Province of Alberta The 28th Legislature First Session Alberta Hansard Tuesday, May 29, 2012 Issue 4 The Honourable Gene Zwozdesky, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 28th Legislature First Session Zwozdesky, Hon. Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Speaker Rogers, George, Leduc-Beaumont (PC), Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Jablonski, Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC), Deputy Chair of Committees Allen, Mike, Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (PC) Amery, Moe, Calgary-East (PC) Anderson, Rob, Airdrie (W), Official Opposition House Leader Anglin, Joe, Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre (

W) Barnes, Drew, Cypress-Medicine Hat (

W) Bhardwaj, Naresh, Edmonton-Ellerslie (PC) Bhullar, Hon. Manmeet Singh, Calgary-Greenway (PC) Bikman, Gary, Cardston-Taber-Warner (

W) Bilous, Deron, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (ND) Blakeman, Laurie, Edmonton-Centre (AL), Liberal Opposition House Leader Brown, Dr. Neil, QC, Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill (PC) Calahasen, Pearl, Lesser Slave Lake (PC) Campbell, Hon. Robin, West Yellowhead (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Cao, Wayne C.N., Calgary-Fort (PC) Casey, Ron, Banff-Cochrane (PC) Cusanelli, Hon. Christine, Calgary-Currie (PC) Dallas, Hon. Cal, Red Deer-South (PC) DeLong, Alana, Calgary-Bow (PC) Denis, Hon. Jonathan, QC, Calgary-Acadia (PC), Deputy Government House Leader Donovan, Ian, Little Bow (

W) Dorward, David C., Edmonton-Gold Bar (PC) Drysdale, Hon. Wayne, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (PC) Eggen, David, Edmonton-Calder (ND), New Democrat Opposition Whip Fawcett, Hon. Kyle, Calgary-Klein (PC) Fenske, Jacquie, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (PC) Forsyth, Heather, Calgary-Fish Creek (

W) Fox, Rodney M., Lacombe-Ponoka (

W) Fraser, Rick, Calgary-South East (PC) Fritz, Yvonne, Calgary-Cross (PC) Goudreau, Hector G., Dunvegan-Central Peace-Notley (PC) Griffiths, Hon. Doug, Battle River-Wainwright (PC) Hale, Jason W., Strathmore-Brooks (

W) Hancock, Hon. Dave, QC, Edmonton-Whitemud (PC), Government House Leader Hehr, Kent, Calgary-Buffalo (AL) Horne, Hon. Fred, Edmonton-Rutherford (PC) Horner, Hon. Doug, Spruce Grove-St. Albert (PC) Hughes, Hon. Ken, Calgary-West (PC) Jansen, Sandra, Calgary-North West (PC) Jeneroux, Matt, Edmonton-South West (PC) Johnson, Hon. Jeff, Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater (PC) Johnson, Linda, Calgary-Glenmore (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL), Liberal Opposition Whip Kennedy-Glans, Donna, Calgary-Varsity (PC) Khan, Hon. Stephen, St. Albert (PC) Klimchuk, Hon.

Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC) Kubinec, Maureen, Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock (PC) Lemke, Ken, Stony Plain (PC) Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Luan, Jason, Calgary-Hawkwood (PC) Lukaszuk, Hon. Thomas A., Edmonton-Castle Downs (PC) Mason, Brian, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (ND), Leader of the New Democrat Opposition McAllister, Bruce, Chestermere-Rocky View (W), Official Opposition Deputy Whip McDonald, Everett, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC) McIver, Hon. Ric, Calgary-Hays (PC), Deputy Government House Leader McQueen, Hon.

Diana, Drayton Valley-Devon (PC) Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (ND), New Democrat Opposition House Leader Oberle, Hon. Frank, Peace River (PC) Olesen, Cathy, Sherwood Park (PC) Olson, Hon. Verlyn, QC, Wetaskiwin-Camrose (PC) Pastoor, Bridget Brennan, Lethbridge-East (PC) Pedersen, Blake, Medicine Hat (

W) Quadri, Sohail, Edmonton-Mill Woods (PC) Quest, Dave, Strathcona-Sherwood Park (PC) Redford, Hon. Alison M., QC, Calgary-Elbow (PC), Premier Rodney, Hon. Dave, Calgary-Lougheed (PC) Rowe, Bruce, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (

W) Sandhu, Peter, Edmonton-Manning (PC) Sarich, Janice, Edmonton-Decore (PC) Saskiw, Shayne, Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills (W), Official Opposition Deputy House Leader Scott, Hon. Donald, QC, Fort McMurray-Conklin (PC) Sherman, Dr. Raj, Edmonton-Meadowlark (AL), Leader of the Liberal Opposition Smith, Danielle, Highwood (W), Leader of the Official Opposition Starke, Dr. Richard, Vermilion-Lloydminster (PC) Stier, Pat, Livingstone-Macleod (

W) Strankman, Rick, Drumheller-Stettler (

W) Swann, Dr. David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL) Towle, Kerry, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (W), Official Opposition Whip VanderBurg, Hon. George, Whitecourt-Ste. Anne (PC) Weadick, Hon. Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC) Webber, Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC) Wilson, Jeff, Calgary-Shaw (

W) Woo-Paw, Hon. Teresa, Calgary-Northern Hills (PC) Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC) Young, Steve, Edmonton-Riverview (PC), Government Whip Party standings: Progressive Conservative: 61 Wildrose: 17 Alberta Liberal: 5 New Democrat: 4 Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly W.J. David McNeil, Clerk Robert H. Reynolds, QC, Law Clerk/ Director of Interparliamentary Relations Shannon Dean, Senior Parliamentary Counsel/Director of House Services Stephanie LeBlanc, Parliamentary Counsel and Legal Research Officer Philip Massolin, Committee Research Co-ordinator Brian G.

Hodgson, Sergeant-at-Arms Chris Caughell, Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Gordon H. Munk, Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Liz Sim, Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard

Executive Council Alison Redford Premier, Pres ident of Executive Council Thomas Lukaszuk Deputy Premier Manmeet Singh Bhullar Minist er of Service Alberta Robin Campbell Minister of Aboriginal Relations Christine Cusanelli Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation Cal Dallas Minister of Internationa l and Intergovernmental Relations Jonathan Denis Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Wayne Drysdale Minister of Infrastructure Kyle Fawcett Associate Minister of Finance Doug Griffiths Minister of Municipal Affairs Dave Hancock Minister of Human Services Fred Horne Minister of Health Doug Horner President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance Ken Hughes Minister of Energy Jeff Johnson Minister of Education Stephen Khan Minister of Enterprise and Advanced Education Heather Klimchuk Minister of Culture Ric McIver Minister of Transportation Diana McQueen Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Frank Oberle Associate Minister of Services for Persons with Disabilities Verlyn Olson Minister of Agri culture and Rural Development Dave Rodney Associate Minister of Wellness Donald Scott Associate Minister of Account ability, Transparency and Transformation George VanderBurg Associate Minister of Seniors Greg Weadick Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs Teresa Woo-Paw Associate Minister of Inte rnational and Intergovernmental Relations

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Standing Committee on Alberta’s Economic Future Chair: Mr. Amery Deputy Chair: Mr. Bikman Bhardwaj Blakeman Donovan Dorward Eggen Fenske Goudreau Hehr Jansen Luan McDonald Olesen Quadri Quest Rogers Sandhu Sherman Smith Starke Strankman Towle Young Vacant Standing Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Chair: Mr. Quest Deputy Chair: Mrs. Jablonski Anderson Casey Dorward Eggen Kubinec Sandhu Sherman Standing Committee on Families and Communities Chair: Ms Pastoor Deputy Chair: Mrs.

Forsyth Allen DeLong Fox Fraser Fritz Jablonski Jansen Jeneroux Johnson, L. Kang Kubinec Lemke Leskiw Luan McAllister Notley Pedersen Sarich Saskiw Swann Wilson Young Vacant Standing Committee on Legislative Offices Chair: Mr. Xiao Deputy Chair: Mr. McDonald Bikman Blakeman Brown DeLong Eggen Leskiw Quadri Rogers Wilson Special Standing Committee on Members’ Services Chair: Mr. Zwozdesky Deputy Chair: Mr. Young Calahasen Dorward Forsyth Goudreau Jablonski Mason Quest Sherman Smith Standing Committee on Private Bills Chair: Mr. Cao Deputy Chair: Ms L.

Johnson Barnes Bhardwaj Brown DeLong Fox Fritz Goudreau Jeneroux Kennedy-Glans Luan Notley Olesen Pastoor Rowe Sarich Starke Strankman Swann Webber Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing Chair: Dr. Starke Deputy Chair: Mr. Lemke Allen Amery Bhardwaj Casey Hehr Jansen Jeneroux Johnson, L. Kennedy-Glans Kubinec McAllister McDonald Notley Pedersen Sandhu Saskiw Towle Xiao Young Standing Committee on Public Accounts Chair: Mr. Anderson Deputy Chair: Mr.

Dorward Allen Amery Anglin Bilous Calahasen DeLong Donovan Fenske Fraser Fritz Hale Hehr Kang Pastoor Quadri Sarich Starke Stier Webber Standing Committee on Resource Stewardship Chair: Ms Kennedy-Glans Deputy Chair: Mr. Rowe Anderson Anglin Barnes Bilous Blakeman Brown Calahasen Cao Casey Fenske Fraser Hale Hehr Johnson, L. Kubinec Lemke Leskiw Sandhu Stier Webber Xiao Young Vacant

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 47 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 29, 2012 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Hon. members, let us pray. Almighty God, guide us so that we may use the privilege given to us by Albertans to be their representatives in this Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently, the courage to think clearly, and the conviction to act and speak without prejudice. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Today it is my honour and my privilege to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Mr. François Ouimet, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Quebec, and Mr. Richard Daignault, the Quebec Assembly’s interparliamentary relations director. The Deputy Speaker and Mr. Daignault are here to meet with you today. They have already risen, and I would like the Assembly to give them the warm and traditional welcome. Bienvenue. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Associate Minister of Seniors. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you two school groups that are here from Whitecourt-Ste. Anne . First, I’ll ask the group from Darwell to please rise and be recognized by my colleagues here in the Legis - lature and our guests from Quebec as well. They’re 18 of the brightest, young, enthusiastic citizens of Whitecourt -Ste. Anne , and I really appreciate their coming to visit us here today. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the other group that we have here is from the Grasmere school, and they’re equally as bright and equally as enthusiastic and equally as smart.

I even had the chance to talk to a number of them. I’ll have the opportunity with their pictures to go back to their classes and talk about local politics, provincial politics, and federal politics. They’re all very, very interested because they’re studying that right now in social studies. On behalf of everybody here, thank you, and I’d like to introduce you to all my colleagues here and our guests from Quebec. Thank you. Mr. Lemke: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a group of students and teachers from the Forest Green school.

They participated in a guided tour of the Legislature and had the opportunity to observe the members in this House, as they are doing right now. I hope these students enjoy their legislative experience. I would like to thank the teachers and parent helpers here today and would like to acknowledge them. If they could please stand when I say their name. The parents are Mrs. Jackie O’Shea, Mrs. Mary Jane Buchholtz, Mrs. Krystal Hoople, Ms Cindy Woolford, and the teacher is Miss Lisa Aronyk. If the s tudents would all stand to be recognized. Thank you very much. Mr. McDonald: Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a group from the Rosedale Christian school located in the constituency of Grande Prairie-Smoky. Accompanying these very bright and very tall individuals is Mr. Ross Wiebe, their teacher. Please, could I have them stand and be recognized by the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Rowe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you 10 students, one teacher, and one parent from Holy Trinity school in Olds.

The teacher is Miss Jasper Moe, and the parent helper is Mrs. Kara Coates. Holy Trinity opened in September of 2010 and currently has 107 students ranging from pre-K to grade 7. Joining us today are the students in grade 6. I would invite the students and teachers to rise and receive the traditional welcome of this House. Ms Kubinec: Mr. Speaker, I am pleas ed to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly three very important people in my life.

Seated in the public gallery, first and most importantly, is my husband, Tim Kubinec, and two very dedicated, hard -working campaign people who hel ped out so much during the campaign. * I would like to thank them for their support both now and during the election. I ask that they now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark , the leader of the Liberal opposition. Dr. Sherman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly three employees of the Hardisty Care Centre as well as Mark Wells, a senior communications adviser with AUPE. Corr ie Cruz, Paramjeet Mrahar, and Jerzy Borysewicz are just three of the employees currently in negotiation with Park Place Seniors Living, a private health care company out of British Columbia. They’re currently being paid less than the Alberta Health Services standard despite the company receiving generous subsidies from the government.

This dispute is just one example of how for - profit, private health care can not only leave patients with inadequate care and staff underappreciated but leaves ample room for employers to take advantage of employees, their families, and the taxpayer. I ask my guests to rise, and I ask all members of the Assembly to give them the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you two great Albertans, Eric Musekamp and Darlene Dunlop.

I’ll ask them to rise as I tell their story. At their own expense these two courageous Albertans have fought for 10 years, since their first stakeholder submission on farm workers’ rights to the Marz commission in 2002. They stand before us today yet again to beseech the government to honour their commitment to paid farm workers for basic rights, mandat ory WCB, occupational health and safety standards, and child labour standards; simply, inclusion and equality for paid farm workers. Let’s give them a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly our guests * The following names were not read into the record: Norman and Anita Kitz.

48 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 David Froelich and Akram Shamie. David and Akram are with Teamsters, local 987, representing over 800 taxi drivers working for Greater Edmonton Taxi Service. The drivers chose to unionize last year and are currently bargaining towards their first agree- ment. They’re hoping that the bargaining process will achieve their objectives. I would now ask David and Akram to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Bilous: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to this A ssembly our guest Annie Lelievre. Annie is a journeyman scaffolder and has been a resident of Fort McMurray for over 30 years. On December 31, 2011, tragedy struck as her son was killed in a car crash on notorious highway 63. This January Annie set up a Facebook page to demand that the government twin highway 63 as soon as possible in order to help prevent further tragedies like the one she has had to endure. As of today over 6,900 people have joined the page.

I would now like to ask Annie to rise and recei ve the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. Associate Minister of Finance. Mr. Fawcett: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to rise today to introduce to you and through you a young man I’ve gotten to know quite a bit over the last several years. Chris Carlile, who’s a constituent of mine, is a bright young man who’s going to be working in my office over the summer as an intern.

Chris grew up in the constituency of Calgary -North Hill, which is now Calgary -Klein, in the community of Highwood and attended James Fowler high school in the constituency. Mr. Speaker, Chris actually took over managing my campaign halfway through the election in some very unfortunate and difficult circumstances and did an exceptional job while he was in the middle of writing final exams for his third -year political science course at the University of Cal gary. For that I’m very, very grateful to him.

I’d ask Chris to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek Seniors’ Accommodation Standards Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta seniors and families are frustrated by the shell game that this government is playing with their care. The government doesn’t seem to know how many long -term care beds, lodge beds, or continuing care beds they have. Yesterday the game continued in the Assembly with the Minister of Health.

When asked about staff -to-senior ratios in continuing and long -term care centres, he avoided the question. He said that the standards are public, that it’s all in the regulations and legislation. Then he went further to say that he wouldn’t answer any more questions on this matter. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a minister of the Crown refusing to answer questions. Does the minister think it’s fair for 40 seniors to have one staff member? How about 60? How about 140? Is it fair to put high- needs seniors, who should be in a nursing home, into an assisted living facility? Well, Mr.

Speaker, I looked through the regulations and legislation for staff-to-senior ratios and didn’t find them. I looked through the Supportive Living Accommodation Licensing Act. Not there. I looked through the Supportive Living Accommo- dation Licensing Act regulations. Not there. I looked through the Nursing Homes Act and its regulations. Not there. I ask the minister to show me the regulations. Show me the legislation with staff ratios. Show me the licensing act. Show me the accommodation standards and regulations. Minister, table it in the Legislature tomorrow for all Albertans to see. Albertans deserve to know.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Red Deer Optimist Rebels Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to recognize a group of extraordinary young hockey players who exemplify the very meaning of teamwork and resiliency, the national midget triple A champions, the Red Deer Optimist Rebels. This is a remarkable team that overcame incredible adversity to become Red Deer’s first- ever midget triple A national Telus Cup champions. Going into the third period in the final game, the Red Deer Optimist Rebels were losing by four goals.

In a nail -biter of a hockey game Red Deer w as able to score an unprecedented four goals to tie the national championship game. The Red Deer Rebels scored in overtime to defeat the team from Quebec, les Phénix du Collège Esther -Blondin to become the national champions. [interjection] I tried. In do ing so, they won Red Deer’s very first midget triple A national championship and one of Red Deer’s finest hockey moments.

This was truly an astounding accomplishment, and I would like to congratulate the team, the coaches, and the manage- ment, starting with captain Brady Bakke, Dasan Sydora, Matthew Zentner, Kolton Dixon, Kirk Johnson, Jonathan Finnigan, Stefan Danielson, Cole Berreth, Tanner Lomsnes, Nick Glackin, Joel Topping, Logan Fisher, Dylan Thudium, Brendan Dennis, B.J. Duffin, Rory Davidson, Ty Mappin, Scott Ferguson, Scott Feser, and Quinn Brown; the coaches and management: Doug Quinn, Tricia Bakke, Rob Hamill, Dion Zukiwsky, Al Parada, Peter Friestadt, and Lee Sherback.

These players and coaches serve as an example to us all that hard work in the face of adversity can overcome all challenges. Congratulations on your great victory. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Skills Canada National Competition Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m ple ased to rise today to recognize an outstanding organization and the excellent event they put on earlier this month. From May 13 to 16 our Expo Centre came alive as 500 young people from across Canada competed in the 18th annual Skills Canada National Competition.

This trade and technology challenge offered competitors the opportunity to showcase their talents in over 40 disciplines, including welding, cooking, and robotics. Skills Canada is a nonprofit organization consisting of educators, students, employ ers, labour groups, and government representatives that promotes careers in skilled trades and technologies. As a former vocational teacher myself I know that organizations like Skills Canada are so valuable to our communi - ties. They help our students b uild relationships, become aware of career options, and learn the competencies necessary to succeed.

I have had the opportunity and the good fortune of being a judge in

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 49 this exciting and interesting competition, and this year I was honoured to speak at the closing ceremony. Mr. Speaker, our Premier has often spoken about the value of skilled trades and innovation in our province, and our government has championed trades as an excellent career choice for our young people. As such, I would like to commend Sk ills Canada and their local chapter, Skills Canada Alberta, for fostering such a sense of pride, excellence, and community among these professionals.

Finally, I offer my sincere congratulations to the gold, silver, and bronze winners and all other competit ors for their achievements. They have a very bright future ahead of them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. Potential Oil Well Site in Calgary-North West Ms Jansen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In December of last year an oil and gas exploration company was granted approval from the Energy Resources Conservation Board to drill an exploratory well near the community of Royal Oak in my constituency of Calgary - North West.

It is slated to be the site of a sweet oil well, and work has been planned for sometime this July. After extensive protest from nearby residents the company responsible for drilling the well voluntarily suspended operations pending an ERCB review, which will likely come this summer. A significant number of local residents are opposed to the well site due to concerns about the well and its proximity to homes and businesses in the community.

Considering that the well site near the Royal Oak community could potentially be in operation for 50 years, local residents could be living and operating their businesses within a few hundred metres of the well site for quite some time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be beneficial for our province to have urban policies in place that would govern the exploration and development of natural resources within densely populated areas. Doing so would help balance the development of natural resources within urban areas while keeping the concerns of local residents and communities in mind. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: The hon. opposition leader. Provincial Response to Oil Sands Criticism Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s energy industry is under attack. Federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is openly deriding the oil sands, that are expected to bring $3.3 trillion into Canada’s economy. Mulcair arrives in Alberta shortly. Of course, the truth puts a lie to Mr. Mulcair’s claims. The Kearl oil sands plant, for instance, will start up this year producing no more emissions than a refinery producing a conventional barrel of crude.

This is the story the Redford government is not telling Canadians. W ildrose stands tall for development that showcases environmental stewardship. Why is the PC government aban- doning Albertans by backing away from confronting a bully? 1:50 Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth. As a matter of fac t, as we’re sitting today right now in this Chamber, our Premier is discussing a Canadian energy strategy with western Premiers.

As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with the federal leader of the NDP opposition and illuminating him on facts of Canadian economy and the role of the oil sands not only in this province but nationally and internationally. This govern- ment has stood very strong on responsible development of Alberta resources and will continue to do that. We don’t need to take lessons from those people across the aisle. Ms Smith: Mr. Speaker, why were Albertans, then, left for three days to rely on Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall to call a spade a spade and face down Mr. Mulcair after his first attack?

The Premier may be off wining and dining the western Premiers today, but why is this Premier always the last one to the defence of our oil sands? The Speaker: Hon. member, it’s customary to not refer to the presence or absence of members during your questions. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, one thing th at the Leader of the Opposition may learn is that leadership depends on actually taking a leadership role and not following the debate of politicians from other provinces or other parts of the country and simply making inflammatory remarks.

This province h as a very clear record of being supportive of responsible development of natural resources in this province, and we will continue to do so. Ms Smith: Mr. Speaker, why has the Premier said that she may meet with Mr. Mulcair but that her Deputy Premier will likely go instead? The federal NDP leader has taken the time to come here to see the oil sands first-hand. Why has the Premier not made meeting Mr. Mulcair a priority? What could be more important? Mr. Lukaszuk: I don’t know if I should take that as a slight, Mr. Speaker. I think Mr. Mulcair will enjoy meeting with me.

I will present him with all the facts that he requires to formulate a better- informed opinion, and he will be very well served by this visit. I’m actually looking forward to meeting with him. Thank you. The Speaker: Second main question. The Official Opposition leader. Cancellation of Jubilee Auditoria Performances Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when asked in this House about her gov ernment’s abrupt and unfair cancellation of Calgary and Edmonton Shen Yun performances, the Premier said that it was because of “a safety issue.” Perhaps she now realizes that she was mistaken.

This was not about a safety issue at all. The safety issue in Calgary, the Shen Yun group says, could have been resolved, and in Edmonton there was no safety issue identified whatsoever when the government pulled the plug after Shen Yun had gone to the media. Will the Culture minister admit there was no safety issue in Edmonton, as the Premier claimed, and the decision to cancel was merely out of retribution? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. This government will not be taking lessons from that political party on culture or cultural inclusion any t ime soon.

But I will tell you that both Jubilee auditoria, in Edmonton and in Calgary, are booked 365 days a year. They negotiate their contracts, and their number one priority is the safety of employees, the safety of performers, and the safety of the audience in the Jubilee auditoria. The Speaker: The opposition leader. Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Culture minister: given that her own letter to the Shen Yun group, which I will

50 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 table, confirms that their decision to notify the media about this issue is the sole reason for the cancellation of their performances, will she not admit that the safety issue offered by the Premier yesterday is an excuse, is utterly false, and that the real reason she cancelled their show was simply to punish them for speaking out? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Culture. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, as I said yesterday, I’m not going to apologize for the safety of performers at either of the Jubilees.

We know that there’s a contractual arrangement that was made between all performing groups, and their safety is absolutely paramount. That’s why the netting is in place in Edmonton and in Calgary. Ms Smith: They managed to figure out the safety issues in a hundred other facilities across North America.

To the Culture minister: given that yesterday she said, “My officials have offered to meet with the Shen Yun group” and given that the Shen Yun folks have said that no such offer has been made, though they would be grateful for it, will the minister correct this statement and provide a hard date when she and her office will meet with the Shen Yun group? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Culture. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, next week my officials will be meeting with the Shen Yun group. I lo ok forward to a discussion about some of the issues that they are going to bring forward.

But, again, any issues revolving around safety and the net: that’s not going to change. The Speaker: Third main question. The Official Opposition leader. Prohibited Donations to Political Parties Ms Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again and again we’ve seen that the Premier’s claims of changing her party and bringing transparency to Alberta are not worth the paper they are written on even when that paper is H ansard.

In the wake of an update last Friday from the Chief Electoral Officer concerning another dozen cases of illegal donations, we asked for a change so that there would be better transparency about this disturbing issue. Not only did this government pa ss a law in 2010 putting a gag order on the Chief Electoral Officer, but when asked about it yesterday, they tried to cover it up in this House by claiming that he wanted to be silenced. To the Premier. As the minister who presented this bill, the Premier knows that the claims by her ministers yesterday aren’t true. Will she confirm that they were wrong?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I proudly stand by my comments yesterday. From the 2008 Chief Electoral Officer report, page 85, he recommends that these investigations be held in private. More importantly, we shouldn’t be complaining about how the elections operate. That’s not really up to us to decide. This is an independent officer who reports to this Chamber, not any one of the parties. The Speaker: The hon. opposition leader. Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy here of this relevant page that the hon. member mentioned, the relevant page of Mr.

Gibson’s report, which I’m happy to table. It requests only that legislation “add specific direction that an investigation . . . be conducted in private.” It seems very clearly limited to confiden - tiality during an investigation, not confidentiality of the results. Will the Premier revisit the legislation she passed in 2010, lift the gag order, and allow the Chief Electoral Officer to publicize the results of these investigations? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say again to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition that it’s not up to us to be debating how elections are run. This is an independent body who reports to this Chamber, not to any particular Premier. I also have a letter, that I will table later today, which I have sent to the Chief Electoral Officer asking him for any further recommendations, which we’ll be happy to consider. Ms Smith: Again to the Premier.

Given tha t the legislation that the Premier wrote in 2010 not only gags Elections Alberta but includes also a provision that nobody has to pay any money back that was illegally donated prior to April 2010 and given that the Chief Electoral Officer said that he has proven 10 cases of illegal donations before 2010, most, if not all, to the PC Party, will the Premier commit to returning every single dollar of illegal donations? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr.

Speaker, what this member is forgetting is that the Election Act of Alberta has been debated with full participation of all parties in this Chamber and passed in this Chamber. If the current Chief Electoral Officer has any concerns relevant to the legislation or to the process of elections or to his ability to investigate or not investigate, he has the free will to communicate with the Minister of Justice, provide us with recommendations, and they will be duly considered by this Chamber. [interjections] The Speaker: I’d just remind hon. members that one person speaks at a time in this Assembly.

That has been a long -standing tradition. Let’s try to observe it. The hon. Liberal opposition leader. Hardisty Care Centre Labour Dispute Dr. Sherman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. LPNs and health care aides, the backbone of our health system, are on strike at Hardisty Care Centre. At issue is the fact that they’re paid 30 per cent below industry standard. The mediator and dispute inquiry board recommended wage parity, yet Park Place Seniors Living, Hardisty’s B.C.-based corporate parent, refuse s to remedy this dispute.

To the Minister of Health: why is there one set of standards for workers in AHS -run facilities and completely different rules and compensation standards for workers in for - profit, private facilities? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health. Mr. Horne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The government does not regulate the dollars that are paid to particular health care professionals. That is a matter for negotiation where agreements exist between employers and employees. In this particular case, as was said yesterday in the House, these parties are currently at odds.

We have every hope that the parties will resume negotiations as quickly as possible and come to an agreement that satisfies both sides.

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 51 The Speaker: The hon. Liberal leader. Dr. Sherman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It causes me due concern that taxpayer-funded dollars aren’t being watched closely.

Given that for -profit seniors’ care facilities seek above all to maximize profits and that that invariably res ults in poor staff treatment, which is directly linked to poor patient care, and there’s a potential for more of these labour disputes in other facilities, will the Minister of Health finally stop wasting taxpayer dollars, put an end to this government’s f ailed experiment with the privatization of seniors’ care, and bring in first contract legislation? 2:00 Mr. Horne: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member persists in trying to draw an ideological link between the events at the Hardisty nursing home and the continuing care plan in place for this province. What we in fact fund are two things: the health care that is provided in the facility, and the vehicle for that is a contract with Alberta Health Services and the operator. We also have in place standards, for which we fund a rigid and rigorous compliance process for both accommodation and health care delivered in those facilities. The Speaker: The hon. Liberal leader. Dr. Sherman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn’t know that facts became ideological all of a sudden. To the minister: how can you possibly be unaware that study after study, including the Health Quality Council and Parkland Institute reviews, clearly show that seniors in for -profit, private facilities spend more time in bed, are bathed less often, are fed less, have more falls, have more bed ulcers, and eventually end up in acute care more often all because these companies don’t hire enough workers and overwork and underpay the ones that they do have? Mr. Horne: Well, Mr.

Speaker, this government does not subscribe to the logic that is inherent in the hon. member’s question. The quality of continuing care in this province is governed by standards, which I described in this House at length yesterday. It is supported by equal funding that is provided whether the operator is public, private, or not-for-profit. The majority of the time I can say – and I think many members of this House would agree – that the care is of excellent, excellent quality. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the NDP. Private Operation of Health Care Facilities Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Last week’s throne speech claimed that the government would keep public services public, yet this month a private health care facility, the Copeman clinic, is opening its doors here in Edmonton. This clinic will provide p referential access to publicly insured health services in exchange for a fee. My question is to the Premier. Why, despite the assurances in the throne speech, is she allowing privatization of public health care? Mr. Horne: Mr.

Speaker, no information has been brought to my attention that the particular clinic to which the hon. member refers is in any way in violation of the Canada Health Act or any other statute or regulation under Alberta law. If the member has such information and cares to forward it to m e, I’d be pleased to look into it. As many hon. members will know, these clinics exist in many provinces across the country. They provide services that are outside of the public health care system, and the arrangements for such are a matter between the ind ividual patients and the clinics that serve them. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. NDP leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, some provinces have put a stop to it. Given that Albertans who can afford over $8,000 in annual fees can que ue-jump in order to get cardiac care, pediatric care, and stroke and brain injury rehabilitation, how can this Health minister pretend that his government is not complicit in the privatization of our system? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member’s question poses some serious allegations.

I think I need not remind him that a public inquiry with respect to preferential access, or queue-jumping as he calls it, is now under way in this province and is led by a retired justice. So I would invite him to present that information to the inquiry. With respect to the question of physician practice, as the hon. member knows, all physicians in Alberta are, in fact, by definition private providers. They bill a publicly funded health insurance system that is supported by other legislation and regulation. The clinics to which he refers are no different. The Speaker: The hon. NDP leader. Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s clear that the government’s throne sp eech isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Given that the government merely has to allow private investors to fill the gaps created by the government’s health care failures for private health care to grow and flourish, will the Health minister admit that his government’s wilful neglect is the primary cause of the creeping privatization of our health care system? Mr. Horne: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, we’re presented with a question that’s founded on an ideological argument.

What this government is interested in is providing better access to everyday health care services for Albertans. We have talked about many strategies in the areas of primary health care, continuing care, and mental health that we’re actively engaged in. Investing Albertans’ hard-earned tax dollars to improve that access in the community will continue to be our focus. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche -St. Paul-Two Hills. Prohibited Donations to Political Parties (continued) Mr. Saskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday both the Justice minister and the Deputy Premier refused to do the ethical thing and reveal how much money the governing PC Party received in illegal donations. They wrongly blamed the former Chief Electoral Officer when, in fact, he only recommended that the investigation itself be conducted in private. So when the PC Party has been found guilty of accepting or soliciting illegal donations, that need not be kept secret from all Albertans. To the Minister of Justice:

52 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 will this government finally commit to changing this misguided legislation in the name of open and transparent government? Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said before, the legislation is based on the independent report of the Chief Electoral Officer, who independently reports to this House. I’ve sent a letter to the new Chief Electoral Officer. If the Chief Electoral Officer has an amendment request, we will go and look at it. But it’s not up to any one member to make amendment requests to the actual act.

It’s about a nonpartisan and independent office, and that is what the Chief Electoral Officer does, not this House. Mr. Saskiw: We’ll be tabling the report later, so you can actually read it. To the Minister of Justice: given that the Chief Electoral Officer made it clear that it is the government’s job to handle issues of transparency and accountability and given that this government fired the last Chief Electoral Officer, who tried to bring this government’s ethical failings to light, will this government stop making excuses and finally reveal how much money the PC Party received in illegal donations?

Speaker’s Ruling Questions about Political Party Activity The Speaker: Hon. members, I will ask the hon. minister to comment soon, but we’re treading into an area here of a question with respect to jurisdiction. Typically party matters are not raised in the Assembly, and I would just caution all members. We’ll allow the Min ister of Justice to comment on this last question if he wishes. Prohibited Donations to Political Parties (continued) Mr. Denis: One thing I’ll just mention again, Mr. Speaker. This Premier believes so strongly in transparency and accountability.

Right behind me is an associate minister in this respect. Thank you very much. Mr. Saskiw: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party has already admitted that they’ve accepted several thousand dollars of illegal donations. We just want to find the full amount. Given that this go vernment refuses to take steps to be more open, transparent, and accounta - ble, how can we expect this government to make any serious improvements on their obvious ethical shortcomings? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, speaking of shortcomings, there are some ser ious factual shortcomings. First of all, the past Chief Electoral Officer was not fired.

His contract simply ran its course. A search by an all -party committee took place to appoint the new, current Chief Electoral Officer. This Chief Electoral Officer has the full ability of addressing this Assembly and asking for changes to the act if he so wishes. Lastly, it is my understanding that any and all parties that would have received money that was not received in accordance with the rules would have returned it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Municipal Charters Mrs. Sarich: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past year Albertans have heard a lot of discussion regarding the need for special charters to be created for Alberta’s two big gest cities, Edmonton and Calgary. So far there appears to be very little progress or anything tangible officially reported about these charters. My questions are to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When will these charters be created, and what will they mean specifically for the residents of Edmonton and Calgary? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question. I’ve met with Mayor Nenshi and Mayor Mandel several times.

In fact, I met with Mayor Mandel agai n just this morning, and this was an issue that we discussed. I can assure the hon. member that we’re working very diligently on completing the memorandum of understanding so we can go forward with creating a city charter. What it will mean to the citizen s of Edmonton and Calgary, which is 80 per cent of the population of this province, Mr. Speaker, is essentially cost -effective, efficient service delivery on the things that they need. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Sarich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister.

With respect to your response it sounds like Edmonton and Calgary will get special treatment compared to all other municipalities across the province. Are Alberta’s two largest cities through the establishment of special charters getting a leg -up over other municipalities in our province? Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, this is a very valid question. A lot of people in rural Alberta, especially municipal councillors in rural Alberta, have asked that. I can assure t he hon. member that we’re also reviewing the Municipal Government Act.

This is not to single out any municipality in particular to provide extra services but to make sure that our relationship with every single munici- pality in this province is robust and that we deliver the services every single community needs. We’re going to continue to work on that. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Sarich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. I appreciate the general information; it’ s very helpful. In general Albertans need to know whether these charters mean that taxpayers living in Edmonton and Calgary will end up paying more taxes. Will this be the case?

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, after my meeting with Mayor Mandel this morning that was one of the first questions that was asked by the media when we came out. I can assure everyone in this House and every Albertan that Mayor Mandel and I agreed first and foremost that th ere is only one taxpayer in this province. This is about roles and responsibilities first and then discussing revenue. We will not discuss revenue without first and foremost keeping in mind that there is only one taxpayer and they’re taxed a lot. This is about streamlining service delivery, ultimately. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Strathmore-Brooks. Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Mr. Hale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Northern Gateway pipeline is critical to the growth of the energy sector and jobs b oth in Alberta and Canada. In fact, last Friday Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said that Canada is taking an $18 billion to $19 billion hit every year by not having this access to Asia Pacific

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 53 markets. Yet this Premier has failed so far to persuade B.C. Premier Christy Clark, a friend of Alberta, to support this important pipeline project. If the Premier cannot even get Alberta’s friends to back Gateway, how does she expect to get the support of the world? Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, yet again i ncorrect.

As a matter of fact, Premier Clark as recently as today, I believe, has sent a message via media supporting both Premier Wall and Premier Redford in their deliberations today relevant to the development of energy, acknowledging the fact that it i s the provinces that are leaders in developing energy in our mutual jurisdictions and that we need to take an actual leadership. There is a great deal of agreement between the three western Premiers on the responsible development and transmission of our na tural resources. The Speaker: Thank you.

Just a cautionary reminder that we do not use proper names in this Assembly. Let us go on to the hon. member’s second question. Mr. Hale: Lots of words and no action. The Premier continues to tout the Canadian ener gy strategy, which, after eight months of talking, includes siding with Chiquita against us and no details. Since Premier Clark is not here for today’s western Premiers’ meeting, will Premier Redford commit to going to B.C. to secure her public support for Gateway? The Speaker: Again, just a cautionary reminder, which I’m sure you will be reminded of, to not refer to the presence or absence of members.

The hon. Deputy Premier. Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me quote Premier Clark of British Columbia from as early as today saying: I support a national energy strategy. She goes on to say, referring to Edmonton: if I was there, that would be the comment that I would offer; I know that the Premier of Alberta and Brad Wall already know my thoughts on this issue, that I have communicated earlier, and I am seeing what they will come up with at the meeting. She is very supportive of this meeting. She wishes she could be over here.

Obviously, f or political reasons she has to be in British Columbia right now, but to suggest that Premier Brad Wall, the Premier of this province, and Premier Clark are not united on developing a national energy strategy would be incorrect. Mr. Hale: When will this Premier make it her top priority to stand up for Albertans and secure the firm support of the B.C. Premier for the Gateway pipeline project so that western Premiers present a strong western front? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, not only has this Premier stood up for Albertans, but on April 23 most Albertans stood up for this Premier.

Again, she will be delivering on what Albertans have wanted us to deliver on. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Child and Youth in Care Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Human Services. I understand that the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to investigate serious incidents involving youth in care and making recommendations for improving services for vulne rable children and youth in our province.

To the minister: how will the Child and Youth Advocate improve transparency in child intervention systems and ensure better outcomes for children in provincial government care? Remember, sir, that this is about kids and not process. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Services. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very proud of the fact that one of the first actions that our Premier took upon being elected as leader last fall and being installed as Premier w as to ask me to bring forward legislation which would make the Child and Youth Advocate’s office independent.

That was done, and I’m very pleased and proud that that office is now an independent officer of the Legislature, effective April 1 of this year. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of the Child and Youth Advocate’s office because it’s independent, but we will be working closely to ensure that all appropriate cases are referred to that office and also to ensure that that office through the Legislative Offices Committee has the budget it needs to appropriately investigate, report on, and publicly bring to the attention of this Legislature all issues relevant to children. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs.

Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same mini ster. Aboriginal children represent 60 per cent of children in care, a number that is way too high. Will the Child and Youth Advocate ensure that the overrepresentation of aboriginal children in care is addressed? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I cannot ensure that the Child and Youth Advocate’s office does anything. They’re an independent office of the Legislature as of April 1, and they will set their own agenda as to what issues they deal with.

I can confirm that the issue with respect to the overrepresenta - tion of aboriginal children in the child welfare system as it is across this province is an extremely important issue to us. In fact, prior to the election we had a task force, which I believe you led, which helped us to talk with First Nations and aboriginal people across the province and bring some more focus to that agenda. We’re going to continue with our ADM in that area, Catherine Twinn, to ensure that we put the time and attention necessary to deal with that issue. The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs.

Leskiw: To the same minister: how can we be sure that the ministry is making real changes and improvements to the child intervention system based on recommendations from the Child and Youth Advocate and Council for Quality Assurance? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is extremely important because the children of Alberta deserve the representation that they’re going to get from the Child and Youth Advocate on an independent basis, the assurance that those recommendations will be publicly available and will be unfettered, and that we will actually have the opportunity in this House to receive that report and to talk about the action taken with respect to that report.

Two very important pieces: the Child and Youth Advocate’s office being an independent office of the Legislature and the establishment of the Council for Quality Assurance to make sure that every incident is investigated and that we learn from them so that we can continue to improve.

54 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Family Care Clinics Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Over the past eight years primary care networks have been proven to greatly improve access, quality, and cost -effectiveness of health care services to 80 per cent of f amilies across Alberta, yet without consulting and without an overarching plan to integrate these into the health care system, the Premier announced recently 140 new family care clinics.

To the minister: why did the Premier commit to billions of new dollar s for family care clinics without evidence or a full consultation with the relevant stakeholders? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health. Mr. Horne: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, primary care networks have been a tremendous catalyst in improving access to primary health care across Alberta. The intention of the Premier and the commitment of this government is to increase access to primary health care through building on the success of primary care networks and introducing additional family care clinics across the province.

We can’t do enough at this point in time to increase access to primary care for Albertans who need it. We have about 20 per cent of Albertans who report they do not have access to a family doctor. As the census data whi ch was reported on today shows, we are both coping with an aging population and, increasingly, many new families. Our birth rate is increasing in Alberta. Primary care is our top priority. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We ll, the Premier promised to evaluate the first three family care clinics before expanding.

Why did you proceed, without doing the evaluation, to 140 new family care clinics? Mr. Horne: Mr. Speaker, neither the Premier nor this minister made any such commitment. We intend for family care clinics not to be a uniform model to be applied in a cookie -cutter fashion across the province but to address the needs of specific communi - ties.

Our commitment from the very beginning was to work not only with all health pr ofessions in designing family care clinics but to work with local communities to identify the areas where they need the services the most and to do our best to put a model in place which serves that community. Dr. Swann: Did you not also commit to following the 21 recommendations of the Health Quality Council report, which was to not introduce any major changes in the health care system without proper consultation, without evidence, without moving forward on the health care budget? 2:20 Mr. Horne: Mr.

Speaker, what we committed to was something that Albertans have been asking for for some time, and that is increased access to team-based primary care in or near their home community. The family care clinics and the primary care networks are important models of care delivery.

What really matters, of course, and what this government will be talking about increasingly in the next few months are what core services Albertans want available to them in or near their home community on a standard set of hours, delivered by a team of professionals that can respond to the needs not only of young children but of aging parents. The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Twinning of Highway 63 Mr. Bilous: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Highway 63 is the primary transportation route used to haul heavy equipment, oversized loads, and massive machinery while at the same time serving as the primary transportation route for lower Athabasca community members. Given that hi ghway 63 has been the site of 80 fatalities in the last six years alone, to the Minister of Transportation: why won’t the minister admit the government has failed to make the twinning of highway 63 the priority Albertans expect it to be? Mr. McIver: Mr. Sp eaker, I would have hoped that the member asking the question would have been listening better yesterday.

Had he been listening yesterday, he would have heard that this government has already invested a billion dollars in and around Fort McMurray. He would have heard that we have $450 million over the next three years to twin the southern hundred kilometres of that highway. He would have also heard that this government is committed to twinning the rest of the highway and, in between now and when that’s done, to bringing forward initiatives to make it more safe, more operable for the people using it, and better for Albertans. It’s happening. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bilous: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that six years have passed since the province p romised to twin highway 63 and considering only 33 kilometres have been completed to date, this government has been dragging its feet. At this rate the twinning won’t be complete until 2034. That’s not good enough for the thousands of Albertans trying to g et to and from Fort McMurray safely every day. Why won’t the government commit to a firm timeline for completion of the twinning of highway 63? Mr. McIver: Mr. Speaker, I’ll say it a little slower this time for the member.

Over the next three years there’s $450 million in the budget, which will twin the southern hundred kilometres. We’ve committed to twinning the entire thing. Between now and then we’re working with the hon. Member for Fort McMurray -Wood Buffalo to bring forward interim measures. All of thi s is happening. The government has committed. The government has committed a lot of money. The government has committed resources. It’s a high priority. It’s happening. The hon. member should just perhaps pay attention to what’s already been said, and he could deal with new questions requiring new information.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bilous: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the government has appointed a special adviser to come up with another plan and given that the government’s plan is to talk about another plan for highway 63 when what Albertans want to see is action, to the Minister of Transportation: doesn’t the minister understand that you can’t pave a road with empty promises? Mr. McIver: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, again, was paying attention, he would have seen, really, nothing but action. He would have seen a billion dollars spent in the past.

He would see $450 million more coming up in the future. He would actually have seen action since the hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo increased signage to tell people when the passing lanes are, to encourage them to be patient and wait. He would have seen

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 55 increased enforcement. It’s all happening, and Albertans, from what I hear, are very happy with the progress made although they would like it to be faster. Family Care Clinics (continued) Mr. Anderson: Immediately prior to the election this Premier announced three government -controlled health clinics as pilot projects, as was discussed. Although family doctors expressed concern that these clinics might undercut proven primary care networks, which are run independently by doctors and other health professionals, many were willing to give these pilot projects a chance.

Then during the election the Premier, without any consultation, promised to build 140 of these government clinics, shocking the Alberta Medi cal Association and doctors across this province. To the Health minister: why would your government undertake such a massive reform without first consulting family doctors and the AMA or Albertans, for that matter, which they didn’t? Mr. Horne: Well, Mr. S peaker, I’m glad the hon. member raises the three family care clinics that are already up and running.

They are a source of great pride to Albertans, and they’re doing an awful lot to help access to primary care in the communities they serve. In northeast Edmonton, for example, the primary care clinic is serving a large number of new Albertans, new Canadians, many of whom do not speak English. It is serving a large unattached population in that part of the city, where there is a great need for mental health and addiction services.

In many other respects they are doing exactly what we intended family care clinics to do; that is, to provide basic primary care services to people in the communities where they live, with their involvement and with consultation. Mr.

Anderson: Given the concerns expressed by family doctors that these government -run health clinics are meant to replace existing family clinics and primary care networks and given that one of the pilot project clinics resulted in the Calgary Mosaic primary care network shutting down, according to its own executive director, is it this minister’s goal to replace existing family practices and primary care networks with these new state- run health clinics, or is it to staff these new clinics with new nurses a nd doctors, or was this just a brazen electioneering promise made without consultation and without a plan?

Door number C perhaps? No? Mr. Horne: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know which of the multiple questions there the hon. member intends me to answer. What I will tell you is that if the hon. member and his colleagues are suggesting that we have an oversupply of primary health care in this province, I think they should go out and consult with Albertans themselves.

There is more than enough to be done, more than e nough opportunities for family doctors and all professions, who should be able to practise to their full scope of training and expertise to deliver these critical and foundational health services to people in their own communities. That’s what we ran on, t hat’s what we’re committed to do, and that’s what you’ll see from us in the months to come. Mr. Anderson: The doctors didn’t see it coming. They don’t want them. Listen to the doctors for once. If your intent is not to replace existing family practices or primary care networks, then let’s talk about cost.

Given that I cannot find any costing of your promise to build and operate 140 new government health clinics over the next three years, will you please either tell us or table for the House both the estimated cost to build or lease these clinics as well as the annual cost to employ the health professionals needed to run them properly, or will you refuse this request and just keep making it up as you go along? Mr. Horne: Well, Mr. Speaker, my job is to think about and lead initiatives to improve health care in Alberta.

If the hon. member wants to preoccupy himself with questions of infrastructure, that’s entirely up to him. We have over 40 primary care networks in this province that are doing a very good job. Their work is supported by Albertans, other health professionals, and physicians. We have three new family care clinics, with more to come, that are also very well supported by family physicians and other health care leaders across Alberta. As I said earl ier, we will start with a question of what core services we want to make available to all citizens in or near their home community.

The questions around how models are structured in order to deliver that will be answered in the fullness of time for this member. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Chestermere-Rocky View. Openness and Transparency in Government Mr. Quadri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yet another recent study was critical of the Alberta government on transparency, this one putting us at last. My question to the Minister of Service Alberta: why is the government using the current FOIP legislation to hide information from our citizens? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Bhullar: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to congratulate the member for asking his first question in the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, our government and our Premier have an unprece - dented commitment to transparency and accountability. For the first time we have a Premier that dedicated an associate minister solely responsible on this file. Let me say that Alberta is a leader. Alberta leads Canada with completing over 90 per cent of FOIP requests within 30 days.

On the other side, we proactively publish some of the most important information like ministerial office expenses and payments made to all vendors that deal with the government. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Quadri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to hear the government’s quick response on FOIP, but the FOIP applicat ion process is a deterrent in itself. What are you doing about this? 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Bhullar: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The informa - tion and data that government has really belongs to its citizens, so we’re finding more and more ways where we can really bypass the FOIP process altogether, use that as a last resort, and provide proactively more information and more data to Albertans. It’s their information. They deserve to have it, and we’re working on this. Mr. Quadri: Mr. Speaker, people also want transparency on their personal information. How is this government making sure that Albertans can access their own personal information?

56 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Bhullar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans have a right to the personal information government has collected about them. That’s why there’s no application fee when Albertans are requesting this information. But Albertans also want their personal information protected. The way we do that is, first of all, to ensur e that we only collect information that’s absolutely necessary. Let me say that we are North American leaders by being one of the only jurisdictions that has private -sector privacy protection.

That means that when a private-sector actor breaches a privacy policy, they have a mandatory notification requirement, where they notify the commissioner. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Chestermere-Rocky View , followed by the hon. Member for Sherwood Park. School Construction and Renovation Mr. McAllister: Mr. Speaker, thank you. The government announced during the election campaign an ambitious plan to build 50 new schools and renovate 70 others.

In making that announcement, a lot of people were perplexed to find that those school projects, so desperately needed, would be tied to surplus revenue, yet at the same time corporate handouts like the $3 billion AOSTRA project were put into place. To the Education minister: wouldn’t it make more sense to flip those around and put the kids first, commit the money to renovating and building new schools and maybe put the money to the other industry contingent on surplus? Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I think one thing we know for a fact is that our province is growing at an unprecedented rate.

There are many communities throughout this province that simply require more schools, and that is our number one priority. This Premier and the Minister of Education along with the Minister of Infra - structure have made a commitment that we will provide the schools that the children need so that they can continue receiving the 21st century education that they are receiving in this province in buildings that are adequate for delivering that education. That is a commitment that we have made to our children in this province, and we’ll keep that commitment. Mr. McAllister: Mr.

Speaker, given that many are beginning to wonder if the government’s hesitation in commitment to building and renovating schools like they promised is because they don’t have the money for it and given that it’s well documented that many schools, as w e know, are in disrepair and that many communities are growing so quickly that their schools are bursting at the seams, do we have a plan to commit the money now so we can put the kids first? How are we going to operate these schools when we do commit that money? Do we have money for that also? Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, this is quite interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Here is a member from a political party that is advocating cutting budgets, that is advocating building less, that is advocating cutting programs, and that has run an entire campaign on that, but at the same time he’s questioning whether we have the money to build the schools that are so desperately required. I can tell the speaker one thing. There was a budget in this House, that was debated and passed. That budget was taken to Albertans. They reviewed it, and they voted overwhelmingly in favour of the budget and this government, and we will deliver on our commitments. Mr. McAllister: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. minister is right about one thing. We did advocate ce rtain cuts to a bloated bureaucracy, but we said that we’d like to see more money put forward to the front lines. I think we all agreed on that.

To this minister: given the government promised Albertans during the election campaign it was going to take care of these desperately needed new schools, both new and renovated, and given the government has often based its decisions on where to build new schools on politics rather than need, as we know, will you publish a list for all Albertans to see detailing wh ich communities are going to get new schools, which communities are going to get their schools renovated when and if funds magically appear to this government to spend on the students that desperately need it in this province? Mr.

Lukaszuk: To address the first part of the comment, 85 per cent of Alberta public servants are front -line servants. I would want this member to stand up and tell us which ones he wants to fire, those who deliver nursing care or those who teach or do other important work for Albertans. One thing, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to see the list, every school board provides the Minister of Infrastructure every June, July with their capital plan. That capital plan is reviewed, and priorities are being addressed. This member is a new member – I appreciate that – but he will soon know that those capital plans are available.

He can review them. They’re at his disposal. Go at it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary -Shaw. [interjections] There w as some heckling and clapping going on, and perhaps you didn’t hear. I’ve recognized the hon. Member for Sherwood Park, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Alberta Office in Ottawa Ms Olesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Speech from the Throne we learned that this government intends to open an office in our nation’s capital.

To the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations: are we not adequately served through the representation of government Members of Parliament, with which we are well supplied? Mr. Dallas: Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, Alberta’s Conservative MPs bring an Alberta perspective to discussions on items of federal jurisdiction, but we need to remember that we have two orders of government, and Albertans have elected this government to provide representation on their views that are inside provincial responsibility.

We seek to have, as an observer would put it, boots on the ground in Ottawa to deliver our messages and report back to us when something more can be done or said with respect to our government. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Olesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is again to the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. What other purpose does it serve to have an official Alber ta presence in Ottawa? Mr. Dallas: Well, Mr. Speaker, Alberta has worked hard to maintain good relations with Ottawa.

However, we can increase our impact with a consistent presence and face-to -face meeting opportunities with key players in Ottawa. With an official repre- sentative available, we can reach out personally to make policy presentations to decision-makers and advisers who might

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 57 otherwise be out of reach to our ministers, and we can further strengthen these relationships. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Olesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do we anticipate a patronage position to fill this office? Mr. Dallas: No, Mr. Speaker. The selection of an official represen- tative will follow a national search by an executive search recruit - ment firm. Risk Assessments for PDD Clients Mr. Wilson: Mr.

Speaker, on May 12, tragically, a front -line worker, Dianne McClements, died in Camrose, allegedly killed by an individual with special needs who was in her care, on the heels of Valerie Wolski’s death a mere 15 months earlier. The families of the victims deserve answers from this government. Our front -line workers need to know they will be safe while caring for our most vulnerable citizens. The Wildrose would immediately publish the recommendations of the occupational health and safety investigation into Valerie Wolski’s death to ensure the safety of our front -line staff.

To the Minister of Human Services: why has this government failed to produce this report, and when can we expect the results? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the recommenda - tions of the occupational health and safety division have been posted. They’ve been posted in the form of orders to PDD and to the operating authority in the Wolski situation, and th ose are known publicly.

With respect to the investigative report, that has been provided to the prosecutors’ office, and it would be inappropriate to publish that report until prosecutors have made a decision with respect to charges. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Given that the initial occupational health and safety investigation reportedly recom - mended not-for-profit agencies be provided with risk assess ments for their clients, will this government make risk assessments available immediately to protect our front -line workers while waiting to release this report? Mr. Hancock: Mr.

Speaker, I’ve inquired and been informed that now, with PDD being part of the Human Services portfolio, all of the recommendations that were made by occupational health and safety have been implemented by PDD, not just in the central region but right across the province. I am assured that that is happening. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This smells like the same kind of distasteful deflection we saw from this government after the death of Ms Wolski last year.

How can the minister tell Alberta’s front-line workers it cares about them when it will not be open and transparent when tragedies happen? 2:40 Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the hon. member is referring to. We’ve been totally open and transparent with respect to the posting of the occupational health and safety orders. We’ve been totally open about the fact that there’s an investigation happening, and that investigation has now been turned over to the prosecutors’ office to determine whether there ar e charges to be laid.

I’ve been open in saying that the PDD authority has assured me as minister that the recommendations, the orders that were put in place, have been carried out not only in the central Alberta jurisdiction but right across the province. The Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes question period for today, but before we go on to the next part of the program, I wonder if I could ask House leaders to please review the issue of

preambles to questions with their members at their respective caucuses for tomorrow. Today we only got to 96 questions and answers, which is well below what we’re used to in this House. Secondly, please also review the references to any absence or presence of members. Thirdly, of course, as we all know, elected officials should not be referred to by their proper names in this Assembly. head: Members’ Statements (continued) The Speaker: Hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, a private member’s statement. Regulatory Reform Mr. Bikman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to talk about overregulation in our province.

It’s ubiquitous, and I’ll provide two examples as diverse as food preparation and truck trans - portation. Last year Stirling’s Settler Days chili cook -off was apparently declared a threat to public health, and it wasn’t because it was too spicy. It was because the chili was potluck, prepared in the homes of private citizens, as has been done for as long as I can remember. The organizing committee was told that in future the chili would have to be made in approved, inspected kitchens or on-site. Since when did open-air cooking become safer and more sanitary than private homes?

A trucking company owner told me of an ongoing challenge that he faces with regulations in his industry. Several times a week his trucks haul crushed cars from Lethbridge over the weigh scales at Coutts on their way to a steel mill in the U.S.A. For the past year he’s been using three-eighths inch cables to secure the cars. Every load has crossed the scales and has been delivered without incident or accident. Last week a load was stopped, and the driver was issued a fine of $570. The reason? The scale operators decided the cables weren’t safe and that he’d have to use chains.

Couldn’t these government employ ees, whose salary comes from taxes paid by this trucker and others, have seen themselves as a resource to him? Shouldn’t they have given him a call and let him know of this unexpected change in their attitude or enforcement approach so that the fine could have been avoided? Better yet, why weren’t he and other haulers consulted about whatever government concerns had arisen in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution? Want to know the answer? Because they don’t have to. Wildrose believes in more fr eedom through less government regulations.

So do most Albertans. head: Notices of Motions Mr. Saskiw: Pursuant to Standing Order 15(2) earlier today I provided written notice to your office of my intention to raise a matter of privilege, which I hope I’ll have the opportunity to present later today. I have the requisite copies of that written notice.

58 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table a letter from myself to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Brian Fjeldheim, which I had cause to send over to his office. Five copies will be provided to the Clerk. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter actually addressed to the Premier but from a representative of the Alberta Grandparents Association. It’s signed by Marilyn Marks, and she wishes to make the point again that the recent evaluation of Alberta’s Family Law Act by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, coming out of the U of C, has found that our Family Law Act makes it virtually impossible for grandparent s to meet the test that is required of them in the act in order to be able to access their grandchildren.

She notes that grandparents and other family members require legislation that is less adversarial and that is not set out or made in a court which challenges family concerns. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropriate amount of documents, a letter from the Culture minister to Mr. Jeffrey Yang, director of the Falun Dafa Association of Calgary.

I’d also like to table the appropriate number of copies of page 85, the Chief Electoral Officer Duties and Powers, indicating that the investigation only shall be conducted in private, not the results of said investigation. Privilege Obstructing a Member in Performance of Duty The Speaker: Hon. members, yesterday the Member for Edmonton- Strathcona raised a purported question of privilege regarding a media briefing that took place prior to the introduction of Bill 1 on Thursday, May 24. I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly for consideration.

I have given it considerable consideration over the last 24 hours, and I’m prepared to make a ruling in this regard. For many members this will be their first opportunity to observe a question of privilege being raised and to hear the chair’s subsequent ruling in that regard. Standing Order 15, which guides this Assembly, sets out the procedure to be followed when a question of privilege is raised.

Hon. members will note that the chair’s role in making a ruling on a purported ques tion of privilege is solely to determine whether the question raised is a prima facie, in the first instance in other words, breach of privilege. It is a threshold test. If it is found to be a prima facie question of privilege, it is appropriate for a member to give notice of a motion such as one referring the matter to a committee for disposition. Technically the matter raised by the member is a question of contempt although it is treated in the same way as a question of privilege might be.

The authors of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, note the following passage at page 82. It is important to distinguish between a “breach of privilege” and “contempt of Parliament”. Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament whic h may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges.

Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.

Dealing first with the procedural requirement, as the chair noted yesterday, the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona did meet the requirement in Standing Order 15(2) of providing a minimum of two hours’ notice prior to the commencement of the sitting. Notice of the question of privilege was received in the Speaker’s office yesterday at 10:57 a.m.

In making representations in the Assembly during yesterday’s proceedings, the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred to a press conference held by the Pre mier and the Government House Leader at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, in which both the Speech from the Throne and Bill 1, the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 2012, were discussed.

The member was advised by her staff that when they had attempted to attend the conference, opposition staff were specifically denied access. 2:50 The basis of the purported question of privilege is that the member’s ability to discharge her parliamentary duties was impeded when information about a government bill was provi ded to the media prior to the bill’s introduction in this Assembly. In response the hon. Government House Leader noted that during the press conference Bill 1 was discussed but only in general terms and that no specific wording was provided to those in att endance.

The Government House Leader acknowledged the importance of ensuring that members are the first to see proposed legislation in its final form before a bill is disclosed to outside parties. On March 5, 2003, Speaker Kowalski ruled that there was a prima facie case of contempt in circumstances where information on the contents of a bill on notice in the Order Paper were provided in a media briefing prior to the bill’s introduction in the Assembly.

The Speaker held at page 304 of Hansard for that day that “the department briefing provided to the media concerning [the bill] when the bill was on notice but before it was introduced constitutes a prima facie case of privilege as it offends the dignity and the authority of this Assembly.” By convention no notice is required for the introduction of Bill 1, which is the first bill of a session and is introduced as a part of opening day ceremonies to assert the Assembly’s independence from the Crown. However, the chair is of the view that this has no bearing o n the particular matter.

At the time the relevant press conference took place, Bill 1 most certainly would have been in final form and ready for introduction, I would expect. The chair would like to make all members aware of a recent ruling from the Canadian House of Commons concerning the early release of details contained in government estimates. In his March 22, 2011, ruling Speaker Milliken stated the following at page 9113 in the House of Commons Debates for that day. The member . . . is certainly not misguided in his expectation that members of the House, individually and collectively, must

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 59 receive from the government particular types of information required for the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties before it is shared elsewhere. However, in such instances when there is a transgression of this well -established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties.

While in the matter before us there may be a legitimate grievance, as admitted even by the President of the Treasury Board, there has been no specific evidence to suggest that any member was [actually] impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties, and thus there can be no finding of prima facie privi lege. Further, the minister has recognized the seriousness of this matter and given his assurance that measures will be in place to prevent a recurrence. An earlier ruling by the same Speaker is also on point.

On November 5, 2009, Speaker Milliken concluded that the Minister of Public Safety in a press conference had not disclosed the details of a bill yet to be introduced and had only discussed in broad terms the policy initiative proposed in the bill. On this basis, the Speaker found that there was no prima facie question of privilege. In conclusion and on a matter related to the purported point of privilege, the chair acknowledges and appreciates the Government House Leader’s apology for the apparent inability of opposition staff to gain access to the aforementioned press conference of May 24, 2012.

The chair also notes the Government House Leader’s submission that the bill was neither circulated, nor was the specific content of the bill disclosed. Given the circumstances of this particular case the chair finds that the member’s ability to perform her functions has not been impeded, and accordingly the chair is unable to find a prima facie case of contempt and considers this matter now closed. The chair does want to thank members for their attent ion to this matter. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul -Two Hills on a point of privilege. Privilege Misleading the House Mr. Saskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m rising according to Standing Order 15(2) to raise a point of privilege, that on May 28, 2012, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General interfered with the abilities of members of this Assembly to fulfill their duties when he misled the Assembly in response to a question in Oral Question Period. Page 83 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states that “deliberately attempting to mislead the House” is considered contempt of the House. I’d like to start with a preliminary matter. Points of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Notice concerning this point of privi lege was sent to your office, Mr. Speaker, this morning as well as to all House leaders. As such, it is our view that the point of privilege was raised in a timely manner and is in order. I would like to now address the substantive elements of the point of privilege; namely, the first element, that the Assembly was misled. In particular, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General stated that the legislation regarding investigations by the Chief Electoral Officer was changed based on the officer’s recommendations. In his words, he called this a fact. Unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, in review of the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, Lorne Gibson, he stated in his October 2006 report under recommendation 26(

d) that the government “add specific d irection that an investigation shall be conducted in private.” This report was tabled by the Leader of the Official Opposition earlier today. Note that the wording is that the investigation be conducted in private. However, nowhere in the recommendation does it state that if someone or a provincial party has been found guilty, those results can’t be made public. Therefore, what the member said is not a fact. How on earth in a modern democracy could the findings that a political party accepted illegal donat ions be kept secret and private?

Once the investigation is complete, there is no reason to withhold this information from Albertans. As such, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General clearly misled the Assembly. However, this is not enough. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice refers to a three-part test in order to find a prima facie case for a finding of contempt that a member deliber - ately misled the House. First, it must prove that the state ment was misleading. Here the document of the Chi ef Electoral Officer speaks for itself.

The member misled this Assembly in stating that the government changed the law because of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. That is not correct. The report clearly states that it is the investigations that are to be kept private, not the results of those investigations. Second, it must be established that the member knew at the time that the misleading statement was incorrect. The third and, I would submit, most difficult part of the test is that the member, in making the statement, intended to mislead the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, it is difficult to determine the mens rea of an individual, what they knew at a particular time. However, the facts here would indicate that the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General referred to that report, and presumably by referring to the report, the learned member would’ve read the report. However, to give the benefit of the doubt, the member opposite could simply have been mistaken or in error. If that is the case, I would ask th e member to retract and correct his statement.

Pending the finding of this Speaker that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I seek to move that the matter of privilege concerning the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General’s comments be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You know, when I was a starting lawyer about 12 years ago, one of my principals said to me: when you have the facts, you pound the facts; when you have a law, you pound the law; and if you have neither, you just pound.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to go through specifically what was said in the Chief Electoral Officer’s r eport. I’m referring to a report that has already been tabled some time ago. It said specifically, “Add specific direction that an investigation shall be conducted in private.” Then I will also refer to Alberta’s Election Act,

section 4.2(4). I do not bel ieve that this needs to be tabled. If I’m wrong, please correct me. It says: Subject to subsection (5), any former Chief Electoral Officer and every person who is or was employed or engaged by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer shall maintain the confidentiality of all information and allegations that come to their knowledge in the course of an inquiry or investigation. It doesn’t just say “allegations”; it also says “all information” in and of itself. Mr. Speaker, the matter of the Chief Electoral Officer, as I’m sure you and all members of this House are aware – this is an officer who reports directly to the Legislature. If there are any

60 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 changes, it has to go through an all -party committee. I look forward to the report from the 2012 election becaus e there will be some recommendations there as well. I wanted to mention, as well, just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this member has mentioned a three-part test. The first part of the test is that the statement was misleading. I respectfully submit to you and all members of this House that the statements I made yesterday were not misleading. I stand by them completely.

Further, I also mention to you as our new Speaker that this member’s three-part test, which he has quite correctly indicated, talked about intending to mislead the Assembly and talks about a mens rea, which is a mental element, not an action element. Not only has there been no misleading; he has failed to show that there has been any intent to do so. I would lastly mention the old adage t hat when dealing with matters of libel, which you mentioned earlier just in your

preamble, truth is an absolute defence to any such action. Thank you. 3:00 The Speaker: Any other comments? The hon. Member for Calgary- Buffalo. Mr. Hehr: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ve listened to this quite intently, and I appreciate the point of privilege being called, but in this matter I accept the representation of the Solicitor General. The legislation as it was read to me was silent on thing s, whether they would go public afterwards. When the legislation is silent on that, I think it’s up to the government to interpret that. I think there’s also something to remember.

In this House we’re playing with live ammunition. We have to answer questi ons, and I understand that oftentimes we’re doing the best we can to answer questions on a quick basis and give answers in that regard. In this matter I don’t believe the Solicitor General in his words or his actions deliberately misled this House, and I would agree more with his

interpretation of what happened yesterday than the submission put forward by the honourable presenter of the argument that was forthcoming. Thank you very much. The Speaker: Thank you. Are there any others? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have spent some time rereading the Election Act and the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, and I do believe in this case that the Minister of Justice is correct. However , in the reading of

section 4.2(4) and (5), where it’s talking about maintaining “the confidentiality of all information and allegations that come to their knowledge in the course of an inquiry or investigation,” it does not specifically say that that info rmation is never to be released. In other words, the act is silent on whether the information can ever be released to the public or to the Assembly, but it does require that the officers that are involved in the investigation keep that information confidential. In other words, they don’t go out and put it on the cocktail chatter.

But the act itself does not specifically prohibit a disclosure of an investigation. I think there’s a very fine line that’s being drawn here. There is the following

section in (5) that does say that, you know, informa- tion should be disclosed to a person whose conduct is the subject of it, that it should be disclosed to the person conducting the investigation to be able to get information from someone else, et cetera, et cetera. There are a number of categories here. I think we have to be very careful about accepting what the Justice minister is saying today as there being a prohibition in the act against ever disclosing any results of an investigation that takes place under the El ection Act or the election disclosures act because that is not the case.

We have had in the Chief Electoral Officer’s past reports the disclosure of various cases that he, in fact, investigated. So we need to be very careful on this one. I agree that in th is particular instance the minister is correct, but it should not be taken that this is correct for all times in all cases. Thank you. The Speaker: I’ll recognize one more speaker, then. The hon. Member for Airdrie. Mr. Anderson: Real quick, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise and say that obviously I agree with the Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills, the opposition deputy House leader, on this point of privilege.

It’s very clear. First, we have to look at what the recommen - dation says that the Chie f Electoral Officer made to the Justice minister, who is now the Premier. The specific quote from the report is that he asked to “add specific direction that an investiga- tion shall be conducted in private.” Having an investiga tion conducted in private is very important, obviously.

It’s important, when you’re talking about allegations and things like that floating around out there in the ether and so forth, when you’ve got innuendo and so forth, when everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that you don’t allow that information to go public because it’s unfair to the person whose character might be impugned in that situation. That’s very clear, and that’s very clearly the statement in the recommendation that’s made. For this member we’re not talking about the act here. That’s not what’s in question in this point of privilege.

What’s in question is his representation of what was said in the recommendation, and he specifically said that what was said in the recommendation – nothing to do with the act, what was said in the recommendation – was that the Chief Electoral Officer said that he wanted to have complete privacy with regard to not only conducting these investigations but also to keep the results from investigations where illegal donations were found from ever being made public. It’s clearly not what the recommendation says. It doesn’t say it.

For this minister to stand in this House and say that the Chief Electoral Officer at that time, Mr. Lorne Gibson, asked to keep the results of findings of illegal donations to political parties private and nonpublic is completely false. That’s not what the report said. This minister has clearly misled the House by saying so, and he should retract those statements. If he wants to refer to the legislation, h e should refer to the legislation but not the recommendation because that’s not what the recommendation said, and he knows it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Thank you.

Unless anyone has anything new or different to offer, we’ll conclude the speaking list at that point. Hon. members, it’s a rare time when you get two purported points of privilege raised over two consecutive days. In fact, I don’t know if it’s ever happened in my time here, but c’est la vie. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche –St. Paul-Two Hills has of course met the technical requirements, as he’s indicated. In fact, he did provide written notice of his intention to raise this point of privilege, and that was provided in writing this morning at, I believe, around 11:18 or thereabouts; nonetheless, in advance of

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 61 the two-hour rule requirement. He subsequently gave oral notice. So he’s done what had to be done. The chair has now listened to some good debate on the matter, and the chair will take the evening to study the debate and to do a little further research and will comment tomorrow. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Motions The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Adjournment of Spring Session 7. Mr. Hancock moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 3(9) the 2012 spring sitting of the Assembly shall stand adjourned upon the Government House Leader advising the Assembly that the business for the sitting is concluded. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the traditional adjournment motion that’s introduced on one of the first few days of every session. The Speaker: Thank you. [Government Motion 7 carried] 4. Mr. McIver moved on behalf of Mr. Hancock:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly resolve into Committee of the Whole, when called, to consider certain bills on the Order Paper. [Government Motion 4 carried] 5. Mr. McIver moved on behalf of Mr. Hancock:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly resolve itself into Committee of Supply, when called, to consider supply to be granted to Her Majesty. [Government Motion 5 carried] The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Evening Sittings 6. Mr. Hancock moved:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 4(1) the Assembly shall meet in the evening on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, and Wednesda y, May 30, 2012, for consideration of government business unless on motion by the Government House Leader made before 6 p.m., which may be made orally and without notice, the Assembly is adjourned to the following sitting day. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. S peaker. Just for clarification, if we deal with Government Motion 11 this afternoon, we will not intend to sit in the evening on either of those two days. The Speaker: This is Government Motion 6, hon.

Government House Leader, so this motion is not debatable. [Government Motion 6 carried] 3:10 MLA Compensation Review 11. Mr. Hancock moved: A.

Be it resolved that the Assembly approve in principle the recommendations of the Review of Compensation of Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, “the report,” submitted by the Hon. J.C. Major, CC, QC, and refer the report to the Special Standing Committee on Members’ Services, “the committee,” for implementation where possible by June 30, 2012, subject to the following exceptions: (

a) that recommendation 4 regarding salary for the Premier not be implemented but that the committee implement a salary that reflects a differential of plus 25 per cent between the Premier’s salary and that of a minister with portfolio; (

b) that recommendation 10 concerning the expense portion of a member’s remuneration, known as the tax -free allowance, not be implemented and that the amount of that expense allowance be set at zero pending an amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act to eliminate it; (

c) that recommendation 11 r egarding the implementation of a new transition allowance be rejected and that no further amounts shall be accumulated beyond those accrued by eligible members prior to the commencement of the 28th Legislature; (

d) that the committee examine alternatives to the pension plan for members proposed in recommendation 12 and discussed in

section 3.5 of the report, including defined contribution plans, and report to the Assembly with its recommendations; B.

Be it resolved that nothing in this motion shall limit the committee’s ability to report to the Assembly on any other matter arising from the report. [Adjourned debate May 28: Mr. Horner] The Speaker: Are there any speakers? This motion is debatable. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre? Ms Blakeman: I will pass. The Speaker: Does anyone from Executive Council wish to conclude debate? The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. I’m trying to read the signals here. Carry on. Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to rise today to debate the motion before the House to accept in principle the MLA remuneration and recommendations by Justice John C. Major. First of all, let me remind hon. members that it was Wildrose, more specifically our Finance critic, the Member for Airdrie, who really drove the issu e of MLA pay, severances, and transitions during the last Legislature.

He brought forth a private member’s bill more than a year ago, the Legislative Assembly (Transition Allowance) Amendment Act, 2011, that would have dramatically reduced the often -exorbitant amount of severance MLAs collect from taxpayers upon defeat or retirement. Naturally, of course, the government members defeated this bill and soundly. Not one government MLA stood up for fiscal restraint and respect for taxpayers when the bill came to the floor for a vote.

The NDP Member for Edmonton -Strathcona voted for the bill, the Liberal Member for Calgary -Buffalo voted for the bill, and I thank them for their co-operation on behalf of the taxpayers in this province. But not a single Progressive Conservative MLA stood up to say no to these extravagant entitlements that day. I have no

62 Alberta Hansard May 29, 2012 doubt that without the Member for Airdrie’s tireless efforts, pushing this issue to the forefront of public debate and ultimately into the recent election campaign, we wouldn’t be in this Legislature today talking about changing the way MLAs are compensated. I’d like to thank him today for all of his hard work on this file on behalf of the Official Opposition caucus and indeed on behalf of all Albertans. It’s a shame that this government needed to see its political life flash before its eyes before they acted on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

But as it is with just about everything this government does, it’s not important enough to act on unless the voters are upset enough about it. Then, and only then, do we get any kind any kind of response from the government. Nevertheless, we are here today about to change how we as elected MLAs are compensated and to better reflect what Albertans expect from us in terms of fairness, transparency, and respect for hard -earned tax dollars. I am happy about that, and I dare say it’s about time.

I don’t know if anyone will forget the very first act of this last government, of which the current Premier was a senior member. Weeks after Albertans cast their ballots, the cabinet went behind closed doors and helped themselves to a staggering 34 per cent pay hike. No warning, no consultation, and no apologies, just a brazen cash grab from the politicians just elected to serve Albertans and protect their tax dollars. It was a stunning display of arrogance, Mr.

Speaker, and it came to define the Progressive Conservative government as out of touch and only out for themselves, and perhaps it sent us down the path to where we are today, here debating Jus tice John Major’s report. Until then, no one single instance more clearly defined the compensation issue in the minds of Albertans than the cabinet pay hike of 2008. But as I said before, Mr. Speaker, this government didn’t act right away. It’s not as if the public backlash wasn’t strong enough to warrant corrective action.

In my three years touring Alberta prior to being elected, no one issue elicited more anger from everyday Albertans than the cabinet pay hike. Instead of saying, “Whoa, maybe we overstep ped here,” and “Let’s look at reforming our pay structure,” the government doubled down. Sure, there was a patronizing offer to return a tiny portion of the huge pay raise they gave themselves, but in my estimation that cynical gesture only made Albertans angrier. The public thought: “These guys can line their pockets with my tax dollars, give back a few pennies, and expect me to forgive them? Not a chance.” From there, Mr.

Speaker, this government was thoroughly and rightly criticized for hanging on to th ese giant pay hikes while at the same time handing out millions of dollars of bonuses to bureaucrats and failed health executives. It was around this time that Alberta once again began running budget deficits, bringing the government’s ongoing personal abuse of tax dollars into much sharper focus and underscoring the need for major reforms to how politicians and public servants are paid. Fast forward a few years, and we’re on the eve of a provincial election.

The now infamous no-meet committee has been exposed, and Albertans are angrier than ever not only at the inflated salaries and benefits MLAs collect at their expense but also at how complicated it is to navigate all the hidden pots of money that MLAs are paid. Because of these events, Mr. Speaker, I th ink it’s fair to say that Albertans are probably more interested than ever in how much we are paid and why. So it’s good that we’re here today in the Legislature, ready to finally act on what Albertans have been telling us for so long. I’ve often said, Mr .

Speaker, that the Premier shouldn’t have needed a judge to tell her what the right thing was to do, but that’s a discussion for another day. Most of what Justice Major has recommended in his compre - hensive report is quite good, and Wildrose does support most of it. For example, we support the idea of a single compre hensive base MLA salary that encompasses the entire scope of a member’s job; no extra pay for committees, just a flat salary that is easy to understand and easy to track and lower than what i t was under the old system. That’s what Albertans were asking for.

We also like where Justice Major suggested going with transition allowances, replacing the current golden parachutes, which saw some MLAs departing with over a million dollars, with a more reasonable package intended to help MLAs with a short -term transition into life after politics. The government has decided to go further and eliminate it altogether on a go- forward basis, and we have no objection to that either.

Additionally, we were ple ased to see the government reject some of Justice Major’s more troublesome recommendations like yet another huge pay increase for the Premier and also keeping the tax-free portion of MLA salaries. Albertans cannot shield one - third of their salaries from ta x, and their elected representatives should not be allowed to either. Before this goes to committee, there are a couple of things I urge my colleagues in all parties, especially the members of the Members’ Services Committee, to consider as we move forwar d. The first is cabinet salaries.

The Major report worked off current salary levels, which essentially means that the excessive cabinet pay hikes are the starting point. The report even recommended an additional increase to cabinet pay, but that doesn’t me an that we can’t now revisit this issue, finally. As MLAs we have the ability and, I would say, the obligation to look at this and get it right. In Members’ Services Committee we look forward to raising this issue and arriving at a sensible solution becaus e no one I spoke to during the recent election told me that they thought cabinet ministers needed a pay raise.

The second is the gold-plated pension plan that Justice Major has recommended. Let me be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. We absolutely cannot go back to this. Premier Ralph Klein was right to have killed these pensions almost 20 years ago. Reinstating them would be a slap in the face to Alberta taxpayers and hard- working Alberta families. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has done some wonderful res earch showing why that is. For starters, an average Albertan would have to save $822,000 in order to equal the benefits a gold -plated pension plan would pay out to retiring or defeated MLAs.

That is not a figure that most Albertans can even relate to. The CTF also reports that unfunded pension liabilities in Alberta have reached $11 billion, including $42 million still remaining on the old MLA pension plan Premier Klein got rid of. These unfunded liabilities have spooked just about every private - sector pension plan away from defined benefit plans and for good reason. As the CTF points out, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada reported in 2010 that more than 90 per cent of private -sector defined benefit pension plans have become virtually insolvent after 2008.

The most compelling reason to throw out gold-plated pensions really has little to do with facts and figures and dollars and cents. It’s about leadership. It’s about what accepting something like this says about us as politicians and officials elected to do the people’s business and guard the public’s dollars.

If we accept this gold- plated pension plan, we merely affirm that which most people already believe about their politicians, thanks in no small part to this government’s self -serving ways, that we aren’t really interested in serving the public and doing what’s right, and we’re merely here for what we stand to gain from it. By jumping on the first opportunity we have to pad our bank accounts, we would give

May 29, 2012 Alberta Hansard 63 the public every reason t o believe this. That’s why I’d like us to make a stand on this, to give Albertans at least a small reason to have confidence in us. 3:20 I know that every member of the Official Opposition is ready to lead the way on this, and I know that both myself and the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek are ready to convince our colleagues on the Members’ Services Committee to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre on Motion 11. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to be able to rise and speak to this motion although I’m going to come at it a bit differently than everyone else has. I and my caucus have a very, very strongly held belief that MLAs should not be setting their own pay and perks. We raised this in a number of different venues and as a reaction to different proposals about pay schedules and things that were being raised in the Members’ Services Committee a number of times. It was our standard response. We reall y, really believe this.

We were very happy to have one of our members, who’s now one of the members of the government caucus, bring forward a motion. We don’t get many motions, the opposition, because as some of you know and some of you don’t, all private members are treated the same. Well, this would be my argument with the Government House Leader. All of our names are put into a pool, and the order for the private members’ motions and bills are drawn from that, so Official Opposition and third- party and fourth- party opposition don’t get a lot of chance at this.

For us to take one of our motions and designate it to this tells you how important it was. It was brought forward by the Member for Lethbridge-East, and in fact it was unanimously passed. It was pretty clear that there was to be an independent commission to set the MLA pay and benefits. Now, what did we actually get from this? What we got from it is an independent commission. Okay. Fine. I will quibble with the way it was set up in that it went to the Speaker of the day, who set it up with some criteria that raised eyebrows and set this all on a certain course.

But we did end up with an independent commission, a one- person commission of Justice Major, who then presented a report. Did we accept that report? Well, no. What we’re hearing here is the ensuing debate, which will inevitably end with MLAs setting their own pay and benefits, which was not where we started. What we’ve already got is cherry-picking in this very motion that I am debating. We ha ve the government saying, “We accept the report except certain things,” and they can spell them out.

At this point I don’t care what the certain things are anymore because we have lost the ability to stand up and say: we accept this report. We charged the m to do a certain thing, we said we wanted someone else to do this, and what are we going to do? We’re spending time in this House debating it again, MLAs talking about setting their own pay and perks. The government motion starts it out by saying that we’ re not going to accept this, that, and the next thing. They’re cherry-picking off the report. We like this, but we don’t like that. Okey-dokey, then. What’s going to happen after this? Oh, wait.

It’s going to get sent to the Members’ Services Committee. N ow, that is an all- party legislative committee, much respected, much feared. I’m sorry. Who’s sitting on this again? Oh, right. A majority of the people sitting there are government members, and there are a small number of participants on that committee wh o represent the Official Opposition, the third party, and the fourth party. That group is going to decide how to implement this and is additionally charged with working out some of the details on things like the pension plan.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are we now not sending this to a group of MLAs to decide their own pay and benefits? Yes, we are. Right there we’ve contravened what we said we would do. We all said in this House – and it was unanimous on the day – that we would support an independent com mission setting this, and we’ve already managed to work that around way back to the Members’ Services Committee, which the previous speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition, in such an eloquent way outlined where all of these problems started. Wait f or it. I’m waiting. My ear is out.

Yes, indeed, that would be the Members’ Services Committee who decided to set all of these things, and now we are going to send this back to the Members’ Services Committee to decide the pay and perks. What is wrong with this picture? What’s wrong with this is that we’ve already violated where we started. Now, I’ve got all kinds of, you know, quibbles and suggestions and things that I’d like in there and not like in there. I was one of the few MLAs that actually signed up and went to the commission and put it on record. In fact, my Hansard appears at the back of the report.

I was very concerned that the commission be aware of a couple of things. One is that not all private members are equal. Government private members are more equal than other private members. I wanted that known and understood because that really matters when you’re talking about pay and benefits. Of course, if you’re taking the best years of earning, anyone that’s sitting on the government side was earnin g extra money by being appointed to government-only committees or to chair a government -only arm’s length group.

The Seniors Advisory Council – that was always a government MLA, and it came with a salary of 40,000 bucks a year – and the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities: all of those were paid additional money. At one point they were so desperate to find a job for their one last backbench MLA that didn’t have an extra job that they booted the person who was currently the chairper son for the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities so they could put their own backbencher in there.

I’m going back quite a few years on that one, but people will be able to figure out who I’m talking about. There were lots of things that each of us could contribute to this discussion. You know, I wanted it known that not all private members are equal. I wanted it known that for people that were coming from the not -for-profit sector or the public service sector, which is half of our w orking p