April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 499 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 2007/04/11 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Guide us so that we may use the privilege given us as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently, the courage to think and to speak with clarity and conviction and without prejudice or pride. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Stelmach: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Kelley Keehn, seated in the members’ gallery. Kelley was born and raised in Alberta and is a financial expert, author of three books: The Woman’s Guide to Money, The Prosper- ity Factor for Women , and her latest, The Prosperity Factor for Canadian Kids. I think I’ll have to buy a copy for sure. She’s also the coauthor of the book Mutual Fundamentals . Kelley is also a regular columnist with the Sun Media, the Edmonton Sun, Canadian MoneySaver magazine, Husband & Wife magazine, and the Edmon- ton Commerce News .

Accompanying her today is her mother, Kathleen Keehn. I would ask Kelley and Kathleen to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the community sponsors of the School at the Legislature program. Seated in your gallery are from Priority Printing Ltd. Mr. Tim Downey, president; from CHUM television Mr. Craig Roskin, station manager, and Mr. Eric Rice, manager, creative/production services. From the Rotary Club of Edmonton we have Mr.

Jack Clements and from CKUA Radio Network Mr. Ken Regan, general manager, and Ms Terry Kostek, chief financial officer. Priority Printing, Access and Canadian Learning Television, Via Rail, CKUA Radio Network, and the Rotary Club of Edmonton are community sponsors of the School at the Legislature program. This program gives grade 6 teachers from all over our province an opportunity to relocate their classroom to the Alberta Legislature for a week. Supported by 35 teachers and over 400 parent volunteers in fiscal year 2006, over 800 students from 32 classes attended the School at the Legislature program.

We’re very grateful for the support we r eceive from our community sponsors, and we ask our guests now to rise in your gallery and receive the very warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to introduce to you and through to the members of the Assembly a group of 47 visitors from the grade 6 class, students from Woodhaven middle school in Spruce Grove.

They, too, attended your mock Legislature program this morning, and I’m told from talking to them in the rotunda that they passed school uniforms and passed later start times for school, about 10:30, I’m told. They are accompanied today by teachers Mrs. Barb Gericke, Ms Tara Issler, Mrs. Mona Holton, by parent helpers Mr. Cam Walker, Mrs. Karen Hudson, Ms Carrie Wiloughby. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today it’s my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly a large group of very special guests from the Department of Health and Wellness. While there are a few manag- ers and supervisors with us today, most of the individuals that have joined us are either currently interns with Alberta Health and Wellness or joined the department as interns and have stayed on following the conclusion of their internship.

The staff represent business areas across the department, including pharmaceutical policy and programs, workforce policy and planning, research and evidence, continuing care, human resources, and the planning and policy branches. Staff have joined Alberta Health and Wellness from right across the country: from Calgary, from Edmonton, from Newfoundland, Manitoba, and B.C. Mr. Speaker, these are the people who do great work for Albertans day in and day out, and they represent a whole lot more people not only in the Department of Health and Wellness but in our civil service who do great work for Albertans.

I’d really appreciate it if they would stand and receive the traditional warm welcome and thanks of our Assembly. Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, today I am thrilled to be joining all of the Members of the Legislative Assembly with two special colleagues, the Member for Lethbridge-West and the Member for Athabasca- Redwater, to introduce a great success story and the principals that represent two associations here with us today. This is an historic day in Alberta.

We are pleased and honoured today to introduce members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, the president, Dave Chalcroft; the executive director, Neil Windsor; and past president Larry Staples; and from the Association of Science and Engineering Technology Professionals of Alberta the president, Larry Stone, and executive director Barry Cavanaugh. They are here in celebration of a letter that I received today that effectively joins both associations under one act. Two associations. They made it.

They made this happen. [applause] The resounding enthusiasm is well worth while. They are accompanied today by a member of my staff, the assistant deputy minister, David Wismer, that had a lot to do with helping in this association developing together in this capacity, and Pat Lobregt. I know all members will join me in celebrating as they stand and are recognized for the good work they’ve done on behalf of public safety in Alberta. Congratulations. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to introduce in the members’ gallery today through you to the Assem- bly Mr. Roy Williams. Roy is originally from Newfoundland and has been in Fort McMurray for over 25 years working for Syncrude Canada, the largest employer of aboriginals in all of Canada. I’d ask him to rise and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly.

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007500 The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great privilege to intro- duce to you a group from McKernan elementary/junior high school, a group of 11 students and two adults, Mrs. Karen Jones and Mrs. Corinne Knierim. Now, I must say that McKernan is an outstanding school, having produced at least two members of this Assembly, myself and the House leader of the opposition, and I urge all the students here from McKernan to look down here and maybe someday aspire to follow in our footsteps on whatever side of the House.

So, please, everybody give these students a warm welcome. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Maria Radovic and Brenda Campbell. Maria and Brenda are Palace Casino workers who are on strike. They’ve been on the picket line for the last 215 days while the government has failed to do anything to assist them. Brenda has worked for the Palace Casino for six years as a slot floor person.

She’s originally from Grande Prairie and came to Edmonton in 2001, where she went to work immediately for the Palace Casino. Maria is a dealer at the Palace Casino and has been there since 2004. She originally hails from Yugoslavia and came to Canada in 1992 and settled in Edmonton. They are joined by UFCW organizer Don Crisall. I would now ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: 1:10 Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. World Women’s Hockey Championship Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise today to recognize an outstanding women’s hockey team in our country. Team Canada regained the women’s world hockey championship last night with a convincing 5-1 win against their archrivals, the United States. In front of a sold-out home country crowd at the MTS Centre in Winnipeg they entered the gold medal game as favourites. They did not disappoint. Canada won every game they played, combining for 32 goals scored and only five against. Calgary’s own Hayley Wickenheiser scored in the final and captained the team to victory.

Wickenheiser was also named tournament MVP after leading the competition in scoring with eight goals and 14 points in five games. Along with Wickenheiser six other players from Team Canada currently live in Calgary and play for the Western Women’s Hockey League’s Calgary Oval X-Treme. With the win Canada has claimed back its rightful place at the top of the women’s hockey world. This is their ninth world champion- ship in only 10 tries. Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating Team Canada for their victory. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Strathcona. River Valley Alliance Mr.

Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure today to rise to speak about the River Valley Alliance. This organization is united by a vision of transforming the lands within the North Saskatchewan River valley into a world-class integrated urban park. The alliance was formed in 1996 and consists of seven municipali- ties holding land in the capital region. When completed, the park would stretch 88 kilometres and would link the communities of Devon, Leduc county, Parkland county, Edmonton, Strathcona county, Sturgeon county, and Fort Saskatchewan.

This park has the potential to be a world-class attraction for the capital region. It has been suggested that when completed, an Edmonton river valley park would be similar in magnitude to New York’s Central Park or Vancouver’s Stanley Park. As such, the park would be a monumental legacy for future generations. Collecting these lands would be akin to placing them in trust, similar to our heritage savings trust fund. The benefits accrued would not be monetary but instead would allow the citizens of the capital region the enjoyment of the river valley for generations to come.

There are other benefits to a river valley park, including the promotion of physical activity and the preservation of land. This type of project would not be possible without the leadership of dedicated individuals, and I’d like to acknowledge Sol Rolingher, current chair of the River Valley Alliance. Sol is the driving force behind the project and is working with the province, municipal partners, and the private sector to put funding in place to complete the project.

Because this project includes numerous communities, the River Valley Alliance is currently consulting residents on the project, and tonight my constituents and other residents of Strathcona county will have the opportunity to have an open house at Millennium Place in Sherwood Park from 5 to 8 p.m. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. North Saskatchewan River Water Quality Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Edmonton’s two water treatment plants serve about 40 per cent of Alberta’s population.

This water is removed from the North Saskatchewan River to produce safe drinking water for all. The annual report 2005-06 from Alberta Environment states that water quality in the past year was better upstream of Edmonton than downstream. Unfortunately, in the past two years there has been a dramatic decrease in water quality downstream of Edmonton in the North Saskatchewan River. Alarmingly, in the past two years water quality is down 24 points on Alberta Environment’s own water quality index. This bad water quality is due to increased bacterial counts, nutrient and pesticide concentrations.

Our neighbours downstream on the North Saskatchewan River deserve better. Bacterial counts and pesticide concentrations are too high in the river water. Polluted and poisoned rivers are unacceptable. Alberta Environment rated the water quality at the Pakan site as only fair. This test site is at highway 855 where it intersects with the North Saskatchewan River. Some of the communities downstream from this site include Saddle Lake, Elk Point, and the city of Lloydminster, which also draws its water supply from the North Saskatchewan River.

Have thes e communities been told that the water quality upstream is listed as only fair? Before we proceed with further development of any kind, we must clean up and protect our water sources. Pure, clean water should be a government priority. We must reverse the downward spiral in our water quality. We must learn from the harsh lessons of Walkerton and North Battleford. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod.

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 501 Optimist International Curling Championship Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With winter coming to an end and the puck dropping tonight for the start of hockey playoffs, it might be easy to forget about the other great Canadian ice sport, that of curling. Until you’ve tried it, you really can’t appreciate the challenge and the fun of delivering a rock and sweeping it into the four foot to win the game. Recently two teams of young Albertans bested a six-team r ound robin format playdown to qualify for the 2007 Optimist International under-18 curling championships.

Held in Winnipeg, this tournament brought together teams from every Canadian province, the North- west Territories, several U.S. states, and Japan. Both teams did exceptionally well, advancing to their respective final games. From southern Alberta and curling out of the Lethbridge Curling Club our women’s team: skip Jessie Scheidegger of Diamond City, third Erica Ortt of Calgary, second Jayme Coutts of Fort Macleod – and, yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say that that’s my ni ece – and lead Heather Rogers of Calgary finished the round robin portion of the tournament with a 5 and 0 record.

The team defeated Ontario in the semifinals but lost the final game to Manitoba to bring home the silver. The members for Little Bow and Lethbridge-West and I extend our congratulations. From Spruce Grove and Lloydminster our men’s team – skip Shawn Donnelly, third Mike Armstrong, second Tyson Armstrong, and lead Bryan Carter – defeated British Columbia in the semifinals and took an early lead in the finals to defeat Manitoba 6 to 4 and bring home the gold. I’d like to congratulate both of these teams and their dedicated coaches, Don Scheidegger and Rolly Buchanan, for a job well done.

These grades 11 and 12 students have done Alberta proud. They will be the future of competitive curling in this province, and I am sure they will bring home many more medals. Congratulations to them all. Climate Change Mr. Rodney: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak about a prominent issue for Albertans and a prominent issue for people around the world. I know that many Albertans are well aware of the report delivered last week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists that make up this United Nations group agree that climate change is real and requires action. Mr.

Speaker, Alberta has been and will continue to be a leader in addressing climate change, but before true leadership can be demonstrated, a clear vision is required. Albertans are helping the government of Alberta create that vision through our climate change public consultation. So far we’ve had five meetings across southern Alberta, and along with our Environment minister and our MLA for Calgary-Fort I was honoured to attend our meeting last night in Calgary. A hundred and seventy people showed up for a very lively discussion.

Some of the comments included: “Carbon dioxide has everything to do with climate change. It has nothing to do with it. We need absolute caps and intensity targets. We shouldn’t even go there. Government must lead the charge and spend a lot of money. Government should stay out of it. It’s the end of the world. It’s a wonderful new beginning.” Mr.

Speaker, alt hough extreme statements were made at both ends of the spectrum, at the end of the day people seemed to agree on at least this: no matter to what degree human beings may affect global warming, we need to find the right balance between quality of life and environmental concerns. Everyone has a role to play: government, industry, and individuals. It’s a global problem requiring a global solution at the local level. So, Mr. Speaker, that was last night in Calgary. Tonight in Red Deer we have another meeting. There are five more. These consultations have been very successful.

We’ve received over a thousand responses to our online questionnaire on climate change in addition to the filled-out copies of the printed questionnaire. I encourage Albertans to be part of this consultation to help frame our next steps for a made-in-Alberta solution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mental Health Mrs. Mather: Mr. Speaker, some of my fellow members will remember a phrase from the 1970s: when things go wrong, what can I do?

That line on pamphlets and posters, billboards, and public service announcements was part of a shift in focus to mental health at a time when care was moving from institutional to outpatient. 1:20 Much has happened since. New medications are available to fine- tune mental and emotional functioning. New therapies have heightened our awareness of diet and nutrition, exercise, and other lifestyle factors. We no longer see the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual as isolated from each other in the choices we make.

Yet those with emotional and mental disorders still face barriers in their need to be accepted as part of the body of humankind. The barriers they face are in our minds more than theirs. There is the limitation of labels. Until 65 years ago autism was treated as schizophrenia. Today it is seen not as one but as a spectrum of conditions. There are limitations of our ignorance. One whose inner reality is altered can’t snap out of it no matter how simple this may seem. Anyone who has been depressed, and most of us have, knows that.

There are conditions that arise out of our environment, such as hyperactivity and allergies. Those who respond to high stress and high stimulation with mental and emotional symptoms are like canaries in the mines of earlier times. We may say that they are ill, but they bring us warnings of unhealthiness that affect us all. In the Bible those we would call the mentally ill were often first to recognize the truth. Their speaking it can be off-putting, but our embarrassment must not stand in the way of the acceptance of our fellow human beings. That is the first step in our common healing.

The incidence of mental illness is on the rise in Alberta. Prosper- ity is no guarantee of prevention. It is likely that someone you know will experience a mental health problem. If we work towards increasing awareness about mental health and illness, we create a climate in which the topic can be discussed without fear, and that’s an important step to a mentally healthy Alberta. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’m presenting another 55 signatures from concerned Albertans, mostly from the communities of St.

Albert, Edmonton, and Morinville, with respect to employees who work with people with disabilities. The petition is asking for: one, pay parity for those employees regardless of whether they work for government or for community-based or private providers; two, to recognize the work they do and to make sure that their wages are competitive; three, to grant them access to professional development opportun ities; and, four, to bring into place outcomes-focused level-of-care standards. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning.

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007502 Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition from 24 residents of northeast Edmonton. They petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta “to hold rent increases to no more than the rise in the average monthly wage until Decem- ber 31, 2010.” The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a petition with 28 signatures.

The petition urges the government to recognize the importance of community schools by amending the closure of schools regulation to provide parents and other commu- nity members 18 months to formulate a revitalization plan in response to proposed closures; two, to strike a task force comprised of trustees and members of the public to review Edmonton public’s current school closure process; and, three, to encourage ongoing consultation and partne rships between parents, communities, and municipal and provincial agencies to ensure that public schools continue to fulfill the educational and civic needs of Alberta’s communities. head: Notices of Motions Mr.

Renner: Mr. Speaker, given that the House did not sit on Monday of this week, private members’ business was not dealt with, so the notices that I gave last week will also apply to next week with the exception of Motion for a Return 3. I wish to advise the House that the government will be introducing an amendment rather than accepting as was advised last week. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table some more copies of letters received by my office urging the government to provide funding for the cancer fighting drug Avastin. In doing so, I’d like to reiterate that people who require this treatment can expect to pay $1,750 every two weeks for Avastin treatment and that the drug is already covered by the cancer boards in B.C., Quebec, and Newfoundland. Today’s letters are sent from Norm Hotte, Barb Hotte, Ryan Hotte, George Traynor, Judy Mott, Jutta McAdam, Wilma Korthuis, Valerie Scranton, and Barry Bullen. Thanks very much. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr.

Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table the appropriate number of copies of two documents. One is a printout of the website of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education Showcase, being organized in part by the former Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. The other is the details on billings for his work. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have one tabling today, and it is a newspaper

article from the Calgary Herald, dated Wednesday, July 12, 2006. It’s in regard to a question later on today in question period. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three letters to table. One is from Stan Leonard in Calgary, concerned about a dramatic rise in his apartment rent this year. The second is from Nadine Fletcher and Joel Hagen, concerned and opposed to the Horseshoe Lands development of the old Seebe site. The third is from Lorne Haugen, a resident around Marie Lake, opposed to the development there. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings. One is from Ashley Jones, with praise for the government supplementing child care wages but expressing concern that it does not apply to staff who work with children six years to 12 years. The second one is from Denise Gagne, Red Deer, with concern and dismay about the lack of maintenance on highway 2 and the increased risk to people using the highway. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two documents to table today.

The first is an e-mail from Bob Borreson of Bon Accord. Mr. Borreson has provided an excellent analysis of health care premiums and supports the NDP call for their elimination. The second is a note to the Premier from Joan Harvey. Ms Harvey is a member of UFCW and is on strike at the Palace Casino. She writes that she was disappointed in the reception she received by government members and says, “Since I voted PC all my life their lack of response to myself and coworkers [is] disheartening.” Thank you. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve got two sets of tablings here. One is from a volunteer at the Unity Centre of North East Edmonton, reflecting a personal story regarding affordable housing. The other is letters from a group of about 100 Albertans calling on the Legislative Assembly to support that the accused killer of Joshua Hunt be tried as an adult due to the nature of his crime, his past criminal history, and that he is so close to the age of 18 years. Thank you. The Speaker: Hon. members, it is my pleasure today to table the appropriate numbers of copies of the sixth School at the Legislature report card, 2005-2006.

As we heard earlier today, this is a Legisla- tive Assembly educational program for grade 6 students, cospon- sored with community partners Priority Printing, Access Media Group, and CKUA Radio, along with Via Rail Canada, and the Edmonton downtown Rotary Club. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Racing Entertainment Centre Project Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The water licence that the MD of Rocky View has applied for to service the Balzac project has been sitting with the Ministry of Environment for months now.

They’ve delayed a decision on this application time and again, and

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 503 we still have no idea as to when this decision will be made. What we are looking for and what many communities are looking for is some clarity and some information that so far has been sadly lacking. My first question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister provide a firm date as to when his ministry will make a decision on this water licence? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide a firm date because, as I’ve advised the House on previous occasions, the applicant has asked for a deferral of the decisions so they can explore other options.

The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A FOIP response r eceived by our office indicates that the government will provide partial access to records on the Balzac project, but they are exempting untold numbers of pages because of cabinet confidences and advice from officials. In other words, the cabinet of this government had discussions concerning Balzac dating well back into the summer of 2006, and they are not going to release the contents of those discussions.

To the Premier: will the Premier release the contents of these cabinet confidences so that everyone can see what was discussed behind closed doors? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are long-established rules and traditions with respect to cabinet documents. This is a situation that arose where the opposition had made an allegation that there were some secret deals. They said they had proof. Yesterday they were trying to skirt around it by bringing circumstantial evidence. This has been going on and on and on.

All I say is that if you have the names of the individuals, bring them forward here in the House – you have immunity to do that – and also bring forward this alleged secret document. Here’s an opportunity. 1:30 The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the FOIP material we received, part of the Balzac project was being promoted by the developers as, and I quote: a legacy for the Deputy Premier.

The briefing note also states that as a result of prior meetings with the Minister of Finance, the project would have good potential to obtain support from this government through the rural development fund. There is no doubt now that this project was widely discussed by this government in circles at the highest levels. To the Premier: given that part of the Balzac project was being shopped as a tribute to the former Deputy Premier, can the Premier still deny that his govern- ment was intricately involved in this project and made assurances that water would be provided? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, once again I’m saddened by the fact that the member of the opposition would bring this forward in this House, covered by immunity, making allegations against a former member that cannot defend herself, and bringing these allegations forward without any proof. That’s not parliamentary tradition, unfortunately. Again, it seems to be the kind of innuendo that keeps being brought up day in and day out by this opposition. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Government Contract with Former MLA Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s see if we can make progress on another topic. On May 2 coming up the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations, among others, are presenting the First Na tions, Métis and Inuit Education Showcase. Up to 4,000 schoolchildren are expected to attend an event both in Edmonton and again in Calgary. This event is being co-ordinated by Bob Maskell. Along with organizing the event for the government, his company is also receiving a registration fee of $10 per child. To the Premier: will the Premier admit that the reason Mr.

Maskell has this job is because of the political interference that got him his first sweetheart deal? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question is of Métis descent, has years of experience not only as a teacher but as an administrator in the school system, has had a very good record of working with the Métis, First Nations, and Inuit communities, and from all indication the conference is going to be very successful. Might I add: all that information was available on the web. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The truth is this: children going to this government-sponsored event are having to pay a user fee to a defeated Tory MLA, who appears to already be generously supported by this government, to learn about aboriginal affairs. To the Premier: why is this government making schoolchildren pay $10 each to this defeated Tory MLA to learn about Alberta’s aboriginal heritage? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, once again, twisting words. In terms of the contract and the terms of that contract, the Minister of Education will respond. Mr. Liepert: Mr.

Speaker, as mentioned by the Premier, the Leader of the Official Opposition has been on the website and has taken the information and tabled it in the House. It should be noted that this particular contract also includes the rental facilities that will be required to host these two events, so there’s a significant amount of upfront cost that Maskell & Associates will be assuming. I can only add what the Premier said, that this gentleman has a successful history of planning and delivering aboriginal events, including the 2005 Aboriginal Education Showcase. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Well, yesterday the Premier claimed that these kinds of patronage contracts would not happen on his watch. But it is happening. The same insiders are still profiting. Mr. Maskell has stated that he would happily do this work for free. It seems that there is a clear course of action here. To the Premier: will the Premier commit to immediately ending any contracts this government has with Mr. Maskell? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of what other contracts may be held or whatever the issue is. I don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of: I would have done this for free.

Again, mixing words, bringing this forward. You know, he’s chipping away there. If you took the time to call him and ask him the information, I’m sure that Mr. Maskell would’ve given you the full details of the

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007504 contract, and you wouldn’t have to bring it up in the House and ask the minister. Mr. Bonko: Mr. Speaker, serious concerns were raised over the contract given to Bob Maskell, former MLA for Edmonton- Meadowlark. They’ve been discussed and dismissed as mere perception problems by the Premier. Under that contract Mr. Maskell is required to provide invoices along with reports of his actions so that the ministry and Albertans can see what they get for their patronage contract. The invoice for September 2005 is interesting. On September 30 Mr.

Maskell charged 50 hours of work, 50 hours in one day. Can the Premier explain how this kind of invoice was approved? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of what paper they’re holding, but full disclosure was made. All this is fully public information. If there’s a question very specific to some item that was billed, bring it forward. I’ll table that in the House, and we’ll have that clarified. Mr. Bonko: Well, we’re not getting answers on that one. Maybe we’ll try to move on. Nothing on the invoice says th at Mr.

Maskell provided the ministry with any details of any associates who contributed to these hours. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ministry checked up on the bills or queried the hours claimed. The invoices were just signed and the money carried, flowing to Mr. Maskell. Is this standard government policy with all contracts or just for Tory insiders? Mr. Stelmach: There are checks and balances in terms of payments made to any individual, any corporation. Those are of course approved by the Auditor General. He reviews on an annual basis, brings forward recommendations to the government.

Any time that he brings recommendations forward, we do our best to follow up to make sure that we incorporate them. Mr. Bonko: On January 23, January 25, and February 2, 2006, Mr. Maskell had meetings with the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Each of those meetings was billed as an entire day’s work, and the taxpayers are hit with a $600 charge, $600 for two former colleagues to have a chat. Could the minister please show us what real, tangible value this ministry got out of these meetings? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this information until I see it.

I will check into it, and if there’s any legitimacy, I will make sure I answer in the House tomorrow. However, I would like to make me ntion that if the information that this hon. member raises at this time is as accurate as what the opposition leader raised about the story in the Edmonton Sun this morning, he didn’t even read the story correctly. The former member of this Legislature, Mr. Maskell, said that he’d be happy to serve on the board for free. He didn’t say that he’d be happy to pay for the facilities to host these tw o events. So I don’t accept the information as having any factual basis at all.

The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. Affordable Housing Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Our major cities simply don’t have enough housing to meet growing demands. Vacancy rates are under 1.2 per cent in many urban centres in this province. Boardwalk Rental Communities control 12 per cent of the rental units in Calgary and almost 20 per cent of Edmonton’s market. The company has said that it will wait until the rent for a two-bedroom suite hits $1,600 a month before they will consider building any new units in Calgary.

To the Premier: lots of people just can’t afford $1,600 a month for their rent. Instead of just sitting around while private landlords jack up rents, will the Premier commit to take immediate action to stop rent gouging now? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have taken action. One of the first things that we did, of course, was put an all-party committee to review the critical shortage of housing in the province of Alberta from a number of points of view , not only homelessness but the working poor and those fam ilies that would like to buy a single dwelling. The report has been put together.

It’s now before the minister. It will be coming to caucus, and we will be making announcements, appropriate announcements with respect to how as a government we can work with the private sector and other levels of government to improve this situation. 1:40 Mr. Mason: People are being evicted today, Mr. Speaker, and all the Premier can say is, you know: wait for appropriate announce- ments in due time. Mr. Speaker, people across the province are struggling to find affordable housing.

While the government sits on its Affordable Housing Task Force report, Albertans are paying high rents, and more and more people are at risk of losing their homes. Instead of taking this hands-off approach, telling people to wait for a report that then will take a whole bunch of time to implement, why won’t the Premier commit today in this Assembly, in this democratic Assem- bly, that they’re going to do something to stop rent gouging by big landlords like Boardwalk? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, one thing I will commit to is to work positively toward increasing the number of units, working with the private sector, working with different levels of government so that we can improve the situation. We critically need more people in the province of Alberta to fill many of the vacant positions, and we’re going to make sure that when they move here, there are living accommodations. These are all issues that are under discussion, and we will have a plan to accommodate the issues.

Some of that will come forward in the budget, and others will come in working with municipalities in terms of better planning for the thousands of people that continually move to the province of Alberta. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, hopefully the government will see the light and take steps to ensure that the supply of housing is increased in this province both publicly and in the private sector as well, but that will take several years. In the meantime households who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income are in direct risk of living in poverty.

Given the target rent of $1,600, families that earn less than $60,000 a year just won’t be able to make ends meet. What is the Premier going to do for those families today? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize, of course, with the position taken by the leader of the third party. We’re very well aware of the kinds of housing pressures that there are in the prov- ince, and we’re going to work towa rd resolving that. I agree with the hon. member that a lot of the solution will not be overnight. On the other hand, at least Albertans will see a plan that’ll be put in

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 505 place, working with the co-operation of municipalities and the private sector, to increase the number of units. Disputes about Seismic Activity Mr. McFarland: Mr. Speaker, recently my constituency office heard from landowners in Little Bow that they’re not being compen- sated by a contracted seismic company for exploratory work that’s been done on their land. While they were advised this week that their cheques are in the mail, it’s unfortunate that they have to contact a constituency office or maybe seek legal recourse in order to get these outstanding disputes resolved.

I have a number of questions for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Minister, can you or your staff assist with outstanding disputes and claims from folks who are otherwise unable to understand the process of how they get some of these outstanding seismic company claims settled in a more expeditious manner? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the hon. Member for Little Bow for that question. It’s something that does come up from time to time.

It’s important to emphasize that access agreements with respect to seismic are strictly between landowners and seismic operators. The government of Alberta is not a party to such agreements. Obviously, Sustainable Resource Development cannot enforce an agreement to which we are not a party. Having said that, though, our staff would be happy to work with landowners that have this problem and see if we can facilitate a resolution. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. McFarland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When claims are outstanding for over 90 days, what other options might your staff be able to offer to landowners who are seeking quick resolve and need the money? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, we can contact the seismic company and try to facilitate an agreement that way. Another alternative is contacting the Farmers’ Advocate, who has some responsibility for mediating disputes between landowners and companies like this. Failing both of those, the only alternative is to hire a lawyer and go to court. Thank you. Mr. McFarland: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister: is it possible that the Surface Rights Board might play a role in assisting these farmers and ranchers in their outstanding claims as well? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, it is often thought that the Surface Rights Board might be able to help in this matter. In fact, the Surface Rights Board does not get involved in seismic exploration or agreements. The Surface Rights Board only deals with oil and gas developments after – after – the EUB has approved some sort of drilling or pipeline development. So, again, the Surface Rights Board does not involve itself in seismic exploration. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Twinning of Highway 3 Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 16 in a speech to the Fort Macleod chamber of commerce the Premier had said, “I’m pleased to confirm that the two lane portions of Highway 3 west of Fort Macleod and east of Lethbridge will be twinned, with timelines still to be confirmed.” However, the director of communications for Infrastructure and Transportation stated that the local residents shouldn’t hold their breath for this twinning.

My questions would be to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Could he clarify this mixed messaging? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I remember reading something about that. We always have said that we plan on twinning the number 3 highway, and we’re going forward as fast as we can. There are going to be some passing lanes put on it this year while we’re going along, and we plan on twinning it. Ms Pastoor: Passing lanes are absolutely not good enough.

We know that this Premier understands the need for the twinning of highway 3, and I have a copy of the briefing notes that he had as the minister of infrastructure. They state and show the pressure from the locals to get the twinning done, but it also shows the promises of the previous Premier to do so. That was six years ago. As an alderman and now as an MLA I have been on this file for 10 years. We need timelines and not delays. To the same minister: when will this highway be twinned? Mr. Ouellette: Mr.

Speaker, it is not in our current three-year plan right now, but I will say that we are engineering and working on it, and as fast as the budget allows, we will go ahead and twin that highway. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you. To look at an even larger picture, my knowledge of this issue is that highway 3 needs to be twinned from the Saskatchewan border to the B.C. border. Can the minister tell us just exactly what the government is doing to address the wider concern in, certainly, the larger picture? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I can say that we’ve hired a consultant.

There’s a consultant that’s working on the long-term plans. I can say that we’re dealing with the municipalities in the Crowsnest Pass on where they actually want the highway, if we’re going to do a bypass or go through the towns. We’ve always said that we’re wanting to improve all the highways in Alberta as fast as we possibly can, and we have a four-year plan today to do the catch-up on our backlog of maintenance and rehabilitation. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. North-south Trade Corridor Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another highway question for the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Several years ago this government committed to constructing a divided highway called the Canamex highway, or the north-south trade corridor, running from the U.S. border at Coutts to the British Columbia border west of Grande Prairie. Considerable progress has been made on this project. However, there are some parts that remain to be completed, the bypass around Grande Prairie, to be more specific.

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007506 Can the minister give the Assembly an anticipated completion date for the Canamex highway? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s portion of the Canamex highway, known as the north-south trade corridor, provides a vital link for movement of goods, and it supports Alberta’s growing trade with the United States and Mexico. By the end of 2007 the divided highway in Alberta will be more than 90 per cent complete. The completion of this project will depend on overall provincial priorities and budgets. Mr. Graydon: My first supplemental to the same minister.

I would point out that this highway project doesn’t end at Wembley, Alberta, but carries on another 80 kilometres to the Alberta/B.C. border. It’s well known that the traffic count between Grande Prairie and Beaverlodge is extremely high. Can the minister update the constituents of Grande Prairie-Wapiti on what plans are in place to complete that portion of the Canamex highway? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, the twinning of highway 43 west of Grande Prairie to the B.C. border is not on the department’s three- year program. Construction w ill depend, again, on provincial priorities and budgets.

But approximately 23 kilometres of highway 43 are currently twinned between Grande Prairie and Wembley. This leaves approximately 68 kilometres to be twinned from Wembley to the B.C. border. In the meantime, the department has plans to complete by the summer of ’07 the detailed design for the highway 43X bypass between the number 2 highway and 116th Street in Grande Prairie, Mr. Speaker. 1:50 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Graydon: Thank you. My final supplemental. Within the Whitecourt-Ste. Anne constituency there is an 18-kilometre

section of highway 43 remaining to be twinned. When can the travelling public expect to see the

section between Mayerthorpe and Sangudo completed? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, you’ll be happy to hear that the government will twin 18 kilometres of highway 43 between Mayerthorpe and Sangudo this year. Another 20 kilometres of twinning will also be completed on highway 43 this year between Fox Creek and Valleyview. This means that by the end of this year almost 400 kilometres will be twinned between Edmonton and Grande Prairie. The Speaker: Would any member like to rise and advocate for a few miles on my behalf? [interjections] Oh, thank you. Thank you. Lots of takers. The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Peace River. Ground Ambulance Services Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta municipalities that deliver ground ambulance services have been waiting for two years for this government to make a decision about whether the province will actually take over ambulance services through the health regions or whether municipalities will continue to provide the services. The pressure that municipalities are under continues to intensify as population increases, staff shortages get worse, and funding from the province remains stagnant.

My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Is it the minister’s policy that ambulance services are the responsibility of municipalities or the province? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, it really doesn’t matter what the minister’s policy is. It’s government policy that we are continuing to encourage and support municipalities in providing ambulance services while we deal with the report from the ambulance commit- tee and look at the results from the two pilot projects to determine how to best ensure that ambulance processes form the appropriate part of the front end of the health system.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Well, thank you. In April of 2006 a report was expected on the ambulance pilot project prepared by the member from Medicine Hat along with the chair of the Peace Country health region. It’s 12 months later, 12 months since that report was due in front of us. Has the minister received the report? Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Ms Blakeman: Okay. Then what changes to ambulance delivery are being implemented based on this report, and when will you be making those public? Mr. Hancock: Mr.

Speaker, after having received the report, being newly appointed in D ecember and having had an opportunity to review the report in January, I met with the Member for Cypress- Medicine Hat. I also met with the advisory committee that had put the report together. I’ve had some discussions with other stake- holders in the area since that period of time. I’ve asked the depart- ment, and they’ve put out an RFP with respect to a process to get some more costing information.

I will be bringing forward within the next few months a policy proposal through the government processes, and we hope to be able to deal with this issue with some finality in this budget year. In the meantime, municipalities will be funded as they have been to carry on. The Speaker: The hon. Member for P eace River, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Spring Flooding Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the record snowpack and heavy spring runoff anticipated, my constituents are deeply concerned about potential flooding in the north, and this is exacer- bated by heavy snowfall and rain over the last couple of days throughout the region. My first question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Is the government prepared to deal with this potential flooding? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say first of all that Environment is the lead on this, but I will say that the Emergency Management Alberta agency is in charge of the cross-government readiness. The government does have a plan. Also, we have run a tabletop exercise that’s based on that plan, and we’re monitoring the potential flooding on a continuing basis. The Speaker: The hon. member.

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 507 Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question to the same minister: does the government have a role in advance of flooding, or are municipalities solely responsible for preparation? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the possibility of flooding in northern Alberta is very high. Municipalities have the first-response responsibility for disasters, emergencies, and flooding. I will say that Environment has done an excellent job in monitoring the potential, keeping track of forecasts, and looking at what they see could be the potential of a flood.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question, again to the same minister: is the minister confident, then, that municipalities at risk, such as Peace River, perhaps Fort Vermilion, Fort McMurray, are prepared to deal with flooding if and when it happens? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Management Alberta agencies work very closely with municipalities. We feel that municipalities are as ready as they could be for flooding, and the government is there for any assistance that’s necessary. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Affordable Housing (continued) Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force I had the unique opportunity of listening to the presentations and the stories of Albertans about their housing experiences. What I heard convinced me that there is a housing crisis in Alberta. There is not enough housing for anyone, including low-income people, who need affordable housing, and even skilled workers who are making good money in the oil patch. They can’t find enough housing. My first question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Does the minister agree that there is a crisis, and if so, why will he not take immediate action? Why is the minister delaying so long in releasing the task force report? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, it is a priority for this government. We did bring forward the housing task force exactly for that reason: to find out the information from people across Alberta, to consult with Albertans in regard to affordable housing and in regard to homeless- ness. That report is in my ministry right now, and we will have some recommendations very shortly. Dr. B.

Miller: Now, the task force was given a short 45-day timeline to compile the report, which we delivered on time. Now we’re told that the report won’t be made public until the end of May, and that’s longer than 45 days. Does the minister recognize that the longer this government drags its feet and fails to take immediate action on affordable housing, the worse the crisis will get? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, I think it is so important what we do and that the direction we go in is right, and I want to commend that task force for the work that they did do.

That was a very intensive report, and we are dealing with that report and looking at the implications and how we can assist affordable housing and home- lessness in Alberta. Dr. B. Miller: My final question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry. We are receiving constant reports that skilled workers, including new Canadians, come to Alberta to find work, and then they leave our province because they cannot find housing. Does the province’s workforce strategy include the huge issue of housing, or are people just left on their own, in many cases having to live in tents and RVs?

Where is the planning? Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of planning that has gone into the affordable housing issue, especially with the folks that are involved with the ministry in terms of receiving supports, those that are not expected to work, those that are not able to work at the present time. We have had a constant liaison with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing dealing with his task force and working with our officials behind the scene.

But we have also in the recent past been looking more at the impacts of growth and encour- aging employers to assist us with the onerous task of finding proper housing, and most in Alberta are doing an exceptional job. I would suggest that, in large part, people who leave the province relative to work has less to do with housing and more with their comfort in the community. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. 2:00 Holy Cross Care Centre Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Calgary Homeless Foundation says that rising rents put low-income seniors at risk of becoming homeless. Meanwhile, the cost of a one-bedroom unit and care at the Holy Cross Manor, owned by Enterprise Universal, has recently jumped from $1,800 a month to $2,400 a month, a whop- ping increase of $600. Despite this deplorable record of rent increases by this company the government has committed $2.2 million for Enterprise Universal to build 130 affordable housing units at Holy Cross. My questions are to the minister of housing and community supports.

Minister, can you assure this House that the proposed rents . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, I’m not exactly sure where he was going with this question. Sorry. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure this House that the proposed rents of $495 a month for a studio apart- ment and $590 a month for a one-bedroom unit in this project will become a reality and that these rent levels will be capped until the provincial housing shortage is resolved? Mr. Danyluk: Mr.

Speaker, the criteria and eligibility for accep- tance into an affordable housing project go through rigorous inspection. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but if that was the commitment, then that’s the direction that it will go. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m surprised that the minister doesn’t know the conditions of $2.2 million that has been awarded to this company. To the minister again. The recent termination by the Calgary

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007508 regional health authority of the Holy Cross long-term care contract raises serious questions about this government’s willingness to blindly shove millions of dollars into the hands of private interests. The affordable housing project is now a year old and a year and a half behind schedule. Will the minister assure the House that Enterprise Universal will not receive one more cent of public money until they guarantee that they will finish their project in a reasonable amount of time and . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Mr.

Speaker, the 1950s building in the Holy Cross unit is near completion. Just for a little bit of a correction, it is $3.2 million, not $2.2 million. It is going to have a hundred units that are going to be available. Now, I’m gathering that that’s the one that he’s talking about. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Twinning of Highway 63 Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past 24 hours there have been two very serious accidents on highway 63, resulting in four fatalities. My first question is to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation.

When will this highway be twinned? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that my heart goes out to the families of those involved in yesterday’s collision. Yesterday the highways were bad throughout Alberta. There was freezing rain and wind, and it was just a bad day to be travelling. The government recognizes the importance of highway 63 as a vital link to the oil sands and the amount of heavy industrial traffic on the road. This is why we are committed to twinning highway 63.

I can tell you that government has begun twinning the 240-kilometre stretch of highway between Fort McMurray and the junction of highway 55 as designs are completed and federal environmental permits are obtained. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: can you provide more details on the work being done on highway 63? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Ouellette: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Work has already begun to clear the trees for the first

section of the twinned highway south of Fort McMurray while engineering and planning work continues further south. This year we have tendered the first

section of twinning south of Fort McMurray from highway 69 to highway 881. The cost of twinning the highway is estimated to be more than $940 million. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. What is your department doing to make the highway safer for Albertans? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These deaths on our highways are certainly tragic.

Traffic safety is critical to providing safe and secure communities for all Albertans, and enforcement is definitely an essential element in our strategy to make our provincial highways safer. We do have sheriffs who patrol highway 63, and they work very closely with the RCMP to target aggressive and careless drivers. I can assure the hon. member that we are planning to increase the complement of both sheriffs and RCMP on highway 63 in the near future. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much.

I appreciate the hon. member from Calgary bringing up the highway 63 concern. The carnage on highway 63, referred to by Fort McMurray coroner Dr. John O’Connor as the Head-on Highway, continues. In the past 24 hours the highway has claimed four more victims. This government, led by one of many former Infrastructure and Transportation ministers, has dragged its feet on the twinning of this highway, which should have occurred 25 years ago.

To the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation: considering that highway 63 has the unenviable record of the greatest number of head-on fatalities, will the minister in a year make the twinning of highway 63 his personal priority? An end date, please. Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, the information this hon. member is giving is absolutely false. The stats that I have on highway 63 show it as one of the safer highways in Alberta to travel on as far as the amount of traffic there and the amount of accidents that we have. Mr. Chase: Deaths aren’t acceptable. That’s the bottom line.

Again to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation: given the reality of the time necessary to twin the highway, in the interim will the minister commit to providing more safe passing lanes and roadside turnouts along highway 63 until the twinning is complete? Mr. Ouellette: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are working on that right now. My department is working on that as we speak to find the most dangerous areas, that we plan on putting passing lanes on while we’re working on the twinning. Mr. Chase: To the Solicitor General.

Obviously, increasing the number of highway patrol sheriffs on this road has not produced the desired results. Will the minister commit to providing more professionally trained and experienced RCMP to patrol this highway now? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Security and Solicitor General. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a very interesting analogy, and I’d sure like to see some facts to back it up because the report that we have with our sheriffs on the highway and working with the RCMP is that the RCMP certainly respect the help they’re getting from our sheriffs, and our sheriffs are trained adequately to patrol our highways. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Health Care Service Wait Times Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the best health care systems in the world is found right here in our province of

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 509 Alberta, and there are many, many reasons for that accolade, including outstanding doctors, nurses, care providers and others, and several very innovative approaches that our province has ushered in in recent years as well as our attempts to create and implement even more, such as our very successful hip and knee replacement program. My questions are to the minister of health.

What guaran- tees can the minister of health give us that waiting times for radiation therapy will be reduced at least to the same degree that we experienced with regard to waiting times for hip and knee replace- ments? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to meet with the federal Minister of Health, Tony Clement, yesterday to talk about the new wait times guarantee trust fund that they’ve set up. Alberta has of course signed an agreement, as all other provinces apparently have as well, to access that wait times guarantee process.

We will get some funds from that, about $62 million, to help fund some pilot projects so that we can in fact do for radiation oncology what we’ve done in bone and joint: reduce the time from the initial time that a patient presents to the time that they actually get treatment. And that’s very important. That type of a guarantee, which will be in place by March 2010, will help Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you.

Speaking of the federal contribution of $62 million, I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to what Alberta’s contribution will be to augment that in order to further those guarantees that he’s just talked about? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course, one of the reasons why I as minister was reluctant to enter into a wait time guarantee project with the federal government is because Alberta is res ponsible for health delivery and has to pay for the recourse, and nothing has been worked out with the federal government with respect to how we pay for the recourse.

After March of 2010, when we have that guarantee in place, we will of course be res ponsible for ensuring that any Albertan can get the treatment within that period of time. So we’re working with the province of British Columbia, for example, on how we can collaborate and share patients when we can’t meet the guaranteed time in our own province. But we will also be working between now and then to make sure that we can reach that time. 2:10 Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone knows that access is the grinding problem. Once you’re in the system, it’s excellent: the service, the care, everything else.

I wonder if the minister has given some consideration to other areas where we could unclog the system insofar as access is concerned. We have examples we can learn from, and I think we’d be anxious to hear where else this same strategy might be applied. Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, this of course is the most important part of this wait times guarantee process. Alberta has wanted not just to pick a specific area and focus resources on that but to make sure that we meet clinical benchmarks right across the board.

So we can take the learning from the bone and joint project that we had last year and the team approach, the process re-engineer- ing, which made it much more effective for people to get the service on a timely basis. We will have more learning from the radiation oncology project, and we will use that learning right across the spectrum to establish clinical benchmarks and to meet those clinical benchmarks. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Strathcona. Internal Royalty Review Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2006 the former Minister of Energy told Albertans that the government had com- pleted a royalty review and that everything was A-okay. In typical Conservative fashion there was no documentation or record of the review for Albertans to see. The current Minister of Sustainable Resource Development publicly stated that the internal review was never completed. My first questi on is to the Minister of Energy.

Given the confusion, mixed messages, contradicting statements, and complete lack of documentation regarding the 2006 royalty review, will the minister tell the Assembly who was correct: the former Minister of Energy, who claims that the review was completed, or the current Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, who claims that it was not? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if there’s confusion here in the Legislature with respect to this issue, it resides across the way. Secondly, with respect to the review of our royalty system and the structures in the province of Alberta, it is an ongoing process.

In 2006 there were, in fact, some portions of the review that were completed. There were four different pieces of the royalty structure that were altered, completed in 2006. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Finance this time: given that the minister is overseeing the current royalty review and therefore should have detailed knowledge of the 2006 review, can the minister please tell Albertans about the process that was used in 2006, the terms of reference, and, most importantly, who took

part in the review? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Minister of Energy just stated, it was a review that looked at certain elements of the royalty package. What we are going to be doing and what we are in the process of doing is a complete review on everything to do with the royalties on the oil sands, on conventional oil and gas. We’re looking at the whole ball of wax, so to speak. What I will say – and I think that this is very important – is that we don’t duplicate what was done.

All the information that was done in the Department of Energy with their royalty review will be passed on to our Royalty Review Panel, which is an external panel, an arm’s-length panel. The previous royalty review was an internal panel. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Energy: given that the Department of Energy provides 11 oil and gas royalty adjustment programs, which in the last two years have cost $1.5 billion in reduced royalty rate s, are these programs necessary now that we’re looking at high prices for oil and gas in our North American markets?

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007510 Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious that the answer that I just gave moments ago in the Legislature does not satisfy the hon. member. He should understand that in 2006 we completed a review of some of the parts of the programs inside the royalty regime, and we removed nearly $300 million worth of programs from industry at that point. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Medical School Selection Criteria Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A recent study published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that about 10 per cent of physicians that graduate from Canadian medical schools leave to practise elsewhere. My question for the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology: what criteria are used to select students for Alberta medical schools, and who comprises the committee? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for this aspect of postsecondary education doesn’t reside with the government. It resides with the postsecondary institutions themselves.

It’s impor- tant to note that postsecondary institutions establish their own criteria. They establish their own committees and take a broad

section of the stakeholder group that would represent that. Medical faculties from across Canada also collaborate on the selection process. Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, since commitment to practise in Alberta is not one of the selection criteria, and given that most of the cost of educating the prospective medical grads is borne by the province, is there any way to have prospective medical students enter into a service contract with health care providers? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, like other students medical students pay for approximately one-third of their education.

They are responsible for significant costs while completing their residencies. Service contracts are an option that could be considered. We will look at many options. Service contracts have also proven ineffective in some areas, but we’re certainly open to reviewing all aspects of the rural physician action plan and those other action plans that are currently under way. Mr. Lougheed: I’m just wondering if the minister could elaborate further on what kinds of things he’s thinking about for retaining grads. Mr. Horner: Mr.

Speaker, this is a very, very important issue for government, and certainly my department takes it very seriously. Recently we announced that medical residents do not have to make student loan payments or interest payments while completing their residencies, and that becomes effective April 1. Bursary funding is available through both the Alberta government and the rural physician action plan for medical students and residents who wish to train in rural communities.

We are currently working through a cross-government initiative to addr ess the health workforce chal- lenges through Advanced Education and Technology, Health and Wellness, and Employment, Immigration and Industry. This initiative is a very large collaborative effort amongst the departments and also the stakeholders within the industry. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. High Island Natural Area Webcams Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Protected areas should be protected, period. It seems simple, but this government doesn’t seem to get it.

High Island natural area in Lac La Biche is being seriously disturbed by the installation of camera towers and equipment. To the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. Staff biologists’ report on the site stated that the impact on the landscape was deemed negligible. Will this minister make this report public and tell us if any other reports were prepared on the impact to the local bird populations? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, certainly, we’re using some technol- ogy that offers another way to Albertans to access protected areas.

Rather than having a whole pile of people in a protected area monitoring and following bird movement, we are using technology to do that. It’s all done in light of minimizing the impact that we have on those areas. Mr. Agnihotri: To the same minister. Local groups who were not consulted, including conservationists, naturalists, and the local birding society, are upset that this government broke its promise to go on with transparency. Is it the minister’s habit to make important decisions about protected areas without public input? Mr. Goudreau: Mr.

Speaker, this particular project is conducted by a renowned biologist, and certainly they monitored the installation of the equipment. I need to say that all of that work was done on frozen ground to try to minimize both our plant and soil disturbance. That was accomplished and done in light of trying to minimize the impact rather than have additional impact occur. 2:20 Mr. Agnihotri: To the same minister. Conservationists who have seen the area believe that the contractors installing the equipment have done considerable damage to the land.

Will the minister table the contract so Albertans know what penalties are in place for companies who violate the contract and how the area will be restored? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, it’s my understanding from following this particular file that we acknowledge that there were a few willow shrubs that were broken. If the hon. member is aware, under fairly moist conditions those willow shrubs will recover very, very rapidly. Certainly, we’re going to keep on top of the contract to make sure that no violations are occurring, and we’ll monitor the site as well.

The Speaker: Well, hon. members that was 102 questions and answers. Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Cited Documents The Speaker: We have a little item coming out of what happened today in the Assembly, and as we evolve with the new Standing Orders, I’d just like to draw your attention to it. We have now under the Routine a provision where tablings will occur before the question period. We had a question period. A minister referred to a docu- ment. There’s no provision to allow for tablings when an answer is being given, but it’s our custom that when a minister refers to a document, he or she should table it.

We have three ways of dealing with this. Number one, we can ask the minister to retu rn tomorrow and table the document. Number two, we can ask for unanimous consent, or number three, I can just

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 511 make a common-sense decision and say: will the minister table the document now? Would that be okay? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Speaker: Number three. Please proceed, hon. minister. Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table five copies of a document that I referred to earlier today in my answer. The Speaker: Now, in that procedural decision this does not negate the responsibility of members to table documents in tabling at the appropriate time before. This is not to get in the back door what you should be doing through the front door. Does everybody understand that?

Now, hon. leader of the third party, were you going to rise on a point of order? Point of Order Referring to Newspaper Articles Mr. Mason: I was going to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it had to do with the answer that the minister of learning gave to one of the hon. members in the opposition in which he read from a newspaper clipping. Under Beauchesne’s 428(e) – and I’d like to thank you for helping me find this – it does not allow someone to inquire whether or not statements made in newspapers are true.

I would submit that the converse is also the case and that comments on whether the statements made in a newspaper are true or not in an answer is covered by 428(e). Thank you. The Speaker: Well, it’s common practice, hon. members, that we don’t refer to newspapers as our source of information in the Legislative Assembly. I suspect that the hon. Minister of Education, having been trained in that discipline, is having a difficult time operating outside of that discipline, where the belief is that every- thing that’s said or printed is absolutely 100 per cent correct.

We all know that that’s not true, but we’ll accept that that’s basically the point. The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling, but I think it does bear saying that the hon. minister was not actually referring to the newspaper

article as to content as to whether it was true or not but whether or not it was being properly quoted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the question. That was the important reference, that if you’re going to quote a newspaper, which is perilous at best, you should at least do it accurately. The Speaker: And all would agree with that. head: Orders of the Day Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we shall call the committee to order.

I just want to remind every member that as of this week we are covered on the Internet from gavel to gavel, so be aware of that. Bill 3 Climate Change and Emissions Management Amendment Act, 2007 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to rise again and speak to Bill 3, Climate Change and Emissions Management Amendment Act, 2007, with a suggestion for amendment.

This is of vital interest to Albertans, and we on this side feel that the govern- ment is taking it with a lack of the urgency and seriousness that it requires. Bill 3 does require an intensity reduction beginning in July 2007 of 12 per cent in carbon emissions over the previous three-year average. Intensity targets are really related to the amount of carbon emitted per million dollars of GDP.

Under this regime it is possible to get industry, particularly the large final emitters, to reduce their emissions by significant amounts through this format of intensity reductions, but it’s very clear that as a longer term response to the serious issue of absolute reductions in carbon in the atmosphere, this is not going to win the day. Indeed, calculations out of several institutes, including the Pembina Institute, suggest that we will have a 70 per cent increase in carbon in this province by 2020 if we simply follow intensity targets, as outlined in this bill, of 50 per cent intensity reduction by 2020.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, it’s time for us to take very much more seriously the responsibility Albertans have placed in our hands. This is the issue of the 21st century. We have to come to terms with limits and tighter timelines and re ductions in absolute emissions. This amendment suggests following the good initial regulation that is going to reduce by 12 per cent the intensity by an additional 10 per cent reduction every two years.

In association with these carbon emissions the first amendment that I’m wanting to recommend is that we establish a tax on the excess carbon that’s beyond the $15 per tonne that this bill provides. Indeed, it clearly needs to be higher based on the world market for carbon. The European Union charges closer to $30 a tonne, and we are at $15. If we are wanting to send a clear message, if we’re wanting real business opportunities to emerge out of the carbon market, we have to advance that. As the amendment is being circulated, Mr. Chairman, I could go ahead and read it if you wish.

The Deputy Chair: Hon. member, we shall refer to your amend- ment as amendment A5, and you may proceed. It has been circu- lated to everyone. Dr. Swann: Thank you. I’m moving, then, that Bill 3, Climate Change and Emissions Management Amendment Act, 2007, be amended in

section 6 in the proposed

section 60 by adding the following subsection:

(4) Where a regulation under s ubsection (1)(dd) states that emissions in excess of the maximum levels established under subsection (1)(

d) constitute an offence, the penalties . . . shall be not less than (a) $15 per tonne, commencing in 2008, as is already registered, (b) $20 per tonne, commencing in 2010, and (c) $30 per tonne, commencing in 2012. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m open for further discussion.

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007512 2:30 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung on the amendment. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s really my pleasure to rise today and participate in debate on this amendment A5, which seeks to make Bill 3 an even better piece of legislation. I’m going to briefly state my reasoning for standing in support of my hon. colleague from Calgary-Mountain View in his moving of this amendment. As is obvious to you, Mr.

Chairman, and to all hon. members today, the Member for Calgary-Mountain View is suggesting that we bring in a tiered, or stepwise, increase into the penalty for exceeding emission targets. As he is suggesting, he is basically saying that instead of just a flat $15 per tonne of waste, we would have an increasing penalty structure where it jumps from $15 per tonne in 2008 to $20 per tonne in 2010, and then ultimately to $30 per tonne commencing in 2012. Now, if you think about this, Mr.

Chairman, what we’re trying to say here is that we recognize that bringing in targets and requiring companies and corporations, emitters if you will, to adhere to those targets might take some time. Some companies might have the resources to implement new technology or to bring in those solutions immediately or in the fairly short term. Some companies might have difficulty adjusting.

But ultimately if you’re looking at a year from now to three years from now to five years from now, everybody should be at that same level of competence, if you will, and having the technology in place and the resources in place to do what they’re told. So while we are prepared to live with the $15 per tonne initially, I think we are not prepared to continue to live with that same meagre level of penalty for longer periods of time after 2008. That’s why in 2010 we’re going to increase it to $20, which is not really an outrageous increase, but then ultimately after 2012 it’s going to be $30 from then on.

This is going to be putting us at par with other jurisdictions as the European Union, for example, which is really ahead of us by leaps and bounds. We should aspire to being a world leader in environmental stewardship. As we talked before, Mr. Chairman, offering carrots is one way. Waving a stick is another way. This is basically signalling to companies that emit a lot of that garbage and a lot of that waste into the earth’s atmosphere that we are not going to tolerate this.

If, in fact, it’s actually adding a little bit of a financial burden or a financial disincentive to their operations, I think they would be wise to pay attention to this. One year from now they have to implement something. Three years from now, when it starts to bite them a little more in their bottom line, they would have to be a little more compliant.

Then ultimately when it goes to $30, which is not outrageous, which is really like wh at the other jurisdictions are doing, they would definitely have to think twice before they continue spewing their garbage into the atmosphere without fear of, you know, having to live with repercussions or the government telling them that they cannot continue on that path. We can use the funds that we generate from those penalties by putting them into a green fund, for example. It’s sort of a health rehabilitation fund for the planet where we basically use the money to clean up and to remedy some of the damage we have done.

I was actually watching an old black and white movie the other day, Mr. Chairman. I can’t remember the name, but it was fairly old, and it talked about gold prospectors in the old Wild West. One of the characters in the movie was talking to his colleagues, or his comrades . . . An Hon. Member: Sidekicks. Mr. Elsalhy: His sidekicks. Actually, yes, he was sort of the leader of that group. There were three people who were looking for gold in a mountain in the old Wild West. He told them: ev ery day we look for gold, we’re injuring the mountain. That was the sentiment in the 1930s, when that movie was produced.

When they left that mountain at the end of the movie because they were rich, and they were as rich as they wanted to be – they did not continue beyond what they felt was adequate; they didn’t just keep going – he told them: we don’t just pack up and leave; what we have to do is fix the damage or try to remedy the damage that we inflicted on that mountain. He actually used the word “injury.” They injured the mountain. Today we are injuring the planet as well through development that is faster than planned for.

This is one way where we can basically remedy and apply some sort of healing or a treatment aspect to this growth that we’re experiencing. Growth is fine as long as we can manage it. One way we can manage growth is by using some of those funds that we generate with this escalating, or increasing stepwise, fee structure by applying some of those funds towards healing the planet and looking after the environment and restoring the environment to as pristine as possible, as natural as possible a state that we can pass on to our children and our grandchildren. Impact on the industry?

I don’t think $30 per tonne is outrageous. As I said, they’re making a lot of profit right now, Mr. Chairman, and it’s time that they actually live up to their promise and step up to the plate and partner with us in government and partner with the public by showing leadership. If this is going to offer them the incentive or the enticement to do it because they’re afraid for their bottom line and they’re afraid for their shareholders, then I’m all for it. I voice my support for this amendment A5, and I commend the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View for supporting it and sponsoring it. Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be able to rise and speak in support of the amendment sponsored by my colleague from Calgary-Mountain View, which increases by a step-up factor the fines or penalties under

section 60(3) in (4) and following (1)(dd). I find this a useful way of working with the private sector here because the private sector is driven by a profit motive: entirely appropriate, a very successful way. I certainly wouldn’t do anything to stand in the way of that profit motive. As a matter of fact, I think many entrepreneurs would claim that that’s their inspiration and drives them to be leaner and meaner and achieve more. Good. Taking that as the standard, let’s work forward from that.

We know that both money incentives and penalties or fines can be quite successful in helping the private sector adapt to public policy driven issues, and that’s really what we’ve got here. We’ve got public policy that needs to be setting an agenda to reduce green- house emissions. That’s for the betterment of the planet. How do we work alongside the private sector? Well, this is one of the ways of doing it, through a series of graduated penalties if you want to look at it one way.

The other way is incentives because, frankly, if the private sector is able to achieve the targets that are set out here, they benefit. Their competitors, if they’re not able to achieve it, will be paying a fine. Those who did well in achieving these targets will definitely benefit financially, so it’s an excellent inspiration for the profit motive. Essentially, it’s speaking the same

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 513 language if I can couch it that way. So I’m very much in favour of what’s been suggested here. The existing bill just suggests the first target, which is the $15 per tonne commencing in 2008. 2:40 Dr. Swann: July 2007. Ms Blakeman: Sorry. July 2007. I stand corrected. This spreads out the timeline a bit more. It’s $15 per tonne in 2008, $20 in 2010, and $30 per tonne in 2012, which sort of was the end date that we were seeking that’s contemplated in this bill. Why do we need to do that?

Well, I think it’s pretty clear to me as a citizen but also as a policy-maker that the public rather than the legislators are driving this issue. The citizens clearly want definitive action on climate control, on greenhouse gases. They want to see substantive measures taken by our government. In that I think the policy-makers are behind the public, which is a little unusual but happens every now and then, and this is one of the times. Why is that?

Well, I think that particularly in Alberta – and we often have the finger pointed at us by the rest of Canada, and in some cases that’s unfair – when we look at the amount of industrial activity that we have in this province that contributes to greenhouse gas, we rank very high. Actually, we rank at the top. According to data that was produced by Environment Canada, based on data that was in fact filed with them, Alberta accounts for nearly 40 per cent of all climate-warming gases released in 2005. Forty per cent of everything in Canada is coming out of one province, and that’s us.

Of course, the next largest emitter is Ontario, and it comes in at 28 per cent, so we are substantially in the lead on that and not the kind of blue ribbon, first-prize award that I was hoping Alberta would take. In the ranking of individual industrial sites that are emitting greenhouse gases, we also rank very high b ecause seven of the 10 biggest polluters in Canada are situated here in Alberta. The province, indeed, has five fossil fuel fired generating stations in the top 10. So we really need to take big steps here in Alberta.

I don’t want to see Alberta competitively disadvantaged any more than the next person. In fact, I think that the oil and gas sector is ready to step up. I think they’ve been ready to step up for a long time because we’re not just competing with Canada here; we’re competing with the rest of the world. I’m about to paraphrase a quote here. Somebody said that there was a war being waged on carbon. I think that’s true, and it could end up being waged against us in Alberta. I don’t want to see that happen.

I don’t want to see us targeted by the rest of the world, so I want us to get out front, to take leadership on this. This is about absolute reductions in emissions. This is not pussyfooting around. We have to be brave and take those big steps, and again I think our oil and gas sector is ready to step out. I think they are perfectly prepared to be number 1 and to lead on this. They just want to know when it starts. They want predictability in when it all comes into play by targets and timelines, and then they’re ready to go. They will do it.

I know they will because we’re playing with the best here in this province. We’re not coming out of the backfield here. We’ve got the top. We’ve got the top brains, the top innova- tors in the oil and gas sector right here in Alberta. I know that we can do this. We just need to be fair to everybody so that they all know when they’re going to start, and they know what they’re trying to achieve, and let ’em rip. They will accom- plish this.

In that case, what’s considered in this amendment would not even need to come into play because they will achieve it and will not be subject to any of the penalties that are contemplated in the amendment, and that is the additional stepping up of the penalties that are being brought forward in this amendment. Of course, any of their competitors that can’t keep up are going to be subject to it, and frankly that gives the ones that got out ahead a competitive advantage, and that’s entirely appropriate. I think this is a good idea. I think we can do well with it.

I think that our oil and gas sector can lead in this, and I think they want to lead in it, but as public policy-makers we’ve got to give them that starting gate to start from and the targets to know where they’re trying to get to. Dr. Swann: Level the playing field. Ms Blakeman: Yeah. It’s the proverbial level playing field. But really what it’s about is: where exactly is the starting gate, and what exactly are they shooting for? What’s the end target? So with those comments in support of amendment A5, Mr. Chairman, I will urge my colleagues in the Assembly to support the amendment.

I will take my seat and allow others to also speak in favour of the amendment. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Any others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You’ll be pleased to know that I am going to accept the advice of my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Centre and speak in support of this motion as well. I’ll keep my comments brief because a lot of the things that I was going to say have already been touched on by previous speakers, but I would like to just touch on a couple of points.

The first is that I’m long on record personally as not being a big fan of carbon trading and offsets. I have said that one of the things that I like about Bill 3, even though it’s definitely not going far enough in my mind and certainly not in that of the opposition caucus, is that these penalties will stay in Alberta and help to provide Alberta solutions, and I am supportive of that aspect of Bill 3.

The fact that in this particular amendment we would see those penalties rise in a reasonable fashion over a graduated period of time makes perfect sense to me, and I’m hoping that it will make perfect sense to all members of this House. So while I support that aspect of the bill, as I suggest, I think it doesn’t go near far enough. This amendment, if approved, would take us even just a little bit further, move the goalpost, as it were, just that much further, which would certainly help in terms of garnering support from the opposition for this b ill, which, I’ll be frank with you, Mr.

Chairman, at this point in time does not have a lot of support from the opposition for primarily the reason that I’ve outlined; that is, it just simply does not go far enough. Another point that I’d like to make. A number of people have referenced the fact that the $30 per tonne that’s currently charged in Europe – and this would put us on a level playing field with what’s charged elsewhere – is still competitively favourable to Alberta businesses in that the dollars being contemplated to be charged as a penalty in Alberta are in Canadian dollars.

The offsets or the charges that are collected in Europe and elsewhere are actually charged in American dollars. We’re all aware of the fact that right now that actually would put us at somewhere around 86 or 87 per cent of what’s being collected in Europe. Even though this amend- ment does take us in the right direction, it’s still leaving Alberta businesses at somewhat of an advantage compared to businesses elsewhere. Hopefully, that will help to persuade some members opposite that this is a reasonable amendment and worthy of their support as well.

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007514 So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I will take my seat and look forward to further debate and, hopefully, a swift passage of this amendment by the members of this House. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A5 lost] The Deputy Chair: Hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, I believe you have another amendment to bring forward. Dr. Swann: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We need to strengthen Bill 3. It clearly does not send the right message to industry and the public about the seriousness of the issue before us.

In that regard, I’ve circulated amendment 2. 2:50 The Deputy Chair: Hon. member, we shall refer to this amendment as amendment A6. Dr. Swann: Amendment A6. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That Bill 3, Climate Change and Emissions Management Amend- ment Act, 2007, be amended in

section 6 in the proposed

section 60 by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) A regulation under subsection (1)(

d) shall impose requirements that are at least as stringent as a 10% reduction [in intensity] in each of the 5 successive years following the coming into force of this section. This is being circulated now. I’ll wait just a moment until people have it in hand. The Deputy Chair: Yes. That’s correct. Give it a few moments. They’re just being distributed at the present time. Hon. member, you may proceed now. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The spirit of Bill 3 is to add a 12 per cent intensity reduction to the large final emitters in this province, and that’s a very reasonable decision for year 1 of our next four years of trying to come to grips with climate change and the responsibility to absolutely r each a cap and start reducing carbon emissions. What this amendment will do is add annual increases to that intensity target such that we’ll approach some 50 per cent reduction by 2012, a much more ambitious target, to be sure, than the existing target, which was 50 per cent by 2020.

But even moving this amendment would result in us achieving a target by 2012 that others have already achieved in the European Union and the United Kingdom. By allowing this cap in 2013, which the opposition is recommending as a follow-up to our four-part increase in intensity targets, we would then begin to reduce towards the targets that the European Union and the United Kingdom have already achieved; that is, by 2012 a net reduction of 30 per cent in absolute emissions.

Surely it’s clear to us in this part of the world that with our advantage financially, technically, and the flexibility we have in our resource base, we have to do at least our share and try to begin to approach by 2012 what Europe is achieving by 2012. We must be able to achieve by 2020 what the rest of Europe and the developed world are achieving by 2012. This will move us in that direction substantially. Our target then must be 6 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020.

As the Stern report, the now famous report out of the U.K. by Sir Nicholas Stern, indicated, we have to start spending 1 per cent of our gross national product now per year, or we’re going to be spending 20 per cent of our gross national product in 20 years with massive dislocation of people, loss of life, and loss of land. So this, I think, tries to move us more actively, more aggressively from a much stronger position of leadership to actually address what Albertans and Canadians have said that they want: a serious commitment to climate change and reducing our carbon emissions.

One per cent of our gross domestic product in Alberta would be $2 billion spent a nnually on car bon reduction technology, carbon reduction incentives in the renewables area, biofuels, all manner of energy efficiency technologies, car bon capture and storage. Two billion dollars is what the report suggested is going to be needed if we are going to seriously commit to climate change reduction. This is precisely what Albertans are calling for. At present we spend about $5 million a year through the Climate Change Central offices.

We spend about $350 million a year through the ME First program to retrofit and develop new energy efficiency technologies in municipalities and save a total of no more than $500 million a year. That’s one-quarter of what is deemed to be necessary. With an extra fee on the carbon emissions and with a ratcheting up of the intensity targets, we could have a larger fund to work with, and we could have a much shorter time frame to get absolute reductions in Alberta.

So in the interest of the future and the interest of being shown to be serious about our commitment to climate change, I strongly encourage your support for this amendment which will move us to still far below the levels by 2012 that the European community has achieved and some corporations have achieved, but it would show a serious commitment to absolute reductions in carbon by 2012. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it needs to be stated at the outset that I think every member in this House would consider themselves, whether they’re on that side of the House or this side of the House, to be a responsible and dedicated steward of the environ- ment. Perhaps we have different ideas on the sides of the House; nonetheless, I think that needs to be stated up front. Now, I applaud the hon. member on his tireless dedication to this cause, but I want to point out a couple of things to him. First of all, he talks about reductions of 50 per cent in carbon by 2010. I believe those were the numbers that he was using. Mr.

Chairman, it’s very easy to bandy about numbers. I think that before we should be talking about those kinds of numbers, somebody had better be talking about what technology is available to achieve those kinds of goals. Now, the hon. member brought up an interesting point: that we should be setting goals around what Europe has already achieved. That’s a very interesting thought, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to point out something to the hon. member.

Last week the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, announced that although their carbon emissions had risen by 3 per cent in the last year, they still felt that they were on track for meeting their Kyoto targets because, including the 3 per cent raise last year, they’re currently 15 per cent below their 1990 emissions levels. By the Kyoto measurement year they only need to be 12 per cent be low, so they think they’re well within the range. I want the member to consider that for a moment.

At the time that Britain signed the Kyoto protocol, they were more than 15 per cent below their 1990 emissions levels, which is why they picked 1990 as a reference date. The same is true in Europe because they had already taken significant amounts of coal-fired generation offline, so they used 1990 as a reference year. They’d already met their targets, and they all gleefully signed the Kyoto protocol. None of them have talked about any technologies that would be available for major carbon reductions, with the exception of production curtailments.

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 515 Right now that’s the only really serious avenue that we have available to us to meet 50 per cent reduction targets. So if the member wants to advocate that we should shut down big sections of our economy, then I guess we could probably achieve 50 per cent. Otherwise, I think I would like to stand here and applaud the Minister of Environment for being the first one in Canada, provincially or federally, to table such legislation that has real goals, real targets, and is actually going to do something about climate change rather than blathering on about it.

It’s a frustrating issue. I think the Environment minister has done an excellent job. I do not support this amendment, and I’m going to support the bill as it stands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, you know, I appreciate the intent here of this amendment. This amend- ment would require a 10 per cent reduction in each of the five successive years.

I’m not sure whether or not that can be accom- plished, but at least it has the advantage of setting out a plan. 3:00 The difficulty that I have with the comment of the previous speaker and, in general, with the whole approach to emissions intensity is that they are only telli ng you half the story. The other half of the story is that there is a massive and uncontained expansion planned, particularly in the tar sands in northern Alberta, in their production.

So even though you bring down emissions intensity per unit of production substantially, when you’re talking about massive increases in the total output, then your overall CO 2 emissions will continue to rise and rise very dramatically. That’s the problem. I think it’s consciously done by the government. That’s the problem with their approach: they’re not talking about what’s going to happen in terms of industrial development in the tar sands in this province over the next 10, 15, and 20 years.

The Premier at his very first news conference after becoming the leader of the Conservative Party – and I attended that news confer- ence – elaborated on his philosophy quite clearly at that point, I thought, and that was that the government’s role was to provide services for the economy, the things that they needed. If people needed schools or if they needed housing or if they needed labour force or whatever they needed, then they would get it from the government, but the government would not interfere with the economic development taking place in the province.

The govern- ment would not interfere with the economy, and in fact the govern- ment would not touch the brake, as he put it. You take that and then also consider the decisions at some of the closed-door meetings that the government has participated in.

For example, at a meeting in Houston in January of 2006 organized by energy Canada and the United States Department of Energy and attended by senior executives from all kinds of oil companies and our own Minister of Energy at the time, the decision was made – at least as far as we know, it was the decision – that the output in the tar sands of Alberta should increase by five times, a fivefold increase in a relatively short period of time.

Take what we’ve got now in this province and the stresses and strains on this province today as a result of this growth, not to mention the impacts of the CO 2 production, and multiply that by five, and you will get an idea of the kind of future for Alberta that this government has apparently agreed to behind closed doors without ever talking to the people of Alberta about that, never expressing a vision for this province that is producing five times as much oil out of the tar sands as is presently the case, five times as many plants on the go, five times as much inflation, five times as much CO2 emissions, five times the housing shortage, five times the shortage in hospital beds, and five times the shortage in classroom spaces.

That’s the vision this government has for this province. It’s not a vision that they’re prepared to honestly share with Albertans; rather, it’s a vision that they cook up behind closed doors with the American government and with big oil companies. Mr. Chairman, given that the Alberta government is going to bend over backwards to assist the Amer ican government in its strategic goal of replacing Mideast oil without regard to the interests of the people of this province or of the environment, then that gives us a context for Bill 3.

We see an aggressive attempt to reduce the emissions intensity, which is the amount of CO2 produced per unit of energy or per unit of production, at the same time as that amount of production will be five times as high. So it really, stripped of all of its veneer, is a bill that w ill allow a massive increase in CO 2 output from this province. Five times as much production with a lesser intensity may mean four times as much CO 2 or, if they’re really, really good, maybe three and a half times the amount of CO2 that we’re presently producing. That’s what this bill is for, and that’s what this bill means.

That’s why the Alberta New Democrats are opposing this bill. It’s not an honest assessment of our future, and it doesn’t deal fairly and adequately. The suggestion that has been made on the other side, that if we implement some sort of real caps on emission or if we find a better way to do it than intensity, we’re going to shut down the economy, is simply not true, Mr. Chairman. The economy is humming along. In fact, it’s growing faster, perhaps, than it should.

We could ensure long-term employment for all the people of Alberta, all our young people plus people from other pa rts of the country plus people coming from outside the country to this province, at a much lower level of development. If the tar sands and if the energy resource of this province were developed in the interests of the people of the province as opposed to the interests of big oil compan ies and the United States govern- ment, we could have full employment, get caught up on our infrastructure needs, and substantially reduce the increase, at least, in absolute CO 2 production in this province.

We may not be able to level it off entirely, but we could certainly do a much better job if we had a more honest approach from this government. Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate that I don’t accept what the hon. member opposite has said about the impact on Alberta’s economy of this amendment or other amendments that have been brought forward. A more rational, staged, and paced approach to development in our province is not only entirely possible but beneficial and rational and something which we ought to be supporting. Bill 3 is a ticket to wholesale increases in CO 2 production. It’s nothing else, Mr.

Chairman. It’s all wrapped up in an attempt to appear green and environmentally responsible, but it is quite the opposite. It is an antienvironment bill and not one that we will support with this amendment or otherwise. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise again. Just to address the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member pointed out twice in his talk some sort of secret deal or secret plan we have to rapidly expand oil sands development in Alberta.

If the hon. member believes that, I suggest that he call Shaw Cable and get television and Internet access because there is no secret about what

Alberta Hansard April 11, 2007516 Alberta’s plans are for production of oil. I think it is patently naive to think that Alberta is just going to curtail their production in oil. We have over 80 per cent of North America’s oil reserves right here in our province. I just think it’s absolutely unreasonable. Mr. Chairman, again, the hon. member says that he does not accept my assertion that the only technology available right now is production curtailment. If that’s true, then I would point out that the hon. member needn’t have suggested that we curtail production by slowing down the oil sands development.

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting. Mr. Chairman, Alberta is a major energy player in the world. We need to develop our resources in an environmentally responsible manner. I believe that’s what this bill is attempting to do, and I’m going to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: Any others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick comments in reference to amendment A6, I believe it is. First of all, I find myself agreeing with the leader of the third party, and that always causes me a certain amount of concern. Mr.

Mason: It causes me more. 3:10 Mr. R. Miller: In fact, the hon. member says that it causes him even more concern, so I’m not sure what’s happening here this afternoon. I think he made some very valid points, in particular with the frustration that he is clearly feeling, and I certainly feel, with members from the governing party when it comes to this belief that they continue to expound, that the only way to curtail emissions is, in fact, to curtail production. That is just not true. I’m sure the hon. member knows that, and I think everybody in this House knows that. If you incent industry, they will find a way.

In fact, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre in her remarks to an earlier amendment referenced the fact that industry is saying that they’re ready. What they’re looking for from government is some guidelines. I’m hearing that as I tour the province, too. In fact, we know that many of the larger companies are already far ahead of this government in terms of their preparation for dealing with global warming. My colleague from Calgary-Mountain View just men- tioned Shell, Petro-Canada, and BP as examples of that. It’s not a question of industry not being able to come up with solutions.

It’s not even a question of industry resisting solutions. In many cases they’re far ahead of that. It really is a question of incenting industry and making sure, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that all industry is playing by the same rules. I think what the players in the oil patch are looking for is some assurance that when they invest extra dollars into addressing this issue, they’re not going to be putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with their industry partners.

It’s very frustrating for me to listen to government members talk about the fact – and I know that yesterday it was the Member for Rocky Mountain House who was saying the same thing – that the only way that you can reduce total emissions is to reduce production. That is simply not the case at all, and I would be terribly disap- pointed to learn that, in fact, they do believe that because it’s simply not true. I believe that absolute reductions are achievable if we deal with this properly, and industry is sayi ng that they are achievable if we deal with it properly.

Yes, it’s go ing to cost some money, but the bottom line is to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, make sure that the competitive disadvantage isn’t put in place that will harm some companies over others. Give them the reason to do what we all know is right, and they’ll do it. I certainly speak strongly in favour of this amendment. This is the sort of thing that were it in th e bill, the government would most likely have the support of the opposition. These are the places where we all know that we have to go.

As the Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Norwood pointed out, simply reducing intensity and not addressing overall emissions does absolutely nothing to address a situation where you could have twice as much or three times as much or five times as much production taking place and thereby three times or five times as much emissions taking place as well. So how are we any better off if we allow that to happen? Lastly, Mr.

Chairman, in reference to the comments made by the Member for Peace River a bout Fort McMurray, I think he tried to draw the parallel that the only way that you could control emissions out of the oil sands region would be to not allow the continued expansion and production there, and I’ve already addressed that argument.

The other part of that comment that sort of struck me as being odd is the realization – and the government members are hearing this, too, from the mayor of Wood Buffalo and various stakeholders up there – that the issues surrounding the growth that’s taking place in the oil sands have so much more to do with things other than just simply emissions that come out of that region. I mean, we’re talking about health care, we’re talking about infrastructure, we’re talking about housing.

The whole gamut of issues that are f aced by communities across this province is evident in the Wood Buffalo region and in some cases to a much greater extent than they are elsewhere in the province. So to simply tie emission targets to expansion of the oil sands projects and suggest that the only way that you can control emissions out of that area, you know, that they’re directly related to the increased ex pansion of projects in that area, that’s again missing the point. Whenever anybody talks about the Wood Buffalo region, we’re talking about much more than simply emissions.

We’re talking about community health. We’re talking about the need for some managed growth in that region. It is so much more involved than simply emissions, Mr. Chairman. So I had to get that point on the record. I certainly support amendment A6, and I’m hoping that others will do likewise. Again, as I say, it would be a very positive step in terms of securing support from the Official Opposition. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Are there others? The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to be on the record for this amendment.

I’m not, probably, all that knowledge- able about speaking about the oil i ndustry and all of the emissions and the carbon sequestration and all of these sorts of things. To me that can become a very complex conversation. But what I can’t understand is that in this day and age we are still actually arguing about this. We all know that something has to be done, and we all know that it has to be done now, the sooner the better.

I also believe that industries, in particular the large industries who have already met targets in Europe, have known for years that, finally, Alberta would have the backbone to actually stand up and talk about it. Well, we are talking about it now. I just believe that these industries are ready to go, and they will never do it unless someone has the strength to stand up and say: you have to do it. But I also believe that we cannot keep throwing out the words

April 11, 2007 Alberta Hansard 517 “intensity targets” if we also don’t tie that into what the production is. If the production of the emissions go up, then the intensity targets have to go up. We have to have them go in parallel, but the intensity targets have to be in front of what is being produced because, otherwise, we’re always behind the eight ball. I really believe that this is an excellent amendment that would address the fact that we have to have our intensity targets accepted now and start working on them right now.

Yes, we can say that we will meet such and such a thing later down the road, but we really have to have high, high targets to aim for so that when my grandchil- dren are around, they actually will still be able to enjoy Alberta as I know it. The Deputy Chair: Any others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, rise to voice my support for amendment A6, which is seeking to fix a little problem- atic

section of Bill 3, the climate change act. The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View explained why we think it is feasible and why we think it is necessary to tighten, or increase, the reduction on emissions as time progresses, over a five-year period. I was genuinely disappointed with the position of the hon. leader of the NDP opposition. I understand his frustration that this bill does not achieve the hard caps that his caucus and ours would advocate or would prefer. But I struggle with this, Mr. Chairman, because my a