Alberta Hansard — 22 April 2002, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 2)

20020422

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 813 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:30 p.m. Date: 02/04/22 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, welcome. Let us pray. Though we as legislators of this great province and its people are taken from the common people and selected by You to be architects of our history, give us wisdom and understanding to do Your will in all that we do. Amen. Hon. members, would you please remain standing so that we may participate in the singing of our national anthem, and we’ll ask Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us. HON.

MEMBERS: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. THE SPEAKER: Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier I’m pleased to introduce a number of guests from the Alberta Public Affairs Bureau.

As all members know, the Public Affairs Bureau is the communications arm of the Alberta public service. The guests here today are seconded to many different government ministries and of course are vital to the successful communications that the government and the public service have with Albertans. They are here as part of an orientation tour.

They are seated in the members’ gallery, and as I call their names, I would ask them to rise, and at the conclusion of naming them all, we would give them the traditional warm welcome of the House: Jackie Bibby, Ron Bos, Rachel Bouska, Johanna Dietrich, Anne Douglas, Jamie Edwardson, Jeremy Fritsche, Dan Huang, Terry Jorden, Kari Larson, Carey LeVos, Lori Lindquist, Kim MacDonald, and Chris Mikaluk. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MR. HORNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions today.

The first is that I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly constituents of mine, Nancy Cornelius and her son Dan, who have included in his home school- ing studies a tour of the Legislature and to be with us here today to observe the proceedings of the House. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. My second group, Mr. Speaker, is a group of 26 students and six adults from Parkland Village School, which is just north of Spruce Grove.

This a lively and bright group who asked some great questions when I was able to visit with them last fall. A note I would like to mention is that Parkland is a year-round school, and the general consensus is that it is a great success. Their teacher is Mrs. Laurie Maycher and teacher’s aide Mrs. Louise Rose. The parent helpers are Mr. Bruce Neville, Miss Cindy Bukmeier, Mrs. Cari LeGrow, Mrs. Suzie Veysey. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR.

MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise today and introduce to you and through you a group of social work students from Grant MacEwan Community College who I believe are due to graduate from their two-year program fairly soon. This group of students undertook an initiative at their college recently and collected over 400 signatures on a petition dealing with the subject of safe and affordable housing in Alberta.

I met with members of the group last week, and they presented me with the petitions, and they’re here today to see their participation in the political process come to fruition as I present their petitions to the Assembly. These soon-to-be social workers are Mary MacKinnon, Catherine Hosein, Barbara Jadischke, Rachelle Andre, Connie Fleming, Christina Deboulet, Lucrecia Mendoza, Alma Swann, and Tami Biagi. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Seniors. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Over the course of time many Albertans have contributed to the excellence of our education system. Today I’m honoured to introduce to you and to other members of the Legislature one such gentleman. He is the recently retired superintendent of sc hools for Parkland school division. I’d ask Dr. David Young to rise and r eceive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment. DR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased today to rise and introduce Robin Kurpjuweit. Robin is a former constituent of mine.

He worked very hard on my campaign, and he’s a young man that’s very interested in politics. Robin is now with a program out of Langley, B.C. He’s the program co-ordinator for a program called How To Drug Proof Your Kids. It works with other drug prevention programs like DARE and with the RCMP and so on on drug proofing kids. He had the opportunity to meet with the hon. Minister of Children’s Services this morning and found it to be a very profitable meeting. One thing that’s exciting about this program is they don’t ask for government money. Robin, please stand and take the warm welcome of the House.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sir, in recognition of Hope Week, April 21 through 27, 2002, and the important role that hope plays in maintaining the wellness of Albertans, I wish to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Jean Wilkinson, president of the Hope Foundation of Alberta, and Joan Mason, chair of the Hope in Action Gala Committee, who are seated in the members’ gallery. On the 26th of April here in the city of Edmonton the Hope in Action gala will take place. I would ask Mrs.

Wilkinson and Ms Mason to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure.

814 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce some first-time visitors to the Legislature from Rocky Mountain House and Calgary, Jack and Dolores Killick and their charming daughter Carmen. They’re seated in the mem- bers’ gallery. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly Ms Shirley Howe and Mr. Ken Smith.

Ms Howe is the acting Public Service Commissioner for the government of Alberta, and Mr. Smith is the Deputy Minister of Energy. Both Ms Howe and Mr. Smith are co-chairs of a group of senior Alberta public service executives who are profiled in the cover story of the latest issue of the national magazine Canadian Government Executive, and I will be filing appropriate copies of that

article later on this session. The magazine

article is about the very successful corporate human resources development strategy that is here in the Alberta public service, an initiative led by Ms Howe, Mr. Smith, and their team. I would ask Shirley Howe and Ken Smith now to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. MR. VANDERBURG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a very special visitor in the members’ gallery. George Jendyk, mayor of the village of Onoway, is here today, and he’s met many of my colleagues and some ministers today.

George is in his third term on council. He’s been elected since 1995, and in 2001 George was elected as mayor. He has served on many committees for council, including the ambulance authority and seniors’ housing. George is also a teacher at the Onoway elementary school. He’s a member of the Royal Canadian Legion and has served as a longtime member of the Masonic lodge. I ask George to rise and receive a warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:40 head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. PDD Boards DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government’s budget for Community Development allocates funding for various persons with developmental disabilities boards in the province. Now, less than a month later, with the ink barely dry, we learn that the government has changed these allocations and made adjustments to the level of funding for the various boards. My questions are to the Premier. Why were changes made to the level of funding after the budget was introduced? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the budget contains an 8 percent increase for PDDs, but I’ll have the hon. Minister of Community Development respond.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s true that from time to time we do have to take a look at how we’re delivering these important programs for persons with developmental disabilities, and that’s why in response to a lot of community feedback and a lot of contact with our own MLAs and community agency workers we were very pleased this year to accomplish another 8 percent increase in addition to the 8 percent that we increased last year.

But giving more money to the system alone is not necessarily going to find the kind of improvements we need for this very vulnerable group of individual Albertans. We also have to take a look at how we deliver those programs on a per case basis, and that is part of the review that has been going on ever since the Building Better Bridges report was written by myself and others a few years ago. We will continue in that same vein to ensure that this population gets the services they require. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They didn’t get the question.

Why is it that there were changes in the allocations made between what shows in the budget and what numbers were given to the boards that they were to use to build their business plans? There’s a difference between the budget level and what the boards got. Why the difference, Mr. Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again I’ll have the hon. Minister of Community Development explain, if he can, the answer. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Sure.

The fact is that back when the 9 percent projected increase last year had to be pared back, as with all government agencies, by 1 percent, we did the same thing, so some of the anticipated increases at that time could not flow out the way they had anticipated to be able to flow out. So we’re flowing them out this year, and by the end of April all of the regional boards will have had an instruction from the PDD Provincial Board with respect to clarifying the amounts and how those amounts are to be applied. Some of them, as you know, are labeled for PDD uptake.

Those that are coming to us as children turning adult are fairly easy to predict, but there are a number of others that come in which we’re not aware of on as timely a basis, so it’s a little bit complicated. The other funding increases will flow out for community agency workers, and none of that is easy to forecast too far in advance, but by the end of April it will all be done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They still didn’t get it.

Why is it the numbers in the budget are different than the numbers that you sent to the PDD boards saying “these will be the dollars that you will get this year to operate”? Which is the right number: the number you’re stating in the budget or the number that you put in your material that you sent out to the boards? MR. ZWOZDESKY: Mr. Speaker, let me try this again. By the end of April these numbers will be finalized. What we’re working on from one year to the next always are projections, and that’s what a lot of those figures have been based on, hon. Leader of the Opposi- tion.

Now, if you have something very specific that you want to share with me that I’m not aware of, I’d like to see it, because the numbers that are going to be confirmed will be done in about a week’s time, and I’d be happy to give them to you as exact as they are. Please bear in mind that a lot of these programs and services change from month to month with certain recipients because they do show improvements, and we’re constantly upgrading the services that we provide and the types of programs that are designed for them. So being really, really that specific sometimes is difficult, and that is the truth.

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 815 THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess from that, our budgets don’t really mean anything, so I’ll try some service delivery. Mr. Speaker, many disabled persons rely upon Persons with Developmental Disabilities for support and service even though those services do not fall under the mandate of PDD. We now learn that persons with developmenta l disabilities boards are examining various cost-cutting measures, including moving nonmandated services out of PDD.

My questions are to the Premier. Given that shifting programs from one ministry to the other does not improve service delivery or lower costs to the government, why is Commu- nity Development allowing PDD boards to examine this option? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that to be true or untrue. I would assume that PDD boards examine various ways to achieve efficiencies and ways to provide more effective forms of services. Relative to the details I’ll have the hon. minister respond. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thanks. Mr.

Speaker, the important thing here is that no one who qualifies for services under the PDD programs will be denied that service. We’re very proud of that record, and we’re going to ensure that it continues. When I wrote the report a couple of years ago, there were certain services at that time that were being looked upon as perhaps being withdrawn. We did not withdraw them in the end. The government responded very positively, and in fact we’re adding more and more to that program to make it a much more improved system for all these individuals across the province.

There are about 8,000 people receiving this service, and we’re providing service that is unparalleled anywhere else in Canada when it comes to the degree to which we get involved with them through our regional boards and when it comes to the comprehensiveness of the programs that we are providing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the minister: can the minister guarantee that PDD clients who now receive these services will not fall through the cracks because of programs and services being juggled to other departments?

How can he guarantee that they’ll still get those services? MR. ZWOZDESKY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m personally not aware of any programs that are being juggled or hived off anywhere else. If there are some programs out there that can be delivered through a different model or a better system, I’d be happy for the hon. member to share those with us. I can guarantee you that anyone who qualifies for services as a person with a developmental disability will continue to get that service, and that’s what’s important here. That’s why we increased this year’s budget by $30 million: to look after those individuals.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: will the Premier guarantee that programs that are moved out of PDD will continue to receive funding at a level that they had under PDD when they end up in a new department? MR. KLEIN: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister responded by saying that he knows of no programs that are being moved out. Again I’ll have the hon. minister respond. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me be really clear. If the hon. member has some kind of a document that says something along this line, I’d like to see what that is.

It’s true that there are from time to time a lot of individuals and organizations out there that require some examinations of some of the programs. Those do get looked at on a regular basis so that we can stay as current as possible and provide the best possible service within the dollars and the framework available. Again, anyone who is eligible for PDD services receives that service, and we’re very proud of that. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. WCB Early Resolution Initiative MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday the WCB held an information session on a pilot project called early resolution initiative, that changes the way the WCB handles internal case reviews. This is on the eve of the introduction of Bill 26, which is also anticipated to deal with changes to the internal WCB review process, though how substantial is yet to be seen. My first question is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. How can the WCB get around existing law since their pilot project does not utilize the Claims Services Revi ew Committee or the Assessment Review Committee, both of which are provided for in the WCB act?

Thank you. 1:50 MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing a bill later this afternoon that deals with the amendments to the Workers’ Compen- sation Act. As a matter of fact, the issue that the hon. member is raising has to be dealt with and will be dealt with in the provisions of that act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. Given that the early resolution initiative was discussed at a public meeting on Friday, April 19, can the minister tell the House: is it mandatory for all current cases to be involved in this pilot project, or is it voluntary?

Thank you. MR. DUNFORD: It’s a pilot project, Mr. Speaker, and I’m not sure of the exact term of reference that WCB has put on that particular pilot. In any event, we are introducing a bill today. We have a second reading, a committee reading, and a third reading to go through before it would be legally binding as law. Again, it’s mostly enabling legislation. It’s there to help the people that this hon. member has tried to care for and tried to represent their views in the past, with some success I might add.

This is one more response by both the Workers’ Compensation Board and this particular govern- ment to respond to the needs of injured workers. MR. MacDONALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: then why was the early resolution initiative discussed before the hon. minister had the opportunity to table the bill in the Assembly? Thank you. MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don’t see any sort of conspiracy here. Now, perhaps I’m missing something. It seems quite common

816 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 these days for people to get out ahead of legislation, before it is actually tabled, and this appears to be another case of that. Cer- tainly, from what I can understand from what the member is saying, it sounds like the intentions of the parties are good, and I don’t know what the beef is. If there’s something that he wishes to formalize by way of a formal complaint, then I would suggest that he put it in writing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Teachers’ Labour Dispute DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The memorandum of understanding reached last Friday between the government and the province’s teachers wasn’t so much a negotiated settlement as it was a surrender, with the Minister of Learning popping out of his foxhole just long enough to wave the white flag. This comes after several months of job action, closed schools, and canceled extracurricular activities, all of which were completely avoidable. My questions are to the Premier.

Why did the government reject the olive branch offered by the teachers two months ago when teachers voluntarily agreed to submit to a fair and impartial binding arbitration process and instead enact a punitive piece of legislation? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the hon. leader of the third party has been, but the union took us to court on the OC that was passed, and much to their surprise they won. [interjections] And much to our surprise as well. Absolutely. Much to everyone’s surprise.

So I guess it’s a matter of, you know, the teachers getting what they asked for, not that they really wanted it, I’m sure. That resulted, then, in legislative action that had to be taken to ensure that teachers would go back to work and that the students would be looked after. I might remind the hon. leader of the third party that the only thing that is back in the agreement, albeit in an amended form, is the pension issue, and that is for a one-year period. I would remind the hon. leader of the third party that that was always on the table, and it was taken off when the teachers went on strike.

In my meeting with Mr. Booi there were three things that we agreed to. DR. PANNU: Four. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, they were not at the meeting. What were they doing? Did they have their ears up against my door? Were they listening? Do they have some unknown vent, you know, or some snooping device? They were not at the meeting. I can tell you that the hon. leader of the third party was not at the meeting. He wasn’t anywhere close. If he was close, you know, will he please advise this Legislature where he’s getting his information and if he has a secret peephole or a listening device? Mr.

Speaker, three things were agreed to. One, Mr. Booi agreed that there should be a legislated arbitration process; two, that it should deal with the issue of salaries and that other issues relative to the sustainability of education would be referred to a blue-ribbon panel or some kind of a commission; and three – and it’s in the notes – that we would revisit at some time the pension issue. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier be a little more contrite and apologize to Alberta students and parents for putting them through se veral months of unn ecessary misery given that the elements of the settlement with teachers had been there all along? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize to absolutely no one. This agreement was reached. I understand that the hon. minister participated in a news conference on Friday with Mr. Booi there. Both the minister and Mr.

Booi seemed to be totally satisfied with the deal that had been hammered out by third parties, in this case lawyers for the Alberta School Boards Association, the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and the government of Alberta. It served to end an impasse relative to teachers withdrawing voluntary services and refusing to mark exams. It involved something that we agreed to revisit in the first place, and that was the issue of teachers’ pensions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary to the Premier: since one of the features of last Friday’s agreement is a loosening of the arbitration rules, will the government make up financial shortfalls resulting from any arbitration awards, or will the government compound the problem by forcing school boards to cut in other areas? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. leader of the third party that significant increases have been granted to education this year, and indeed over the past five years there’s been a substan- tial increase in education spending of about 41 percent.

One of the terms of the arbitration process, Bill 12, the act now, is that school boards cannot incur deficits, and to that point I will have the hon. minister respond. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Under the agreement that was signed on Friday, it was established that the

interpretation of deficit would be that they could not run a deficit at the end of the day. The arbitrator must be satisfied that the deal can be reached without running a deficit. Mr. Speaker, I will add a couple of other things if I may. This line of questioning has been about the agreement that was signed on Friday. This agreement was signed because of the willingness of this government, the ATA, and the ASBA to put aside their differ- ences for the sake of Alberta students. It’s very unfortunate that the other side will not do that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Education Funding MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently I have been in contact with two teachers in Calgary. Teacher number 1 told me that she has 27 students in one of her classes, 12 of whom require constant one-on-one attention for various reasons. Teacher number 2 told me that her class has 24 students: six on individual program plans, 11 as ESL, three with attention deficit disorder, and four considered average.

Given that our government’s K to 12 education budget has been increased continuously since 1995 – I notice that the rate was over 41 percent – still there is clamour about lack of funding. I do not want to talk about the big number of many millions. I just want to ask the Minister of Learning a bout the amount of funding at the classroom level that the teacher is supposed to have for her class. Could the minister tell us: what are the current budgeted rates of instruction funding per student per category of need?

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 817 2:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The average student in the province of Alberta receives roughly $7,500. Included in that are add-ons for things such as English as a Second Language. There are add-ons for the Alberta initiative for school improvement. There are add-ons for sparsity and distance. There are add-ons for growth and density. There are add-ons for severe special needs. All these issues are what determine how much funding goes to the school board for the classroom.

In general, probably the best number that I can give the hon. member on a systemwide basis is about $7,500 per student. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. CAO: Thank you. Without being exact, could the minister give us just a quick estimate on the instruction funding only for each of the classes mentioned above based on the rate and the number of students? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, just doing simple mathematics, for 27 students it would be a little over $200,000; for 24 students it would be around $180,000.

Again I will reiterate that there are a lot of extras that are added on; for example, an extra 12 and a half thousand dollars for a severe special-needs student. All of these are added on in conjunction with that. With respect to an average class, it would be a little over $200,000. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: again without being exact, could the minister give an average in total of the education funding for each of the above classes? DR. OBERG: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we recently did a study that showed that the average size of a class from grade 1 to grade 6 would be 23.6. Say we rounded that up to 24, that would put the actual number of dollars going to that particular class, assigned to the classroom, at about $180,000, so a very large amount of money going to the classroom. That does include administrative usage of the dollars as well as transportation and things like that. In general, it would be around $180,000. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Foster Parent Program DR.

MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The time for reviews is over. The Children’s Services ministry must now take real action in order to prevent any more tragic deaths of children in care. My questions are to the Minister of Children’s Services. Given the recommendations of the Korvette Crier fatality inquiry, will the minister now require that all foster agencies be accredited? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, accreditation as we know it today is not a perfect model. It is a move towards a perfect model, I guarantee, but there are several things that we have to do about accreditation. Should all foster agencies be accredited?

Absolutely. The only ones that heretofore had not required accreditation were those where delegation of authority had been provided on reserves. They were accredited, but the situation in this particular case, going back three years ago, Mr. Speaker, was that there was – and this is far from the accreditation issue. It was an issue of communication. It was an issue where the worker did not realize that the agency that was delivering services was not accredited for the purposes of providing foster care. So it’s not a simple issue of accreditation or saying that they should all be accredited.

It’s a situation whereby in this particular case there was not a recognition that the agency wasn’t accredited. Let’s be clear in this Assembly. Somebody paid dearly. The child in question paid dearly, and so did somebody go to jail. We have had accountability in the system, because somebody was charged, and there was a recognition that even if there had been accreditation, the action that was taken was an inappropriate action. Our society through our courts recognized that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: will the minister commit to giving all foster parents standardized training? MS EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do. We give at least 67 hours of basic training. We give incrementally more training to foster parents as the need arises, particularly if they are dealing with children with particularly tough s ituations. If they have develop- mental disabilities, they get more training. They get a variety of supports, and as written by the current parent support executive director for foster families in Alberta, they get extensive training.

In this situation, again a very unfortunate circumstance, the situation evolved because the parent that was providing the foster care did not have appropriate training and support for the work that was done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: will the minister commit to implementing a standard policy on how many foster children may be placed in one home? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we’re working very hard to make sure that the right number are placed in the right home at the discretion of the local authorities.

You can’t just treat people like widgets and have a standard number. You have to look very carefully at what the circumstances are with the child and the parent involved, what the age of the child is, and whether or not they have any developmental disability. You have to look clearly at the child and the capacity of the family to provide the services involved. It is not a simple standard.

It’s a very important thing for us to look at a very clear and defined process for evaluating what the child needs and for evaluating whether these children are all members of one family or not and whether it’s wise to split up siblings. We look at this from a variety of points of view, but we look at it, again, bottom line, from what’s in the best interests of the child or the children involved. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Oil and Gas Royalties MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta depends on revenues from oil and gas royalties to finance important government programs. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Does Alberta’s royalty increase to reflect the increasing value of the resource as the reserves diminish?

818 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, as is known, it’s sometimes yes and sometimes no. The royalty regime, first of all, is an economic rent. It is clearly defined to reflect the province’s ownership of the resource. It is not a tax. It is not a levy. It is not a policy instru- ment. It is ownership to reflect economic rent. In fact, this eco- nomic rent changes, whether you’re in Alberta, Alaska, Norway, Louisiana, with the type of structures you have, the relationship that you have with the people who build the industry.

For example, with oil sands today we get 1 percent of the revenues from the product that’s generated in that area. That is a program put in place that has, along with some other major tax considerations, enticed some $51 billion Canadian in investment. Then all the economic benefits accrue from that. Mr. Speaker, once those investments are paid out, we get some 25 percent of the net oil sands production. We are the only jurisdiction in the world where, as conventional production declines, our oil sands are actually increasing so that we are able to replace depleting reserves.

That luxury will allow us to deliver appropriate economic rent to Albertans today, tomorrow, and for the productive life of the oil sands. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Energy has any notion of the timetable when we might expect to get economic rent from synthetic oil royalties on par with conventional oil royalties. AN HON. MEMBER: Good question. 2:10 MR. SMITH: There’s a good question, as one member has pointed out, Mr. Speaker.

This year will be the second year that nonconven- tional, or oil sand oil, production will in fact surpass that of conven- tional oil. Conventional oil peaked at 1.3 million barrels a day back in 1973. Today we will produce some 1.4 million barrels of oil, which will be about 600, 000 barrels conventional and 700,000 to 800,000 barrels of nonconventional oil, or oil sand oil. This gives us the ability to ramp up these investments, have these investments pay out, and as our royalty diminishes from the results of its decreased production, we will be able to increase the royalty take from the oil sands.

Some of the early indications, Mr. Speaker, would indicate that royalty revenue from the tar sands would ramp up sometime in the year 2005-2006. One of the difficulties in timing that is that the oil sand takes up so much of Alberta’s skilled apprenticeship and labour production. In fact, in a province that has only 10 percent of Canada’s workforce, we are working today well over 20 percent of the apprenticeship workforce across Canada. So this creates increased costs. We are a partner in sharing those increased costs, and our royalties will not increase until such time as those costs are paid out.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is this: do we as Albertans get a fair return, as compared with other jurisdictions such as Alaska or Norway or Louisiana? I guess the basic question: are we getting our money’s worth, or are we getting ripped off? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member has a solid, solid question. In fact, we have an entire

section of people both in oil and gas, some hundred plus individuals, whose job is not only the collection of these royalties, these economic rents for Albertans, but actually to scan the competitive marketplace of the world to ensure not only that we remain competitive so as to continue to attract global investment but that we also remain fair to Albertans and deliver the maximum amount of economic rent available. So, in fact, Mr. Speaker, if we were to compare ourselves with Alaska, Alaska’s gas, that is shut in, that is waiting for a pipeline, has a royalty charge of some 12 and a half percent.

Our royalty on gas can go up as high as 35 percent. We average about 20 to 23 percent. If you take a look at Norway, they are in fact moving towards some royalty holidays to find new pools of gas. In Louisi- ana much of that land is owned freehold or by individuals, and therefore the state can only gain revenues by a severance tax. In many analyses and analyses from respected individuals in the oil and gas industry Alberta is rated as one of the very toughest regimes for economic royalties in the world. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Highwood.

Justice System MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government believes in justice for all people except maybe poor people. In the last budget the filing fee for th e small claims court jumped 300 percent. However, at the Court of Queen’s Bench, where more affluent people go to file much larger claims, the filing fee remains unchanged. My questions are all to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister believe that it is justifiable to charge a person a $100 fee in small claims court to try and get back a $300 damage deposit? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, one of the things which we’re trying to accomplish in the justice system is for people to take responsibility for their own issues and try and resolve them in the best way possible. In the Provincial Court, Civil Division we’ve had for the last two to three years a civil mediation project where we pay essentially an honorarium to people who volunteer their time, other than for this honorarium, to help mediate disputes. We pay two mediators per dispute $50 each; $100. That program is being very, very successful in helping people resolve their problems early and without going through the process of court.

About 70 percent of the cases that go into that mediation program get resolved. Now, that is a very advantageous thing for the people who participate. We’d like to expand that program. We’d like to have it available right across the provincial court system, but it comes at a cost. We believe that the $100 cost, where we’re paying $50 to each of two mediators to help assist people to solve problems in an early and effective fashion, is a very effective way of doing business. It doesn’t take up expensive court time, it helps get to an effective resolution early, and it helps people deal with their problems.

The other point which should be made is that when people go to small claims court, whether the filing fee is $25 or $100, if they’re successful, they get that money back. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you. My second question is also to the Minister of Justice. Given that the cost of getting justice is skyrock- eting, why hasn’t the minister increased the qualifying income level for receiving legal aid? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the qualifying income level

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 819 for receiving legal aid has gone up I believe 5 percent, so it has in fact been increased. We’ve recently concluded an agreement with the Law Society and the Legal Aid Society with respect to a new governance structure, which the member should probably know, and we’ve also increased the funding for legal aid by 25 percent over the last two years I believe it is. It could be three years. So there have been significant improvements both to the funding of legal aid, the governance of legal aid, and to the qualifying incomes. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

My final question is also to the Minister of Justice. Why won’t the minister commit to tying future fee increases to the cost of living? A 300 percent increase is quite a bit for an individual to handle. MR. HANCOCK: I’m not sure what future fee increases the hon. member is referring to. If she’s talking about future increases to Provincial Court civil claims, that hopefully is a onetime increase to deal with, as I indicated, the costs of providing mediation and other costs relating to the front end of that service.

I should also mention that the hon. member indicated that there was no increase at the Court of Queen’s Bench level. However, she would be wrong in that we increased the filing of a certificate of readiness at Queen’s Bench rather significantly. The import of that, Mr. Speaker, is that people are again encouraged to resolve their problem through mediation prior to setting it down for trial, prior to utilizing the court’s time in terms of setting aside trial time.

So it was appropriate to put the fee increase at that stage rather than at the introductory stage in the Court of Queen’s Bench, but there has been a significant increase at the Court of Queen’s Bench. With respect to increases in those areas, Mr. Speaker, there haven’t been a great deal of increases in the court level. We do provide a high level of service and access to the public. We are doing a lot to encourage people to deal with their problems at the precourt level, which is more effective for them and certainly more cost-effective.

I’m open to any ideas or suggestions that the hon. member or anyone else might have as to how we can do that more effectively and more cost-effectively for Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Highways 2, 7, and 547 Interchange MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Transportation. Last Friday a tragic accident occurred at the intersection of highways 2, 7, and 547 near Alder- syde. The driver and her four-year-old grandson were killed.

Highwood constituents are demanding timely action on the long- promised interchange at this location. To the minister: when does the Department of Transportation plan to build a safe interchange at this intersection? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department is responsible for about 30,000 kilometres of highway network system plus about 3,800 bridges, which would include interchanges. We support about another 135,000 kilometres of rural roads and about 8,800 bridges through municipal grants.

With respect to the interchanges we of course look at the daily traffic volume and also at safety. With this particular interchange I’d like to inform the member that we are in the process of preliminary engineering and design, which is proceeding through the normal routes within the department. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what is the current status of planning, land acquisition, and the cost of building this most needed intersection? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, the total cost of the interchange at this particular site is around $20 million.

We have one parcel of land in place, and we are working diligently on the other two parcels. We do have an agreement in principle, but the final agreement has not been signed as yet. 2:20 THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Transportation: where does this interchange fit in with the overall plans and priorities of the north/s outh trade corridor, which is also called the Canamex highway? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, there are about 19 or 20 inter- changes along the north/south trade corridor.

That does not include at least another half a dozen on highway 16, on highway 1, one at Fort McMurray, and one at Medicine Hat that are in the planning stage. This particular interchange does rank near the top. As soon as we put all the land acquisition in place and complete others on the list that are in progress as we speak – and that’s part of the north/south trade corridor along the Deerfoot Trail – of course we’ll be moving with some progress on the Anthony Henday Drive, as well, and then highway 2 and highway 43 in Grande Prairie. For-profit Diagnostic Facilities DR. TAFT: Mr.

Speaker, important research tabled earlier in this Assembly shows clearly that the greater the dominance of for-profit health care facilities, the higher the costs of public health care, including hospitals, home care, and other public programs. In Alberta for-profit health care corporations are pushing up public- sector wage expectations by offering signing bonuses, higher salaries, and easier working conditions to pull workers out of the public system.

One result of this is a pronounced risk that for-profit diagnostic corporations will soon have enticed so many technicians away from some public hospitals that those hospitals will be unable to function properly. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: does the minister see any risk – any risk – that government policies are driving health care costs unnecessarily higher rather than lower? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the real issue in this debate appears not to be whether or not there are private or public providers of the service but whether it is a single or a multiple payer of the system.

I think what you’ll find – and I would entreat the hon. member to review the literature – is that in places where there are multiple payers, that does appear to be driving up the costs of health care. The United States and the U.K. would be good examples. But what we are working on in a made-in-Alberta solution in this province is not multiple payers. We’re talking about still a single payer, but there can be a role for private providers of care within the publicly funded health care system. That is a dramatically different situation than has been portrayed by the hon. member here today.

820 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d be delighted to review the evidence if the minister provides it. What policies will the government enact to prevent for-profit diagnostic companies from creating predatory monopolies that will hold RHAs to ransom for overpriced contracts? MR. MAR: With respect to all of the contracts that have been approved under the Health Care Protection Act, the overriding principle all along has been that we are interested in preserving the very best of our public health care system and improving access wherever possible.

Mr. Speaker, in the approval of those contracts under the Health Care Protection Act, the overriding principle is: how can we improve the public system? So, Mr. Speaker, for those members of the Alberta public or the hon. member himself if he so chooses to avail himself of the opportunity, if people wish to review such contracts as they have been approved, those contracts are available on web sites. People can see for themselves that these contracts are in fact improving access and not impairing the public health care system. Now, with respect to the issue of diagnostics, Mr.

Speaker, this may well be an opportunity for regional health authorities to contract with private providers. If private providers can provide the service faster, better, and at the same or improved cost, then that should be what happens. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that some RHAs may soon have no choice but to contract with for-profit diagnostic corporations on those corporations’ terms, how can the minister continue to tell this Assembly, as he just did, that diagnostic services will only be contracted out when it is faster, better, or more efficient to do so?

Aren’t we just putting RHAs between a rock and a hard place? MR. MAR: Well, you know, the hon. member asked me specifically about ultrasound technicians the other day, on Thursday afternoon, April 18, issue 23, at page 788. I do have more detailed information with respect to ultrasound technicians, but as I indicated on Thurs- day last in this House, Mr. Speaker, the issue of trained technicians, technologists, and health care providers of all sorts is an issue not just in Alberta but across this country.

We have been very, very aggressive in our recruiting, particularly with respect to sonographers, which is what he was referring to the other day. There is a North American shortage of trained and qualified sonographers. The regional health authorities and the government are recruiting these professionals from other jurisdic- tions. Arrangements have been made with educational institutions in the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia to meet with new graduates. Those interviews will take place in the month of May of this year.

We’ve entered into a contractual arrangement with Worldwide Health Staff Associates, an interna- tional recruiting agency, to recruit sonographers from the United Kingdom. There will be attendance at the Canadian Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers national conference that will take place in June, 2002, for the purposes of recruitment. So we are making every effort to ensure that people are available not only for the facilities referred to by the hon. member but within the public system as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-North.

WCB Claims Review MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A committee of Tory MLAs recommended an independent adjudication of long- standing WCB claims by injured workers, a recommendation that was seemingly endorsed by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, yet it seems that employers have pressured the minister into backing down on justice for injured workers.

Given that employers claim that they cannot afford the adjudication process, can the minister tell the House how he expects injured workers, many of whom have been unemployed for more than a decade, to continue to bear the costs of poverty and despair as a result of the injustice that they have faced? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is speculating.

There’s no question that there is some difficulty with getting all stakeholders on the same page as it relates to how one would look at a long-term contentious claim, but I think it’s a little early to be calling for the demise of that exercise. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly not calling for the demise of the recommendations, but I’d like to know why the minister is prepared to cave in to employers when there are WCB claimants who have been waiting in some cases more than a decade for justice on their claims? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member seems to be ignoring a very fundamental fact here, and that is that the workers’ compensation system as set out by the Meredith principle does talk about a system that would be funded by employers and would be there for the treatment of injured workers. As part of that principle then coming into practicality, there have to be systems that are put together to ensure that an injured worker sees and finds justice and that if the injured worker is unhappy with that particular situation, there would be an appeal system for some satisfaction, as a matter of fact even on to the Ombudsman.

So we’ve been looking at ways to streamline that function and will continue to work toward a better system in WCB. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. 2:30 MR. MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then will the minister commit to a process that if workers are unable to get an impartial adjudication of their claims, he will bring in amendments to WCB legislation allowing these workers to seek justice in the courts? MR. DUNFORD: Well, the member can’t have it both ways, and he knows that.

One of the so-called tenets, at least as I understood it, of the labour force in this province was adherence to the Meredith principle, and I’m wondering if the hon. member had thought to check with those that have supported his campaigns in the past, because I think he’s just offered a very inflammatory offer during this particular question. If I appear to be stumbling a little bit, Mr.

Speaker, it’s because I am so shocked to hear the hon. member, you know, the socialist among socialists, even pretend that this is not a good system and to take away a system of no-fault insurance, which people like Lewis and Douglas – I mean, they must be rolling in their graves hearing a socialist like you talk about this. This is a situation. It’s very serious. The Meredith principle, to which all of us are so attuned, is that there will be no lawsuit between the employee and the employer. Shame on you for suggesting it.

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 821 head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Bill Warren MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to invite all members of this Assembly to join me in recognizing an Albertan who has made outstanding contributions to the Olympic movement and to Olympic ideals. Bill Warren, a key figure in Calgary’s bid to host the 1988 Olympic Winter Games and a past president of the COA, received the Canadian Olympic Order on Friday, April 19, at the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame induction dinner.

The Canadian Olympic Order is accorded to those individuals who have made the Olympic movement their life’s work and have served it with distinction. It has only been awarded to 17 other Canadians since it was first presented in 1994. Beyond fame and fortune, Mr. Warren has dedicated a major part of his career to sports, and his success continues to inspire and encourage anyone who aspires to a dream. He complements the history of sport and has brought pride, distinc- tion, and honour to Alberta.

I encourage all members of this Assembly to join me in congratulating Bill Warren on receiving the Canadian Olympic Order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Canadian Armed Forces Reserves MR. LUKASZUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of last week I had the distinction and honour to spend time with 1,500 men and women who are indeed the epitome of professionalism, dedication, commitment, and, above all, patriotism. These are the members of the 408 squadron and the Princess Patricia regiment now stationed in Suffield, Alberta, for training.

Despite the recent adversities that we have heard of, having four of our soldiers lost, these men and women continue to be dedicated to protect our land and to keep us indeed strong and free. Do we recognize them for this effort and this commitment ade- quately? Sadly the answer is no. As I observed during the last three days in Suffield, we lack legislation comparable to that in the U.S. that would preserve the jobs of reservists who are deployed and have them waiting for them when they return to Canada, and many of them live in substandard conditions. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that all of these committed men and women deserve a collective salute from all of us and all Canadians. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member might want to read Standing Order 10. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. National Volunteer Week MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again I’d like to recognize National Volunteer Week, which started last Sunday, April 21, and runs to April 27. As someone who worked in the charitable nonprofit sector before being elected, I have firsthand experience with how much volunteers bring to our agencies, organizations, and groups.

The theme for this year, Experience Matters, is also one I can speak to from experience. This theme highlights the skills side of volunteering. Some people volunteer to gain skills in something they haven’t done before, but other volunteers like accountants or lawyers bring their skills to the sector to help out, and it is a huge help. This year’s theme also speaks to varying levels of experience. In the theatres I managed, we often got young people coming in to volunteer to see if this was an area they might like for a career, so they brought enthusiasm, energy, and a can-do attitude.

Sometimes we were lucky enough to get seniors and retired folk in, who brought us a lifetime of wisdom and experience. So hug a volunteer today, and if you’re a volunteer, then give yourself a pat on the back. Volunteers are the real advantage in Alberta today. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. National Volunteer Week MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I, too, am pleased to rise in this Assembly to recognize April 21 to 27, 2002, as Volunteer Week in Alberta. Volunteers are one of Alberta’s most valued resources.

Through the nationally proclaimed Volunteer Week we pay tribute recognizing the valuable and significant contribution volunteers make to our lives. Although our volunteers are priceless, contributions from the volunteer sector are estimated to be over $1 billion to Alberta’s economy annually and over $14 billion to the national economy. This generous spirit of Albertans is an integral part of who we are and what we are celebrating this week.

Through a unique partnership between the Wild Rose Foundation and Volunteer Alberta the Volunteer Week initiative has made Alberta a leader in recognizing National Volunteer Week in Canada. This year a record number of 136 Alberta communities, including Red Deer, representing more than 2 million Albertans are participat- ing in the weeklong series of events. This is a good example of lottery dollars at work helping to reinforce the efforts of those who through their many and diverse selfless acts enhance the quality of life for all of us.

I encourage this Assembly to join me and the minister responsible for the Wild Rose Foundation in thanking all of Alberta’s many wonderful volunteers. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Peter Lougheed MR. LORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege for me to rise today to invite all members of this Assembly to join me in recogniz- ing the accomplishments of another outstanding Albertan for his outstanding contribution to the Olympic movement and to Olympic ideals.

Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, whose accomplish- ments otherwise are well known, has also been involved with the Olympic movement for more than three decades. For his work in this area he received the Canadian Olympic Order this past Friday at the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame induction dinner. The Canadian Olympic Order has only been given to 17 individuals who have exemplified Olympic ideals in their commitment and service to the Olympic movement and who have achieved major distinction in doing so since its inception in 1994. Mr.

Lougheed has dedicated a major part of his career over the years to promoting and organizing sporting activities, and his success at doing so continues to inspire many others who are also following their dreams and hoping to achieve similar successes. In achieving this entry into the Canadian Olympic Order, Mr. Lougheed becomes part of a very prestigious group, and I would encourage all members of this Assembly to join me in congratulating Peter Lougheed on receiving the Canadian Olympic Order. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Gary Bobrovitz MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to recognize

822 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 one of my constituents, whom I’ve known for over 20 years, for reaching a goal of his on March 17, 2002. Gary Bobrovitz, a well- known and respected journalist and investigative reporter for Global News in Calgary, defended his title at the Canadian national powerlifting championships in Red Deer. Last year Gary was successful in winning the gold medal in the men’s open division 60- kilogram classification, lifting over 700 pounds, or nearly five times his own body weight. This year he lifted 880 pounds, over six and a half times his own weight.

Gary has qualified to move on to the world powerlifting championships in Helsinki, Finland, in Novem- ber of this year. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Gary on his amazing repeat performance and wish him the best of luck in Helsinki. Thank you. John Ewasiw MR. MASON: Today I stand and recognize Mr. John Ewasiw, this year’s recipient of the United Way Jim Shewchuk award. This award recognizes outstanding individual contributions to the labour movement and to the community. Mr. Ewasiw’s roots are pure Albertan.

Born in Thorhild in 1936 and raised on the family farm, he moved to Edmonton in 1957 and worked for Swift Canadian until 1997, when he retired. He became a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, local 280, in 1957 and served for a number of years as the local’s president. During his working days John supported his community in many ways, including the United Way, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Edmonton and District Labour Council, and the Boys and Girls Club. He has been involved in raising funds for leukemia research since 1992 and continues to this day.

I’m happy to recognize this exceptional trade unionist and Albertan, Mr. John Ewasiw. 2:40 head: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Private Bills has had a certain bill under consideration and wishes to report as follows. The committee recommends that the following private bill proceed: Bill Pr. 1, Sy nod of the Diocese of Edmonton Amendment Act, 2002. I request the concurrence of the Assembly in this recommendation.

THE SPEAKER: Would all hon. members in favour of the report please say aye? HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. The report is carried. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition signed by 137 Albertans, mostly residents of Calgary, petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government “to not delist services, raise health care premiums, introduce user fees or further privatize health care.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR.

MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to present a petition signed by 148 residents of Edmonton petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the provincial government “to take decisive action in making safe, affordable housing a top priority of concern when making policy decisions and working with other levels of government on this issue.” head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Bill 26 Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request leave to introduce a bill being the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 2002. This bill will bring a more open and accountable workers’ compensation system to Alberta and will streamline the appeals system that is so important to injured workers. [Motion carried; Bill 26 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table today five copies of the 30th annual report of the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board, for the year ended December 31, 2001. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Seniors. MR.

WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of the responses to the questions raised by Edmonton-Mill Woods and Edmonton-Centre in the presentation of my estimates on March 20. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to file with the Assembly five copies of the current issue of a magazine entitled Canadian Government E xecutive. The magazine contains a cover

article profiling Ms Shirley Howe, the Acting Public Service Commissioner for the government of Alberta, and the management team behind the successful creation and implementation of a new human resources strategy for the Alberta public service. All of us in government are very proud of Ms Howe and the management team that led to the development of this strategy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to table with the Assembly today a copy of the news release that I’ve issued on behalf of the government of Alberta officially recognizing National Volunteer Week from April 21 to 27 and showing that a record number of 136 communities in our province are participating this year. I also have two letters of congratulations on behalf of the govern-

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 823 ment to hon. Peter Lougheed and to Mr. Bill Warren on their being inducted into the Canadian Olympic Association Olympic Order at the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame dinner last Friday. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission as an agency of the government of Alberta reporting to the Minister of Health and Wellness contributes in a major way to the health of individuals, families, and communities in this province.

Today it is my pleasure to table the 2002-2005 business plan of the commission, which lays out the plans of the commission for providing alcohol and other drug and gambling problems prevention, treatment, and information services to the people of Alberta over the next three years. This business plan reflects the lead role that the commission is undertaking in co- ordinating the implementation of the Alberta tobacco reduction strategy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the president, Mr.

Duncan Brook, of the Edmonton Gold Bar Liberal Constituency Association and on behalf of all constituency members I would like to table the report to the commission on the future of health care in Canada. This is addressed to Mr. Roy Romanow, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. I also have a second tabling this after noon. It is the WCB’s proposed resolution, these cosmetic changes to the WCB, the early resolution initiative, the pilot project that was initiated on April 2 of this year. This information is available and tabled for all hon. members. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of an e-mail from Lynn Chambers to her MLA, the Member for Airdrie-Rocky View. She is raising her concerns about the community lottery board funding and noting that it was critical in helping Alliance Francaise achieve its goal of meeting the needs of Calgarians with an interest in French language and culture and asks her member to take immediate action to help reverse the decision. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table five copies of a letter from Moe Hamdon, mayor of the town of Drayton Valley, addressed to the Minister of Gaming. The letter is dated April 16. The mayor expresses his concerns and unhappiness regarding the government’s decision to elimin ate the community lottery board program because it undermines the survival of many voluntary organizations and contravenes the government’s original undertaking to return a significant portion of gaming revenues to local communi- ties. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tabling five copies of a calendar of events which lists the various events celebrating the May week labour festival taking place in Edmonton from Friday, April 26, to Sunday, May 5. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, proper notice having been given on Thursday, April 18, it is my pleasure to move that written questions appearing on t oday’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 3 and 4. [Motion carried] Access Television Q3. Ms Blakeman moved on behalf of Mr.

MacDonald that the following question be accepted. How many government departments have provided or sponsored in part or in full programs, shows, advertisements, or other initiatives for use on Access Television, how many were there for each department, and what was the cost of each for each of the fiscal years 1992-1993 to 2000-2001 and April 1, 2001, to March 13, 2002? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. MRS. NELSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It would be very difficult for the government to produce the information that has been requested in this written question without extensive manual work on a ministry-by-ministry basis. In fact, answering the question would require a review of the details of every single payment made by a ministry to Access over the last 10 years. This information is available through the general revenue fund for 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002 by department and expenditure code for payments to Access but not in the detail requested.

For earlier years the only available information is contained in the general revenue fund details of expenditure by payee, which we used to refer to as the blue book. It’s tabled each year in the House. Rejection of this written question is based on Beauchesne 446(2)(g), which states that “papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare” should be exempt from production. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I’d refer the hon. members opposite to what was called the blue book for that data.

Unfortunately, we will have to reject this request for Written Question 3. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m disappointed to hear that a refusal is the response from the hon. Treasurer. I understand the citation that she referred to, looking for a voluminous amount of material, but I am a little concerned when I see a request coming from the opposition for information that is then declined because it would just be too much work to try and find it.

I think that certainly from this side what we’ve experienced in the past is that we ask nicely by letter; we don’t get it. We try and ask through a written question or a motion for a return; we don’t get it. Then we FOIP it, and everybody’s all surprised and hurt because we FOIPed it and why we didn’t just ask nicely in the first place. So trying to get information out of this government, which is not open and

824 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 transparent, is very difficult. This is another example of their having the information and not being willing to compile it for us. I think this is a reasonable question. The government divested itself of interest or ownership in Access Television a few years ago, but it does appear that it’s still providing support for programming, and I think that it’s quite a reasonable question to find out how much support is coming from the government. Obviously, it’s coming from different departments.

Certainly there’s sponsorship from various departments that I’ve seen at the beginning or the end of programs on Access. I felt that it was a reasonable question to be asking, how much government support was still going through. So once again it’s very disappointing how little information this government is willing to provid e to people that ask reasonable questions of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Written Question 3 lost] Police Services Agreement Q4. Ms Blakeman moved that the following question be ac- cepted.

How many provincial policing positions has the government funded for each of the fiscal years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and April 1, 2001, to March 13, 2002, through the provincial police services agreement, and how many of these positions were filled? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Solicitor General. MRS. FORSYTH: Yes. Thank you. The government is prepared to accept Written Question 4 with some amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mrs.

Forsyth moved that Written Question 4 be amended to move that the following question be accepted: How many provincial policing officers has the government funded for each of the fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and projected for 2001-2002 through the provincial police services agreement, and what was the authorized number of officers for each of those years? The original question is unanswerable for the following reasons.

It is based on the assumption that government funds a set number of positions through the provincial police services agreement, while in reality the government establishes a target authorizing the establish- ment of full-time equivalent, or FTE, officers but pays only for the actual average establishment. Because staffing is fluid with the continual movement of persons into and out of positions, actual FTEs calculated as an average over a period of time, for example a fiscal period, is used to monitor policing strength. This is a more accurate method of determining funding requirements than positions.

The term “officers” is used to indicate full-time equivalents. The actual FTE utilization for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002, is not yet available. Instead, a projection will be used. Mr. Speaker, the government will accept the question with the amendments as circulated to all members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’ll take this as a genuine effort from the Solicitor General to provide information. I find it frustrating, though.

The specificity of the language was therefore a reason I was seeking information on how many positions the government thought they were funding and whether in fact the positions were filled. What I’m hearing from some people is that a given detachment may have 12 positions that are supposed to have officers in them, but in fact one of them is out on WCB and two are off on stress leave and two of them were native policing.

So the actual number of officers that are available in that detachment is far fewer than is on the books, so to speak, and there was a suspicion that there was a growing gap between what was on the books and what was actually rubber on the road. That was some of the information I was seeking. As I have said before, it’s very difficult to get information out of this government. [interjection] I look forward to the time when I can have the Minister of Environment as my minister, and then I’m sure he’ll be able to provide all the information I’m seeking.

However, he’s not the minister that I’m dealing with at this time. So I will accept not gratefully but begrudgingly the am ount of information that is being made available to me and hope that I can encourage the Solicitor General to continue to be forthcoming, even to expand her forthcomingness in the future. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. [Written Question 4 as amended carried] head: Motions for Returns THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Proper notice having been given on Thursday, April 18, it is my pleasure to move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of Motion for a Return 1. [Motion carried] Police Services Agreement M1.

Ms Blakeman moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of documents prepared by or for the Department of Justice and Attorney General and the Department of Solicitor General between April 1, 1999, and March 1, 2002, providing the number of provincial police positions funded by the government under the provincial police services agreement and the number of positions filled under that agreement. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Solicitor General. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is prepared to accept MR 1, again with amendments, sir. Mrs.

Forsyth moved that Motion for a Return 1 be amended to read that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of documents prepared by the Department of Justice and Attorney General and the Department of Solicitor General for the fiscal years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 provid- ing the number of provincial police officers funded or projected by the government under the provincial police services agree- ment and the number of officers authorized under that agree- ment for each of the fiscal years. The original motion for a return should be amended for the following reasons.

Summary documents prepared by the govern- ment of Alberta for payment reconciliation should be used rather than complex documents provided by a third party, who may have objections to details being released publicly. Because the estab- lished authorized and actual FTEs are reviewed and reconciled on an annual basis, separate information for the fiscal years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 would be more meaningful and in keeping with the corresponding written question than trying to

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 825 combine the years. Because staffing is fluid with the continual movement of persons into and out of positions, full-time equivalents as represented by the word “officers” provides a more accurate and meaningful measure than “positions.” The fiscal reconciliation for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002, is not yet available. Instead, a projection w ill be proposed. Under the provincial police services agreement the government funds the actual number of officers. It would be more meaningful to compare the actual with the authorized number of officers, FTEs. Mr.

Speaker, I’ll move that MR 1 be accepted with the amend- ments. MS BLAKEMAN: My response to this proposed amendment to MR 1 brought forward by the Solicitor General is very similar to my statements in response to Written Question 4, so I can refer any reader back in Hansard to read that.

Essentially I was looking for information that’s going to detail for us whether we actually had officers filling the positions we thought we had and exactly what they were doing, because there is a suspicion that we don’t have as many officers out there doing the work – in other words, policing or law enforcement – that we think we do. Particularly, in one case I had someone approach me with a concern that an officer had been seconded around September 11. [interjection] Yes, 9-11. So I was looking for information about whether or not that in fact was happening.

So I appreciate the Solicitor General coming forward in an attempt to provide me with information, and I’m willing to accept the amendment to Motion for a Return 1. 3:00 THE SPEAKER: Hon. Solicitor General, the chair heard the hon. Solicitor General speak to the amendment. It would be helpful if the hon. Solicitor General moved the amendment as well. MRS. FORSYTH: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry; I thought I had.

I move the amendment. [Motion for a Return 1 as amended carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 206 Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002 [Adjourned debate April 15: Mrs. Fritz] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. MR. VANDERBURG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s truly an honour and a privilege to join in on the debate on B ill 206, spon- sored by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] The words “careful” and “control” came to mind when I thought about Bill 206.

We’ve heard debate about the need to control the population of predatory birds in order to effectively preserve fish populations in Alberta lakes. The sponsor has described the behaviour of the double-crested cormorant and how birds have decimated lakes in northern Alberta. You know, the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul knows more about the negative effects of this bird than anyone else in this House, and I would agree with other members in this Assembly about the need to control this bird that’s obviously causing great harm to our aquaculture and environment.

Things are getting out of hand, and it’s time for government to find a solution, Mr. Speaker. The challenge for this government is to act in a serious and sensible way while fulfilling our roles as protectors of both the Alberta environment and Alberta business. The remedy proposed in Bill 206 is to allow the minister responsible for the Fisheries (Alberta) Act to use existing legislation, the Agricultural Pests Act, to control this bird species that is destroying and harming fish habitat. The bill is not suggesting drastic mea- sures, nor is it suggesting anything new.

The Agricultural Pests Act currently provides the legal authority to deal with native and introduced pests affecting agriculture production. Mr. Speaker, the beauty and usefulness of Alberta’s lakes will be here as long as the people of Alberta and this government are willing to show careful regard for the environment. Bill 206 does just that. I would encourage all members of this Assembly to support this important legislation. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and make some comments on Bill 206, the Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002, sponsored by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul.

Certainly the growth in the population of cormorants over the last decade has been incredible in this province, but before we rush forward and pass a bill such as Bill 206, I think that what we need are some type of quantitative studies which are going to certainly point out exactly why this phenomenon has occurred, particularly when we see that for so many years in this province that population was stable, yet in recent years it has grown, and grown rapidly. I think what we’re seeing here today as well, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of people in this province have looked at this issue, and as the hon.

Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne has just indicated, they see these birds as a problem. I think we have to go much further than to just look at the reason why these birds are now considered to be a problem. I had the opportunity a few summers ago to go to Namur Lake, which is a trophy lake. You have to fly in from Fort McMurray. Those people have been managing that lake for a number of years, and they certainly saw the impact of the cormorant on particularly the arctic grayling, which were at one particular end of the lake and certainly in the creeks and whatever, and how those populations had been wiped out.

We also have to look at not only those populations that had been drastically reduced, but we have to look at the fish populations, for example, of northern pike and walleye. These populations were stable in the province for many, many years, but with the growth in the number of fishermen and the limited number of lakes that we do have in this province, the populations of northern pike and walleye have certainly decreased.

Of course, that compounds the problem in that smaller fish in the lake and minnows and whatever increase in great numbers when they are further down the food line and their predators have decreased significantly in numbers. There was a tremendous amount of food available to birds like cormorants. There were at one time healthy populations of northern pike and walleye. So these small forage fish certainly grew in incredible numbers. The food supply was increased, and the bird populations obviously followed suit.

Now, then, I don’t believe that passing a bill like 206 is going to take care of this problem over time. What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is certainly restore the fish populations, particularly of

826 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 northern pike and walleye. Just as this problem has arisen over time, to correct this problem and to correct it properly is also going to take a significant amount of work and dedication. It is very, very difficult to monitor field inventories on these popular game fish and fish populations and to also notice the trends when over the last decade we have had significant decreases in the funding of the two departments that are most responsible for our fish populations in this province, and those are Sustainable Resource Development and Environment.

What this is is simply crisis management. When we get to the stage that we introduce a private member’s bill to deal with this significant problem, yet when we go through the departments of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, we certainly don’t see any mention of this problem, we don’t see any additional funds that have been allocated to take care of this, then I know that I cannot support Bill 206. As this problem has developed over the last decade, then I think that we have to look forward and institute the proper strategies so that nature itself can take care of this problem.

If it hadn’t been for the overfishing by people in this province, we wouldn’t be experiencing this problem right now and nature would be able to handle the situation very well. 3:10 As I was mentioning, Mr. Speaker, one of the keys that we have to have always in place in this province is that we monitor accurately the status of our aquatic resources. As well, we have to reinvest into those aquatic resources, we have to rely on a long-term monitoring program of our fish populations, and we also have to look at the fish habitats, including not only water quantity but water quality.

I think that if we are looking not for a quick fix to a problem and certainly something that there are no guarantees for, a solution that is not nature itself that is in control but man, then I think what we have to do is that we have to restore the aquatic resources in our budget, the number of dollars that we’re going to spend, and certainly look at how these resources have been eroded over the years in year after year of decreases to this particular budget. We have to put in strategies here that are going to reverse this whole increase in the cormorant population.

We have to put in strategies that are going to restore the healthy numbers of walleye and northern pike in our northern lakes, and by doing this, we can certainly reduce the number of small forage fish that the cormorant feeds on. But the quickest way and long-term solution for this is to certainly eliminate or drastically reduce that source of food that these birds rely on. So, Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting in favour of Bill 206. I think it’s a band-aid solution, and I think the problem is much greater than what this bill will fix.

I think that as an Assembly our duty is to look at solutions which are long term. We have to look at solutions where our fish populations are sustainable, and if it takes another decade for nature to correct this problem itself with some help of ours, whether it’s introducing these types of game fish, the northern pike and walleye into these lakes, then certainly it is incumbent upon us to look at those solutions and certainly not the crisis solution of killing off these birds. Thank you very much. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vermilion- Lloydminster. MR. SNELGROVE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a privilege to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 206. I think this is really one of the examples where the Legislative Assembly can work properly. When a member from an area or region comes into this Assembly with a very clear and specific problem and has worked with the depart- ments to develop a solution to a problem and can present that in a very timely and affordable manner to the people of Alberta, then I think surprisingly enough, occasionally, like I say, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

What the member has asked the minister to do is: When the minister determines that a species of animal or bird is destroying or harming, or is likely to destroy or harm, fish or fish habitat, the Minister may order, in accordance with any guidelines adopted by regulation, such measures throughout Alberta or in part of Alberta that the Minister deem s necessary to protect the fish or fish habitat which may include reducing the numbers of that species of animal or bird on land owned by the Crown. That’s a very simple, straightforw ard request that says: here’s a serious problem; let’s fix it.

Now, we target fish as one of the species at risk here, but that’s part of the big plan. We can’t just say that it’s fish for the sake of someone going to fish. They’re part of an ecosystem – I know even our hon. members across would agree – that is a very important part of the big picture. So we could sit, Mr. Speaker, and we could do some more studies, and we could monitor, and we could count numbers, and we could let the lakes in Alberta die. Then we would all say, “Man, we should have done something,” but we were busy counting and taking numbers and doing studies. We see a very good example of this.

They say: “Well, that wouldn’t happen. How could normal people do that?” Let’s look at what’s happened in the north with the snow geese. The numbers of snow geese have increased so far past what the land is able to handle that they have destroyed the Arctic tundra for miles and miles and miles, and given the growing season in the north it won’t be in any of our lifetimes that this ever comes back.

Now, the federal government, as they can do, will study, and they will count birds, and they will say: boy, we’ve got a problem there, but as long as we have money to count and to study and no one lives right there, then it’s not a big problem. Even the Alberta fish and wildlife people recognize that, and they’ve upped the limit of snow geese you can shoot, but I guess they s hould make it mandatory maybe that you have to shoot 50 of them before you shoot a Canada goose. I don’t know what the answer is, but the answer certainly isn’t doing nothing.

There’s another very good example right now going on in Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Speaker, where a type of swan is doing an incredible amount of damage to the reeds and grass along the edge of the Chesapeake Bay. Given the nature of water movement there, it’s a very dangerous precedent to set, to start to erode the banks. It’s not just the animals that live near the banks, but it affects all of them. Now, it would be simple if the swan was an ugly thing that people didn’t care for much. You could probably go destroy it and people wouldn’t mind, but a swan is a beautiful creature, and we’re all supposed to love it.

Still, the fish and wildlife people there have put forward a plan, that’s already been approved, to spray the eggs with an oil-based solvent that won’t let the eggs hatch, so it’s pretty painless. It makes the birds think they’re doing a heck of a job, but there are just not going to be as many birds in the future. AN HON. MEMBER: It’s slippery to sit on them, though. MR. SNELGROVE: Yes. If they oiled them first, they’d probably be easier to have. Mr. Speaker, here’s a case where certainly we have the environ- mentalists on one side saying: “Boy, we can’t do this. We can’t mess with nature.” We’re the biggest

part in nature now. Unfortu- nately, we destroy nature every day, and we’re not going to go back, but the least we can do when we recognize a very clear and present

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 827 danger to a species or a chain is step in and help where we can. So I would say to the Assembly that we can study and we can watch and we can listen to the people who aren’t up there to see the disaster that’s coming from these cormorants, but as far as I’m concerned, we should get on with the matter at hand and the sooner the better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. DR. TAFT: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I rise with an open mind on this issue, as remarkable as that may seem.

I can see both sides or maybe many sides to the issue, and I at the moment am not clear where I’m going to come down on it, but I do find myself trying to put this issue in a bigger debate. I’m sure all members of the Assembly are aware of the collapse of fish stocks actually worldwide. We’re all aware in Canada of the collapse of the fish stocks in the Newfoundland Grand Banks. When I was a schoolboy, I was taught that the Grand Banks of Newfound- land were virtually an inexhaustible supply of fish, yet they’re gone.

In fact, when you look at that in a global term, there are fish stocks around the world that are collapsing off the coasts of every conti- nent. The major fish stocks are collapsing, and we are seeing the same kind of thing with freshwater fish stocks in Alberta and I’m sure in other jurisdictions. There have been repeated references in this Assembly by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Wabasca to the collapse in various fisheries. I know from my own experience and experience of my family that go ing out to fish for something as simple as jackfish is now difficult to do. I mean, you used to be able to catch jackfish.

Even I could catch a jackfish, and that’s really saying something. Now it’s hard for anybody to catch jackfish in many lakes in this province. 3:20 What we’re looking at here is a global problem with our fish stocks. As much as cormorants may be a problem in some lakes in Alberta, I can’t imagine that they’re the cause of the demise of fish stocks around the world. I don’t think in the big picture that killing cormorants is going to be any kind of long-term solution to the problem we’re seeing.

I think we need to look at other or further solutions, and those solutions may have to do with our whole approach to the habitat: our handling of the lands through which the rivers flow and in which the lakes are formed, the way we handle the lands around the edges of the lakes and the riverbanks, the amount of encroachment we allow on this land from industry or residential development or agriculture, the kinds of chemicals that are produced in our society that get into the water supply.

All kinds of issues affect the welfare of our fish stocks, and again I repeat that I can’t believe for a minute that cormorants are the main cause of the problems in the lakes that we’re discussing. On the other hand, I listened carefully to the comments from the hon. Member for Vermilion-Lloydminster and his plea for action, and I think of comments I hear for plea for action on a whole host of issues, whether it’s climate change or other environmental issues. I think there’s much to be said for acting, so that draws me to support the bill, but I know I’m not alone in having my concerns.

The whole issue of how we as a society and how this government manage fish stocks comes into this. Are our fish and wildlife resources adequate? By that, I mean the department: the inspectors, the biologists, the policy managers. Are there enough of them to sufficiently manage the fish and wildlife of this province so that they don’t become extinct or they don’t disappear? I am concerned that there’s a direct correlation between the decline in fish stocks in this province and cuts to the staffing and budgets of the departments that are supposed to manage those stocks.

So it may be that it’s not the cormorants’ fault; it’s the Treasurer’s fault, for example. But she’s not going to respond to that, so I’ll just pass it on. It may be that there are other causes that we should be looking at and that the cormorants are in fact simply a symptom of a larger problem. The surging cormorant population may in fact result from the collapse of fish populations such as the northern pike population or the Walleye population.

With those sport fish being fished out, it may be that the forage fish population has surged and they’ve provided a much more attractive feeding source for the cormorants, so the cormorants are coming in after the fact. That’s one possibil- ity. We may be treating a symptom rather than a cause. So it would be useful for me if the member sponsoring this bill were to present the larger context in terms of what’s really happening. Is this really the cormorants’ fault, or is this something much bigger? There are also questions around how this Bill 206 might be implemented and how it might be managed.

Would we keep track, for example, of the cormorant population over the years that the bill was enacted? Would we have some kind of objective or goal for the number of cormorants that were acceptable? Would we have an annual cormorant count on the lakes? I got a smile from one of the members, but actually, you know, we’d probably need something like that to know if we were having a successful campaign and to know when to stop killing cormorants. I suppose there’s even the question of the public image of people going out to kill cormorants or to destroy the eggs of cormorants.

Indeed, are we going to be destroying the food source for certain types of small wildlife if we destroy the eggs? Are we for example going to be starving foxes or muskrat or other creatures who might feed on those eggs? I have no idea. Maybe the hon. member does. MR. BONNER: We need to increase our forage fish. DR. TAFT: Yes. Might we see in fact a great surge in the forage fish in the lakes once the cormorants are gone, and what are going to be the implications of that? Maybe they’ll be great.

Maybe we’ll see a surge, a return of the jackfish population and the walleye population, but on the other hand we might see the ecological balance of the lake thrown totally out of whack. Maybe the cormorants are there filling an important role for nature, a kind of stopgap measure for nature. So those are some of the questions I have at this point, Mr. Speaker. I’m undecided about where I will vote on this particular piece of legislation. I think the hon. member’s intentions are admirable. I doubt if he bears a grudge against cormorants.

He’s simply interested in improving the health of our lakes, but I’m not sure that this is the mechanism through which we want to do that. So I’ll listen with interest to the other members’ comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Meadowlark. MR. MASKELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a privilege for me also to rise today to speak to Bill 206, the Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002, sponsored by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul.

For a very long time my only experience having to do with cormorants – and I’ve had this great affection for China for many years – was in my reading and hearing about these wonderful fishing birds they had in China. They put a ring around their neck, and they tossed them out of the boat with a rope tied to their leg, and

828 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 they went down and caught fish for the family and brought them up and so on. I never thought I would be rising in the Alberta Legisla- ture to speak on an issue about cormorants. What I’m going to be speaking about today really is my personal experience, which perhaps many of you haven’t had insofar as cormorants are con- cerned. A number of years ago I bought a farm out in the Sangudo area. MR. VANDERBURG: Is that Whitecourt-Ste. Anne? MR. MASKELL: Out in Whitecourt-Ste. Anne on the bluffs overlooking the Pembina valley. It was a wonderful place to bring my family.

I brought my grandchildren and nieces and nephews there to have a great adventure. Well, their great adventure was to get a video and go in and watch it while they’re at the farm. Needless to say, it got me a little agitated, so I thought: you know, wouldn’t it be great to put a trout pond in? It could generate some revenue with aquaculture, fish farming, and at the same time give my grandchildren something to do in catching fish. So I went through the whole process of getting the licensing and permissions that were required, had the pond created and fille d it and so on.

Then when it was time, I ordered the fish to be delivered and got 500 fingerling trout put into the pond. We had great fun throwing the fish food out on the pond and watching all these little fingerlings coming up to seek the food, but a c ouple of weeks after I had stocked this pond, my brother phoned and said: “Bro, you’ve got a big problem out there. Birds are flying in, and your fish are disappearing quickly.” They were like a swarm of grasshoppers, which we’re familiar with, the way they came in.

Well, I can tell you that within a week I had no trout left in my pond. 3:30 Well, I’m not a very good loser on things like that, so I thought, “Doggone it all; I’m going to have those trout in that pond for my grandchildren.” So I ordered another 500 trout and had them delivered. I had phoned all the right people, who were going to tell me how I could thwart the cormorants and not have this problem. So on the pier I built a scarecrow, and he looked mighty frightening, this human kind of scarecrow, standing on the pier. Well, that didn’t work very well.

All I did was provide another perch for the cormorants to land on. Then the fish and wildlife people, all the great experts that we had there, with all due respect, said: “No. You put a raft on the pond, and then you put the scarecrow on the raft.” So now the raft floated around and so on, and now we provided another perch for the cormorants to land on: the raft and the scarecrow. So that didn’t work well. So, again, not to lose out on this, I decided to take the next step. These authorities said: “No. Now we’ve got to take the next step with propane guns.” So all these guns were firing all the time.

Well, that helped for a few hours or so, but again it didn’t seem to affect the birds at all, and the neighbours were getting a little cranky about the propane guns that were firing continuously. Needless to say, I had a lot of visitors to the pond from the area and lots of advice and also people telling me that they had never seen these cormorants before I created this pond. MR. DANYLUK: Oh, so you started it. MR. MASKELL: Hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, it’s not my fault, honestly. So finally they said: “Okay. Those three things don’t work. Now, this will definitely work.

You string wire back and forth across the pond. You put spinning reflectors on it and flags and so on.” So, I mean, my family went to great trouble to create this. Well, it made it a little difficult for them to come sliding in and land on the pond, so all they did was land on the grass and walk in and then catch my fish. So I surrendered for that year and then tried the following year and had much the same experience. What I quickly discovered was that this certainly is not unique to the area. The Member for Lac La Biche-St.

Paul was talking about in the northeast it being a problem and in central Alberta also and in our area stretching from Barrhead to Lake Isle. People were putting fish ponds – even in the farmyard. Mine was a quarter of a mile away from the house, but right in the farmyard these birds will land and clean out the pond. You could sit there day and night, and they’d find a way to get your fish. So in terms of aquaculture and creating fish ponds to raise these fish, that didn’t work at all. But the lakes around the area also suffered significantly.

The lakes that had natural fish stocks for many years were being quickly cleaned out. In some of the smaller lakes the bird population was so large that the vegetation, the trees and so on around the lakes, was being killed from the bird droppings and so on. Stocked lakes in the area of course didn’t survive the problems that we had. So it’s a matter that these birds were not known in the region at all for many, many years, and now they’ve just about cleaned out the area. I’ve done some research on this, and we’ve heard over and over and over that Alberta fish populations are at low levels.

Pike catches – jackfish, as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview speaks about – are only 15 percent of what they were in 1970. Of the 27 walleye populations for which there is data, 21 have collapsed in recent years. Concurrent to fish population collapse over the past 30 years, cormorant populations have increased tenfold. Commer- cial and sportfishing, not including tourism spin-off industries, contribute over $1 billion to the Alberta economy. So active management of fishery resources to promote long-term sustainability of the industry would increase the economic stability and growth in northern Alberta.

Bill 206 would enable the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development, responsible for Alberta fish and wildlife, to ensure that fish farmers have an effective recourse and protection of their property from pests. Under Bill 206 the spawning routes of all fish species would be facilitated. This would increase the population of fish naturally and thereby reduce the necessity for expensive restocking measures.

The proactive management of waterfowl populations would prevent waterfowl fecal pollution of potable water sources and habitats for protected bird species such as the great blue heron, the American white pelican, or the whooping and sandhill cranes. Bill 206, Mr. Speaker, allows for a very broad approach to fish population recovery strategies and is not limited to depredation of cormorants or other pests. I plead with members: please, please support Bill 206. Thank you very much. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dunvegan. MR. GOUDREAU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to rise today and add my voice to the debate on Bill 206, the Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002. I would like to thank the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul for his efforts in bringing this legislation forward. The Alberta fisheries industry is something that does not receive e nough attention or discussion, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to discuss it here. I would like to talk about the benefits of the proposed legislation and then move on to why I think passing Bill 206 is important.

April 22, 2002 Alberta Hansard 829 Mr. Speaker, this legislation aims to enable fish farmers to protect their investment from pest species of nongame birds. It will also set up a framework that would allow the Alberta fish population to grow on its own. The legislation will permit proactive and protective actions by fish farmers. First, Bill 206 will allow the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development to control factors that hinder the growth of the fish population.

Predatory bird popul ations could be reduced, and improved spawning routes could be ensured through the constructive removal of natural barriers such as beaver dams. Second, Bill 206 will allow the minister of agricultu re to declare certain species of nongame birds as pests to aquaculture, or fish farming. With this legislation in place fish farmers will have the ability to protect their investment through lethal methods without obtaining a depredation order from the department.

If it is passed, Bill 206 will enable fish farmers to act swiftly to protect their livelihood without having to wade patiently through the existing channels while their investments get eaten up one by one. These amendments to these two acts will work together to establish guiding principles by which the Depart- ment of Sustainable Resource Development can ensure the viability and protection of Alberta’s fish stocks and biodiversity of Alberta’s lakes and aquatic ecosystems. Bill 206 is an important step towards a goal of long-term, viable fishing resources in Alberta.

When compared to Ontario, B.C., and Manitoba, it can be truly said that Alberta is a province with few lakes. Because we have a small number of lakes, Alberta has a comparatively small commercial and tourist fishing industry. However, commercial and sportfishing, excluding tourism and spin- off benefits, contribute over $1 billion to the Alberta economy. A billion dollars is no small sum, and when tourist dollars are included and the total economic impact is assessed, I think that we could all agree that this is an industry that could use a measure of legislative help. 3:40 Mr.

Speaker, the Alberta fishing industry and our recreational fishing have suffered from a population explosion of unchecked predators and other natural, limiting factors. Our fish populations are presently at dangerously low levels, and as our Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark indicated, pike catches have declined 85 percent from the level fishermen enjoyed 30 years ago. Also, data reports that three-quarters of the walleye populations in Alberta have met with severe decline over the same period.

We have all heard that a bad day fishing beats a good day at the office, but with statistics on fish stocks like these, it’s hard to imagine too many good days’ fishing. And I had chalked it up to really bad bait all this time. In response to this problem, Alberta has attempted to bolster the fish population in our lakes several times over the last 25 years. The restocking of Alberta lakes that has occurred has met with little success; hence the repeated attempts that have been made.

Depleted stocks have persisted despite restocking efforts due to several factors including overfishing, inadequate spawning routes, winterkill in shallow ponds, and overwhelming shorebird presence. Bill 206 will give the Department of Sustainable Resource Development a mandate to attempt to effectively prevent and manage the responsi- ble factors that have created the fish stock problems in this province. If the department is able to re-establish and secure routes for fish spawning and prevent overfishing, then a large portion of the problem can be solved.

However, these steps will not rectify the problems that certain lakes and fishing areas are facing. Northern Alberta fishermen and fish farmers are all familiar with a winged predator that mercilessly guts fish stocks in lakes, streams, and dugouts. The double-crested cormorant is a bird that is native to lakes in northern Alberta. The bird is awkward in the air but is a skilled fisherman. Cormorants have natural predators, namely rats and large snakes. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, northern Alberta is not hospitable to large snakes, and as we all know, Alberta is a rat-free province.

This has left the cormorant with no natural predators. Before the 1970s the population of cormorants was controlled inadvertently by the use of DDT. When the decision-makers of the day came to the realization that th is pesticide was harmful to the ecosystem, there was a ban put on its use. While banning this pesticide was without question a necessary and positive step for the provincial environment, it did allow the cormorants to flourish. At about the same time, the government of the day undertook steps to restock the fish supplies in this province and provided the cormo- rants with a bounty of food.

Ironically, and by no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, each restocking has led to a dramatic increase in the population of cormorants. The provincial population of cormorants is now 10 times higher than it was 25 years ago, and I believe that a direct link can be made to the restocking efforts that have been made over the past three decades. I think it is time that we put an initiative in place to allow Al- berta’s fish population to grow, and it would seem to me that a great way to help achieve this is th rough the sensible removal of an unyielding and unchecked predator.

The current methods of warding off winged predators could be enhanced by the measures proposed in Bill 206. Taking legislative action to protect our limited fisheries from natural predators is a valuable first step in the strengthening of Alberta’s recreational fishing and Alberta’s fish farms. Mr. Speaker, an easy comparison can be drawn between the way that fish farmers feel about cormorants and the way that our farmers feel about gophers: they are small in stature, travel in generally large groups, and hinder the human ability to achieve maximum effective- ness in our farming endeavors.

It is no coincidence that Bill 206 will allow cormorants to be listed as the same type of pest as the gopher in the eyes of the provincial laws. Farmers have the right to eliminate gopher populations on their property with lethal means in order to protect their investment. Under Bill 206 fish farmers in the province will have the ability to also eliminate cormorants through any means to protect their investment. On fish farms the investment is ripe pickings for fish-preying birds like cormorants. The fruits of the farmer’s labour are nestled in shallow pools, waiting to be plucked off by hunting birds.

It is not right to prevent the propri- etors of these farms from protec ting their investment in the same way that other agricultural farmers in this province have been able to protect their lands from certain pests. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, taking active management of fisheries resources will undoubtedly promote the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry in Alberta and would increase its ec onomic stability and growth in the north. The proposed legislation allows for a broad approach to fish population recovery strategies and is not limited to depredation only.

With this legislation in place, the spawning routes of all fish species will be facilitated and preserved. In conjunction with the facilitation of spawning routes, the means that Bill 206 makes available for fish farmers to use to protect their stock will help increase the fish population naturally and thereby eliminate the need for expensive restocking strategies. I would strongly urge my fellow members of this Assembly to lend their support to B ill 206 and to the fish farmers of Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley- Calmar.

830 Alberta Hansard April 22, 2002 REV. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to join the intense debate regarding Bill 206, the Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002, which has been introduced by my distin- guished colleague from Lac La Biche-St. Paul. At this time I wish to express my gratitude to my colleague for bringing this important issue before the House. Mr. Speaker, Bill 206 is intended to correct a problem that has adversely affected the aquatic ecosystem in Alberta for many years.

With lakes, rivers, and creeks found in every corner of the province, many Albertans are directly affected by negative changes to fish populations and our aquaculture. In the last 30 years a major collapse in fish population has occurred, while at the same time the population of a particular bird species, the cormorant, has flourished throughout the province. Now, I know that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview thinks that this may just be a coincidence, but the double-crested cormorant is a bird species that consumes up to a pound of fish on a daily basis.

This bird is a very skilled predator of small fish and has the ability to severely deplete fish stocks in lakes and other bodies of water with overwhelming efficiency. Bill 206 aims to empower fish farmers to protect their investment and in turn their livelihoods from this and other identified pest species. Further, Bill 206 will allow the Department of Sustainable Resource Development to develop a mechanism designed specifi- cally to ensure sustainability, biological diversity, and viability of fish farming. This will help protect the aquaculture in Alberta for years to come and will help people like the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark as well. Since the Department of Sustainable Resource Development is responsible for Alberta fish and wildlife, it is their responsibility to maintain a healthy environment in which aquafarmers can protect their property from pests that unnecessarily damage their investment and the environment. Since certain bird species and more specifi- cally the cormorant have expanded their habitats dramatically during the last three decades, they have placed severe pressure on Alberta’s fish population.

While fish farmers and environmental groups are working feverishly to maintain our aquaculture in good shape, the cormorant and other pest bird species are working even harder on depleting our fish population to dangerous levels. Our province serves as an especially suitable habitat for the cormorant. As you heard, there are no natural predators that are present in Alberta to control their populations. Snakes and rats are the two major predators that help keep the cormorant in check in other jurisdictions.

As we all know, there are no rats in Alberta, and snakes are also in very short supply, especially in northern Alberta, and I am very glad to say that it is so, Mr. Speaker. Further, many Alberta lakes are relatively shallow, and since the cormorant can dive up to 40 feet, many fish have nowhere to hide. Thanks to Bill 206 we will finally provide the tools necessary for our fish farmers and the Department of Sustainable Resource Development to control the cormorant and other bird species that have grown out of control.

In addition, an important point to make is that commercial and sportfishing, not including tourism and spin-off industries, contribute over $1 billion to the Alberta economy. Many Albertans enjoy their time spent fishing and angling on the many pristine lakes and rivers around our great province. With many lakes suffering from substantially reduced fish stocks, the fish farmers, aquaculturists, and fishing enthusiasts are finding it increasingly harder to find adequate sources of fish in Alberta’s lake and river system. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it is especially difficult for those of us who are not great fishermen to begin with. By providing reasonable and effective legislation, we can ensure that certain pest species are controlled at levels that allow for environmental harmony. 3:50 As many Albertans work to restock the fish population in our lakes and rivers, certain bird species expand in numbers accordingly and effectively counteract those restocking efforts. Bird predation is among the leading causes of fish loss at commercial aquaculture facilities. Mr.

Speaker, the Agricultural Pests Act, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, allows farmers and ranchers to proactively manage species that threaten their stock as long as it has been determined a pest by the minister. The Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002, would work in much the same way to protect our fish population from nonthreatened, nongame birds. Certain pest species have gone unchecked for too long, and legislation is badly needed to correct the problems they are causing.

There are major environmental and economic implications to this issue, and unfortunately the double- crested cormorant is at the centre of most of it. I’d like to thank the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul for having the strength, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this issue. Even though the pesky bird problem is a very important one, Bill 206 also deals with other challenges that currently hamper a healthy develop- ment of our fish populations and fish farming operations. By providing adequate spawning routes, we will facilitate the natural ability of fish stocks to develop.

This can be maintained by proactively removing beaver dams that pose a problem for certain fish species’ migration. Bill 206 would also help farmers deal with problematic beaver dams when appropriate. The facilitation of spawning waters will help increase the fish population naturally, which will also reduce the need for restocking measures that often carry substantial additional costs. The legislation proposed under B ill 206 is not designed to eliminate the cormorant species or any other predatory bird species in Alberta.

It is designed to serve as a tool that fish farmers throughout Alberta have at their disposal to deal with pests that threaten their property and livelihood. Finally, Bill 206 will address the issue of the management of sport and commercial fishing licences to promote sustainable harvesting of the fishery resource. This part of the Fisheries (Alberta) Amend- ment Act, 2002, is necessary to ensure that we can maintain a healthy fish population in areas most affected by overfishing, which has to be named as one of the culprits to the degradation of Alberta’s fish population.

Bill 206 would require the minister, through Alberta fish and wildlife, to evaluate Alberta’s aquatic ecosystems and provide effective solutions to problems that are affecting the fishing industry throughout the province. Further, Bill 206 provides a broad framework that wi

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20020422
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S2 20020422 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c32e25db0fb4df31d1c5d455f536ae23b193ff3f

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