Alberta Hansard — 3 May 2006, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 26, Session 2)

20060503

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1237 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 1:30 p.m. Date: 06/05/03 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Author of all wisdom, knowledge, and understand- ing, we ask for guidance in order that truth and justice may prevail in all of our judgments. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, your constituency is Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock, and we all know that some very special people in Alberta come from Barrhead. One of them is my wife, Phyllis, and another one is a special woman who has joined us this afternoon. I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Mrs. Joyce Shaw. Many Albertans like to connect to our open and accountable and responsive government through a front-line staff person in our district offices.

They appreciate the top-level service that they receive from Albertans like Joyce Shaw, who works for Sustainable Resource Development in the fish and wildlife division office in Barrhead, Alberta. Mrs. Shaw is an expert at answering questions about hunting and fishing and problem wildlife and for sure other areas. She knows who to talk to if a question comes up. That’s because she has been providing this service to Albertans for 50 years. On May 1, 1956, Joyce joined the Alberta public service and remains an employee to this da y. She is the longest serving employee in the Alberta government.

During this time Joyce has provided committed and dedicated service to the people of Alberta. I see that Mrs. Shaw is standing. The folks that are joining her today are Mr. Milt McKee, a fish and wildlife officer in our Barrhead office; Mrs. Eleanor Frazer, Mrs. Shaw’s sister; Mr. Bob Frazer, her brother-in-law; Mr. Harry Barton, her brother; Mrs. Cecile Barton, her sister-in-law; Mr. Val Fischer and Mrs. Doreen Fischer; and Joyce’s niece Rhonda Kozak. Mr. Speaker, this is an exceptional, dedicated lady. I see them all rising, and I’d ask the Assembly to give them the traditional warm welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members and to the minister, thank you very much for that kind introduction of a very significant constituent of mine. I just want to add a couple of words to Joyce. She not only has endured 50 years in the public service of the province of Alberta. That is half the history of the province. She is also, however, a very professional person, a very warm person, and a person very much loved by the people I have the privilege of representing. Can you imagine, hon. members – can you imagine? – how much roadkill has crossed her desk in the last 50 years? So, Joyce, well done.

And she’s continuing to work. head: Introduction of Guests Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I have three introductions today, and they’re seated in the members’ gallery, the public gallery, and your gallery. The first is an impressive group of high school students from the 2006 Forum for Young Albertans. They’re here from all over the province and are spending this week learning about the inner workings of the provincial government. Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with them to talk about my role as Premier and answer some insightful questions they had about politics in our province.

Second, it’s my pleasure to introduce Colin and Lila Eicher. Colin is the owner and CEO of June Warren Publishing, located here in Alberta. They publish, among other publications, Oilweek magazine. Colin was also the successful bidder on a lunch with me at NAIT’s annual bigwig cruise fundraising event. He and his wife, Lila, and I just enjoyed a terrific meal of egg salad sandwiches. We enjoyed the meal in support of NAIT’s education programs. Last but certainly not least, I would like to introduce Deborah Owram, her husband, Doug, and their daughter Kristine, who are seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker.

Deborah has been a wonderful addition to the Legislature family over the past years as deputy secretary of cabinet. Her husband, Doug, served as vice-president academic and provost at the University of Alberta. Deborah and Doug will be leaving Alberta this summer as Doug has accepted a position with the University of Br itish Columbia at their Kelowna campus. Their daughter Kristine is off to Carleton University this fall, where she’ll pursue a degree in journalism. I would now ask the Forum for Young Albertans, the Eichers, and the Owrams to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Legislature.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you a group of home-educated students from my constituency of Stony Plain. There are seven students accompanied by their leaders Mrs. Ferne Cymbaluk, Mrs. Jolene Burnstad, Mrs. Dawn Sirdar, and Mrs. Janet Sawatzky. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Vermilion-Lloydminster. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it’s a real honour for me today to introduce 17 dynamic young students from the aging and soon to be repl aced Delnorte sc hool in Innisfree. They are accompanied by their teachers, Miss Tiffany Tomkow and Mr. Mike Strom, and by their bus driver, Mr. Barry Feschuk. Out in Innisfree we say that we don’t have a lot of students, but quality beats quantity every time. I would ask the students to rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Darcie Acton, who resides in the hamlet of Wagner in the Lesser Slave Lake constituency. She is accompanied by her father, Jim Acton, of Edmonton. Darcie is the fund development co-ordinator for Northern Lakes College and a councillor for the MD of Lesser Slave Lake. She is in Edmonton for discussions on postsecondary education and the Northern Alberta Development Council. Mr.

Speaker, Jim Acton has had a distinguished career in govern- ment spanning 38 years as the director of operations and construc- tion for Alberta parks and then as the government liaison for international sporting events. He is the founding director of the Alberta Provincial Parks Alumni and was the liaison for former Premier Lougheed at the Sarajevo Winter Olympic Games in 1984. Jim most recently served as one of Alberta’s centennial ambassa- dors.

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061238 Mr. Speaker, if I could ask Darcie and Jim Acton, who are seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon, to stand up, and I would ask the Assembly to give them great applause. Thank you. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a great pleasure and an honour for me to rise today and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 18 of Alberta’s brightest and best students. That’s right. They’re here in the public gallery today.

They hail from Lakedell school, and they’re accompanied by two teachers, Ms Arlene Jackson and Mr. Rick Southern. I’m just glad that they could visit us today, and I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through you to all hon. Members of this Legislative Assembly John Patrick Day. John Day is a local historian.

He is a keen observer of local, provincial, and national politics, and it is also interesting to note that he was also a coach of a rival high school Reach for the Top team when you were involved in those competitions. He told me earlier that your teams were always well prepared and very, very competitive. Mr. John Patrick Day is in the public gallery, and I would now ask him to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Continuing Care Standards Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Nearly a year after the Auditor General’s scathing report this government finally released their new provincial standards for continuing care. Unfortunately, it appears that Alberta seniors will have to wait even longer for the complete remedy to our province’s ailing long-term care system. In fact, legislative changes won’t even be made until next spring. My questions are to the Premier. Why is this govern- ment releasing standards today but waiting until the spring of 2007 to make any legislative changes? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports can speak to the specifics, but I can say that the signifi- cance of the new standards is not just the improvements to accom- modation standards. What we will now have is consistency across the system. I’ll have the hon. minister provide the details. Mrs. Fritz: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I’m so pleased that these standards are here today, and I know that everyone in this Assembly must be just as pleased. You’re absolutely right. I think that we really need to thank once again the MLA task force, that met with Albertans and met more than once.

I think we need to thank the Alberta Senior Citizens’ Housing Association, the Long Term Care Association, the operators, the regional health authorities, absolutely everyone who had input into these standards. This is such good news that they’re here today. As the member said, it has been a year. It’s been a very thoughtful year. It’s been a year of hard work. Our staff have worked very hard, and they need to be thanked as well. As you read through these, hon. member, you will see the goodness that is here for all Albertans in long-term care, in support- ive living, and in our lodges.

I look forward to any other questions there may be. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us how many of these standards – and there are three different kinds: the health, the accommodation, and the facilities, I think – will be legislated? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, it’s entirely up to the minister as to whether legislative changes are required, but all facilities and operators are expected to implement these new standards as soon as possible.

We will see them implemented either through regulation, policy, or legislation, as I understand it, by April 2007. I’d like to remind the hon. member that you just don’t snap your fingers and expect changes to fall from heaven. Ms Blakeman: You’ve had a year. Mr. Klein: It’s less than a year, Mr. Speaker, and all of the recom- mendations will be implemented. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Again to the Premier: can he tell us why an independent provincial monitoring and enforcement mechanism was not put in place to ensure compliance with this standard?

We’ve got checkerboarding across the RHAs. Why wasn’t it independent and provincial? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, checkerboarding is the wrong term to use because what the report accomplishes is consistency across the system. Relative to the specifics of the questions, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really important to recognize that the accommodation standards are going to apply for the very first time to all 400 facilities – to absolutely every facility – whether it is public or privately funded. That alone is key.

I think that it’s also important to recognize that there will be an accreditation process for every single one of those facilities as well. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: This government’s notion that long-term care and aging will be responsible for bankrupting the health care system has resulted in new standards that off-load responsibility to regional health authorities, residents, and their families. Policies to ensure compliance with continuing care health service standards have also become the responsibility of the RHAs.

My question would go to the Premier. Given that this government is off-loading responsibility for monitoring compliance with the standards, what additional funding will the RHA be getting to meet these standards? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take the question under advisement, but I will say that, you know, it’s never enough for the opposition. I would ask all hon. members to bring some perspective back to the debate. We do have a younger population than the national average, and our spending on long-term care is higher than the national

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1239 average. So funding is not the only answer. Obviously, we need to do a better job, and that was pointed out in the report. The new standards that have been accepted by the minister will go a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. Ms Pastoor: The next question again would be to the Premier. Why is the government off-loading mo re and more of the costs for continuing care services onto residents and their families? These are the ones that are paying the price. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon.

Minister of Finance supplement, but I can tell you that relative to long-term care, the accommodation fees were increased to bring them in line with the cost of providing the service, and that’s the only increase there has been. Relative to the specifics of the question, I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I think the Health and Wellness estimates were in this House a week ago tomorrow, last Thursday. I’m sure that when those estimates were reviewed by the opposition they noted that there were additional dollars put in the budget for this very reason. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, some of the controversial in-year spending went to this area as well. So to talk about off-loading to the RHAs, we have in fact front-loaded changes that are going to be made. 1:50 Ms Pastoor: I probably should have said downloaded. What is the position of this government that residents in publicly funded centres should receive different levels of health care services than residents that are in privately funded centres? [interjection] I’m sorry. To the Premier. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the answer to that question. I’ll have the hon. minister respond. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs.

Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that this is a question for our Minister of Health and Wellness, but having said that, I would just like to add to what you’d mentioned, hon. member, about the off-loading. In the budget, as our Minister of Finance indicated, we made a significant change in funding for people living in our long-term care facilities. One was the designated assisted living facility. I spoke to that in the estimates.

We did add approxi- mately $5,000 to each resident in that facility to assist with accom- modating their care as 80 per cent of the seniors living in care receive subsidy through the government for that care. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. leader of the third party. National Child Care Initiative Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Child care professionals and families with children in Alberta continue to voice their concerns to the Official Opposition regarding the future of daycare in this province.

In a meeting with the Minister of Children’s Services this week the minister assured me that she would not allow the new federal child care plan to result in rollbacks in the progress that was made through Alberta’s five-point plan. To the Minister of Children’s Services: can the minister elaborate on how, specifically, she plans on maintaining the financial supports that were achieved through the five-point plan in light of the cancellation of the previous federal agreement? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is right.

I spent about 15 or 20 minutes with the Liberal opposition critic, as I did with the NDP opposition critic, explaining what was contained in the budget. What I did explain to both of them is that we were getting very little detail at that particular time. We’re still looking for more details on the federal budget. I told both of them that I’m meeting with my federal counterpart at the end of the month and hope to ask many, many questions. I did indicate that the budget for last year from the federal government was $70 million; this year, $66 million. It’s in our budget. We will continue to operate as usual. Mrs.

Mather: To the same minister: given that a recent survey released by Public Interest Alberta indicates that only 37 per cent of Albertans support the new federal Conservative child care plan, is the minister lobbying her federal cousins to extend the previous agreement with Alberta beyond its scheduled cancellation? Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on the Public Interest Alberta survey. I can comment on the fact that Albertans overwhelmingly voted for the federal Conservatives in the last election. They took every seat in Alberta.

I can tell you, though, that I will continue to lobby on behalf of Albertans when I meet with my federal counterpart at the end of the month. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: given that the minister has commented in this Assembly that Albertans should direct their concerns to Ottawa, can the minister clarify exactly what role she is playing in this whole process? Mrs. Forsyth: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated in this House on many occasions, once the federal minister was appointed I probably phoned her within 48 hours of her appointment to the position. At that time she didn’t have an office or a phone. From there I have followed up with two letters, and I have flown to Ottawa on behalf of Alberta’s children and families. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Kelowna Accord on Support for First Nations Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments have repeatedly betrayed Canada’s aboriginal peoples. Yesterday’s federal budget, which tore up the Kelowna accord, is just another in a long list. As a result, a historic opportunity to close the economic and social divide between aboriginal and nonaboriginal Canadians may be lost. My question is to the Premier. Is the Premier or is he not prepared to stand up for this province’s aboriginal peoples by demanding that his federal Conservative cousins in Ottawa reinstate the Kelowna accord? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, it is no secret that the Prime Minister, if backed into a corner, will have the tendency of saying no. Now, I did have the opportunity of speaking with him shortly after he was

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061240 elected. He indicated at that time that he has no intention of abiding by the Kelowna accord. Rather, he would bring in his own programs to address the concerns and the needs of Canada’s aboriginal people. That is a simple fact of government. Now, certainly there was concern expressed at the dinner that the new Prime Minister hosted for all the Premiers and the territorial leaders, that he should continue with the Kelowna accord, which I think designated some $5 billion for various aboriginal programs.

He indicated at that time again that he was going to continue with his own programs. So that is the political reality, and we’ll have to see how it washes out. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, why is it that this Premier will jump to the barricades at the slightest thought that Ottawa might be after Alberta’s resources even if that’s an imaginary threat, yet when it comes to a program that could make a tremendous difference for aboriginal people, his criticism is almost nonexistent? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, relative to the first part of the

preamble, there is no fear that that will happen with a Conservative government in Ottawa. There would be fear if it were a Liberal or an ND government because all they want is money, money, money. That’s all they want: money. They don’t want to be accountable; they just want money. Mr. Speaker, I have stood up, and I have expressed my views on the Kelowna accord, but the Prime Minister will do what his political sense tells him to do. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, the federal election is over. Why doesn’t the Premier take off the duct tape and stand up for aboriginal people in this province? Now is the time. Mr.

Klein: Pardon me? I don’t know what he meant by the duct tape. Is he alluding to Peter MacKay’s comments, or he is alluding to Discovery Channel where a person from up north, deemed to be one of Canada’s worst handymen, uses duct tape? I don’t know. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Canada Pension Plan Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans take a leadership role when it comes to doing the right thing. Short-term pain for long-term gain.

This current government came to power by acknowledging the debt and deficit and promising to do the right thing. We have another debt, and it’s now time to recognize it and do the right thing again. Albertans’ share of the unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan was reported to be $55 billion by the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta’s Role in Confederation. This pension debt along with the teachers’ $4.4 billion debt must be addressed. To the Minister of Finance: could she please inform us on the current unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan and what is considered Alberta’s share? Mrs.

McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the last actuarial that was done of the Canada pension plan to my knowledge was in 2003. It was an estimate at that time by the actuarial that it was about $516 billion. Alberta’s share would be about 12 per cent of that. However, having said that, this does move, certainly, as the workforce changes and so on. It is also my understanding that there will be another actuarial of that plan done in 2007. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Thank you.

Again to the same minister: will this government do the right thing and take a leadership role by giving our notice to opt out of the faulty Canada pension plan? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did have a committee that looked at these things. I’m never stuck in a time warp. I’m willing to look at things on a fairly regular basis if there’s a better way and a better plan. At the time that the committee did review it, my understanding is that they didn’t advocate it. As I say, Mr. Speaker, this government’s fiscal policy is ensuring that we have a strong fiscal position.

If there are new arguments to be put forward on an advantage to Albertans and to Alberta to look at a pension plan, we’re open to looking at those things. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Thank you. Finally, to the same minister: will the government direct our surplus revenue into the heritage savings trust fund, which we could transform into an Alberta pension plan for the benefit of Albertans now and in the future? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have certainly begun the process of renewing and strengthening our heritage fund, which has been a tremendous asset and continues to be a tremendous asset to this province, envied by many provinces in Canada. We began by adding $1 billion to the heritage fund in the third quarter of last year. We included another billion dollars to that fund in this year’s budget. We began inflation-proofing that plan in the previous budget, and we’ll continue to do that as we legislatively can. Mr. Speaker, Alberta is a growing and vibrant province.

We have, as everyone knows, significant pressures on infrastructure, on our schools and health fac ilities. We’ll ensure that the most pressing needs are met in those areas, and we will continue, as our policy clearly states, to save a portion of the surplus. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Agricultural Income Stabilization Program Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday’s federal budget included $1.5 billion for Canadian farmers, but it comes with a high price tag because the federal agriculture minister says that he’s going to scrap the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS, as it is called. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Will our Alberta producers be in limbo while the federal and provincial governments start from square one with a new income stability program? Mr. Horner: Mr.

Speaker, I too was very concerned about initial reports from the federal government saying that they were going to replace CAIS. We’ve said all along that CAIS needs to be fixed, that it needs to be revamped, but we certainly didn’t want to start from square one, and our producers and our governments don’t want to start from square one. So my provincial colleagues and I were on a conference call with Minister Strahl late yesterday, and he did clarify his intention. The federal government does plan to split CAIS into two different programs: one an income stabilization program, one a disaster program.

In fact, Alberta has been advocat-

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1241 ing that type of change for some time. As far as the income stabilization side is concerned, the minister did talk yesterday about improving and revamping the program. That says to me that the basic principles of the CAIS program are still very sound, very solid, and that’s what we’re going to be building upon. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don’t care how we label the program. We can call it Fred. We can call it Bob. We could give it a new acronym. We can call it the Canadian revenue agricultural apprecia- tion program if that works.

What I really care about is that it’s the best thing for the producers and it’s long term sustainable. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. The budget announcement – and I stress: the budget announcement – also included reference to the new inventory valuations for producers in the CAIS program. What will this mean for the pocketbooks of Alberta producers? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was another element to the federal budget that we were pleased to see.

It appears that the federal government is proposing retroactive adjustments to the CAIS program, to the inventory valuations, back to 2003, similar to what we did back in the fall on the retroactive adjustments of the averag- ing on the reference margins. If that is the case – and we believe it to be – we do have the system in Alberta to make that calculation fairly quickly. We also have the system in Alberta that will be able to do that without a lot of going back to the producers. I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker , that the federal government is talking about revamping and improving.

This is one of the improve- ments that we have been talking about for some time. In fact, if this turns out to be the route that th ey’re going to take, producers will need to be in CAIS to share in these dollars that are coming from the federal government. It is targeted support, and we support the federal government in this initiative and how they’re rolling it out. Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where farmers are in a desperate situation. My fi nal question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development again.

How s oon will these changes occur, and what role would the provincial government play in bringing them about? Mr. Horner: Well, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government has made several of these kinds of suggestions, perhaps not in the exact same way that th ey’re rolling out from the federal government as we saw yesterday. The National CAIS Committee is meeting as we speak. They’re going to be discussing and crunching the numbers today, tomorrow. The federal minister is actually going to be in our province in the near future.

We believe that we’ll be able to turn these things around fairly quickly in the calculations, but it will depend on all the provinces coming onside as to how we’re going to deliver this and how we’re going to move it forward. I believe that all of the provinces are keenly interested in working with the federal minister to make this happen as soon as possible, and we await further details from the federal minister in that regard. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Sale of Edmonton Ring Road Land Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government’s sale of surplus ring road lands at fire-sale prices continues. In 1996 this Progressive Conservative government sold 94 acres of surplus ring road land in southwest Edmonton for $5,200 per acre to Gerard and Reta Haarsma. We already know that in 1999 the Galfour Develop- ment Corporation sold land in the same end of town, which they had purchased from this government for pennies per acre, for more than $21,000 per acre, an astonishing profit margin. My first question is to the minister of infrastructure.

Why is this government continuing to sell taxpayer land for a loss when private developers are able to flip the same land for astonishing profits? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, if the member was actually really inter- ested in finding out what happened on a specific sale, he would give me a chance to look up what exactly happened. You know that we sell hundreds – hundreds – of parcels of land annually.

To pick out one parcel and then ask a number of questions about it wit hout giving me the benefit of having a heads-up to the parcel and being able to come forward to the House and present the facts I think certainly indicates that he’s really not interested in what happened. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on the parcel from two days ago, the fact is, as I proved yesterday, we sold that parcel for $2.8 million. An Hon. Member: How much? Mr. Lund: For $2.8 million. The fact is that it was assessed and appraised at $1.8 million. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: why did this government sell 94 acres of land to the Haarsmas for less than half of what the taxpayers paid for it in 1985? Why are you giving that land away? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to give the members a bit of a history lesson, but the fact is that back in the ’80s land was selling for a very high price. In the mid-90s the price hadn’t started to escalate yet. Probably, if that same piece of ground was up for sale today, you’d get more than the $500,000. I know that that could very well be because the price of land is going up.

So to take an apple from 1985 and think that it’s going to be the same as an orange in 1996 – it’s just ludicrous to think that there’s that kind of a comparison. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. What is ludicrous is that the taxpay- ers have been burned by this Progressive Conservative government. Again to the same minister: who in the Progressive Conservative government did the appraisal on the 94-acre Haarsma parcel and determined that the land was worth less than half of what the taxpayers paid originally for it? Mr. Lund: Well, Mr.

Speaker, when I get a chance to investigate this sale, we will be able to give you all the details, but I suspect that the land was appraised and that it was put up for tender. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that any appraiser we use has got a licence. It’s got nothing to do with whether it’s a member of the Progressive Conservative Party or any other party. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View.

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061242 2:10 Workers’ Compensation Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s booming economy is no doubt thanks to productive and hard-working Albertans. With a workforce in the millions accidents, very unfortunately, do occur. Therefore, the workers’ compensation coverage and the process of handling claims becomes very important to injured workers and their families. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment responsible for WCB matters.

I understand that the Minister’s Monitoring Commit- tee on Workers’ Compensation has completed their report on the implementation of the reform to the workers’ compensation plan. What is the status of this report? When will it be publicly released? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Those are very good questions. The Minister’s Monitoring Committee on Workers’ Compensation was created in February of 2003 basically to oversee the progress made on implementing recommendations from the Friedman and Doerksen report.

Of course, the original date of the committee’s report was March 2005, but this was extended to February 2006 so improvements could continue to be made in areas where there are ongoing challenges for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The committee’s report was submitted on time, but it s till has to be reviewed, of course, by the full caucus. We would hope to release the report before summer. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the same minister.

Given that injured workers suffer very much physically, mentally, and financially and the necessary reforms for the WCB have been identified for years, can the minister inform the Assembly what specific important reform the WCB has imple- mented? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Originally the Friedman and Doerksen report included, I believe, 59 recommenda- tions, and of course 49 of those 59 recommendations of that absolutely good report have been released.

I’ll just give you three or four of the ones that are really, really important to the public out there and the people interested in the Workers’ Compensation. The Appeals Commission for workers’ compensation, for example, was separated from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Workers’ Compensation Board now holds annual meetings, and they’re also open to the public. The workers’ compensation files are made more accessible to claimants, and one of the most important parts is the reporting to the minister now. A medical panel process was established to resolve conflict on medical opinions, et cetera.

So that is very important. Mr. Speaker, the monitoring committee reviewed the information from the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Appeals Commis- sion and agreed that for the vast majority of the recommendations good progress has been made. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is to the same minister. Given that a large number of injured workers are too weak in English language knowledge and communication to fight for their rights, how does the minister ensure that they are not unfairly and unjustly treated in their WCB claims? Mr.

Cardinal: That’s a very good question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the Workers’ Compensation Board offers translation services to injured workers. Actually, they also pay for the services. In addition to that, an injured worker can bring their own translator. Also, the Workers’ Compensation Board has posters in 14 different languages to explain how you may access workers’ compensation if you are injured. Additionally, through our department we do spend close to $30 million a year on English as a Second Language.

In addition to that, Athabasca University as of September of this year, I believe, is launching English as a Second Language through distance learning. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. Provincial Water Supply Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Water, both surface and groundwater, is the lifeblood of the province, and under this government it is declining in both quality and quantity. Growing agricultural, industrial, and population demands are occurring in the absence of an integrated land-use plan and a groundwater inventory.

To the Minister of Environment: how long will we wait for an inventory of our groundwater in order to properly manage our water? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, the

preamble was somewhat vacuous in the fact that what he asserts is not entirely accurate in this context. Our Water for Life strategy, first and foremost, is the most progres- sive water strategy in North America. Second of all, he is aware that we are doing mapping as we speak. Third of all, the actual mapping that we are doing as part of our Water for Life strategy also takes a look at our lakes and our streams: what the water levels are, what we have to do to improve water management. I can assure all Albertans that that’s exactly what we are doing because it is the law to protect our land, air, and water.

We’re doing it. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that this government is already charging the hydroelectricity industry for water use, when will the minister institute appropr iate charges for water across the board? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, you raise a very important point. We will never rule out that option. The reason why: our most progres- sive strategy, Water for Life, in fact says that we will look at options. But one of those options right now is in the context of conservation. How do we optimize?

How do we use proper mechanisms to ensure that our water is going to be there even with some things that we don’t have control over such as Mother Nature and during drought periods? What are we doing in water manage- ment in terms of off-stream storage and on-stream storage? What are we doing to better optimize? All of those things are options.

However, to the hon. member: we believe that conservation and how we use water today is the best approach in terms of going forward as opposed to quite simply saying, “We’re going to charge you now.” I do believe, though – and the hon. member is aware – that we charge money for water now. It’s called treated water, and in fact every city charges as people use it. I will never rule out an option of

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1243 potentially charging in the future. Right now my energy is spent on conservation and the best optimization of that valuable resource we have. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds – two-thirds – of all the water allocations in the Athabasca basin are for oil sands. Will you consider charging for water use? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat to the hon. member: we believe that conservation practices are important. We also believe that all of the stakeholders have to be at the table.

Rather than this company or that company, we are taking a totally regional approach. We are using our watershed councils, part of our Water for Life strategy. We are using our water councils and watershed monitor- ing. We are working with the cumulative impact people, the cumulative impacts of oil sand development. I can assure this member and all Albertans that 50 years from now I will be able to go and fly-fish in the Athabasca basin, where water is being withdrawn, because we will ecologically protect the basin now, tomorrow, and in the future based on our water strategy. Municipal Funding Mr. Groeneveld: Mr.

Speaker, Alberta’s rural municipalities are the backbone of this province. It’s no secret that Alberta was formed from the hard work of our agricultural community. Recently the government of Alberta announced $10 million through the targeted investment program in unconditional grants to municipalities that have limited financial resources to work toward long-term sustainability. In my constituency of Highwood there was no funding. My first question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Why are some municipalities receiving financial assistance while others are not? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Renner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Local governments, especially those that are faced with limited financial resources, require strategic solutions for long-term sustainable growth. The grant eligibility amounts under this targeted investment program are based upon the formulas that were developed by both the AUMA and the AAMD and C and are done in such a way as to identify municipalities of the highest financial need. The targeted investment initiative is really a significant first step as we seek permanent, long- term solutions.

I might also add that it is my priority and that of my staff and my department to seek long-term solutions to this problem so that this becomes not an ad hoc annual program but a long-term program that’s funded every year. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary is to the same minister. Can the minister explain the criteria used to determine the funding levels for urban municipalities? Mr. Renner: Mr.

Speaker, this year there was a $10 million payout in this program; $5.9 million of that was distributed among approxi- mately a hundred different urban municipalities. There are two areas of funding, the first being full f unding. Under full funding we identify municipalities that have less than $40,000 in per capita assessment. That is then paid out based on the population so that there is a maximum of $300 per capita, so the grants range from a low of $80 to a maximum of $300.

Under partial funding there is a per capita assessment of between $40,000 and $45,000, so those municipalities receive between $40 and $300 per capita. The primary consideration, though, is that in all cases these municipali- ties have mill rates that are higher than average, so we’ve identified that they have a low capacity to generate tax revenue and they’re doing their very best with the capacity that they have. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemen- tary is to the same minister.

Probably just as important, if not more, can he explain the criteria used to determine funding for the rural municipalities? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The rural municipalities were done in a very similar manner. The balance of funding of approximately $3.9 million was distributed among rural municipali- ties, and the difference there is that an additional factor is added on.

In addition to assessment on a per capita basis, there’s also an assessment on a per-kilometre basis because, as you know, rural municipalities have varying numbers of kilometres of roads for which they’re responsible. The same as the urban municipalities, they again have higher than average mill rates, and their taxes are on average higher. They have a low assessment both on a per capita basis and as a factor based upon the number of roads that they’re responsible for. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

National Child Care Initiative (continued) Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday’s federal budget confirmed the very bad news that the bilaterally negotiated fed- eral/provincial child care agreements are being unilaterally killed by Ottawa Conservatives. These agreements are being replaced with a so-called universal child care allowance that will benefit most those who need the support the least while doing little or nothing for lower and middle-income parents in need of quality child care. My questions are to the Minister of Children’s Services.

Given that today we all know for sure that federal monies in support of Al- berta’s five-point child care plan are scheduled to evaporate by early next year, is the minister prepared to fight harder, and if so, how, to convince her federal cousins to respect the previously negotiated agreement, that is so important for the future of Alberta’s children? Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how this minister can fight any harder, honestly, unless I bring my boxing gloves out. I’ll reiterate. The federal minister hadn’t even been appointed, and 48 hours later we called. She did not even have a phone.

She did not have an office. We immediately followed that up with a letter. I then flew to Ottawa to discuss with her my concerns about the child care program. I have since followed that up with a letter. We now have a federal/provincial/territorial meeting on the 29th of this month. As I’ve explained in this House, there are many questions that need to be answered. We need to find out about the original hundred

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061244 million dollars that was promised to the aboriginals. We need to find out about the hundred million dollars that was for a data strategy. We need to find out more information about the child care and the original discussion about the $10,000 that was to go to businesses on child care. There are many, many questions. I will continue to lobby on behalf of Albertans and their families as our five-point plan was based on Albertans’ needs. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the minister the same question again.

Maybe she can be a little more specific about her answer. What exactly is the minister’s action plan now when it comes to convincing her Ottawa cousins to continue funding this vital agreement beyond next March? Will you give us some details? Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, he’s yelling across the floor about details. I have phoned. I have written. I have flown to Ottawa. I am going again on behalf of Alberta’s children and families to lobby on behalf of Albertans in regard to Alberta’s five-point plan.

I will also be talking to my provincial and territorial counterparts so that we can come together as a group and explain to them that we need more information, and we’d like th e original plan that was in the agreement. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the minister seems to have no concrete plan to take any action, will the government and will the minister or w ill she not at the very least join the five provinces who have already committed to not clawing back provincial tax credits and income support payments from parents eligible for the federal child care allowance?

Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I spent about 20 minutes yesterday with this hon. member after I got the budget by e-mail. I sat down and explained to him, and I also explained to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. She obviously got it. He didn’t. I have told him and made a commitment that there will be no clawbacks. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Continuing Care Standards (continued) Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The province’s new standards for health in long-term care centres lack consistency across the province.

RHAs are delegated the responsibility for filling in the details of policy and for monitoring and enforcement; in effect, a checkerboarding of compliance across the province depending on how much room is left in the RHAs’ budgets. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Why was funding not provided to the RHAs to ensure equal levels of monitoring and compliance across the province? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, across the province there are unequal resources in communities and unequal numbers of people.

What we have is “shall.” I should have counted the number of times we say shall in those standards because we say the regional authorities shall do this, shall do some other things particular to ensuring that the patient focus care is given. What I suspect is being missed is that in the very back part of those standards the Health Quality Council is responsible for the health quality matrix, and they have been granted the right to be as fully operational as a regional health authority.

It will be partially their job to ensure that the quality matrix is applied, to make sure that quality care is delivered regardless of whether the regional health authority or other kinds of measures are being undertaken currently to make sure that the job is getting done to the benefit of the patients. Ms Blakeman: No. Still different. Again to the same minister: given that the RHAs will be the fox monitoring compliance on their own long-term care henhouses, why wasn’t an independent – independent – provincial monitoring and enforcement mechanism put in place to ensure compliance with standards? Ms Evans: Mr.

Speaker, in Alberta I think we’re uniquely lucky to have two ministers who are accountable for the delivery of both the care standards and the accommodations standards for seniors in long-term care for continuing care. Beyond that, we’ve identified the quality assurance council as being there to be a watchdog. We’ve identified through the work that we do through the Health Facilities Review Committee and the initiation of a legislative framework that is much stronger than before on quality delivery and on having quality operational plans and care plans and involvement on behalf of the resident.

We have several people that are account- able for delivery of that care that residents or their families or caregivers can appeal to. Beyond that, we have to make sure that families themselves and guardians take some acc ountability for reporting those incidents that ma y have been untoward in the delivery of care. So at this stage hold the elected officials account- able, look at these standards as a stronger enforcement, and look over the next year to two years to see if we have improvement. I can assure that you we will. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

Again to the same minister: what is the minister doing to prevent conflict-of-interest issues from arising with RHA board members who are involved or may be involved with private continuing care delivery? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We obviously have regional health authorities that are in charge of delivering care through various publicly funded facilities and then going back to examine the care. Well, that is why this year in anticipation of these care standards, in consultation with Dr.

John Cowell, who has been delivering a very strong product in the Health Quality Council, we developed a framework and a regulated environment for the Health Quality Council to be an equal partner with regional health authori- ties. Whether you’re in an acute-care setting, in a long-term care setting, in supportive living, whether you’re receiving continuing care in any part of the system, they are a form of assessment body that can make sure that we are delivering quality care.

The important thing here is that if we were leaving it exclusively to the purview of a regional health authority, the implied criticism of the hon. member may be valid. But under these circumstances we have yet another body built within the ministry to conduct and follow up on that framework and to make sure that the quality is there regardless of whether it’s a publicly funded facility, a not-for- profit facility, or any other facility that receives public funding, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the patient.

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1245 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Hays. Federal Funding for Policing and Security Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the federal Conservatives announced their first budget. A key component was an increase to the law-and-order agenda with what is being hailed as the largest financial infusion in recent history for policing, border security, anticrime measures, and help for victims of crime. Roughly $1 billion in new money over two years will be spent for approximately 20 initiatives. My questions are to the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security.

Can the minister highlight what areas of public security will benefit from the increased spending? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very encouraged by what we saw in yesterday’s federal budget. I think we support any efforts that enhance safety and security for all Canadians, obviously, which includes Albertans. One of the initiatives that will have a direct impact on public safety in our province is the $161 million that will be injected into federal positions for the RCMP for roughly 100 officers that will be coming to Alberta.

These are federal positions, which would include those areas of investigation such as commercial crime, drugs, immigration, passport as well as border patrol, the integrated border enforcement team that they have in southern Alberta. As well, another $95 million was added for new transit security for municipalities throughout Canada, which, again, will assist in utilizing systems for terrorist attacks as well as the ability to do some projects regarding emergency preparedness, to respond to emergen- cies throughout Canada. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with the Hon.

Stock- well Day last Friday in Ottawa, and we reviewed some of these issues that came out of yesterday’s budget presentation. These are issues that are of concern for all Albertans as well and issues that we don’t take lightly. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question: what does yesterday’s announcement mean for Albertans? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, as I mentioned, the federal budget will provide an additional 100 RCMP officers that will come to Alberta. These are not front-line officers, as I mentioned.

As well, though, we’ll have a better understanding of the impact of the federal budget as we get more details and explanations on all of the packages that come out. I can say, however, that the addition of more RCMP officers to tackle growing concerns such as gang violence, gun violence, the illegal importation of guns and drugs into Alberta and into Canada obviously will have an effect. They will become partners with our 5,300 officers that provide policing throughout the province, and we will continue to work with the federal government on any new policing or security initiative for Canada and Alberta.

Vignettes from the Assembly’s History The Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with our discourse on the hundred years of democracy in Alberta, I must apologize. The length today is a little longer than the norm. In the general election of August 30, 1971, 46.4 per cent of the votes went to the Progressive Conservative Party, which elected 49 of 75 MLAs. The Social Credit Party received 41.1 per cent of the votes and elected 25 MLAs. The Progressive Conservative Party became the fourth party to elect a government in Alberta.

On March 26, 1975, 62.65 per cent of Albertans elected Progres- sive Conservatives in 69 out of Alberta’s 75 seats. The Social Credit Party received 18.17 per cent of the votes and elected four MLAs. Four years later, on March 14, 1979, voters voted 57.4 per cent Progressive Conservative and elected 74 of 79 MLAs. The Social Credit Party received 19.87 per cent of the votes and elected four MLAs.

On November 2, 1982, 588,485 Albertans gave the Progressive Conservative Party 62.28 per cent of the votes and 75 of 79 seats, the New Democratic Party elected two MLAs with 18.75 per cent of the votes, and 947,644 Albertans cast ballots, the largest number to date. In the election held on May 8, 1986, only 47.25 per cent of Albertans voted, one of the lowest turnouts in our history. The results gave the Progressive Conservative Party 51.4 per cent of the votes and 61 of 83 seats. The New Democratic Party elected 16 MLAs with 29.22 per cent of the votes.

Less than three years later, on March 20, 1989, Albertans returned to the polls and 44.29 per cent of voters gave the Progressive Conservative Party 59 out of 83 seats. The Liberals received 28.68 per cent of the votes and elected eight MLAs, the New Democratic Party received 26.29 per cent of the votes and elected 16 MLAs, and 53.6 per cent of Alberta voters voted. In the election held on June 15, 1993, the turnout was 60.21 per cent and 991,472 ballots were cast. The Progressive Conservative Party received 44.49 per cent of the votes and elected 51 of 83 members.

The Alberta Liberal Party received 39.73 per cent of the votes and elected 32 MLAs. The New Democratic Party elected no MLAs with 11.01 per cent of the votes. The highest number of candidates to date participated, with 382 candidates. On March 11, 1997, voter turnout was 53.75 per cent and the Progressive Conservative Party elected 63 MLAs out of 83 with 51.17 per cent of the votes. The Alberta Liberal Party elected 18 MLAs with 32.75 per cent of the votes. Two New Democrats were elected with 8.81 per cent of the votes.

For the first time in Alberta’s election history ballots cast surpassed one million, with 1,016,000 voters participating in the election held on March 21, 2001. The Progressive Conservative Party elected 74 MLAs of 83 with 61.91 per cent of the votes, the Alberta Liberal Party elected seven MLAs with 27.33 per cent of the votes, and voter turnout was 53 per cent. On November 22, 2004, 450 candidates, the largest ever in Alberta’s history, contested the election, which saw voter turnout at 44.7 per cent.

The Progressive Conservative Party elected 62 MLAs of 83 with 46.8 per cent of those votes, the Alberta Liberal Party elected 16 members with 29.39 per cent of those votes, the New Democratic Party elected four MLAs with 10.2 per cent of those votes, and the Alberta Alliance Party elected one member with 8.7 per cent of those votes. The voter turnout, again, was 44.7 per cent, the lowest ever in the history of Alberta. In one constituency, Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, voter turnout was only 26.4 per cent. However, the Progressive Conservative candidate won with 63.2 per cent of those votes.

The electoral score to date: Liberal governments, 4; United Farmers of Alberta governments, 3; Social Credit governments, 9; Progressive Conservative governments, 10.

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061246 head: 2:40 Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Medicine Hat and Lethbridge Centennials Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year on September 1 our province celebrated its centennial anniversary. This year on May 9 two of Alberta’s fine cities will also celebrate their 100th birthdays. The year 1906 was when both Lethbridge and Medicine Hat were incorporated as cities in Alberta. Both of these southern Alberta cities have contributed greatly to the province’s overall growth. Lethbridge, in fact, is Alberta’s fourth most populated city.

It is home to the University of Lethbridge, whose construction integrated the building with the surrounding hills. Because of its pl acement and design, the school is sometimes referred to as a ship in the desert. The city is also home to the High Level Bridge. Completed in 1909, the bridge has the greatest height and length of any bridge of its kind anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, Medicine Hat is also a particularly wonderful city. Most of the city makes up the constituency of Medicine Hat, represented by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

My own constituency of Cypress-Medicine Hat includes the southern and southeastern sections of the city. The city has many great features, one of which is that it has the distinction of being Canada’s sunniest city, receiving approximately 2,500 hours of sunshine annually. The city also only gets about 230 millimetres, or just under 10 inches, of moisture every year. It houses more than 100 parks and 85 kilo- metres of trails, giving the approximately 56,000 residents of Medicine Hat plenty of space to get out and enjoy the city’s fair weather.

Medicine Hat also has the lowest property taxes in Canada and is known as Alberta’s gas city because of the abundance of natural gas in the area. In fact, only a year after Medicine Hat was incorporated as a city, the famous British writer Rudyard Kipling said: Medicine Hat was born lucky; people in this district seem to have “all hell for a basement.” This Alberta city has a rich and interesting history and is a wonderful city with great residents. I’m proud to represent this city and surrounding areas as the region’s MLA. I’d like to wish both Medicine Hat and Lethbridge a happy centennial anniversary.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. National Mental Health Week Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The first week in May is National Mental Health Week, and I’d like to acknowl- edge the work done in my constituency and throughout Alberta by the many agencies working to offer support to people living with mental illness.

From the Pride Centre volunteers to the part-time person at West Edmonton Seniors to the staff and volunteers from the offices of the Canadian Mental Health Association across Alberta to the hard-working hea lth professionals working in the hospital psych wards and clinics to the many not-for-profit agencies like the Schizophrenia Society, who advocate for research dollars and other support for schizophrenia, and other organizations involved with bipolar, OCD, depression, ADHD, psychosis: thank you to all. You make a difference.

You may not see it every day, but your work is helping people to live and cope as best they can.

I need to include other organizations on that list, agencies that exist to offer other services but who develop an expertise in working with people with mental illness: inner-city organizations like the Boyle Street Co-op, the Hope Mission, the Herb Jamieson Centre, the George Spady Centre, the Sally Ann, HIV Edmonton, and the many projects of the City Centre Church Corporation and indeed the staff of our constituency offices and s till others, like those dealing with addictions, drug use, people involved with the correction system, like the John Howard or Elizabeth Fry societies. Mr.

Speaker, I know that I missed many individuals and groups with that short, short list. The point is that lots of people are involved because we want to be, we need to be, and we have to be. Mental illness is all around us. We have not achieved a good mix of community programming to support the deinstitutionalization movement of many decades ago. Government continues to promise concrete plans and assistance and continues to fail to follow through. Meanwhile, the cost of mental health service delivery and the cost to society is very high.

I recently visited Fort McMurray, an extraordinary city with amazing potential and phenomenal growth. They have stress, anxiety, and depression but few counsellors. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Wetaskiwin Centennial Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my great pleasure to rise in this House and recognize the upcoming centennial anniver- sary of one of the cities in the constituency of Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Wetaskiwin was first incorporated as a city on May 9, 1906, and at that time the city had a population of roughly 1,650 people.

This was two years after electricity was first installed in the city and one year before the CPR built a station in Wetaskiwin, a landmark that still exists today. Since that time much has changed. Over 11,000 people now call Wetaskiwin home. While much has changed, ties to the past have been well preserved in this city. Wetaskiwin is home to one of the oldest provincial courthouses constructed in Alberta. Dating back to 1907, this structure is an impressive example of turn-of-the- century architecture with carved columns and ornate cornice work.

Today this grand old structure is being renovated to be the city’s new city hall, a worthy centennial project for this 100-year-old building. Another remarkable landmark in this city is the Wetaskiwin water tower. Having served the people of Wetaskiwin for 100 years, it is the oldest working water tower in western Canada. It has also recently been refurbished as a provincial centennial project to stand tall and prominent on Wetaskiwin’s skyline for another 100 years.

Wetaskiwin is home to the Reynolds-Alberta Museum, an institution which is dedicated to preserving, restoring, and exhibiting mechanical artifacts, bringing to life Alberta’s transportation, aviation, agricultural, and mechanical histories. I would be remiss if I did not mention that Wetaskiwin is also home to the Alberta Central Railway Museum, which re-creates our province’s historical railway experiences. Mr. Speaker, Wetaskiwin is one of Alberta’s spectacular rural treasures, exhibiting much of our Alberta history.

I invite all members of this Assembly and all Albertans to visit Wetaskiwin on this their special centennial year. Happy 100th birthday, Wetaskiwin. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Labour Market Supply Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The woes of the Alberta labour market will only worsen by using temporary foreign workers

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1247 and temporary foreign contractors. Temporary foreign workers, without their families and the freedom to move between employers, will not stay in Alberta. They are only a short-term fix for short- sighted employers. The driving force in our labour market has been very high oil and gas prices. The conventional oil patch has been sucking up workers from other sectors of the economy like some big vacuum truck. When they’re paid big bucks for the short term, people will often leave their long-term work. This is what is happening.

Alberta and northeast B.C. have been going crazy in the bush. It is a conventional oil and gas boom that we are in. Contrary to popular mythology we are not in a construction employment boom yet. Labour supply is tight in housing construction b ecause those workers leave to make more money elsewhere. Counterintuitively, Alberta construction employment was down on a year-to-year basis in five of seven months between September of 2005 and March of 2006. We actually have available workers in most industrial trades but not all.

The electricians’ hall in Edmon- ton, for example, has almost 3,000 Alberta tradesmen out of work and ready to work. Many are still available in the rest of Canada. Some trades are in short supply b ecause their skills are also in demand in the conventional oil patch or for short-term plant shutdowns. Some unions do seek tradesmen from the U.S. because many of their own members would sooner work conventional oil and gas than a CLAC or merit job.

These oil sands employers who are crying for temporary foreign workers are those who cannot get help b ecause they will not pay the pensions and other benefits workers want. It is bizarre that some large projects are seeking labour concessions in the face of a tight labour market. It is sad that this Conservative Alberta government is accommodating them. We still need skilled people soon.

We have the people to train: Canada has over a million unemployed youth between 18 and 25; more women want into the trades; 76 per cent of farm family income is off-farm, and most farmers have trade skills and want work; immigrants want to learn. We must ensure that these jobs are for the benefit of Albertans and Canadians. All oil sands work must have some benefit for Alberta. Why just let all the benefit flow out of Alberta?

The Alberta government should cancel its special temporary foreign worker deals in the oil sands and concentrate on training Albertans and Canadians and real immigrants first so that there will be real long-term benefit for Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:50 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. Mr. R. Miller: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Point of order. Bill and Elvie Brown Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my great honour to rise today and bring to the attention of this Assembly an approaching milestone in the lives of two very special constituents of mine.

The constituency I’m proud to represent is home to thousands of remarkable people but none more so than Bill and Elvie Brown. During their life together they have shown an unmatched devotion to their community, their family, and to each other, and on July 22 they will celebrate their 70th wedding anniversary. They have faced the past seven decades together through good times and bad, through sickness and health, just as they pledged to do so so long ago. Their union has produced two children, 12 grandchildren, and many great- grandchildren.

It has touched the lives of countless others who have had the privilege of calling them friends. Bill and Elvie recently moved from their home in Czar, where they lived for almost 50 years, to the Battle River Lodge in Wain- wright. While their location has changed, their dedication to each other has not. It remains as strong today as it was in 1936. As Bill and Elvie celebrate a milestone achieved by few, they will do so with my sincere congratulations, Mr. Speaker, and best wishes for many more years of health and happiness.

In a world where divorce and conflict are all too common, they stand as an example of dedication and devotion that we can all admire and aspire to, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in doing so. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. member left 35 seconds on the table there, which really helps overall, considering other members did not. The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Provincial Pension Plan Mr. Hinman: Thank you. As an MLA I enjoy productive discus- sions on positive ideas that add to the long-term prosperity of our province and to individual Albertans. Mr.

Speaker, in the coffee shops, the media, and even in this House here we have numerous discussions about what to do with our resource wealth. In the early ’70s the heritage savings trust fund was established as a vehicle to accumulate resource revenues. Fortunately, this f und was there to help Albertans during the difficult time of the 1980s. Now we need a plan for the future. The current 10 per cent contributions to the faulty Canada pension plan is not in the best interest of Albertans. The Canada pension plan is largely unfunded and fails to provide a respectable retirement. Mr.

Speaker, we should be establishing an Alberta pension plan supplemented by our surplus resource revenues. By combining the surplus royalty revenues and the existing heritage savings trust fund, Albertans would be able to build a pension fund to benefit all Albertans. The new plan would be seamless and totally transferable, offering greater benefits, better security, and flexibility as evidenced by the Robson report, commissioned by this government in 1999. Albertans could take pride in having their own, more equitable Alberta pension fund.

The Alberta pension fund would also create a pool of investment capital available to Albertans and our businesses similar to Quebec’s caisse de dépôt, which has more than $133 billion available to Quebecers. An Alberta pension f und would reduce waste by creating a public expectation to save for the future. It is said that every dollar wasted today is 10 less dollars for retirement. The resources of Alberta belong to all Albertans, both those who live here today as well as those who’ll live here in the future.

By building a fund that belongs to all Albertans, we would be using our resources to the benefit of all Albertans. In

summary, an Alberta pension fund would yield economic and political returns. We need a made-in-Alberta solution to provide a respectable retirement plan for Albertans. Let’s give serious consideration to creating an Alberta heritage pension fund. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got a petition from 1,140 residents of Alberta. It reads:

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061248 We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to . . . defeat legislation allowing expansion of private, for-profit hospitals in Alberta and permitting doctors to work in both the private and public system, which will drain key resources from the public system . . . [and to] vote against plans that would force Albertans to pay for private health insurance for services that should be covered by medicare. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 382 people which expresses their opposition to the third way now and certainly for the future. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports I’d like to table five copies each of Continuing Care Health Service Standards, Support- ive Living Accommodation Standards, Long-Term Care Accommo- dation Standards with the hope that this sets a new tone for a better and more qualified delivery and monitoring of long-term care and care for Alberta patients wherever they are. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, do you have a tabling? Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have tablings in relation to my question earlier today in question period.

The first tabling I have is from the Alberta Gazette dated June 29, 1996, and this is the 94 acres of land that was sold for $500,000. The second tabling I have is also in regard to this sale, and it is a transfer of land from the former public works minister, Stan Woloshyn. The third tabling I have is an Alberta Registries land titles certificate in regard to this land and the transfer of this parcel of 94 acres for $500,000 to Gerard Peter Haarsma and Reta B. Haarsma of 199 Street. The fourth tabling I have is a letter dated May 1, 2006, to the hon.

Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation, and this letter outlines the reasons I believe that we need an independent judicial inquiry into the sale of surplus ring road lands in both Edmonton and Calgary. Thank you. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table today the appropriate number of copies of the 2003 and the 2004 vital statistics annual reviews. These reviews summarize all births, marriages, deaths, and stillbirths that occurred in Alberta during those years.

Any member wishing to receive copies of these can obtain them from my office. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. members, I’d like to table five copies of a memorandum from the hon. Member for Foothills-Rocky View requesting that Bill 208, Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, be given early consider- ation by Committee of the Whole on Monday, May 8, 2006. The hon. member for Edmonton-Rutherford on a point of order. Point of Order Interrupting Members’ Statements Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon during a part of the Routine which we call Members’ Statements, there were a number of interjections made by the Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs and the Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar during a member’s statement that was being given by the Member for Edmonton-Manning. Now, while I cannot find the specific citation that rules out interjections during Members’ Statements, you will know that it is the convention of this House th at we not interject during that particular part of the Routine. I certainly can cite in our Standing Orders

section 13(4)(

b) which states, “When a member is speaking, no person shall . . . interrupt that member, except to raise a point of order.” I would submit to you that the two members that I men- tioned were in violation of our Standing Orders and the convention of this House by making those interjections during the member’s statement, and I would ask that you find that, in fact, there was a point of order. Thank you. The Speaker: Anybody else want to participate in this point of order? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the member raising the point of order is correct.

We have a convention where we do not interject into other member’s statements, so if my insertion of accurate figures into the statement was of any interference, I do apologize. Rev. Abbott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to stand and certainly apologize if the member thought that I had made any untoward statements with regard to the member’s statement. The fact of the matter is that the Bible clearly says, “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” As we know, the members on that side of the House do the same thing to us when we stand on our members’ statements as well.

The Speaker: Well, that’s certainly interesting. First of all, hon. members, there is no Standing Order pertaining to interjections or heckling during Members’ Statements. That has never been the case, never been. What has been said by the chair on numerous occasions is that the chair will not entertain points of order or points of privilege as a result of comments made during Mem- bers’ Statements.

So there’s nothing different with Members’ Statements than any other part of the Routine. 3:00 The chair would like to caution members that the convention, the rules that are found in all the historical documents that we have, including Standing Orders, pertain to heckling and interjections at all parts of the Routine. It does not single out Members’ Statements. The same applies during question period. The same applies during opportunities for members when they’re tabling things and when they’re giving speeches or raising questions. I’m greatly encouraged by the interjection from the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford because I’m sure that as the whip of his caucus he will now ensure that his members henceforth do not interject at any time during the R outine, in the same way that I’m sure the Deputy Government House Leader along with the govern- ment whip have heard that this will be the new decorum in the Assembly led now by the Official Opposition. Starting tomorrow,

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1249 we’ll see this rule applied. I can’t speak on behalf of the third party. They haven’t chosen to speak yet today. But I suspect that it will be just so quiet in here tomorrow that it will be remarkable. I would be very surprised if such a thing happened. head: Orders of the Day head: Committee of Supply [Mr.

Shariff in the chair] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll call the committee to order. head: Main Estimates 2006-07 Sustainable Resource Development The Deputy Chair: As per our Standing Orders the first hour will be allocated between the minister and members of the opposition, following which any other member may participate. The hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Mr. Coutts: Well, thank you. Colleagues, thank you and good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the budget estimates for the Department of Sustainable Resource Development for 2006-2007.

I’m pleased to be here today to talk about our budget, but before I begin, I want to outline what I’ll be speaking about today. I will be reviewing the ministry’s overarching challenges and priorities for the coming year and how they will be served by our budget for 2006-2007. Then I’ll explore several of the key initiatives that will be led by program areas in the year to come. Before beginning, I’d like to introduce some of my department staff sitting in the members’ gallery.

I’d ask you to welcome Jamie Curran, my executive assistant; Brad Pickering, my deputy minister, and his executive assistant, Paul Leeder; Stew Churlish, assistant deputy minister for the finance and administration division and senior financial officer; Craig Quintilio, assistant deputy minister for the lands division; Cliff Henderson, assistant deputy minister of our forestry division; Ken Ambrock, our assistant deputy minister of fish and wildlife; a new member of our team, Brian Gifford, chair of the Surface Rights Board and of the Land Compensation Board – Brian is right there in the front row; Bria n, just give us a wave so every- body can see you – Morris Seiferling, our assistant deputy minister of sustainable resource and environmental management; Joyce Ingram, executive director of our corporate business support; Dave Bartesko, manager of sustainable resource and environmental management; and Joan McCracken, our assistant director of communications.

I see Joan up there as well. Those are our staff. Those are just a few of the 1,900 dedicated, professional staff who enable Sustainable Resource Development to carry out its business each and every day of the year. These people do great work on behalf of sustaining the province’s resources, and in doing so, they improve the quality of life in Alberta today and for Albertans to enjoy. One example of exceptional effort is, of course, Mrs. Joyce Shaw from our Barrhead office, whom we honoured here today in this Assembly for her 50 years of service to the Alberta government.

Perhaps I should say 50 years of service and counting as Joyce continues to help protect Alberta’s natural resources for future generations. I’m desperately proud of the work that is being done by Sustainable Resource Development staff, and I commend all the staff for their tremendous efforts and their accomplishments. Mr. Chairman, people are important to any organization, but to this ministry they are essential. They fulfill a mandate that is far reaching.

As the primary manager of Alberta’s wildlife, public lands, and forests, the ministry works with industry, communities, and other stakeholders to provide opportunities that support prosperity. [Mr. Johnson in the chair] Simply put, our job is to steward Alberta’s natural resources. We work hard to ensure that our resources are managed for the benefit of both present and future generations. In doing so, we must achieve a balance between conservation and development, taking into consideration the economic, social, and environmental values of all Albertans.

This is a difficult challenge, made even tougher by the unprecedented level of activity we have had on the land today here in Alberta and the new challenges that we face on the horizon, challenges like upstream gas and oil development, increased oil sands activity, and wind power, which are being added to our existing activities of oil and gas, agriculture, ranching, forestry, and recreational access to public lands. It is all about the land, Mr. Chairman: how we use it and how we ensure that future generations have the same opportunities to enjoy the land. This is especially important to me personally.

I’m from a small town, rural Alberta. I grew up there at a time when everyone believed that we lived in a land of plenty and that it would never end. Today I know better. Yes, we are blessed with abundant natural resources in Alberta, including the land and the resources on and under it. These resources are renewable, but they are not limitless. I believe that we have a responsibility to be stewards of our natural resources to ensure that we can enjoy them in perpetuity.

It means placing the highest priority on healthy lands and natural resources for the future to leave this wealth in good shape for the people of tomorrow. It is about stewardship, protecting our natural resource wealth for future generations. Budget 2006 is all about providing resources to sustain the land. Overall, the ministry’s operating budget increases by $13 million to $238 million while the capital plan grows $11 million to $39 million. The increases include $5 million this year, part of a $15 million increase over three years, to fund initiatives to better manage the land.

The $5 million includes $1 million allocated to land-use framework consultations with Albertans. Those consultations will begin this spring or early summer and include regional and provin- cial forums as well as public education and awareness programs, that are so important. The $5 million increase also includes $2 million in funding for enhancing land-use planning and partnerships to improve public rangeland and to help us look for opportunities for greater efficien- cies in stewardship of the public land base.

These efforts will include entering into partnership agreements to develop new tools for the sustainable management of public rangelands, tools that will help us assess riparian health on grazing lands, for instance, and grazing distribution patterns. The work will also include helping public grazing reserve associations to repair the damage caused by recreation and resource development.

It will also involve moving into an electronic process for handling oil and gas dispositions, improved disposition and inspection processes, and increased resources for access management planning for the Ghost-Waiparous and Bighorn areas. Taken together, this $2 million in increased funding will allow the department to better meet the demands for land-use dispositions and to do the follow-up work needed to ensure that those impacts are reduced and that Alberta lands will be available for the use and the enjoyment of future generations.

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061250 3:10 Another $2 million of the $5 million budgeted for 2006-2007 will enhance natural resource information for land-use decision-making. The natural resources information project is a multi-year undertaking to update existing data and provide new information on grassland, vegetation, watersheds, forest resources, and land use/access. Once the information is acquired, it will be accessible all across govern- ment. We will also look for information partners with rural municipali- ties, government ministries, and others to leverage our investment in the data.

By doing so, we will provide the foundation for accurate and timely natural resource data needed for informed decision- making. This new information will allow us to move ahead on the provincial grazing reserves program and the grassland vegetation inventory, both of which support the sustainability of rural Alberta. We’ll also directly support the sustainable resource and environmen- tal management initiative, that is part of our land-use framework.

While that completes the overview of the major commitments contained in Budget 2006-2007, I will now review the commitments associated with the ministry’s three core business areas. They are lands, including rangeland management, dispositions, and manage- ment plans; forestry, including timber allocations and controlling wildfires; wildlife, including fisheries and habitat management. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The ministry is also responsible for the Surface Rights Board, the Land Compensation Board, and the Natural Resources Conservation Board.

As I mentioned earlier, Brian Gifford, the newly appointed chairman of the Surface Rights Board and the Land Compensation Board, is with us today. I am sure that he appreciates the importance of the land management tasks that are ahead of us. We have a lot of responsibilities in a lot of areas that are important to the present and future of Albertans. When it comes to lands, which is the first core business, it deals with developing common goals for Alberta’s public lands that address multiple stakeholder demands.

The ministry has responsibil- ity for 60 per cent of the public land base in Alberta, an area that includes 90 million acres in the green area and 10 million acres in the white area. This land base is under tremendous pressure today: pressure from population growth, from increased economic develop- ment, and from people who enjoy the land for recreation activities. These pressures will only increase in the years to come, and the ministry has to be positioned to manage that increased pressure.

Our immediate challenge includes managing increased volumes of disposition applications as we ll as the increasing complexity of issues on the land base and resolving increased conflicts amongst users. Budget 2006 specifically addresses these pressing challenges. As I have noted, additional resources this year strengthen the department’s capacity to process and manage the growing number of dispositions and to have new sources of information to assist decision-making. I want to say that again: to have new sources of information to assist decision-making. That’s so important.

For example, the $2 million commitment to improve natural resource information will provide among other things new grassland vegeta- tion information about Alberta’s grassland natural region near the Drumheller area. Aerial photography will also be used to upgrade the national forest inventory, the road network, water data, and the Crown’s portion of the Alberta vegetation inventory. Other expenditures of note include $300,000 to help restore the productive capacity of the provincial grazing reserves and $100,000 dedicated to a partnership to help halt the spread of noxious weeds from vacant public land.

In forestry the challenges in our second area are no less daunting than those affecting our overall land-use decision-making. The province’s forests provide multiple benefits to Albertans thanks to a combination of leading forest management, wildlife protection, and industry practices. We do a great job of sustaining the resource but not without having some hurdles to overcome. For example, wildfires are a continual threat to our forests, we currently face infestations of mountain pine beetles, and the forest industry itself is struggling under global economic pressures that threaten its competitiveness.

Budget 2006 gives us some ammunition to take on these chal- lenges. Our capital budget is part of a $28 million commitment over four years to upgrade our air tanker bases across the province, improving the safety of our wildfire fighting operations. In addition, we’ll put a $14 million commitment this year as part of a $42 million allocation over three years to upgrade provincial air tankers themselves, to better protect Albertans and their communities from wildfires.

Meanwhile, the ministry’s operating budget receives $2 million for wildfire reinsurance, to help spread out the year-to-year spikes in this cost area. Another $2 million is budgeted for this year’s FireSmart program, to continue our efforts to reduce the threat of property and community losses from wildfires. Turning to the mountain pine beetle, the ministry’s operational budget receives $2.6 million for beetle work, part of the commitment of $7.8 million over three years. We want to continue our efforts to help prevent the spread of the pests in Alberta forests.

Our policy was and remains: a hundred per cent control of infested trees. The funding for 2006-2007 will be used to continue this work, to conduct aerial surveys to identify infested trees. We’ll do ground surveys to locate any new infestations and cut-and-burn activities to get rid of the forest pests. We will also be hosting a major summit on mountain pine beetle at the end of May. What we’ll do is bring together municipalities and specialists in the field to help us attack this forest pest, including representatives from British Columbia, who are partners in this with us.

They’ll be sharing the valuab le lessons that they’ve learned fighting the beetle on the western side of the Rockies. The funding provided for beetle efforts is money well spent, Mr. Chairman, on the challenge that is both serious and formidable. The ministry’s operating budget for 2006-2007 also allocated $1.5 million to fund restoration of older cutblocks in need of replanting, to help reassure that we will continue to have an abundance of forest resources for our future. This is part of a three-year commitment to reforestation that we initiated last year.

Still with our forests, the budget also commits $600,000 to promote forest products and market diversification. We feel that this is part of our future as well. This expenditure is part of our continuing effort to ensure that Albertans receive the highest possible value from our forest resources. It is also one part of the overall three-year, $1.8 million commitment to our value-added strategy designed to enable us to better compete in global markets.

In terms of fish and wildlife, our third core business, Albertans have a deep-seated connection to this wonderful natural resource, just as we have a profound responsibility to sustainably manage fish and wildlife values for future generations. We have key priorities for fish and wildlife management in this year’s budget allocations. Among the highest is $600,000 for grizzly bear research and management, including bear DNA census work to determine our populations. It’s a commitment that we made, and that commitment is ongoing.

An additional $240,000 is to develop and implement the BearSmart program to minimize bear/human conflicts. We’re going to be rolling this out across the province very soon this spring, and

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1251 we’re going to go through our educational partnerships. We’ll encourage communities and towns to set standards for safety for residents that live in bear country, to be able to have them learn how they can reduce possible and potential bear attractions. Work will also include stepping up our bear aversion and bear management efforts, which are so important, that people rely on as well. I recently participated in a bear intercept feeding program, which supplied roadkill feed for bears as an alternative to ranchers’ livestock.

The 2006-2007 budget also provides $25,000 for caribou manage- ment. We are committed to working with our departments, industry, and stakeholders to protect and recover woodland caribou and its habitat, and we are taking significant steps to ensure that woodland caribou remain on the provincial landscape. Following up on work done in the past years based on the caribou recovery plan, that means greater protection for caribou. For example, we have established a single Alberta caribou committee to co-ordinate management activities.

We’ve also undertaken innovative programs like the caribou cowboy initiative, that prevents caribou from being hit by vehicles along highway 40. As well, we continue to work closely with industry to protect caribou habitat from harmful industrial encroachment. Efforts include reducing the width of seismic lines, inducing companies to share roads, promoting best practices, and adjusting harvesting sequences. 3:20 Over the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman, industry and government have contributed over half a million dollars a year into managing and monitoring caribou.

Our 2006-2007 budget also provides funding to continue our work with the species at risk program, including species assessment, recovery planning, and implementation of recovery plans. Since the year 2000 this area has r eceived over 1 and a half million dollars to help recovery planning and on-the- ground conservation efforts, a work that will continue in 2006 and for wildlife disease and surveillance work as well. The budget will also allow us to continue our efforts to revitalize Alberta fisheries, including increased recreational opportunities.

These are our fish and wildlife numbers for the year ahead at the moment, and if we can do anything to increase allocations, we will. I’ve been speaking for some time about the program priorities that we will be able to serve through Budget 2006. Now I’d like to speak about what it will mean in terms of people. Last year we committed to bring 40 additional full-time and seasonal staff. We now have a total of 126 field, fish, and wildlife officers and 10 superintendents.

This year we’re allocating $720,000 for 20 seasonal public lands and forest division guardians to work throughout the province to deliver environmental and stewardship messages to the many people who will enjoy recreational land in this province. This commitment is part of the ministry’s efforts to foster a strong stewardship ethic amongst Albertans who enjoy the province’s natural resources. For example, we have established the public information and outreach branch, which brings together education services from across the ministry to better serve Albertans by providing education about stewardship.

The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my privilege to be able to speak to this minist ry. I’d first of all like to congratulate Mrs. Shaw as well for 50 years of service. I’m not sure if maybe we hired her when she was 15 years old. Mr. Coutts: Twelve. Mr. Bonko: Okay. Well, that’s even better. The minister covered a number of areas: land use with oil, gas, agriculture, recreational use. That’s pretty much how I want to start my specifics here.

This provincial government does prefer to manage the forest by volunteer co-operation between industries, but clearly that’s not enough. This government is committed to a massive industrialization strategy, I believe. Unfortunately for the various industries, whether they’re forest, mining, oil, gas, perhaps coal, and ranching, there are going to be concerns with how we’re able to manage the cumulative impacts. I believe that we’re going to be caught in the crossfire ther e in the struggle for environment and lands and the animals as well, which the minister did mention.

Let’s just talk about some of the industry’s impacts here. When we drill a well, three kilometres of seismic lines are usually cleared when we’re trying to obtain that area for oil and gas business, and then there are permanent structures that are left, which is concerning. At the current rate of disturbance every square kilometre of forest logged results in about 1.8 kilometres of fragmented habitat.

This is exactly the habitat that the minister mentioned that he does want to preserve with regard to endangered or threatened species, and we can go on to specifics such as the grizzly bear, which was men- tioned, and the Little Smoky caribou herd or, in fact, just the caribou herd itself. Those are concerns that Albertans have listed and e-mailed and called about, with participation from groups such as the Alberta Wilderness Association or CPAWS.

Those committed groups want to ensure that those two listed animals remain on the landscape for a very long time for generations to be able to enjoy in their natural habitat, Mr. Chairman. If we talk about the grizzly bear, I would commend the minister on his three-year moratorium that was placed upon that. When we’re looking for a little bit better information, he has committed to in fact using more monies to do a new DNA study as well as trying to get a handle on exactly the amount of bears.

I would certainly like to know, as all Albertans would like to know: do we have an estimated best guess as to what we have out there currently as we’re planning for the moratorium for the next three years? The minister also talked about the fact that he’d like to lessen the amount of bear/human contact. I think that’s commendable because one death is too many, but we have to realize that when we’re in their territory, we’re going to actually have more impacts, and we’re going to have more encounters as we try and go to more areas out there. Has the minister considered the bear dogs they use?

I believe they’re about a $3,000 price tag and several years for training, but they’re apparently well versed, as far as dogs go, with being able to keep humans safe. The same sort of thing with regard to ranching and sheep, the same with bear dogs: to be able to maintain the bear’s distance from human contact. We talk about $250,000 allocated to the woodland caribou study. I’m not sure how that number, $250,000, was obtained.

Again, I think we need to realize that the whole reason why the caribou in that particular area of Little Smoky are in fact shrinking is because of the intrusion of the oil and the gas or the forestry and/or recre- ational use, which I’ll get to a little bit later. Some of the specifics I wanted to talk about were perhaps the boreal forest, where there is ongoing development and investment, a hundred billion dollars in announced investment in northern Alberta in the boreal forest.

This region provides Alberta with fresh air, it supports the valuable energy and forestry sectors, and it’s home to over a hundred thousand Albertans. The government participated in the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Do the estimates contain any funding to support any recommendations from the Boreal Futures forest study report? One

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061252 of the first questions would be: is the minister going to commit to implementing, backed with full funding and legislation? Why is the government not using a strategic model to develop a strategic plan for Alberta’s northern landscape? Why would the government not be using fiscal incentives to promote conservation within that region of the boreal forest? I’d like to go on to forests again with community timber permits. Community timber permits are ideally designed to encourage local economic development and to meet the needs of small, local wood producers.

While the local economy and the development of the manufacturing of local wood products in this program is good, it isn’t happening. I believe that there are some loopholes. The minister continues to convert community timber permits into commercial timber permits when the permit holder no longer meets the requirements. If the minister is aware of this loophole, when does he intend to in fact fix that particular problem?

What is the minister going to do to ensure that microscale operators can continue to operate and play an important role in providing local economic development and supply locally produced products as well as being able to have that economic base? Another concern with regard to that would be: has the minister considered or evaluated the impacts of allowing the transfer of community timber permits to commercial permits in terms of Crown revenue from stumpage fees? Those are some of the specifics on the woodlot.

Going to areas outside of that, burned-out areas as far as reforesta- tion, I’m not sure who actually has the responsibility. As forest fires are now becoming an obvious thing within the province – there are some several hundred that were burning – whose responsibility is it to reforest the burned-out areas? Certainly, there are FMAs, and there are permits held within various communities or within large- scale logging, but whose responsibility is it? 3:30 Let’s talk about the development or at least the process with the land-use management. I think we’ve all got a stake in this, Mr. Minister.

I think that you talked about the fact that you’re looking for new sources, I believe you said, for decision-making such as perhaps opposition as well. Perhaps that could be an opportunity for an all-party to be able to go and help you design or at least improve upon what you have to start with with the land-use management. The opposition right now does currently have plans – and they’re in print in a red book – for land-use management for all of Alberta. I think there could certainly be some suggestions in there that the minister could carry on or could in fact improve upon.

In land-use management there needs to be a real effort with regard to being able to have off-road use. Neighbours of mine, in fact, go south of Calgary to be able to use their ATVs or their quads. That’s a long drive, but they don’t mind it b ecause they think they get a good weekend out of it. They’re able to do some camping and off- road use.

But if we set aside areas that are already, in fact, not too valuable for ranching or for farming, agricultural – and I’ve talked with those at the Alberta Fish and Game Association as to their take on having some specific areas set aside so that they do have it to be able to use at their discretion, say 30 kilometres square with some hills and that. That would be an opportunity for them to be able to have their own area instead of continuing to encroach on some of the habitat areas where they continually are pushed and forced to go because of development.

They said that they would certainly be pleased and could support something like that if we did have some designated sites, perhaps in the northern part of the province, some central, and of course down in the south part of the province as well. That would be great to be able to have that. We talked about how as the minister was growing up on the farmland, he thought that this could last forever and that as he’s gained a little bit more wisdom, he realizes, in fact, that the areas and lands aren’t going to last forever with our continued develop- ment.

We talked – and, in fact, I brought it up in the past – about roadless areas. Has the minister considered having roadless areas where absolutely no activity would occur? There would be no roads for camping, hiking. It would be roadless, as I said. I used this before with regard to last year’s estimates and review of this ministry. We talked about the Alberta Forest Products Association’s survey.

I talked about it yesterday, brought it up with regard to some specifics on the questions and how the overall general population doesn’t feel that the ministry or the government or, in fact, the industry is doing enough to protect. It is the ministry, the govern- ment’s responsibility to ensure that the lands remain vital and they remain clean and usable. So, again, would the minister be able to give his take with regard to the survey? There were many specific questions on that, and I’d just like to see if he would be able to speak on that particular piece.

We talked about the pine beetle and their co-ordinated effort with B.C. to be able to talk and try to eradicate it. Well, this has been going on for some time. Have we talked about or even considered bringing in some experts from the U.S. side? I know that they’ve had this particular pest down there for some time. Have we considered bringing up some experts to be able to talk about where they are with regard to being able to manage this? There’s a joint effort, I believe, between here and B.C. on one of the Willmore areas. There’s going to be a combined or at least a joint effort on the burning.

We talked about some of the controlled burns before. In fact, the minister in his opening piece talked about how 100 per cent of infected trees will r eceive treatment such as eradication and burn. That’s reactive. We’re talking about proactive. We can’t anticipate where these bugs are going to be going, but if we could in fact start taking out some of the older trees, which I believe they’re attracted to – I know we’ve got to, you know, either log them or we’ve got to cut and burn them. I mean, either way, we’ve got to ensure that the forest industry, which is a $4 billion industry and employs 59,000 people, Mr.

Minister, remains vital and it remains strong because of all the people that are involved. [interjection] I know that you know that as well. I’m just reminding you of that particular piece. The fishing derby. We raised that last time, on the lakes. When the thaw would come, you said you would certainly monitor the activity on the lakes as far as the overfishing and the concerns about that. Has the minister come up with any sort of specifics as to the concerns that were raised with the Pigeon Lake fishing derby and the overusage or the overfishing that does occur on that one?

Let’s go to some of the efforts on the southeastern Alberta side. We’ll talk about the culls on the deer. In fact, the fish and wildlife department had concluded and had done a cull in that area. It was successful, I guess, by their terms, and they called it off early. There are some reports suggesting that perhaps the culls aren’t effective. The CWD is out there. Do we actually have an idea right now as to where it’s coming from or the effects or where they are? There has been little talk on that particular area as well. I’d also like to raise one of the concerns from the AWA.

They’re concerned – it’s just rumours right now – about funding for a species at risk program that has been cut due to the administration boondog- gle, they’re calling it. It means the portion of the $48.7 million in line 3.0.1 that’s endangered species will not be funded. I certainly would like some comments on that. The Alberta Wilderness

May 3, 2006 Alberta Hansard 1253 Association has stated that they are just entering into a busy summer this season in this type of work, and many consultants, researchers, university students are very anxious to get out in the field and start their careers – hopefully, it’ll be long careers – within that particular work. Can the minister explain line 3.0.1, fish and wildlife, on page 406, detail the program level in wr iting? Specifically, how much money will be going to that thing? The multiple species at risk program in southern Alberta. There is a report. The last one that was issued came out in June 2004.

It’s chaired by the Member for West Yellowhead. I don’t believe that there has been another report since then. It looks great on paper, but that’s as far as it goes. We contacted a number of people in various areas and industry to come up and get together, beef producers, fish and game, but there’s not really much that comes out of this except for a report. In fact, I never see anything concrete, you know, to be able to get some of these particular species that they have concerns with listed as threatened. We’ve got woodland caribou in here. It’s still in fact endangered and on the verge of threatened.

We’ve got the peregrine falcon as well as the grizzly bear. They’re all listed in here, but again what good is this report if it doesn’t go any further except in writing? I never hear much about this, and I’d like the minister, perhaps, to be able to comment on that particular piece as well. I’ve given the minister a couple of specifics. I’ll sit down here and see if he’d be able to answer some of those right now, then. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the hon. member opposite for the questions and, first of all, some of the general comments that he began with, certainly about land use and sort of putting out a position from the opposition side about the need for land use. He brought in a number of questions that I certainly would like to have the opportunity to talk about because land use – no matter where I go or where I speak or who I speak to, Albertans really value the land. The land has given us all the wealth that we have had in this province, Mr.

Chairman, not only what’s on top of it, whether it’s grass or whether it’s trees, but what’s underneath the ground, the nonrenewable resources that are underneath the ground. All of these things have made Alberta what it is today and the quality of life that we have. I know that the hon. member appreciates that and certainly wants to make sure that those kinds of activities remain but, at the same time, that it’s done in a responsible way. Albertans want that too. Albertans value that. 3:40 He mentioned the Alberta Forest Products Association survey that they’d done.

I thought it was a very g ood report that was brought forward by the Alberta Forest Products Association, and I thought it was very noble of them to actually go out and find out what Albertans valued. Albertans certainly did value the fact that they wanted to see the forests sustainable. Secondly, they wanted to see habitat preserved for wildlife. Thirdly, they wanted to make sure that there were provisions and regulations in place to help protect all of that. That is exactly what Sustainable Resource Development wants as well, and that’s what we’re trying to do on behalf of the people of Alberta.

When I go out and talk about that with the people, I talk to them not only about what we do today but also what we have to prepare for in the future. What we have to prepare for in the future are policies that will deal with a busy landscape, with all the activities that traditionally we have had and will continue to have that preserve that quality of life but also having to deal with population growth. That population growth is going to change the demographics of the province. How do we deal with that? At the same time you’ve got industry doing a good job. You’ve got every body employed.

You’ve got population growth. Then how do we enjoy ourselves? How do we get into the backcountry? How can we make sure that that backcountry is there for future generations to enjoy as we do today? How do you manage it so that it’s not destroyed and that it can be there for future generations?

Part of the framework that we’re working on for the future is to take into account all of that busy landscape, the population growth, the expectations when you get into the backcountry and how you manage that, and at the same time look at conservation and preserva- tion so that the Alberta that we see 50 years from now can be somewhat similar to the Alberta that we see today. That’s the future, and that’s what we’re going to be working on. I want to talk about that a little bit more before I end this particular segment. I want to talk about what’s happening today.

We have policies in place today that ensure g ood management of the wildlife, good management of the fish, good management in forestry. Our policy today is to make that sustainable for today. Now, I don’t want the hon. member to confuse the land-use framework that’s coming forward in the future with the policies that are in place today.

While we’re developing the land-use framework for the future, it’s important that we keep the economic engines running today, so we continue to work on the policies that we have today in terms of making sure that our companies have good management practices, that they have good plans put in place, good cutting sequences, annual allowable cuts that are kept to the companies’ standards. We have standards and regulations. We keep the companies’ feet to the fire in terms of how they go about and do their work and make sure that the public interest is looked after in terms of management of the forest.

Also, on the public lands side it’s about stewardship. Certainly, our grasslands have to be well looked after. Of course, it’s all the things that you put in place to make sure that those are going to be there to serve the needs of today but also be preserved for the future. I want to get to industry for just a moment. Industry itself, oil and gas and forestry, have been working in the northern part of this province for a number of years. They are pushing us to come up with good policies on integrated land management.

They’re already working on integrated land management, using the same roads to get to a cutblock or to get to a series of well sites. That reduces the footprint on FMAs. It reduces the footprint on public land. Particularly the oil and gas industry now have the kind of technology that when they go and do seismic lines, they don’t have to do the 60-foot lines or the 30-foot lines. They’re now down to about two metres, and that reduces the footprint as well. So we’re all getting a little bit smarter in terms of integrated land manage- ment. Now, what that does: it helps the habitat.

That helps preserve the habitat for our grizzly bears, our caribou, and all of those types of things. So industry is taking a very res ponsible approach to working with us on integrated land management in this busy landscape. I want to talk about the future of land use in just a moment, but I want to answer some of your questions. You talked about habitat for bears, and you mentioned what the numbers of bears are. Well, we have six or seven zones in the province, and we’re continuing with our DNA study. Right now grizzly bear populations can only be estimated, and it’s very, very difficult.

It takes a long time to get all the DNA census. So in each zone they’re pretty well estimated. Because the estimates in our first set of numbers for each zone are strictly estimates, we want to have a better idea of the numbers, so

Alberta Hansard May 3, 20061254 we didn’t put a moratorium on hunting. We suspended the hunt for three years. The hunt was and could still be in the future a manage- ment tool for the numbers of grizzly bears. But let’s take a look over the next three years with this DNA study at exactly how many grizzly bears there are across the entire province and not just in individual zones. That decision will be made for the future.

But here’s what happens if you suspend a hunt and you have more interaction as our population grows and we get into the backcountry with our style of living or our style of recreation: we have to be more bear smart. We’re unveiling a BearSmart program here within the next two weeks. We’re going to let the population of Alberta know about how to conduct yourself in the backcountry, some of the things that you should take responsibility for yourself in keeping bears away from humans.

When you have a bear/human conflict – it doesn’t matter whether it’s an automobile or whether it’s on a trail or whatever – and our fish and wildlife guys are called, the bear generally loses. So we as people have got to assume some responsibility. The BearSmart program is going to outline some of those responsibili- ties: how we keep our food in camp spots and even how to make sure that they’re more secure so that the bears can’t get to them. The bear gets used to human food. They know where to go find it, and what happens then is that you get into the bear/human conflict, and we would like to stop that.

Now, you talked about the su ccess of the Karelian dogs. The Karelian dogs were a pilot project, part of our initial BearSmart program, and the pilot project was started in the Crowsnest Pass. I got to know those little puppies when they were just secured by the department staff down there in the Crowsnest Pass, in the Blairmore office. That pilot project has worked out really, really well, so we’re going to be expanding on the Karelian bear dog as part of our BearSmart program.

The other things: helping communities establish where their trails are, making sure that berry bushes are away from the trails, and again trying to get that distance between bears and humans. The biggest thing, as I said, is to make us as individuals aware of the fact that we have a responsibility as well to make sure that that separa- tion is there. We can’t always be relying on the bear to be making that decision because the bear is hungry. They have an insatiable appetite, and they’ll go wherever the food is. That’s why you see bears crossing back and forth over the Alberta and British Columbia border.

It depends on where the food is. So to get back to the numbers, that’s another reason why it’s very hard to tie down the numbers, and we’re really pleased to have the kind of co-operation that we have from British Columbia in trying to tie those down. The same thing happens with the caribou study. Some of the dollars that we’re putting forward is a partnership with industry and our stakeholders to make sure that the habitat is there and that the preservation of

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20060503
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S2 20060503 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bea47cf2342aa75e2947d843bba8022286f8cc23

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