Alberta Hansard — 26 March 2003, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 3)

20030326

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 749 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/03/26 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parlia mentary democracy as a m eans of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr.

Boutilier: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed my pleasure today to introduce two members from the constituency of Fort McMurray, and they are the presid ent of the chamber of commerce in Fort McMurray, Bob Gazzard, as wel l as one of the directors, Carol Yayechnick. I w ant to say that Carol and Bob are truly people th at repr esent and e xemplify the spirit of our city slogan: we have the energy; nous avons l’énergie. I’d like to ask them both to rise t oday and receive the very warm welcome of the Alberta Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr.

Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly here some very bright and energetic young students from Bles sed Kate ri el ementary sch ool in my area. T hey ar e accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Mhairi Miskew and Ms C athy Kahanyshyn and parent g roup helpers E lizabeth S uwala, Nancy Coco, Yolanda Cre swell, El aine More, a nd Mrs. Connie Kahanyshyn. I would ask all of our special guests from Blessed Kateri to please rise and r eceive the thunderous applause of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Norris: Thank you very much. I rise on this glorious Alberta day to introduce to you a very rare Albertan. It’s not often that we have a world cup champion and a gold medalist, but today we have them in the same person, and I’m referring, of course, to my brother- in-law Pierre Lueders. P ierre, of course, was the gold medalist at Nagano in the two-man bobsled.

His accomplishments in represent- ing Canada in the Oly mpics and at world championships are too numerous to register, but I would like to point out that there are 19 gold medals , 12 silver medals , 17 b ronze me dals, three world championships, and one Olympic gold medal in his repertoire. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate that with my athletic ability I’ve counseled Pierre on all matters of bobsledding including the use of spandex outfits. It worked out much better on him than it did on me.

I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and through you to the Hou se a v ery special l ady. O f course , Mr. Speaker, they say that behind every successful politician is a v ery surprised wife, none more than mine. I think I would say on behalf of all members of the Assembly that our spouses allow us to do this, and I would like to publicly thank and introduce my beautiful wife, Veronica, and her brother Pierre Lueders. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Mr. McFarland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you someone who when I looked up in the gallery I didn’t ex pect to s ee, Mr. Chr is Schonbrun f rom Lethbridge, Alberta. Chris is the manager of the Lethbridge Housing Authority. He grew up around Iron Springs and Picture Butte. His wife, April, is an RN at Lethbridge regional, and he’s been a good friend for quite a while. Welcom e, Chris, a nd please r eceive th e warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Mr.

Steven Brodie. Steven i s a key comm unicator f or the McNa lly sc hool council, where his daughter attends school, and in addition he is the chair of the Holyrood school council, where his son attends school. Steven is a passionate public school advocate, and I will be tabling his submission to the Commission on Learning later this afternoon. I ask you all to join me in welcoming Steven Brodie. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

It’s my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and t hrough you to all members of the Assembly once again a parent from Windsor Park school who is observing the proceedings here regularly on behalf of a whole set of parents and of parent education advocacy groups. She’s in the members’ gallery. Her name i s Melanie Shapi ro, and I ask you to gi ve her a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank you ver y much, M r. Sp eaker. I’ve go t two introductions today.

I ’m pleased to introduce to you an d through you to members of the Assembly 25 grade 6 students, bright boys and girls from Our Lady of Mount Carmel school, which is located in my constituency. They ’re acc ompanied by Mrs. Nicol e Cunningham and two student teachers, Dean Carter and Jodi Walker. All of them are seated in the southeast corner of the public gallery. I would now request t hem to ple ase rise and rece ive the w arm welcome of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker , it’s my pleasure t o introduce the second se t of visitors, who are parents from Strathcona Nursery School, located at King Edward school.

They are very concerned about the drastic rent increase for their nursery school that they see as a direct result of the provincial gove rnment’s underfunding of educat ion. They are Shauna Bevan-Stewart, Jill Cerezke, Kirsten Goa, David Goa, Talia Goa, Theod ore Goa, Nei l Robinson, Li sa Puchyr, Nikki M cGill, Krista Wintoniak, Sandy Marcynuk, Susan Hagen, Shawn Robinson, Madeleine Ani. I suspect that they may be sitting on both sides of the House. I w ill ask t hem to ple ase rise and rece ive the w arm welcome of the Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question.

T he hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

750 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 Lobbyist Registry Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Since 1996 when the Official Opposition introduc ed Bill 22 3, we ’ve been asking t he government to implement a list of those persons and organizations who lobby the government. Albe rtans continua lly get th e sam e response as was given by the Minister of Government Services in November 2001 when he said that such registries are strictly public relations exercises.

However, this week Albertans have learned of the lobbying by bi g to bacco ag ainst ef forts to c lamp dow n on smoking and Tory country club soirees paid for by corporations and special-interest groups. My questions are to the Premier. Will this government comm it to adopting the Albe rta Libe ral p lan for a transparent list of people and organizations who lobby the govern- ment? Mr. Klein: Well, first of a ll, Mr.

Speak er, I would l ike the hon. member to stand up in this House, be hones t, and mention and say out loud for all to hear about this great lobbying effort, this country club soiree, as she talks about: the dates, the times, who was there. Give us the evidence. Don’t come out with this vicious, malicious, false innuendo. Mr.

Speaker, relative to tobacc o industry ties, I didn’t read t he story, but I was asked yesterday by the media if I had been lobbied by Rod Love, who, as you all know, used to be my chief of staff, and Hal Danchilla, who used to work for the government as an executive assistant, now wor king as private consultants. I can s ay with all honesty that I have never been lobbied by Rod Love, Hal Danchilla, or anyone else representing tobacco companies. Never, never, never.

For this hon. member to stand up and imply, to make the implica- tion, the insinuation that we’re subjected to lobbying by these people is shameful, and she ought to apologize. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Given that this gover nment’s Tory cousins under Brian Mulroney established a lobbyist list, what is this government afraid of? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we don’t need a lobbyis t list. We don’t need a lobbyist list. We don’t care who approaches the L iberals. They have their groups of pe ople, like the Parkland Institute, this new Riverv iew sc hool foundation.

They’re in the bus iness of lobbying and pressi ng those L iberal m embers to bring f orward matters that concern them as constituents, and that’s fair. That’s fair. That’s what should be done. There was also a story in the new spaper, I understan d, about MLAs attending receptions. Well, I would remind the members of the Liberal Party that they are invited to many of these receptions as well. And you know what? I’ve never seen them refuse a free lunch or a free reception, you know. But I can tell you that these recep- tions – I’ll go back to last week.

There was one sponsored by t he Canadian Diabetes foundation, a nonprofit org anization. At the same time there was one sponsored by Bell Telephone. Mr. Speaker, this evening , I understa nd, there’s a recept ion spon sored by the Chambers of Commerce. Nothing w rong with that. I me et in my office with numerous people relative to numerous issues, f rom nonprofit organizations to corporate interests to charitable organiza- tions to groups that want legislative changes, and they also meet with these people.

So to stand up and be as – I can’t use the word “hypocritical” – sanctim onious as they are is, t o say t he least, dishonest. Ms Blakeman: Given that it is a requirement that donors to political parties are listed in public documents, why a ren’t paid lobbyists made public through a lobbyist list? Mr. Klein: Paid lobbyists? We don’t have paid lobbyists. This is not the United States, where lobbyists register. We have numerous consultants who represent various companies and nonprofit organi- zations and other organizations.

Plus, some organizations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Pembina Institute, the Parkland Institute have their own people in-house who approach government, well, pretty much all the time on numerous issues. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with it. If she’s talking about and alluding to the people who might want to host a reception, what they do is they register. Fine. Then they hold the reception anyway. So big deal. What’s the big deal about it?

Access to Government Ms Blakeman: In 1997 the then MP for Edmonton Southwest, now the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, was quoted as saying: a few years ago many people thought the government of Alberta was run from the 19th hole of the Mayfair club. He also argued for a lobbyist registry and stated: for every yin there is a yang. My first question is to the Minister of Learning. Do parent groups r equesting more funding from this government have to buy access by holding feasts at country clubs? Dr. Oberg: Mr.

Speaker, that’s quite a revolting question and really doesn’t deserve an answer, but I will say that tomorrow afternoon I’m actually meeting with 10 different parent councils. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. My next question is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Will AISH recipients be more successful at getting a cost-of-living increase by holding soirees at country clubs? [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor. Mr. Du nford: I don’t think tha t would be t he way for AI SH stakeholders to go about it.

I think the more proper way is some- thing that happened just re cently. Mr. Speak er, you m ight be interested in this, as hon. members might be interested as well. I was asked to attend – I think they had coffee, but I don’t drink coffee, so I’m not sure what else was there besides water. I was invited to go over to the Inn on 7th, which is a local establishment here in the city. Actually, I used to liv e there. I thought it w as kind of country clubbish until, of course, the television cameras went in and looked at the room I had. Then that took care of any country club attitude there.

There is a group that is informally put together called the Alberta Disabilities Forum. They asked me if as minister I would go over and talk about the current status of AISH and what we saw in the future. I was glad to g o over ther e and m eet wi th t hem and say: look; I’m very concerned – I’m very concerned – about the sustainability of AISH. An Hon. Member: They want them to register. Mr. Dunford: Well, you know, I think that’s what they do. If I’m hearing the hon. me mber correctly, they w ould want a ll of these

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 751 people that have w orked their hearts out for the people that they represent – they’re some of the nicest groups of people that I’ve ever met with. They were sincere about their issue. The y poured their heart out to me, Mr. Speake r, about how they f elt about this particular situation. I was very glad to go and meet with them, and I would meet with them again if they gave me the opportunity. As a matter of fact, I’ve indicated to them that after we have the budget on April 8, they’re going to be one of the first groups that I go back to.

So I think that if y ou make a repres entation to a m inister or a group of ministers in Alberta, we’re going to respond. We’re open, we’re transparent, we care about these issu es, and we’re going to meet with these people. The Speaker: The hon. the Premier to supplement. Mr. Klein: To supplement, Mr. Speaker. I find this line of question- ing outrageous, inappropriate, improper to say the least. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment talked a bout mee ting wit h a group conc erned about A ISH payments.

I can te ll you tha t eve ry M LA in t his caucus , every minister in this caucus meets with people in the back of fire halls, at curling rinks, yes, at country golf courses, and occasionally at the Mayfair Golf & Countr y Club, a s do the Li berals – I’ve seen the Liberals golf there from tim e to time; you can’t tell me they don’t socialize at the 19th hole – at cattle sales, you name it. Our MLAs are there listening to people and taking under serious consideration their concerns.

In other words, they don’t become so compelled and so obsessed with the dome; they get out and they talk to constituents in a number of environments. That’s why we have 74 and they only have seven. Ms Blakeman: Well, again to the Prem ier. Low -income seniors haven’t wined and dined this gov ernment. Is that why they have seen much-needed programs cut back over the last decade? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, again, this line of questioning is malicious, it’s false, it’s misleading, it’s improper, and it’s insulting to seniors’ groups. Any seniors’ group who wants to meet can meet with either me or the hon.

Minister of Seniors or any other MLA or any other minister. To imply that these seniors or any other group has to hold a lavish dinner at a country club is so ridiculous, so wrong, so false, so misleading that t his hon. me mber should have th e courtesy to stand up and apologize. She should s tand up and apolo gize, but I don’t expect that she will. 1:50 The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Energy Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every month, as a result of energy deregulation, the Progre ssive Conservative government continues to dip their han d into the pock ets and into t he purses of Alberta consumers because of the expensive deregulation policies that have led to the energy scandals. Now, I would like to publicly lobby on behalf of Albertans for affordable energy costs. My first question is to the Premier. Given that the Prem ier promised that when the temperature goes up this spring, natural gas prices would go down, why are Albertans still faced with natural gas prices for the month of April that average $8.75 a gigajoule? Mr.

Klein: Mr. Speaker, it’s a simple matter of economics. March’s bill is usually recorded in April. That’s the way it is. You know, when I pay m y cabl e, when I pay m y ele ctricity, I pay what I consumed last month in the next month. And I didn’t say that when the temperature goes down, the prices go up. An Hon. Member: That’s because it’s obvious. Mr. Klein: No. I said that when the temperature goes up, consump- tion comes down. What I did say is that when the temperature is up, the Liberal rhetoric is down, and when the temperature is down, the Liberal rhetoric is up. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: why, given that utility bill add-ons were supposed to b e a tem porary part of deregulation, do Albertans have to pay now nearly $30 million worth of add-ons on their April natural gas bills? Explain that. Mr. Klein: Yes, I can explain it, and I’ll have the hon. Minister of Energy give a more detailed explanation, Mr. Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands knows this because not only was he on city council, he was a member of the EPCOR board.

He knows full well that billing processes in a regulated environment and in a deregulated environment, in any environment – those billing charges, all of the add-ons were included in the overall price, an d people were not given a breakdown. People simply were not given a breakdown, and that was probably company policy. If it wasn’t, perhaps the hon. member can stand up an d explain the situation as it was when he was on the board. Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s very difficult to explain in cold, logical terms because of the absolute confusion and mix-up between gas and electricity that the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar has put forw ard, the abs olute confus ion and mis information campaign from the Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

In fact, the confusion that these two members generate is go ing to cost the taxpayers money because we’re going to have to undertake a consumer education program that clearly outlines the choices Albertans have and not to be misled by misinformation, ramblings in the media, and totally inaccurate statements about what deregula- tion is all about. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: given that the confusion and frustration by consumers is caused by the failure of electricity and natural gas energy deregulation, will the Premier now adm it t hat th e Progres sive Conser vative’s energy deregulation boondoggle tr anslates into high hom e heating costs year-round for Alberta consumers? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the only confusion that has been created has been created by the Liberals through their campaign of misinformation.

Relative to natural gas prices it stands to reaso n – and any elementary school student, any grade 2, 3, 4 student can understand – that whe n t he price of a commodity g oes up, you pay more, whether it’s sugar or coffee or flour or potatoes or gas or electricity or wheat or barley. When the price of a commodity goes up, you pay more. And the price of gas is up.

752 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Calgary Board of Education Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. School superintendents serve two maste rs, their elec ted school boa rds and the Mi nister of Learning, and this m inister keeps superintendents on a very, very short l eash. A letter tha t can only be descri bed as gov ernment propaganda is being sent to parents next month in school newsletters by the superint endent of t he Calga ry board of edu cation.

The superintendent’s letter all but tells parents to zip it and stop criticiz- ing the Tory government’s education funding policies. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. What role did the minister or any of his offi cials play in the decisi on to send out this governm ent propaganda to Calga ry parents in the f orm of a superinte ndent’s letter? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m sincerely very happy tha t that ho n. me mber chose to ask me this question today.

The let ter in quest ion is a let ter that w as put out by th e superintendent of Calgary public schools. I believe it was at the start of this week or the end of last week. It was completely unsolicited. It is actually a letter that is entitled Collaboration with Government. It’s my understanding tha t most Albertans actuall y wa nt their governments, their school boards, thei r municipa l coun cils to collaborate and work together. This is an excellent letter. He chose to put it out in his superintend ent’s statement. He does it once a month. He has d one it in h is newsletter.

He has done it once a month for the last 25 or 30 years in Calgary public. If I may, this is the ty pe of letter it is, and I will rea d th e last paragraph, which sums it up. I am a very strong supporter of teachers, support staff, parents and the commun ity with res pect to t heir m assive contri butions t o student learning. Once in a while, would it not also be good for us to ac knowledge that Al berta L earning is a m ajor pl ayer in th e business of public education? The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this . . . The Speaker: I’m sorry; I’ve already recognized the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: why is it okay for a superintendent to send progovernment propaganda to parents, but it’s not okay for the Edmonton public school board to send a letter to parents outlining the consequences of government- imposed funding shortfalls? Why the double standard, Mr. Minis- ter? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, as I sa id, this is a regular letter that the school superintendent sends out once a month. Edmonton public has sent out letters to their public. I was not the one who ra ised this a s an issue . It’s an excellent letter.

It was tabled in this Legislature, which shows the benefit of it that is coming from Calgary public. Again, what the superinten- dent is simply saying is: hey, you know, Alberta Learning does some pretty good stuff too. I would ask the Premier to supplement as well. Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, again there seems to be a little bit of mischievousness going on here. The ND opposition has no problem when the ATA through teachers in any public school system sends home information. They have no problems whatsoever. They say that’s good. As a matter o f fact, they table those letters in the Legislature.

They table numerous letters in the Legislature that are negative toward public education. But when some member of our caucus, t he hon. Mem ber for C algary-Shaw, ta bles a le tter, one letter, that says quite simply, I want to take a rather different line in this newsletter and say a few words i n suppor t of our prov incial gover nment – directing my comments specifically to the education system, this coming from the superintendent of schools in Calgary, they get bent out of shape. Now, what is wrong? Are they saying that this superintendent is wrong, that he is dishonest, that he’s not conc erned?

Is that what they’re saying? If they’re saying that or implying that, then stand up and say so. Are they saying that this letter is wrong, that it’s wrong to collaborate with government? Then stand up and say so. Are they saying that it’s only right to collaborate with the NDs and strategize with the NDs and to become absorbed with their socialist policies? That’s okay. But when s omeone says something good about the government, oh, God, you can’t say that. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary to the minister: why is the minister attempting to silence parents by sending an intimida ting lette r from a sch ool sup erintendent con taining a subtle warning to not criticize his department and his Tory govern- ment? Dr. Oberg: Mr.

Speaker, you know, this is the second time today I’ve found a ques tion extr emely revolting, b ut this o ne in itse lf, where he said that we actually wrote this letter – we have a superin- tendent of the largest school district in Alberta who actually is saying that the 3 and a half billion dollars or $4 billion that goes to public education in Alberta is spent well, is doing g ood th ings, that our students are w ell educ ated, that we have an e xcellent learning system, that we spend more money on education than anyone in the country.

This letter is quite si mply a letter that states to us, to the government of Alberta, to the people of Alberta that we have a good system and that we should recognize it. I’m personally very insulted when this hon. member says that I wrote this l etter. It’s extremely dishonest of the hon. member to say that. The Speaker: I am unaware that this letter in quest ion has been tabled, so perhaps at the appropriate time this afternoon it would be tabled. The hon. Member for Dunvegan, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Deer and Elk Population Mr. Goudr eau: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Again high numbers of dee r and elk are posing havoc in pa rts of rural Alberta . This is espe cially evident in m y consti tuency of Dunvegan, where herds of 50 to well over a hundred a re roaming around. Not only are they getti ng into stacked hay and other feedstocks, but they are the cause of many vehicle acciden ts. We have deer trapped in ice on farmers’ aeration systems and dugouts. We are losing hay and silage piles. Snowed-under crops are being devastated, and fences are being damaged.

Can the minister tell us what is being done about this issue?

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 753 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal : Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. That’s an excellent question. Definitely there are a high number of deer and elk in Alberta, and we continue, of course, to monitor the situation very closely. You know, it’s interesting to note that the deer population h as increased by 50 percent since 1991. Dr. Taylor: How much, Mike? Mr. Cardinal: Fifty percent since 1991, so it’s a real challenge. Mr. Speaker, there were an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 accidents last year between animals and motor vehicles.

Unfortunately, there were three fatalities, so we do have a challenge. We do have a plan to deal with th is specif ic situati on, Mr. Speaker. Number one, of course, is to increase the hunting; number two, lengthening the white-tailed deer season from one week to one month in 15 wildlife management zones; additional supplementary licences for white-tailed deer also will be available in certain areas; and of course we are also deve loping two additional management zones in order to deal with that specific problem. We are looking at better signage. We’ll be working very closely with Transportation in some areas.

We may have to look at reduced speed limits. The other area is the habit of moose and deer crossing roads in certain areas. We need to lo ok at how the landscape is devel oped. It’s definitely a challenge. The other problem we have is deer and elk and moose have become urbanized and they’ve become reasonably tame. That creates yet a further challenge for our government. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is for the same minister. How can rural Albertans learn about what they can do to prevent problems with deer and elk? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Cardinal: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are working, of course, very closely with other government agencies and stakeholders in order to work towards preventing wildlife damage to certain crops. In fact, we do help agr icultural pr oducers now to preve nt damag e in a number of ways through our ungulate damage prevention program, for example. The other is that staff works very closely with a farmer in relation to a store of feed and also the ability to develop fencing in some areas. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. There are programs available, as th e hon . minister indicated, to compe nsate some of our Alberta producers and to compensate for some of the damages that they’re experiencing from deer and elk, but can these programs be enhanced to cover losses to stacked hay, the damaged fences, and the damaged buildings? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. There is a program in place to cover losses for stacked hay.

That program is administered by Agriculture Financial Services, and it’s been in existence for about two years. Producers should contact their local Ag Financial S ervices office to see if indee d their situa tion meets their guidelines. The guidelines primarily are on stacked and stored hay, and it has t o be sta cked at a site that ’s readily accessible for feeding or transport. Today there are no programs for dam aged fences and buildings, and we encourage producers to contact their private insurance carrier.

Those pr oducers do ca rry insurance on their farm, which is outside of our insurance programs, and those programs could possibly compensate for stacked and fenced hay. The Speak er: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Education Funding Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Deficit budgeting was not the answer to provincial financing of prog rams nor is it the a nswer to school board fina ncing. De spite claims of astronomical fundi ng increases the fac t is that the buying power of school boards has remained relatively unchanged for the last 10 yea rs.

My first question is to the Prem ier. Why is going i nto debt ill egal for the government but sanctioned for Alberta’s two largest school boards? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, to insinuate or to imply in any way, shape, or form that it is sanctioned is absolutely wrong – absolutely wrong. We are not sanctioning it. We are saying as a last-ditch measure that if school boards need to, absolutely need to, they can run a deficit for three years, but they must pay it back. They must achieve a balanced budget.

This is a case that may or may not come about because, as I understand it, the budget hasn’t been tabled yet, but it is one of the options that is bei ng explore d by the Mi nister of Learn ing an d people in his department. We don’t know if that last-ditch, that emergency measure will have to be taken. I’ll have the hon. minister respond. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member raises two points.

About the potential deficit of Edmonton public, well, first of all, the reason that we are allowing them to carry it over for three years is because it has come about so late in the year, we do not want them to pe nalize students, to do som e things tha t aren’t necessarily that good right now. We’re giving them three years to amortize their deficit. The other issue that wa s raised was the i ssue of t he deficit in Calgary public. The hon. member has been yelling across the way. Well, Mr. Speaker, Calgary public has done an extremely fine job of paying back their deficit.

As you know, this deficit has been going on for about five years, and if you talk about sanctioning, I would say that we did absolutely the opposite of sanctioning it and that we actually fired the board. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. My second question is to the Minister of Learning. Given that government figures show that K to 12 grants when adjusted for enrollment and for inflation remain at 1992 levels, how are boards expected to pay f or the arbitrated teachers’ settle- ment? 2:10 Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, since 1995 the funding to ed ucation has gone up 46 percent.

E nrollment during that time has gone up 6 percent. Las t yea r the enrollm ent increa se in Al berta w as .25 percent, which is two and a half new stude nts for e very thousand students in the system. The Speaker: The hon. member.

754 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 Dr. Massey: Thank you. My third question is to the same minister. When will the ministe r p ut i n place an allocation formula that accurately reflects the costs of running a school? Dr. Oberg: September 1. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Commercial and Sportfishing Industries Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past few months I have received concerned inquiries from the commercial fishing operators about the progress of the rationalization program, which is aimed at reducing the size of the c ommercial f ishing business in the province. Since the commercial fi shing industry brings in millions of dollar s annua lly and is a valuable part of my constituency and the provincial rural economy and represents an important part of r ural life , my que stion is to the Mi nister of Sustainable Resource Development.

What is the progress of the rationalization program , and will it enable small operators t o continue to operate? Mr. Cardinal: That’s a very good question and timely, again, Mr. Speaker. We hav e in fac t just modi fied our prog ram, and we’ll continue monitoring, of course, very closely the modifications. The overall plan, I’ve always said, is to reduce the number of commercial fishermen in Alberta and the number of nets they work with.

In response to some concerns recently brought forward by fellow MLAs in relation to the small commercial fisher operators, we have made some changes now so the sm aller operat ors can cont inue to remain in the industry . In fac t, we w ill now per mit the small operators who have fewer than four net p rivileges to rene w their zone licences . . . Dr. Taylor: How many? Mr. Cardinal: Four net privileges. . . . beyond April 1, 2005, as long as they pay the new licensing fee of $500. The transfer options will still be restricted for those small operators.

In the ove rall rationalization program over 300 individual companies have applied now seeking compensation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. D anyluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My f irst supplemental, another question to th e sa me minister: how does this comm ercial fishing rationalization contribute to the future of ou r overall fisheries? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speak er, l ike I sa id earlie r, it’s a v ery, very important industry. The commercial fishing industry is about a $5 million industry in Alberta and continues to diversify certain family operations across the province.

On the other hand, the sportfishing industry is a $350 million industry in Alberta, so it’s a large, large industry. We have less than a thousand lakes, I believe, that do have fish that sport and commercial fishermen can access. That is why we want to reduce t he 800 comm ercial fishermen down to about 200 and reduce the yardage they have from 37,000 100-yard nets down to about 18,000 so that we c an continue monitoring the industry.

We are continuing, of course, with the overall plan to try and find the dollars nece ssary, and I’ll be working very closely with the Treasury Board and al so the Financ e minister to try and get the dollars that are required to r educe that particular compens ation program in the next three or four years. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Da nyluk: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the Minister of Econom ic Development.

S ince the future of our commercial and sportfishing industries is so prominent in the ec onomics of our rural com munities, in what w ays is our government promoting these industries? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Norris: Thank you very much, Mr. Spea ker. At the outset I would agree with the hon. member’s prem ise. Sportfishing an d commercial fishing are remarkable industries, and Alberta is blessed with some of the most pristine and beautiful lakes and rivers to fish in. Obviously , the Bow River comes to mind. A lot of nor thern Alberta is blessed with remarkable sportfishing.

There are also some of the best g uided tour opera tors in North A merica that operate in Alberta. So as a result of that, our department has recognized this as an outstanding tourism opportunity and has worked very closely with the industry to promote that through our call centre and our web sites. With re gard to aquaculture, I know t hat the hon.

Mini ster of Agriculture, Food and Rur al Deve lopment ha s a ver y strong program, but I think I would close by saying to the hon. member that any time there’s an opportunity to promote any industry in Alberta, to get the m essage out about the be auty a nd the skill s and the resources that we have her e, our depart ment ta kes it a s a vit al concern and will continue to work with the hon. member, as we have in the past, in Lac L a Biche-St. Paul and continue spreading the message. Net Metering of Electricity Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Energy minister said in question period t hat net meteri ng was a go od s uggestion that he would be willi ng to unde rtake, but just six days ago the Energy minister helped to defeat an opposition amendment that would have enshrined net me tering in l egislation. My f irst question is to the Premier. Given the Energy minister’s flip-flop, which is it: do you support net metering or not? Mr. Klein: Net metering. Fishing nets? No. You know what? I thought I knew it all, but I don’t.

I don’t know what net metering is, so I can’t answer your q uestion, but I’m sure that one of our very wise ministers knows. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly the truth. This government does not know it all. Mr. MacDonald: We know that. Mr. Smith: So when this government sees a suggestion that is put forward in ques tion period without some sort of cheap repl y like we’ve just heard from the opposite side we’re prepared to take that suggestion into the policy process. It’s a reasonable thing to do, it’s an honest thing to do, and it’s one we can do from time to time.

Frankly, because of the rarity of it, I guess that’s why it’s so difficult to integrate completely. Ms Carlson: Well, M r. Speaker, given that this is hardly a rare

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 755 concept since 30 pe rcent of the states and five of the provinces in Canada subscribe to net metering and the Energy minister has had since last week to begin to understand it, does he understan d now that in order to allow net metering in this province, we have to see an amendment to the utilities act? Mr. Smith: Mr. S peaker, when I said that it was a ra rity, I was referring to the numbe r of good s uggestions that com e from the Liberal opposition. Mr. Speaker, we have

an act before the House that is in debate, so I don’t want to infringe upon that rule, but as I said in what I think was a feeling of co-operation and bonhomie amongst the House, we’ll certainly look at it. But to c ontinue to be c riticized f or not doing something in six days is not a good start. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy, then, explain to us: if he thinks this is such a good idea now, why did he stand up in this Assembly and speak against the amendment and urge all of his colleagues to not support it? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr.

Spea ker, it’s important for me to tha nk all colleagues who voted against that amendment and who have been supportive of Bill 3 to get it to this stage. The process of introducing something into revie w and leg islation is, as the m ember knows, a process of policy development. Now, in the two and a half years of consultation that Bill 3 took to get it to where it is today, the words “net metering” wer e not br ought up by s takeholders, were not introduced into the mix, nor was analysis asked for.

It has been on the initiative o f the department, at my request, that we have exam- ined the me tering, wireless metering and interval metering, that’s been taking place in Puget Sound, and if the re’s information with respect to making Alberta an even better competitive marketplace, we’d be more than pleased to examine it in the full breadth of the policy process. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The energy industry is a critical component of Albe rta’s economy, providing trem endous opportunities for all Albertans. Rece ntly som e mem bers of t he Organization of the Petr oleum Exporting Co untries, OPEC, have suggested that Alberta attend a future meeting of that organization. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Can the minister indicate what Alberta’s position is in attending a future meeting of OPEC? 2:20 Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that’s a good question, and it’s a particu- larly good question because w e funct ion in a globa l mark et. Albertans who sell their oil se ll it at w orld prices .

We do not establish a price. We are price takers. So at any opportunity that we have to broaden our competitive knowledge, to make a larger bank of intellectual knowledge that we have so that we can bet ter serve Albertans, who since 1930 have owned this resource, we certainly intend to do so . We have found that it’s important for Alber ta to reach out on these matters because o f the notoriously inept and notoriously poor energy policy t hat continues to ema nate from Ottawa. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is again to the Minister of Energy.

What is Alberta’s policy or position with regard to joining OPEC? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker , I can re member the Rhin oceros Party actually running on a platform of joining a number of countries together who had snow every year, and they would then export the snow so they’d have a continually warm climate, and that organiza- tion was to be known as SnowPEC. Mr. Speaker , with re spect to OPEC, OPEC is a collection of countries that run their oil production through state oil companies. Alberta does not do that.

The mechanism that we have for orderly development and compe tition of c apital dollars is our royal ty devices. Those royalty devices have served us well over the last 50- plus years. We will continue to do that. So Alberta will not look at joining OPEC as a particular entity, nor would we recommend it to the government of Canada. But we feel that on the supply side of oil Canada is the 10th la rgest produc ing country . We think there’s much to be gained from that as wel l as from participating with the International Energy Agency, which works on the demand side, so that we can gauge supply and demand.

For example, and just to finish of f, Mr. Spea ker, there is non- Kyoto oil flowing into eastern Canada that gets refined and sold as gasoline, and in fact the Kyoto question turns into punishing those who produce but letting those who refine and sell do nothing. So it’s a matter of examination. Medical Officers of Health Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, we’ve known for a long time that West Nile virus is coming to Alberta. It’s killed 12 people and infected up to a thousand more i n Onta rio and has l eft at least one Albertan in hospital for months.

Given that mosquito season is soon upon us, Albertans will be watching this issue closely. One can only imagine the impact of the disease on summer activities like camping, angling, hiking, golfing, and so on. To the Minister of Economic Develop- ment: has any analysis been done on the potential cost to Alberta’s tourism industry from an outbreak of West Nile virus? Mr. Norris: Well, clearly, Mr. Speaker, the West Nile virus is a concern. It’s not my depar tment’s responsibility to kn ow if a nd when it’s coming, so I’m going to ask the hon.

Min ister of Health and Wellness to maybe offer comment about what his department is doing. I would like to offer at the outset that any threat to tourism in any way, shape, or form, including economic, health, or otherwise, is of vital concern to us, and we will do something about it if and when that threat arrives. But I would point out that that’s a big if. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Ta ft: Thanks, Mr. Speak er.

To the Minister of Health a nd Wellness then: given that a publ ic health warning from a medical officer of health a bout an outbreak of Wes t Nile vi rus could devastate the local tourism industry, what pre cautions has the minister taken to protect medical officers of health from political or economic interference? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speake r, we are wor king ve ry clos ely w ith our medical officers of health with respect to two serious issues, the first one being We st Nile virus, and the second one, perhaps an even more critical one, is the issue of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS.

In both cases we are working with our medical officers of health to indicate to them what the best advice is that we have in our

756 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 monitoring of the situation. They are aware and have disseminated information to physicians throughout the p rovince to look for symptoms of both of these diseases, which can be very, very serious. So, Mr. Speaker, medical officers of health do have the authority to raise the issue should it become a legitimate one. We do know that there are at least two cases of West Nile virus that have appeared in human beings here in this province. In both cases, to the best of our information, they were contracted while outside of the province of Alberta.

We ar e continuing t o monitor wi th the assi stance of other ministries the appearance of West Nile virus in animals, particularly birds and horses. We will work with medical officers of health and other public h ealth officials to ensur e that appropr iate measures are taken to d o our best to (

a) have a public educa tion program on how to avoid getting bitten in the first place and (

b) how to recognize the symptoms should they appear in an individual so that appropriate medical attention can be given to such individuals. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thanks. That’s all very good, but to the same minister: given that Dr. D avid Swann’s firing last f all proves that medical officers of health face strong political pressures, will the government take steps in regulations or legislation to guarantee the job security of medical officers of health? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, you know, let’s look at medical officers of health throughout the p rovince.

The y have not been shy about indicating issues that are legitimate issues for discussion, but they are not hired by the provinc e of A lberta. T hey are employees of regional health author ities. So a s is the case w ith chief executive officers of reg ional health authorities, wi th medic al off icers of health, those types of questions are more appropriately directed to the employer. In this case, t he employer is not the province of Alberta. The employer is regional health authorities. I can tell you that this system w orks very, very well throughout the province . People like Dr.

Predy here in the c ity of Edmont on are highl y respected health officials, and I think that we s hould co ntinue to allow medical officers of health to report and be accountable to the people who hire them, which are the regional health authorities. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Education Funding (continued) Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In the f ace of impending school closures, teacher layoffs, and growing class sizes in Edmonton public schools the dy namic Edmonton Tory caucus swung into action.

In a bold move they have apparently convinced the Minister of Learning to allow Edmonton public school board to run a deficit. On the other hand, when the Calgary board had special requirements as a re sult of the teacher s’ settlement, they g ot $7 million in cash. Why is the minister going to allow EPS to go into deficit when this government has made g overnment debt a dirt y word in this province? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Spea ker. W ell, the m ain reason is because we do not want to penalize students. It’s close to the end of their fiscal year.

We have just finished or are very close to finishing our audit. I hope to have the announcement of our audit the week after next. We’re saying that if they are running a deficit because of some mistakes that have been made, we will give them three years to pay it back, but still at this point in time that is a big if because we do not know if indeed they are running a deficit. As soon as the audit is in, I’ll be able to tell the Assembly more. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, isn’t the decision to allow school board deficits really just an admission that government funding for schools in this province is inadequate? Dr.

Oberg: No. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Since sc hool boards get their money from the gove rnment e ither by grants or property tax and given that EPS is already predicting a large deficit for the following year and given that the government is expected to have another large surplus this year, why not just raise the grant now so that no public school board deficit is needed? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the budget is coming out on April 8, and I do not want to usurp what is in the budget.

We are talking about on e school boar d out of approx imately 64 or 65 different school boards around the provin ce, and a lot of them are doing well. Th ere are s ome that are in a reasonably diffic ult situation, but a lot of them are doing very w ell. A lot of them are adjusting, and we fully hope and we fully expect that they will not run a deficit. In this particular circumstance we hav e found it prudent to allow them to carry that def icit over three years. Obvi- ously, if they want to pay it back sooner, they certainly can. 2:30head : Recognit ions The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Bob Clark Mr. Marz: Thank you, M r. Speaker. I rise today to recognize a constituent from Carstairs who has distinguished himself through his many contributions to this province and to his community. Bob Clark was first elected to this Legislative Assembly in 1960 and served to 1981 as MLA, minister of y outh, minister of educa- tion, and Lea der of the Offi cial Opposi tion. In addi tion to a consulting business he also held the position of board member and chairman of the A lberta Special Waste Management Corporation.

Bob also became Alberta’s f irst Ethics Commissioner and first Privacy Commissioner, and he certainly left his mark on those two departments. However, Bob’s greatest love after his w ife, Norma, and their family is hockey. His name is synonymous with the Olds Grizzlies junior hockey team, which Bob managed for many years, and he also served as chairman of the Alberta Junior Hockey League. I was honoure d l ast m onth to present Bob with the Queen’s golden jubilee medal in recognition of all Bob’s accomplishments and contributions, which are too numerous to mention in the time allotted here.

So congratulations, Bob, from all of us, and best wishes on your retirement. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Support for Americans Ms DeLong: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. I rise to recognize Alberta

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 757 hockey fans and a couple of events which occurred in Alberta on the weekend. O n Saturday night I had t he pleasure of atte nding the Calgary Flames game in Calgary. I’ve never been so proud to be an Albertan as when the national anthem of the United States was sung. That group of about 18,000 Albertans cheered loudly and sang along with the American national anthem. I understand that the very same thing occurred on Sunday night in Edmonton at the Oilers game. Just like within our society fans at those games were divided on this war.

This is why I am so proud: regardless of their position they chose to honour our friend and ally to the south by showing the true strength of that friendship. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Davis Cup Tennis Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to tell everyone about the D avis Cup e vent which is being held in Calgary this April 4 to 6, hosted by Tennis Canada. Now, the Davis Cup eve nt i s very fam ous, having been in existence since 1900, and it’s played in hundreds of countries around the world by all levels of players.

The event in Calgary will be one of many happening around the globe over the course of the weekend, and fans attending not just from Calgary but, in fact, from across the province and elsewhere will be able to really enjoy some top-notch tennis matches featuring, for example, Canada vers us Peru in the second round. Of course, w e’re helping to host this ev ent through the Alberta lottery fund, which is a proud sponsor of the Davis Cup, contributing $25,000 towards that event.

So we can take pride as a province and especially us Calga rians for our role in host ing t his globally recognized event, and I would certainly encourage people to take this opportunity to get out and watch a few games if they can. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. World Theatre Day Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. S peaker. Tomor row, March 27, is World Theatre Day. This international day is proposed by the International Theatre Institute and sponsored by UNESCO.

World Theatre Day seeks to promote exchange of knowledge and practice in the domain of the performing arts, to stimulate creation between theatre pe ople, to ma ke public opin ion aware of the necessity of taking artistic creation into consideration, to deepen mutual understanding to strengt hen peace and frie ndship am ong peoples.

As the Off icial Opposition critic for the a rts and an E dmonton MLA I’m supr emely proud of our theatre community, which includes but i s not limited to Az imuth, D ie-Nasty, Chimprov, the Citadel, Concrete, Electra, Fringe Theatre Adventures, Jagged Edge, Jubilations, Kill Your Television, the Mayfield dinner theatre, Northern Light, Oh Su sanna, Rapid Fire, Running With S cissors, Shadow, Studio, Teatro la Quindicina, Theatre Network, Theatre- sports, Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie, Walterdale, and Workshop West, all in Edmonton. So go to a pl ay this weekend, and help celebrate World Theatre Day. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Magrath Zeniths Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise today and recognize an outstanding achievement in high school for boys 4A basketball. Last week, March 20 through 22, 16 of the best 4A boys basketbal l teams in Alberta competed in the 4A provincial tournament at the Enm ax Centr e in Lethbr idge. The qualit y of players and co mpetition was out standing. I congratulate all w ho participated.

My sincere congratulations are extended to the Magrath Zeniths of Magrath, Alberta, who were successful in winning the tournament and being crowned provincial 4A champs in 2003. This culminated a great season of hard work and commitment by players and coaches. These players include Giovanni Uneddu, John Leishman, Cam Smith, Riley Sabey, Doug Mehew , Ryan Clark, Allen Tollestrup, Brett Harris, Derek Blackmer, T.J. Q uinton, Joe Schow , Shane Nishikawa, and coaches Phil Tollestrup and Mark Tollestrup. Mr. Speaker, again, m y sincere congratulations to this t eam and their community for their achievement. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Youth Forums Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, as ch air of the Youth Secretariat it has been my privilege to attend youth forums as they are being held in nine d ifferent regions throughout this provin ce. This morning I attended the youth forum at the Westerner exhibition grounds in Red Deer and spoke to more than 60 youths from the ages of 16 to 19 years. Some were on their spring break, and some were giving up classes for the day. They were all a highly energetic and motivated group.

They listened as I told them that we needed and welcomed their ideas and suggestions to help us solve some of our teen issues. We talked about youth issues such as addictions, crystal meth, youth crime, and youth employment. They were glad to hear about the changes in the Child Welfare Act and the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act. They were glad to know that we care about what they have to say. Each youth forum will compile and submit a report of their ideas and suggestions to the Youth Secretariat. We will review these reports and carefully consider the recommendations of our Alberta youth. Mr.

Speak er, I wo uld l ike to than k memb ers of the Youth Advisory Panel who have volunteered their time to help make these youth forums fun and informative. Thanks to the staff of Children’s Services and thanks to the youths themselves for their participation. If these youths at the forums are any indication of the future of this province, Alberta has a very bright and successful future indeed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Song for Peace Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A young constituent of mine, Quinn Gr undy, is studying grade 12 in India at an international school.

When new s of the w ar in Iraq r eached he r school, the students there were so moved that several of them got together to write a song about peace. These students are from Europe, Asia, and North America; in other words, they span much of the globe. Having written the song, t hey obtained instruments including a guitar, drums, and a violin and recorded it at a studio in India. They have now posted it on a web site for all the world to hear. Now, the

758 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 web address is so long there will be a link to that web site from my constituency web site, www.edmontonriverview.com. These are some of the leaders of the next generation of humanity, and I would like to recognize their commitment to building a world without war. Thank you. head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to stand and present a petition that’s in order, signed by nearly 1,000 citizens of Alberta saying: We are very concerned about the crisis in education.

Reductions in teaching staff, enlar ged class sizes or the elim ination o f any programs including music, special academic programs, and sports are all unacceptable ways to deal with the cost of education. We . . . petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Govern- ment of Alberta to increase funding for public education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I have two tablings, and these would be amendments on Bill 3 that we never had an opportunity to get to in committee, which is t he stage where we would introduce amendments, because of the time a llocation or closure motion that cam e forward. Both of these ar e very good, talking about other ne w ideas for th is government to be energy efficient and help consumers. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker. I’m pl eased to tab le five copies of a submission by Steven Brodie to the learning commission. The submission reflects Mr.

Brodie’s deep concern with education and runs to over 60 pages and deals with a whole variety of problems facing the education system and offers so me sound solutions. It’s with pleasure that I table this submission. 2:40 The Speaker: Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. I h ave fo ur t ablings to day. Three of them are expressing concerns over education. The first is addressed to the Min ister of Learning, as I sa y, raising concerns about funding for our children’s education. It’s from a Dr. Francis Landy.

The second is addressed to the Prem ier and t he Minister of Learning from Marcia Barker, saying that she’s concerned about the funding of public schools in Edmonton. The third is to t he Premier and the Minister of Learning from a Janet Haley, saying that she is very concerned about the state of learning and its impact on the weakening of the Alberta advantage. The fourth tabling addresses Bill 27 and is from a Denise Palmer, expressing displeasur e at t he introduction of Bill 27. “I am an Albertan . . . I’ve lived in this province with my husband for almost 30 years.” She’s a registered nurse.

She’s very unhappy with Bill 27. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner : Thank you v ery m uch, Mr. Spea ker. W ith your permission I’d like to table the ap propriate number of copies of a pamphlet that we received at the zone 2 and 3 board meetings, and it’s titled Public Education: The Right Answer. It outlines the past, the present, and the future of public education in the province. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got three tablings today.

The first one is a set of 49 letters written by parents of children at King Edward elementary school with a request to me to table these letters on their behalf. These letters are all expressing deep concern about the inadequate funding of public education and the negative impact that this underfunding has on their school. The second tabling, Mr. Speaker, is a letter from the board of the Strathcona nu rsery school outlining how this unde rfunding is negatively affecting activities at the King Edward school, associated with the Strathcona nursery school.

Their rents are going to go up by 700 percent, and th ey’re very concerned that it’ ll make their school unaffordable and unsustainable. The third tabling, Mr. Speaker, is a letter from a highly gifted and committed teach er at that nursery school. Her name is Heather Craig, and she makes compelling arguments why it is necessary for us all to work together to save schools such as this nursery school at King Edward school. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you ver y much, M r. Sp eaker. I have t wo tablings today.

The first i s a letter fr om Lind a Hughes, dated February 12, 2003, addressed to the Minister of Learning. She asks that her concerns be addressed and responded to in a timely manner, would like to know why MLAs’ salaries have gone up over the past 13 years, why the government does not hold education in its highest priority, and would like a redistribution of her tax dollars as per her attached letter. The second, Mr.

Speaker, is a letter from Heather Smith, president of the United Nurses of Alberta, to the Minister of He alth and Wellness, asking that the chair of the Provincial Health Authorities bargaining committee be fired for providing what she terms mislead- ing and erroneous information about the negotiations for a new collective agreement. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands on a point of order. Point of Order Clarification Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated yesterday in my point of order and perhaps inadequately, I continue to hear the Premier refer to me as a former board member.

Not that I take any offence from that directly, but the purpose seems to be to suggest that I have had some conflict of interest in respect of this matter. So I again would appeal to you and to the Premier to get the P remier’s facts straight with respect to my previous position, which did not include sitting on the board of EPCOR. The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader.

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 759 Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that was argued admirably yesterday. Nothing has really changed in the circumstance, and I think that what happened yesterday is exactly the same as what happened today. The Speaker: It appears to be more of a point of clarification than a point of order. Unfortunately, we do have this situation, and this contradiction does allow sometimes to have two different views of the same situation. That does cause a dilemma, n o doubt at all. Perhaps the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands might just want to emphatically put in writing to the hon. the Premier the facts with respect to whether or not he was a member of such a board. I have no idea, so I don’t know how I could rule on that.

But if the member says he was never a board member of the power company of the city of Edmonton – we’ve heard him say that he never was, and presum- ably that wil l be conve yed to a ll hon. mem bers, that the member never was a member of the board in question – then one should not suggest that he was. head : Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 3 Electric Utilities Act [Adjourned debate March 25: Mr. Hancock] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are now entering into the final stage on Bill 3. [some applause] While I hear some members who su pport the government position on Bill 3 applaud that particular perspective, it is not one that is sh ared by the Official Opposition. There is no doubt that this very substan tive bill has been rushed through this Assembly in a most speedy and untimely fashion, allowing for limited debate on the issues at hand. We think that is incorrect. In fact, the debate has been some very few hours by this opposition. Mrs. McClellan: Eight hours. Ms Carlson: The minister of agriculture says eight hours on Bill 3.

Have we had eight hours of debate so far on Bill 3? This is a ve ry interesting perspective, Mr. Speaker, because the government seems to feel that that is enough time to have brought in closure at committee on this particular bill. [interjection] It’s now renamed time a llocation, a s the m inister of agricult ure and the Government House Leader stated. However, it is a form of closure, and time allocation, when they bring it in, means that we have one hour of debate left in committee after some hours. [interjection] In this case the y’re indicating t hat it’s been clo se to eig ht hours of debate on this bill.

They have used the federal government’s example of bringing in time allocation and closure on bills as t heir good reasons for also being able to do it here. This is the only thing they seem to agree on with the federal government. So it’s monkey see, monkey do when it’s convenient for them; otherwise, they don’t like what the federal government does. I would like to remind them that when you scratch the surface of what this government proposes – first of all, they give you a picture that looks nice. Then y ou scratch the surface, and you find out it isn’t all that great, Mr. Speaker.

If we take a look at what happens at the federal level – we took a look at that list that the Government House Leader gave us and ra ndomly picked thr ee bills t hat the federal government had used time allocation on to see how long they let members at the federal level debate, and we found out something very interesting. It turns out that on the bill that had the least amount of hours of debate prior to time allocation – the one that we looked at was C-20, the Quebec Secession Act, the clarity bill. Before time allocation 15 ho urs and 15 minutes of debate were allowed as compared to about eig ht here.

T hen we ta ke a loo k at Bi ll C-36, amending the Criminal Code: before time allocation, 17 hours and 58 minut es of de bate. Bill C -49, An Ac t t o Implem ent Certa in Provisions of the Budg et: before time allocation, 22 hours and 4 4 minutes of debate. Bill C-5,

An Act Respecting the Protection of Wildlife Species: before time allocation, 37 hours of debate. We’re not going to see that kind of debate on all three of these bills that this government brought time allocation on. Let’s talk about time allocation at the federal level. What does that mean? It doesn’t mean that they’re limited to one small hour of debate in the Legislature. It means that they get a whole sitting day. Quite different from the allocations here. So this government, who has this huge, overwhelming m ajority, c ontinues to bring the hammer down on a very small opposition. Why would they do that, Mr.

Speaker? That’s the question. We have very good things to say. We have great ideas to put out there to these m inisters, which the y often aren’t able to actuall y understand the firs t time we introduce th e idea, as we have se en repeatedly on net metering in th is Assembly over the last 10 days. [interjection] Like the member says, I guess it’s a fishing thing, if you ask the Premier. 2:50 They need som e help, Mr. Spe aker, on t hese bills. They need some help on where we go for the next step, and they don’t seem to be prepared to take it, but definitely it’s something that’s required.

So with the thought of helping this government understand some of the options that a re available to the m, at thi s time I would lik e to introduce an amendment that will refer this parti cular bill ba ck to committee, where we can discuss some of those very excellent, great ideas. The Speaker: Would the hon. member continue as the amendment is being circulated. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we see in this notice of amendment to Bill 3, the Electric Utilities Act, that I’m moving on behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, who signed the amendment, is for the motion for thir d reading t o be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following: Bill 3, Electric Utilities Act, be not now read a third time but that it be recommitted to Committee of the Whole for the purposes of reconsidering the proposed

section 1 and proposed

section 20. Mrs. McClellan: Is this a hoist? Ms Carlson: No, this is not a hoist. This is a recommittal. There are three possible amendments that we could make at third reading stage, and the f irst of t hose that w e will be talking about this afternoon is a recommittal. T he last of them that we’ll be talking about this afternoon or this evening would be a hoist. Now, why would we need this particular amendment?

As we’ve seen even today in question period, ther e are a lot of unanswered options an d things that the gove rnment really doesn’t understand about where they could move on electricity in this province to help consumers lower their costs, given that this government has created huge increases in their home costs through the mess they have made

760 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 of deregulation.

Even though we’ve told the government for the past five years that they needed to lay out the rules so that industry knew what the rules of the game were going to be, so that industry could ensure that they had enough capacity to meet the needs downstream, so that other industri es who w ere looking at com ing into A lberta could get set up, co uld get esta blished, could get their ne tworks happening, so tha t the companies now operating in this province could ensure that their information systems were compatible and could work well together, so that all the needs of the consumers and the industry and the government were met.

Because they didn’t do that, because of this huge kerfuff le that we’ve seen, prices have absolutely skyrocketed, people and businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, are in great hardship. We need to go back with this bill and find out how to do it properly. In addition to that , given that with this huge majority this bill is very likely to pass, the government needs to know how to be able to provide options to consumers to lower their costs.

We’ve talked for a few months now about putting a government retrofit plan in place where the government would either loan to consumers on an interest- free basis or have some form o f grant instituted, where consumers could access the dollars so that t hey can retrofit their hom es, and potentially extend it to the business community so that they could retrofit their businesses, so that they could access different methods of building construction and n ew furnaces and hot water tanks and those kinds of additions to their homes or changes in their homes or solar power or win d power so th at they could lowe r their ove rall costs and be more energy efficient.

Not only does that effectively help us on the path to meeting our Kyoto targets, but it also he lps consumers lower the operating costs in their homes. When we’re seeing electricity and gas prices coming in this winter in many cases higher than people’s mon thly rent or mor tgage p ayments, we certainly need to take a look at what some of those options are. Last Wednesday evening we introduced in this House an amend- ment to allow for net m etering.

I need t o explain ne t mete ring because even after talking about it Wednesday night, when we made a fairly t horough r eview of it, the Energy ministe r didn’t get it. When he got up to speak to the amendment, he couldn’t explain to anybody what net metering was and then, even not knowing what he was talking about, strongly urged all members in the Assembly not to support the amendment. So the amendment was defeated. Then when we asked him a question yesterday in the House about this, he said suddenly: this is a good idea, an d we’ll go forward and take a look at it.

Yet when we asked him and the Premier about it today, once again they were suddenly clueless about what net metering is. The Premier thought it had something to do with fishing nets. I’m sure he knows now th at it’s someth ing different. The Energy minister was so arrogant in his a ttitude. Between last Wednesday and the question yesterday he s till hadn ’t taken the time to either read Hansard, where it was explained, or to find out from his own people what’s required.

Net metering is a situation where individuals or businesse s or farms who have adapted their places of residence or business to use solar power or to use wind power can take that capacity and hook it into the meter in their home. What happens, then, is that at the times of day when they’re using a lot of electri city and they do n’t have enough capacity provided by the solar power or by the wind power, their meter, their regular household meter, just like you have on the outside of your house, runs forward as they use electricity from the grid.

When they have an overabundance of capacity, more than what they’re using in their house, that feeds into the meter itself, and the meter spins back wards, effectively reducing t heir overall monthly utility costs. So when they need the power, they access the grid, just like all of us do in our homes. When they have excess capacity, that feeds into the grid, and their meter runs backwar ds at t he same consumption level as it would run forward. Now, what’s required he re for this to w ork effectively in this province is that we actually need a change to the utilities act.

Either an amendment has to be brought in or a regulation has to be brought into the utiliti es act sta ting that c ompanies have to pr ovide this service in this province. You don’t need an extra meter to do this. The existing meter you have now goes forward and go es backwards. That works. T he companies providing this service just have t o agree to do it. The trick here is that they agree to take in the power that the consumer is offering at the same price that they’re selling it out to them.

In the States and in the prov inces where there isn’t a specific regulati on saying that companies like EPCOR have to provide a net metering service, what happens is that the individual can come to an agree- ment with the organization. So we have an instance here in Edmon- ton where EPCOR won’t do it. There’s an instance in Calgary where Enmax will do it.

The trick is that if there is no legislation saying that what they’re selling to the consumer is going to be charged at the same price as what is com ing in, wha t the com panies will do is gi ve a bar gain- basement price f or that ele ctricity coming into their g rid from the household. So that’s an unfair advantage that the large corporations have.

If there is a regulation in place saying that this service has to be provided at the same level as what the daily household charge was to that household, then you really have a level playing field, and it’s just an excellent idea for people who want to put a solar panel on their house. It’s a particularly good idea for prairie farmers because of the ability to have wind power and feed that into their grid. It’s a particularly good idea for intensive livestock operators. It really works well in communit ies where it’s b een used.

It’s go od fo r acreages who can also hook up a windmill, and of course it works very well in city areas where you have the ability to put a couple of solar panels on your house. 3:00 So this was the idea that we were asking the Energy minister to adopt in the amendment. We even had the m inister of agriculture saying that it sounded like an interesting concept and if it didn’t cost companies any money to do it, it should be something that should be pursued. It’s true.

Because the consumers are selling a little bit of power in, there’s an opportunity cost loss f or the la rge companies like Enmax and EPCOR because they’re not selling as much power to that consum er as the y could’ve, but that is the on ly cost to the large corporations. The cost to the individual is to set up their particular system, solar or wind, and then ultimately the hookup into the existing meter that they have, but they don’t need a new meter, and other than that it’s a system that works out very well.

T here are 30 states – some of them are northern states, but some of them are southern states – and they think that this is an effective enough way to reduce energy costs that they have set up legislation in all those areas for it. It’s really something that we need to d o. So I urge everyone to support this particular amendment. The Speaker: The hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Glengarry on the amendment. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a rare opportunity that we get to speak to such an important amendment, an amendment that has huge implications and has a huge impact on the consumers of this province. Unfortunately, we keep hear ing t hat there has been adequate debate on this bill, a bill that is potentially

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 761 going to cost the consumers of this province billions of dollars, yet we have had very little debate, and we’ve had very little participation by government members. Wouldn’t it be nice for all of these people who get all the calls in their constituency offices and all the com- plaints about our high electricity prices and peo ple that constantly complain about the price of their energy in this province, when for many, man y decades they w ere accustomed to a regulated rate – those people, those Albertans, do not have the opportunity to hear their members debate.

They perhaps m ay have talked about it in caucus or may not h ave – I h ave no way of kno wing – but we certainly don’t have a public re cord of that. We don’t have their thoughts and their ideas in Hansard. Yet they’re going to go back to their constituencies, and those very people that they represent are going to be paying larger and larger bills. It is a very, very good amendment that has been proposed. Just to review that amendment: “Bill 3, Electric Utilities Act, be not now read a third tim e but that it be recommitted to Committee of the Whole for the purposes of reconsidering the proposed

section 1 and proposed

section 20.” I think tha t is an ex cellent suggestion, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we are at the final stage of this bill and this is probably the biggest bill that we will be debating in this spring session. It is also a very, very important bill because electricity does affect each and every Albertan. I t is certainly something that is getting a whole lot of attention. Now, ma ny y ears ag o when I w as still a student, I ha d the opportunity to take a cour se.

One of our req uired readings was a little book called Limits to Growth, and in that book it described how we have all these feedback groups and things that we were doing. It was quite interesting to note even at that time that our professor said: really, if y ou wish to c ripple Cana da, if y ou wish to c ripple any northern country, all you would have to do is when the cold weather, the 30-plus-below temperature, hits, somehow limit or destroy their electrical production. They would be crippled. That thought has always stuck with me, and that’s wel l o ver 35 y ears ag o that I listened to Dr.

Wilson describe that. We are dealing here with an extremely important issue. We are dealing with electricity, that certainly allows a much better quality of lif e for a ll of us in the world. It is an issue of fundamental importance. None of us want to g et back to the day s when th e pioneers settled this province and they didn’t have electricity.

So we have to look here at how the electrical market has developed in this province, how it has played such a vital role not only in the develop- ment of this prov ince but in the attraction of m any people to thi s province. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] We certainly realize that over time the electric industry, not only in this province but throughout North America, has become a very complicated syste m yet a very , I think ov erall, effici ent sys tem, particularly when you look at how the electricity grid has developed in North Amer ica and how links f rom dif ferent j urisdictions fit together and how we can reroute electricity bec ause of shortfalls, because of problems with our plants, where we have breakdowns, whatever.

But o verall we can re route electricity so tha t we ca n certainly handle all of these shortfalls. It is a ve ry, ve ry com plicated s ystem, Mr. Sp eaker, because electricity is one of those ess entials tha t cannot b e stored. We cannot use it if we produce too much. We also have major problems if we produce too little. So the market, the system in North America has just done a fabulous job in not only operating but supplying us with cheap and reliable electricity.

It has developed over decades, and of course as it has developed, it has met so many of the problems that we would have encountered if we had not had a regulated system. Now, again, a t one t ime w e did have a sys tem tha t wasn’t regulated, and it led to many, many problems. You know, we had supplies that were not necessarily sustainable. We had supplies that would come and go. It wasn’t an efficient system. There were no standards.

Of course, we have to look at safety issues when w e’re dealing with electricity beca use it is one of t hose very volatile forms of energy that if not used correctly can have serious consequences. We have to look at the fact that there is no substitute for electricity, and we have to realize that elect ricity is no t a commodity. It mus t be treated quite diff erently than other c ommodities. I t i s because of this, Mr. Speaker, that electricity does not lend itself to the market forces.

So when we look at Bill 3, the Electric Utilities Act, that is certainly one of the goals: to allow e lectricity to be used a s a commodity. 3:10 Now, then, when we do look at the regulated system which we did enjoy in this country for many, many decades, we had a very good supply. The supply was consistent. It was never in question, and as we required more electricity to come on-line, then certainly it came. We also had a very efficient system in that here in Alberta until we deregulated we had some of the lowest rates for electricity in North America.

We also had standards where the producers had to meet those standards. We also had a system that had been developed over many years of dealing with electricity where it was very efficient; it was very safe. Certainly, we have all recognized how very useful electricity is as a form of energy. What we have in Alberta and had in Alberta was a very good system, and we did enjoy very cheap and very re liable energy. Why we would want to tamper w ith that particular system is above me. As I did indicat e, cheap, reliable electricity is certainly one of those issues that attracts people to Alberta.

It attrac ts busin ess to Alberta, and it has certainly led to the economic development that we enjoy in this province. All we have to do is look at our future and look to the hon. m ember’s constitue ncy of Fo rt McM urray. Certainly, the amount of energy that’s required i n that part of the province to pro duce and se parate the oil from the sands – again, very, very critical.

When we look at the future of this province and the potential that we have because of that huge oil spill that occurred I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of years ago up in northern Alberta, we have to realize that our success and also that success are base d on diffe rent form s of ene rgy, o f course , and electricity being one of them. We have had i n this provinc e a regulated sy stem, a system that was supported by business. It was supported by consumers, it was supported by regulator s, and it was th e backbone of a very, very good system.

It was without a doubt the buil ding blo ck of our financial success. So in our amendment that we’re speaking about here today, Mr. Speaker, we are asking for this bill to be recommitted to Committee of the Whole for the purpos e of reconsidering prop osed

section 1 and prop osed

section 20. The elect ricity indu stry is, as I’ve indicated, a very, very complicated industry. It is one where we as Albertans have enjoyed some of the best and cheapest electricity in North America. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie had just spoken very eloquently to the whole issue of net metering, which we have not even seen here. This certainly is one of those recommenda- tions that I think the whole Assembly would like to look at because we do want the cheapest possible rates for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, with thos e few co mments I wil l take my seat and

762 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 urge all members to spe ak to this amendment. I think that all members should support this amendment as w ell because it will allow us to t ake a look at a bil l that’s a very complicated bill and certainly look at options where we can provide the type of service we had in the regulated system to A lberta consumers, a system that provided very cheap and very reliable electricity, something that unfortunately, since we’ve had a deregulated system in this province, we haven’t been able to maintain.

As well, I think that one of the things I haven’t mentioned here is the fact that I believe that Bill 3 is going to remove the right of comm unity-based companies like EPCOR to set their own rates. So with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and certainly look forward to the debate raised by all members. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky on the amendment. Mr. Knight: On the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to rise and join debate with respect to an amendment before us that would in fact return a pi ece of well-thought-out, necessary, and timely legislation to committee for further study of two areas. The first one, I believ e, is sec tion 1, whic h I presum e would be the

interpretation. If w e want t o return to com mittee to discuss the

interpretation of this particular piece of legislation, then I would say that we really are going to go back, well, at least until 1995. I think that was when the first one was brought in, a little before me, and that would be kin d of where we’d be returning to. I ca n’t really support the idea t hat we would need t o go back eight y ears or something and kind of start this thing again. Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is actually a complicated piece of legislation. I agree with the member opposite. That is true.

When you break it down and you look at the discussions that have taken place in this Assembly about the particular issues that the bill itself addresses, I think that I could argue that it would be difficult for us to have many more varying opinions with respect to these issues. Certainly, net metering is a technology that can be employed. No argument that it’s a good idea. No argument that it’s available. No argument that it’s being done in certain places. However, I might perhaps put it this way: net metering is not really for the masses.

There are certain circumstances where net metering can work, but we don’t want to leave anybody with the impression that net m etering is something that you w ould want to put in every household in the city of Edmonton. I rather doubt that that would work, although there are instances and certa inly I’m sure they will be investigated. I do believe that in the province of Alberta right now there are instances where that return power system is actually working, so I cer tainly agree with that. However, it’s not necessa ry to return the a ct to committee in order to address a situation like net metering.

I’m sure that that can be accommodated other ways, and ver y likely in the regulations that surround t his piece of legi slation ther e can be accommodation made for situations similar to that. 3:20 The Electric Utilities Act has a number of very necessary parts to it with respect to the ongoing restructuring of the energy business in the province of Alberta and , I might add, Mr. Speake r, in No rth America in general terms. We really do need to understand that as we move ahead, Alberta w ill have to be connected with and be a player in a bit of a larger electrical market.

So w hat we’re doing here: we’re going to establish an independent system operator. This new mark et operato r will assume responsibility for the m arket operations in the provinc e, and they will inc lude the Powe r Pool, system control, the l ong-term transm ission sy stem i ntegrity, th e planning and the management of our transmission system, which – and I agree again with the member opposite – is extremely important business for the province now. This legislation addresses that particular issue.

We realize that on an ongoing basis and looking out a few years, transmission congestion could be a major problem for Albertans. This piece of legislation, under the ISO, will deal with that. Another important thing that the ISO will do is they will handle under one umbrella, under the ISO, the loa d settlement issue, and that again re lative t o transm ission and d istribution is extrem ely important for Albertans. The way that we started i nto the rest ructuring of Alb erta’s electrical system brought about a situation where we had a require- ment to organize a Balancing Pool.

The Balancing Pool, again, is a temporary part of the restruct uring, and it’s ongoing for a 20-year period. We had to have a way in our system to allow the Balancing Pool to ope rate independently of the rest of the players. A nother important part of t he Electric Utiliti es Act, 2003, is to al low the Balancing Pool to become more independent and to be governed by its own board, a more inde pendent Balancing Pool, Mr. Spe aker, governed by a board of professional members no longer associated with the Power Pool. Again I just w ant to go bac k to reinf orce th e th ings that t he member brings up.

They’re absolutely true and critical. That is: what about ordinary consumers in the province of Alberta? What are we doing for consumers? Certainly, the ISO is part and parcel of an oversight system , but more importantly I think that the market surveillance adminis trator w ill be appointe d by the E UB. Mr. Speaker, the market surveillance administrator will conduct surveil- lance, monitor and investigate the market to ensure that it operates in a competitive and transparent manner.

The MSA has under this bill some expanded responsibilities in the area of the retail market, and I believe that’s the part that you would be most concerned about; that is, the consumers in the province. This will allow consumers to have a greater amount of confidence that the retail functions in the marketplace are competitive and are transparent. The market surve illance administrator is a s ingle person, and when we go into that in the bill, it’s understandable there that he has some major responsibilities and abilities given to him to carry out his function with authority.

So those are, I think, some of the issues certainly brought up that I hope I was able to help address and the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I feel that it’s important for this legislation to move ahead. I need to then address the situation with respect to the amendment, because I don’t see the amendment, especially in areas of

interpretation, being a productive thing that is actually going to m ove this pie ce of legislation in the right direction. So I have to urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deput y Speak er: On the rec ommittal am endment, please, Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments to make on the amendment before the House that would recommit the Electric Utilities Act, Bill 3, to the Committee of the Whole for the purposes of reconsidering specifically

section 1 and

section 20. I think there are a number of issues that are in play. One is thos e two specific sections that the amendment addresses, and I’ll speak to them in just a minute, but I guess that the purpose of the recommittal motion is more important than the specifics. What we’re asking is that there be, really, a sober second look at Bill 3. I think that it’s wise that we ask for that second look at this

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 763 point, Mr. Speak er. We’ re stil l somew hat surprise d that the government has seen fit to push this particular bill through the House with such haste . It’s a large bill and it’s an important bill, and it would seem to us that it’s a bill that deserves a reasonable amount of time for debat e and a re asonable a mount of time for interested parties to have their say about the implications of the bill. We don’t think that that’s happened.

So one pu rpose of the recommittal motion is to provide the Assembly and others who are interested in the legislation with an opportunity to again look at the provisions of the bill a nd the implications of the bill. In our case we’ve been particularly concerned about consumers in the province because those are the kinds of people that we’ve been hearing from in the last number of days. So there are those two purposes. I think the need for a sober second look at it became really evident this afternoon, and as has already been mentioned, it surrounded the discussion of net m etering.

It was astounding to find that t he minister in charge didn’t understand – at le ast, it didn’t appear to people on this side of the House – what something as basic as that term really was about. Even more distressing, Mr. Speaker, is that that minister would have advised his colleagues a number of day s ago to defeat an amendment that would have placed net metering in the bill. So I guess that t he point I’m trying to make is that the actions of the m inister ca ll into question the gove rnment’s o wn understanding of its legislation. Has this been prepared so hastily that there have been some major oversights?

When you have really quite basic and certainly no t hugely significant things like net metering not even in the vocabulary of the minister and him advising the government to take action in the Assembly based on la ck of knowledge, it’s really most distressing, and I think it does point out the strong need for a second look. 3:30 It comes back to c omments that w e’ve been making about the natural gas bill before the Legislature, and that is that so much of the legislation seems to be driven by blind faith in the mar ket and that somehow or other all you have to do is driv e and drive and dr ive towards a competitive model and that no matter what the conditions are out there, somehow or other it’s all going to work out.

We’ve had that experience previously, Mr. Speaker, with the government, and the fact is that it doesn’t always work out. Blind faith may be great in some areas, but when it comes to utilities , it do esn’t carry the day. The proof of it, of cour se, is the size of the am endment that’s before us today, a bill that runs over 129 pages. That’s quite an amendment and again, I think, speaks to the whole notion of things not being thought through carefully the first time and then having to be redone. I thi nk it’s unfortunate.

So much of the legislation, I think, has b een driven by that faith in a competitive market, and I think that our concern is that Albertans are now paying a high price and are going to be paying a higher price in the future for that kind of approach to public policy-making. Again, I think it’s unfortunate. Specifically, the amendment asks us to revisi t p art 1, whi ch is

Interpretation, Applicat ion a nd Purpose, and se ction 1 of tha t is

Interpretation – and these comments were made previously, Mr. Speaker – which really defines the terminology that’s going to be used throughout the a ct. Most o f the

definitions remain the same with the few that have been added or deleted as w as necessa ry throughout the act. For instance, the definition of an electric utility has been broadened to allow for the convergence of the natural gas and electricity retail markets. The purpose of this, of course, is to allow one retailer to sell both products.

I think it’s that whole concern about retailers – and the previous speaker, I t hink, tried to assure us that this has been looked at carefully and that w e don’t need to have conc erns, but gi ven our experience, we do have conc erns about how retailers are going to behave a nd the kinds of situations that, particularly, residential customers are going to find themselves in when this act becomes the law of the land and we really get into the deregulation as envisioned by the drafters of this legislation.

The definition of farm transmission costs dealing with supplying electricity to rural electrification authorities has been removed from the act, and the definition of municipality has been br oadened to include the Métis settlements, that were established under the Metis Settlements Act. The definition of power purchase agreement has been added to the act, and now I think it makes it abundantly clear that the claim that we made at the time that we had no idea that Alberta’s electricity generating assets were going to be sold off when the government began its deregulation process back in 1980 was correct.

No one had any idea what the government had in mind, and to claim otherwise is a distortion.

Section 1 defines where different terms created by the Elect ric Utilities Act get their meaning, and

section 1(3) simply states that the Electric Utilities Act determines if a corporation is a subsidiar y according to the Business Corporations Act. An important

section is the

section that deals with the Medicine Hat service area.

Section 1 provides the definition for that service area, and it’s really quite important to the rest of the act because the Medicine Hat service area is exempted from some provisions, and it’s treated differently than other entities in parts of the act, particu- larly when it c omes to various regulations. So it’s an i mportant definition in terms of what that service area includes. So those

definitions have some implications. We’re concerned, as I indicated, about retailers. We’re concerned about the residential customers and that our c oncerns for residential customers are not reflected in th e

definitions th at we see t here. We’ve do ne so me thinking about what might go there, but at this point all we’re asking is for it to be taken back to Committee of the Whole for reconsidera- tion purposes. The second

section that we had asked to be reconsidered was the ISO rules under

section 20. This is the

section that establishes what areas the ISO has jurisdiction in, and it outli nes the various a reas where the ISO can make rules. Most of the rules, we have to admit, already currently exist as part of the Power Pool, a nd this sect ion simply transfers the rule-making authority from the Power Pool to the ISO. But, again, as I said, the major purpose of the amendment before us right now, Mr.

Speaker, is to ask for a very careful second look at the provisions of the bill, and as I indicated last night with another bill, I suspect we’re going to be back here – and I would almost lay money on it – in the fall or next spring with further amendments to the act and more changes. Part of those changes will be as a result of not having done a thorough job in the first instance. Again, the concern we hav e is tha t am endments that are put forw ard are dismissed summarily and often without any knowledge of what the amendments actua lly mean o r the c ontent of t he amen dment.

They’re dis missed o n pu rely political g rounds rather than in the interests of trying to make the act a better piece of legislation that would better serve Albertans. I think that with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I would urge members to support the amendment before us and to allow the House to take a close se cond look ove r a longer period of t ime at the provisions in Bill 3. Thanks very much. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I’d like to adjourn debate on Bill 3. [Motion to adjourn debate carried]

764 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 3:40 Bill 19 Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 [Debate adjourned March 25: Ms Carlson] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to resume debate on Bill 19. I’m wondering if you could give me some indication of how much time I have. Okay. Twelve minu tes. Thank you very much. We have still quite a bit to say on Bill 19 alt hough we’re in the final stages of this particular bill.

The problem that we have had with it from the beginning is that while there has been deregulation in the gas markets for a long time, the principal reason for bringing this bill forward is to give companies that are moving into Alberta to provide electrical services, utility services a better market by being able to bundle services, being both gas and electricity. When we do things to provide a better platform for business t o make money, it means somebody isn’t making money, and that means it comes right out of consumers’ pockets. That is o ur biggest concern with that, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, I will now introduce an amendment that we hope will focus on consum er protection. I am happy to t alk about th e amendment to Bill 19, the G as Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. I’m moving it on behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, and it stat es that the motion for third readin g be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following.

Bill 19, Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, be not now read a third time because it is the Assembly’s view that the bill will leave consumers vulnerable to entrenched high natural gas prices without consumer protection. Why do we think that there won’t be consumer protection here? It’s because we hav en’t seen anything come f orward f rom the government to indicate that that would be the case. Part of what protects consumers is bringing in other options for them to be able to take a look at so that there are m ore opt ions available on the market.

If they have things that are a vailable to them to do, that brings down the cost of gas in general. I talked about some of those on the electrical side when we talked about net metering. The same thing can be given. Electricity sold into the grid provided by green sources can be used as a heating source as well, which then can be in direct competition with gas, which is what we’re looking for here: whatever options are available that bring the overall price down. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few good options out there.

We didn’t have a chance to talk about some of these other options in committee because of the time allocation rules, but there are certain locations that have anticipated the high costs of gas and other sources of heat and have brought in very excellent programs for their particular memberships to participate in. If we take a look at some of the outstandi ng options that are out t here, C alifornia has so me really good ideas. They have som ething tha t’s called an energy- efficient mortgage. Eligible technologies are solar water heat and active space heat and photovoltaics.

Well, I don’t have enough time to go into a definition of that for the Energy minister, so he’ll have to look it up or get some of his staff to look it up so that he under- stands it, because something as simple as net metering seems to be an insurmountable barrier this particular week. To go into a s ummary of the kinds of things that we could be bringing in that s peak to this parti cular amendment talking about consumer pr otection ar e these m ortgages. They can be use d by homeowners to pay for energy-efficient measures for both new and existing homes. That becomes a critical factor, Mr.

Speaker, because not everybody is goin g to go out and buy a new, ene rgy-efficient home. They can’t afford to. And what do we do with the surplus on the market that is there otherwise? That’s why our idea of having a retrofit program for existing homes is such a good idea. You could combine this with this kind of a mortgage. What happens is that they can be applied to most homes and work for both government-insured mortgages, like we have in this province, and conventional kinds of mortgages. In a nutshell what happens is that all buyers who qualify for home loans also qualif y for this.

So it’s intended to give these buyers additional benefits on top of thei r usual mor tgage deal. What happens is that the lender uses the energy efficiency of the home, as determined by a rating that is federally monitored and implemented, to determine what the benefits are going to be. Then it can be used to finance all these technologies. So this could be in addition to the retrofit plan that we’ve talked about, or since the government doesn’t like to take our great ideas all that often, then they could go to this mortgage program instead.

We heard some discussions earlier this session about options for mortgages, I think brought up in private members’ bills by private members who s upport the gov ernment agenda, so we know that for at least this particular idea there is some kind of support. So I would strongly suggest that both the Energy minister and th e En vironment minist er get t ogether w ith their respective departments and sta rt to think a bout how we can help people get out of this huge corner that they have pushed the average consumer into with the kinds of costs that we’re taking a look at.

Montana also has a really good incentive program for renewable energy, which would come in direct competition with high natural gas prices, which speaks to this particular amendment. This program is called a univer sal sy stems benefit program, and it’s a public benefits fund incentive.

The eligible technologies for this one a re passive solar spa ce heat, solar water heat, active solar space he at, solar thermal electric, solar thermal process heat, again photovoltaics, wind and geothermal electric. 3:50 I just had an interesting discussion with a person who came to my constituency talking about how to lower costs. This person is a home builder, and he talked about how we need to start taking a look at using thermal heat and electrical heat way more efficiently. He builds very low-end consumer houses, so first time buyer kinds of homes, and he builds them mostly around the Cooking Lake area.

What he has done to keep his costs low for a long time is when he builds the home – traditional ly, what builders do is take all their scrap materials and haul them out to the dump. That creates a few problems. It crea tes a w aste proble m, a tr ansportation issue, dumping fees. All those add to the cost of the home. What he has done traditionally is dig a large hole in the backyard, so down about 40 feet a nd about 10 fee t wide. W hat he does is dump a ll t he household waste in that hole.

Then what he does, also, is put water heater pipes vertically in the side of the hole, covers it all up when he’s done building the house, hooks up the water heater pipes to the home. This is a very environmentally forward-thinking concept, and it works very well for him and, subsequently, for the people who buy those homes. As that was te decomposes – now , if y ou think about it , it’s all decomposable biomass stuff : wood, thing s of that n ature – the decomposition creates heat.

So w hat happens with the heat that’s generated down there is it heats up t he water coils, and that feeds into an electrical system into the house. That stuff takes about 20 years to decompose completely. At that point in time what it does is run through into the hou se and through tubing in the base ment hooks up to the wa ter tank there and pr ovides heat for t he ho me, thereby reducing the ov erall energy costs, effectively using waste

March 26, 2003 Alberta Hansard 765 materials from building homes. This kind of power is a great idea. It’s something that we need to be taking a look at as options, and it’s the kind of thi ng that would specifically qualify for this particular benefit program that Montana has. So when did Montana do this? You know, is this a si tuation where everybody just sud denly woke up? Well , most states h ave been working on these kinds of issues since at least the mid-1990s, and Montana brought this in as part of its 1997 rest ructuring legislation.

So it took them a little while to get it all figured out and to get the l egislation in place, which i s exactly w hat we’ve been asking the Energ y minister to ta ke a look at and to bring forward here. What happe ned was that on Janua ry 1, 1999, a ll suppliers began contributing a very small percentage of their profits, and that created a fund. It supports energy ef ficiency, renewable energy resources, low-income en ergy assistance, and renewabl e energy research and development. So these f unds are then distributed among these programs, and implementation began almost immedi- ately.

This is, once again, another really good idea that this govern- ment, had they done their research – you know, Mr. Speaker, they have way more people in their department to help them with research than we do, certainly, and it wasn’t very hard for us to find out about these very excellent ideas that are out there in the community. They also could have taken a look at some of the options that were provided to them by the Pembina Institute submission, options that speak directly to this amendment w hen the y talk about consumer protection and le aving consumers vulnerable to entr enching high natural gas prices.

In this Climate Change Action Plan for Alberta:

Summary Overview submitted by the Pembina Institute, they talked about all kinds of things that could hel p overall i n lowering gas prices and providing some protection. They also in this submission talked abou t net me tering. So this isn’t a ne w conce pt to this government. It has bee n around for a long tim e, and we strongly suggest that they read the stuff they get. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry on the amendment. Mr. Bonner: Yes. Thank you ver y much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I think it’s very important that a ll members of the Assembly take a second look at Bil l 19, another bil l that is de aling with necessary utilities to the province. It’s a situation where I think, when we look at the whole gas industry in this province, there are some things that we would like to do ag ain. I look at our plant down at Joffre, Alberta, that strips the natural gas in this province and uses those by- products in the petrochemical industry. What a d ifference it has made to Alberta.

Certainly, the foresight that Premier Lougheed had when he made it possible for Joffre to com e into be ing and to compete with the Sarnias of the world and whatever else – it was one of those industries in the province that was welcomed, and it was one that was very beneficial to the province. A few years later we had the development of the Alliance pipeline, and we allowed all of that natural gas here in the province to flow out of this province without being stripped. Something like that has put our entire petrochemical industry in a very weakened position simply because of the source of materials.

So we look at this particular bill, Bill 19, the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, a nd what i t’s going to do here in the province of Alberta. Specifically to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie has indicated that it “be not now read a third time because it is the Assembly’s view that the bill will leave consumers vulnera ble to entrenched high natural gas prices without co nsumer protection,” and I think she was right on when she introduced this amendment. When we look at the bill itself, we see that Bill 19 is a sister bill to Bill 3.

It pr oposes amendments to align the natural g as retail marketplace with the electricity retail marketplace, and certainly it allows for a single billing of the two. It also changes the structure of the natural g as retail marketplace to allow f or mo re competition. But, again, w hen we ha ve a lim ited supply of natura l gas in t his province – and at our present rate of consumption we have less than 20 years of rese rves left – then I think that we have to be very cautious about these bills that we pass in this Assembly.

Certainly, the amendment will all ow us to lo ok at situations where we can provide cheaper gas to consumers here in this province. Now, then, we talked at length in the Assembly about consumers having the choice of signing a contract or floating on the natural gas spot market when they receive their natural gas. Natural gas is one of those essentials in this province that are required for industrial growth.

It’s required particularly for a nu mber of months f or our consumers, our small consumers, and the constituents in all of our constituencies in order to enable them to live year-round, and it is an essential – essential – energy source. So we have to look at way s that we can provide this type of energy at a very competitive price but also at a price that certainly won’t lead to wastage, because it is a nonrenewable resource. 4:00 Now, then, as well, I looked at a study which was done by the Federation of Albe rta Ga s Co-ops, and i t’s titled Improving the Competitiveness of Alberta’s Retail Electricity Market.

Certainly, when we are discussing Bill 19, which is the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, there are so many parallels between the two, and one of the c onclusions that they came to was that in certain case s introducing competition into the marketplace will bring down prices.

They go on to say that deregulation of natural gas has worked well at the wholesale level, but cost-benefit analyses and reference to actual experience in other jurisdictions demonstrates it does not work well at the retail or small consumer level, without introducing additional costs, ad ditional layers of overhead, and increased control required by regulators. So they do ha ve some very, very legitimate claims when w e are looking at this particular bill and this particular amendment.

As well, the federation and Gas Alberta Inc. go on to ask the government to keep in mind this small consumer, who has little protection from the mar keting communi ty, do es not unders tand complexities of purchasing commo dities such as el ectricity a nd natural gas, and may never be comfortable or a ble to fully under- stand the unique commodity market process. For that very reason right there, Mr.

Speaker, I think it’s essential that we as legisla tors do our hom ework here so tha t this whol e process is open, this whole process can be understood by your small consumer, and we ca n provide the m with the best pr ice possible regarding the gas. Now, then, Bill 19 a s well allows for a flow -through pric e of natural gas, and it certainly does change the rules of the marketplace in that it attempts to attract more competition.

But, again, how can we have more competition when we have a limited supply, particu- larly when we look at the resources that we do have in this province, known resources that have currently less than a 20-year supply? It is with t hose com ments, Mr. Speake r, th at I support t he amendment as proposed by the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. I am also in ag reement with the federation and the Gas Alberta Inc. position where they look at the situation.

Certainly, they look at a bill such as Bill 19, that is being promoted by government, and they say: does this m eet a te st of prud ence, and does it satisfy a cost benefit to consumers? So far I think that what we have seen is that there is no guarantee that there will be a cost benefit to consumers

766 Alberta Hansard March 26 2003 with the passage of this bill. It’s a bill that will give them choice but certainly no guarantees that there will be a cost benefit. So with th ose com ments, Mr. Speaker, I will cede the floor to some other hon. member and encourage all members of the Assem- bly to vote for this amendment. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods on the amendment. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I’m pleased to have t he opportunity to speak to the ame ndment.

W e’re often accused of being repetitiv e in the opposit ion, and I hav e to a dmit that I’m feeling repetitive. I’m putting it down to the nature of the bills. Bill 19, the one that’s in front of us now, the amendment for Bill 19, and Bill 3 are very similar and give rise to the same concerns, and Bill 27, a companion piece that has been introduced and rushed through the Legislature, also gave rise to some similar concerns. So if we’re using the same arguments time and time again, it’s because the three bills elicit that kind of criticism. That being said, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to support the amend- ment that would have Bill 19, the Gas Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, not read a third tim e. I think that what’s important in terms of the reasons for the amendment being presented to the House is that it’s our fear that it’s going to leave consumers vulnerable to high natural g as prices and that the re’s going to be ver y littl e consumer pro tection, and I don’t thi nk that those fears are un- founded.

If you look at natural gas deregulation south of the border, one of the major concerns there has been that in all of the legislation the consumer has been left behind. They’ve been left out of any kind of major concern when the legislation was drafted and, again, a great faith that somehow or other the marketplace was going to take care of the consumer, and that in many places south of the border just hasn’t happened.

What has happened in a number of states where there is natural gas deregulation is that consumers are asked to pick a gas supplier on blind f aith that the m arketer can deliver what is promised, and it’s very difficult for customers to make their ch

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20030326
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S3 20030326 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	caa2b0cb816d69a492218972bdf11d98be894ae6

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