February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 179 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/02/27 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this As sembly, we renew our thanks and ask that w e may continue our work under Your guidance. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introducti on of Visit ors The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Learning. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you today and to the members of the Assembly Minister Monika Hohlmeier, who is the Minister of Education from Bavaria, Germany. With her in the Speaker’s gallery is the delegation from Bavaria, which includes Dr. Harald Vorleuter, who is the head of the minister’s office. Miss Claudia Piatzer is the spokesperson for the Bavarian stat e Mi nistry o f Education. Dr . Ingeborg Berggr een- Merkel is the head of the Department for International Aff airs, Youth, Adult Educa tion in the st ate mi nistry. Also par t of the delegation is Mr.

Joachim Peter, a journalist from the newspaper Die Welt. Ms Bettina Vogt is their interpreter. Seated with the delega- tion is also Mr . Friedrich König, who’s the hon orary consul for Germany in Edmonton; Mr . Karl Sues s, a Ge rman l anguage consultant to Alberta; and Mr. Waldemar Riemer, a member of our Alberta Learning staff. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of having dinner with Minister Hohlmeier last night and learned that there are a lot of commonali- ties between Bavaria and Albert a.

Their province, for example, is number one in Germany as our province is number one here, and the thing that dominated our conversation is that they have many issues with their socialist regime and the federal government as well. So I would ask that all the delegation please rise. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Mrs. Nelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to yo u and through you to members of the Assembly a team of dedicated staff from my departme nt.

Earlier tod ay I announced my intention to deliver the budget speech on April 8, and the staff here today are part of the team that has been working very hard to put the budget together. They are here to watch the proceed- ings of this Assembly today as part of an orientation session to the Legislature. I’ll ask them to stand and be recognized as I read their names. We have Chris Sargent, Ed Stafford, Kerstin Bzdel, Justin Halbersma, Lilia na Cor deiro. I’d a sk them to receiv e the wa rm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to stand today and to introduce three visitors from Alberta Revenue who are here as part of the public service orientation tour offered to all of the public service employees. We’re thrilled to take this opportunity to introduce them to all of the members. Each of these three are just within the past year new employees of Alberta Revenue and of the public service, and we’re thrilled to welcome them aboard. I’d have them stand as I introduce them: Randy Proskow, Sheila Biollo, and Joanne Choquette. If they could please have a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr.

Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three sets of introductions today. My f irst is to i ntroduce to y ou a nd through y ou to all members of the Assembly three girls who are strongly committed to improving public educa tion in Alberta and who ha ve been instru- mental in collecting a petition in support of better funding for public education. They attend Belgravia, Vernon Barford, and Ross Sheppard schools in Edmonton. They’re in the public gallery, and I would ask them to stand as I cal l their names: Hayley Grundy, Molly Grundy , Grac e Grundy , and their m other, Lori e Gru ndy.

Please give them a warm welcome. My seco nd introduction is of a gr oup of students from various schools in E dmonton who are also ver y act ively comm itted to bettering public educa tion in Albe rta. The se are out standing students, the future of this province, and we need to ensure that our educational system is there for them to realize their potential.

They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise as I call their names: Charlotte Dibden, Robin Noblemen, Kathryn Lennon, Jessica Moe, all o f Ross Sheppard hig h school; Sy dney Neuman, Roxanne Nesbit, and Rhiannon Klei n, all of Victoria high school; Christie Kneteman of Old Scona academic high; and Heather Whyte of Vernon Barford school. Please give them a warm welcome. My last introductions, Mr. Speaker, also relate to education, this time to postsecondary education.

The University of Alberta is in my constituency, as is one campus of Grant MacEwan College, so my constituents are all too familiar with rising tuition fees and other challenges facing postsecondary students. My two guests today are Mike Hudema , president of the Univ ersity o f Alberta Students’ Union, and Anand Sharma, chair of the Council of Alberta Univer- sity Stu dents. Mike and Anand and m any othe r students w ere instrumental in collecting thousands of names on petitions and letters that I will be presenting later in the Legislature. Please give them a warm welcome. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I’m delighted to ri se and introduce to you and t hrough you t o the Ass embly ni ne young Albertans, Edmontonians, our future leaders. They are also visiting here today to bring a message to this government to stop underfund- ing public education. They are aware of the negative consequences of continued underfunding for the quality of education that they are entitled to.

They ’re seated in the public gallery, and I wou ld as k them to rise a s I call their nam es: Katr ina Beatty, Ava Becker, Jonathon Balazs, Tina Caron, Jennifer Leech, Nancy Lambert, Tony Cyr, Alan Cliff, and Heather Shrimpton. I’ll ask now my colleagues in the House to give them a warm, warm welcome. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora, you wanted to participate in introductions. Please proceed. Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure for me to stand bef ore you tod ay to introduce t o you and thr ough you to members of the Assembly two young individuals that truly demon- strate the Alberta advantage in education in this great province.

180 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 Hailey is an i nternational baccalaureate middle-year student at Westminster junior high school. She has a 91 percent average. She is bi lingual, plays piano , bass guit ar, drums. S he’s involved i n ballet, Irish dance, skis and swims. She is an artist who has had her art used on the cover of the Edmonton public s chool board retire- ment program last June. Accompanying Hailey is Hillary. She is a constituent with a 90 percent average at Parkview junior high school. She plays volley- ball, basketball, participates in the track team.

She is bilingual, plays piano, and in her spare time sh e assi sts her brother, who has muscular dystrophy, to lead a more independent and fruitful life. Both are too busy to collect petitions in the constituency. I would ask that Hillary Schell and Hailey Hutton please rise and accept the warm welcome of this Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon . Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Natural Gas Prices Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The signatures just keep coming in.

Four hundred more Albertans have visited our web site, altaliberals.ab.ca, to express their outrage over skyrocketing utility bills. This government protects the greedy and ignore s the needy. My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Will the Minister of Energy finally admit that the natural gas protection act was all about public relations and had nothing to do with consumer protection? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, this member h as a tenden cy to change what he says today as compared to what he used to say when he was here for the de bate, when he w as here f or the pass ing of the bill, when he saw the bill unfolding, when he saw the process. Some of the comments from the time in the session in 2001: they would agree that this bill is not necessary; what kind of sheltering is necessary? We look at this: the mini ster . . .

If this bil l, this slogan bill, this public relations exercise . . . were to be lini ng the po ckets of the developers . . . at the expense of Alberta consumers, I wou ld b e very, very disappointed. 1:40 Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that went through an extensive policy process: standing policy committee, approval by cabinet, approval by caucus. Then it went in front of the House. It was Bill 1 in 2001. It was subject to extensive debate. It was 5 percent be low the threshold established for the rebates of 2001, and we are putting that policy to the test now. We will eva luate how that meets that test.

We have looked at it from a perspective of timing. Could we do it on a different 12-month period? Could we do it on something where it would be diff erent from the budg eting process and the c ycle in which we collect money? Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Natural Gas Price Protection Act in its infancy work in 2001. We struck a good bill. It’s good policy, and it’s in place today. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you, M r. Sp eaker. Again to the sa me minister: then why did this government repeal

an act that would give Albertans natural g as rebates only to put in place l egislation t hat ensures that rebates will only occur during an election year? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, as used as w e are to s currilous

preamble, I think that kind of takes the cake. It kind of tops out on a Thursday. He’s referring to the Natural Gas Rebates Act of 1974. That act w as in place. It was re pealed in 1987. This government responded to a very real crisis in 2001. It has good policy in place. We’re watching what’s going on now. The gas price is d ropping. It’s dropped $2.40 in Henry hub today. I think all members enjoyed the sunshine outside this afternoon. Mr.

Speaker , it’s good pol icy, it ’s effective poli cy, and most importantly there are other policies put in place by this government that will protect seniors, low-income Albertans, and families in need. Mr. MacDonald: But it is not an election year. My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance pry open her blue handbag immediately and let go of a small portio n of the $4 00 millio n she set asid e yesterday fo r emergencies like skyrocketing natural gas prices and the bills that are reflected because of that high price? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speake r, the hon.

Minis ter of Ene rgy has ex- plained the act and the policy, as has the Pre mier, every day this week to this hon. member. I don’t know what par t he does not understand, but obviously we’re going to have to give him a briefing so he understands the act that he actually voted for. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Education Funding Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker.

E dmonton students – and there are som e in the ga llery today – te ll us that there are fewer resources in their classrooms, fewer librarians and resource teachers, and that they are sitting in larger and larger classes. On top of this, their moms and dads ar e fund-raising for the basic needs of their schools. My questions a re to the Minis ter of L earning. Will the minister explain to these students why they are learning in resource- starved classrooms? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s a very long issue and a very long question.

Part of it has to do with the 14.09 percent settlement that was received by the ATA in the last two years. Keeping that in mind, we just recently put $20 million directly in the clas sroom in the form of textbooks, in the form of computer software, in the form of other resources that these students can now use. I will take exception to one of the things that the hon. member just stated, and that is the larger class size. Mr. Speaker, we have just finished a surve y from around the province w hich shows that the class size has not grown in Alberta and actually is very similar t o what it was last year.

Edmonton public, for example, in this present school year had an incre ase of 300 student s and hi red 82 new teachers to service those 300 students. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: why in some schools in this city do four students have to share one outdated textbook from the 1980s? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, that absolutely is not acceptable, and I will take that up immediately with the superintendent of sch ools. I do not find that s ituation accepta ble at all , and if it ’s true, I will certainly see it changed.

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 181 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: why are school libraries such a low government priority that in some schools all the new books must be purchased through parent fund- raising activities? Dr. Oberg: They’re not, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. At the last ele ction Edmontonians were told that having a few more seats at the govern- ment’s banquet table would make sure that this city shared in t he feast.

Well, two years later all the city is left with are crumbs. The Edmonton Tory caucus has failed to pr otect the city from losing a constituency and failed to get the same financial help for Edmonton public schools that Calgary public has received. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. How was the Calgary Tory caucus able to squeeze an extra $7 million out of the de partment while t he Edmonton Tory caucus got absolutely nothing? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, that li ne of t hinking is something that is absolutely amazing.

I don’t know how m any more times I have to say in this House what I said yesterday, and that was, quite frankly, that in the arbitration settlement there was an extra $7 million weight that was put around Calgary public that was not put around any other school board. Any o ther sch ool board. I coul d spell it out too: any ot her school boa rd in Alber ta. What the $7 million did yesterday was level the playing field so that Calgary can be making the sam e decisions based on the s ame funding, on the same facts as Edmonton could. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you.

Well, t hat being the case, then, will the minister give the other school boards in the province who also pay 100 percent of teacher benefits the same break? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker , I’m s ure the hon. m ember was he re yesterday, but I did explain this yesterday as we ll. Ther e are approximately another 12 or 13 boards around the province who pay 100 percent benefits. Those boards negotiated that themselves. They negotiated that at the same table where they negotiated salaries, at the same table wher e they neg otiated benefits. T hat was done prior. The Calgary public school board did not negotiate this.

This was an extra clause in the a rbitration agre ement t hat they were saddled with that no other school boards were saddled with in their 54 arbitration agreements. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: will the minister give the Edmonton public school board the same budget flexibility that he has given Calgary public? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speake r, what I d id y esterday was put Calgary public on the same footing as Edmonton public when it came to their budgetary issues.

What had happened before then is that the Calgary public school board ha d a $7 mill ion penalty impo sed by the arbitration that Edm onton public did not ha ve. The y are now on equal footing. We are working with Edm onton public and w ill continue to work with Edmonton public to find out how we can help their budget issues. As I said yesterday in a question from the very exceptional Edmont on cauc us that w e have i n this As sembly, I would look at amortizing after the audit that is occurring right as we speak today.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling on the hon. leader of the third party, just to advise the House, there will be a point of order dealt with at the conclusion of question period. It w as during the exchange between the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar and the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. leader of the third party. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, M r. Speaker. Once ag ain the Edmonton Tory caucus shows how ineffective they are at standing up for this city.

While the governm ent doles out $7 million f or a Calg ary school board, the be st suggestion Edmonton Tories can make and come up with is to let Edmonton public go into debt. They are literally mortgaging the future of our schools. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. How does allowing school boards to rack up debt and pushing funding problems onto future generations of students solve the problem of proper funding for schools? 1:50 Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about this Assembly is that I get at least three or four chances to answer a question because it’s repeated three or four times.

What happened yesterday – and I will repeat what I just said – is that $7 million was given to Calgar y public to put them on the same footing as Edmonton public. I don’t think that anyone in this Assembly would argue with the fact that we have to look at making everyone – everyone – including anyone in this Assembly, accountable for how our taxpayers’ dollars are spent. Quite simply, that’s what we are doing with Edmonton public. We are going in a nd taking a look, findi ng out ho w the y spend their money.

As I’ve stated already, there are some great inconsistencies; for example, 300 new stu dents with 82 ne w teachers. Does that make sense, or doesn’t that make sense? I can’t answer that because we haven’t looked into their books and into what their pract ice is. That is what we are presently doing. We want to he lp Edmonton public, and we certainly will look at doing what we can. Dr. Pannu: To the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: given tha t every school district is unique and has special challenges, will the minister recognize this and fund the entire arbitration settlements for affected schools, not just the parts that meet his political needs? Dr. Oberg: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s funny because the last time I looked, despite the boundary redistribution Strathmore-Brooks did not extend into Calgary. We have given $298 million to fund a $260 million settlement that the arbitration people brought forward. Included in that settlement was an extra tax, I will say, on the Calgary public school board for $7 million.

Again, quite simply this time – I’ll even try to make it simpler if I can, Mr. Speaker – the $7 million levels the playing field between Edmonton and Calgary. Dr. Pannu: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: do students in the Edmonton, Red Deer, Elk Island school boards and elsewhere really deserve to lose hundre ds of tea chers and v aluable se rvices a ll because their Tory MLAs are asleep at the switch? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, I will say ca tegorically that ev ery Tory MLA in this Assembly represents their school boards and represents

182 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 their people. As you were told yesterday, when it comes to areas like Elk Island, the y have assured m e that they will no t be runnin g a deficit. We’ve seen some very interesting things in Elk Island, for example, in that they gave their support staff a 14 percent pay increase as well. These are all the types of things that we are looking at. Those are t he indep endent decisions that scho ol boards make right now, and we are confident in working with them.

It’s going to be tight, absolutely, but we are confident that the school boards will come out of this, that they will be okay , and to the hon. minister from Bavaria, that we, too, will be number one in the world again next year. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Crop Insurance Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Crop insurance changes recently announced by the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation have many of my agricultural producers very interested in the new programs.

However, they are concerned with getting an appointment to see th e A FSC insuranc e administrator be fore the deadline of February 28, which is tomorrow. My question is to the Minister of Ag riculture, F ood and Rural D evelopment. What i s AFSC doing in response to the tremendous uptake for pasture and forage insurance programs? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, there’s been a remarkable uptake on this program .

I thi nk it’s a direct re sponse fr om produce rs to changes that have been made to the program that ma ke it m ore responsive to thei r needs, and that’s as it should be because the changes we made were farmer driven. The dea dline is tom orrow. Sta ff have been w orking up til l 7 o’clock at night and past. The deadline is tomorrow, but if produc- ers call in for an appointment and they cannot be seen, we will go up to March 11 to accommodate those appointments. But, Mr.

Speaker, if people do not contact a representative in the many offices we have across the province before the end of the working day on February 28, they will not be accepted in the program. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Many of my producers make th eir renta l decisions for the f ollowing y ear in December. Why did the deadline for forage and pasture insurance get moved up three months to December 15, 2003, for next year’s crop insurance? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, this is an i nsurance program.

It is meant to be part of the risk managem ent tools that a producer has, and we believe that they would be quite cap able of making thos e decisions by December 15. An insurance program does not work if you wait until the eve of an event to insure. We are expecting that people, if they feel that they need this risk management tool, would make that decision in December. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For m y final supplemental, to the same minister. Many of my crop producers are concerned about the new prices for the crop insurance, that haven’t been release d y et.

W hen will t hese num bers be av ailable f or producers to make the best decisions for their operations? Mrs. McClellan: Those numbers will be available for producers on March 10. The deadline for that insurance program is April 30, and we’re confident that we will be able to accommodate producers in that time frame. Mr. Speaker, I think we do have to recognize that those changes to that program were just made less than a month ago, so I think that for staff to be ready and the numbers to be ready for us and accurate, March 10 is what we could achieve. The Speaker: Before calling on the hon.

Member for Edmonton- Riverview, let me advise the House that we will have an additional point of order, this one raised by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney Genera l on an exc hange wit h the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Mill Woods. He just didn’t rise at the time. Learning Resources Centre Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, schools that wish to use the $20 million the government has provided for textbooks and resource material must purchase them through the government-owned Learning Resources Centre. Schools must do this despite the fact the Learning Resources Centre charges far above the market price f or many items.

The government is using the Learning Resources Centre as a c ompany store to claw back funds from cash-starved schools. To the Minister of Learning : given t hat pur chasing 10 dictionar ies, 10 spel ling books, and 20 atlases will cost a school over $400 more through the Learning Resource s Centre t han other suppli ers, why does the Learning Resources Centre consistently overcharge schools? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, I find that question extremely, extremely offensive.

The Learning Resources Centre has provided an economy of scale for all our school boards and provides on average around a 25 percent discount to what it can be purchased for elsewhere. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take the risk of offending the minister more in tabling the information to back up my question. The Speaker: We’ll do the tab lings at the appropriate time in the Routine. Please proceed. Dr. Taft: Thank you.

To the Premier: will the Premier admit that his governm ent has a double standar d when it t ies the ha nds of schools in purchasing materials e ven if it dr ives cos ts up, ye t it complains so loudly when strings are attached to federal dollars for health? Mr. Klein: What was the question? Mr. Speaker, what wa s the question? Are we tying their hands? No. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to repeat it. To the Minister of Learning: will the minister give schools the opportu- nity t o purcha se the materials they need from the lowest cost provider? Dr. Oberg: Mr.

Speaker, there is no obligation for the school boards to purchase their equipment from the Learning Resources Centre. Right now there’s approximately $32 million worth of resources that are purchased at the Learning Resources Centre each year. Above the $20 million that was provided now, we also give school boards a credit for $5 million to purchase them at the Learning Resource s Centre.

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 183 I will table on Monday the evidence that shows the prices for the Learning Resource s Centre, and at that time I fully expect an apology from this hon. me mber for mys elf and my staff and my department. 2:00 The Speak er: The h on. Member for Dra yton Valle y-Calmar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Commercial Fishery Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency some residents have f ished for many year s under commercial fi shing licences.

Pigeon Lake and Buck Lake f ishers have f ollowed the rules, reported thei r catche s, and ma de use of the renew able commercial fishing resource. It’s not uncommon to see three or four generations of fishers on the lake setting nets. People drive from all over Alberta to purchase whitefish right off Buck Lake. The small town turns into a f ish marketplace for the da y. The community comes to life hol ding a supper and a breakfast especially for the fishermen. If this is to change, there would be a str ong economic impact on the community.

In the past year the Department of Sustainable Resource Development has been implementing a plan that would put nu merous small operators out of b usiness. S o my question is for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. [some applause] Thank you. Is there a future for Alberta’s commer- cial fishery, and does it include small operators? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardi nal: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker. That’s an excellent question by that member. The challenge is to have both a sportfishing and a commercial fishing industry in Alberta.

As you mentioned before, the commerci al fishing industry i n Alberta is about 800 comm ercial f ishermen. They presently access about 34,000 100-yard nets, and it’s approximately a $5 million industry. The targeted species, of course, are tullibee and whitefish. On the other hand, the sportfishing industry is over $350 million, and over 350,000 members belong to that industry. So we do have challenges as to how we do the balance as we move forward. In order to have a viable sportfishing industry and a commerc ial fishing industry, Mr.

Speaker, we intend through a co mpensation program to reduce t he number of c ommercial fishermen, to start with, down to about 200. Of course, they would also access about 18,000 100-yard nets. The compensation program, I believe, is one that was done jointly with the comm ercial fisheries association of Alberta, and they’re fully supportive of it. The area of the very small operators the member mentioned, with four total net privileges they can continue fishing until March 31 of 2005, at which time they will no longer be able to license. The Speaker: The hon. member. Rev. Abbott: Thank you.

My only supplemental question for the same minister is: what are the time lines for buyouts, including the deadline for sm all operators to ama lgamate in order t o stay in business? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Yes. Mr. Speaker, a letter went out over a year ago to the commercial fishermen of Alberta advising them that there are time lines. In f act, the oppor tunity to a pply for compensation is February 28, which is, I believe, tomorrow. Anyone who wants to continue commercial fisheries and hasn’t bought a licence, this year for open lakes it’s March 15. That’s important.

A transfer for this year is March 15. Eligible small operators – and this is the important one – with fewer than four total net privileges who want to st ay in the fisheries and buy out larger operators is March 15 of 2005. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Human Rights Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Several years ago we had a cabinet minister of this government advocating that pedophiles be put in with the general prison population to let the moral prisoners deal with them , and now w e have t he Membe r for Edmonton- Norwood scoffing at hum an rights legislation, musing admiringly about using 50-millimetre machine guns on protesters, and advocat- ing shipping repeat offenders to Russian gulags. My questions are to the Premier. Will the Premier ask this member of his caucus to apologize and withdraw his statements? Mr. Masyk: Point of order. Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. m ember alluded to has rai sed a point of order, and I don’t know, other than reading the n ews reports, what ex actly he did say . I don’t rec all readi ng in the newspaper

article the comments or the statements made by the hon. member, but I will do this. I will undertake to discuss the situation with the hon. member. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. That’s satisfactory. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Police Services Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Solicitor General.

Urban municipalities over a population and size of 2,500 are required to pay for police services, while rural munici- palities and smaller urban municipalities are not required to do so even though they do receiv e police s ervices and re ceive the fine revenues collected there. My question is: when will the Solicitor General take steps to correct this inequity? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Member for Olds- Didsbury-Three Hills is correct when he says that cities and towns and villages and summer villages with more than 2,500 people are required to pay for pol ice services. Th is is clea rly laid out in the Police Act. I realize that some communities, especially many rural communities where the tax base does not reflect the policing needs, are having a hard time funding their policing. I’ve met with many communities across the province, and I’ve listened carefully to their concerns. This is an issue around equity, and we have to look at how we can make the system more fair.

Equity is a complex issue. It’s a growing concern and one that’s been taken very seriously by this government. That’s why the government MLA committee was asked to review policing in the province. We are reviewing the recommen- dations from the committee and the responses we’ve received, and the next step will be a careful review by our government.

184 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, given that there’s a movement started by some smaller urban municipalities over 2,500 to withhold pay ment f or pol ice serv ices until this situati on is resolved, can the minister assure Albertans in those municipalities that police service will continue uninterrupted? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth : Thanks, Mr. Speake r.

I understand t hat many municipalities in this province are in difficult situations, an d I’m disappointed to hear from the hon. member that some municipalities have decided to t ake that action in th eir contra cts with the federal government. I have not personally been contacted by any municipal- ities advising me of their plans. Again I’d like to assure the hon. member that we are p roviding police services in this province and would be willi ng to discus s his issue s with his towns , and I’d be pleased to meet with them. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question to the same minister: would she consider im mediately alloc ating a ll fine revenues collected within the police district to those municipalities who do in fact pay for the service? Mrs. Forsyth: Mr. Sp eaker, the bulk of the fine revenue from the municipal statutes already goes to the municipalities in w hich the fine i s issued w ith the exc eption of a surcharg e that goe s to the administrative costs and to support victims’ programs. It’s up to the municipalities to determine how that funding is used. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Natural Gas Rebates Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. This governm ent’s generosity has no limits during an election year, but now we find out the truth about the Natural Gas Price Protection Act, and we find out that it is yet another broken election promise. My first question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. What happened to the $396 million that was left over from the en ergy rebate pro gram in the election year? Where’s that money now? Mr. Lund : Mr.

Speake r, I believe t hat the hon. m ember is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and if, in f act, he is really concerned about something that happened over two years ago on the financial side, I would think that he would be able to find that in the public accounts. Either his research – incidentally, they get a large amount of money for their party research – is not working or he’s not doing his job on Public Accounts. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, this time to the hon. Minister of Finance. The $125 million that was committed to the Natural Gas Price Prot ection Act two years ago was not spent.

Where is that money now, and why don’t you use it to provide emergency relief to Albertans at this moment? Mr. Smith: Be gentle. It’s Thursday. Mrs. Nelson: I’m reminded it’s Thursday, and it’s been a long week, but I’m just a little perplexed that this hon. member as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee doesn’t have a handle on what is going on from the years past. T hat’s his job . I’m jus t really surprised that he’s asking these questions. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Energy.

Given that “B ill 1 do es exactly that. [It] enables the government to react to gas spikes,” why are the words of the Minister of Energy during debate on Bill 1 not the law now? Why do you have this cumbersome formula that does not allow for gas rebates when you said that gas rebates were just going to be for the spikes? Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker: So when you think that this is the flagship piece of legislation from this government, I have to ca ution the consumers of the province and I have to caution all hon. members of the Assembly: we cannot accept this bill in this form. It is a blank cheque.

It is like giving the government a credit card with unlimited spending: here; go for it. Anything could happen here. Another sentence: “The concept of gas rebate programs is not bad.” Did I say that in deba te? No. The chairman of Public Accounts, who is supposed to know where the money has gone, said that in the debate in 2001. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Natural Gas Prices (continued) Mr. Mason: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker .

This w inter Albertans have the du bious privilege of paying the highest home heating costs in the prairie provinces. The natural gas prices that will be paid next month by Saskatchewan residents will be more than $3.40 per gigajoule lower than the price Alberta residents will pay, and residents of Manitoba will pay $2.80 per gigajoule less than we pay in Alberta. We are sitting right on top of the gas. We suppos- edly own it, yet we’re paying more for it than people i n ot her provinces. What’s wrong with this picture? My question is to the Minister of Energ y.

Why can p rovinces l ike Sask atchewan and Manitoba deliver natural gas to their citizens at winter rates that are 30 to 40 percent lower than the rates Alberta natural gas consumers have to pay in this province? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right when he says that he is sitting on top of all the gas. To compare, on February 24, 2003, the price of gas in Alberta was $12.20 a gigajoule, while the price of gas delivered in Toronto was $25.70 a gigajoule.

This member knows full well from his experi- ence with big business in the utility of EPCOR that people can buy in these other provinces contracted rates, and those Crown corpora- tions which support government debt guaranteed by the taxpayer are the same companies, Mr. Speaker, that buy their gas on a 12-month basis. I would ask him to ask the same question in two or three months’ time, and he will find that the price of natural gas will be somewhere between 35 and 70 percent higher in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba than it is in the province of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member.

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 185 Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I appreciate the minister when he’s witty but not when he’s half witty. Why should Albertans care that rates are cheaper in the summer when they’re being gouged now during the winter at the very time they use the most natural gas? The Speaker: That’s an opinion, hon. minister. Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. S peaker, I only wanted to be half witty so I could be on the same level. It’s very, very clear that the price of natural gas in Alberta today is sold at a s pot rate.

I f people want to put a contract, they could have bought a contract from EPCOR or Enmax. In the future, Mr. Speaker, there’ll always be a flow-through rate if people want to pay spot rate, but there will be opportunities for people to buy contract rate as we ll. Year on year , in and out, A lbertans have been well served by their utilities, by the legislators, and by the great benefits that natural gas produces for this province. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I referred earlier to not only is there no sales tax in the provinc e, but we ’ve seen a thir d-quarter update that reflects how Albe rtans va lue and use the oil and g as reve nue royalties that acc rue to them , a nd this w ill continue. We wi ll continue to be vigilant with a program that is unique in Canada and will protect Albertans at the point where the average annual price exceeds $5.50 per gigajoule. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I’ll ask a question. I’m tempted to make a statement.

The Speaker: Well, I’d like you to ask a question because those are the rules that you told me to enforce. Mr. Mason: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that. Given that Medicine Hat has cheaper gas than the rest of Alberta, given that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have cheaper gas than th e rest of Albe rta, wha t is it that those juris dictions know that the Minister of Energy in this province doesn’t know? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that people in Medicine Hat, I know tha t people in Sa skatchewan – I’ve been t here.

I w ent to school at a little place called Notre Dame College, where in fact we didn’t have natural gas. We had propane, and they would come and fill our tanks w ith propane. I n fact , when this college ran out of money, we didn’t get money for propane. We just sat there without any heat at all, but we didn’t complain. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I’ve worked in Manitoba as well. Manitoba has just converted its only coal-fired electricity generating station, in Selkirk, Ma nitoba, where I worked at the Selkirk Gordon Hotel slinging beer to try and get through college.

That group now uses Alberta gas to fire up their electricity. We’re proud of what we do. We’re proud of how we protect seniors. We’re proud of how we prote ct low-income Albertans. We’ll continue to be fair. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Regional Health Authority Human Resource Costs Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In large corporations overtime pay as a percentage of total payroll rarely exceeds 1 or 2 percent, and 5 percent would be an item of some concern. We know that human resource costs – in other words, the payroll – are a major concern to health regions.

In fact, the highes t percentage of he alth authority costs are rel ated to the human re source com ponent, wag es and salaries. I understa nd that more nurses are listed as working part- time than full- time, which is driv ing up overt ime costs, and that takes money away from other patient needs. My question is to the Minister of Hea lth and Wellness. Can the minister tell us what percentage of nurses work full-time and what percentage work part- time in the Calgary health region? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry to the Calgary health region has yielded the following information.

There are 7,882 registered nurses working for that region. Of those, 1,679 are employed on a regular full-time basis, 3,058 are employed on a regular part-time basis, and the remaining 3,145 nurses are working in temporary positions or on casual contracts. Provincially there are a total of 21,390 nurses currently working for RHAs. Of those, only 7,059 are working regular full-time, 9,626 are working regular part-time, and 4,706 are working in temporary positions or on casual contracts. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question to the same minister: how much of the Calgary health region’s total spending on part-time and how much on full-time nurses goes to pay for over- time? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the Calgary regional health authority has an entire budget allocation for nurses’ salaries in the amount of $305 million, and of tha t total, appr oximately $12 m illion is paid for nursing overtime costs. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My third question to the same minister: will the government ensure that nursing overtime costs are addressed in the curr ent negotiat ions betwe en the public health authorities of Alberta and the United Nurses of Alberta? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speake r, it is v ery im portant to know th at t he contracts for nurses are betwee n regional health author ities and nurses and not contra cts with the gove rnment of Alberta. So the responsibility for negotiating new contracts rests with the provincial health authorities of Alberta. That contract with the UNA, the United Nurses of Alberta, expires on the 31st of March 2003.

The Alberta government has no role in negotiating nurses’ contracted hours of work or in determining their work schedules. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. 2:20 Licence Plates Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Lic ence plates on motor vehicles help soci ety catch criminal s, stop t raffic vi olators, and recover stol en property. In Alberta, unlike nearly every other province and state on the continent, a plate is req uired onl y on the rear of the vehicle.

The absence of a front plate hampers the police’s ability to catch v iolators and criminals and locate stolen property. We have hea rd the story about a ve hicle whose occupants w ere following and harassing children but could not be identified because

186 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 it was only viewed from the front. My questions are to the Minister of Transportation. Given that crime prevention organizations such as police services and Crime Watch in Alberta unanimously agree that front plates will help to curtail crime and increase public safety, when is the minister going to introduce mandatory front plates? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Stelmach: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the hon. member will remember the discussion we had in this House some time ago on a motion that was brought forward by the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan with respect to issuing front licence plates. The decision of the House then, if I recall correctly, was to wait until we had to change the numerical sequence of our licence plates, given the reason of population growth, et cetera, an d then that’s when we would visit and look at the possi bility of running a new numerical system for licence plates. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bonner: Yes. Mr.

Speaker, the minister was quite correct that in the year 2000 we did pass a motion in this House and that many Albertans supported the front licence plate program. Why will the minister not commit at this time that when this date does arrive, front licence plates will be reintroduced in Alberta? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have a motion that was duly passed in this House, and I suspect and believe that it’s my responsibility to adhere to the mot ion that was passed by the m ajority of these members. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bonner: Yes. Mr.

S peaker, to the same minister: given that new plates would only cost a few dollars for each driver, does the minister not agree that this is an insignificant cost for increased public safety? Mr. Stel mach: Mr. Speaker, the hon. m ember is very correct in terms of v arious issues brought forward by numerous groups that have talked about issuing front licence plates. These would be from crime prevention to school bus drivers to others.

We are currently assessing a lot of that information that has come forward in terms of school bus safety and crime prevention and are going to be coming forward with some recommendations. It might not all be in the form of a front l icence plate but signi ficantly looking at c hanges to the Traffic Safety Act to ensure that motorists are safe on our provincial highways and also at that time try and reduce significantly some of the crime that occurs. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Natural Gas Prices (continued) Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our Calgary-Fort constituency covers a large industrial pa rk in Calgary. A few days a go the manager of a long-established factory in my constituency contacted me expressing his worry about the large increase in gas bills, that affects the viability of his business and the jobs of his empl oyees. He talked about a gas billing increase around a hundred thousand dollars even thoug h his business volume stays the sam e. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Gas prices have risen over the past few months, and my constituents want to know how the natural gas prices are determined. Mr. Smith: Well, Mr.

Speaker, Albertans who buy natural gas from ATCO or AltaGas receive a monthly flow-through price based on daily and monthly spot prices. There is no profit component to these prices. The wholesale prices, however, are based on market prices set in an integrated North American marketplace. We export three- quarters of what we produce; we k eep 25 perce nt.

Of course, as everybody has seen and everybody has talked about, we have a very cyclical pattern in t hese pr ices: col d winter w eather, c hokes in pipelines, links to the oil price, e xplosions in Stat en Island of gasoline stocks, poor drilling activity, and now it’s been ramped up to massive drilling activity. So i t is difficult to ascertai n a stable price. However, there are people in the marketplace who you can go out and contract throug h hedging or through a series of financial instruments, as a business, to be able to get specific pricing. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in various papers today there were numerous reports that the hottest sector for growth, profit, and money invested will be the oil field energy sector, and that is a function of the quest for natural gas stocks and natural gas reserves in this province. As we see an economy that’s going to have economic growth of some 4.9 to 5 percent, that search for natural gas will aid all businesses in Alberta because that is goi ng to br ing in a tre mendous amount of investment.

In fact, an oil and gas exploration company must spend anywhere from 115 to 125 percent of its cash flow in ord er to stay alive, t o stay prosperous. So t hat money is inject ed into this economy on a continual basis, which then, of course, raises the taxes, the royalties, and allows us to be the num ber one pr ovince in thi s dominion. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Small commercial businesses in my area, with their limited cash flow , would like to know what natural gas pricing options are available for them. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Smith: Well, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I think this is an area where the provincial government in co-operation with the industry can do more to provide a consumer education program, a program where we actually get more information out to small businesses, the real backbone of today’s economy. In fact, there might be a minister here who’ll w ish to talk about the sm all bus iness health of the economy given the change in energy prices in this marketplace.

But those particular companies can already choose today from Enmax, EPCOR, and other natural gas marketing agencies to find s pecific contract points that will then allow them to nail down or determine a level of certainty for their business inputs, and we all know tha t certainty in business inputs is an important component of profit and growth. Now, it’s my understanding, Mr. Spea ker, that many of these companies are in fact doing well. Bu siness bankruptcies are at a very manageable level in Alberta, and I know that the hon. Minister of Economic Development will add materially to this question.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what can Alberta businesses expect from the gove rnment policy if the natural gas price stays or keeps rising?

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 187 Mr. Smith: Well, you know, Mr. Speak er, businesses in A lberta today can expect the very s ame treatment that they have received since June 15, 1993, and t hat is a g overnment that p rovides an environment that allows the private sector to flourish, a government that will no t get involved in the ordinary business dealings of the day, a government that will not lend money and pick favourites over one company or another.

This government will continue to provide that appropriate environment that allows business to flourish in this fair province. head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Edson Savings & Credit Union Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is w ith great pleasure today that I rise to recognize the Edson Savings & Credit Union. This pas t week they c elebrated their 60th anni versary of serving the Edson and district residents in the town of Edson. The Edson Savings & Credit Union was incorporated on April 16, 1943.

Their first annual meeting was held on January 12, 1944, with five elected directors, three credit committee members, three supervisory committee members. They approved 31 loans ranging from $15 to $30 each. The credit union declared its first dividend in 1945 and joined the Credit Union League of A lberta in 1946. In 1951 the credit union introduced s avings insurance. Through the ’50s the credit union grew continually . In 1957 the credit union joined Credit Union Centra l Albert a.

By 1960 the credit union had surpassed $100,000 in loan guarantees since its inception. 2:30 The economy began to heat up in t he ’70s, and the credit union experienced phenomenal growth. In 1973 the credit union hired its first full-tim e man ager and opened for f ull servi ce introduci ng current accounts. By 1975 the credit union a ssets surpassed the million-dollar mark. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 through 199 5 the credit union introduced home and auto insurance, registered retirement income funds, Interac payment terminals, and str ictly business accounts.

Over the n ext couple of years the credit union entered the technological age with the installation of its first ATM. Congratulations, Edson Saving s & Credi t Union, on y our 60th anniversary, and thanks for your ded ication to the consti tuents of Edson and district. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Evan-Thomas Provincial Recreation Area Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta is home to some of the most beautiful and diverse ecosystems on earth. Albertans know this and appreciate it, and they are willing to mak e the sacrifices necessary to preserve it.

Unfortunately, this government does not share the same commit- ment towards the envir onment as th e people of Alberta. This is abundantly clear f rom the dr aft m anagement plan f or t he E van- Thomas area submitted last November. In the plan the government outlined how it w ill allow new com mercial development and the expansion of existing commercial interests in this fragile area. This will place in jeopardy the delicate balance between development and protection of this precious natural environment.

On e of the most distressing aspects of this entire process is how this government has systematically ignored the public input. This, of course, is nothing unusual, but for the Evan-Thomas area the government ignored the results of its own public survey conducted by an expensive private consulting firm. What did Albertans tell their government in this survey? Ninety percent of Albe rtans sai d that the hig hest priority in Kananas kis should be environm ental protection even if it means f ewer recre- ational opportunities for people.

Ni nety-one percent of Albertans said that Kananaskis is a home for wildlife and that it is our responsi- bility to protect this area for them. Eighty-seven percent of Alber- tans said that commercial development should be directed outside Kananaskis Country, in which Evan-Thomas resides. In spite of the sentiments expressed by Albertans, this government has gone ahead with plans that will allow more development and that will inevitably diminish the value of this natural area for wildlife and for people.

I call up on this gove rnment to listen to the will of Alberta ’s people, to listen to their own survey and redraft a management plan for the Evan- Thomas area. T his plan should hol d the will of Albertans and needs of the environment paramount and relegate the interests of industry to a position of on ly nominal importance. Albertans demand no less. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Betty and Bud Underwood Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Much has been said directed to the Minister of Children’s Services in this Assembly this week.

This minister, her staff, and the foster parents in Whitecourt- Ste. Anne have been outstanding. One outstanding couple in Whitecourt-Ste. Anne is Betty and Bud Underwood, and I’d like to tell you their story. Betty and Bud were foster parents in the Whitecourt area for a 28-year period, from June 1974 until June of last year. They reside on an ac reage i n rural Whitecourt but were seen in tow n daily, running errands, meeting with school of ficials, social workers, and d octors, to name a few. Everyone in town affectionately knew them as granny and granddad.

I don’t think it was until I was 40 that I knew “Betty.” I just knew her as gra nny. She was alway s just gra nny in the town of Whitecourt. During their time as foster parents Betty and Bud fos tered 141 children. [interject ions] It’s outs tanding. T hey inc luded many long-term placements and some overnight placements. They never turned away any child. They were always willing to take a call from any worke r at any hour of the da y, includi ng many calls in t he middle of the night.

They were always willing to give every child a chance and were strong advocates for children, but they also held them accountable. The chi ldren’s families also found t he Under- woods to be supportive and would cal l on them of ten during placements and after the children returned home. Betty and Bud saw many children reach adulthood in their home and to this day maintain ongoing relationships with many of them. They took in children and accepted them as part of their family and continue to be granny and grandad to many sets of next generation children.

They worked very well with teenagers and for many years fostered six teens at any given time. During their many years of tireless commitment to the children and social workers, they seldom took a holiday or were unavailable at a moment’s notice. They would carry cell phones and could be counted on quickl y to return to town whenever there was a place- ment in crisis. The decision for the U nderwoods to finally stop fostering was made with much difficulty and was primarily due to health and old Father Time.

If they could have, they’d still be fostering today and offering their much-needed unconditional love to many more Alberta children.

188 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 *See p. 141, right col., para. 6, line 2 The home closed in June of 2002, when the couple chose to retire after seeing many children successfully enter adulthood. A retire- ment party was held by the Whitecourt office and was attended by many community members, former foster children, and staff. Thank you to Granny and Grandad Underwood. The Speaker: Hon. member, the next time the chair recognizes, the time frame will be one minute. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Education Policy Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

School boa rds and pare nts across the province are raising the alarm about a growing crisis in our schools caused by this Tory gover nment’s policies. Albertans know that this c risis was caused not by dec isions made locally by school boards or specific schools but the policy decisions unilater- ally imposed by th is government, policy decisions that increased costs for school boards but that the government is now refusing to pay for. The first decision that put school boards behind the eight ball was ramming Bill 12 through the Legislature last spring.

Bill 12 imposed binding arbitration in a dispute with teachers. Since the arbitrator announced the settlement last June, the government has stubbornly refused to pony up for the arbitration award. As Michele Mulder, president of the A lberta School Boards A ssociation, said on February 6: Do the math — sch ool boards received six per cent to pay teacher salaries; a third party arbitrator imposed a salary increase of 14.09 per cent — we’re looking at a $142 mil lion shortfall for ever and ever.

Another unilateral decision that negatively impacted school board budgets was imposing a funding cap on how many credits grade 10 students can earn. Finally, the government unilaterally changed the formula for calculating school operation and maintenance grants. In the case of Red Deer public schools, for example, this reduced their grant increase to pay for things like skyrocketing utility bills from 3 percent to less than 1 percent.

In summing up the frustration of school boards and parents across the province, the chair of Elk Island school board, Maureen Towns, said of the Minis ter of L earning, “He’s just not listening .” She further accused the minister of “m isleading” Albertans. Strong words, indeed. Why isn’t the Minister of Learning listening? I’m not sure, but one thing is certai n: the ministe r’s mindless ref usal to list en is hurting schoolch ildren i n this pr ovince. Cl ass sizes will gr ow. Programs that allow our children to achieve excellence will be scaled back as will programs and support for children with special needs.

That is the real tragedy, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Government Services, the hon. Mem ber for Livingstone-Macleod, I’m pleased to present a petition signed by 26 residents that ask the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to “remove abortion from the lis t of insured services that w ill be paid thr ough Alberta Health.” The Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunvegan. Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present two petitions.

Both are from my constituency. They are petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to deinsure abortions. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Highwood. Mr. Tannas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition with 40 signatures from Highwood and area residents asking for the Legislature to “remove abortion from the list of insured services that will paid for through Alberta Health.” 2:40head : Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank y ou, Mr. Spe aker. I rise purs uant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand a nd retain their places. I’m also giving notice that on Monday I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and re tain their places. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Smit h: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I w ish to ta ble further information to a question that I responded to yesterday with respect to Medicine Hat royalties.

In fact, the city of Medicine Hat does pay some royalties.* They do not pay roya lties on a portion of an agreement created by the Par liament of Canada, the Medicine Hat gas agreement area, which was signed in 1915. When the province of Alberta was granted control over its own resources, a most notable decision worked hard for and obtained by former Premier Brownlee, this part became exempt for Medicine Hat. There are curren tly 440 gas wells in the Medicine Hat gas agreement area, and the price benefits to the city over the past decade have been worth approximately $3 million annually.

Medicine Hat has been a very co-operative player in this m arketplace, and I di d want to clear that information up. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. The first is the appropriate number of copies of 197 letters to the Minister of Learning from university students.

The letters raise concerns over rapidly rising tuition fees, note that Alberta ranks eighth out of 10 provinces in its ge neral op erating grants to universities, and notes that tuition fees in Alberta have risen 209 percent in the past decade, reducing access to higher education and jeopardizing the future of this province. My second set of tablings today concerns education as well.

It’s the appropr iate number of copies of a pet ition signed by 2,772 Albertans expressing their concern about reductions in teaching staff, larger c lassroom sizes, and the elimination of various special programs, and urging the government to “increase funding for public education.” This pet ition was launched a mere two weeks ago by three sisters that I introduced earlier today, and it spread so quickly because it reflects the seriousness of these concerns. My third ta bling is a docum ent that appa rently has information that offends the Minister of Learning.

It’s simply a comparison of prices between the Learning Resources Centre, Chapters bookstore,

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 189 and National Book Service o n 13 different items showing that the Learning Resources Centre prices are 10 to 80 percent higher than other suppliers. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings this afternoon.

The first is from Vicki MacIsaac, who participated in an environmental science class that completed an environmental assessment on the Evan-Thomas Creek area showing vegetation in the area is of unique importance to supporting wildlife populations and would lik e developm ent stopped in t hat area . S he is from Calgary. Ron Dagg, who also is very concerned over future commercial development of the Evan-Thomas area in Kananaskis Country, wants it stopped. Dennis Floate, w ho i s fr om Calg ary, the same thing, is not supportive of any further development in the Evan-Thomas area.

Alix Miller also believes t hat the Ka nanaskis Valley needs protection and that we should stop all future development in that area. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Yes. Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . I would like to table over 400 signatures from Albertans from all over the province who are urging the government to initiate a natural gas rebates program. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Mrs. Gordo n: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I r ise to day with two tablings.

First is a copy of the council resolution from the town of Blackfalds wher eby t hey u nanimously as a council r eject the recommendations of the Ele ctoral Boundaries Commission on the grounds of democratic and social diversity and ask the Legislature to reinstate the town of Bl ackfalds within the Lacombe-P onoka constituency. The second tabling is a letter from the town of Lacombe bearing the may or’s signa ture whe rein they endorse and support th e inclusion of the town o f Blackfalds withi n the Lacombe- Ponoka constituency, removing them from Red Deer-North. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, M r. Speaker. I’ve got one tabling today, five copies of a letter written by Ms Heather Waldie dated February 17, addressed to the Ministe r of Le arning and c opied to me . Ms Waldie is expressing her deep disappointment and sadness with the Minister of Learning’s failure to listen to Albertans who are asking him to fund our school boards and our schools appropriately so that our children will get the best education that we can possibly provide them. 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 is a letter from the office of the mayor of the city of Edmonton dated February 26, 2003, and addressed to the Premier and the Minister of Energy. The letter contains the motion passed by city council on Februar y 25 asking the government of Alberta to “imm ediately institute the natural gas pric e protection rebate program.” The second letter is from Mrs. Margaret Stumborg, a senior from Edmonton, dated February 24, 2003, and addressed to the Premier.

She draws t he Premie r’s attention to his brok en promis e of gas rebates and asks that a rebate be granted immediately. head : Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess Ms Carlso n: Mr. Speake r, at this t ime I w ould lik e to ask the Government House Le ader for the inform ation on next w eek’s projected government business. The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under projected govern- ment business for next week on Monday, March 3, at 9 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders, Committee of the Whole for Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, and second reading of Bill 17, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2003, Bill 3, and as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, March 4, in t he afternoon under Government Bills and Orders thi rd reading of Bill 1, t he Premier’s Council on Al- berta’s Promise A ct; second reading of Bill 7, the R eal Esta te Amendment Act, 2003, B ill 13, the Gove rnment O rganization Amendment Act, 2003, Bill 10, the Health Information Amendment Act, 2003, Bill 14, the Securities Amendment Act, 2003, Bill 15, Forest and Prairie Prote ction Amendment Act, 2003, and Bil l 16, Agricultural Dispositions Statutes Amendment Act, 2003; and as per the Order Paper.

At 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders in Committee of the Whole Bill 17, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act, and Bill 3, the Electric Utilities Act and as per the Order Paper. On Wednesday, March 5, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders for third reading Bill 17, the Appropriation (Supplemen- tary Supply) Act; Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 3, the Electric Utilities Act; and as per the Order Paper.

At 8 p.m. under Governmen t Bills and O rders for third reading Bill 17, Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act, and Bill 3, the Electric Utilities Act, and in Committee of the Whole subject to ti me permitting bills 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13. On Thursday, March 6, under Government Bills and Orders in the afternoon for second reading bills 14, 15, 16, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21 and as per the Order Paper. That would appear to cover the week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker’s Ruling Decorum The Speaker: Well, hon. members, being Thursday and all, we have three points of orde r to deal with, but prior to t hat I would like to make a few comments with respect to a memo I sent February 12, 2003, to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, particularly the

section dealing with decorum in the House. I’m particularly going to make these comments to the Sergeant-at-Arms, the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, the hon. Member for Calgary- Currie, the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness, the hon. the whip for the government caucus, the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. I write underlined:

190 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 Members are reminded that the consumption of food is not permit- ted in the Chamb er. After Orders of the Day are called, Members may consume beverages such as tea, coffee, soft drinks and juice, provided that they are contained in special cups which can be found in the South members’ lounge.

Furthermore, the same kind of suggestion should apply to the use of computers until we get Orders of the Day. 2:50 We want to be consistent because, after all, this is a result of all the consultation with members of the whole Assembly, and it might in fact e ncourage us to continue with the Routine in a more pre- scribed, quicker way if, in fact, we know that we can just do these other things at the conclusion of the Routine. Now, it really doesn’t help very much if the hon. Mem ber fo r Calgary-East chooses now to inform the House that the hon.

Member for Calgary-Shaw is in violation as well, but that magnanimous point of view is really quite helpf ul. The hon. Mi nister of Health a nd Wellness is actually in two violations: drinking coffee and using his computer. Okay. Let’s try and get through these three points of order with the best harmony that we can possibly deal with in recognition that it is Thursday afternoon. So number one. Let’s see. Do I take it that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar has a point of order? Point of Order Allegations against a Member Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Spe aker.

I rise thi s after noon under 23(h), which is “makes allegations against another member,” an d also 23(i), “imputes false or unavowed motives to another member,” in regard to remarks that were made earlier in question period this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. member stated in the exc hange that t his hon. member supported the Natural Gas Price Protection Act and voted for it, and that is simply not true, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, if you look at Hansard from that tim e period, w henever B ill 1, the f lagship bill of this government after it was re-elected, was debated, one will see that I could see through the bill and that we tried to amend the bill. At no point in time did I support this bill in votes, and I would ask now that the hon. member apologize and retract that. Thank you. Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, my intention was not to slight the hon. member opposite.

In reviewing the Hansard of May 28 of 2001, the time that third reading was given for the bill, the vote was called, and normally when there is opposition to a bill, there’s a standing vote recorded by the members opposite. When there was none, I made an assumption that we had swayed the hon. member to agree to the bill. However, if I have made him feel slighted, I do retract that. I don’t want you t o feel slighted , but I am goin g only by the lack o f a standing vote and the record in Hansard. The Speaker: Is the matter dealt with? Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the hon.

Minister of Finance. The Speak er: Now, the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Point of Order Allegations against a Member Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a question during question period today the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods h ad a rather long and unfortuna te pream ble whic h offende d sections 23(

h) and (

j) in his question and specifically offended the sensibili- ties of members by making allegation against another member. Now, I know that normally when using 23(h), “allegations against another member,” the member is specifically mentioned . In this ca se, he mentioned the Edmonton caucus, so I think it’s very easy to discern which members the hon. member was slandering. In his pream ble he indica ted that m embers from the Edmon ton caucus were not standing up for the city of Edmonton with respect to the boundaries commission and Edmonton losing a seat.

I think the hon. member should be a dmonished that the Electoral Bound- aries Commission is a n independent commission which is chosen through the proces ses set out by this House and set o ut by

an act passed by this House in order to allow for an independent drawing of boundaries which does not reflect politics and does not reflect the . . . [interjection] That’s right. It was terrible, as you say. Anytime a boundaries commission report comes in, members of the Hous e obje ct to the contents of it, and rightly so because members of the House are the experts for their own boundaries and ridings. They understand their communities very well.

It’s a very, very diffic ult job for a boun daries commission to put a report together, but the boundaries commission made the recommendation that Edmonton lose a seat, not the city of Edmonton MLAs, certainly not the city of Edmonton MLAs from the Progressive Conservative side of the House or the government side of the House. It is in appropriate f or the hon. m ember to sugges t that the boundaries commission is in any way an arm of government or an arm of the Edmonton caucus or in any other way politically moti- vated or driven.

It had two members chosen by the government, two members chosen by the opposition, and if I recall correctly, they chose very badly and had to do it a second time. They’re making allegations about members. When w e’re talking about something that’s so sensiti ve as bounda ries, to sa y that E dmonton members didn’t stand up – I’m not sure; I can’t say how many of them went to the boundaries commission. I know that I went to the boundaries commission.

I know that other members of the government caucus went to the boundarie s commission, and I k now that now they’re advocating the city of Edmonton spend $50,000 of taxpayers’ money to ask MLAs to cha nge a boundar y report after the fact and open ourselves to accusations of gerrymandering. Totally inappropriate and making slanderous allegations. The Speaker: The hon. Opposition Hous e Leader on this point of order. Ms Carlson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Hardly a point of order. More a point of deba te or discussi on.

In fac t, the only part he g ot right about the point of order was that Edmonton-Mill Woods was talking specifically about the T ory ca ucus whe n he talke d about the Edmonton caucus.

In fact, there have been many references, editorials, concerns by municipal politicians in this entire region that when the Edmonton Tory caucus had an opportunity to make presentations and to lobby hard and effectively, which is what they promised in the last election that they would do for Edm onton, very few of them stood up and nobody stood up very loudly to de fend the rights of Edmonton to keep that particular seat in Edmonton. The Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods did not make allegations that governm ent should unduly influence what is , i n fa ct, an independent commission.

What he was ta lking about was every member’s right in this Assembly. Mrs. Nelson: Did you go, Deb?

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 191 Ms Carlson: I talked to the commission before they met, and I was a part of the caucus committee and presentation. At the request of the commissi on I went and m ade a pre sentation to them, Mr. Speaker, which is my job as an Edmonto n MLA , and I did it. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for other people on the other side.

So, in fact, Edmonton-Mill Woods was right on the money in representing not only his view, not only the views of many municipal politicians i n this grea ter regi on but also m any vi ews sha red by people who live in this community who now feel disenfranchised. As an exam ple, the cons tituents of Edmonton-Ell erslie, by the time the next redistribution comes around, will get only half a vote in this province, and that is not reasonable, and that is not fair. If the opposition . . . The Speaker: Okay. Thank you very much. The person in question from whom these remarks came, the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, is not here, and it would really be helpful f or the chair for t he hon. Member for Edm onton-Mill Woods to be participating in this point of order. I sense that where this is go ing is I’m going to have to recognize every member who represents a seat in Edmonton to get involved in a debate that is not part of a point of order. The fact of the m atter is that the Blues clearly say the following, and I quote what the hon.

Member fo r Edmonton-Mill Woods has said: The Edmonton Tory caucus has failed to protect the city from losing a constituency and failed to get the same financial help for Edmon- ton public schools that Calgary public has received. We could spend until 5:30 here this afternoon, I’m afraid, on this point, but I’m not sure that the Hou se wants their time spent that way. So I’m g oing to delay this until Monday , and I wa nt calm heads to look at this.

The fact of the matter is that the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the province of Alberta is an independent body whose members are appointed by the in dependently e lected cha irman of this Assembly, that you all have elected. Nam es are pr ovided to the Speaker upon recommendation from the government leader and the Leader of the Opposition and are subsequently appointed. If it were to be sugg ested by any innuendo that an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, created for a purpose, was in any way influenced by any member of the Assembly, then in essence there would be a great difficulty for everybody.

So I want clear heads to think this through for the next s everal days. I’ll return to it on Monday afternoon. 3:00 My understanding is that I have tabled in the Assembly the report from the independent commission. The tradition is that the govern- ment will then introduce a motion. The members will then have a bill to deal with, subsequently, in time. All mem bers will have an opportunity to participa te in the de bate in this Assembly, where Hansard will record all of their comments for posterity without edit, and we’ll find out. But if we’re going to play with innuendo today, I want the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods to be participat- ing in this, and I’ll return to it on Monday. Now the third one. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Point of Order Allegations against Members Mr. Masyk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 23(h). The Memb er for E dmonton-Centre implied false motives, that I sugge sted using machine guns on protes ters. I a sk that the member apologize to me and to the House and withdraw her remarks. Mr.

Speaker , if I o ffended anyb ody i n th e pu blic in any wa y, shape, or form because o f the language of intent or noninte nt and different things like that and if it was taken out of context or put into context, I have issued a news release to apologize to the public, and I’d like to give this to the Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: Just a second. There’s an issue here, and I need some help, Opposition House Leader. We’ve got two points of order.

The members to whom the points are directed are not here, and it seems to me that one of the most just things that should pr evail, if we’re going to have a review of thi s, is that the hon. me mber who is coming under question with respect to the point of order should have the courtesy to the Assembly to be here in the Assembly. Now, having said that, I will listen to what the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie says before going further. Please proceed. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer to both the member’s comments in the Legislature here earlier this week in talking about this point of order and direct quotes that were given in the Edmonton Journal in an

article written by Kelly Cryderman, who in fact has the statements of the member under question on a tape recorder. What was stated there was not what the allegations were from this member when he rises on the point of order. What they talked about here – and I qu ote from t he tape re corder that we hea rd of the statements made . . . The Speaker: Please, hon. member. No, no, no. We all know what the rules are with respect to this. There’s a reason to involve yourself, hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford? Mr. McClellan d: Mr. Speake r, if I m ay comment on this.

The Speaker has referred to the absence of the member, but I think that for the recor d, because it will be the record t hat will be perused independent of any remarks that the Member for Edmonton-Centre may or may not wish to put on record, in the normal give-and-take of political life and political debate members independent of political affiliation conduct themselves in a fashion so as not to discredit each other in a capricious or a malicious manner. To break that conven- tion is to debase the v ery essence of political discourse, and that’s what we’re talking about here: the essence of political discourse.

I know that the member representing Edmonton-Centre would not wish to maliciously or accidentally impugn the integrity of another member. Theref ore, Mr. Spea ker, I respectfully request that t he Member for Edmonton-Centre or the House leader representing the Member for Edmonton-Centre on her behalf withdraw the remarks with regard to the Member for Edmonton-Norwood. The Speaker: The only thing I’m doing right now: number one, I’m going to make a request that the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre be here to participate in this point of ord er, and I’m going to refer members to page 114 of Hansard dated February 25, 2003, for the actual text of the words given by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Norwood. We all know the traditions of the House, that questions in question peri od are ruled out if as king for verification of state- ments made in newspapers and the like, and we’re not going to get involved in that. So we’re moving on now, and I ’m coming back to th ose two points Monday afternoon.

It’s now in Hansard: a public invitation by the Speake r of the A lberta Legislative Assembly to two hon. members to be here.

192 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 head : Orders of t he Day hea d: C omm ittee o f Sup ply [Mr. Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d call the Committee of Supply to order. head : Supplementary Estimate s 2002-03 Ge neral R even ue Fu nd, N o. 2 The Chair: Just so the chair has some idea of w hich way we’re going, House leaders of the three parties, do we have any directions, or do we just start with whoever jumps up first? We already have the Minister of Human R esources and Employ ment doing that. Nothing on that? Then okay. Human Resources and Employment The Chair: The hon.

Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Mr. Dunford: Okay. Than k you, Mr. Chairman. Alberta Huma n Resources and Employment, as the hon. members would know, has an annual budget of just ov er $1 billion. Suppl ementary funds of $25.8 million, r epresenting 2.4 perce nt of our budget , are being allocated to meet a higher than budgeted demand for skill training this particular year. N ow, one of the reas ons for this : the labour force has grown significantly, as we’re all aware here in Alberta, but the number of workers has grown even f aster than the numbe r of available jobs.

For an example, there were 55,000 more people i n the labour forc e in Janua ry of 2003 than a y ear earlier, while the number of jobs increased by 41,000, so the unemployment rate has crept up here in Alberta. In 2001 it averaged 4.6, and in 2002 it was 5.3. So these funds are being used to support people who are getting the skills they need to, of course, find and then keep a job, and our commitment is to give Albertans a hand up rather than a handout. So this supplementary estimate, hon. members, is necessary given the difficulty of budgeting for programs where demand is driven by a number of other issues.

Thank you. 3:10 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those introduc- tory comments. I have two questions that perhaps the minister could answer initially, and then I have another point to make. In talking about the numbers of workers increasing in Alberta, we know that that’s the case. We know that the population in Alberta is also increasing, so the expectation would be that there would be a natural increase in enrollment. My questions are: why didn’t the department budget for this incr ease over this particular year?

Do you have plans in place for next year to ensure that you can accom- modate an increase in enrollment, since we would expect supplemen- tary supply not to be an option next year? The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Dunford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As it regards the matter of the budget, we were looking at increases in this particular area, but we were also faced with some concerns that we had around the demographics that were leading into the AISH area. So what we’ve actually experienced is tha t we overbudgeted for our cos ts on t he AISH side and underbudgeted on the skills side.

So where we had anticipated growth, we were a little bit off in those particular areas. Of course, next year’s budget will be revealed imminently, and then we can see how we’ve tried to accommodate our forecast for the upcoming year. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you. Mr. Ministe r, we ha ve a diff erence of opinion of what imminent is, because the end of the first week of April hardly s eems imminent for a budget tha t will li kely be $20 billion or more to be presented in the House.

My last question and concern with these dollars, this almost $26 million that we’re taking a look at, has to do with recommendations that came fr om t he Auditor G eneral. I ’m wondering how the recommendation that came fr om the A G’s office ti es into the additional money that you may have needed, and that’s in terms of the AG a gain rec ommending tha t your departm ent “improve the procedures to monitor c ompliance by trai ning provide rs with the terms of the Skills Development Program.” It would seem to me that these training providers are still people providing training with the addition of this new money.

The cr iteria, the AG said, is that “the Department should have a plan, b ased on a r isk assessment of the training providers, to review training providers’ compliance with the terms.” The findings were that you do “not have adequate assurance that the 302 traini ng provider s cur rently deliv ering the SDP are meeting the terms of the program,” and “without effective monitor- ing, there is a risk that training providers are not complying with the terms.” There’s no assurance, therefore, “that students are receiving adequate instruction a nd training a nd that traini ng p roviders a re spending the funding appropriately.” So does any of this come into play with this additional fundi ng you have, or are any of those people back in retraining because they didn’t get the job done the first time?

Mr. Dunford: Well, I don’t have the Auditor General’s previous comments in front of me as we’re speaking here this afternoon, but my recollection is th at he talked in terms of risk, recogn ized, however, some of the control features that we had brought into place, and indicated that we were showing marked improvement in this particular area. I want to assure the hon. member and other members in the House that we continue with the competitive bid process.

We have a lso memorandums of underst anding wit h many of both th e priva te providers and also the public institution s that do the skills training for us, and a pa rt of i t is our perf ormance measures that w ould indicate that employment is achieved after the completion of these contracts. Now, whether or not there is some recycling of the same person back through the training program, I’m not in a positi on to answer at this point. I think it’s logical to assume that there might be some, but we ar e not in the bus iness of training f or training’s sake, so I would think that the numbers would be minimal.

The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank you, M r. Ch airman. That concl udes my questions for your department. Thank you very much for those answers. I’d just like to mak e a cou ple of general comme nts, and then hopefully we can ask the Minister of Ju stice to i ntroduce his supplementary estimates in a moment. We’re overall a littl e concerned about a few things with these supplementary estimates. First of all, 14 departments have asked for more money. I have to say that in my 10 years of being here, this is

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 193 definitely the biggest supplementary estimates book we’ve seen. It’s the second time that the government has come back and asked for money in this year, which suggests that there are some problems with their budgeting processes and their revenue forecasting ability. So we have conc erns about the ov erall r eliance of governm ent on supplementary estimates as a part of that budg eting process, as it really demonstrates a lack of long-term planning.

Certainly, this isn’t the kind of budgeting process you could get away with in ind ustry and live to be the head of a department for very long. Often it can cause, I believe, a tendency for ministers to overspend or to certa inly not plan for the f uture in terms of being able to hit their benchmarks and their long-term planning objectives.

While “long-term” is a relative term here because it means three years with this government, they still have a really hard problem with meeting those benchmarks, and we see this happen all the time in the departments where what comes out in the business plans in one year isn’t even relevant six months la ter, never mind thre e years later, when they’re supposed to be forecasted for. So two supplementary supply estimates in one year means that it’s a government governing without being able to follow a definite plan. We see that with the third-quar ter update t hat just came out.

T he surplus for three short months changed from $199 million to $1.8 billion. I mea n, surely someone in that gov ernment can add and should be able t o figure this out before we get into supplementary estimates. So we have some real concerns about that. It’s interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that this is the last supple- mentary estimate that t he gove rnment intr oduces beca use of the proposed changes to the fiscal framework that the province operates under. It means that the government will be limited to $3.5 billion a year in operating expenses.

I think that most stakeholders in this province will be pleased to see supplementary supply go because it means they’re now better able to engage in long-term planning. So on the one side, it’s been really bad, I think, in the past, and I have said that repeatedly on the record. Let’s hope that the new plan they’re going to w ill be better. It looks like it uses sound fiscal policies, and we hope they will stick to it. We certainly are quite prepared to keep their feet to the fire to ensure that this happens. I guess that this question goes to the Provincial Treasurer.

When we take a look at page 5 of the 2002-2003 supplementary estimates, we see that t he adjusted gross amount and dedicated revenue was increased by almost $48 million. Could you tell me why that money is not coming through supplementary supply? I might have missed something on the read through of it. So if you could answer that question for me, or if you could get ba ck to me in writing on why that has occurred. We would like to, then, move on to the Ministry of Justice. Mrs. Nelson: On that same page, Mr.

Chairman, if the hon. member looks, she will see that that is coming from ag and rur al develop- ment, Government Services, Justice, Transportation, and some from Infrastructure, so in particular she needs to g o back into t heir detailed pages for a further breakdown. 3:20 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I’m hoping that the Minister of Justice could give us an overview of his department and the requests for additional moneys. Justice The Chair: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Hancock: Yes. Mr.

Chairman, I’d love to give an overview of the Departm ent of Jus tice, but w e don’t have enough tim e this afternoon to deal with all the good things that are being done by that department and the good people that we have w orking i n it. However, we have asked f or supplem entary supply f or approxi- mately $2,623,000, and the purposes for that are clearly set out in the supplementary estimates. Eighty-five thousand dollars of that is for the child-ce ntred family just ice initi ative. That’s a flow-throu gh actually.

Tha t’s money which prima rily comes f rom the federal government as part of their family law initiatives, and we receive it and then apply it to programming. So that’s simply just an increase in the amount of money that w e’ve been able to receive in that manner. The primary am ount of the money , quite fr ankly, is to pay for salary settlements. The salary settlements in the last year or so have been difficult to accommodate within the existing budget particularly because – and I think I explained this last year, as well – there were significant changes in some of the grids and processes.

The impact of this sala ry se ttlement wasn’t the 4 and 5 pe rcent. Ra ther, it impacted the department by about 11 per cent. So there was a significant need for that money to be applied to the budget to deal with those. We did receive some money at the end of last year to accommo- date those pres sures, but it was one time m oney, and we w ere expected to try a nd go back into the budget and try a nd find the resources to deal with that over the longer term.

In doing so, I’ve been able to make the case to the Treasury Board that we actually needed t he extra r esources rather tha n trying to accom modate i t within the budget be cause of the types of serv ices that we’re providing and the need for those services. So those resources, the supplementary appropriation, as the hon. member will see, are spread, quite frankly, right across the depart- ment based on an allocation according to the manpower budget, and then the balance of it is with respect to external legal costs relating to the issue around Kyoto, that we all are so painfully aware of from last fall.

The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. I missed the part where you talked about onetime money. Could you explain to me exactly why it was onetime money and that you hadn’t budgeted for it? The Chair: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Hanco ck: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. A llocation of scarce resources is, of course, one of the most difficult tasks of governance.

Although we had been accommodated on a onetime basis for some of those costs, at the tail end of last year, when the budget was put together for the current year, we were asked to try and rearrange our resources and find ways to meet those costs internally, and I was able to come back and say that that was not the most prudent way to deal with Justice. If at a ll possible, it was more appropriate t o obtain extra resources, and now we’ve succeeded in doing so. I hope that that will be annualized from here on. Ms Carlson: So, Mr.

Chairman, they were expecting a 5 percent and 4 percent increase and had an 11 percent inc rease. How many of those dollars were for bonuses and layoffs? Mr. Hancock: Couldn’t break down per se the bonuses and layoffs, but I can say this: we haven’t been laying off staff. We have had to

194 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 go through some rat her painful hiring fr eezes in order to try and manage the budget, and over the course of this year, at one point in time we had a spectre of perhaps having a $7 million deficit in our budget if we couldn’t manage it. So we have had to engage hiring freezes and other tasks to try and stay w ithin budget, and for that reason I was able, as I’ve said before, to come back and say that this is not a good way to do busi ness. We n eed to hav e the ex tra resources.

We can’t manage the full 11 percent without cutting back in areas that ought not to be cut back and, as I say, were successful in making that case and having the extra resources applied. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My last set of questions on Justice ar e, of c ourse, around the Kyoto accord. Five hundred thousand dollars is asked fo r here. T here has been no legal chal- lenge. The bill was left on the Order Paper. We would expect that there’s going to be an additional requisition for dollars in the coming budget.

Can you tell us what you spent the money on? Mr. Hancock: Legal advice. Ms Carlson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that lawyers are expen- sive. I know that the troop of lawyers you would have put on this particular potential fight with the feds would have been enormous, but for a 30-second flash in the pan that the bill was in this House and the lack of legal challenge that was forthcoming, I’ve got to tell you that $50 0,000 se ems very exp ensive. Ho w many la wyers? Come on. Albertans deserve some detail on this, Mr. Minister. Mr.

Hancock: I woul d be delighte d to provide s ome detail if the hon. member can’t imagine this. In essence, one of the jobs that the Department of Justice is to do is to provide legal advice to govern- ment, and when one has the spectre of such a disastrous policy as the approval of the Kyoto accord and what its implications might be for Alberta, for Albertans, and for the Alberta economy, one has to be totally and fully prepared to provide good legal advice at every and all aspects of the whole discussion.

So throughout the fall, right from the time that the Prime Minister attended in Johannesburg and told the world community first, rather than telling the Canadian community, that Canada was going to sign the Kyoto accord, Alberta and the Department of Justice, as the legal adviser to the government of Alberta, had to gear up for a discussion that we had hop ed to have at a pol itical table rather th an through legal channels. It was prudent and appropriate for us to review all constitutional aspects. It was prudent and appropriate for us to look at all of our potential opportunities.

The amount of $500,000 might seem like a lot of money, Mr. Chairman, and it is a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to the amount of money that the economy of Alberta will lose and the jobs that will be lost in this provinc e and the implications of signing the Kyoto protocol for the province of Alberta. The hon. member quite rightly indicated that we brought forward a bill as part of our overall plan.

The Department of Environm ent and the Depart ment of Energy worked on the prepar ation of the legislation, as did the Department of Justice, and of course in doing so, we also had to be ve ry prudent and careful that the things we were proposing to put into legislation were constitutional, appropri- ate, and advanced the cause of Alberta and Albertans in the whole discussion of Ky oto. This is a dif ficult task, and when y ou do a difficult task and you do it quickly and you engage the best and the brightest and the most talented people in that particular area, it costs money. That’s what the $500,000 was for.

I’m sorry that the hon. member thinks that one should only spend the money if they eventually go t o court. Tha t may yet ha ppen. Who knows? We haven’t seen the way the Kyoto policy has been implemented by the federal government. They’re only now, as we speak, trying to figure out what it was they signed and what they’re going to do with it.

But Alberta, I can tell you, through the Depart- ment of Justic e’s efforts and the eff orts of the departm ents of Environment and Energy and the players that have been at the table through the fall and spent a l ot of time and energy on this issue to protect Albertans’ intere sts, wi ll mak e sure tha t we not onl y do what’s appropriate for the environment and appropriate for Albertans but that w e also pro tect the eco nomic interests of Albertans.

We have engaged lawyers, and we have researched a number of different initiatives, and unfortunately because the federal Liberal government was not specific, in fa ct didn’t even have a game plan, we had to explore a wider range of issu es and concerns t han t hose that we might have otherwise had to deal with. So it’s been a fairly complex file, and $500,000 is a lot of money but necessarily spent. 3:30 Ms Carlson: Well, Mr. Chairman, can this minister tell us how many firms those best and brightest that he alluded to belonged to, that are working on this file for $500,000? Did it go to just one law firm?

Was it spread out? Do we see some regional representation between northern and southern Alberta? Mr. Hancock: Two law fir ms, both in Edmonton. T his isn’t a policy development process where you get regional representation. This is a l egal is sue where you go to t he people w ho have the expertise. In this case, we were able to find the expertise in Edmon- ton, an d some of my colleagues to my left, only geographical of course, are saying: tsk, tsk, w hy not Calgary?

But w e were c on- scious of cost and expense, and because they were dealing with our department and dealing with us, rather than paying a lot of expenses of flying people back and forth and paying expenses on processes that weren’t necessary to getting the results that we needed, we hired two Edmonton law firms, and there have been several lawyers from those law firms engaged.

I must also say while I’m talking about this that we also deployed a considerable amount of the Department of Justice’s internal legal resources, and the ex pertise tha t we hav e on constitut ional l aw within the Department of Justice is unparalleled anywhere. So essentially there were three groups of lawyers, if you will: the Department of Justic e lawy ers, as I said, unpar alleled in their expertise with r espect to co nstitutional law, an d then because we needed the added help in doing research and bringing the issues to the table, two Edmonton law firms were also engaged. The Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believ e that that con- cludes my particular remarks on Justice, but I know that Edmonton- Highlands has some comments and then perhaps Edmonton-Centre on this same area. Chair’s Ruling Speaking Order The Chair: Hon. member, the chair has a bit of a problem. I asked all three House leaders if they would tell me what order. Now we have one hon. House leader dir ecting a nother o ne to make a comment. Right now it seems that we’re on the Minister of Justice’s supplementary estimates, and if you’re going t o speak a bout that, then go ahead.

The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

February 27, 2003 Alberta Hansard 195 Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was going to do that. I’d indicated to the House leader for the Official Opposition that if now might be a more convenient time for everyone, I would pop up and address this particular issue because I have considerable concern about it as well. Debate Continued Mr. Mason: I have some other questions for the minister because I have considerable concern.

Clearly, the minister is right that there is a large reservoir of expertise on these matters within his depart- ment, and I’m sure that he was able to get administrative assistance as well from the minist er of intergo vernmental affairs. But I seriously would lik e to know what the results ha ve been f or this particular expenditure. I would like to know in so me more detail what avenues of research were followed and whether or not any of this research has ac tually been utilized in the government’s cam- paign against the Kyoto accord.

I would like to also know the minister’s view with respect to the usefulness of this. I know that since the accord has been ratified by the Parliame nt of Canada , the gove rnment ha s now adopte d a different position wi th respect to that rat ification and is now claiming that, in fact, it is n ot necessarily as dire a situation as the government portrayed in the first place. In fact, I think that it’s clear that t here was a lot of posturing on the part of the provincial government with respect to Kyoto and that the fears that were being expressed no longer seem to be tormenting the government.

So I really have to que stion this par ticular e xpenditure, Mr. Chairman, half a million dollars for legal expenses to fight Kyoto when the government ultimately doesn’t feel that it’s as damaging as they said it would be. I’d like to know what the taxpayers of Alberta got for their money specifically in this case that could not have been provided by the department’s own legal staff. Mr. Hancock: Well, to answer the last question first – and I don’t know whether I got the f irst question, so if I missed it, I’d ask the member to repeat it.

But to answer his last question first – what did we get that we could not have got from our own in-house legal staff? – the answer is nothing. We didn’t get anything we couldn’t have got internally, but we didn’t have the time to do it all internally given the essence of time. If we’d had a much longer period of time, the expertise in the depar tment is there, but be cause w e were in a compressed time frame, we didn’t have all of the resources available to do it within that time frame. Therefore, we had to go outside, as we do in those ci rcumstances. The ca pability is certa inly ther e within the department.

As I say, the expertise in our constitutional law department is exemplary , but we did need the ad ditional assistance and also wanted the additional assistance on a number of areas relative to gearing up for any potential challenges. When one is looking at the Kyoto affair and the protocol and the processes that went through, we had to look on an ongoing basis, on an iterative basis at the steps that were being taken and what might be appropriate : whether or not, for example, we should consider applying for an injunction, whether we should apply for a reference, whether we should take some other court action.

It’s not only with respect to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. It doesn’t end with the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. It’s an ongoing issue because many of the issues actually come up with respect to implementation rather than ratification. So it’s a moving target but a very important one. The hon. member mentions posturing, and of course e ven h e would agree that you can’t posture without having a goo d back- ground, a good understanding of what it is you’re talking about. He calls it posturing. We call it advocating on behalf of Albertans in the most strenuous way possible.

I think we’re talking about the same thing. He just is putting a bit of a different spin on it. The reality is that the Alberta gover nment did act on beha lf of Albertans in the strongest way possible, and we needed, in order to do that, to have the best advice possible so that we knew the strength of our position and knew where we were coming from legally as well as politically. I think we have succeeded. Did Albertans get value for the money? Well, I think Albertans get good value for their money from this gov ernment. Did we succeed?

Yes, and even his source of facts, the Edmonton Journal, I believe in an editorial, indicated that we did get some significant changes from the federal government in terms of their approach to Kyoto and how it would be implemented. We’ve made progress already. We’ve made some sub stantive progress. We’ve worked very strongly with industry in this province and with the public in this provinc e in order to make cases to the federal government as to the dam age that they w ere going to be doing with this protocol if they didn’t.

They’ve come out now with a number of iterations of their position, and each one has changed, but each one successively has been more aligned with what Alberta has been talk ing about in te rms of a made-in-Canada approach to greenhouse gases. So, yes, we’ve made significant inroads on this discussion. We didn’t stop the federal government from signing the protocol, and that was not fatal.

It woul d have been a good plac e to start if we’d bee n a ble to stop the federal government from signing t he protocol, get them to understand that that political step was not the best way to de al with greenhouse gases and to deal with that problem, particularly when we have a carbon-based economy an d need to be sensitive to that as well as to the sustainable development and as well as to the very important issues relating to the environ- ment.

But we were able to do the legal research that was necessary and provide the lega l backg round that wa s necess ary s o that this government had a very strong foundation upon whic h to make its arguments both pu blicly and t o the federal government. We achieved great movement in what the federal government has been saying it intends to do, but we int end to continue to be extremely vigilant with respect to ongo ing implementation of the Ky oto protocol a nd what dam aging e ffects it mi ght have on Alberta ’s economy. The Chair : The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlan ds t o the Minister of Justice. Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well , just to supplement the question. It is likely that some slight movement on the federal government’s part was achieved through the efforts of the government of Alberta, but there are a number of ways to ach ieve that. You can achieve that administratively and politically as well as legally, but this half a million dollars is for legal costs, and the part of the question that the minister didn’t respond to is: what exactly did we ge t for this $5 00,000?

Is the g overnment going to be pursuing legal options in connection with Kyoto now that it’s been ratified, or is it going to continue an administ rative dialogue and a political defence of the province’s priorities as the government sees them? This is the q uestion. Will the minister table the legal bills that they’ve incurred to these external forums in this matter so that the Assembly can see exactly what we paid for? 3:40 Mr. Hancock: Mr. Chairman, it’s not normal to table legal bills in

196 Alberta Hansard February 27, 2003 the House or otherwise make them publicly available, because often they g ive a n indication w ith respec t to the leg al advic e that’s received. Of course, legal advice is a matter of some privilege, legal privilege I’m talking about, which is a n imp ortant concept. One ought not to be required to disclose legal advice because one might need it some time in the future, so we have to maintain that sense of privilege, and the legal bills are associated with that legal advice and can sometimes give indications. So, no, I w ill not be tabl ing the legal bills in the House.

But I can tel l the member that we did g et legal advice. We got legal advice on a number o f aspects both with re spect to the ratification of the protocol and with respect to potential methodolo- gies for implementation. We ha ve thoroughly looked at what our legal position mi ght be fr om tim e to tim e, a nd the pr ocess has changed over the course of the six to eight months that we’ve been on the file , the foc us with re spect to ra tification a nd th en wi th respect to implementation.

As to whether or not any formal legal action in the courts will be taken, well, that remains to be seen because we haven’t seen the full implementation process. W e haven’t seen in a ny great sense of detail how the federal government intends to achieve its obligation or its intention now that they’ve ratified the Kyoto protocol. We do know that if they move ahead to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that were set out in the Kyoto protocol for Canada, if that becomes a lega l requirem ent, that w ill be very damaging to our economy without something more than what they’ve offered so far.

So, yes, we intend to remain on the file. Yes, we intend to remain vigilant. Yes, we intend to work in a practical and pragmatic way to make sure that Alberta industry is not damaged, and, yes, we intend to continue to p rotect the environment. But we need to hav e, it’s imperative that we have a good understanding of our legal position at every aspect of the way, and I don’t apologize for the need to do that or for the need to have that properly resourced. I only wish that we could have done it in-house because we do have such exceptional people in-house to be able to work on these things.

We have t o continue with the other aspects of government as well, so we can’t devote all the re sources tha t we hav e in-house to one file, an d therefore we had to seek and get expert legal advice from outside. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to have the opportunity t o question the M inister of Justice on hi s supplementary supply budget. There are just a couple of questions. Well, actually one is a statement.

I understand that the increase in salary that appears here is due to a larger than anticipa ted salar y sett lement, and I hear t hat the minister was willing to apply for more money to cover that settle- ment. Knowing the quality of people that are w orking in that department and how underpaid they are in some sections, I’d like to thank him for his support of that salary increase for the staff. I think that’s a good idea. Now, one of the questions that I had was about bonuses, whether there is still ro om in the bu dget to pay bonuses to those th at have earned it in that department.

The only other que stion I have here, as ide from the overa ll concerns that I have with supplementary supply budgets, but I won’t go into that on this minister’s time, is that I notice there is a notation under the departm ent summ ary tha t notes th at it’s including an increase of pretty much $4 m illion in the a llowance for doubtf ul accounts. I would like to know: what are these doubtful accounts, and what has brought the ne ed for an in crease in the am ount? Obviously, this is an internal de partment transfer.

Nonetheless, almost $3,944,000 has been put in as an increase into the allowance for doubtful accounts. I’d like an explanation, please, of what the change is, why you’re anticipating that extra $ 4 mill ion, some description of the accounts. Now, I know that you have to have c ontingency money there if lawsuits, for instance, go against you, but is that what this money is for? C an you detail what the doubtful accounts are? Sometimes that’s what the government has to pay out: they’re expecting to lose; who knows what these settlements are.

But $4 million is a signifi- cant amount of money, and I’m interested in what the explanation for that is. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased that the hon. member recognizes the nee d for us to de al with t he salary is sues within the department. She’ll know that, for example, court clerks for years suffered under an administrative process that didn’t allow for appropriate adjustments and those sorts of things, and we’ve been able to fix that and to make that change.

I think that most people in the department are n ow quite satisfied with the way that the salary processes have been dealt with, but it did result in, during the course of that five and four settlement in past years, the actual impact on our budget being significantly higher. So I’m pleased that we have the support of the opposi tion with respect to ma king that right and embedding in this budge t through supple mentary supply and hopefully in future budgets the amount of money necessary to cover that. The second question was? Ms Blakeman: Bonuses. Mr. Hancock: Oh, bonuses.

Well, of course we won’t know about bonuses being payable until after the year-end to see whether we’ve met targets and those sorts of things, but I would hope that within the management of our operation our managers have been prudent enough to make sure that as we move through this, they will have set aside sufficient money to pay bonuses if they are accrued. I tend to opera te on th e po licy i n the department rather than dealing with the managerial detail. I think my deputy minister and executive staff appreciate that. They get to manage the department.

I haven’t specifically asked them if there’s bonus money set aside, but I would be very surprised if bonuses were provided for this year that there wasn’t sufficient money to pay them. However, without this supplementary estimate I think that would have been one of the first things on the chopping block because we were very, very short, in fact had to do hiring freezes and take other steps to make sure that we met budget. So this will help to deal with that issue.

Now, with respect to the final question that the hon. member raised, the $3.944 million allowance for doubtful accounts, the hon. member may recall t hat some two or three years ago the fe deral government made a change in the fed eral criminal law which resulted in the fact that you could n