 200 percent more money from some faculties. To the Minister of Learning: is it the minister’s policy to put the faculties of law, medicine, and business out of the reach of middle- and low-income Albertans? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The University of Toronto just underwent a very interesting study. The University of Toronto has the highest tuition fee in the country for law, at $16,000 per year .

What th ey s ubsequently did was took a look at the socioeconomic status of the people who were entering law, and they actually found that there was a bsolutely no difference from before they had increased tuition to now, when it is at $16,000, what i t actually is. In all fairness , t he number of visible minorities was actually increased over this study, and it looks like it had no effect. What the University of Calgary is doin g is basically looking at differential tuition fees for three separate faculties. They’re looking at it in busines s, law, and medicine.

With regard to medicine the average yearly cost of a medical degree is very close to the $75,000 to $100,000 range, of which they will be paying – I believe that they looked at the number of around $10,000. Typically what we tend to do, Mr. Speaker , is that univ ersity students w ould pay a pproxi- mately, at most, 30 percent of the actual cost of t heir degree. The average in Alberta is around 24, 25 percent, so the government and every other funding source will be paying about 76 percent. What they are looking to do is bri ng medicine, for example, in line with the other faculties. 1:50 Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, we won’t get into the corrupt formula they use for calculating that 30 percent. My next quest ion is: why is increa sing student debt t he onl y solution this mini ster has to the problem of underf unding of universities? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speake r, the gove rnment of Albe rta and the province of Alberta have about the second lowest student debt level in the country. It is roughly $18,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree.

We hav e by far the most generous student loa n program, where those students that need it can achieve somew here ar ound $11,000 per year, of which the y will only pay back approximately $5,000. The other point that I will make is that the Liberal government in Ottawa also works with us in thei r studen t loan pr ogram, Mr. Speaker, and their remission to the students, to those kids that have gone through university and are now out working, is absolutely zero. Dr.

Nicol: Again to the minister: why doesn’t the minister target funding to reduce tuition instead of increasing student loans, which only burdens students with a higher debt payment? Dr. Oberg: Again, Mr. S peaker, the actual nu mber – and I h ave found it – for university undergraduat es is $18,871, which i s the second lowest in the country. It has be en our goal in this go vern- ment to provide doll ars through the student loan program to those students who need it to attend university, and that’s something that we have taken very strongly.

We’ve increased the funding to student loans, to student financial assistance by very close to 50 percent over the last three years. In talking t o the stu dents, i n talki ng to the student groups, they will ce rtainly iden tify that the student loan program in Alberta is t he numbe r one student loan program right across Canada, and that’s something we’re very proud of. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Education Funding Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Angele Beaudoin, a parent in Edmonton-Whitemud, wrote to her MLA to let him know that her school plans to cut four full-time teachers, one half-time kindergar- ten teacher, as we ll as adm inistrative and custodi al support. She blames these cuts directly on the gove rnment’s refusal to fund the arbitrated settlement with teachers and the lack of budget flexibility

642 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 allowed Edmonton public schools. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. Why, if the budget has been increased as much as the government claims it has, a re such se vere cuts being made at this school? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to reiterate what was said yesterday. There were two schools that were brought up in question period yesterday, Windsor Park school and Mc Cauley school, and I believe that these two schools really illustrate the issue that is happening with Edmonton public today.

Wind sor Park school has 179 students, which is a small increase over last year. They employ 8.7 teachers. Their class size, according to the 20 02-2003 class size study, which is a self- reported study, is 26.7 students. The utilization rate for that school is 82 percent, which is right in the range that we’re looking for. In contrast to that, Mr . Speaker, McCauley school, w hich is in Edmonton-Highlands, has 210 student s, with a relativ ely fla t enrollment growth. Their grades 1 to 6 size is 14.7 students, and the utilization rate for the school is 35 percent. So that’s w hat’s happening in the school.

What we’re looking at with the audit of Edmonton public is how they distribute their dollars out. Obviously, there are some issues with that, but hopefully we will be able to elucidate more to the hon. member following the audit of Edmonton public. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the same minister: why, if the budget has increased, as the g overnment claims, is it hig hly likely that over 200 schools in Edmonton public will be reducing staff next September? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to increasing money, I think the hon. member is very capable of looking in the budget and seeing what has happened over the past two years. We’ve seen a huge amount of increase, but in all fairness we have had a 14 percent increase to the tea chers, w hich has put a strain on so me of the districts. What you take a look at, the point that I just illustrated, is the problem with Edmonton public in how they distribute the dollars out to their schools.

When we have one school that has a class size of 14.7 versus another school that has a class size of 26.7, what we have to do is ask the question: why? There m ay be a very valid reason. With school utilization, for example, 35 percent versus 82 percent, again we have to ask the question: why? That’s what we are attempting to do in the audit of Edmonton public. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: given that parents like Mrs.

Beaudoin hold the government responsi- ble, when will the minister, who found $2 m illion to renov ate his offices and $7 mill ion for Cal gary public, fi nd the $1 3 million needed to prevent these cuts in Edmonton public schools? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, w ith the Edm onton public audit, as I’ve stated – maybe this member has got something in his ears and can’t hear – we are already down approximately $4 million to $5 million, so it is not $13.5 million. On the other comment that the member made, I would invite the hon.

Minister of Infrastructure to c omment on the $2 milli on that was used to renovate the offices and the amount of money that that has saved my department. Dr. Pannu: Mr. Speaker, Old Scona academic high, in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona, is the top ranked high school in Alberta. However, projected budget cuts threaten many of the programs that contribute to Old Scona’s worldwide reputation for excellen ce. Every time the minister is confronted about the reality of these cuts, all he does is deny, deny, deny. Instead of Minister Lyle, we have Minister Denial.

Once agai n my questions are to the Minis ter of Learning. Why is Old Scona academic high, a shining example of success in public education, facing a quarter million dollar shortfall in next year’s budget? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, I just gave you two examples of schools that are occurring in Edmonton public as we speak today. Old Scona – I found it v ery int eresting because the hon. me mber over there usually does not like to rank schools, but all of a sudden he says that it is the number one school in the province, and it is – is very high in its scholastic achievement.

But, again, there is a huge difference as to what is happening school to school in Edmonton, and what the audit of Edmonton public is attempting to do is look at why there is this difference. Why are some schools at 32 percent? Why are some schools at 90 perce nt or above? Why are they receiving similar amounts of dollars? This is one of the most intimate questions that we have to ask Edmonton public, and I’m hoping that by the end of next week we will be able to have the answer for the hon. member as well as for all the members of this Assembly and the general public. The Speaker: The hon. member. No names. Dr.

Pan nu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There we re a hundred members present at the school council meeting last night, and they asked me to r emind the minister of wha t’s at stake, what you’re risking in this school. The Speaker: Work with me; okay? The hon. member knows that first of all he doesn’t mention names of hon. members. Secondly, the hon. member knows that there are no

preambles on the se cond question. Th e hon. mem ber signed the agre ement. Let’s get the question, and let’s move forward. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Other than deny, deny, deny, what’s the minister going to do to fix the quarter million dollar hole in Old Scona academic high’s budget? That’s the question. Answer the question, Mr. Minister. Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, you know, again – I’ve said this probably 15 tim es in the L egislature – we are tak ing a look at Edmonton public, the total Edmonton public. We will have those audit results in, again, hopefully by the end of next week.

With regard to the $13.5 million they don’t have a $13.5 million deficit. We have brought that down by a minimum of $4 million to $5 million. Hopefully, we will be able to have a firmer number by the end of nex t week and that w e will be able to tell. Wh at has happened in Ed monton public is that the superintendent has asked the schools to go down to 85 percent staffing level in their staffing. This is a level that is very consistent with what is across the province of Albert a. It’ s dro pped. There we re some s chools that w ere running as high as 92, 93 percent.

As I’ve already stated, one school had a class size of 14.7 students. So we’ll wait and see. We’ll see what happens at the end of next week. Hopefully, I’ll be able to give the Assembly more answers. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. leader.

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 643 Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary to the same minister: why has t he minister placed an arbitrary cap on grade 10 credits thereby denying high-achie ving stu dents an opportunity to reach their potential and leaving a $100,000 hole in Old Scona’s budget? Will he remove this cap? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, I’ll reiterate the answer that one of the hon. members asked me a few days ago. When it came to CEU funding in grade 10, what we saw was that at one point around the province there were over 200 stude nts that w ere taking o ver 70 credits per year.

There is not enough physical time in the school week to take 70 credits. We were seei ng some schools that w ould award one credit for simply attending a school assembly. What that did is it allowed the schools to recoup approximately $125 pe r student for having an assembly. So a thousand students, for example, would be $125,000 that some of these schools were doing. As a matter of fact, for one particular school in Edmonton public – and I by no means state that that is the only sc hool – we dr ew back $250,000 a year ago. There was a huge problem.

What we have done since that time i s we hav e looked a t the funding formula, and we will be putting back CEUs come this fall, but there’s going to be a sign ificant difference. That difference is that the superintendent has to sign off the number of credits that each school brings f orward. The bo ard chairm an has to si gn off the number of credits that are coming from each school. The other thing that will happen is that as soon as there is a school that is more than two standard deviation units away from the norm, we will go in and investigate and ensure, quite simply, that the schools are telling the truth.

We sa w a huge difference in s chool jurisdictions, from 47 CEUs in s ome sc hool jurisdicti ons to a low of around 32, w ith Calgary being at 37 or 38 and areas like Edmonton public being at 45 or 46. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Emergency Preparedness Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The m issiles and bombs have begun to ra in down on Baghdad. U.S. marines have entered southern Iraq. People around the world are glued to television and radio. Saddam Hussein has threatened retribution in the event Iraq was attacked. He s tated that no place is safe.

It’s alleged that al- Qaeda has made similar threats. There has been intelligence that has listed possible terrorist targets in Canada, including sites in Alberta. We need to assure Albertans that we’re doing everything possible to ensure their safety and security. My question is to the Minister of International and Interg overnmental Rela tions. As c hair of the Ministerial Task Force on Sec urity what steps ha ve you taken in light of this information? Mr. Jonson: Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to assure t he Assembly that a number of steps have bee n taken to e nsure that A lberta has well prepared and well co-ordinated emergency and security plans in light of world events. We have improved our communication links with the federal government, the RCMP, and CSIS and with industry to ensure that infor mation related t o possible thr eats is s hared with appropriate officials. Coincidentally, cabinet approved Alberta’s counterterrorism crisis management plan earlier this week.

The plan is the result of long hours of work by a number of ministries in co-operation with other orders of government, intelligence agencies, and the private sector. Also, Mr. Speaker, it includes a comprehensive method of identify- ing critica l infras tructure in t he province and putting in place appropriate security measures. The plan also includes a system for co-ordinating intelligence information. Alberta, I think, Mr. Speaker, is more prepared than anyone else in the country at this point in time.

To illustrate this, other provinces have been seeking information about what we’re doing in Alberta so they can use our plan as a model for their security preparations. Mr. Maske ll: I have only one supplem entary, and that’s to the Solicitor Gener al. Wh at is the r ole of the security inform ation management unit in Alberta’s counterterrorism process? The Speaker: The hon. Minister. Mrs. Forsyth : Yes. Th ank you , Mr. Speak er. I wo uld like to reassure the members of this Assembly that a t this time there is no identified threat in Alberta.

My department is in continuous contact with intelligence agencies to e nsure tha t we ar e informed of any information that could a ffect security in this provi nce. As the minister mentioned, we are well ahea d of ever ybody across this country and are getting calls from across this country.

We have created the security and information management unit, or SIM, as it is re ferred to, which c o-ordinates intelligence and information about the thre at level in A lberta in c onsultation with Alberta law enf orcement servic es, Crim inal Intelligence Service Alberta, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the RCMP. We are in continuous contact with these agencies at all times. Mr. Maskell: On second thoug ht I do have a supplem ental, and that’s to the M inister of Municipal Affairs.

How hav e you re- sponded to the Auditor General’s 2000-2001 report, which expressed concern over the co-ordination of governm ent and municipal emergency plans in the province? Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A very good question. I want to say that we’ve made tremendous progress, as the hon. ministers have mentioned. I would li ke to s ay that we are upgrading our security systems on a continuous basement, ah, basis, and in fact we’ve installed . . . [interjection] No. That’s where the secret bomb shelter is, but I’ll comment on that at another time.

Ultimately, our existing emergency operation centre, the op centre – we’ve been working in partnership with municipalities from across all of Alberta, including, for example, the Vermilion fire school in partnership with Lakeland College. As well, I want to just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that we can never be one hundred percent ready, but what we can do is be best prepared in planning for, responding to, and recovering from. Our new op ce ntre is openi ng in earl y spring. In f act, it w ill accommodate up to 75 mem bers of our e mergency management operation centre. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Asbestos Abatement at the Foothills Hospital Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. About 30 Alberta workers died last year from asbestos-related di seases. Thi rty A lberta workers dead. We’ve been hammering away at this government for months on safe asbestos abatement in hospitals. Now we learn that last Friday, just days after the Calgary health region assured the public that there were no asbestos dangers at the Foothills, two stop-work orders were issued at the Foothills for unsa fe asbe stos rem oval.

There have now been, I believe, 26 asbestos-related orders against the Foothills in two years. To the Minister of Human Resources and

644 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 Employment: given the Foothills’ abysmal track record on asbestos removal, will the minister finally admit that the Foothills manage- ment is not taking this issue seriously? Mr. Dunfo rd: Mr. Speake r, with the si tuation last Friday the department was noti fied, as they w ere suppose d to be, that a renovation was in progress that might involve a sbestos. So there was a site i nspection that did in fact take place, and from that two work orders were then issued.

A worker was actually performing some activit ies in the c eiling spa ce, where suspected asbestos- containing fireproofing was present. Now, this renovation area was not accessible to the publi c or to patie nts. As a mat ter of fact, we had a situation there where I think the worker was actually working alone. In any eve nt, what we have is an ongoing renovation of aged facilities, and asbes tos is ther e. For every occasion w here the inspection has called for an order or in fact placed a stop-work order and then asked for remedial activity, that has been done.

So we have a situation where the employer in this particular case is responding, as employers should, to direction from workplace health and safety. 2:10 Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, responding after the fact is too late. There have been 26 orders in two years. So given there have been 26 orders in two years, is his department finally considering occupational health and safety charges against Foothills management? Mr. Dunford: No, not at this time be cause the normal s eries of events is that we get notified about the work that’s in progress. We take a look at what is happening.

The orders provide for the activity then to be done in a safe manner and to prevent, of course, exposure in the air of any workers or any people associated with the Foothills situation. So they have hire d an abatem ent superv isor that is working with them as well, and we’ll continue to monitor it. I think I mentioned here in the House some time ago that this was a major pr oject and it was s omething that work place hea lth and safety in the Calgary division were focused on and probably taking up more of our resources, Mr. Speaker, than what ordinarily would happen.

So as long as we have com pliance, the re’s no room, then, for charges. Dr. Taft: Very disappointing. To the Minister of Infrastructure: given the taxpayers’ risk of huge liability costs from asbestos exposure, has this government done the prudent thing and followed other Canadian governments in filing a claim to recover costs from the bankruptcy of several U.S. asbestos manufacturers? Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speaker, when we are dealing with a building that has asbestos in it, depending on the project we will first of all make sure that there is s omebody on-site tha t is expe rt as f ar as the handling of asbe stos and w hat needs t o be done wi th it. If it’s a major thing like a demol ition and depending, once aga in, on the magnitude of it – the General hospital in Calgary is a good example. The firm that was part of the demolition had to have that expertise. But to go one step further to protect the workers and the public, we hired another firm to watch the firm that was doing the removal. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Soil Contamination Cleanup Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week many of my constitu- ents are fol lowing w ith great interest a judicial review hearing related to the cleanup of hydrocarbon and lead contamination that was dis covered almo st two years ago in Lynn view Rid ge in my constituency of Calgary-Fort. It is my understanding that the review revolves around the scope of the cleanup.

Imperial Oil, who used to operate an oil ref inery a t the site until the la te 1970s, is being required by Alberta Environment to remove and replace the contami- nated soil. My first question is to the hon. Minister of Environment. While I know that we can’t go into the specific det ails while the hearing is going on, can the minister please explain what is involved in a judicial review? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As correctly identified, the hearing is going on, and I can’t comm ent, obviously , on any specifics.

In terms of a judic ial revi ew w hat is happe ning is that the department has ma de a decis ion, and the cour t is revi ewing t he decision. Perha ps the Mi nister of Justice would like to c omment further on the legal issues around a judicial review. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. As my constituents are very anxious to see the situation resolved, could this judicial review result in any further delay in resolving this situation? Speaker’s Ruling Sub Judice Rule The Speaker: Well, I think the hon. minister was quite correct.

If there’s a judicial review going on here – and it can only be substanti- ated by a response from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General – these questions could be quite sub judice and outside the mandate of this As sembly. I can’t r espond to that, but w e’ve had two questions. Proceed with your third one, hon. member. You may get nothing out of it. Soil Contamination Cleanup (continued) Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My f inal ques tion is to the Minister of Justic e.

Is ther e another w ay, such as arbitr ation or mediation, that the re sidents ca n have the ir in terests addressed without having to take the matters to court? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, when a matter is before a judicial review, that’s the same as any other matter being before the courts, and the content of the matter itself ought not to be commented upon, but I can provide some comment with respect to processes.

We, of course , ha ve the re gulatory processes and the provisions un der the Env ironmental Protection and Enhancement Act which allow for people to take decisions of that nature through a judicial review process, and that, as I un derstand it, is what ’s happening in this case. But, of course, there’s also the opportunity for anyone who has any griev ance relative to a wrongful act of somebody or a perce ived wr ongful ac t which ha s caus ed them damage to bring a tort action in the civil courts.

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 645 Of course, we have been very strongly advocating that people use what is commonly known as alternative dispute resolutions in terms of going to mediation if all parties will agree to participate. So we would strongly encourage individuals who do not wish to use t he judicial review process or find that that process is not effective for their particular dispute area to examine the opportunities to use alternative dispute resolutions such as mediation, and if necessary they can always go through the acute care system of the courts t o have an y is sues dete rmined in that ma nner.

Alt ernative dispute resolution, mediation, arbitrat ion processe s have pr oved ver y successful for many people, and where the reg ulatory process is inappropriate or cumbersome or doesn’t provide an effective result, those alternative processes can be very effective. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Energy Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. Ever y Thursday the Alberta Liberals will ask a question that members of the public have asked us to pose.

Albertans can send us their questions by phoning our office or visit ing our we b site at a ltaliberals.ab.ca. Toda y’s question about energy deregulation comes from Mr. Bruce Thomas of Edmonton. My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Given that the provincial gover nment’s legislation promises rebates whenever natural g as prices averag e $5.50 over a yea r, would Albertans who sign a contract for five years at the current ra te of $7.25 automatically qualify for rebates? Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the

preamble is wrong. The Natural Gas Price Protection A ct does no t relate t o energy deregulation. The average annual price is one that’s calculated triggered at $5.50, and in fact for January it was $5.88. The important part about the rebates that are triggered in the natural gas price protection plan is that when that p rices occurs, the rebate is made to every one regardless of whether they’ve entered into a long-term contract or they’re on spot rate. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you, Mr. S peaker.

Again to th e same minister: why isn’t the tr igger for natural gas re bates based on a price that consumers actually see on their bills? Mr. S mith: That’s actually a very good question. A ver y goo d question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I’m in fact glad the member gave his proper cre dit due to a m ember of the public for pu tting that question in. That specific

part is one that we want to examine when the regulation expires in July. So we will undertake that examina- tion for Mr. Thomas. Secondly, one of the reasons why it’s structured with the amount that’s in there is beca use that’s how we collect t he money from royalties so that we have the proper amount of funds that we are in fact able to rebate to Albertans across the province. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: given that as a result of this government’s energy deregulation consumers in this province have seen nothing but their utility bills skyrocket, can the mini ster plea se expla in who benef its econom ically fr om energy deregulation? Mr. Smith: I would strongly like to see proof that Mr. Thomas wrote the

preamble for the last question. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the benefits economically are many, and they’re to all Albertans. In fact, they accrue from i nvestment; th ey a ccrue in the small business sector. Now, maybe the Minister of Economic Development could better outline what happens to the small business sector. 2:20 Mr. Norris: Recognizing the time constraints, Mr. Speaker, I’ll be brief on this, but, yes, I would like to say at the outset that businesses in Alberta are facing c hallenges of a number of diff erent natures: insurance costs, high prices of labour, and things of that nature.

But the facts of the ma tter are t hat Al berta is a remarkable place and continues to be the bes t place in the nation f or all of t he various economic indicators, and I’ll just a list a few of them that are facts. They’re not ficti on. As f ar as ca pital inve stment, the highes t in Canada for the last five years. As far as GDP growth, the highest in Canada for the las t five years. As f ar as net in-migration into the province, the highest in Canada. Net interprovincial migration, the highest in Canada. On and on it goes. You can fe el it in the economy. It’s growing. I t continues t o grow.

As I said two years ago, electrical deregulation and prices are one part of the equation. The Alberta advantage is a major, major advantage in low, broad-based taxes, a government that works and respects business, a government that understands that business drives the economy. It is w orking, Mr. Speaker, because our e conomy continues to grow and does not f alter even though the re are these challenges. Alberta businesses are the best in the world. The Speaker: Hon. Minister of Learning, you want t o rise at the conclusion of question period on a point of order? Dr. Oberg: That’s right. The Speaker: Okay.

The a ppropriate procedure is to do it at the time. I need to know what exchange there was with other members. Dr. Oberg: Edmonton-Mill Woods. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Okay. The hon. Member for Cal gary-Shaw, f ollowed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Graduated Drivers’ Licences Mrs. Ady : Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. As the May 20 deadlin e approaches fo r th e new graduated licence program, I’ve been receiving many questions from 15- and 16-year-old constituents as well as their parents.

My understanding is that there will be three stages to this program: the learner, the probationary driver, and the fully licensed driver. My questions are for the Minister of Transpor- tation. The confusion seems to su rround the curf ew. Ca n the minister tell me at what stage there will be a curfew for drivers that says that they cannot drive between midnight and 5 a.m.? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Alberta the curfew will only apply to the learner stage. So regardless of age, if it’s an inexperienced driver filin g for a driver’s licence, th ey will go through a learner stage.

It’s during the learner stage only that is from the midnight to 5 a.m. In the second stage, the probationary stage, there is no curfew. The Speaker: The hon. member.

646 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 Mrs. Ady: Thank yo u. My f irst supplemental goes again t o the Minister of Tra nsportation. I f you w ere to re ceive your learner’s permit before May 20, you could go and get a probationary licence almost immediately. After May 20 how long before you can receive a probationary licence? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, again, depending on age. If you were over 16 year s old and you e ntered into the process i n terms of applying for a licence, you would go through the learner stage and then, of course, proceed into the probationary.

All of those individu- als that have their lea rner’s permit at this particular time will go through the regular process, including at the end of the probationary period an exit exam. Mrs. Ady: My final supplemental again to th e same m inister: for clarification does this mean that my constituents will now be taking two road tests and paying for it twice? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, clearly, evidence ac ross th is country shows that new drivers are tw ice as l ikely to be inv olved in an accident as experienced drivers, and given the huge cost to society – I believe the Alberta Motor Association has pegged it at about $3.8 billion to this province on an annua l basis – w e are as a resul t of some good work done by many members here, in fact the Member for Red Deer-South, introducing the graduat ed driver’s licence for that very specific purpose, and that is to save lives. There will be two exams.

There will be the actual exam for the probationary licence at the completion of the probationary period. Again, it has to be suspension f ree for the last 12 months of th e period. Then they will write what is called the exit ex am. We are just developing and designing the exit exam at this particular time, consulting with all stakeholders, looking at the experiences of exit exams in other provinces like British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Mr.

Speaker, I’m looking forward to the day that we can reduce the number of incidents in this prov ince similar to the history in B.C. and Nova Scotia, which is about 30 percent. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Canada/U.S. Relations Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. Ther e are com pelling economic and security reasons for Canada and the United States to ensure that the Canada/U.S. border remains open for trade, tourism, and investment but becomes less vulnerable to disr uption by terrorists and other threats.

My questions today are to the Minister of Intern ational and Inte rgovernmental Rel ations. W hat is this minister doing to ensur e that this province, this c ountry, and the States are developing long-term policy on security and immigration where there would be broad agreement between all parties? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Jonson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would just like to note that immigration is a federal responsibility.

However, it is very important to our cultura l and econom ic fabri c here in t he province, and it is something that we are certainly giving priority to and keeping an eye on with respect to recent developments. Now, with regard to b order security I can say that officials from my mini stry rece ntly m et with representatives from the f ederal department of F oreign A ffairs and Interna tional Tra de. Albe rta made it very clear to the federal government that keeping border disruptions to a minimum is our highest priority, and we expect the federal government to do all it can to ensure that that happens.

Also, we very c learly told f ederal officials that continue d co-operati on between the U.S. and Cana da is essential to ensure the free move- ment of goods and products between our two countries. Alberta continues to insist on more co-operation from the federal government on priority issues like border security and infrastructure security and continental defence and bilateral trade.

Ottawa assured us at this recent meeting that the smart border accord with the U.S. is minimizing border delays, an d t hat accor d is an ag reement between the United States and Canada to ensure potential border disruptions do not jeopardize the health of our economies. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, what is this minister doing to ensure that border restrictions are functional and don’t necessarily harass people who need to cross the borders frequently? Mr. Jonson : Mr. Speaker, we would certainly share the h on. member’s concerns because that is a very critical matter that needs to be addressed.

I can say that the people who developed Alberta’s counterterrorism crisis management plan worked very closely with the RCMP, CSIS, and the Department of National Defence. Those organizations are in cl ose contac t with the FBI and H omeland Security in the United States as is our fe deral government and the American government. Alberta is making its counterterrorism crisis management plan available to other provinces, and we are working in that regard. Overall, Mr. S peaker, we feel t hat t he fed eral go vernment i s making a major effort.

They are putting resources into working with the province of Ontario, in particular, where t here are border crossing challenges and difficulties, and we are also monitoring the situation with respect to our access to the U nited States, basically through, for the most part, Montana, to make sure that every effort is being made to keep the trade, the trucks, the vehicles moving, the tourists moving, the immigration matter being kept up t o date and moving smoothly. Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell us what he’s doing at this tim e to discuss w ith businesse s how they are going to facilitate their business transfers across the borders during this next crucial time period? Mr. Jonson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s my understanding that this is an issue our federal government has been working on closely with the United States through the smart border accord, and Alberta certainly supports any efforts that are being made in that regard to ensure, as I’ve said, the free movement of goods and people across our border with the United States.

However, we have to acknowledge that we are living in some very troubled times with some iss ues in this particular area be ing very touchy, so to speak, and they have to be dealt with very carefully. The Alber ta government does recognize the right of the United States to take appropriate steps to ensure their border security, and the Alberta government will continue to m onitor the sit uation to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible in the passage of people and goods between the United States and Canada. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Learning to supplement? Dr. Oberg: Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the minister responsi- ble for immigration in this g overnment I would bring to the hon. member’s attention that I will be meeting with my federal counter- part tomorrow morning to discuss some of these very issues.

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 647 Mr. Mason: Maybe he’s also the defence minister, Mr. Speaker. Energy Rebates Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, Albertans are receiving their natural gas bills this we ek, and the ir react ion is probably unprintable a nd unparliamentary. Most Alb ertans paid m ore for na tural gas this winter than ever before. For example, one Edmonton homeowner had bills this winter of over $748 for a three-month period, higher than he wo uld have pai d in the year 20 01 without re bates. My questions are to the Minister of Energy.

Why won’t the minister just admit that the only reaso n homeowners received rebates in 2001, when bills were even lower than today, was because an election was just on the horizon? An Hon. Member: Patently untrue. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a comment on the bench here is that it’s patently untrue, and it is patently untrue. In fact, if I remember correctly that tu rbulent time of the ye ar 2000, there was also an Alberta dividend paid to all Al bertans in t he precedi ng perio d, November-December, that was two times $150.

This was the first experience that this g overnment had with a spir aling gas cost, the commodity price its elf. They responded, and they responded appropriately. It occurred at a time when other events were taking place as well, but the government certainly responded. Afterward, Mr. Speaker, we were asked to put a program in place. We have put a program in place. We’ve maintained our belief in market forces, but we have not lost our compassion, our compassion for seniors, our compassion for those who do need the assistance.

Those programs have be en put in plac e this y ear, and t hey have benefited people in their time of need. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the Assembly if the cost of giving consumers a $1 billion rebate program in 2001 has been declared as an election expense by the Conservative Party? The Speaker: The hon. member, third question. Mr. M ason: Thank y ou very much. W ell, since the mini ster chooses not to answer that question, Mr. Speaker . . . The Speaker: Please, please. Party matters are n ot part of the question period routine.

Hon. member, it wasn’t a question of the minister not answering the question. The minister could not answer the question. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would li ke to know from this government whether or not they are willing to repay the Alberta treasury the $1 billion in election payoffs t hat t hey offered before the last ele ction since it clear ly w asn’t a re bate program. They don’t have one now. The Speaker: Hon. members, the time for question period has now elapsed.

Let me just indicate that on Monday of this week the House dealt with 15 sets of questions; on Tuesday, 15 sets of questions; on Wednesday, 14 sets of q uestions; and today, 11 sets of questions. So, all in all, pretty good.

We could’ve had a few more today; that would’ve been good. head : Statement by the Speaker Fourteenth Anniversary of Election The Speaker: I would also like to point out before we call on the first member for Me mbers’ S tatements th at 1 4 year s ago tod ay, March 20, 1989, the fol lowing m embers earned the ir right to participate in this House: first of all, the hon. the Premier, the MLA for Calgary-Bow; the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Af fairs and Northern Development, the Member for Lesser Slave Lake; the hon. Minister of Sustai nable Resource Development and the MLA for Athabasca-Wabasca; the hon.

Minister of Inf rastructure and the MLA for Rocky Mountain House; the hon. Minister of Finance and MLA for Calg ary-Foothills; the hon. Ministe r of Senior s and the MLA for Stony Plain; and the hon. Deputy Speaker and the MLA for Highwood. head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Water Strategy Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pause for a moment if you will and think about where our province would be if it were not for our water resources.

Farming and ranching in our province would be dead, the forest industry closed down, power generation would be crippled, and o ur no w vibra nt ci ties wo uld be em ptied of the ir people. Life in this province, in all provinces, depends on water. For too long this government has taken Alberta’s w ater resources f or granted. Water has been an issue in this province for more than one decade, and what does this government have to show? No strategy, no management plan, no conser vation plan. Nothing. A nd what does the Minister of Environment tell us? He says that there has not been enough time.

He says that this government needs more than a decade to produce a water strategy for this province. In fact, when I questioned the minister in this House, he wouldn’t even commit to have the water policy by next year. Meanwhile, Albertans struggle with their water shortage problems, living with stopgap me asures from their government. At the same time, the Official Opposition has presented numerous plans and solutions to address Alberta’s water crisis.

The opposition has repeate dly pres sed for a water resource inventory , univ ersal metering, a clean water st rategy alliance, and water co nservation incentives. Our solutions would ensure that Albertans have a plentiful supply of clean w ater now an d into the fut ure. Our solutions would also ensure that Alberta’s ecosystems are treated in a manner that promotes sustainability and conservation. Despite all of our sug gestions this government has dragged its heels on a me aningful water policy for the last 10 year s and ha s instead relied on stopgap measures.

Finally, after much prompting, the Minister of Environment promised to show Albertans at the end of this month a draft of a provincial water strategy. We have waited for more than a decade. It had better be a good one. Thank you. Dr. Taylor: Your plan w asn’t very good, Kevin. T here are only seven of you. Mr. Bonner: Without interruption? The Speaker: Was that the cat calling the kettle black? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry without any interruptions? Rather aggressive this week. I think it has som ething to do w ith the full moon. The hon. Member for Calgary-Montrose.

648 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mr. Pham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize the International Day for the Elimination of Raci al Di scrimination, March 21. The United Nations first recognized this day in 1966 and desig- nated it in me mory of the a ntiapartheid demonstr ators kil led or injured in Sharpeville, South Africa, in 1960. Canada was one of the first countries t o support this U nited Nations dec laration, a nd it began recognizing the day on a national basis in 1989.

Recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is partic ularly important this year considering the international terrorist crisis around the globe and the major conflict in the Middle East. Social harmony and peace are important and are only poss ible if we find wa ys to understand, value, and respect people of all races, religions, and ethnicity. We are fortunate in Canada to have people with a wide variety of skills and experience who contribute to our communities and to have a rich mos aic of c ultures w oven in to th e strong f abric of our province and our nation.

Let us celebrate the uniqueness of each individual and culture. Let us embrac e a visi on of Alberta where everyone has access to social, economic, and cultural opportunities on a fair and equal basis regardless of cultural or visible differences. We c an, by w orking tog ether, cr eate an A lberta f ree of r acial discrimination. As chair of the Adv isory C ommittee on the H uman Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund, I ask you join the community and the committee in working toward this goal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. Dave Irwin Mrs.

Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. To day I w ould like to recognize a cons tituent an d frien d, Mr . Dave I rwin, one- time Olympian, an original Crazy Canuck, and a member of the Canadian downhill ski team from 1971 to 1982. Dave rece ntly organized and took

part in the Dash for Cash downhill race at Sunshine Village on the same mountain that nearly killed him two years ago. Most of us will remember the terrible ski accident where Dave suffered severe head injuries and was hospital- ized for three months, inj uries that many peopl e wou ld not h ave survived. Not only do some consider it a miracle that Dave was skiing at this event, but it is even more incredible that he had one of the fastest times as a forerunner.

The Dash for Cash was the f irst major fund-raiser for the D ave Irwin Brain Injury Foundation and will become an important and I’m sure very popular annual event. On March 8 of this year, 22 teams of four a nd o ver 40 volu nteers brav ed frigid we ather and raised nearly $50,000, money that wil l be pu t in an endowment fund to support research, awareness and prevention programs, and aid f or those living with brain injury. Dave’s positive attitude and determination have contributed to his remarkable near-full recovery, and he truly is an inspiration to all of us.

As a brain injury survivor, Dave is now using his talent and skill to help others and is working to remove the social stigma against people with brain injuries. Please join me in congratulating Dave on the success of his fund- raiser and in wis hing him a ll the be st on his conti nuous road to recovery. On behalf of Albertans, thank you, Dave, for your major contributions to the people of this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. 2:40 Iraq Conflict Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is a tragic day in the history of our shared humanity.

It is the day that the leaders of the world’s most powerful nation, the United States, chose to commit

an act of un provoked aggression against a much sm aller and less powerful nation. In the aftermath of the Second World War the United Nations was established to prevent unpro voked aggression. The UN Charter specifically prohibits pow erful nat ions from launching wars of aggression against less powerful nations. The war against Iraq sets a very dangerous precedent. Af ter regime cha nge in Ira q, who is next? North Korea? Iran? Venezuela? Canada? The doctrine of pre-emption can be invoked by countries other than the United States against their less powerful neighbours.

It will lea d to gre ater proliferation of weapons of mas s destruction as smaller countries arm themselves to better repel aggression. It will not make the world safer but rather much more dangerous. Not only is the war against Iraq destabilizing; it is also unneces- sary. Since last N ovember weapons inspectors have bee n on the ground in Iraq w orking unimpeded. Al l of the U .S. a nd Bri tish intelligence leads claiming that Iraq was hiding illegal weapons were in the words of one of the inspectors: garbage, gar bage, an d more garbage.

The Canadian peace movement deserves a tremendous amount of credit for moving the federal government to opt out of the Bush/Blair war of aggression against Iraq. So does the federal NDP under the leadership of Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton, who have been saying since last fall that this war is illegal and wrong. When the Premier ties himself up in knots pledging solidarity with the most retrograde elements of the Bush administration, he does a disservice to Albertans. In doing so, the Premier does not speak for millions of Albe rtans who deplore this wa r of ag gression.

The Premier claims to be protecting Alberta’s interest in speaking out. By invading Iraq, the U.S. is seeking to re-establish control over the world’s oil reserves. Counteracting OPEC to push oil prices down has been a cornerstone o f American policy for decades. Low oil prices in the long term mean less exploration, less oil sands invest- ment, and lower royalty revenues for the government. It means . . . [Mr. Mason’s speaking time expired] head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition to the Assembly, please, and it is signed by 25 people from across the province, a nd they’r e petitioning the government here. We, the undersigned residen ts of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the provincial government to establish a provin- cially subsidized monthly transit pass progr am for lo w income Albertans that would apply to all municipalities with a public transit system. Thank you. head : Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Deputy Government House Leader I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday he will move that written questions

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 649 appearing on the Order Paper do stand and re tain their places and also to give notice that on Monday he will move that motio ns for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand a nd re tain their places. head : Intro duc tion o f Bills The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Bill 32 Income and Employment Supports Act Mr. Dunford: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 32, the Income and Employment Supports Act.

This bill will bring different programs together under one piece of legislation and make the processes for delivering them clearer and fairer. It ref lects the recommendations of the ML A committee to review low-income programs and of course the advice of thousands of Albertan s. The y cal l for incom e supports a nd employ ment supports to be brought together so that we can shift the focus from programs to people. [Motion carried; Bill 32 read a first time] head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a number of tablings today . This ta bling is on be half of the Mem ber for Edmonton-Strathcona. It’s a review of the Old Scona academic high school’s finances, showing concerns about the anticipated funding shortfall. I’d like to table an e-mail from someone from Spruce Grove to the minister, and it say s: “That giant hiss ing sound is the sound of money being sucked out of Albertans’ pockets.” Mr.

Speaker, this is an e-mail from a Morinvill e senior, and he says that larg e gas li nes “to ex port our nat ural gas out of this country . . . is good for Alberta’s economy but I don’t think it should be done at the expense of seniors and low income” Albertans. Mr. Speaker , I’m ta bling a pow er bill f rom A rdrossan w ith a comment from the citizen t hat the cos t has near ly doubled due to deregulation. Another power bill from Morinville, Mr. Speaker. This one says: “This is ridiculous, 4 times what it should be.

We are going to move to another province before we have to lose our house.” This is an e-mail from a constituent of mine, Mr. Speaker, and it says: “I believe the government has to do something to lowe r the costs of rising energy costs . . . Something [has] to be done.” Mr. Speaker, this is a p ower bill from Edmonton w ith the comment, “Thank you for speaking on our behalf to what seems like a deaf ear.” This is an e-mail to my office, Mr. Speaker. It says: I would love to come up with energy s aving devices and put them in place, but with prices steadily rising, I can’t afford to buy any of the items. Mr.

Speaker, this is an e-mail from a single person who is paying one-third of the cost of her mortgage on her utilities. Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling today a letter to Minister Woloshyn . . . The Speaker: Hon. member, please, pleas e, p lease. You know about the thing about the names. I must have said it six times this week. Mr. Mason: I apologize: to the Minister of Seniors. I quote in part from seniors voicing their displeasure with regard to the deregulation of utilities: “It has been a fiasco.” Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling a l etter and some utility bills from St.

Albert, and the citizen comments, “It is virtually impossible for our usage to double fr om one y ear to the next,” yet the cha rges ar e double. Mr. Speaker, this is an e-mail from one of my constituents . I’m quoting, but I won’t quote the name. I’ll just say that he says that the Premier “should wake up and realize . . . that all people are not in his income bracket.” Mr. Speaker, this is a letter I’m tabling from a stay-at-home mom. She says, “When are we going to see the beneficial prices we were told were coming?” Mr. Speaker, this is a letter from 102 residents at River Ridge on fixed incomes.

They indicate that an increase in condo fees has resulted from high utility costs. Mr. Speaker, this is a letter from som e citizens in Edm onton regarding their ATCO bill. It says in block letters: “We are . . . outraged.” “Thank you so much.” An e-mail from a constituent. This citizen uses $40 worth of power and is paying over $100 worth of service charges. Mr. Speaker, this is a letter and some bills from Daysland, and I quote from the citizens: “Our natural gas bills and power bills are outrageous . . . Mr. Prem ier, we are sitt ing here f reezing in the dark.” Mr.

Speaker, I’m tabling a letter and some utility bills from Red Deer, and the cit izen indicates, “I may lose my house as I c annot keep up.” This is a bi ll wit h some wr itten comm ents from St. Alber t indicating, “We do not keep any lights on.” This is an e-m ail I am tabling f rom a citizen, Mr. Speaker, and they indicate: do I need to tur n off the thermostat and f reeze t he pipes in the house? Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling a bill from Edmonton with a note from the citizen: there has to be some help. This bill I’m tabling next, Mr. Speaker, is from Whitecourt. The citizen indicates: my cost per month has doubled.

These are some bills that I’m tabling from a constituent of mine, Mr. Speaker. The comment: there have been more power outages in the rural are as since privatization, and the response time is much longer, approximately six to eight hours. I’m tabling a bill from Battle River. The citizen comments: the add-ons are disturbing figures. I’m tabling a bill from a citizen in St. Albert who says: thank you for bringing this to Premier Klein’s attention. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:50 The Speaker: Please. This is a real problem for me.

It is now the seventh time, the seco nd time in the last 10 minutes , that y ou mention names. Well, there seems to be a wall here with respect to this. Maybe we ca n come ba ck for tablings with you nex t Monday; okay? We’ll recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this aft ernoon. The first is a com mentary fr om the C.D. Howe Institute, and it is entitled California Shorts a Circ uit. It is about the electricity deregulation there. The second tabling I have is on behalf of a constituent. It’s a letter addressed to the hon.

Prem ier, and it i s from Laura Webster. Ms

650 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 Webster is expressing her concern about funding cutbacks and what they’re doing to her local school in Kenilworth. The third tabling I have is also addressed to our hon. Premier and dated February 25. It is from Kevin Whitton, the chair of the school council at K enilworth junior high. Mr. W hitton is ex pressing concern about next year’s budget for the school as a result of this government’s policies. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speake r. I ha ve four tablings today , all having to do with e ducation.

T he fir st is fr om Karen Ferrari, a constituent of mine who attended the public gallery on Mar ch 19 . She’s expressing her grave concerns over education funding and also asks for an apology for the comments and groans by the Premier and government MLAs. The second tabl ing is a l etter to the Minister of Comm unity Development from Melanie Shapiro. Among other things, she says, “Parents are all asking why the Government cannot fund education as a priority.” The third tabling is from Jenn Hoogewoonink to the Premier and the Minister of Learning.

Among many things, she says, “We cannot smother concerns of scarcity in educ ation when it directl y affects who we are or who we can possibly become.” The fourth tabling is from Linda Telgarsky, a copy of a letter to the Premier and the Minis ter of Learning. She says, a mong other things, “I am concerned about th e current si tuation regarding t he funding of public schools.” Thank you. The Speaker: Additional members? Additional tablings? head : Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess The Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

I w ould ask that the government now share with us what they expect to be the business of next week. Mr. Hancock: I expect that next week will be taken up with further debate, additional and comprehensive debate, on Bill 27, Bill 3, and Bill 19. To be more specif ic, on Monday , March 24, a t 9 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders I would expect that we might take up government motions 14 and 16 and the n proceed to Committee of the Whole on Bill 27 and Bill 3 and as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, March 25, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 27, Bill 3, and Bill 19, and as per the Order Paper. At 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 27, Bill 3, Bill 19, and Bill 30 and as per the Order Paper. Wednesday, March 26, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders for third r eading Bill 27, Bill 19, Bi ll 3 and as pe r the Order Paper. At 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 27, Bill 19, Bill 3 and as per the Order Paper.

Thursday, March 27, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 27, Bill 19, Bill 3 and as per the Order Paper. The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Learning. Point of Order Allegations against a Member Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today under Standing Order 23(h), which states, “makes a llegations against another member.” In the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods’

preamble he stated – and unfortunately I have not yet had the Blues – that there were $2 million in renovations spent in my office. As the hon. mem ber fully knows, this was money that was s pent in moving 470 of my staff from one building to another building, and that lease change saved the provincial government and the taxpayers of this province $3.4 million net. He has made a direct allegation against myself personally that I spent $2 million on renovations to my office. I stand corrected if t hat is not w hat is printe d in the Blues, but that is what I feel that he said. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it wasn’t in the

preamble. It was in my third question. What I actually said was: who found $2 million to renovate his offices. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods said: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speake r. Given that parents like Mrs. Beaudoin hold the government responsible, when will the minister who found $2 million to renovate his offices and $7 million for Calgary public find the $13 million needed to prevent these cuts in Edmonton public s chools? The hon. minister said: Mr.

Speaker, again with the Edmonton public audit as I’ve stated, maybe this member has got something in his ears a nd can’t hear, but we are already down approximately $4 million to $5 million, so it is not $13.5 million. The other comment that the member made: I would invite the hon. Minister of Infrastructure to comment on the $2 mi llion that was used to renovate the offices and the amount of money that that has saved my department.

There was no further intervention by any other minister. “When will the minister who foun d $2 m illion to renov ate his offices . . .” Well, it strikes me that this is a point of c larification. Ministerial responsibility involves the taking of respons ibility for everything under one’s portfolio, one’s department, and I suppose that in the most extreme

interpretation, when the member says, “who found $2 m illion to renovate his off ices,” he’s assuming that the minister must assume responsibility for all the offices in his depart- ment. Regardless of what it is, it was an opportunity for the minister to respond. Not the best words in the world – and maybe we’ve dealt with this as a point of clarification, with the House recognizing, as well, that sometimes we have to accept two contradictory views of the same situation – but a useful intervention for clarification.

We all know it was not the Minister of Learning that spent $2 million on, quote, his offices in the building.

I don’t believe that the Minister of Infrastructure, as a result of all its petitions from the Speaker over the last six years, would have e ven spent t hat much on the whole system. head : Statement by the Speaker Private Members’ Public Bills The Speaker: Hon. members, I’ve had a number of questions from hon. members with respect to the order of business on Monday, and I want to make the following statement in order to clarify as a result of a number of private mem bers c onsultin g with me in the last several days. It has to do with clarification to all members regarding

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 651 the sequence in which pri vate m embers’ bills w ill be cal led for debate this Monday, March 24. Standing Order 9(1) states that “all items standing on the Order Paper, [with the exception of] Government Bills and Orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence.” As all members are aware, Standing Order 8(5) provides that a private member’s bill must be called i n Comm ittee of the Whole within eig ht sitting da ys of receiving second reading and within four sitting day s afte r being reported by Committee of the Whole.

Sometimes these time lines will conflic t depending upon t he progress of various bills. In such cases the order o f precedence is determined by th e dat e and the time tha t th e Asse mbly o r th e Committee of the Whole has made its decisions in respect of the bills. Therefore, given that Bill 201 received third reading on March 10, it must be the first item of business called on Monday afternoon.

Committee of the Whole consideration of Bill 203 will then follow, and if time permits, the nex t item of business to be ca lled will be third reading of Bill 202. head : Orders of t he Day head : Government Motions Time Allocation on Bill 19 15. Mr. Hancock moved:

Be it resolved that when further consideration of Bill 19, Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, is resumed, not more than one hour shall be allotted to any further consideration of the bill at Co mmittee of the Wh ole, at w hich time every question necessary for the disposal of this stage of the bill shall be put forthwith. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In moving Govern- ment Motion 15, I would just advise the House that notwithstanding two news releases by the Official Opposition relative to the death of democracy as we know it, the fact of the matter is that 7.17 hours of debate have been undertaken on the Gas Utilities Statutes Amend- ment Act to date, including five hours in committee. As we’ve just heard under Projected Government Business, there are three bills on the Order Pap er for discu ssion next week at committee and t hird reading, of which Bill 19 is one .

So i n addition to the 7.17 hour s spent to date, there will be an additional hour in committee and then, of course, the full opportunity in third reading for any member to get on the record any concerns that they might have with respect to the bill. 3:00 In speaking to the ti me allocat ion motion, I would remind the House, as I had the opportunity to do thanks to the timely interjec- tion of the Leader of the Opposition a ffording me the opportunity, that time allocation is a parliamentary procedure that’s used in many parliaments around the world.

Not that we’d want to follow the lead, ever, of the f ederal Liberal government, it’s used on almost every bill, I think, in the federal House. It’s certainly used extensively in the federal House. But that’s not the way we use time allocation in this House. It’s a new procedure that’s used relatively rarely. In the year 2000 it was used five t imes. In the year 2000 ti me allocation was used five times. In the year 2001 it was not used at all. We do have three bills that need to be dealt with before the end of the month, one of them being the gas utilities bill.

So I’m moving Government Motion 15 today to deal with that. Lest anyone suggest that they haven’t had an opportunity to do line-by-line analysis in Committee of the Whole, I would indicate that the off icial Liberal opposition has spent 187 minutes, during which they int roduced not one a mendment. The New De mocrat opposition spent 68 min utes, a f ull hour and then s ome, and introduced not one amendment. Members of the o pposition have spoken a total of 22 times already on this bill.

So although it is a big bill and a complex bill and a very important bill, there has been no lack of opportunity for members of the opposition to let government know and let A lbertans know and let this House k now what their views are with respect to every aspect of the bill. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is not inappropriate I think at this time to ask the House to consider that although endless debat e is allo wed in committee and any member has th e opp ortunity to speak as many times as they want in committee under the rules of the House, once two members of the opposition have spoken four ti mes and two members have spoken three times and three members have spoken twice and two members have spoken once and all members have had the opportunity to speak, then to suggest that a further hour of debate in committee might get us through committee, sufficiently allowing the opp ortunity to int roduce any further ame ndments, or any amendments in t his case , be cause th ey haven’t introduced any amendments, and then w e’d move on to furt her debate in third reading – I’d ask the House to support the motion.

The Speaker: Hon. mem bers, Standing Order 21(3) a llows one member of the Official Op position to pa rticipate for up to five minutes. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar is the partici- pant? Ms Carlson: Yes. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, to say to the hon. Minister of Justice that I’m disappointed is to be in these circumstances polite. Not only do we have Motion 15, Motion 14, we have Motion 16. Now, when we talk about democracy, it always comes back to the words of the hon. Pre mier, Mr .

Spea ker, and t hose words were uttered in the election in 1997 in Fort McMurray: I believe in free speech as long a s you say the right thing. When we have this bill before the Assembly and to lear n that the g overnment is goi ng t o limit and restrict and close debate and to compare their record with the federal government – the federa l government has used closure eight times,

whereas this government, with our research, in the last 10 years has used closure at least 30 times. One time was with the electricity bill, going back to Bill 27 I believe in 1998. Closure was invoked on that bill, a nd since tha t bill had clos ure invoke d, electricity prices in this province have slowly been on a volatile rise. Now, were the consum ers of A lberta w ell serv ed by tha t act of closure? The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Highlands with the tablings earlier and the outrage that was expressed by Albertans over their electricity bills would indicate to this member: no.

Now, the Alberta retail natural gas market is currently in a stat e between a fully regulated utility operation and c ompetitive retail service. After the money that has been spent on energy deregulation in this province, the money that has been spent on the incre ase in natural gas prices and the bills, how can we say that over seven hours of debate or five hours of debate in committee is adequate? This is a complex pi ece of legisla tion.

When one comm ents that t he opposition has had the opportunity and they have not gone through this line by line, well, I have looked in Hansard, and those govern- ment members that have spoken certainly have not gone through the bill at committee stage line by line.

652 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 When we see double-digit price increases for natural gas in t his province, this closure motion indicat es to me jus t how fa r out of touch the government is with the consumers. Are not the consumers in the constituencies of Edmonton-Calder, Drayton Valley-Calmar, Redwater, Whitecour t-Ste. A nne, Calga ry-Shaw, C algary-Bow expressing their concern about natura l gas prices and how they’re affecting residential and commercial users in th is province? I’ve heard in the last few weeks in this Assembly concern from all sides of the House.

To think that we are going to have a bill that is going to amend the Gas Distribution Act, the Rural Utilities Act, and the Gas Utilities Act all in one sweep yet we are lining this bill up with another bill that’s going to h ave closure o n it, Bil l 3, so th at we can have convergence of the elect ricity and the natur al gas m arkets – this government wants to push it through the Assembly. The amendments were certainly on the web site, the draft amend- ments for this legislation.

I believe there were even draft regulations on Alberta Energy’s web site, but that is not part of the debate of this Legislative Assembly. After the final draft was placed before this Assembly, all hon. m embers should h ave h ad the opportunity to stand in this Assembly and debate the merits or the negative aspects of this bill, and this has not been provided . . . [Mr. MacDonald’s speaking time expired] [The voice vote indicated that Government Motion 15 carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:09 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abbott Haley McClelland Boutilier Hancock Rathgeber Broda Herard Renner Calahasen Hutton Snelgrove Cardinal Jonson Stelmach Coutts Klapstein Strang Danyluk Lord Tannas Forsyth Lougheed Tarchuk Friedel Mar Taylor Fritz Maskell VanderBurg Gordon Masyk Vandermeer Graydon McClellan Woloshyn Griffiths 3:20 Against the motion: Blakeman MacDonald Nicol Bonner Mason Taft Carlson Massey Totals: For – 37 Against – 8 [Government Motion 15 carried] head : Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. Bill 19 Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offer ed with re spect to thi s bi ll? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In the time allocated, which is certainly not enough time to debate this billion- dollar issue – this is going to be a billion-dollar bill for Albertans in the future – I would urge any members on the government side that wish to participate in the debate certainly to do so because Albertans will b e inter ested in re viewing this recor d if natura l gas bill s continue to be as confusing as electricity bills currently are. Now, when we talk about providing choice to citizens with natural gas delivery and that this choice is going to drive down costs, I have yet to be convinced of this.

When I go through the bill, I see many, many things th at need impro vement. Th ere are many way s to improve this bil l, but st ill I don ’t think we can improve it en ough that it is going be a positive influence on Alberta consumers and is going to drive dow n prices in this provinc e. It has y et to be explained to me ho w giving consumers m ore choice in signin g a contract, whether it’s for three or five years or even for one year or floating through on this natural gas spot price to receive natural gas for resident ial heatin g, is going to improve the lot of Albertans.

With Bill 3, the sister of Bill 19, we have quite an extensive time for a market surveillance administrator. One only has to look at, of all things, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta’s policy convention booklet from 2002. This was a policy convention that took place November 15 and 16 at the Coast Plaza Hotel and conference centre. Mr. Rathgeber: Were you there? Mr. MacDonald: No, I was not there, but certainly I was delighted to receive a copy of the policy conference workbook.

In that workbook it’s surprising how many good policies of this Conservative Party don’t make it to this Legislative Assembly floor. This is one of them, and I think it’s yet another example of imitation being a fine form of flattery. First, we see the s tabilization fund being adopted. This is an opportunity for the government to take a fairly sound policy from the policy convention, and if we’re going to take a bad law and make it a little better, well, let’s do this. In discussions there there was an effort made to establish a special watchdog committee to monitor. To monitor.

Now, there are many Conservatives that are very good a t mo nitoring the situation, and here is another example where the Conservatives want to monitor, but this committee shou ld monitor t he rural util ity systems. The committee should h ave on it the Minist er of Ene rgy, municipally elected representatives, and energ y and indus try participants a nd clients. The c lients would include the consumers, Mr. Chairman. This idea would be called price protection for rural utility systems. What a great idea to have price protection for natural gas consumers.

I was going through this legislation and going through Bill 3, and there was such a deal in Bill 3 made over the m arket surveillance administrator, but in Bill 19, the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, that was to my surprise not there. So a t this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the Assembly – and it’s in order from the Parliamentary Counsel – an amendment to the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act. I’m going to get one of the pages, please, to take this to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

For the record I believe we will call this amendment A1, and as it’s been circulated to all hon. members of this Assembly, I will read

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 653 the proposed amendment into the record: the hon. member to move that Bill 19 be amended in

section 2(2) by adding the following after the proposed

section 28.8: Market Surveillance Administrator 28.9

(1) The Minister of Energy must appoint an individual to serve as the Market Surveillance Admini strator who shall monitor and investigate the supply, distribution, and sale of natural gas from the distributor to the consumer.

(2) The Mar ket Surveillance A dministrator s hall r eport to the Minister of Energy on matters in subsection (1) annually. Now, I think this amendment A1 is reasonable, and I’m not going to in the short time allowed . . . It’s reasonable because it’s going to provide the same sort o f protection that electricity consumers can get. I don’t know what to say other than to urge the hon. members of the governmen t – certainly, they m ust be aware of the price protection for rural utility syst ems, which was dis cussed at the convention last N ovember, and it’s certainly an issue t hat I have brought forward.

I have had correspondence with the hon. Minister of Gover nment Se rvices, and I real ly w asn’t satisfied w ith the response and the speed of the response f rom the department, but I think that it is ver y, very important. I ha ve to say that I’m disap- pointed that we ’re going to have thi s so -called flow-through rate, and we’re going to have these wild swings in prices. 3:30 In conclusion in regar d to ame ndment A 1, I would urg e all members to consider that the EUB at one tim e thought that the Natural Gas Pric e Prot ection A ct would a llow som e form of consumer protection.

N ow, if one looks at decision 2001-75, one can see where the board thought that the Natural Gas Price Protec- tion Act would work in that manner, and when the board considers that given the provisions of the Natur al Ga s Price Protection Act some customers such as AltaGas would be sufficiently protected, the board thought that, well, if the Natural Gas P rice Protection Act is that good, then there’s no need to consider the hedging provisions that AltaGas had proposed to be necessary to soften up some of the price spikes for consumers.

Now, I’m sure there’ s go ing to be an hon. me mber of this Assembly standing up to say: we don’t need the market surveillance administrator. There will be an hon. member from the government standing up to say: we don’t need this because the board is going to take care of everything. Well, the board in that decision thought that the Natural Gas Price Protection Act was going to do the job, and we all know that that act . . . Mr. Mason: It’s useless. Mr. MacDonald: I don’t know when it’s going to work.

I heard a comment that it was useless, but I don’t know when that Natural Gas Price Protection Act is ever going to kick in, and consumers across this province, to say the least, are resentful. T hey consider that Natural Gas Price Protection Act to be a broken promise. However, in regard to Bill 19 and the proposal that we have a market surveil- lance administrator, I would like all hon. members to consider this, and whe n y ou consider the manipulation of price that has been alleged at the Power Pool – it has been proven on two occasions, but no names have been released to the pu blic, which disappoints me, Mr.

Chairman – and when we see all these marketers coming in to supply retail service to custo mers for natural gas, the m arket surveillance administrator is ne eded. It c ertainly is needed, and I would urge all members of t his Assembly to support this amend- ment, and this is the first of many amendments that I have in regard to this bill. Now, when we consider this, Mr. Chairman, we have to think of what’s best for natural gas consumers in this provinc e. They will need a market surveillance administrator to ensure that their interests in what is, in my view, flawed legislation have to be protected by someone.

Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend from Edmonton-Gold Bar i ssued an inv itation for mem bers of t he government or members opposite to him to participate in this debate and to speak specifically to the amendment that is before us. I’m glad that I was admonished to speak specifically to the amendment that is before us because it may have bee n a ‘cirtic uous’ . . . a roundabout route for me to get from it and to it. An Hon. Member: Circuitous. Mr. McClel land: Yes.

You se e, I can’t even ge t the word out because I have so much difficulty with this amendment. Now, the amendment of course speaks to the act that’s before the House, the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This act was brought to the House to f acilitate, as me mbers ha ve said, competition in the marketplace. So what is this competition going to do, and why should we think that this competition is g oing to change anything? Why should we have any particular confidence in the capacity of the free market in essentially a deregulated gas energy market to provide value? I think that we should, Mr.

Chairman, and we should . . . [interjection] Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you. I wasn’t sure quite what the hand signal was, Mr. Chairman, and I was a little nervous because I know it’s been a while since I got to the amend- ment. An Hon. Member: I’ll give you a hand signal you can understand. Mr. McClelland: The member opposite suggests that he has a hand signal that I could understand very readily, and I’m sure that I could. Thumbs up would be the signal that I’m on the right track.

Well, the legislation that the amen dment speaks to is legislation that brings competition to the marketplace, and that competition in the marketplace may provide innovation, which will in fact provide better value to the customers being served, and that’s really what we have to look to. T he commodity of natur al gas has a finite value.

We’ve all discussed this in the Chamber in the many hours of debate that this bill has been before the House, the endless debate, and we have come to understand that natural gas has a value, and we have come to under stand that our pl anet is be st served if nat ural gas is used with a mind to the fini te limit of that r esource and its actua l value. If we use our resources based upon what their real value is, well, innovation comes into play, conservation, that I know members opposite, the Liber als and the New D emocrats, would surel y feel comfort with, and the efficient use of the resource.

Imagine, had we not considered a finite r esource based upon its value to society , would w e was te or would we not waste that resource if we had it for no thing? We’r e driven be cause w e’re human beings to make more efficient use based upon the price that we pay f or a com modity. So alt hough the prices h ave been high relative to what we used to pay for it, the price relative to its value to our economy and to the North American economy is not particu- larly high and is forcing us to in novate and to use the resource wisely. Now, over the course of recent months the price has been high. It’s spiked up.

But it’s spiked up in recent months because of world

654 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 geopolitical events, because we had a col d winter. But I woul d remind members opposite in the House and t hose listening that natural gas was at a three-year low this summer and that the price of natural gas is falling li ke a stone.

I he ard that on the radio this morning, that the price of natural gas is going down because it is a commodity that has a value that does go up a nd down, and tha t’s why many of us hav e determined that it’s in our in terests to have predictability to buy a contract so that we know what we’ll be paying for our natural gas energy from month to month for a period of years, similar to, perh aps, getting a long-te rm mortgage when we b uy a house. 3:40 Yes, it has caused us to have to change how we think of natural gas as a commodity and, yes, it has been difficult for many people in the transition, and yes, it has been particularly difficult for people in a situation of low or fixed income without the capacity within their budgets to move resources around.

Having heard that very valid concern, the government made the very appropriate and correct decision to do w hat was necessary to prote ct those in ne ed, and certainly it would’ve been nice to b e able to protect those in want, but that’s just not a true reflection of life. We as individual citizens and as a government responsible for the fiduciary responsibility to be careful custodians, to be careful of what we do with the public purse and taxpayers’ money and the resources t hat belong to everyone, have to make the tough decisions.

I know that it’s opposition’s role to say that everything we do is wrong and that w e should do thi s and we s hould do that because that’s the role of opposition, but I k now the opposi tion members here present, be ing good and reasonable people, understand that behind the rhetoric, were the positions reversed, they would do the same thing because it makes sense. I see a member opposite gasping because finally someone said w hat was in thei r hear t, and they couldn’t say it.

So let’s just look at what has been achieved as a direct result of a free enterprise approach to energy, and keep in mind that natural gas generates much of the electricity that we use, and therefore the cost of electricity is affected by the cost of natural gas. Mr. MacDonald: Are we going to put this in your brochure in the next election? Mr. McClelland: Yes. The member opposite says, “Are we going to put this in your brochure in the next elec tion?” I hope and pray that the Liberals do because Albertans understand the innate sense of the words that I’m speaking.

Albertans are not people that can’t see beyond the surface. That’s why there are 74 of us in thi s House even as we speak : because Albertans understand and appreciate the free market and have faith and confidence in the free market. We have 700 years of coal in our province. Rev. Abbott: Eight hundred. Mr. McClelland: “Eight hundred,” I hear a member say. But we don’t have very much hydroelectric energy. Other provinces have a vast hydroelectric potential and resource, very inexpensi ve to produce, very clean, and we need to compete with those provinces for our economy.

We need to get to a clean coal, perhaps a gasifica- tion economy based on that 800-year, perhaps even more, inventory of coal potential. I see the Member for Edmonton-Riverview is resting his head on his desk. H opefully these w ords are not putting him to sleep. Hopefully these words are encouraging the mem ber to a more free enterprise and a more confident vision of the future. What we need is to ev olve to an e conomy that’s bas ed on hydrogen, on research and development. We need to evolve to an economy that makes better use of green power.

The deregulation of the energy industry, including natural gas, has led direct ly to the capacity of the government of Alberta to be a leader in the country in the use of green power. Now, had we not embraced – and when I say we, I say Albertans, not just the government as represented by people in this Cham ber tod ay, but we as A lbertans, Albertans as individual citizens and Alber tans as bus iness ow ners, larg e and small.

Had we not the confidence to embrace the free market system, it would not have been possible for others to come into the market to bring their resources, their innovations, their skills, their commit- ment. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar is rising on a point of order. Point of Order Relevance Mr. MacDon ald: Yes, plea se. Beauchesne 459(1), relevance. Amendment A1 was specific to the market surveillance administra- tor, nothing to do with coal generation. Mr. McClellan d: Mr.

Chair, I ’ll save the chair the difficulty of having to go through various references to cross-check the reference of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, and I sta nd suitably admonished for straying from the amendment, which had to do with the market administrator and the amendment here. Debate Continued Mr. McClelland: Now, it’s clear, my friends, that were a ma rket administrator as devised by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar to be a part of this debate, that very individual would say: “Right on.

What you’re saying is absolutely correct and should have been said long ago.” He or she, the market administrator, would probably say: I cannot understand the reluctance of the Liberals and the New Democrats to embrace legislation which would provide for a more competitive market, whic h would provi de for inno vation, which would provide for the use of green power, which would ensure that the future c itizens – our children, our g randchildren, and their grandchildren – would have energy supplies at the flick of a switch, unlike other jurisdictions in our country and in the world who on the flick of the switch get disappointment because of y et another brownout, because there has not been the innovation or the invest- ment in the energy sector, who when they open the mail and get their tax bill have disappointment because they know that they are going to be payi ng the pric e for public investment and inve stment and investment and lower power bills because they’re pay ing higher taxes to offset the public investment in generation of power.

So, my friends, we have a bill before us which provides for the citizens of Albe rta to hav e a ma rket-driven energy industry using natural gas, evolving into coal hopefully, hydrogen, using green energy, using wind power, and the generation of energy from waste materials, technology that the world will come knocking at our door to purchase, providing j obs and a f uture for every Albertan, every child, every grandchild, and the th ousands o f people that move to our province every year for just those opportunities.

So I thank the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar for inviting this member, this Mem ber for Edm onton-Rutherford, to partic ipate in this debate and try once again t o put th e oppos ition o n the righ t course.

March 20, 2003 Alberta Hansard 655 The Chair: The next speaker is Edmonton-Highlands, followed by Wainwright, followed by Ed monton-Riverview, followe d by Vermilion-Lloydminster. 3:50 Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairm an. Well , I’ll be glad to share t he time with hon. members who wish to speak, so I will be relatively brief.

However, you know, I must say in passing that once we have only an hour to go on the debate for the entire bill as well as any amendments and so on, it is interesting that members of the government are quite a bit more willing to jump up and speak for extended periods of time, and it leaves me wishing that we could in some way impose closure within the hour. Just for the record, that was a joke – that was a joke – and it better not appear i n any Tory pamphlets in the next election. The ho n.

Member for Edm onton-Rutherford talks a bout the advantages that are brought about as a result of the government bill, one of them being about how high gas prices bring innovation and make the best use and encourage conservation. But if we come to how the high prices have been arrived at, I think it tells a different story, Mr. Chairman. The primary reason for high prices for natural gas ri ght n ow is tha t enormous quantities of this g as are be ing exported to the United States for them to use and for them to use to create jobs in their economy at our ex pense. So thi s is ha rdly conservation.

It’s conservation by wholesale export of a diminishing and valuable natural resource. I just needed to say that. Mr. Chairman, I just wa nt to indicate that I reg retfully cannot support the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar’s amendment to add a market surveillance administrator to the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. I know that this is a provision that’s included in the electricity act that we’re also debating, Bill 3, but this implies acceptance of the government’s approach to deregulation of natural gas, that there would be a market and somebody’s got to keep an eye on the market and so on.

Quite frankly, the New Democrat view is that we don’t need a market surveillance administrator; we need a regulated price for natural gas. Since it is our natural gas, then the needs of Albertan s s hould be me t first, and the enti re structure that is being developed in Bill 19 will add enormously to the cost. The ad ministrative structures will add a layer of costs as well, and that is not in the interests of Albertans as we see it. So we do not s upport B ill 1 9, an d we cannot s upport this particular amendment since it merely reinforces the government’s approach to deregulation in the gas industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar has presented is an interesting one. Mr. Rathgeber: That’s one way of describing it. Mr. Griffiths: Yes. It is one way of describing it. He drew the comparison between Alberta’s deregulated electricity market and the market surveillance administrator as propose d. I think it’s important to point out to that member some of his misinfor- mation or his l ack of un derstanding of the si tuation as r egards comparison betwe en electr icity a nd gas. Mr.

Chairm an, the wholesale electricity markets have only been deregulated for several years, and the w hole market itself is continuing to develop. The primary function of the proposed market surveillance administrator in electricity is to monitor the competitiveness of Alberta’s emerging wholesale electricity market to make sure that consumers get a fair price, that they’re treated fairly, and that there is competition. The difference between the electricity market and the gas market, Mr. Chairman, is that the natural gas market has been deregulated in Alberta for 17 years.

It’s a very well-developed wholesale natural gas market. It is extremely competitive, and it’s highly integrated into a broader N orth A merican market. A ny examination of the competitiveness of the wholesale natural gas market would need to occur on an interjurisdictional lev el. This of course would be beyond the scope o f any market surve illance administrator that would be set up in A lberta.

So I guess if I have a question to the member, it’s: how could you just ify creating a market surveillance administrator that could only function in Alberta, would be limited, couldn’t deal w ith competition across the entire North American natural gas market? I don’t understand it. It seems to me a waste of money and expense: taxpayers’ money, taxpayers’ expense. At the same time, Mr.

Chairman, I think it also has to be pointed out to the hon. member that Alberta Government Services responsi- bly overse es consum er protect ion relating to natural g as and electricity retailers and takes that responsibility very seriously. They do an excellent job at it. They will be monitoring the market prices very carefully. As well, the EUB is responsible for setting regulated transmission and distribution rates and regulated rates for gas and electricity. We hav e two bo dies already create d to monitor t he system and make sure i t works effecti vely. Th e boar d revi ews metering and billing.

It looks at residential, commercial, and small commercial consumers, and it’s done so for years. Bill 19 the wa y it’s set up now will give the EUB additional authority to – I’ve written them down, and I’m going to list them – regulate companies other than utilities that would now be able to provide natural gas at regulated rates to consumers; increase fines for noncompliance with an E UB order; e nable the EU B to enforc e service quality standards and enforce a code of conduct which will govern the relationship between utilities, default supply providers, and retail affiliates. Now, M r. Chair man, in

summary , if we started looking at examining the competitiveness of the wholesale natural gas market, we’d have to look at it in an interjurisdictional manner, which an Alberta market surveillance administrator could not do. We already have two bodies that effectively regulate or watch the market, and I guess my question to the member is: gi ven that t hese two bodies already do this an d give n tha t it wouldn’t have any effec t interjurisdictionally, would the member consider admitting that this would just be duplication and a waste of taxpa yers’ money and remove his amendment? The Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by Vermilion-Lloydminster. Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr . Cha irman. A few comme nts, partly in response to the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. I’d just like to point out to him, although he led the whole debate astray by drawing in the elec tricity industry, that bef ore there was de regulation in electricity, the most reliable electricity in the world was in Canada. Edmonton Power, which was publicly owned in a regulated system, had virtually the top reli ability in the mos t reliable c ountry of the world. It also had far cheaper rates than we’ve got now. So correct your facts.

Correct your facts. Now, on th is par ticular amen dment I hear from government members repeated rejection of the notion of a market surveillance administrator. All w e’re trying to do here is keep you consistent. Bill 19 is aimed at drawing the gas network closer to the electricity system, and the ele ctricity syste m int egrated continentally has a

656 Alberta Hansard March 20, 2003 market surveillance administrator. So give n that the g overnment members are rejecting this notion for Bill 19, I’m wondering if they will be accepting an amendment to pull that function out of Bill 3. Would they be quite pleased to do that? I’d like their response. Are we going to chuck the electricity market surveillance administrator too? I think th e public is deeply and justifiably concerned about price manipulation. I know for a fact that they want consumer protection.

They don’t know where to turn, and this is one chance to offer them a bone, at least to offer the consumer here a little bone while the big dogs of commerce eat up the rest of the dinner. Why don’t we give the consumer a little bone? 4:00 I don’t know how many of y ou have ev er been to B ulgaria. I know I haven’t, but there is a saying from Bulgaria: dry pants catch no fish. What we see here is a government that’s committed to dry pants.

We want the government to wade into this situation, get their pants wet, and catch a few fish, at least be on the prowl for some fish in case those fish are sharks out there cruising for innocent consum- ers. So I’d encourage the g overnment to acce pt its res ponsibility to protect consumers, accept this amendment to Bill 19. It will be a better bill because of it. Thank you. The Chair : The hon. Member for Verm ilion-Lloydminster on amendment A1. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you.

To talk to the amendment and just some of the subtle differences bet ween a gas marke t regulator and an electrical market regulator, they are utilities, granted, but they are produced in very , v ery different met hods. The a bility to store electricity is nonexis tent, so to regulate what is produced at power stations mostly l ike we ha ve in Al berta, i t’s very critical that the balance between production and consumption be as closely tied as it can be because electricity that is not used is gone. Now, natural gas, on the hand, can be produced through the entire year.

It can be put into storage caverns, and when you shut the switch off at your house, it stays i n the gas line. It’s not a commodity that just disappears. So to have the same surveillance on top of these things – we’re not dealing with apples and oranges here. Let’s get a li ttle bit more into what you me an about having an individual. Accor ding to y our motion, “ The Minister of En ergy must appoint an indiv idual.” W ell, with this bill he’ s d one a lot better than that. He has 900,000 individuals monitoring the price of gas.

And they won’t report to the m inister; t hey’ll report to the company that’s selling them that service. So ra ther than hav ing someone watching out for people that purchase their own groceries, their own cable TV, their own telephone, that are completely capable of getting their own m ortgage, buying the ir own ve hicles, buying their insurance, buying all the commodities that are necessary in our life without the minister appointing someone to watch their business affairs, they’re going to be able to do this by themselves. Now, a really good exam ple would be a gentle man from m y community named Mr.

Jim Davidson, who purchased a contract from, believe it or not, EPCOR three years ago for $3.90. Now, at the time he was paying a little bit more than it was, but h e stepped out on his own and bought a long-term contract with EPCOR, that right now is saving him a lot of m oney. He did that without any- body’s help. He did it as a purchase of a commodity in the market- place. Now, Jim isn’t special. Jim has worked all his life. He’s just an average, normal Albertan who on his own purchased a long-term requirement that he thought for his life and his situation was the best thing he could do.

In hindsight, which we’re all very good at going to here, it was a very good move. But he did that. Now, he couldn’t have done that 10 years ago. He had to deal with ATCO, no ands, ifs, or buts. So now he had the opportunity to shop around, and he saved himself probably several hundred dollars a month. Giving customers a choice shouldn’t have to be monitored by anybody.

Hopefully, as time goes on and people become more aware of the electrical market and more suppliers are there, we will be able to back away from that individual who will have to monitor the electrical utilities, and the mar ketplace will begin to work as markets do when government gets out of the way. We seem to think that somehow competition is new. I mean, it’s a fact that natural gas customers, commercial people, have been able to have choice for over a decade, large customers since 1988, since the ’70s in some cases.

So why was it all right for the big boys to be able to buy at a right price and not the little guys, not the residential people, not the real people that it affects? We wouldn’t allow that before, but things have changed. So with this system we have in place, with this new process people talk to their neighbours. They see i t on t he news. The opposition makes a point of letting everyone know what all the bad options are out there and w hat good options they should do.

Peop le will use their good information and their diligence to make a decision about who they’re going to buy their natural gas from, and trust me, they will be comparing with their neighbour in the coffee shop what price they pay, what other benefits they may have got. Just take a step back to the deregulation of the phone rates. Ten years ago who was pho ning you an d saying: do you wan t to buy from Sprint? Nobody. Because it wasn’t possible. They’ve actually become a bit of a pain now because they all want you to use their phones.

Yet in the regulated monopoly part that Telus still has, they don’t even have to provide service to people i n my area for up to three years after they’ve built their house, and there is no one else allowed in there to do it.

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20030320
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S3 20030320 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b2df7c5abf5e698a22fa3595e1919f97c8d4d90e

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