March 2, 2004 Alberta Hansard 277 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, March 2, 2004 8:00 p.m. Date: 2004/03/02 [Mr. Tannas in the chair] head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole The Chair: Good evening. I’d like to call the committee to order. For the benefit of those who might be unfamiliar with this stage of the Legislature, it’s the informal session, where hon. members are allowed to move around quietly from one place t o an other and engage in very quiet conversations, where we only have one member standing and talking at a time, and they’re allowed to take off their jackets.

It’s the pa rt where we ar e able to g o through either the budget item by item or in this case, in Committee of the Whole, we go through

an act and can go piece by piece. Before we begin this evening’s deliberations, I wonder if we might have consent to revert very briefly to Introduction of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of G uests The Chair: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s, indeed, a great pl easure ton ight for me t o reco gnize and i ntroduce some members of my constituency who are here observing proceedings.

They are with the Education Watch initiative, which, as many people here would know, is a specific initiative on behalf of education in our p rovince. It’s a nonpartisan, Alberta-based parent advocacy group who are advocating for improved funding and better learning environments in Alberta public schools. Joining us tonight a re Ly nn Ericks on, Terri Tumack, Lori Almberg, Cath arine S choendorfer, B arb Whit e, Tr ina McC loy, Joanne Abbott, and Roger Abbott. These constituents have young children in Velma E. Baker school and at Kate Chegwin school in my cons tituency.

I’ve had the pleas ure of m eeting with some of them before; I’ll look forward to probably meeting with them again. I would ask that they please r ise, receive our thanks and also the warm welcome of our Assembly this evening. Thank you. My other introduction, Mr. Chairman, is on behalf of the hon. Membe r for Edm onton-Glenora. T his is a y oung lady named Linda Inglis, who resides in that constituency, and she’s also part of the Educ ation Wat ch initiativ e. S he h as one child at Westminster school and another child at Ross Sheppard school.

I would ask everyone to please warmly greet and receive Linda Inglis to our Assembly. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my great pleasure to introduce tonight 10 visitors who are joining us in the public gallery who are part of the Mill Woods Youth Council. They are accompa- nied by Mr. Shane Isfield and Miss Paige Denham. Just to tell you a little about this council , they do a wonderf ul job helping a nd supporting youth in Mill Woods.

They have a very small budget, but from that budget they will take applications for funds for things like support for sport programs for children who otherwise wouldn’t be able to attend due to financial difficulties and things of that nature. They’re a welcome addition to Presidents’ Council, which we all try to attend every month. I would like you all to very much welcome them as they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Chair: Thank you.

Bill 7 Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offer ed wit h respect to this bill? The hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: I believe I was speaking to it and adjourned debate, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon. Yes, I’m happy to finish my comments on this partic ular bill, which I had hardly started. This is one of the silliest bills I’ve seen in this Legislature. An Hon. Member: Silliest? Ms Carlson: It is. Two lines. What does it do?

It ch anges the date of e xpiry for those silly Senators-in-waiting that we re elec ted in one of the lowe st voter turnouts we’ve seen in this province. [interjections] Well, perhaps some of you would argue that all Senators are silly, but that’s a different argument. Tonight we’re talking about this particular silly bill, which is two lines. It extends the ex piry date from December 31, 2004, to December 31, 2010. Who knew, you guys, when you drafted this silly piece of legislation back then, that it would actually expire before your Senators were appointed? Who knew that?

Rather than participate in really effective Senate reform, which is what we need, you wanted to do this: just waste a lot of money on an election to choose a couple of Senators that wouldn’t be put in place. Instead, you could have spent that money and spent all of the wind that you expended on this p articular topic over the years in really effective reform, which is certainly what we support and continue to support.

We have to see at this time, when we’ve got two Senator vacancies right now in Alberta and a t hird one coming up, that w e work co- operatively w ith the fede ral gove rnment to ensure that we ge t a Senate that’s representative for Alberta. That doesn’t just mea n filling a couple of vacancies. Tha t means giving us som e sort of proportional representation out here that’s going to actually give us a voice. Mr. Bonner: Doug Roche. Ms Carlson: Well, Doug Roche was a very good Senator, and now he’s another one who is retiring here very shortly. Mr. MacDonald: He’s an independent Senator.

Ms Carlson: An independent Senator. W e could have more like that if we had an ef fective kind of proportional re presentation platform that we took here. That’s something that both sides of this Assembly would be ha ppy to c o-operate a nd work on t ogether, because there is no doubt that Alberta needs a stronger voice, and that’s the only way that we’re going to get it. Based on population, as electoral divisi ons go for at least another 10 y ears, we’re only going to have 26 e lected voices in this province. When you think about the over 300 MPs in Ottawa, that isn’t a very high percentage.

So the best w ay f or us to get a mo re effective voi ce in O ttawa regardless of the government in power is through effective Senate reform.

Alberta Hansard March 2, 2004278 So I urge m embers to not support this bill, t o instead ta ke the money on the deve lopment of this and any future c onditions and work co-operatively on effective reform. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie’s concern and derision of the Senate as a silly Chamber, because most of the present Senators are Liberals appointed, gene rally sp eaking, by a L iberal Prim e Minister , and that’s what makes that body often a seat of derision, that it doesn’t often deserve. In my experience – and I’m sure I reflect the attitude of m ost members of this Cha mber – the people that are in th e Sena te of Canada are by and large very worthy individuals.

This debate is not about the individuals that presently occupy the Chamber although as in all Chambers some are more worthy than others. This is about the kind of country we would want to have. I would remind our Liberal colleagues here tonight that the first elected Senator appointed in Cana da cam e from Alberta , and it wasn’t all that many years ago. His name is Stan Waters, and he ran against Bill Code in the election for Senator to represent Alberta. I’m sure Liberals in the House would not ever want to hear a person of the stature of Bill Code described as unworthy, because he’s not.

When the electoral race took place in Alberta that resulted in the Senators-in-waiting that we have now, it’s fair to say that political parties were not particularly engaged. The Alberta political parties were not particularly engaged in that election with the exception of the Reform Party. T he Senators that ran re presenting the Reform Party at that time won, and they won handily. They ran under the complete and clear understanding that the c hances of their being appointed to the Senat e were something akin to remote and zero.

They knew that there wasn’t much chance of their being elected, but that’s not what that was about, and that’s not what this is about. This Senatorial Selection Act and the continuation of the act that we have in place have far more important ramifications than the two people that are presently the Senators-in-waiting or perhaps the new people who will replace those two when the next election is called if they don’t run again and aren’t re-elected. 8:10 What this act is is a manifestation of the absolute desire, the fact that Alberta will not rest until we as a province achie ve balance in the country.

Right now it’s widely agreed that there is a good deal of alienation in our country from east to west and perhaps to a lesser degree from north to south, but the re is no question that there is a great deal of alienation in the country. The Canadian Unity Council in their m ost recent in-depth polling ind icated that alienation is something in the order of 40 per cent throughout m ost of western Canada. It’s certainly centred in Alberta, and one of the reasons for that is that Alberta contributes a tremendous amount to our country.

Alberta contributes not just fi nancially, but we contribute ideas and we contr ibute spirit. We contr ibute an ethos that is v ery different from any other province or region in the co untry, and we also contribute a substantia l amount of money annually , i n the billions of dollars.

We’re a country, and we understand that, but we do not as A lbertans or in British C olumbia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba have the weight in the cent re of th e gover nance of the country, in Ottaw a, com mensurate w ith our contributi on to the country, with our popula tion, and cer tainly not with the financial resources that we contribute to the country.

That imbala nce is re flected in legisl ation that c omes from the centre of the country, which may be good and may be appropriate for certain regions, the heavily, densely populated ce ntres of Toronto, Montreal, but in a country as broad and diverse and vast as ours, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. So the struggle to have a Senate that represents the regions or the provinces of the country as it was originally determined that the Senate would represent has as its core the potential to resolve the alienation problem that our country faces, and that’s one of the reasons why this is such an important debate.

Now, just a little over 140 years ago, in 1864, when the founding fathers got together and decided that we had to have an upper House, Sir John A. Macdonald said: We resolved then that the constitution of the upper house should be in accordance with the British system as nearly as c ircumstances would allow. An hereditary upper hou se is i mpracticable in this young country. Here we have none of the elements for the forma- tion of a landlord aristocracy – no men of large territorial positions – no class separ ated from the mass of the people.

An hereditary body is altogether unsuited t o our state of society and would soon dwindle i nto nothing. The o nly mode of adapting the Engl ish system to the upper house is by conferring the power of appoint- ment on the crown (as the English peers are appointed), but that the appointments should be for life. So Sir John A. Macdonald understood the problem. They limited the number of Senators that would be in the upper House. I believe it was 24, 24, and a combination of 24 from the Atlantic provinces. They understood that th e upper House had to be composed in a manner that would not have de adlock.

T hey didn’t want the representatives of the upper House to be popularly elected because they wanted the members o f the upper House to h ave a diffe rent political and a longer range view so as to be a check or a balance on the lower House. It wasn’t a deeded or a hereditary aristocracy that would be in the upper House. It ha d to be an upper House of the people. So how was that to be achieved? This is the elemental difference between what w as envisioned by Si r John A. Ma cdonald and the Fathers of Confederation in 1864, when these debates took place, and today.

At that time, the upper House was to be appointed by the Crown so that those in the upper H ouse appointed by the C rown would not be subject to the same pressures, the same responsibilities, the same concerns a s the low er House: needing to be elected, needing to be popular to be elected, and therefore perhaps not having as long a range of vision.

Well, as w e all know , what ha s happened ov er the inte rvening years is that the upper House has become a resting place for political supporters, f undraisers, bagme n, deadwood f rom the H ouse of Commons that the P rime Minister wants to mo ve into the upper Chamber so as to prov ide space for someone else to come in.

For Prime Ministers the Senate of Canada is a very, very handy place to have around because it does offer a very cushy and a very warm and nice and prestigious landing s pot for ministers, front-benchers, or others that th e Prime Minister wants to get out of the House to get other people into the House, to ope n up a slot and to reward the party faithful.

After the scandals of the Senate in rec ent years made it a much more visible House, to be fair, there have been some appointments that have brought tremendous credit on the institution of the Senate, but that does not absolve us of the core problem that we have, and that is that w e do not ha ve in Canada a House tha t represents the regions of Canada.

There is a possibility that through the Council of the Federation the Premiers will get together and we w ill have a pseudo-Senate as a direct result of the Council of the Federation, but that’s only a possi bility, an d that’s o nly if the Pr emiers can ge t together to make it happen. What we do have is the reality of a Senate that is at present a final

March 2, 2004 Alberta Hansard 279 resting place for friends of the Prime Minister. It does not fulfill its very important function in our country, and it must be reformed. 8:20 Now, whether or not it is reformed as a triple-E Senate, we don’t know. Our legislation calls for a triple-E Senate. But it’s very, very likely that across the country over the next few years there will be a tremendous increase in the interest of things electoral as another generation takes the reins of political leadership in our country.

We all know that political participation across the country is not nearly as high as those of us in this House think it should be or high enough to be good for the future of the country. We have to put our minds to work to figure out how we ca n get more people engaged in the political life of our country. So this is going to be som ething that will be cons idered. I think that at present in Canada there are five Legislatures that have either f ull-blown or s lightly less than full- blown electoral reform commissions in place right now.

The Senate of Canada is a particularly important constitutional body, especially now, it’s fair to say, that the Supre me Court has taken on a law-making role not envisione d by the Fa thers of Confederation, who designed our parliament after the Westminster model, and we now have the introduction of the civil code through the Charter of Rights interpreted by the Supreme Court. So it’s fair to say that we probably do not have a Westminster democracy today as much as we have a democracy influenced by the court. We have to have checks and balances. There are none today.

The Senate of Canada offer s our country the potentia l to have a check t o the absolute power that’s vested in the office of the Prime Minister. So, Mr. Chairman, although on the surface this bill is not all that exciting, once you get past the surface, this bill and what it means to the potential of Alberta, what it means to the potential of our country to live in harmony, what it means to the potential of our province to be a full partner in this country, to contribute, to be recognized – and not just our province but all of the provinces because we are a federation of provinces. We’re not a unitary state.

If we have the resolve, the unrelenting resolve to see this through to the end, we have the capac ity to c hange our c ountry and t o change i t for the better and perhaps even to protect our country. So with those words, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to take my seat and hope that the members of this body will support this bill and take a renewed interest in the capacity of our province to lead our country once again. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s with interest that I listened to the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, a constituenc y that oddl y enough is n amed after the f irst Liberal Premier of this prov ince. It’s quite int eresting to hear the hon. member’s historical analysis of the Liberals and Liberal patronage in the Senate . I w ould have to remind all hon. me mbers of this Assembly and particula rly the hon. mem ber of the role that t he Mulroney Conservatives played in appointments to the Senate.

Now, the federal Progressive Conservative Party was the party that originally came up with this idea of the GST, and they had to go to extraordinary constitutional lengths to get more Conservatives into the Senate in order to pass the GST. Mr. McClelland: So let’s fix it. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. The hon. member says, “Let’s fix it,” and that’s a good idea. But for the debate, Mr. Chairman, it would be the right thing to do to make clear to all those that all parties in the past have used Senate appointments in what some would consider to be an unsavoury manner.

So to label one political pa rty and not the other is in my view wrong. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to briefly enter into debate. I was n’t going to comment, but I he ard th e comments made by the Mem ber for E dmonton-Ellerslie, ta lking somewhat derisively about the Senatorial Sel ection Act a nd the purpose of the act and the effect and benefit that the act has had.

I have to enter into the deb ate first of all because I believe that fundamentally Albertans do support the concept of a triple-E Senate – equal, effective, and elected – and that getting there from here is not a direct journey. In fac t, having constitutional change i n this country, as we’ve seen, is problematic at bes t, so we need to h ave some steps along the way to show that provinces are unalterably set on this course, that want to see it happen. I also wanted to speak specifically about the Senatorial Selection Act because it provided two purposes.

First of all, it resulted in the first appointment of an elected Senator in this country in the person of Stan Wat ers, so the act, in e ffect, worked in its first instance because of the time and place and circumstance. But I would submit to the House t hat the ac t has ef ficacy in and of itself in that the quality of appointments to the Senate fr om Alberta has been far superior, in my hu mble submi ssion, to those in the res t of the country, and you have to ask why that’s happened.

While we don’t agree with the concept of appointing Senators, the fact of the matter is that since this act has been in place, not only has Stan Waters, who was elected under the provisions of this act, been appointed to the Senate, but I believe also Senator Doug Roche has been appointed to the Senate. H e was a Conservative Member of Parliament who provided exemplary service.

Not everybody in the province agrees with his pol itical philos ophies, but ev erybody, I think, has to agree that he provided ex emplary ser vice to the province and to the country as a Member of Parliament, and he has continued to provide that service in the Senate. He was one of the few people who you might have identified as a Progressive Conservative appointed by a Liberal government to the Senate, and one has to ask why.

I would submit that when appoint- ments were considered at that time, the Prime Minister looked at Alberta and said, “ How am I going to deal with Alberta and Al - berta’s proposal for an elected Senate and the concept of having this Senatorial Selection Act?” and wen t out of his way to find an appointment that would be a good appointm ent to the Se nate and would deny all t he challenges that people might have, that people were appointed as political hacks or as a patronage appointment or all those other derisive things that people say when S enators get appointed in this country from other jurisdictions.

You can say the same about Senator Thelma Chalifoux. You can say the same about Senator Tommy Banks. You could say the same, I t hink, about Senator Jean Forest. Alberta has had exemplar y appointments to the Sena te, unp aralleled anyw here else in this county.

In my humble submission the reason for the quality of the appointments to the Senat e from Alberta is b ecause the P rime Minister, when he’ s mak ing an appointm ent to the Se nate fro m Alberta, has to look very, very carefully, has to make sure that the appointment is of outs tanding quality so that people don’t rise up and criticize the appointment because they don’t like the quality of the people. 8:30 So this act has had efficacy not only in putting forward Alberta’s position that the Senate should be an elected, effective, and equal

Alberta Hansard March 2, 2004280 Senate, and until that can be accomplished, we should at least have the opportunity to elect nominees from this province. Not only has it had efficacy in putting that forward, but it has actually offered a very real benefit to the people of Alberta in that we have better quality of appo intment of Se nators bec ause o f this act, i n my submission. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a few comments here, as well, on this particular bil l, and I want to start off by making it perfectly clear that myself and my caucus colleagues believe very strongly in Senate reform. Of course, it was a Liberal bill – and I bel ieve it was Bill 210 – c alling for triple-E Senate ref orm in t his p rovince, a nd we fu lly sup port that same position today. We also feel that this would address the imbalance that does presently occur in the Senate if this were to take place. But we do have a lot of problems with this particular bill, Bill 7, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 2004.

Certainly, one of the reasons that we have difficulty with this is that when elections were held in 1998 and the two m embers w ere elected, they were elected by approximately only 25 per cent of the eligible electors in this prov ince. Now, here we hav e an am endment t o a piece of legislation that’s going to extend that period another 10 years. So here we have two members sitting on the sidelines hoping that perhaps the P rime Mi nister of th e day may app oint them to the Senate.

We also have two people who were elected by only 25 per cent of the eligible voters, yet we are go ing to ext end the period when they can sit on the sidelines another 10 years. So that will take us to the y ear 2014. W hen we s ee that the y were first elected in October of 1998, then we’re going to have a 16-year period approxi- mately when we have elected members sitting on t he side lines. I don’t know anywhere else in democracy where you can get elected and not have to be re-ele cted and m aintain your position for 16 years. That is certainly not the way democracy works.

So from that very standpoint this is not a v ery g ood bill and certainly not an am endment that I can s upport. Thank you ve ry much. Mrs. O’Neill: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I understand the bill, it does not point to the extension of the two gentlemen that have previously been elected to the Senate for the pe riod that the Member for Edmonton-Glengarry indicated.

This bill i s intended to a llow the process to continue the availability of the electoral opportunity, if you will, for the citizens of Alberta to possibly elect members to the Senate, who might even eventually be in-waiting should there be the opportunity for appoin tment. But w e would, if this proces s is followed through, have an indication of those who are willing to let their names stand and, secondly, whom a number of people in this province believe should be vested with this honour and this opportu- nity.

I just want to be very clear that we can’t misread the bill, however brief it is, to be understood that we are by virtue of it proposing that the two individuals, Mr. Bert Brown and Mr. Ted Morton, continue as Senators-in-waiting, if you will, or however people have been referring to them. Their term, if you will, ends this year, expires. So let’s be very, very clear on that. Thank you. [The clauses of Bill 7 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Bill 6 Income and Employment Supports Amendment Act, 2004 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offer ed with re spect to thi s bill? T he hon. M ember f or Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill 6, the Income and Employment Supports Amendment Act, 2004, certainly is, I think, worthy of debate, discussion, and I would strongly urge all members of this Assembly to have a second look at this and consider support- ing this legislation.

If they have any questions or if they have any concerns about this, now is the time, I believe, to have them addressed. Now, we’re considering making amendments to the Income and Employment Supports Act, that was originally passed in 2003, and in particular in committee here amending

section 49 to allow Human Resources and Employ ment officials to enforc e all child support agreements that cannot be pursued by maintenance enforcement by protecting the privacy of people who provide the whereabouts of the parent who had not paid maintenance. I’m also told that this bill will resolve conflicts between other pieces of legislation. I see the hon. member nodding his head. I would consider that to be an affirma- tive, Mr. Chairman.

Now, the hon. member earlier said that the intent is mainly to help parents get child support by a llowing H uman Re sources a nd Employment to enforce all child support agreements not covered under maintenance enforcement. When we look at this bill and we see the amendment to the Income and Employment Supports A ct, there is a change here that allows the director to provide employment and training benefits to eligible people w ith dis abilities or an employer, training pr ovider, or ot her pers on to be used f or the benefit of an eligible disabled person. In

section 24 we are substitut- ing for “Minister” the “Director.” Hopefully, this will resolve some problems for some people in the province. That’s all I really have to say in regard to Bill 6 at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I would urge all hon. members to consider supporting this legislation. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. 8:40 Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll take this opportunity to address so me of the q uestions tha t were raised duri ng second reading of this particular bill and perhaps even some of the questions that were just raised by the speaker who preceded me.

One of the questions that was asked, I believe by the Member for Edmonton-Centre – and I’m just paraphrasing her question – was to the effect that the parents or one of the parents have to be on an assistance program through the government, programs like AISH or supports for indepen dence, in order to be eligible to have the government assist them to seek and obtain child support agreements or court orders. Well, there currently is a structure in place to assist custodial parents to pursue the noncustodial parents to obtain child maintenance and to instigate child maintenance enforcement.

This bill does not attempt to change that. The bill’s goal is to basically give the department and those who pursue noncustodial parents – or shall we call them delinquent dads

March 2, 2004 Alberta Hansard 281 to drive the point hom e? – more teeth to allow them to f ind those individuals, to ass ess their assets, to ascertain what th eir in come level is, to find out whether they are working or not, and bring them back to the responsibility of raising their own kids, if not in person then at least through financial means. So at this point the dep artment is of a great deal of assistance to single parents who are in receipt of any benefits from the Department of Human Resources and Employment, be it AISH or the old SFI or, as we curr ently know it , Al berta Wor ks.

But it also ext ends assistance to those who get off the benefits and become independent yet are considered to be low -income earners or those w ho are i n receipt of benefits such as medical health benefits, be it for adults or for children. It is the goal of this government to extend those benefits to a wider range of Albertans, but obviously there are costs attached, and at this point it is available to the group of Albertans who are in need, who can’t pursue those child maintenance orders on their own and require that assistance.

Another question the Member for Edmonton-Centre raised was to the effect of: what is the correlation between Alberta Works and this program? Well, there is a great deal of correlation. As we all know in this House, we passed new legisl ation in 2 003, to wh ich my predecessor just spoke, which basically absolves us of the terminol- ogy of SFI, supports for independence, and we have a new gl obal program in place. It is the goal of this government and particularly of the department to pursue initially the noncustodial parents whose ex-spouses happen to be recipients of low-income benefits.

It stands to reason because, after all, if there are ch ildren ou t the re who are in low-i ncome families, tho se ch ildren are p rimarily the resp onsibility o f their parents, not of the gove rnment. Government is the l ast resort to which, unfortunate ly, the custodial pare nts have t o turn.

If t he government is to be of assistance to custodial parents in raising their kids, it only stands to rea son that w e prima rily purs ue the noncustodial parent and have him own up to his responsibility and contribute to the raising of his or sometimes her children, although unfortunately it happens mainly to be his children. So the correla- tion is quite large because most of the individuals who are seeking assistance th rough the department to enforce their court-ordered child maintenance agreements are individuals who are in receipt of additional provincial programs such as Alberta Works.

The third question r aised, I believe also by the Mem ber for Edmonton-Centre, was regarding pursuing noncustodial parents for maintenance agreements or support agreements. Her question was: are we just looking for money that would be in fact coming back to the government, or are we willing to pursue this on behalf of court orders where monies would not neces sarily be subroga ted to the department? It’s a good question. However, our main priority is to assist those who really need help to begin with.

There are man y families out there who have child maintenance agreements ordered by courts who simply are affluent enough to be able to pursue those court orders on their own and to enforce those court orders on their own by simply hiring a lawyer for a fee or by hiring a private detective or whatever means need to be employed in order to track down that delinquent parent. However, unfortunately, those who are in receipt of government low-incom e benefits don’t have the luxury of being able to hire legal counsel or a detective to track down the delinquent father.

In this case, it is the d epartment that has assumed the responsibility of assisting those parents. Does it have anything to do with s ubrogation of dollars? Obvi- ously, as a result, it will because if there are monies coming from a father towards a child and t he single mother i n the me antime i s receiving low-income benefits from our province, it only stands to reason that we hold the father responsible primarily for the cost of raising his children. Then the gover nment becomes a sec ondary payer and not a primary payer.

However, it is not exclusive, because in many cases single parents raising children are not in receipt of any financial benefits fro m t he province. All they’re receiving is a medical services card, and then the province will not be subrogating itself to an y doll ars bu t wi ll simply be able to a ssist that single mother with the additional monies that s he will now be rece iving from the delinquent parent in orde r to allo w her to have m ore resources available for the raising of the children.

I’m glad to hear that at least the Liberal opposition appears to be in support, and I’m glad to clarify the questions. I would urge all members to support this bill. I think it’s a very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, in our society it is not uncommon to have breakdowns of f amilies, and we a ccept that. We hav e learned to accept that in our families. However, what we accept is the f act that adults do divorc e, but one person in your family that you can never divorce is your child.

That child, whe ther there was a breakdow n of a m arital union, remains your chil d and your r esponsibility, not only a parental responsibility but also a financial responsibility. As MLAs too often we see that not every body concur s with tha t. There are m any individuals out there who feel that the moment their m arriage has fallen apart, their financial responsibility towards their children also disappears.

Too often those individuals turn out to be quite crafty, shall we say, in their ability to disguise their income or employment to begin w ith or asse ts for tha t matter and, by d oing so, m ake it virtually impossible for the other ex-spouse who happens to be in a financial predicament to be able to pursue them, because to pursue them you have to have resources to begin with, and that’s one thing that they don’t have. So I think it’s a fabulous step that this d epartment has taken in introducing this bill.

What this bill really will do is it will give the department one more tool to be able t o track those parents down without primarily worrying about issues of privacy and from where they obt ain the inf ormation or who report s the infor mation to the department. As we al l know, m ost Albertans agree that be ing a delinque nt parent is not the proper thing to do, yet because of the fact that if you were to r eport that person to the department and they were to find out that you did that, that could severely jeopardize your relationship with that delinquent parent, many hesitate to report.

Well, with the advent of this bill and with the passage of this bill into law , that is one less concern that Albertans will have to have. They will be able to report the i ndividual or as sist the de partment in locating the individual without having any consi deration for the f act that their personal information will be disclosed and perhaps the relationship with the delinquent parent will be jeopardized.

So, again, I would urge all members of this House to support this particular important piece of legislation simply to assist those who are in financial need and to drive the point home that it is everyone’s moral and financ ial responsibility to ra ise their own kids. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to rise this evening and make a few comments on Bill 6, the Income and Employment Supports Amendment Act, 2004.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to listen to Senator Jesse Jackson, and he made an interesting comment at the start of his speech. He said: you know, the poor people in the United States t oday ar en’t seniors on fixed incomes; they’re not our new Americans; they are single mothers with young children. This particular bill, Bill 6, the

Alberta Hansard March 2, 2004282 Income and Employment Supports Amendment Act, 2004, is a bill that certainly addresses this very situation. 8:50 One of the st rengths of this particular bill is t hat it does indeed show the value we have for children. We do need tougher legislation in this province, certainly, to deal with noncustodial parents who do not pay for child support.

The other situation we also have is that even when we do have our legislation, we have to make certain that it is applied t o the fulle st in orde r th at children and the custodial parent are receiving the dollars that they deserve and the dollars that are rightfully theirs to feed and house and educate those children. One of the ways that I think we could have done it – and I would have liked to have seen this – is that we have far more interprovin- cial co-operation between agencies where we can track down the deadbeat parents, the parents who are noncustodial and who are not paying their fair share.

Another issue that we seem to have with parents who phone the constituency office in Edmonton-Glengarry is that in too many cases the money that is coming f rom the noncustodial parent does not arrive in a timely manner. When parents are trying to raise families and pay rent and buy f ood and whate ver else, they certainly want predictable and stable funding in order to pay their bills.

As well, I think another area that we have to look at when we’re talking about parents and particularly the noncustodial parent who is in arrears to the custodial parent and their children is how they can go to court and get this amount reduced and then go on from there, for all the time that they were in arrears and the custodial parent and the children were doing without and they were struggling because of that.

I would have liked to have seen legislation that would address where noncustodial parents hide th eir assets or perhaps h ave legislation where we can seize assets of those particular noncustodial parents wh o are in arrears so that they aren’t driving new fancy vehicles, they aren’t living a lifestyle that is luxurious in comparison to what their former spouse and children are. As well, I think we have to have some type of system whereby we can crack down on these people who are in arrears, who work fo r cash or in some other manner get money. It is a very difficult task for us to trace.

So certainly this is one more tool that we can use to address some of these situations. I think that w e can go a lot further in passing legislation which would definitely put more t eeth into collecting in a timely fashion the monies that the noncustodial parents owe and certai nly forcing those parents who have not made it their number one responsibility to care for their ch ildren so that w e do pass le gislation which will assist those custodial parents and children in getting their money and getting it in a timely fashion. Thank you ve ry much for the opportunity t o make those com- ments.

The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wa nted to speak a few words on Bill 6, the Income and Employment Supports Amendment Act, 2004. When we a s the government were f irst looking at t his bill, the question arose in my mind in te rms of the balance, in terms of how vigorously we go after these financial debts that parents owe. It seemed to m e that we were g oing after these debts in a manner that was much more intense and p ut much more of the force of the law behind it than most any other debts that we collect.

You know, that was sort of something that struck me at first, and I started thinking: well, how far do we go with this? I found out that there are many states w ithin the United S tates where rather than just going after a parent, going after their financial needs, the parent who do es not pay their support payments is actually thrown in jail. So in terms of where we are as a government compared to all the other governments, we tend to be sort of in the middle of the road with this. But it also got me thinking about what a parent contributes to their child’s upbringing. I know it’s quite difficult for us.

You know, we tend to be a little older, and it’s hard to remember what it was like as a child in terms of how much w e needed our pa rents. But I think most of us have children ourselves, and we can at least look bac k that far and remember the really intense relationship with our young children. So what this brings me to is that even though we work really hard on getting th e financial b acking of parents for their children, we should be work ing just as hard at m aking sure that chil dren have access to both their parents.

I think that as a Legislature we should be looking at opportunities for enforcing the access just as strongly as we enforce the financial side of parental responsibilities. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The clauses of Bill 6 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I woul d move that the committee rise and report bills 6 and 7. [Motion carried] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under co nsideration c ertain bills . The com mittee reports the following: Bill 7 and Bill 6. The Deputy Speaker: Does the Assembly concur in this report? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Opposed?

So ordered. head: 9:00 Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 2 Black Creek Heritage Rangeland Trails Act The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Develop- ment. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise one final time he re duri ng third reading of Bill 2, the Black Creek Heritage Rangeland Trails Act. In my comm ents I hope I will be addressing some of the concerns that some of the members expressed as I talk about the general spirit and intent behind the nature of this important bill.

March 2, 2004 Alberta Hansard 283 I want to begin , Mr. Spe aker, by simply saying t hat Alberta Community Develo pment’s pri mary manda te wi th respect to provincial parks and p rotected areas is to pr eserve representative examples of the various natural landscapes in the province in order that Albertans can enjoy these many areas for many years into the future.

The negative impacts of recreational motorized vehicles on the natural environment, particularly in more sensitive areas within the foothills and mountains, are gener ally not compatible with the many other activities that occur in provincial parks and protec ted areas, where Albertans and visitors alike trave l to enjoy the peace and the solitude of the great outdoors that our province has to offer.

Now, with re spect to protec ting this s ignificant area in the Whaleback, a commitment to continue to provide for some level of recreational vehicle access through the heritage rangeland was made to local ranchers and other stakeholders prior to the establishment of the two Whaleback protected areas back in 1999. To put it another way, we needed to do this in order to establish these protected areas.

So Bill 2 provides a unique and specific exception that will allow two short existing trails – in other words, trails that are already there and have bee n for de cades – wit hin the herita ge rang eland to continue to be used to access the existing trail system in the adjacent Bob Creek wild-land, where limited recreational off-highway vehicle use is already permitted. These existing trails have been there for many years and have always provided the main access into the Bob Creek wild-land, and that includes off-highway vehicle access.

The monitori ng of off- highway vehicle use in Black Creek heritage rangeland and in the adjacent Bob Creek wild-land by my department staff will of course continue. Reports from the local residents and, on occasion, incidents reported by a responsible OHV user also contri bute to the m onitoring of use in this are a. My department staff patrol this area on a regular basis and find compli- ance to be generally very good. OHV users have reported tha t overall the use in t he area is relatively low.

Most OHV use occurs during the hunting season, and during that particular time of year there are more frequen t patrol s and enforcement mea sures that my departme nt staff undertake. Ranchers are in this area on virtually a daily basis during much of the year , and they also provide us wit h im portant moni toring information. Trails such as the ones we’re talking about can be closed due to fire conditions and for ot her reasons such as floo ding or wil dlife hazards or generally poor trail conditions and so on. But trails will continue to be monitored and closely watched as required. In the end, Mr.

Speaker, we are very mindful of our preservation commitment to this generation and to future generations o f Alber- tans. In fac t, Alberta has approx imately 12.5 per cent of its total land base already in some f orm of protected area stat us, be that provincial parks, wild-land parks, natural areas, ecological reserves, recreation areas, national parks, heritage rangelands, or the Willmore wilderness.

Now, with the Whaleback areas that are part of this bill, Bill 2, that is befor e us tonight, we m ade a com mitment to continue to provide for som e level of recr eational vehicle access through the heritage rangeland prior to these protected areas being established, and Bill 2 si mply provides a sp ecific exception t o allow the two short existing trails that I a lluded to earlier wit hin the heritage rangeland to continue to be used by recreational vehic les and to provide access through those two trails into existing trail systems in the adjacent Bob Creek wild-l and.

Thi s exc eption was al ways anticipated in managing these two special areas. Once this has been addressed, we will also proclaim a

section of another important piece of legislation governing our protected areas to prevent general recreational OHV access. The Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act is what I’m referring to, and that is the one that defined the parameters for establishing and p rotecting heritage ra ngelands, including the general prohibition of off-highway vehicle use in such areas as a means of assisting with their ongoing protection. Dispositions, as I indic ated during earlier stages of debate , are permitted for such uses as g razing and trapping a nd so on.

This prohibition, however, that I have just alluded to has not yet come into effect as w e had a ve ry unique s ituation affecting the Black Creek heritage rangeland, which, by the way, is the f irst officially declared heritage rangeland in our province. We recognized that this situation was uni que, and it had to be addres sed before we pr o- claimed any general prohibition of OHV use in heritage rangelands, which will come into being in the not too distant future. So that addresses a few important concerns. I just have a couple of other ones v ery quickly, Mr. Speaker .

First of all, I want to reiterate that with respect to the heritage rangeland, the Black Creek heritage rangeland specifically, and the Bob Creek wild-land, both of which are beautiful areas in the Whaleback, no final management plan has yet been arr ived at. There ha s been a dr aft management plan made available to the public. We’ve had public consultations in a couple of locations and received a lot of input, but that particular final management plan is still being worked on.

With respect to the iss ue of alternative access that has been referenced, this too wa s explore d, but as I indi cated ea rlier, th e topography, the drainage patterns, the configuration of the heritage rangeland precluded any reasonable access from else where to accommodate the commitments made back in 1999 and to accommo- date the uniqu e fea tures that formed t he per imeters of th ese two special areas, so we’re going w ith what already exists in order to provide access into the Bob Creek wild-land.

I want to a lso emp hasize the importance of the local ranching community, the farming community, and the MD of Ranchland, all of whom ha ve reque sted this pa rticular s olution to the unique problem that exists down there. They have been very forceful and adamant in ensuring that the gov ernment lived up to th e commit- ments that were made back in 1999 , and had we not made those commitments then, Mr. Spea ker, we would not ha ve been a ble to even get to the protected status level of the larger picture which we’re trying to serve, so, please, let’s keep that in context.

With respect to the monitoring of OH V use, which some others have commented on in the House, I want to say that we will be doing more frequent patrolling an d enforcement, particularly during the hunting seasons and so on. Also, just to reiterate that ranchers are there and they are very vigilant, and they, too, report any problems that might be encountered.

The other point is with respect to the additional work that we will still be doing ar ound creating specific strategies to implement the management plan once it’s finalized, and that, too, will require the co-operation of all the local stakeholders and others that we’ve been hearing from. Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to again emphasize t hat the Black Creek heritage rangeland is Alberta’s first, but we will also be looking at re-establishing as heritage rangelands over a period of the next several years six other heritage rangeland natur al areas in the province.

Today’s bill, Bill 2, is specific to one heritage rangeland only, and it applies o nly to two short existing trails in that Black Creek heritage rangeland itself. 9:10 The heritage rangeland designation as a classification requires,

Alberta Hansard March 2, 2004284 however, an understanding of the unique relationship that ranchers play in maintaining native prairie vegetation on these sites through carefully managed cattle grazing. A heritage rangeland designation will sustain the traditional ranching approach to the management of native grassland ecosystem s while ensuring the pres ervation of ecological integrity and biological d iversity associated with these sites. That is the thrust of what we’re doing here. We’re not opening up the entire heritage rangeland.

We’re only saying that two short trails will be allowed to carry off-highway vehicles through the heritage rangeland to the Bob Creek wild-land. So the proposed bill does not affect any other provincially protect ed lands, as some people may have thought. It is very specific, only to the Black Creek heritage rangeland itself. Mr. Speaker, I think that basically concludes my comments on Bill 2. I hope it also alleviates some of the concerns that some members may have.

We fully understand what the ecological benefits are, the economic benefits , the educa tional benef its, the re creational and health benefits, the scientific benef its, the spiritual and cultural benefits, and so on. We fully real ize wha t those are and how important they are to Albertans and to future generations of Alber- tans. So that having been said, I will look for the support of members on this important Bill 2 as we conclude our debate. If there are other questions or concerns that were rai sed during other pa rts of the debate, Mr.

Speaker, between myself and my staff we will endeavour to get an swers out to those members as soon and as quickly as possible. With that, I will take my seat and hope for your unanimous support of Bill 2. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Well, Mr. Speaker, you’re not going to have una ni- mous consent on this bill because the minister’s comments have not satisfied the stakeholders that are in contact with me.

The minister himself said that motorized vehicles generally are not compatible with preservation goals , and then he g oes ahead and allows motorized access. He knows, I know, we all know that off- highway vehicle and highway vehicle a ctivity is known to have a detrimental effect on wildl ife habitat. It dist urbs the w ildlife. It increases air and water pollution, it causes soil and stream and bank erosion, and it is in direct contradiction with what the initial intent was of having this Black C reek her itage ra ngeland es tablished.

Allowing this kind of traffic into the r angeland sets a dan gerous precedent for the pr otected areas in Albe rta, wh ere cu rrently we already have less than 9 per cent of provincial Crown land set aside for nonmotorized access. They made a bad deal, and it’s not getting any better with this bill. Thank you. Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, I just want to get on the record a couple of comments relativ e to this bill .

I think it’ s really important to recognize that prior to t he designation of the Black Creek heritage rangeland and , for that matter, the whole setting a side of the Whaleback from industrial activity and general traffic in the area, there was an agreement with the ranchers and the people in the area that these trails would remain open. Unfortunately, as the act wa s put together and the designation occurred, these trails were part of the designation.

If people want to have a look, there are other areas where we set aside parcels of land and where trails have been used for ages, and we excluded them from the designation. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this area, and I think it would be an absolute insult to the people in the area that agreed to work with the government and set this area a side and pre serve it into the future. As part of that agreement these trails were going to be open, so now we’re fulfilling what we agreed to back in 1999. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d also like t o add jus t a couple of quick comments in support of this bill. Frankly, I agree with my hon. colleagues that this is a pretty big success story overall and tha t it’s ver y im portant to look at the big picture and the agreements and what has been in place there for many, many years. From an environmental perspective this is a 98 per cent success, and instead we hear people focusing on the 2 per cent negative portion to this. I would suggest that, in fact, this really has been an overall big success story, and I hope that members of this House will solidly support this bill. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Develop- ment has moved third reading of Bill 2. [Motion carried; Bill 2 read a third time] Bill 3 Architects Amendment Act, 2004 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. O n behalf of the hon. member who sponsored the bill, I would move third reading of Bill 3, the Architects Amendment Act, 2004.

A thorough explanation was given at the time it was moved for second reading of the need for the changes to the Architects Act to bring it into alignment, allowing for the designation of lice nsed interior designers and bringing them int o the scope of the act. I would commend the act to the House for passage. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly at this time in third reading would like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, the sponsor of this bill.

He went out of his way to explain what was being accomplished here by this Bill 3, and I appreciate that. Certainly, I have read in a number of publications the efforts that the hon. member has made to discuss this legislation with as many of the 600 practising architects and 60 licensed interior designers as possible. I’m left with the understanding that other people were in discussions also wi th the hon. m ember.

So with thos e remarks, I hope that the c hanges th at are proposed here to define “licensed interior designer” and allow for one licensed interior designer to be elected to the council of the Alberta Association of Architects work out. 9:20 I would like to think that now that we have this accomplished with the architects, perhaps it’s an opportunity for the government to look at the bu ilding co de, which certainly the archit ects work from. I think it’s time for a comprehensive review of the building c ode in this province to ensure that consumers who are buying condos –

March 2, 2004 Alberta Hansard 285 condos are springing up all over the province, but one has to make sure tha t ou r building code is adequat e to not only protect the purchasers of those condos but also to protect the builders as well. Let’s make sure that our building code is suff icient to prot ect all parties here. Now that this ha s been ac complished, if I c ould encourage the hon . members on th e government si de to give themselves another job to do, it w ould be to have a look at our building code to ensure that it is satisfactory in this day and age and in this marketplace.

Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 3 read a third time] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, M r. Spe aker. I woul d move t hat we adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow. [Motion carried; at 9:21 p.m. the Assembly adjourned to Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.]

Alberta Hansard March 2, 2004286