March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 287 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/03/22 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Grant us daily awareness of the precious gift of life which has been given to us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and of our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. Mr. Goudreau: Merci, M. le Président.

Aujourd'hui j'ai le privilège de présenter en votre nom, à vous et aux membres de l'Assemblée, des invités spéciaux venant de ma circonscription, 17 élèves du secondaire accompagnés de leurs deux enseignants. Ils sont assis dans la galerie et sont à Edmonton pour célébrer les Rendez-vous de la francophonie, une quinzaine de jours où l'on célèbre l'histoire et la culture française. Alors, c'est un grand plaisir de vous présenter les élèves de l'école Georges P. Vanier, accompagnés de leur enseignant M. Roger Doucet, et les élèves de l'école Héritage, accompagnés de leur enseignante Mme Anita Johnson.

J'aimerais aussi vous présenter un membre de mon équipe, Mme Cindie LeBlanc, directrice-adjointe au Secrétariat francophone, une finissante de l'école Héritage. Je leur demanderais de se lever et recevoir une bienvenue chaleureuse de cette Assemblée. Merci, M. le Président. [Translation] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have the privilege of introducing to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a number of very special guests from my constituency: 17 high school students and their two t eachers.

They are seated in the gallery and are in Edmonton to commemorate Les Rendez-vous de la francophonie, a national two-week celebration of French culture and history. It is with great pleasure that I introduce the students from l’école Georges P. Vanier, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Roger Doucet, and the students from l’école Héritage, accompanied by their teacher, Ms Anita Johnson. I would also like to introduce a member of my staff, Ms Cindie LeBlanc, assistant director of the Francophone Secretariat, who is a graduate of l’école Héritage.

I would ask them to stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [As submitted] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly on behalf of the Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry a class from New Horizons school, 38 in number. With them are their teachers, Ms Camie Hamilton, Mme Suzanne Le Gars, and Mr. Shaun Wilde.

Also, it has been brought to my attention that there is a relative of yours in this group named Paul Matichuk. I would ask the guests to please stand and for this Assembly to give them the appropriate recognition. Thank you so much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf I’d like to introduce to you and through you 17 students from the Neerlandia school. They’re accompanied this afternoon by teacher Jim Bosma and parent helpers Rhonda Tischer, Mike Waggoner, Evelien Koekkoek, and Johanne Leonard.

They are seated in the public and members’ galleries this afternoon. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Athabasca-Redwater. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 42 visitors from the Gibbons elementary school in Gibbons. Along with them are teachers Mr. Don McIntyre and Ms Colleen Lowe and parents and helpers Robin Kathan, Gary Haynes, and Lorna Simpson. I believe they are seated in both the members’ and the public galleries.

I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all the members of the Assembly today a fine example of the many hard-working and dedicated members of the public service. As chair of the Regulatory Review Secretariat under Service Alberta I am working with Angela Prokopetz, who is a secretariat director. In this fiscal year the busy secretariat will process about 275 requests from departments and regulatory authorities.

Of course, all of these require an analysis by the secretariat. Angela is seated in the public gallery, and I would ask her now to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed it’s a pleasure for me to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all the colleagues of our Assembly a lovely lady that is an acquaintance of many of us. She has a very distinguished job, and that is to maintain our minister of culture.

I would ask that Angie Goudreau stand up and that our members join me in wishing her a good day and a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed my pleasure today to have the opportunity to introduce to you and through you to all members of this House 16 individuals who are here visiting the Legislature as part of the Fushimi exchange. It’s a junior high school exchange that’s operated by D.S. MacKenzie junior high in my constituency of Edmonton-Rutherford. I would like to introduce all of them if I could.

The teacher that has co-ordinated the program is Ms Christine Cao. The volunteer parents today: Glen Burley, Ann-Marie Cote, and Cyndy Lang. There are six D.S. MacKenzie students, four of whom will actually be going to Japan in July – Ashley Lang, Cleah Takahashi, Cassie Carroll, Corbin MacKenzie, Chris Burley, and Sawyer Marsden – and the most important guests, of course, the six exchange students from Japan. Please bear with me as I try to work my way through their names: Nami Miyazawa, Hirono Takano, Saori Komata, Mei Sasao, Hidetaro Matsuno, and Chieri Namba. I would ask them to

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007288 all please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great honour for me today to welcome to this Assembly 15 travelers from the Northwest Territories, including four members of government from both the territorial and the municipal governments. They’re here to present to the Legislature a resolution, passed on March 5, named the Right to Water, and I have a laminated copy here which they have asked me to pass on to the Premier.

Let me introduce them: the MLA for Yellowknife Centre, Robert Hawkins; the MLA for Fort Smith, Michael Miltenberger; city councillor for Yellowknife, Paul Falvo; city councillor for Yellow- knife again, Kevin Kennedy, with his wife, Roberta; Martin Kennedy; Christa Domchek; Juniper Falvo; Daron Letts; Doug Ritchie with Ecology North; Raymond Beaver from Fort Smith; Gilly McNaughton; Steve Whittaker; Martin Dubeau; Archie Smith from Fort Smith; Alex Beaudin; Tom Unka from Fort Resolution; Phillip Bealieu, Fort Resolution; Lindsay Telfer; Leila Darwish; and Meredith James.

I’d ask them all now to stand and have the recognition of the Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Mr. Perri Garvin. Perri has been involved in the labour movement for the past 30 years as a board member, a delegate, a shop steward, and a health and safety activist. Perri became a delegate to the Edmonton and District Labour Council in 1987 and was just r ecently re-elected as their recording secretary for his 10th term.

He has been with the Alberta capital region’s United Way for the past seven years as the labour co-ordinator and has worked with over 200 locals in the Edmonton region. Perri’s work brings unions in the community and the United Way together in helping to make the Edmonton region a better place for all of us. Every year union members contribute a substantial portion of the United Way’s fundraising goal. I would now ask that Perri rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assem- bly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions today.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly a number of environmental activists and citizens con- cerned about the uncontrolled growth of the Alberta tar sands. They’re here today to recognize International Water Day and to call for a moratorium on oil sands development, something that we in the NDP have long been calling for too. I was present today at their rally and commend them on their hard work and dedication to environmental issues.

I will call each of their names, and please reserve applause till the end: Lindsay Telfer, executive director of the Sierra coalition; Leila Darwish, associate director of the Sierra coalition; Meredith James, Mackenzie Wild co-ordinator; along with Meghan Newman, Alli Conroy, and Mike Neuman. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:10 A second introduction is Robert Hawkins. Robert serves as the MLA for Yellowknife Centre in the Northwest Territories Assembly. Robert was elected to the 15th Legislative Assembly in 2003.

He was educated at SAIT and graduated as a mechanical engineer. He’s here today as well to add his voice to the growing concern about the environment and the effects of industry. I’m very honoured to introduce him to our Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask him now to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also have two guests to introduce to you and to the House today. I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Paul Pomerleau.

Paul is a proud member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 424. He divides his time between working in Fort McMurray and at home in Beaumont. Paul is here today to show his concern around the employment of temporary foreign workers despite some of his colleagues being unable to get work here in Alberta. Paul has lived in Alberta all his life. He and his wife spend much of their free time driving their two sons around to hockey practices and tournaments across the province. I would now ask that Paul rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, my second introduction today is for Linda Duncan. Linda has been a tireless advocate on environmental issues not just in Alberta but globally. She is currently the vice-president of Sierra Legal Defence Fund, a national nonprofit organization litigating precedent-setting environmental cases for Canadian communities. She is also the vice-president of the Lake Wabamun Enhancement and Protection Association, a gra ssroots organization of residents and lake users concerned about industrial impacts on one of Al- berta’s recreational treasures.

She is an active member of the Alberta Environmental Network’s energy caucus as a board member. Most importantly, she’s the NDP ca ndidate in the next election in the federal riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. I would now ask that Linda rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assem- bly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have two guests today, and I’d like to introduce them to you and members of the Assembly, two very active women in the city of Edmonton.

First of all, Docia Lysne is a tireless advocate and constituent of mine in Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. She is a home provider with the Elizabeth Fry Society and vice-president of Planned Parenthood in Edmonton. She is very active in the Unitarian church and works with the Kara Family Resource Centre in Edmonton, who provide safe environments and programming to enhance the self-esteem and independence of low-income families. Also with her today is Marion DeShield. She is the former leader of the national black women’s coalition and is a senior citizen volunteer with a seniors’ centre here in Edmonton.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, Marion will be celebrating her 87th birthday in June. I would now ask that both of them rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Neil McCrank, QC Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 1998 the Alberta Utilities and Energy Board has regulated the safe, responsible, and efficient development of Alberta’s energy resources under the

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 289 watchful eye of its chairman, Mr. Neil McCrank. On February 21 of this year Mr. McCrank announced his retirement. His significant role in increasing the public’s awareness of energy and utility issues will be greatly missed. A native of Val d’Or, Quebec, Mr. McCrank graduated with a bachelor of law degree from Queen’s University and was admitted to the bar in 1971.

After coming to Alberta from Ontario in 1979 to work with the Alberta Attorney General, he served as a special prosecutor, assistant deputy minister for the criminal justice division, Deputy Attorney General, and deputy minister of the Alberta Department of Justice until his appointment as chairman of the EUB. During his tenure with the EUB Mr. McCrank has served on numerous national commissions, steering committees, task forces, and review panels related to emerging legal issues. Mr. McCrank embodies the finest values of service to the public.

He is an active community volunteer and currently serves as a board member at a number of educati onal institutions and professional organizations. On behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta I would like to thank Neil for his service to Albertans as chairman of the board during this period of unprecedented growth in our energy sector. His leadership of the EUB will be missed, and on behalf of my col- leagues and this Assembly I wish him all the best in his retirement. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Wetaskiwin Sports Hall of Fame Inductees Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday I will be attending the Wetaskiwin and County Sports Hall of Fame banquet. This event celebrates Wetaskiwin’s impressive history of athletic competition. This year five individual and one team are being recognized for their excellence in sports and for their outstanding contributions to the community. Valerie Greenwall-Weldon will be inducted as an athlete for her distinguished play in softball. She represented Alberta at a number of national competitions, including the western Canadian champion- ships in 1974, the Canada Summer Games in 1977, and the Canadian junior Olympic team in 1978.

The late Tom Dorchester will also be inducted as an athlete. He was considered the Gordie Howe of chuckwagon races as he consistently won races from 1937 to 1981. Mr. Dorchester was inducted into the Canadian Cowboy Hall of Fame in 1982. Willie Littlechild is being inducted as an athlete builder. He participated in numerous sporting events, especially hockey, as an athlete and coach. He represented Alberta at the world aboriginal games and the 2006 Canada Senior Games. As well, Mr. Littlechild has been inducted into the Alberta and Saskatchewan hockey halls of fame.

The late Ralph Pocock is being inducted as a builder for his work in building the Wetask iwin curling rink and tennis courts. Mr. Pocock played a pivotal role in developing minor hockey in Wetaskiwin. The Brightview Huskies hockey team is being inducted for accomplishments as a team. The Huskies were Wetaskiwin district champions from 1946 to 1952 and from 1943 to 1952 lost only three games while winning over 100. The final inductee and special award recipient is the late Vern Henry. Mr. Henry was involved in numerous sports, including midget fastball, girls bantam soccer, and minor hockey.

He also was chairman of seniors curling in Wetaskiwin. I want to congratulate all of the inductees for the distinguished contributions to the sport history of Wetaskiwin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Water Management Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Every living system has limits to growth, and this has seldom been recognized by this government on development issues.

Overallocation of the Oldman and Bow rivers systems, groundwater contamination from oil and gas activity without adequate groundwater monitoring, and threats to the quality and quantity of the Athabasca River from oil sands development have shocked and mobilized not only Albertans but citizens from the Northwest Territories, as we’ve seen today. Albertans are looking for enlightened leadership on our finite water resources, only 2 per cent of Canada’s freshwater supply.

An independent water study commissioned by this government, the Rosenberg report, highlighted the lack of planning, investment, science, and action on Water for Life at a critical time when these are most needed. Population growth and climate change have increased the demand for wise and integrated water management. Another example is the need for collaborative planning on the eastern slopes, the source of all of our water in the province.

Integration is also clearly needed between government bodies such as Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Resource Develop- ment, that continue to compromise both land and water resource through lack of full consultation. But full integration also requires good science. We don’t have the information we need on groundwa- ter, even in the upper Bow River, our primary population water source. We know that water withdrawals affect both surface and groundwater. They’re connected but in unpredictable ways that must be defined in each region.

All major development must have cumulative impact assessments before approvals, as the minister has admitted in the House yesterday, but this government continues to make development decisions without that framework and without cumulative impact assessment. 1:20 Meanwhile the government has denied and delayed action on climate change, the most profound and unpredictable threat to human security on the planet, with added impacts on our water. Water is our lifeblood. It must guide development decisions above economic considerations.

Alberta’s future will not be defined by oil but by how we manage our water and place limits on growth. They will not accept any compromise on the future. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Joffre Carbon Capture and Storage Project Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to speak about a carbon capture and storage project near Joffre and Prentiss, in my constituency. This proj ect, led by Glencoe Resources, captures carbon dioxide from the MEGlobal and NOVA Chemicals petrochemical complexes southeast of Lacombe.

Once captured, the carbon dioxide is converted into a purified and liquefied form. This liquid CO 2 is then sent through an 80-kilometre pipeline grid into oil fields in the Ponoka area. It is projected that this particular project will capture about 365,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or about 1,000 tonnes a day. This is the equivalent of taking 80,000 cars off the road. This will reduce the emissions for the two petrochemical companies by at least 25 per cent.

CO 2, when injected into certain types of partially depleted oil fields, has the ability to enhance the recovery of oil that would not be recoverable without the CO2 stimulation. This is good news for

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007290 our province as it can represent a large increase in oil recovery from these depleted oil fields. As a result, Alberta will gain the full potential of these valuable resources. Capturing carbon dioxide also represents a positive for the environment. Instead of releasing CO 2 into the atmosphere, this project will turn it into a valuable asset. There has been much discussion recently a bout managing the effects of carbon dioxide emissions. Two weeks ago Prime Minister Harper and our hon. Premier announced the creation of the car bon capture and storage task force.

This task force will find solutions to implement carbon capture technology on a large scale. I hope that the task force will take the opportunity to come to my constituency to look at the Joffre/Prentiss carbon capture project. This is an innovative project that is a perfect example of what we are doing here in Alberta to solve greenhouse gas challenges, and I look forward to the adoption of this concept throughout our province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Millwoods Cultural and Recreational Facility Association Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week I attended a celebration of a significant group in my constituency. Inscribed at the bottom of the cover of a classy black-and-gold program was: building the community’s dreams. If you heard those words in another context, you’d probably think that was an advertising slogan or the target for a fundraising drive. In this case they were not hype but a description of achievement. The Millwoods Cultural and Recreational Facility Association is not simply one organization that has grown up on the coattails of a growing community.

In many respects MCARFA has grown Mill Woods into a dynamic community, a community that if incorporated would be Alberta’s third-largest city. Thirty years ago “Mill Woods cultural association” would have been an oxymoron. A friend of mine, writing a field trip manual for Edmonton public schools, was encouraging teachers to look at the resources on their doorsteps, in their own communities. “That’s all very well for the rest of you,” a teacher in Mill W oods complained. “Here all we have are strip malls.” The fact that this is no longer true is due largely to MCARFA.

An arena complex; the Mill Woods golf course; the Jackie Parker park of picnic sites, trails, and an all-season pavilion; a 440 track adjacent to two high schools; and a rollerblade, skateboard, and bike park are projects that MCARFA has brokered among 10 community leagues, city, and provincial funding when no one group or level of govern- ment could have done this work on its own. A spray park and adventure playground are set to open this summer. These achievements are more than fundraising and organization.

They represent an impressive mobilization of volunteers across local neighbourhoods and cultures in a larger spirit. MCARFA brings together resources and contacts in an effective way that is a model for other communities. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Temporary Moratorium on Oil Sands Development Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Our political environment reached a tipping point sometime last year. Research and scientific consensus and numerous public opinion polls com- bined to push some other political parties past the point of no return on their emissions policy.

Suddenly it’s considered good politics to talk about emission reductions. But Albertans have good reason to be skeptical about Conservative and Liberal plans for emission reductions. The Liberals say that they would cap emissions only years into the future, while the government says that we don’t need absolute reductions at all. What neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are willing to admit is that unless you are willing to manage growth, particularly in the development of the tar sands, then you can’t manage emis- sions.

The NDP has called for a short-term moratorium on approvals of new tar sands projects and expansions of existing ones. We understand the connection between p ace of development and attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, the Premier is on record saying that the government won’t press the brake and has warned of dire consequences should Albertans attempt to manage the development of our tar sands. Similarly, the leader of the Liberals said that a temporary morato- rium would be like locking the brakes on a speeding car. The moratorium we propose is only a short-term measure but an important one.

Alberta needs a plan to deal with the serious economic, social, environmental, and infrastructure impacts of tar sands development. A temporary moratorium on new approvals will allow Alberta to catch its breath and to get caught up. The management of our nonrenewable resources must be done in a way that lays the groundwork for a post oil energy world. It is time to talk seriously about using our present tremendous wealth to invest in a truly sustainable economic environment. head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead.

Bill 205 Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Conservation and Reclamation) Amendment Act, 2007 Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 205, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Conservation and Reclamation) Amendment Act, 2007. This is

an act that will help forestry and oil and gas industry to meet some of the targets that our Environment minister is looking at under Bill 3. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 205 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Bill 207 Child Care Accountability and Accessibility Act Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce private member’s Bill 207, the Child Care Accountability and Accessibility Act. The purpose of Bill 207 is to increase the number of high-quality, affordable child care spaces available in our province.

This will ensure that parents are better able to find the care that they need for their children. The bill will also improve acc ountability and transparency surrounding child care in Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 207 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert.

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 291 Bill 208 School (Restrictions on Fees and Fund-raising) Amendment Act, 2007 Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to request leave to introduce private member’s Bill 208, the School (Restrictions on Fees and Fund-raising) Amendment Act. The purpose of Bill 208 is to eliminate school fees and fundraising in Alberta’s public school system. All Albertans have the right to schooling from K to 12, and the ultimate responsibility for education funding rests with the government.

This bill will provide relief to parents struggling with costs of school fees and ensure that students have equal access to education in our province. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 208 read a first time] head: 1:30 Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. St. Joseph’s General Hospital Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past hour we have spoken to a woman whose father died from the MRSA superbug after contracting it at the hospital in Vegreville.

This woman’s father contracted the infection at the Vegreville hospital in 2003. He was moved to a facility in Viking, then to the University of Alberta hospital, where his infection was treated very seriously. He was eventually transferred to a long-term care facility, where he died of MRSA. In the fall of 2003, this same woman has told us, she contacted her MLA, who is now the Premier, to raise her concerns about safety and treatment issues at the Vegreville hospital. To the Premier: did he take any action based on the concerns that were brought to him about the hospital at Vegreville? Mr.

Stelmach: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposi- tion is suggesting that I had some contact with an individual. I don’t know who he’s referring to. Usually in this House documents are tabled with respect to informa tion when they’re pointing special attention to either the Premier or any member of this House. So, first of all, there’s protocol. Secondly, this is a serious matter, and I find it very upsetting that it has to come up in the House. With respect to an individual patient, we are very concerned about the health not only of the patients in St.

Joe’s but in every facility in the province of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a very serious issue. Again to the Premier: can the Premier tell this Assembly and all Albertans if any other persons have died as a result of the breakdown of infection control at the Vegreville hospital? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this Leader of the Opposi- tion is making an assumption, nonprofessional. I’d like to see the report that has confirmed that as a result of some health care service in St. Joe’s hospital it was proven that that individual has passed away.

I haven’t seen that, so I’d ask him to table it. With respect to the further protoc ol followed with respect to St. Joe’s hospital, the minister of health can answer. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier on what we all agree is a very serious issue. These are questions that Albertans want answered. Can the Premier tell this Assembly if any other local health professionals, such as dentists, were using the sterilization facilities at the Vegreville hospital? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is an interesting question.

I don’t know the answer to that question. I will make inquiries. We do have the Health Quality Council on site now looking and talking with the people who operate the hospital and the region to define the scope of the investigation that they’re going to undertake. Certainly, that will be one of the things we’ll want to know: to what extent was the CSR in the hospital used and for what purposes? But let’s be very clear. This is not a situation where it is prudent for the opposition or anyone else to alarm Albertans.

The look back that we’re doing is being done because there were found to be inappropriate procedures followed, and it bears us to investi- gate and to let people know. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The public health issues emerging in Vegreville are just the thin edge of the wedge. What about next week, next month, next town? Albertans are worried about whether this government is capable of anticipating future problems and producing a strategy to protect public safety. My questions are to the Premier.

We are already aware of one patient who died in Viking after contracting MRSA at St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville. This patient was transferred several times between hospitals. How many other potentially infected patients were transferred from St. Joe’s to other sites? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not a prudent thing to do – this is a very serious situation, and we have the Health Quality Council looking at it. We’ve made sure that no further incidents happen.

We’ve made sure that the CSR there is shut down until the investigation is done and appropriate protocols are put in place. We don’t know that anyone died of the thing. The hon. member has raised one individual situation and is taking that reference. We’ll be happy to take that reference if you provide us with the details and investigate it and any others that people might bring forward. But it’s not prudent to do this in an alarmist fashion. It’s prudent to do it in a serious manner with an appropriate, responsible review, alerting people to have blood tests done, and following up appropri- ately.

Ms Blakeman: Again to the Premier. The East Central health region has lost 17 full-time registered nurses over the last year alone. It is common practice for staff to transfer between hospitals for shifts, especially when facilities are short-staffed. What steps are taken to reduce the risk of spreading MRSA if staff from St. Jo- seph’s hospital rotate between facilities? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, it is known and understood that the MRSA virus is one which is transmitted hand to hand, or by touch, and that the most prudent way of stopping the spread of the infection

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007292 is by properly washing hands and properly disinfecting surfaces. That is something that every health professional knows and under- stands, and that’s something that’s being reinforced for them through this incident. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. A final question to the Premier. In Vegreville there hasn’t been any sort of government response, public information session, or town hall held to reassure the Vegreville residents.

Why has the Premier waited so long to make himself or government staff available for an information session to inform and reassure the people of Vegreville? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we immediately sent professionals to assess the situation. They posted a public health order. The Health Quality Council is there today interviewing people in the hospital and making sure that steps are being taken immediately to deal with this situation.

Once further information is made available, we will of course communicate with not only the town council, the chamber, but all of those that may be interested with respect to what we’re doing in their hospital, at St. Joe’s. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Health Care Standards Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government, which has included the Premier for 13 years, has spent that amount of time dismantling Alberta’s public health care system. It has politicized the regional health boards.

It’s accelerated the privatization of health care to the detriment of our quality public system. Vegreville is only one symptom of the problems that have ensued. We have an opportunity here to fix the system before other problems arise. To the Premier: given that the Premier along with the member from Brooks and other members of the so-called Deep Six was part of the group leading the charge to cut essential health services, does the Premier accept responsibility for the inevitable outcomes of these decisions? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Vegreville hospital, St. Joe’s, is not a private facility.

Again, innuendo, misleading, giving information that is totally incorrect. Secondly, in 1993 the budget was about $3. 2 billion or so, $3.3 b illion. I believe that over a period of time in that first year about $200 million was reduced, most of that on the administrative side. The budget today is, of course, the largest per capita anywhere in the country of Canada. I believe our health professionals are doing extremely well in this province. In fact, we have people coming from other provinces to access services here. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated case. The decision of his own government has resulted in patient safety problems at the Ho ly Cross, in the Calgary health region, and in long-term care centres across the province by dismantling the system’s capacity to set and enforce standards. Will the Premier admit that the department of health needs the very capacity to set and enforce standards that this government pressed so hard to eliminate? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the department of health has been doing a very good job. We’ve attracted some of the world’s best in terms of cardiologists, oncologists .

I mean, this is where people want to practise. We have, of course, the Alberta medical research trust fund, that again is attracting Nobel prize material not only in research, but now we are benefiting from that research in terms of new medical treatments and pharmaceuticals, new drugs, right here in the province of Alberta. I think we’ve come a very long way. 1:40 Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has sidestepped the issue absolutely completely.

Will the Premier commit to reassembling the centralized monitoring and enforcement standards in the department of hospitals that were dismantled by this very government in the 1990s? Mr. Stelmach: What I will commit to is to ensure that we get to the very bottom of the situation at St. Joe’s so that we put at ease, of course, other Albertans that may be accessing services in hospitals in this province, find out what the issue was, what the problem was, and make sure that it never happens again. That is what I’m committed to. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon.

Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. St. Joseph’s General Hospital (continued) Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. While the Premier may say that he wants to get to the bottom of this, this government’s response so far is very similar to the response of the Harris govern- ment in Ontario to the Walkerton situation. The Vegreville hospital scandal has threatened the health of Albertans. Today I wrote to the Premier and asked him to appoint a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this matter.

Will the Premier accept that recommendation from me and, I’m sure, supported by many thousands of Albertans and appoint a public inquiry? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I’ve asked in this House a number of times in answering questions that we not make this alarmist. What has happened in Vegreville at St. Joseph’s hospital is that there was a breakdown in the protocols with respect to the sterilization of certain equipment, so the sterilization room was closed.

The infectious disease specialist who was asked to examine this indicated that because of the breakdown – we’re not aware that any bl ood- borne pathogens actually were transferred, but there may be a low possibility that that happened, and therefore it’s prudent and in the best interests of the people there that we do a look back and we ask them to have blood tests done. This is not a Walkerton, and to put it into that context is alarmist. There’s no sense making the people of Vegreville area alarmed about this. We’re dealing with it. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister says that we shouldn’t be alarmed about it, but I think that Albertans would be a lot more confident if this government was seen to be taking clear action instead of giving it off to this toothless tiger, this Health Quality Council. This is for the Premier. Why won’t the Premier appoint a public i nquiry to make sure not just that the Vegreville hospital is safe but that all Alberta hospitals are safe?

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 293 Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, by having the Health Quality Council there, these are professionals in their field of practice that will assess the situation, find out where the breakdown has occurred. They will report to the minister, and of course the minister will follow the recommendations of that committee to ensure that we even further – further – improve practices in facilities across this province. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, the Health Quality Council has been in place apparently to take care of these things for a number of years. Where was it? Why didn’t it do its job?

And why won’t the Premier admit that the Health Quality Council was never set up to do this kind of thing and that a full public inquiry, as was eventually forced on the Conservative government in Ontario over Walkerton, is the way that we have to get to the bottom of this? Mr. Hancock: Walkerton involved a large number of people who were infected by bad water. In this situation the experts tell us that there’s low risk. But it’s prudent to look. It’s prudent to go back and do the tests. This is a far different situation from Walkerton.

The Health Quality Council was not the council which was supposed to make sure that protocols were followed, but they have expertise in – guess what? – health quality. That’s why we’re asking them to investigate why there was a breakdown, bring them in as outside people to determine why there was a breakdown, what should be done to fix that breakdown, and what we can learn from it. They will have all the authority they need to do that. They will report to this minister, and this minister will act on that report. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon.

Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Water Storage Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As has been mentioned, today is World Water Day, and we here in Alberta are truly blessed with this critical resource. We must continue to use and develop this resource wisely. Our water flow agreements allow us to utilize 50 per cent of the flow of our rivers. We are unable to utilize approxi- mately 50 per pent of our allocation, though, due to lack of storage. It took approximately 30 years to build the Oldman River dam. Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: will this government release its plans for immediate action for capturing and storing Alberta’s water or admit that they don’t have one? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the Water for Life strategy is a good one. It’s quite complex. It’s got many components to it, and I’ll allow the Minister of Environment to respond. Mr. Hinman: Mr. Speaker, we store and divert hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water here in the province, and we now have thousands of kilometres of canals and pipelines.

Our 1906 Water Act needs to be amended as it segregates our water into industry, irrigation, and municipal use and prohibits the use of even irrigation spill water when it passes by an industrial location. To the Premier: does this government have any plans to amend this divisive water policy and stop the segregation of water between irrigation, industry, and municipal communities? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in answer to a question from another hon. member I indicated that the Water for Life strategy is an ongoing process.

With respect to storage I indicated that we now have identified a number of promising locations to do off-stream storage, and we are in the process of priorizing those opportunities. We’re beginning to consult on a more intense basis with Albertans on other aspects of the Water for Life strategy as time progresses. Mr. Hinman: We’re about 20 years too late, Mr. Speaker. This government’s policy on water does not allow for efficient use and wise use and storage of our water.

To the Premier: will this government be open and honest, as it claims to be, and release the latest MPE study for on- and off-stream storage that Alberta Environment commissioned them to do? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I actually answered most of the question in the answer to the previous question. We do have at this point an inventory of possible locations for off-stream storage. Work is being done to have a qualitative analysis of those sites so that we can priorize them, and we do intend to consult with Alber- tans and discuss the output of that report in due course. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Strathcona. Water Management Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The pace and scope of development in this province, especially the oil sands, may be good for business in the short term but is not responsible and will not sustain our water into the future. The recent Rosenberg report, commissioned by this government, was very critical of the lack of knowledge and action on responsible water management in Alberta and identified real risks for the future, yet the Premier has said that he will not slow economic growth.

To the Premier: how does the Premier explain to fellow farmers this uncontrolled growth in management? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as one that has grown various crops in this province of Alberta, we do depend on the good Lord to give us a sprinkle from time to time to grow our crops. I mean, without rain we don’t have any crops. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you. The Environment minister admitted yesterday in meetings with municipalities that approving one project at a time without doing a total cumulative impact assessment of all activities on our watershed does not serve Albertans.

That’s also the message of our neighbours to the north, who travelled here for 24 hours to talk to this government about management. Despite the lack of a proper cumulative impact assessment many projects each month are approved in Alberta. To the Minister of Environment: having admitted that the approval process is not adequate to guarantee responsible development, is it not reasonable to slow down development until we have appropriate science? Mr. Renner: Well, it’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, how someone can interpret words in different ways.

What, in fact, I indicated to AAMD and C when I was talking with them yesterday was that we are going to be developing cumulative impact processes so that we can improve the way we deal with our environmental approval process. I never indicated at any point in the conversation that the process that we have in place now is not adequate. I just indicated that there is room for improvement, and we intend to move in that direction.

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007294 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With a fraction of the resources that the Alberta Environment department needs, at .5 per cent of our provincial budget, a fraction of what they used to have, and a massive increase in development and water impacts, Albertans are wondering if the government has received the message that the environment is their number one concern. The Rosenberg report reinforced concerns about gross underinvestment in Alberta Environment. To the minister: when will see proper investment in Alberta Environment? 1:50 Mr.

Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be an individual who measures success by things other than the amount of dollars that are spent on me. As for the specifics on Environment’s budget, I encourage the member to await introduction of the provincial budget, which will be coming in due course. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Community Treatment Orders Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes after incidents involving persons with mental illness, there are calls for the government to pass legislation regarding community treatment orders.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Health and Wellness to explain to the members of the Legislature and to the members of the public viewing QP today what community treatment orders are. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A community treatment order, or CTO, is a tool to encourage compliance with mental health treatments in the community. It’s a part of a broader strategy, and my primary concern is finding ways to improve the scope and effectiveness of community-based mental health services.

Our goal is to help prevent the deterioration of individuals living with mental illness and to position them to lead a full and productive life to the extent possible. These are individuals with severe and persistent mental illness who are admitted to hospital as formal involuntary patients. They’re released when they’re stabilized. When treatment lapses in the community, their condition deterio- rates, and they are readmitted. With CTOs we can help to prevent this deterioration. A CTO provides a patient with a plan . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lougheed: Mr.

Speaker, in light of that information I’d like to ask the minister if he’s considering legislation regarding community treatment orders. Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, we are intending to bring in legislation which will involve community treatment orders, but more impor- tantly that will be part of a broader strategy to involve enhanced services in the community, to give community-based mental health treatment, and to help work with what’s called assertive treatment.

CTOs should be considered as a last resort when the community health system cannot provide the support necessary to prevent deterioration of someone suffering mental illness. So yes to the legislation being brought forward this spring but yes also to working with the community to enhance the services that are available in the community so that we can prevent the deterioration and the necessity for readmission. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has committed to enhancing the services and working with the commu- nity in that regard.

I’d ask the minister if he will be working with the community to discuss with them bringing forward this legislation because many groups are in favour of community treatment orders, but others oppose community treatment orders. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we will be bringing forward the CTOs. I want to emphasize that this was recommended by a fatality inquiry last year, that this tool should be available to us. I also have received numerous calls and letters from parents in the community who want to have this tool to help assist with their adult children.

We do want to work with the community groups, associations that have been dealing with mental health issues over the years on what is necessary to provide a full scope of service in the community for persons with mental illness, and we will continue to do that not only before the bill is brought forward but right through the process until it’s effectively implemented and onward. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Farm Worker Exemptions from Labour Legislation Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday a High River man was seriously injured while working with cattle, and like thousands of other farm workers he is not covered by employment standards, occupational health and safety, or the labour code. He is now suing the farm owner for $1.2 million. The Premier recently made statements in the House that all Albertans are equal, yet this government continues to deny farm workers the same basic rights that others take for granted. To the Premier: does the Premier agree that all workers in Alberta regardless of sector should be protected equally, or are some Albertans more equal than others? Mr.

Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this matter has come up in the House a number of times with respect to protection that farm workers have. There are, of course, those working on family farms and those working on corporate farms. These are the questions that as a caucus we have chatted about. I know that the minister of agricul- ture and also the Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry are looking into the matter and will bring forward to our caucus, in turn, some recommendations. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you. I hope we get past the review/ recommen- dation stage and get to action. Mr.

Speaker, this lawsuit could possibly have been prevented had basic workplace regulations been in place. This would have benefited the worker by helping him to avoid injury and also the employer, who might now not be on the hook for over a million dollars. To the Premier: acknowledging that the costs associated with meeting basic safety requirements and coverage may be

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 295 difficult for some agricultural operations to bear, will this govern- ment fund these costs and finally move Alberta into the 21st or even 20th century? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, in many cases why should we be funding common sense? I mean, if it’s a dangerous situation in any respect, just because we have regulations does not mean that somebody is going to follow them. We have many regulations. We have many laws. We have laws that say that people should stop at a stop sign, and they don’t. So what is he saying?

That we put a policeman at every intersection in this province to prevent people from not following the rules? Mr. Chase: During the 1990s this government cut back on safety inspectors in all circumstances. Mr. Speaker, it’s clear that some small farms may deserve special consideration in Alberta’s regulation and laws, but current legisla- tion also shields large-scale and factory farms from any responsibil- ity for farm workers’ rights and safety. Will the Premier finally agree to put protection for farm workers in place on these large-scale operations? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the large-scale farm operations that I’m aware of have good, quality programs in pl ace in terms of safety because they know that the health of their workers is critical. Secondly, it’s also a liability issue for them, and they go a long way in terms of training on a regular basis. So a lot of work is being done by not only small operators but large corporate operators as well. The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Wood Debris from Timber Harvesting Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. What steps are you taking to ensure greater utilization of wood debris left over from timber harvesting in Alberta? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] Thank you for the cheering gallery here too. Mr. Speaker, the debris fibre, the slash, that remains in the forest after harvesting belongs to the forest management agreement holder. That FMA holder, that company, is also responsible for removing or disposing of the debris and the cost of that removal in order to reduce fire hazard.

There is some fibre intentionally left in the forest to decompose and provide nutrient. As for the remainder, the forest sector, the FMA holder, has the opportunity to process that wood debris for its own uses or to direct it to any other user. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: is his department working with industry and others to explore options for wood debris? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The short answer to that question is yes, absolutely.

We start, of course, by knowing what we’re dealing with, and my department is now reviewing the potential of the biomass resources in our forests. Three different ministries – Sustainable Resource Development, Energy, and Advanced Education – are looking into opportunities to direct this wood by-product, wood debris, into bioenergy initiatives. I’m happy to report that next week my department is cosponsoring a sympo- sium here in Edmonton looking at bioproducts and bioenergy. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My second supplementary question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. What action is your ministry taking to examine bioeconomy opportunities related to wood debris? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Developing new uses for wood debris offers significant opportunities for sustainable economic growth in communities across Alberta to help us build a stronger Alberta.

Both the Alberta Forestry Research Institute and the Alberta Research Council are supporting scientists working to develop value-added products with this debris fibre or biorefining technologies. They’re looking at technologies to convert wood debris into transportation fuels, into chemicals, into power, into other materials. In fact, even opportunities for value-added products may soon exist in the plastics, pharm aceuticals, and chemical industries. One energy company, Expander Energy, has plans to convert wood fibre debris into hydrogen for heavy upgrading. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. 2:00 Holy Cross Care Centre Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apropos of nothing yester- day in question period the Premier brought up my career in radio. Perhaps like many other Albertans he misses me on the radio because now he can’t get both sides of the story like he used to. I had one basic rule on my talk show, and it was this: answer my questions, and I’ll leave you alone. I’m looking for the answer the Premier promised me yesterday.

Can he explain why there was no clause in the contract requiring the owners of the Holy Cross centre to pay the province back with interest the affordable housing grant they were given if that project fails? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I will say that the hon. member sent me a message asking me to stay here for his question, so thank you for the message. Mr. Taylor: Thank you for staying. Mr. Stelmach: You’re welcome. What I was going to say is, of course, that this is a responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and he’ll answer the question. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there is a clause in the affordable housing program grant funding. The agreement is between the government of Canada, government of Alberta, and Enterprise Universal, such as you stated yesterday. Under the terms of the agreement . . .

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007296 The Speaker: We’ll get to it, I’m sure, in the next one. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I guess we’ll have to get the hon. minister to table that so we can read it. I’ve got constituents left, right, and centre calling my office, and they want answers to all kinds of questions they’ve got about the Holy Cross, going back years. So I’ll try again with another question, and I don’t want to hear about the affordable housing task force. Its report, which the government continues not to release to the public, is irrelevant to this question.

Will the Premier direct all government departments to include a repayment with interest clause in all government contracts? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I can’t say that now. I’ll have to investigate further and see what it applies to in all departments, what it means. Most certainly, we’ll investigate and get back to the hon. member. The Speaker: You want to supplement, hon. minister? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the recipient must return the grant or the unused portion of grant including interest. The Speaker: Okay. The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve been looking for that answer for a few days now. Again to the Premier, and I promise that if he doesn’t make fun of my old career, I won’t make fun of his although, I suppose, both can involve shovelling some manure. Will the Premier please make clear to this House, the taxpayers of Alberta, and the constituents of Calgary-Currie how much money his government is going to lose on the Holy Cross gambit if the Grey Nuns affordable housing project fails to go through and get built? Mr. Stelmach: Very tempted to – no, I won’t go that way although I am very proud of my heritage, Mr. Speaker.

But specific to that, if the minister can answer in 15 seconds, fine. If not we’ll get it to you. Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, very clearly: none. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill. Affordable Housing Task Force Report Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll come back to the housing task force. Those of us that were on that task force heard numerous and often heart-wrenching personal accounts of people struggling to deal with our housing crisis. I said the other day that it is a crisis affecting thousands of people in this province.

This task force: there were big expectations. The government set it up with a lot of fanfare. I’m now asking the Premier: in retrospect would the government now reconsider and release this publicly as soon as possible rather than waiting to put a political spin on it? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we recognize, of course, as a govern- ment that critical shortage of housing is a real issue for Albertans. It’s a quality of life issue, and we’re going to work very quickly. We’ve got the report. We have to build the recommendations.

The minister has to bring those to government caucus, to our cabinet policy committee, and in the end to cabinet. We’re working very quickly. The minister said May. We’ll try and do it even earlier than that. But, you know, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s the first time that we have members from both sides of the House working on a committee. [interjections] Saying there’s something secretive: there wasn’t. They were there. The Liberals were there. We were there. Let’s work co-operatively together toward one common goal. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, that’s all well and dandy that the opposition was on.

We appreciate that. But we have calls coming into our office: a 71-year-old woman having to go to work to pay her rent. Rents are going up $500 in some cases. It’s happening all over the province. My question to the Premier is: what do I say to these people? Just hang on; we’ve had a task force, and we’re going to review it; don’t worry about anything: is that the statement that the government is giving us? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member can say is that this is the first time that this House got together on a very important issue. We’re collectively working toward the response to the report.

Some of these solutions will not be overnight. There’s a critical shortage; I agree. But we’re going to have numerous recommenda- tions to determine how it will be approached: working with the private sector, the public sector, trying to find the most efficient, cost-effective way of delivering more housing in the province. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the simple truth of the matter is that this is not operating in an open and transparent manner. This report is there, ready to go. The government can respond to it when they want. People want to know what’s in that particular report, Mr. Premier.

My question to him is simply this: is this the new idea of government transparency, that we wait to put a political spin on a report that should be out to the people of Alberta? Is this what he means? Mr. Stelmach: One of the things about having an all-party commit- tee is that he’ll know if there’s a political spin because he was on that committee, unless you can’t remember what’s in that report. What a stupid question. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Funding for the Calgary Health Region Dr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Calgary, with a population of over 1 million people and over 30,000 people moving to it in the last year alone, is facing tremendous pressures in health care. Yet for every resident Calgary health region receives $1,064 while Capital health receives $1,174, over 10 per cent more. My question is for the Minister of Health and Wellness. How can the minister justify this significant disparity in funding between Calgary and Edmonton? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s very important to keep in mind that funding for health is not as simple as counting up the number of people and allocating the dollars on that basis. It’s much more complex than that, and it’s important that it is much more complex than that. Population growth rates of course are factored into the funding formulas, but attention is also paid to demographics and health services provided. Calgary has a relatively young population, a well-educated population, and we know that health status tracks education. But regions that have a greater number of seniors, for example, get relatively more resources

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 297 because medical care for seniors costs more than medical care for young people. The Calgary health region was allocated in excess of $2 billion in the 2006-07 budget, which is an 8.2 per cent increase over the ’05- 06 budget. Calgary and surrounding communities . . . Dr. Brown: My supplemental question is for the same minister. Mental health care services have a tremendous impact on quality of life in our communities.

The Calgary health region receives about 20 per cent of mental health funding in the province but is expected to serve the needs of over 35 per cent of its population. How can the minister justify that disparity? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, funding is done not just on a question of counting up people; funding is done on a basis of allocation for the services provided and based on the demographic modelling that is done with respect to the area.

For the details with respect to mental health funding I’ll talk with the Mental Health Board and determine, again, whether that’s being done on an appropriate basis. But it’s not as simple and it’s intellectually dishonest to take a look at funding strictly on a basis of numbers divided into dollars. You need to look at the people you’re serving, the services you’re providing, and what is absolutely necessary to be done. Dr. Brown: My second supplemental is for the minister of advanced education.

Over the past 10 years the Calgary health region has predicted and is continuing to predict that over the next 10 years we will need approximately 3,300 physicians. With the government in its present program what is it doing to ensure that adequate resources are put in place at the University of Calgary to train these physicians that’ll be needed in southern Alberta? 2:10 Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said many times in this House, we’re working with all of the postsecondaries to get an approach that is a Campus Alberta type of approach to the health workforce plan, the workforce plan in the province.

We’re working with the three ministries that ar e involved in providing regional health authorities with the trained staff that they need. As it relates to the University of Calgary, we are in discussions with the Univer- sity of Calgary for other health care professionals, just as we were with Mount Royal College. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Foster Care Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Providing care for children is an essential and noble task, and foster families provide an exceptional example of this.

However, current circumstances are putting children and foster families at risk. Following the death of a child in foster care in January, social workers have spoken out, telling Albertans that there are too few foster families to care for the number of children in need and too few front-line staff to provide the support and monitoring essential to protect children’s safety. To the Minister of Children’s Services: can the minister please tell us if this labour shortage has affected the amount of monitoring and support available to ensure the safety of children in foster care? The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d start out by saying that we have thousands of foster parents that are doing a terrific job in this province. Our number one priority will always be the safety and the well-being of our children in care. So what I can tell you is that that’s one of the reasons why we have a rigorous screening process that continues today, including home studies, reference checks, criminal record checks, medical references, first aid training. We also know that every child is unique. Every family situation is unique.

We do continue with stringent guidelines on the number of children within each foster home. Mrs. Mather: We have heard that overloading, the practice of asking foster parents to take in more children than they should be eligible to take, is increasing due to the shortage of available foster homes. To the Minister of Children’s Services: do foster families have the right to refuse to take in additional children if they believe that they will not be able to provide the necessary care for those children? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is that they do have the right. Just to give you a little bit of information on the guidelines that we do have: new foster parents can have a maximum of two foster children in their home; experienced foster parents can have a maximum of four foster children in their home. Sometimes we have exceptions if we are trying to keep siblings together. In those cases both the foster parents and the caseworkers would agree on that placement. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been reported that because of Alberta’s current shortage of foster families children in need of care are sometimes housed in hotel rooms to wait until a family is available. Can the mi nister tell us how often this is happening and how long these hotel stays usually last? Ms Tarchuk: I’ll get the information for the member. I do know that several weeks ago I had looked into that. It’s very, very small. I think that in very unusual circumstances, with the proper individu- als to stay with the children, we looked at 12 cases for very short periods of time last year.

But I’ll follow up with that information to you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Affordable Housing Grant Program Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are hearing daily from Albertans about the lack of affordable housing in Alberta. In Red Deer-North we are very fortunate to have a beautiful apartment complex that has 26 affordable housing units and 20 transitional housing units along with some market rental rate units.

This building is now being sold, and it ha s come to my attention that as long as the affordable housing grant money is paid back to the government, a new owner is able to remove all affordable and transitional housing rental rates and charge full market rental rates. This leaves many of the present tenants with anxiety and fear about where they’re going to live. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: does an owner of an affordable housing property who has received government funding have the ability to sell the property provided he does not intend . . .

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007298 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very aware of the concern throughout the province and housing being very much a priority. Yes, the owners do have the right to sell. If the property is sold, if that individual who buys that property maintains the same purpose for the property, the conditions will continue. If the property is sold to someone who wants to change its intent, then it’s pro-rated over 20 years. If that individual sells the property in a shorter time period, then it’s pro-rated, and the money has to be paid back.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: is there any way that we can make adjustments to these agreements, where the new owner would agree to honour the existing terms and conditions that would keep these facilities as affordable housing units? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that we have to abide by the same rules that an individual who is the proponent does in the terms and conditions, so if the building is sold, then we have to assume the agreement as well. If we put too many restrictions on an agreement, that will also reduce the level of participation. Mrs.

Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can find a way to fill that gap. Can the minister of municipal housing advise what this government is doing to increase the number of affordable housing units that are available? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and have heard many times, we have brought forward a task force. The hon. member from the third party mentioned his valuable input. I want to say that the work th at the task force did is very critical to the direction that this government goes.

The integrity of the work is important, and we want to make sure that we have the right re- sponses and the right directions because the work was very valuable. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. School Closures Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier suggested that he would listen to any Albertan that came forward with advice about how to improve the province’s school closure policies, and I’m happy to provide that advice. To the Minister of Education.

Yesterday I tabled a petition signed by a thousand people that suggests that it would be a great move to amend the School Act to allow the sc hool closure process to be 18 months instead of the short timeline it is now. Would the minister like to take that advice? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, closing schools is a tough decision. I know it’s foreign to our friends across the road, but some of us are elected to make tough decisions. The public school board is elected to make tough decisions, and they are making those decisions. There is a process in place, and I believe that it is serving well.

Decisions have to be made, and they are making them. Dr. B. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, other jurisdictions in other provinces provide an appeal process on school closures, for example, so that school board decisions can be reviewed impartially if it seems that the correct procedures are not followed. This appeals process can give parents, educators, and students a voice when they feel that the system lets them down. Will the Minister of Education accept my advice and implement an appeal process for sc hool closures? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, what is the right time? Is it 12 months?

Is it 18 months? Is it five years? Sooner or later decisions, tough decisions, have to be made, and that’s exactly what the Edmonton public school board is doing: making tough decisions. Dr. B. Miller: And the whole community is in an uproar. The Edmonton school board is meeting tonight and will be making a decision on the closure of High Park school and other schools.

If the minister refuses to call for a moratorium on school closures, as the Alberta Liberals urged the Premier to do yesterday, will he at least commit to an open and public review – you like task forces – of the closure process to make it more human and in the interests of community vitality? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, under the School Act the decision whether to close schools or not is in the hands of the public school boards.

If we start meddling in what the school boards are elected to do, these would be the first people who would be telling us that we should be staying out of the decisions of the local school boards. So you can’t have it both ways. The Speaker: There were 90 questions and answers today. head: 2:20 Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter I sent to the Premier requesting a public inquiry into the r ecent events at St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table several documents from Mr. Paul Pomerleau, a union member with IBEW. Mr. Pomerleau is very concerned about the use of temporary foreign workers, particularly when there are numerous people in the building trades who are looking for work. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings. The first is from a constituent of mine, Robert Murphy.

He’s concerned about the lack of spaces for apprentices at NAIT – his son has been trying to enrol for his fourth year for over two years without success – and that there is a great shortage of tradespeople at this time, and a large number of students would like to finish their apprenticeship programs. My second letter is from another constituent, Neil Evans, calling on the government to take action to deal with global warming and carbon dioxide emissions: “If as a province, country and society we fail to act, and the experts prove to be right, what will we say to our grandchildren?” The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning.

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 299 Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to table a number of individual letters with the appropriate numbers of copies that call on this Assembly to support that the accused killer of Joshua John Hunt be sentenced and tried as an adult due to the nature of his crime, his past criminal history, and that he is close to the age of 18 years. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk. On behalf of the hon. Mr.

Goudreau, Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, responses to written questions 20, 21, 22, 23 asked for by Ms Blakeman on behalf of Mr. Tougas on May 15, 2006. On behalf of the hon. Mr. Horner, Minister of Advanced Educa- tion and Technology, responses to written questions 24 and 25 asked for by Dr. Miller on behalf of Mr. Taylor on May 15, 2006. head: Projected Government Business The Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader? Well, there being no question, perhaps the Government House Leader would like to respond to the phantom question that we all know what would be. Mr.

Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would anticipate that the opposition and all members of the House would like to know what the projected government business might be when we return after the first of our constituency weeks, in which members will be able to return to their constituencies and touch base with constituents. On April 3, anticipating the adjournment motion later this afternoon, under Orders of the Day the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, day 10, which of course will then result in the motion to engross the Speech from the Throne.

Following that, Government Motion 14, which for members that may not have looked at the Order Paper yet, is a motion to continue Alberta Treasury Branches. It’s a motion which needs to come forward every five years. Then under government bills for second reading Bill 6, the Post-secondary Learning Amendment Act, 2007; Bill 7, the Private Vocational Schools Amendment Act, 2007.

On Wednesday, April 4, under government bills for second reading Bill 8, the Vital Statistics Act; Bill 9, the Tourism Levy Amendment Act, 2007; Bill 10, the Horned Cattle Purchases Act Repeal Act; and Bill 12, the Income and Employment S upports Amendment Act, 2007.

On Thursday, April 5, under Government Bills and Orders for second reading Bill 13, Access to the Future Amendment Act, 2007; Bill 14, Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; Bill 15, Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Amendment Act, 2007; Bill 16, the Police Amendment Act, 2007; B ill 17, the Limitation Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; and Bill 18, the Judica- ture Amendment Act, 2007. The Speaker: Government House Leader, there is a question from the chair for information with respect to the schedule.

As the hon. members will not be sitting next week and the hon. members will not return for a number of days, is the Government House Leader in a position to speculate as to when the subsequent motions might be presented to the Assembly about changes in the procedure of the Assembly? It was silent in terms of that first week. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are in discussion with the House leaders and with the table with respect to drafting those motions. I would hope that they would be available during the week that we return.

I had hoped that we’d be at a place where we could put them on notice now and deal with them when we return, but it will take a few more days to get that done, and hopefully we’ll have that done by the time we return. We’ll put it on notice for that week. The Speaker: Okay. As a subsequent follow-up to that from the chairman of the Members’ Services Committee to the members in the House who are members of the Members’ Services Committee, normally there are 10 days’ notice given by the chair for a meeting.

I would like to put all members of the Members’ Services Commit- tee on notice that when these motions are in the House, when these motions are approved, there will have to be a Members’ Services meeting essentially the next day, so if you would anticipate some- time towards the end of two weeks from now for these motions and block some time out in your schedules. The discussion may be early in the morning as a result of all your schedules. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 20 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 The Speaker: The hon.

President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise today to move third reading of Bill 20, the Appropriation (Supple- mentary Supply) Act, 2007. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, should I call the question, or would you like to participate? Mrs. Mather: I want to participate. The Speaker: Absolutely. Proceed. Mrs. Mather: Thank you. It’s a good o pportunity now to take a look at the estimates that we have and what the intent is. One of the things that I wanted to make sure is emphasized is that Albertans have the environment on their minds these days.

Everywhere I go, people are talking about it, and I would really like this government in its upcoming budget to seriously look at doubling the funding for Alberta Environment. I don’t see any indication that there’s going to be an increase there. We need a doubling so that it can truly reflect this high priority for Albertans, indeed all Canadians, because all the people that I am aware of are placing a very high priority on this in terms of protect- ing and enhancing the environment and thinking about our future generations. I know that right now the Environment department has a shortage of staff.

I think that we’re looking at concerns with climate change and the tremendous and somewhat unpredictable devastation that is coming as a result of that climate change: extreme weather events, new infectious diseases, droughts. Clearly, we have to show significant vision and leadership in this area. Continuing, I’d like to go on with my concerns about Children’s Services, and I’m hoping that the effect of this bill w ill be that we will actually take a look at some of the serious concerns I raised in the last few days.

One of these concerns is about the not-for-profit agencies losing staff to government positions or other businesses because they can’t compete with the salaries. They can’t increase the salaries to offer any kind of competition to these other agencies. They’re barely getting enough money for salaries and benefits.

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007300 There’s no consideration for heat, food, clothing costs, and mainte- nance costs. So I’m hoping the effect of this bill will be to take a look at these things more seriously in the upcoming budget. I also want to talk about the serious problem that we have with addictions. We have more and more young people who are in group homes and various agencies who have severe behaviour concerns and often have addictions, yet we don’t have enough beds for detox. We don’t have enough beds for treatment. There are agencies other than AADAC who could provide help with addictions.

They have the training. They also know how to handle severe acting-out problems, serious mental illness, and violent behaviours, which should be considered along with addictions treatment. I’m wondering why it seems that AADAC is often pulling agency staff from these other areas because they are trained, yet these other agencies that could well provide the kind of treatment and services that is needed are not getting contracts. We need to look at this problem.

We need to get more beds so that we can help individuals so that when they finally decide that they will go to detox and treatment, they don’t have to wait weeks to get a bed, weeks that may lead them to change their minds and get involved again with negative behaviours that don’t help them move forward. 2:30 Another area in terms of Children’s Services is that, you know, we have another case model coming out now. It seems that the old Alberta response model, ARM, is becoming obsolete.

That was implemented a few years ago, when you had two divisions of staff: family enhancement workers and core protection workers. That’s becoming obsolete. I think that we’re finding that there are many more high-risk court-bound families, and social workers are having to deal with far too many files, so these files then are being brokered off and then contracted out. The model for the youth enhancement and family act was eight to 10 families per worker, where the reality is 22 to 25 on average.

So front-line staff’s ability to protect children continually goes down because of constant changes within the department. It’s no wonder many of them are quitting after very few years of service. The new model even requires mandatory training, so again social workers will be in training for three days at a time and not working on files. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] So we’re implementing a new service delivery model at the front end through this new casework model.

It’s going to give assessors who were formerly investigators more time, actually 45 in total, to do full safety assessments, more complicated than previous invest- ments, and detailed assessments on guardians, caregivers, and all children that might be involved, and then mandatory case conferencing before these files are transferred to a caseworker. But they have no more resources, yet they have the same number of cases or intakes coming through. So families often have to wait for family support workers to come to help them when they’re feeling desperate with difficult situations.

Children with addictions, often with traumatized parents, have to wait for detox because there are no beds available. A shortage of foster parents is a growing concern. Children are apprehended and placed in hotels with one-to-one workers because of a shortage of foster homes. These children need safe places to stay. They need the very best possible because of the trauma and stress caused by an inadequate home situation in the first place. Then they’re removed from those parents, which further traumatizes them, and they’re sometimes left sitting for hours in offices waiting for placement.

How are we addressing the foster parent shortage? I am hoping that this reading will open up some thought toward increasing support for front-line workers and foster parents. What are we doing to recruit, and what are we doing to improve support to these parents? I’m wondering: are you going to increase funding for the implementation of this new model? Are we going to hear that in this budget that’s coming up? [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] You know, there are apparently champions’ sites, which are pilot sites, that have received 15 additional workers across the province.

So once this new casework model is implemented, what resources will be added to cope with the work that is at least double that which was required previously? I’m also very concerned about social worker safety. Social workers can’t double up as often as they used to be able to when they make home visits. Stress is higher, hours are longer, and we’re putting them at risk at times. Fo r example, they’re expected to go into homes, sometimes alone, and have limited access to information that sometimes turns out to be that the parents have assaulted police before or, worse yet, have firearms offences.

I’ve recently talked to a social worker who told me he has been called at home and told not to show up to court the next day because someone with the means was planning to kill him when he would be trying to serve apprehension papers. Social workers should not be expected to serve legal documents. This should be contracted to process servers. There was a case in the United States in October of 2006 where a 15-year veteran of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services was killed while facilitating a visit between a Henderson resident and the woman’s 10-month-old son.

The state had legal custody of that baby. It’s a terrible shock, and it’s interesting that the reaction of that state was to increase the number of social workers by a very large number. I think that we need to be looking at the situation here. I know that social workers now have cellphones and may have bulletproof vests if they are on the CART teams – that’s the child at-risk response teams – but what else are we doing to protect these front- line workers? What are the safety procedures? Are they realistic? You know, we can’t expect them to be teaming up when the workload won’t allow it.

I’m asking that we look seriously, hopefully in this upcoming budget, at providing resources so that we can have more front-line workers to improve the safety but also to improve the resources available to our foster families. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order. Point of Order Relevance Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly in appropriation bills there’s a wide degree of latitude in speaking, but the bill before the House today is supplementary supply Bill 20.

Supplementary supply Bill 20 has votes in it for Advanced Education and Technol- ogy, Agriculture and Food, Finance, Health and Wellness, Municipal Affairs and Housing, not Children’s Services. So under Beauchesne’s 459, relevance, I would ask that you ask the hon. member – important as it is to talk about the budget, there will be time to talk about the budget. The hon. member has referred to the budget several times in her speaking. This discussion is about Bill 20, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, and whether or not the funds that were outlined in that act ought to be voted.

While one normally would ask and allow a wide degree of debate when

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 301 voting money and supply, this debate that has been happening is clearly, as the member has referenced herself, about budget. Mrs. Mather: Can I respond? The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Mrs. Mather: Thank you. I appreciate that advice. My point is that this has not been included in supplementary s upply, and I am wondering why? I know I said a number of times that I’m hoping that it will be in the upcoming budget, but I wanted to stress the importance of these issues. I mentioned environment. I mentioned foster parents. I mentioned addictions. I mentioned safety of social workers.

Why aren’t they being looked at? The Deputy Speaker: Well, 459 is speaking of relevance, and as it points out, the minister is right. It’s difficult to define, but I would ask the member to focus her comments on the task at hand, which is the supplementary supply bill before the House. Could you please carry on? Mrs. Mather: I’m finished anyway. Debate Continued The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I just advise you that you’re not the first and certainly not the last to confuse me with the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora.

In fact, it happens on almost a daily basis. I get his phone calls; he gets mine. I get his appoint- ments; he gets mine. If I might just say, there was an occasion when my phone rang, and it indicated that it was the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora calling. When I answered the phone, he said, “Yeah. Bruce, is that you?” I started to laugh, and he said: “Did I just call you Bruce?” So, please, do not feel bad. Yes. I will get to the point. 2:40 The Deputy Speaker: We were just speaking about relevance, so if you would focus. Mr. R.

Miller: I will get to the point of the matter, which is third reading of Bill 20, the supplementary supply, No. 2, and we always must be cognizant of the fact that this is the second time this year that the government has asked for supplementary supply. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned in earlier phases of debate on this supplementary supply bill my particular concern over the two line items that are being requested by the Department of Finance, and I have yet to hear anybody from the government side offer any explanation as to those two items.

I’m hopeful that, perhaps, the President of the Treasury Board may enlighten us today with a little bit of information on those two. It would certainly be helpful in terms of my knowing whether or not to support this bill at third reading. So for a reminder, we have in excess of $7 million that is being requested to address losses by pension funds, some endowment funds, and a number of other smaller funds. My question previously has been and remains: how could these funds lose money in an economic environment where most funds are generating tremendous returns?

We know that the heritage savings trust fund annually returns somewhere between 6 and 8 per cent. Other funds are up around 11 or 12, and there are examples of funds that are doing even better than that. Here we have, apparently, a number of funds that lost a total of $7 million last year, and I’m wondering which funds those were. I’d like to know if any action has been taken against either the fund managers or the overseers of the investment.

I think, also, a relevant question, in light of the fact that the government has now introduced Bill 22, is whether or not the losses suffered by those funds have any correlation to the introduction of Bill 22 and the establishment of the Alberta Investment Management Corporation. The second item that Finance is requesting – as I’ve mentioned before and everybody knows by now, I believe – is $40 million in a lump-sum payment to address the unfunded portion of the manage- ment employees’ pension plan.

This is an awful lot of money being dropped against one unfunded liability when the government has several other pension plans that th ey’re involved in to which they owe a portion of the unfunded liability, not the least significant of which, of course, in fact obviously the most significant of which, is the unfunded teachers’ pension liability.

There are others, as well, that total altogether in excess of – I shouldn’t say in excess because I can’t remember exactly what the entire number is, but it’s some- where in the order of $7 billion for the teachers’ pension plan and approximately another billion dollars for all of the others combined, approximately $8 billion altogether in unfunded pension liabilities.

So here we have a situation where the Department of Finance is asking for $40 million which, as near as I can determine and, in fact, was confirmed for me by a board member of the MEPP yesterday, virtually wipes out the government’s share of that unfunded liability. When I spoke to this board member yesterday, he told me that he didn’t really understand why they were being chosen to have their government’s share of that particular plan addressed. He wasn’t going to complain, of course.

They were quite thrilled when the call came that the government was going to address their unfunded liability to the tune of $40 million. He flat out told me that he really didn’t understand why their plan was chosen, not the others. He acknowledged that there would probably be a number of people looking at the teachers’ pension plan, as an example, wondering why there was no redress for that unfunded liability. So my questions to the President of the Treasury Board simply are: why this particular plan, and why this amount?

We’ve yet to hear any mention from anybody on the government side in answer to that question. I think it’s only fair that all members of this House have that information in front of them before we support an expenditure of $40 million. My last comment, Mr. Speaker. I know that I said this before, and I risk repeating myself. But since we are in third reading, it is my last opportunity to say that this is just a reminder that the govern- ment, particularly the new Premier early on in his mandate, has indicated that supplementary supply would be a thing that would be used only in emergencies from now on.

As I have suggested the other day when we were debating in committee, the President of the Treasury Board seems to have backed away from that position a little bit. I’m going to be a hound on his trail, and I’m going to make sure that we do our very best to keep them to their word. Hopefully, supplementary supply will be used for what it was originally intended to be used for, and that is emergency situations only. We’ve discussed them before, whether it be flood relief or firefighting purposes or, you know, another outbreak similar to BSE.

There are legitimate emergencies where a government could justify moving away from their planned budget. But some of the items in this particular supplementary supply certainly do not appear to qualify as a genuine emergency, in my mind, and several others have made that statement as well.

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007302 So we’re going to be watching them carefully, holding them to their word that supplementary supply will only be used in the future for genuine emergencies. Beyond that the government will be held to account to the very best of my ability to stick within a budget that this House passes sometime later this year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Thanks. The hon. member kind of posed a question: that they would like to know more about the $47 million. The Deputy Speaker: Are you closing debate? Mr.

Snelgrove: I’d love to. The Deputy Speaker: This is third reading. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the minister is anxious to get this over with, but I just want to make a couple of comments following through with some of the same concerns. I’ve talked about it, and I think that the minister is aware of it, that supplementary estimates have become a way of really abusing the budget process. You know, we talked about the fact that we’re going to move earlier and that there shouldn’t be the same demand.

But when I look at these supplementary estimates, maybe the minister might comment about them. We are in – and we’ve talked about this – a very overheated ec onomy. It’s somewhat of a guess to know, if we keep the same pace of development, what sort of money we need for social and physical infrastructure. For instance, Health and Wellness, Mr. Speaker. We know that there’s $147 million. We know what that’s for. It’s for the r ecent settlement with the doctors. But we also know that coming down the stream there are – and the minister of health is here – a lot of other negotiations going on. I look at the housing.

Well, it’s a big increase in supports for the homeless. We talked about this task force. The needs are immense out there, Mr. Speaker. So I guess my question is to the minister. I want to know how serious we are in terms of anticip ating some of these expenditures coming up. If we’re sort of lowballing it going into this budget, then we’re going to be back, faced with the same situation again, with supplementary estimates. I think we all agree that this is not particularly the greatest procedure.

I talked about it before: bring a budget in in March, pass it in June, and then come back in July with, you know, millions of dollars. I take it that’s one of the reasons with the House leader, that we are attempting to stop that abuse somewhat by having, well, certainly, interim supplies but having the budget and the set days.

I guess that I’m not asking what’s in the budget, but I’m saying that knowing something about housing, knowing something about the health care, you know, the crisis that’s out there, how serious are we in terms of this budget and really focusing on these problems with the economy that we have? I’ve called it an economy on steroids. Or are we going to be back in the fall saying, “Well, these problems have increased,” with another half a million dollars in supplementary estimates? Then we’re defeating the purpose of it.

Supplementary estimates – I think the minister would agree – are not really supposed to be part of the budgeting process. They are there for emergencies. That’s what they were there for in the past. Forest fires were often one that we’d have to come back and deal with before. I suppose that if there was a pandemic or something like that, you can’t anticipate those things, so there’s a necessity to have them. But I’m worried – I’m worried, Mr. Speaker – that we’re not going to be realistic enough in terms of this budget, and we’ll be faced with the same thing come the fall.

I’d like the minister, if he has time, just to comment about that. Thank you. 2:50 The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is again available if anyone wishes to rise under that. Anyone else wish to participate in the debate? The hon. President of the Treasury Board, to close debate. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to all the hon. members who have participated not just in third reading but in the other readings. I take very seriously their suggestions that we should not be back here middle of the year redoing funding, and I think this government will commit to that unless there are extreme emergen- cies or situations that are far beyond any government’s ability to project, that we will try to stay out of here.

To the hon. member before: there is no connection to the supple- mentary supply estimates around Finance in Bill 22. I think Alberta has matured as a province to the level that we need to ensure that we have some of the brightest minds available to look after our – I say collectively “our,” all Albertans’ – investments to ensure that they are prudently looked after yet returning a good return and that our pension funds and all of our investments are getting the best return. So I think it’s a positive step forward.

The hon. member asked about the $40 million and, obviously, already knows probably more about the investment in MEPP than many other members, but I think it was prudent to take funds that were available at that time in the budget and address a need. Yes, it wasn’t enough to address the t eachers’ pension f und, but it was enough . . . [interjection] Well, you know, every now and then you have surplus or you have to reallocate from within a department.

The Auditor General and the government’s rules are strict enough that even the amount we simply move from Infrastructure and Transportation to Service Alberta to pay for the exact same thing – nothing changed in the world. The plane was bought. It didn’t get paid for in the time that a new department was created with different responsibilities, and we had to come back here and show you that. So it’s no new money, no different money. Yet to satisfy, I think, your concerns and Albertans’ concerns and the Auditor’s concerns, it’s back here.

A lot of what is done is simply to ensure that if there is a realloca- tion from operations to capital or vice versa, that’s addressed here because you voted on it or we voted on it as capital or operational dollars. These changes happen in the course of a year, and that, I think, is appropriate to come back and bring forward into the House. I’m glad to hear that they don’t want to speculate on the budget, but I am terribly afraid – and I’ve made our Government House Leader very aware – that I didn’t really want to still be here debating it in July, but we may well be. If we have to be, so be it.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to close debate on Bill 20. [Motion carried; Bill 20 read a third time] Bill 25 Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 2007 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is again my pleasure to rise and move third reading of Bill 25, the Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 2007. Mr. Speaker, this bill is so th at the different departments of government can continue to operate uninterrupted until the budget

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 303 is expected to be passed. This covers the time from April 1 to July 1, 2007. I can appreciate that it’s difficult to answer some questions about supplementary supply without delving into the actual budget and what they will do. I will take under advisement the questions that the hon. members pose, but obviously I think that they and we both agree that the government must go on. We will have ample time to debate the budget when it’s presented on April 19. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I’m not going to belabour the point b ecause I think that as the President of the Treasury Board has indicated, we all recognize that the govern- ment must go on. However, I think that it is important that I reiterate my comments from earlier phases of this debate, and they are twofold. One in particular that I really look forward to is the adoption of new House rules that will give us firm sitting dates, a firm date for the introduction of a budget, which is certainly not a guarantee that the budget would be passed by the end of the fiscal year.

But I think that having seen that agreement and knowing the amount of time that it would normally take to have a budget move through this Assem- bly, there is a pretty darn good chance that in the future, if that agreement is to be adopted, we will not find ourselves here debating interim supply. That is my sincere hope. I know it’s the sincere hope of the House leaders, and I think and I pray that it’s the sincere hope of all members of this Legislature. The second point, which I made earlier and, I think, bears repeating, is a reminder to all me mbers that the government is in complete control of the agenda.

The fact that we’re not seeing a budget until the 19th of April and won’t have it passed until sometime in late June or, as the President of the Treasury Board said, perhaps not even until sometime in July is certainly something that was within the government’s control and the control of their political party.

Had there been some prudent planning on the other side, we would likely have seen a leadership race in advance of December 2 and the House coming back at its normal meeting time, sometime in mid-February, and we would likely have had the budget passed in time for the fiscal year end and would not have had to have the introduction of an interim supply bill at all. So that is my hope: that we won’t be back here again next year having this same debate.

I would implore all members of the Legislature to support that House leaders’ agreement when those amendments do come forward so that, in fact, that will become a reality. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: Are there others? The hon. President of the Treasury Board to close debate. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the hon. members for their understanding today. It being Thursday, I’m very happy to close debate on Bill 25. [Motion carried; Bill 25 read a third time] head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 1 Lobbyists Act [Adjourned debate March 21: Mr.

Chase] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my great honour to rise and speak to Bill 1, Lobbyists Act. First of all, I want to commend the Premier for introducing this bill, which was long- awaited. I know something is better than nothing, but I think there needs to be a little bit more amendm ent to this. But as I said, this bill is in the right direction. That’s why I commend his efforts. He dared to introduce this bill after maybe 20 years’ struggle from different parties, including this present government. 3:00 Mr.

Speaker, the first thing that stuck in my mind when I saw this bill was: why now? I mean, when you see the history of this legislation, even the federal government passed legislation a long time ago, in ’86, ’89. Ontario had their own registration act in ’98, Nova Scotia in 2001, British Columbia in 2001, Newfoundland in 2005, and Quebec in 2002, very similar acts. In Alberta a lobbyists registry was one of the key recommendations of the ’96 Tupper report’s review of Alberta’s conflict-of-interest rules. He recom- mended the inclusion of a registry in an integrity in government and politics act.

The Alberta Liberal caucus supported this report. Then the Alberta Liberal Party campaigned on the lobbyists registry in 2004. In 1996 another Liberal MLA introduced Bill 223, the Lobbyists Registration Act. Even at that time this government knocked down this bill. Again in ’97 one of their own MLAs introduced Bill 212, the Lobbyists Registration Act. I mean, the question that comes to my mind suddenly is: why does this govern- ment introduce this now after a long, long time? In a democratic country like this one, especially in Alberta, why has this government failed to introduce this bill for a long, long time?

I think this government is trying to give Albertans the impression that they are different than the last government, but in reality it is the old wine in a new bottle. They are one and the same. Mr. Speaker, lobbying is not a bad thing. It’s an important part of democracy. In a democracy people should have the right to meet and discuss their issues and concerns with their elected representa- tives, like MLAs and MPs, and most people do. That’s why we get some input from our constituents, and we raise their voice here in this House. This is a good thing.

But the problem is that sometimes, you know, when the government is in power for a long, long time, they make some really good friends and then they take advantage of their friendship and try to play the foul game. Lobbying, as I said, is legitimate, but it should be and must be public. I didn’t go through this bill, you know, from page 1 to page 20, but I’m still confused on the definition of lobbyist. It’s not clear yet, especially in this bill. I have a few questions to ask after reading this bill. First of all, what if the lobbyist fails to disclose intentionally?

Suppose that we have a lobbyist and he or she or the organization – it may be public; it may be private – says: “No. We don’t want to disclose something”? Where do we stand? I know that there’s a mechanism in this bill that will impose some penalties. How are they going to judge whether this person is a registered lobbyist and disclose? I don’t understand this mechanism like the one that we have in the federal government. Another thing comes to mind, a question I ask myself: if we pass this bill, will the public office holder tell us that they were lobbied, what the subject was, and what decision was made?

I mean, it’s between the two, between the government and the lobbyist. How would we find out what subject they talked about? This is a serious thing that we should discuss before we pass this bill. A question about the public lobbyist is that sometimes we have nonprofit, nonpolitical organizations. Most associations need to convince the elected official on certain concerns, certain issues in their area, but what if they are a paid director in an association? I

Alberta Hansard March 22, 2007304 know that some nonpolitical, nonreligious associations are working for the betterment of their people, but sometimes their directors are paid. They get paid. So where do we stand? I mean, how would we deal with those people? There’s another scenario. If the lobbyist meets this Premier, well, they can say: yeah, we are registered. That’s okay according to this bill, but what happens if the Premier called the lobbyist? How will we get the record that the Premier called that lobbyist and solicited information or advice on any subject. It’s not clear in this bill.

You know, after discussion or after all other members speak on this bill, maybe we’ll find the solutions. I want to see this bill be really the best bill in Canada, even better than the federal government’s. We should work really hard to find and not leave any loopholes in this bill and make sure that we ame nd certain things and discuss this again and again and make sure that we prepare such a document that we can lead Canada on this lobbyist registry act. Mr.

Speaker, it’s important to remember that it’s taken years, as I said before, of lobbying by the Alberta Liberals to finally get through to this Tory government on the need for this. Alberta Liberal MLAs pushed very hard in the past. I discussed the lobbyist registry as part of the review of the Conflicts of Interest Act last year. This is something the Alberta Liberals have been pushing for years. I mean, when we’ve introduced any motion or any private member’s bill since I’ve been here, I’ve never seen any motion or bill passed that has been introduced by the opposition members.

I don’t know what’s happening in this House. We are all elected members. 3:10 I mean, it’s the same thing. The Alberta Liberal Party introduced this bill a few times, and some of the members from the PC Party introduced this bill. They think it’s not a good idea. But suddenly now they think that, yes, we should go ahead. That’s why in the beginning I appreciated the Premier. At least, he dared to introduce this bill. This is something really good that I’m pleased the government decided on even though they stole one or two pages out of the Alberta Liberals’ ideas. We don’t mind.

I mean, there are still some loopholes in this b ill that have to be f illed. Those problems have to be solved before we pass this bill. This bill brings Alberta to where it should have been 11 years ago if they had really thought about the people who elected them. We are all here working for Albertans. The Liberal Party introduced a few bills with different numbers, and they didn’t go through. Now this bill will go through because it’s intr oduced by the Premier. They have the majority. This government always talks about openness, transparency. I don’t understand. Why not then? Why now?

I would really be happy if somebody from the other party answered my questions. What’s the problem if any motion or any private member’s bill comes from the opposition party? Why don’t they co-operate? Maybe they can add some amendment and pass the motion, pass the bill. Maybe they are allergic to this. I don’t know. I’m struck by the fact that this government rejected the need for a lobbyist registry because the existing one was weak, or sometimes they said that the existing one was bad. Now, after 11 years, 12 years, it’s the same bill. They changed the subject a little bit on this one.

I still think this bill is not ex actly what we even have in the federal government. I want to see this bill better than what we have federally, to ensure that all the members sitting in this House make sure that we work hard and add some new ideas if we really want to be open and transparent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, under Standing Order 29(2)(

a) does anyone wish to provide a comment or question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview on the debate. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me first of all say that this is certainly a step in the right direction. I want to give credit where credit is due, to the committee that the Member for Edmonton-Glenora and I served on, in terms of the final recommen- dation coming for a lobbyist registry along with some other things that are coming forward about cooling-off periods. In fairness to that committee I think there was a fair amount of scepticism on the side of the government MLAs.

Again, this is where I think the committee worked well. We got information from other parts of the province, and eventually it was brought forward that a lobbyist registry did make some sense. So I was pleased when the Member for Calgary-Nose Hill told me that Bill 1 would be the particular bill that the Premier was going to bring forward. I think, though, that we do have to take a look at the bill and make sure that we do it right. I compare it to Ontario and some other bills, and I would make some suggestions at this particular time if it’s going to be a flagship bill.

I remember that the flagship bill last year was the smoking bill, and we had to bring in an amendment, that the government accepted, about not investing in tob acco companies. So, hopefully, in that spirit we can even make this particular bill stronger, Mr. Speaker. Some things, I think, need to be looked at – and I think they’re fairly serious – to make this a better bill. Contrary to the previous speakers, it wasn’t Alberta Liberals that discovered lobbyist registries. They have been in parts of Canada for many, many years, and all of us have advocated for it for many, many years, Mr. Speaker.

But I notice that there are two categories in Alberta under the lobbyist definition: a consultant and an organization lobby. In Ontario they have three. The only one that’s different, I think, is probably worth looking at. There’s a fair proliferation of nonprofits, too, and I think we should be fair, as they are in Ontario. They probably should be included if we’re having a lobbyist registry for people. That’s a minor point, but I think it’s one worth looking at. We can go into the fines. I notice that Ontario has much stricter, heavier fines than Alberta. That’s something we could probably look at.

The big thing, though, is exemptions, Mr. Speaker. It seems from research we’ve done that they do not allow government request exemptions in Ontario. But we know very clearly that this bill at this stage – we will wait and see if the government does – does allow some exemptions, and I think they’re serious exemptions, that really would water down the intent of a lobbyist registry. The one that we look at that seems to be the one that’s really a big potential for abuse has to do with government request exemptions. That is not the case in most other lobbyist registries.

You could drive a truck through that loophole. What that means is that people do not need to register as a lobbyist if they’ve been approached by the government for information or consultations. Well, Mr. Speaker, let’s say that I’m a lobbyist, but I’m a good friend of the government. If I don’t want be registered, I’ll just get them to make a call. Then I don’t have to register. The government doesn’t have to tell us who they’re talking to.

Now, that is a very, very serious shortfall in this particular legislation, and I’d hope that the government would take that back – we’re going to go through Committee of the Whole – and really take a look at that because I think it has the potential to really make this particular registry meaningless. The potential for abuse is immense in that particular case. I don’t know about the monitoring, if that’s going to be serious. I think we have to look at that. The other thing in this business: we’ve had a one-party state here for many years. The government has been in power for a lot of time,

March 22, 2007 Alberta Hansard 305 so there are a lot of what I would call unpaid lobbyists who held public office. It seems to me that they have access to a lot of people in government, especially if it’s people that have recently retired, and I think they could fly under the radar of the l obbyis