April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 515 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 8, 2002 1:30 p.m. Date: 02/04/08 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon and welcome back. I would ask hon. members to remain standing after the prayer and the singing of our national anthem. Let us pray. Almighty God, from whom comes everything that is upright and true, accept our thanks for the gifts of heart and mind that You bestowed upon Your faithful servant Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and for the examples of life she brought forth in her words and deeds.

Grant that we may have grace to live our lives in accordance with Your will, to seek the good of others, and to remain faithful servants during our lives’ journey. O Lord, bless our sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II, and all who are in authority under her that they may order all things in wisdom and equity, righteousness and peace, to the honour of Your name and the good of all people. Amen. I would now invite Mr. Paul Lorieau to lead us in the singing of our national anthem. Please join in in the language of your choice. HON. MEMBERS: O Canada, our home and native land!

True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Mr. Michael Senych September 24, 1926, to March 27, 2002 THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Wednesday, March 27, 2002, Michael Senych passed away suddenly. Mr. Senych represented the constituency of Redwater for the Social Credit Party. Mr. Senych was first elected in the election held on June 17, 1963, and served until August 30, 1971.

During his years of service in the Legislature Mr. Senych served on the Select Standing Committees on Private Bills, Public Ac- counts, and Municipal Law and Law Amendments. He also served on the special committees on Automobile Insurance and the Centralization and Consolidation of Schools. With our admiration and respect there is gratitude to members of his family who shared the burdens of public office. Members of Mr. Senych’s family are with us today in the members’ gallery. Our prayers are with them. In a moment of silent prayer I ask you to remember the hon. member Michael Senych as you may have known him.

Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the hon. Premier of the South African province of Mpumalanga, Mr. Mahlangu. He is accompanied today by his wife, Mrs. Mahlangu, and a 17-member delegation including several members of the Mpumalanga Legisla- ture: the hon. Speaker, Mr. Lubisi; the hon. Minister of Health, Ms Manana; and the hon. minister of finance and economics, Mr. Mabena. Mr.

Speaker, Alberta and Mpumalanga have had a close friend- ship since 1996. Mpumalanga is working to establish strong management systems within its government while encouraging growth in its private sector. Alberta has been honoured to shared its experience in governance with Mpumalanga during the past five years. I’ll be signing a memorandum of understanding with the Premier later this afternoon that renews Alberta’s friendship with Mpumalanga. I’m looking forward to our relationship expanding into new areas in the coming years including trade and investment.

I would ask that our honoured guests please rise and r eceive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly delegates from the Deutsche Bundestag, or German Parliament, led by President Wolfgang Thierse. The delegates are touring Canada as part of an official week-long visit, and we’re honoured to welcome them to Alberta and to this Assembly. I’d like to wish our parliamentary colleagues an enjoyable and productive visit to our province. Seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is Mr.

Wolfgang Thierse, President of the German Parliament; Dr. Ulrich Schoeler, chief of cabinet; Dr. Manfred Guenther, chief of protocol; Mr. Wolfgang Wiemer, director, press division; Mrs. Monika Koch, first secretary, head of the department for economic policy, science, and technology with the German embassy in Ottawa. Accompanying our distin- guished visitors are Mr. Friederich Koenig, honorary consul for Germany; and Ms Regina Landeck, translator. I would ask our guests to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It’s an honour for me to rise today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly family members of the late Mr. Michael Senych, a colleague of ours. They are Michael’s wife, Patricia Senych; niece Joanne and her husband, Albert Fedun, and their two children, Rana and Kayla; niece Gloria Loekie and her husband, Tim; niece Corinne Arsenault; Mrs. Senych’s sister, Annie Rudnisky; and family friend Cindy Olchowy.

They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to all members of the Assembly it’s my great pleasure to welcome and introduce to the Assembly 86 students from St. Teresa Catholic elementary school. They are accompanied today by teachers Lisa D’Agostini, Ronald Boivin, Trish McGuinness, and Charles Stuart.

Also accompanying the students are parent helpers Theresa Ness, Marie Reitzel, Patrick Omoe, Mark Day, Cindy Shearer, Patricia Hennig, MaryBeth Doiron, Ross Perri, and Jackie Wright. I would ask all of the students, the staff, and the parent helpers to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Legisla- tive Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Solicitor General.

516 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 MRS. FORSYTH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly staff of the Solicitor General’s department who are members of the north and south Edmonton community correction young offender probation offices. Because of the numbers of the staff, I ca nnot introduce them individually by name, but we have here joining us today two managers, four support staff, 10 probation officers, two students of the Grant MacEwan correction service program, and one student of the University of Alberta criminology program.

On behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General I would also like to introduce to you and through you nine staff members from Alberta Justice. Mr. Speaker, these people do a terrific job, and I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MR. NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you and to you today it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine, Andres Lineker. He’s in your gallery today. Would you please join me in giving him the warm Legislature welcome he deserves. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Mr. Bernie Hornung, president of the Wildrose Polio Support Society, and Mrs. Pat Laird, vice-president. Pat is also a member of the board of the Southern Alberta Post Polio Support Society. Today marks the beginning of Polio Survivors Awareness Week in Alberta, dedicated to increasing awareness of post polio syndrome among polio survivors and health care professionals. Mr.

Speaker, our guests are located in the galleries, and I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly seven remarkable women from St. Albert who are members of the IODE Ethel Cuts

chapter of St. Albert. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and they are Joyce Welsh, Arden Korchinski, Betty Walkingshaw, Margaret Clarke, Lynda Bradshaw, Val Braiden, and Kathleen Musgrove. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Community Lottery Boards DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Albertans have told this government time and again that if the government wants to take money out of the communities through VLTs, it must return some of that money to be used in ways that communities see fit. VLT proceeds are going up this year, yet funding for community charities is going down. When the government decided to disband commu- nity lottery boards because it had to make some tough decisions, it not only took away money from communities; it took away their power. My questions are to the Premier.

Given that gaming revenues are expected to increase by more than $77 million this year, why did the government disband community lottery boards and take away $51 million from our communities? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, certainly media reports suggest that government is recommending or reconsidering the decision to end the community lottery board grant program, and some municipalities indeed have threatened to hold plebiscites to get rid of VLTs if the program is not reinstated. First of all, there are no plans to revisit this issue at this time.

As I indicated on Thursday before the break, if higher than expected revenues persist, funding for this program could be reconsidered at some time in the future under a different format. The Gaming minister also has pledged to look at the existing lottery-funded grant programs to see if some of the groups affected by the ending of the CLB program can be accommodated.

But I would remind the hon. member that lottery funds, including those lotteries that come from slot machines in casinos, the various lottery pull tickets, 6/49, VLTs, go to fund a lot more than commu- nity lottery boards: $25 million in family and community support services for children; $15 million to the Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation; $122 million to the Supernet project, which benefits all communities, particularly in the educational sector; $10 million to seniors’ lodges; $3.1 million to achievement scholarships; $500,000 for hosting the Arctic Wint er Games; $2 million to the First Nations development fund; $25 m illion to the community facilities enhancement program, and that’s $25 million a year for each of three years; $10 million to health service research; $50 million to health care facilities; $28 million in unconditional municipal grants; $15 million to water management infrastructure.

DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, let me help the Premier. Was it a tough decision to allocate $33 million for horse racing instead of maintain- ing the community lottery boards that fund scouts, victims’ services, and kids’ playgrounds? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that is another lottery program. I’ll have the hon. Minister of Gaming respond to your question relative to the specifics of that program, and how we’ve come about it is not by taxpayers’ dollars. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is quite correct. This program has been in place since 1996.

The funding for the racing industry is directly connected to racing entertainment centres which are connected with race courses and which have slot machines in them. It is part of the revenue from those slot machines which funds the racing industry, and I would point out that a significant portion of the funding from those slot machines also goes into the Alberta lottery fund to assist in funding many good projects for all Albertans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: was it a tough decision to increase the commitment from the lottery funds on debt payment by more than 600 percent this year to $320 million instead of leaving that $51 million to support our scouts, our community playgrounds, and local community initiatives? MR. KLEIN: I would remind the hon. leader of the Liberal Party that CFEP funds many of these projects, that the hon. Minister of

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 517 Gaming will be looking at ways to fund these programs that fall through the cracks, so to speak; you know, the smaller grant programs. There may have to be some adjustments to the terms of reference to the community facilities enhancement program, Mr. Speaker, but we won’t let these small groups be ignored.

We will look after them, just as we are looking after the needs of the rest of the community through a number of the programs I have already addressed, including the additional programs: $36 million to the strategic and research investments program, $35 million in school facilities – of course, they don’t want that – $10 million in postsecondary facilities; $5.9 million to the health innovation fund. Yes, there is a substantial amount, about $300 million, going to debt pay-down because this is what Albertans said they wanted. They said: get rid of the debt. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A follow-up to the Premier: can the Premier tell us who he consulted with across Alberta to get their okay to eliminate the lottery boards and put more money into debt payment? Who did you talk to in the community when you developed this budget? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we sensed the priorities of Albertans. The priorities of Albertans are health, education, sound infrastruc- ture, good fiscal and financial management, no deficits, debt pay- down, safe community, lower taxes.

These are the priorities of Albertans, and the priorities of Albertans are also those that we identified in the budget with respect to the programs that are funded out of lottery dollars. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you how the community lottery board program came about. A number of mayors wanted to meet with me in Bonnyville.

I met with them, and they said, “Lookit, if you want our support on VLTs,” understanding that there were a lot of plebiscites being contemplated at that time, the result of an initiative, we will put it, on the part of people who were really concerned about gambling, not about where the money was going – they wanted to get rid of VLTs, period. They said: if we had more local control over some of the money, we might not be as strong in our opposition to VLTs. We said: okay, we’ll set up a system whereby there would be some local control over some of the funding.

The mayors of course wanted the councils to be the keepers of that particular money so that they could perhaps dedicate some of those funds to potholes and other purely municipal services. We said: no; if it’s going to be done, it has to be done in the community sense. Hence, a committee was set up under the MLA for Lacombe- Stettler, who came up with a process to accommodate the wishes of the mayors, and as I understand, it functioned quite well.

But when we were assessing our priorities in terms of where tight dollars should go – and this was predicated on the price of oil at the time and projections into the future – we determined that of all the priority areas for lottery money funding the community lottery boards were the least priority. So it was a matter of setting priorities. Consultation? Tremendous consultation: 74 members of caucus, Treasury Board, cabinet, and now debate in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. That’s consultation. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A moment ago the Premier said that he was going to look after these small programs. He said that he was going to look after them from this level. Why didn’t he leave it at the community, where the community could make those decisions. Is this Ralph’s world? MR. KLEIN: Well, much better Ralph’s world, I’ll tell you, than Ken’s world. I’ll tell you that for sure, because Ken’s world would be a world of deficits, a world of debt, a world of giving everything to everyone all the time, Mr. Speaker. That is Ken’s world. Ask and you will receive.

The more you stamp your feet, the more you yell, the more you scream, the more the Liberals will give. They want to be friends to everyone for all time, for all purposes. You name it, they will give it. I would rather be in Ralph’s world, where we have to make tough decisions and live by tough decisions, than Ken’s world any day. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Ken’s world they’d look after the communities, and they’d let the communities have a choice as well. Out of the lottery fund, Mr.

Speaker, why is it that only 6 percent of the gaming revenues are going for charities and for not-for-profit community groups, and 26 percent is going for debt payment? If you said that you believe in the communities, why are you not giving them more money than that? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this goes back again to when there was a tremendous amount of controversy over VLTs, in particular, which are a main source, by the way, of lottery revenues. We listened, and we took a lesson from people like Mr. Rohr and Mr. Gray in Calgary. We said: yes, it is a problem.

We capped them at 6,000, put more money into antigambling or gambling education programs. But they also said that there was also a feeling in the community – and we felt that quite strongly – that community dollars ought to go to community programs, yes, but that a large percentage of those dollars should also flow to high-priority areas like health and education and infrastructure. We listened to the people who said that to us, and we have done precisely that. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Albertans have been very loud and clear in their objections to the loss of the community lottery boards, the loss of money coming back into communities from gaming revenue and local decision-making. Overall, this government continues to budget less and less money for Alberta’s nonprofit associations, communities, and charities. My questions are to the Premier. Is the government refusing to reinstate the community lottery boards with their full $53 million budget intact despite the damage done to communities by the cuts? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I don’t think that that much damage has been done, and if there’s any damage or any organizations that fall through the cracks, we will have a discussion as to how those organizations can be accommodated, those small organizations: pipe and bugle bands and, you know, various sports teams and so on. We will do our best to make sure that they are accommodated. Relative to community programs, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that $25 million, including a considerable sum to the hon. member’s constituency, goes to community programs through CFEP.

Significant dollars, about $15 million annually, goes to the Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation. That’s a

518 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 community program. Three point one million dollars goes to achievement scholarships. I don’t know how much goes to the Wild Rose Foundation; that’s another one. [interjection] About $6 million to the Wild Rose Foundation. So there are numerous community programs that are supported by lottery funds; the community lottery board was one of those programs. Relative to all the programs that are funded, I will have the hon. Minister of Gaming, the hon. Minister of Community Development, the hon. Provincial Treasurer supplement my answer. I’m sure that they can provide . . .

THE SPEAKER: Well, actually, there is a process under the Legislative Assembly for review of the estimates, including a review of the lottery fund estimates. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: given that the existing lottery programs are already oversubscribed, I’m wondering where in the budget this new program is that would have a local decision-making component to it in which these groups would be looked after. Where is it in the budget? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, it’s not in the budget b ecause the CLB program has been canceled, but we’re saying that we will revisit the CFEP program. We will look at how these organizations can possibly be accommodated, maybe by the movement of funds within the lottery program, but we will find a way. We aren’t going to let these organizations down. Yes, some will be refused. Some were refused under the CLB program. Some were refused under the CFEP program. Unfortunately, they don’t qualify, and those are decisions that had to be made by the community lottery boards.

Those are decisions that have to be made by MLAs, including opposition MLAs, who all share in the community facilities enhancement program. So, yes, tough decisions will still have to be made, but we will try to accommodate as best as we possibly can those communities, associations, and endeavours that are indeed deserving. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: if the Premier is anticipating putting more money into CFEP or AFA or Sports, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife or any of the other programs he’s just rolled off, why doesn’t he just put the money back into the community lottery boards, reinstate it? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it’s a priority. I’ll answer the hon. member’s question with a question. Do you want to take $35 million out of grants for school facilities and $10 million out of grants for postsecondary facilities? Do you want to take $122 million out of the Supernet project? Yes, that’s what they want to do. Well, let’s say 122 less 50.

Do you want to take that out of the Supernet – that’s 72 – to leave it with only $72 million? Well, you couldn’t even start it for that. Does she want to take $25 million a year over the next three years out of the community facilities enhancement program? Do you want to take $36 million out of the strategic and research investments program? They’ve been crowing and talking about, you know, the lack of funding for family and community support services for children, yet in the same breath they’re saying: well, just take $25 million out of family and community support services for children. 2:00 Mr.

Speaker, they stand up there and they say one thing, you know, criticize us for one thing, and then when we do it, they have to find something else. They can’t be pleasant about this at all. They’ve always got to find something to complain about. If you do it right over here and affect a program over there, then it’s a problem. Their greatest resource is the columnists who say: oh, my gosh, this government is beating up on the poor little pipe and bugle bands and so on. Well, we aren’t. We will accommodate these programs. AN HON. MEMBER: How? MR. KLEIN: She says, “How?” THE SPEAKER: Please. Please. Hon. members.

Thank you very much. We’ve had about 22 minutes now discussing something that has been designated for future discussion in the Legislative Assem- bly, and if all members would look on page 17 of the Order Paper, you’ll see that the Department of Gaming has been designated. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR. MASON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to transportation grants, the government flip-flopped.

When it came to course options for grade 10s, the government flip-flopped, but when it comes to community lottery grants, which fund vitally needed programs in almost every Alberta community, the govern- ment stands firm. To the Premier: why has the Premier and the entire Tory caucus turned its back on community programs through- out Alberta? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that goes to “how.” As I said before, there is the opportunity to move dollars within the lottery programs and to amend the terms of reference of CFEP to accommodate some of these programs.

As I’ve always said, there’s more than one way to skin a cat other than the Libe ral or the ND way, and that is to simply throw money at it, and when you can’t throw money, I’m sure that they would love to buy a printing press and just print it, because that is the way they deal with virtually all situations. Mr. Speaker, is this hon. member saying that we ought not to fund the municipal transportation programs? If he is, say it to the media. Stand up and say it to the media, that we take $50 million out of that program and put it into the community lottery board program. That’s what he’s saying.

Well, maybe he would like to say it to the media after this session. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: how can the Premier tell organizations such as the Forestburg Learn & Playschool Society, the Hardisty Healthy Communitie s, the Killam public school, the Killam and District Playground Committee, the Wainwright Association for Community Living, and the Wainwright Children’s Centre that their programs are no longer worthy of government funding? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, if the hon. member will provide me with that list, I’m going to find out if they received any CFEP program funding, but I’m going to ask him a question. If he’s honest, he will say whether they received CFEP program funding. Right? Now, if he’s not being honest, then he’ll refuse to answer. He’ll invoke the privilege of the House. Secondly, have they written the Minister of Gaming, in light of the current situation, to find out if there is any possible way or if there are other programs? Has the person talked to the local MLA, who will be a Conservative?

You know, those who are complaining have obviously talked to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, who hardly knows where Forestburg or Wainwright is. He only goes

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 519 out there when it’s politically expedient, Mr. Speaker, but I’m sure this is a discussion we will have with the local Tory MLA once he’s elected after 8 o’clock this evening. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be pleased to table this document, which the Premier should have read b ecause it’s a government document. Has the government read this document which is called the community lottery board grant program, which has a list of 2,984 programs that are no longer funded by his government? Has he read it? Here it is. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, this government has been in existence now for almost 100 years. It’s not surprising that something like 2,000 some odd programs have come and gone. Times change. This government changes to meet the changing tides of time. The NDs don’t, haven’t ever, and never will. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Teachers’ Withdrawal of Voluntary Services REV. ABBOTT: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, I have received several phone calls from my constituents regarding the decision by teachers to cancel extracurricular activities for the remainder of this year. Now, this includes all after school sports and drama activities, and in some cases it is even stopping parent councils from meeting as they have no staff reps available. This action is nothing less than a punishment to students, and the t eachers’ union is hurting kids by suggesting such draconian measures. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. Is this something that is outlined within teachers’ contracts?

THE SPEAKER: The hon. the minister. DR. OBERG: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just in starting my answer to that, I would completely agree with the hon. member that students are being hurt by the decisions that are being made. When it comes to the school council, under the Sc hool Act a teacher is mandated to be on the school council, and they do have to be there. So whether or not they have volunteered, whether or not they are actively on there, the school board has a responsibility to place a teacher on the school council.

So in direct answer to the hon. member’s question, yes, they will continue and, yes, there is a teacher that has to be on there. The withdrawal of teachers’ services is a very unfortunate event, but it is something that is being looked at. We are attempting to find a solution to this problem. But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, was when I read on Saturday about the child with cerebral palsy who was not being dressed. Quite frankly it sickens me, and we are going to find solutions to this. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. REV. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Minister of Learning: is this an issue that can be resolved through the Education Services Settlement Act? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue that can be directly solved through the Education Services Settlement Act. We will have a place under Bill 12, under the Education Services Settlement Act, that will put in place an arbitration process that will solve the salary issues.

When the contracts are settled under the arbitration, it hopefully will lead the teachers and the Alberta Teachers’ Associa- tion to stop this nonsense that is going on with the teachers’ services on the extracurricular side. REV. ABBOTT: My last supplemental to the same minister: what alternatives are available to students to try and keep these activities going? For example, does it mean that graduation ceremonies will be canceled? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, over the last week there was a newspa- per story or a television story that said that volunteers – that’s parents – could not be involved. That is not true.

The liability of the school boards does cover parent volunteers, volunteers who want to coach, volunteers who want to help, and from what I understand in talking to a lot of schools around the province, a lot of parents are digging in. They’re helping their kids because their kids are important to them, and they’re helping in such situations as gradua- tions. So in direct answer to the hon. member, that is what is happening around the province today, and I would encourage that to continue until we can put this very unfortunate thing to rest. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Teachers’ Arbitration Process DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The atmosphere in schools across the province has been poisoned by Bill 12. Even with very wise leadership and the best goodwill we can muster, returning our schools to normal is going to be a huge task. My questions are to the Premier. Will the Premier begin the task by removing the financial constraints imposed on school contract arbitrators? 2:10 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have the hon.

Minister of Learning supplement, but the financial constraints are reasonable. They’re reasonable to everyone but the Liberals. The Liberals believe in deficits. They obviously believe in deficits. Make no bones about it. Because by removing the financial constraints, we are saying that school boards can go into a deficit position. This is a law that we’ve even imposed on ourselves, that we can no longer have deficits. Why would school boards have deficits? The only ones, the only people and the only organization, that want a deficit are the Liberals.

Let’s make that quite clear, and that’s the only financial constraint. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Under

section 6(2) of Bill 12 it states that the school boards will not incur a deficit or where there is a deficit, they will not incur a further deficit. It is our understanding through our legal counsel that that quite simply means that at the end of the day they cannot have a negative sign on their bottom line. How they arrive at that – the arbitrator has a lot of room to determine how that arbitration settlement will be performed. We are convinced through our legal counsel and I understand that the Alberta T eachers’ Association is convinced through their legal counsel that that is what the implications of

section 6(2) mean. Quite simply, at the end of the day the school boards cannot have a negative sign on their balance sheet. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that someone has to start if goodwill is going to prevail, will the Premier help the

520 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 situation by restoring the working conditions that were wiped out of contracts by Bill 12? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we have committed – and I think it’s a major commitment – to undertake a review through a commission or a blue-ribbon panel project to look at all these issues but to take our time and to look at these issues in a realistic sense, not the one-size- fits-all approach that the Liberals seem to think is going to work; in other words, arbitrarily. It’s 17 children per classroom; that is the ratio. That is cut and dried for the Liberals. What happens to the 18th person?

I think the hon. minister of education has asked that. What happens to the 18th person? Is that person bused off? There is no consideration amongst the Liberals for the socioeconomics, the demographics of a particular area. We’ve got to look at that. We’ve got to look at the issues of sparsity and distance, the whole issue of transportation, the issue of English as a Second Language, the issue of special-needs kids, those who are physically and mentally disabled.

We have got to look at a host of issues, a multitude of issues, but we’ve got to do it in a reasonable, thoughtful way, not in the knee-jerk Liberal kind of way but in a thoughtful way, Mr. Speaker. The issue that we can resolve – and we can resolve it quite easily through arbitration – is the salary issue. Once that issue is off the table, Mr. Speaker, then we can really set our minds, including good- thinking Albertans, to the blue-ribbon panel or the commission to address some of these long-term issues that speak to the fundamental problem of sustainability. DR. MASSEY: Thank you.

Again to the Premier: will the Premier foster goodwill by ensuring that the arbitrator appointed by the government will be truly impartial? MR. KLEIN: No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. Our arbitrator will be impartial. We have asked the Alberta Teachers’ Association to appoint an arbitrator of their choice. We have asked the Alberta School Boards Association to appoint an arbitrator of their choice. I can think of no more an impartial process than the one that we have put in place relative to the selection of the arbitrators. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Chronic Wasting Disease MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Chronic wasting disease is an animal disease that affects deer and elk, both wild animals and those raised on game farms. Up until recently the disease had not been detected in Alberta. However, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has determined that an elk raised on a game farm in northern Alberta was infected with the disease. I believe both Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development are involved in dealing with this issue, along with the federal government.

My first question is to the minister of agriculture. What does the discovery of chronic wasting disease in our province mean to Alberta’s game farm industry? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that for the first time a positive case of chronic wasting disease has been found on a farm site in our province, and this is indeed very, very unfortunate. However, the important thing is that we have a system in place that will deal with this issue in the best way possible.

First and foremost, the member is right: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as an arm of the federal government under the health of animals branch will take the lead in this. They do have a process: one, immediate quarantine of the site; secondly, they will be sharing the information, of course, with affected persons. They will be following and monitoring with us the movement of any animals, a surveillance of all herds, and of course the disposing of animals in the infected herd. These are very concrete steps that are designed to stop further cases from happening, and we think this is very important.

The other thing that’s very importa nt in this province is that we have had an import ban on cervids since 1988, and we’ve had a voluntary surveillance program in this province since 1996. We’ve tested more than 4,000 animals in this province. Of those, more than 4,000 animals have tested negative, and in that testing we have now found one positive. So we’re going to continue to work with the industry to ensure that we can prohibit the movement of this disease. MR. JOHNSON: My second question is to the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Development.

Since the discovery of chronic wasting disease in a game farm animal may also have consequences for Alberta’s wild deer and elk, what steps are being taken to test for the presence of the disease and prevent its spread? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That’s a good question. The chronic wasting disease has not been found in the wild in Alberta. My department has a strong surveillance program for wild deer and elk, and more than 12,000 animals, in fact, have been tested since 1996 and were all found negative so far.

Our surveillance program was even expanded in the year 2001, and the fish and wildlife staff harvested over 200 deer along the Saskatchewan/Alberta border. Again there was no trace of the chronic wasting disease. The 200 deer were also negative. Mr. Speaker, we continue to work with hunters also, who have been of great assistance since 1998. They have been voluntarily submitting deer and elk for sampling and testing.

My department is now working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to get a better understanding of this particular case and what the concerns might be regarding the wild deer and also the elk in the area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Will the discovery of chronic wasting disease have any influence on the government’s current review of a proposal for establishing cervid harvest preserves? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much again, Mr. Speaker.

That’s a very, very important and timely question. Jointly with Agriculture, Food and Rural Development we are indeed preparing a review of both the pros and the cons of cervid harvest preserves in Alberta. The Alberta government is definitely paying attention to the presence of the chronic wasting disease that was recently discovered. It will take, of course, the CWD into account as it considers the proposals for hunt farms in Alberta. Our government will certainly be weighing the pros and the cons in the process. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo. 2:20 Labour Relations Board MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Labour Rela-

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 521 tions Board, according to the minister’s latest a nnual report, is an independent and impartial tribunal. All parties, if we are to have stable, balanced labour relations in this province, should have confidence in the members of that board to ensure its independence and impartiality. My first questi on is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. What is the minister doing to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Labour Relations Board when a current appointed member of the board advocates changing the labour law on behalf of his own special interest?

Thank you. MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we try to provide in this province, of course, is openness and accountability, but also we want to provide the opportunity for people to express their particular views. What we have here in this particular situa- tion, if I can read somewhat between the lines of the question, is that for the Labour Relations Board we do appoint people that have an interest from the employer’s side and we appoint people that have an interest from an employee’s side.

To my knowledge, I’ve never denied a party from either interest group the fact that they could come and see the minister, they could make representations on any topic, whether or not they also happened to be a member of the Labour Relations Board. MR. MacDONALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Just this past January Mr. Stephen Kushner, a board member since 1999, stated, and I quote: we’ve seen a tremendous number of injustices in terms of the operation of the current labour code, end of quote.

In light of these inflammatory comments, what steps will the minister take to ensure that the board remains independent and impartial? Thank you. MR.

DUNFORD: Well, again by the very definition of how we bring people to the board – and I’ve actually tried to work with various stakeholders and interest groups around the province, whether it be the Labour Relations Board, whether it be the Appeals Commission, whether it be the Workers’ Compensation Board, to perhaps not be so focused all the time, always having to get so wound up by the fact that we must have an employer interest represented or we must have an employee interest represented. I get very little help from th e hon. member on this issue, as a matter of fact. So what does he expect, then, in turn?

These are people that represent particular interests. Some of that’s going to flow over into what they say in the public. The important thing is that when that member of the Labour Relations Board is acting at a hearing there be impartiality, and I believe there will be. MR. MacDONALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: will the minister terminate Mr. Stephen Kushner from the board to ensure that it remains independent and impartial? Thank you. MR.

DUNFORD: Well, certainly not on the basis of a question from the hon. member during question period when he has the benefit of saying whatever he wants here on the floor of the House. But if any member, whether it be somebody that’s of an employer interest or somebody of an employee interest, is shown to be not using their impartiality requirements and responsibilities at a hearing, then of course we will deal with that as it comes up. So to answer the specific question: no, I will not. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview.

Bighorn Wildlife Recreation Area MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Bighorn area is a large and intact wilderness. It contains irreplaceable wildlife habitat, watersheds, and recreational areas. The Bighorn wildlife recreation area was designated in 1986 by the government of Alberta. Most of the area is designated as a prime protection zone under the eastern slopes policy of 1977 to 1984 and the integrated resource plan of 1986.

This prime protection zone was created to protect watershed and aesthetic resources from industry and motorized use and to provide nonmotorized recreational opportunities to Albertans. My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Allowing motorized recreation into the prime protection zone will downgrade the protection that the eastern slopes policy is supposed to provide. What is the basis for downgrading the prime protection zone? MR. CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate to the member that, yes, the Bighorn area continues to be a very important part of Alberta’s landscape.

It covers approximately 4,000 square kilometres, in fact. It has a wide range of different uses and interests from environmental and recreation to industrial. As the member stated, most of the area is under the prime protection zone of the eastern slopes policy which was developed in the ’90s. What is important to mention, though, is that in this area there are competing demands, and that seems to be the big concern. That is why the government took positive steps lately and developed the 15-member public committee in addition to six government department officials.

Basically what this committee will do is find a balance between the interests of users for the region. I have faith in this working committee that they’ll have the appropriate number of public meetings and appropriate number of consultive processes in order to arrive at a good plan so we can have a balanced approach toward these uses. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is also to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. The government is conducting an access management planning process for the area.

His department has allowed five advisory group meetings and only one public meeting for making decisions that may overturn the eastern slopes policy, that was based on very extensive public consultations. Is this government willing to extend the planning process so that the advisory group can make sound recommendations? MR. CARDINAL: Yes, again I’m very confident that the time will be allowed for this advisory committee to make the appropriate recommendations that are necessary so there can be a balance between environment, industrial, and recreation uses. We will allow the time that is necessary.

After all, the process of land use in that particular region has been studied for a long, long period of time. It’s not only last year. It’s been going on for years, Mr. Speaker, and we have the capability, I know, to develop a good access manage- ment plan in that area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to Minister of Economic Development. What work is your ministry undertaking for recreational use in this potentially unprotected area? THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister.

522 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 MR. NORRIS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At the outset we recognized in the department what a glorious opportunity for tourism and recreation this offers Alberta. As a result, we’re working with the local advisory board. We’re also recognizing the need to establish with other departments how the land is going to be used. So we’re in a joint minist erial meeting to discuss how that land is going to be used, and to that end we’re looking at also establishing a possible snowmobile committee to review that in light of the amount of excellent trails there are in the area.

We’ll be looking to set that committee up in the next couple of months. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Hospital Closures DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Health and Wellness have any knowledge of planned announcements by rural regional health authorities to close health care beds? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that health care is this government’s top priority, and the 7 percent increase in health spending reflects that.

It is a little premature to be talking about whether there will be bed closures or conversions in regional health authorities anywhere in the province. We know that regional health authorities are currently working on developing business plans that will show how they will best use the dollars that they have allocated to them to meet the needs of th eir particular constituents. Every regional health authority in this province, every one of them, got an increase this year in the current budget. All of them got an increase to reflect their growth, 1 percent as a minimum, and some got more. 2:30 Now, Mr.

Speaker, about half of the increase to the Department of Health and Wellness budget, $247 million, will be going to regional health authorities. We will be reviewing the business plans that RHAs put together. We’ll be looking at available facilities that are currently in place to make sure that they’re being properly utilized and meeting the needs of the community. So, Mr. Speaker, as we’ve often said, it is not just a question about how much we spend but, more importantly, how we spend it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the choice of the word “premature,” will the minister r eassure this Assembly that no requests have gone from the government to any regional health authorities to delay announcements of closures or cuts until after today’s by-election? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I gave regional health authorities a certain amount of time to prepare their business plans. They’ve asked for more time to prepare. The government has not asked them to delay those business plans. We’ve asked them to bring them forward as soon as they are available. So we have not given a direction for them to delay the preparation of their plans.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister repeat to this Assembly his public commitment of just three months ago that, and I quote, Alberta’s public hospitals are not for sale to private interests? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question. This hon. member has a terribly short memory, I’m afraid. I would refer him to Hansard when he did ask this very same question earlier in this session.

My response at that time was that there have been public hospitals that have already been so ld to private interests, but they will not be operated as private hospitals, just to make that perfectly clear. He would be well aware of facilities like the Grace hospital in Calgary, the Holy Cross hospital in Calgary, as two examples, and previously the Camsell hospital here in the city of Edmonton. They have been sold to private intere sts.

So I will not give him an assurance that that will not happen again, but I can assure him that in accordance with our legislation those privately owned facilities will not be used as private hospitals. head: Recognitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Ken Lamouche MR. STRANG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to rise and recognize one of West Yellowhead’s constituents, Mr. Ken Lamouche. Mr. Lamouche served our country as a member of the 2nd Commando Airborne regiment for more than five years.

His unit was part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus. On March 21 of this year Ken was honoured with a Canadian peacekeeper’s service medal and a Nobel peace certificate. This award came into being in 1997 and is awarded to all Canadian military, RCMP, and foreign affairs personnel who have served on peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and/or observer missions. He was also presented with an eagle feather, a powerful symbol of respect in the aboriginal community.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing Ken’s contribu- tion to Canadian peacekeeping missions and wish him conti nuous good health and happiness. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Ann Keane DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I met a woman who has a remarkable dream. Her name is Ann Keane, and her dream is to run from St. John’s, Newfoundland, to Vancouver Island. She is a mother of two and a registered nurse with many years’ experience. She is also an accomplished runner and hopes to average 50 miles a day on her cross-Canada run.

Ann’s hope is that he r run will enc ourage people to raise their eyes and open their hearts to the opportunities we all have to reach out and make this a better world. She will be raising money for the Canadian Association of Community Care and for the Hope Foundation. Ann’s s upport is already building. An RV is being donated for the entire trip, she has a volunteer driver, the Royal Bank has arranged for donations to be made through a web site link, and a major shoe store is supplying shoes for her entire trip. Ann leaves for St. John’s this weekend and will start running next week.

I’m sure that the entire Legislative Assembly of Alberta joins me in wishing this vivacious and determined woman the very best. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. Michael Senych MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again it’s an honour

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 523 to rise today and recognize a very special individual, the late Michael Senych, who passed away March 27, 2002, in a tragic automobile accident. Michael was a former MLA, t eacher, princi- pal, and most recently mayor of the v illage of Thorhild. He was very active in the community: involved in upgrading the rodeo grounds, renovating the community centre, making Thorhild the sunflower village. He has left a legacy, most recently the addition of 14 assisted living beds to be constructed at the Newthorad Lodge.

He was a member of the Long-term Care Review Policy Advisory Committee, which I had the pleasure of chairing. Michael was a positive thinker, a leader, a good friend. He will be missed not only by the community but all those who knew him. Thank you, Michael. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Spring into Spring Extravaganza MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud to recognize in this Assembly today the recent hugely successful eighth annual Spring into Spring Extravaganza, a performance held at the prestigious Jack Singer Concert Hall in Calgary. Who created this success?

Well, nearly 500 senior and junior high school musicians or students performed in the program, students from schools in my constituency of Calgary-West: Ernest Manning high sc hool, A.E. Cross junior high, and Vincent Massey junior high. Ernest Manning high school is very well known in the Calgary school system for its successful music program, and the accomplish- ments are achieved through talent, hard work, and teamwork by many people: music directors, administration and staff, students, and the music parents’ associations.

The eighth annual Spring into Spring Extravaganza was a truly unique collaborative event, an evening of exceptional entertainment by many talented musicians from the community and from three schools in that community performing in an incredible venue. My sincere congratulations for a performance superbly well done. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Success by Six MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to recommend to you and to other members and to recognize a marvelous production by Success by Six.

The best recognition I can give to this booklet which has to do with measuring the economic and social status of children in this area is to read from the introduc- tion to Edmonton’s Children: Let’s Start at the Very Beginning, a very good place to start. Our city’s future depends upon the commu- nity’s ability to nurture healthy and well-educated children who will grow up to be well-adjusted adults, productive workers, and responsible citizens.

Su ccess by Six champions the cause for all children in Edmonton, urging this community to do everything in its power to give all of our children the best possible start in life. I would commend Carol Gilfillan and all of the community leaders of the Edmonton area for putting this wonderful booklet together, and I commend it to all members of the Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mill Woods Cultural Society of Retired & Semi-retired DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Mill Woods Cultural Society of Retired & Semi-retired does an outstanding job of serving the social needs of senior immigrants in southeast Edmonton. The 19th anniversary of the society’s founding is being celebrated this year. Since inception the society has been blessed with outstanding leadership, and there has been great support from the community. The centre thrives on the work of volunteers. Some of those volunteers were honoured at founding day celebrations this past weekend. From caretaking services to help with filling out forms, volunteers have made the centre work.

A visit to the centre finds new Canadians going about activities in dress that somehow seems symbolic of their new lives: turbans and tennis shoes. Seminars, self-help programs, and peer assistance keep a growing number of seniors busy. The centre has been so successful that current and proposed programming can no longer be accommodated. A three-acre site has been secured for a new building. The original modest investment of lottery funds in the centre has paid off a t housandfold in enriched lives for seniors. The society exemplifies the best in people helping people.

We wish the president, Gurmail Singh Deol, and the society every success as they work to make th eir slogan Aging Gracefully with Dignity and Fun a reality. 2:40 head: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. MRS. TARCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As chair of the Select Special Auditor General and Information and Privacy Commissioner Search Committee I would like to table five copies of

part 1 of the committee’s report, recommending the appointment of Mr. Frederick James Dunn as the Auditor General for the province of Alberta effective June 1, 2002. Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a series of tablings today. The first is five copies of a letter from Anne Farris of Calgary, who wants the government to designate the Bighorn wildland recreation area as a wildland park using the 1986 bound- aries.

The second is the appropriate number of letters from Bob Bartlett of Calgary and Ms Christyann Olson, who want the government to take appropriate actions to protect the Bighorn. The following letters, two of them, from Christina Chase-Warrier and R. Goth, are both very concerned about how education is now being funded by this government. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings. The first is the required number of copies of a letter from Wynn Kline addressed to the Member for Calgary-Bow. Mr.

Kline worked on this member’s election campaign and expresses dissatisfaction with the way the government has handled the teachers’ dispute. The second is a petition signed by 59 Albertans concerned with the arbitration process that has been put in place and wanting immediate action to address classroom conditions to be undertaken and the funding of education to be improved. The last one is a similar petition asking for the government to address the problems of underfunding of education in the province.

524 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this afternoon. The first one is a letter that I received from Mr. Hardy, the general manager of Brandt Tractor Ltd. in Calgary. This company is expressing their concern about the reduction in provincial government funding for highway work, which will undoubtedly put a substantial strain on their business and also on their employees. The second tabling I have is an open letter to the hon.

Minister of Human Resources and Employment and myself from a gentleman named Mr. Paul Bokowski, and Mr. Bokowski states that “the marketplace effectively controls the unionized sector just like the non-union sector.” The third tabling that I have this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is a petition supporting public and separate school teachers, and it states to all hon. members of this Assembly and the Premier and the Prime Minister that public education is very important. This petition is organized by Mr. Darby Mahon of Edmonton-Gold Bar. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have a series of tablings today. The first is from Karen Pirie from the Women’s Centre in Calgary noting that the “community lottery board grants have paid for much needed equipment, printing a book, a communications audit and materials,” and other critical programs and asks for restoration of the community lottery board program. My second tabling is from Wendy Passmore, the artistic director of the W.P. Puppet Theatre Society, also in Calgary.

With her concerns she’s looking for the government to make “financial decisions that benefit all Albertans” and to restore the community lottery board program. My third tabling is from Melody Jacobson. She works in one of the arts organizations in Calgary and is asking the government to rethink the decision to close the community lottery boards. Finally, an e-mail from Dave Robinson, an aspiring Calgary filmmaker who is expressing his dismay at the actions of the government in taking away the community lottery boards. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. DR. TAFT: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I rise to table the appropriate number of copies of a report from the Students’ Union of the University of Alberta called Students’ Union Undergraduate Survey 2001. It’s a very impressive document, and among other things the results of the survey indicate students’ satisfaction with the students’ union and widespread concern that tuition is unaffordable for many students and that the cost of education is a significant problem for a large portion of university students. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table a letter from a school principal. Her name is Charlotte Corothers, and she has addressed this letter to her Edmonton-Whitemud MLA, declining her MLA’s invitation to attend a meeting of principals of schools located in the Whitemud constituency. This principal feels dismayed and betrayed at the failure of her MLA and his government colleagues to take a stand on the issues confronting education, the democratic process in resolving labour disputes, and the misuse of power in the form of Bill 12. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MR.

MASON: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a letter addressed to the Premier from Jim Wiesner, a senior in Edmonton. Mr. Wiesner is very concerned with the adverse impact that the 30 percent health care premium increase and the elimination of eyeglasses and dental programs will have on many seniors. The second tabling, Mr. Speaker, is for the Premier’s benefit. It is a list of the 2,984 organizations whose grants have been cut under the community lottery boards grant program. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. MR. STRANG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tabling the required number of copies today of a petition from West Yellowhead teachers requesting funding from the government for their employ- ers, the school boards. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I would like to table a petition signed by Patricia Lemire, a constitu- ent, for the Operation Drivesafe program to reinstate access to the provincial motor vehicle operators’ list. Thank you. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Proper notice having been given on Thursday, March 21, it’s my pleasure to move today that written questions appearing on the Order Paper today do stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Proper notice having been given on Thursday, March 21, I would now move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 202 Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act, 2002 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North.

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 525 MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to begin third reading debate on Bill 202. The support that Bill 202 has r eceived from all sides of the Assembly has been exceptional. In fact, it has shown me several positive things about the environmental views held in this Assembly and where we need to go with regards to environmental law in this province. By this stage, Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is fairly well known to all members.

The bill states that if directors in the Department of Environment issue instructions to polluters and if those instructions are not followed, the department must issue an environmental protection order to the polluter. 2:50 The amendments introduced in Committee of the Whole provide both clarity and flexibility to B ill 202. They make the b ill less imposing to the Department of Environment but also keep the bill an integral tool for property owners to fight pollution on their property.

By passing this bill, we will be saying to property owners that this government takes their property rights seriously and will act to ensure that their grievances are settled fairly. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill represents a step in the right direction for environmental law and perhaps opens a door towards a new way of thinking about how we should legislate environmental law. Mr. Speaker, the scope of environmental problems often causes people to throw up their hands in wonder.

When we realize that an action taken in Edmonton has the ability to affect ecosystems halfway around the world, we start to see that environmental pollution is a global problem with untold implications. It is said that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo, people in New York are affected. It’s fairly common for a lot of people to turn away from problems that seem too big, especially when those problems do not affect them. However, the problems still remain.

It’s usually when the problem affects us that we sit up and take notice and say, “Wait a minute; that’s not right.” As I said in the Committee of the Whole, that’s just human nature. It isn’ t the job of a legislature to change human nature, Mr. Speaker, but it is our job to understand it and to make laws that benefit all of us regardless of human nature. Mr. Speaker, it is time to look at environmental laws that protect private property rights. One of the best ways to protect all of our environment is to give people the tools to protect their own property.

This means having mechanisms like those called for in Bill 202, but it also ought to mean more. I encourage all like-minded members of the Assembly to look into this area to see where we can take it not only to protect property rights but also to protect the environment. Now, I’m not the type of person who believes that government can or should be all things to all people, but I do believe this: it is the government’s job to protect the property of its people whether they own a small plot of land or thousands of acres, whether they make a lot of money or very little.

Saying that Albertans can ask their government to look into environmental concerns and saying that this government will act on their behalf in situations of concern is simply doing our job. We will be saying that our government believes strongly in the right of citizens to expect compensation or redress if their property is unduly harmed by other citizens. When the property of any Albertan is harmed, especially through careless or negligent practices, our government must provide the tools for resolution. This is an important step, Mr. Speaker, and one that we as an Assembly should be proud to take. Mr.

Speaker, the condition of the environment will be a source of major debate throughout the next century and beyond. The statistics are exceedingly clear. The world’s population is growing at an exponential rate, and as such we cannot help but use more of our natural resources and more chemicals to increase food production and to meet our daily needs. This in itself is not a bad thing. The history of man is one of using the Earth’s resources for our needs to make our standard and quality of living better.

Scientists have noted that perhaps we ought to exercise more restraint to conserve our resources over the long term so our impact on the environment is minimal and our resources are here for our children and grandchildren. Perhaps they are right, but these are philosophical battles that won’t be solved by the passing of a small piece of legislation like Bill 202. Rather, they will rage on and on as an important debate over the next decade. But what we can do by passing 202 is ensure that this government and property owners can work together to protect the environment and to clean it up. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to thank all members for their support of 202. Bill 202 requires immediate containment of a spill and then timely cleanup. This is a small step in legislation but a giant step for those who are affected. This cleanup legislation will help to protect private property and give private property owners a tool to help force the cleanup of their property and neighbouring properties. Alberta will once again lead the way in environmental protection and in supporting private property owners.

I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act, 2002. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are generally in favour of this particular bill. We were a little more in favour of it when it didn’t have quite so much flexibility built into it in terms of the process where companies now “may” conform rather than “must” conform to some of the new rules. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction, and we applaud that.

I listened with great interest to the comments from the Member for Red Deer-North when she talked about a new awareness of environmental views within the Legislature and some of the perspectives she put forward. She talked about the government’s job to be protecting property.

I am sure that when she talks about property, her views extend to air quality and water quality, so I look very much forward in the near future to this member’s comments on our water bill, which certainly will talk about preserving water quality in this province, and I will be very interested in hearing what the member has to say in terms of the Kyoto protocol and what steps this government should take from a leadership position to ensure that CO2 emissions globally are reduced to the best extent possible.

So I look forward to many environmental debates in the future, some of which I’m sure we’ll share some common concerns on. With that, I will conclude my remarks on this bill, and we will be supporting it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. MRS. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to rise again to add my voice to support Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act. As Bill 202 has wound its way through the process from first reading to today, third reading debate, I have grown increasingly enthusiastic about this bill.

Let me take a moment to explain why I believe in this bill. This may seem a bit elementary, but sometimes the best way to go is back to basics. All bills are aimed at accomplishing something whether we like the purposes or not. Sometimes we like the bill; sometimes we don’t.

526 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 Sometimes we like the idea but not its application or the manner in which the bill seeks to accomplish its intended purpose. Sometimes we don’t like the bill although we lik e its purpose. We might, for instance, agree that the bill highlig hts something that we feel is a very real problem, but in spite of that we do not feel that it’s the government’s role, right, or duty to enact legislation that would affect the matter. However, Mr. Speaker, Bill 202 is a bill I genuinely like.

Not only that; I believe in its purpose, I believe in its mechanisms, and I believe that it is our duty as elected representatives of all Albertans to enact legislation that will serve all Albertans today and tomorrow. Bill 202 will do that. It will enshrine in the body of law the very important principle that if you make a mess, you clean it up. If you pollute the environment, you take steps to undo the damage before it leaves permanent scars affecting all of us. At the same time, Bill 202 will not become such a cumbersome piece of legislation that it will cave in under its own weight.

The amendment to the bill that changes the word “must” to “may” is a small change involving two short words, but the effects of this change will go a long way towards accomplishing the goals of the bill without stifling progress in other areas, including the very area in which the bill will have the greatest impact. Mr. Speaker, it’s very satisfying to me to know that we are all together on this one and that we all share a concern about the health of the environment and that we must make sure we remain vigilant when it comes to establishing means of environmental protection.

Where we differ is in the method of enforcement. Accordingly, we have discussed the implication of using either “must” or “may” in the bill. Those who favoured retaining the word “must” speak of loopholes that will be sealed by the use of the word “must.” No more Mack trucks going through those holes; that’s for sure. On the other hand, those who supported amending the bill by substituting the word “may” for “must” pointed out that too strict a wording might lead polluters to actively circumvent the law.

The consequences of too strict wording may be that people who cause spills might, quite frankly, be encouraged not to report them. As well, we’ve heard the argument that if every spill must trigger a departmental action, well, we won’t be talking about just the obvious toxic substances but also everything from body parts to finger paint.

Not only would this fail to consider Albertans’ common sense, but it would also generate a bureaucracy and a paper trail that would be so costly that there may not be sufficient resources, whether in terms of funding or personnel, should a spill of real consequence ever become reality. 3:00 Let me say this right now. There is no question that when a spill occurs, it must be cleaned up. There also is no question that if someone spills a toxic substance and then fails to clean it up, he or she must be held accountable.

But let me conclude my remarks by stressing that it is never a good thing to try and cover up toxic spills. In the court of public opinion – and lest we forget; the public is increasingly concerned about preserving the environment – shirking one’s responsibility is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. I can think of few areas where the public’s outrage and fury would exceed that which would be sparked by a polluter’s effort to conceal his or her own misdeeds. Therefore, I believe that Bill 202 in its amended version is the right way to go for Alberta.

It is the proper means by which to strengthen Alberta’s environmental legislation and is the kind of legislation that will cause any would-be polluters to think twice before he or she decides to walk away from a spill that must be cleaned up or else. Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Red Deer-North for her vision in introducing this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues in joining me to support her. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am honoured to join the debate in third reading in support of Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Amendment Act, 2002. I also, like the former speaker, would like to thank the hon. Member for Red Deer- North for her work and perseverance in putting this bill forward, because ultimately it truly does protect the environment. That is just a wonderful goal, and that’s what this bill will be doing. The objective of this bill is to strengthen existing legislation protecting our land, water, and air from hazar dous spills.

Bill 202 will reinforce the authority and the mandate of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act by making those who pollute be responsible for cleanup not at some arbitrarily determined date but according to a time line that’s established by the department. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill 202, which was passed in Committee of the Whole, will help prevent the corresponding dangers associated with doing things too swiftly and too restric- tively. I strongly supported the amendment which changed the word “must” to “may” when I spoke to it in Committee of the Whole.

The word “must” obligates people working in the department to issue an order even if one isn’t necessary . But I’d also like to remind members in the Assembly of the comments that were made by our Minister of Environment during second reading when he explained that by the time people from the department check out a spill and assess the damage, the cleanup may have already been completed. Without the amendment to Bill 202 our staff would have to go back, issue an order, and outline cleaning instructions even if the work had already been done, and that just simply does not make sense.

I’m certain that most companies look after environmental mistakes whether they are hazardous or not, and most companies have trained staff and safety plans in place to deal with situations, but I’m also sure that they hope that they never have to use those. Mr. Speaker, businesses have developed innovative technology and pollution prevention techniques that help protect our environ- ment. However, accidents do happen, and more work can be done by the government to help preserve our environment and maintain its natural value.

The passing of this bill with the amendments prevents a bureaucratic logjam by preventing an additional adminis- trative workload that would be placed on a department that already covers a wide range of issues and industries involving our environ- ment. I agree with members in the Assembly who have spoken to this, those that believe we should not decide what constitutes a nonhazardous spill nor the time line for cleaning up a spill. The decision should rest on the wisdom and experiences of the hardwork- ing employees in the Department of Environment. Those same experts, Mr.

Speaker, specifically the director, will be responsible for carrying out the rules decided upon in this Assembly, and we should be careful not to introduce procedures that result in unnecessary work. Bill 202 is not proposing to reinvent the wheel, nor is it proposing wild and radical reform to our current and effective Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. In fact, I’m quite confident that the amendments to Bill 202, which were passed in Committee of the Whole, will not cause any undue administrative hardship on our government, directors of the act, or industries that work on or around the environment.

Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act does currently have a process to deal with industrial spills, but as the law stands right now, if a spill does not pose an immediate threat to the environment, the violator does not have to take responsibility until

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 527 an environmental protection order has been issued. That can take some time, and during that time the condition of the land can deteriorate. The goal of increasing the efficiency of Alberta’s environmental protection legislation proposed in Bill 202 adds a small yet impor- tant element to

an act that already manages a staggering number of environmental issues. The desired result of Bill 202 is to give a person or company the opportunity to take responsibility and action to clean up their spill. This way, they can work with the department and work on a method and time line for cleaning up that spill, but, Mr. Speaker, if this desirable scene fails, then the director can force the hand of the polluter. If a polluter does not achieve the objectives set out by the director, it is then the director’s duty to issue an environmental protection order under

section 113 of the act. Mr. Speaker, the effective enforceability of Bill 202 is only possible if the department is able to work within their budget and manpower resources. In other words, people must be able to do their jobs without being forced through a sea of needless paperwork. With the passing of this legislation, it would be cheaper for a business or individual to clean up a spill as soon as it happens rather than wait and do it later.

The longer it takes for it to be cleaned up, the more likely the possibility the violators will be fined and still remain responsible for the initial expense of cleaning the spill, and as the spill spreads as a result of neglect, there is more for the company to clean up. They are obviously better off by cleaning the spill immediately and avoiding any dealings with the director of the department or this government. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Red Deer-North through the sponsoring of this bill is not proposing overwhelming changes to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, because quite frankly drastic changes are not necessary. This bill is simply enhancing the system by giving people in the department the ability to move more swiftly and decisively on delayed cleanup. We must also remember that the bill deals with nonh azardous spills, and I agree that nonh azardous spills have an adverse effect on the environment, and we must be serious about preserving the environ- ment. So, Mr.

Speaker, in having spoken to third reading with this bill, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Red Deer-North. I agree with her, as she said to you earlie r in her debate, that this is an important step, that it will protect the environment, and I would urge all members of the Assembly to support third reading of the bill. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Environmental Protection and Enhance- ment (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act, 2002, upon its third reading in the Assembly.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Member for Red Deer-North for the dedicated effort she has put forward to guide this bill through the legislative process to its present stage. I think there are many others that would agree with me when I say that Bill 202 has changed for the better now that it has passed through the Committee of the Whole. As you may recall, the merit of this idea was quickly realized on all sides of the House. There were one or two details that were in dispute.

Now that we have taken the opportunity to listen to the ideas from the members of this Assembly and applied them to the bill, we emerged into third reading with a solid and agreeable piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to talk briefly about what it is that the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Amendment Act seeks to achieve and why that is importa nt. This bill takes an important step towards a cleaner environment for Albertans. It proposes to limit the ability of polluters to drag their heels on cleanup efforts on contaminated land.

Currently th e department has to wait until the polluting party has displayed an inability or lack of desire to clean up a spill before it can issue an environmental protection order thereby forcing the hand of the polluter to act. We heard several times over the course of the debate that this bill will give the department a bigger and swifter stick to use against negligent polluters. We heard from the Minister of Environment that he was in favour of the idea but wanted to avoid redundant inspec- tions and unnecessary paperwork for his department’s staff.

Through debate and amendment in Committee of the Whole I believe that we as an Assembly have tried to accommodate both of those desires. When I look at Bill 202 now, I feel confident that we have achieved these goals. 3:10 There are several benefits to passing the bill that would ensure that the environmental cleanup is carried out quickly and efficiently under the department’s direction and guidance. First, Mr. Speaker, quick cleanup is required if environmental and monetary costs of a reclamation are to be kept to a minium.

If pollution is allowed to cycle through the ecosystem, it can spread to unexpected and unwanted places. This creates higher costs in terms of both the potential for serious environmental damage and higher costs due to an extension of the reclamation area. Second, through the amendments that Bill 202 proposes, the value and the environmental integrity of property in the province will be further protected.

Property owners can rest assured that their property will be cleaned up quickly and efficiently if somebody else contaminates it, nor will they have to worry about the threat of neighbouring pollution spreading onto their property. Third, this legislation will help protect small business owners who have property that is being contaminated by other persons, compa- nies, or larger corporations. By amending the act,

section 257 would ensure that costly legal channels can be avoided, because the department can issue an order of action immediately after the contamination has been reported. However, the bill is flexible enough to let responsible groups and companies clean up spills on their own. Fourthly and finally, Bill 202 would require the government to open the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act every 10 years for review. This amendment will ensure that the government can apply the most recent and relevant policies and ideas regarding environmental science to the act.

This policy reflects proactive thinking and is sure to provoke thoughtful environmental policy discussions on a regular basis. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act and urge members of the Assembly to join me in supporting this bill. Through supporting this legislation, we can ensure that Alberta is a leader in environmental protection, cleanup, and policy today and in the years to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MR. MASKELL: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise to support Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act, 2002. We have all had an opportunity to provide input and even amendments to this bill, and I believe that after several drafts of Bill 202, we have chosen the appropriate words for this legislation. I am pleased to have seen so many members rise in support of

528 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 such legislation. As a growing and developing province I firmly believe we must work together to build a positive system that ensures we are protecting our province and environment for the future. I also believe that we have to make sure that the parameters we set for ourselves help us attain our goals. I believe the debate and discussion on Bill 202 has allowed the hon. Member for Red Deer-North to decide the most appropriate wording for her bill yet remain within the spirit and parameters of what she wanted to accomplish.

I support the amendment to Bill 202 debated in Committee of the Whole that changes the wording in the amendment to read that the director may issue instructions for environmental cleanup. Several colleagues stressed during the committee debate that in order to make the amendment to the Environmental Protection and Enhance- ment Act most effective and work to our benefit, we must be able to work with some measure of flexibility within the parameters we set.

I agree that the amendment to Bill 202 will provide the flexibility for our directors to make the decision on whether or not instructions are necessary to clean up an environmental spill. One hon. member mentioned that it would be inefficient use if officials were sent to investigate each reported spill. If we allow some flexibility, spills that do not require emergency instructions or can be cleaned up without any instructions will not require needless paperwork. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that with the new amendments made to Bill 202, it contains the best wording to ensure that spills are cleaned up and remediated in the most efficient time. I support the purpose of the bill, which is to make positive steps forward in protecting and acting responsibly towards our environment. I believe the amend- ments to the bill will enhance our ability to react appropriately to environmental spills. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that Bill 202 will help the remediation process in Alberta.

In order to make positive changes through the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Amendment Act, we need to make sure that the legislation will actually do what we need it to do. I believe it will. As Alberta continues to grow and thrive as a province, I feel that it is important to make positive steps to ensure that the future of our environment will also continue to thrive. We depend so much on our environment, not only for the resources it provides us but the important contribution it makes to the health and recreational enjoyment of Albertans.

I believe we must continue to make positive steps which complement the growth of our province. We should look for the best ways to balance the growth that we continue to enjoy by seeking efficient and effective legisla- tion. Such improvements will show Albertans and the rest of Canada that Alberta is committed to maintaining the high-level environmental standards that we are known for. I believe in the spirit of Bill 202: to provide greater environmental protection in Alberta. I also support the purpose of the bill: to make remediation time in our province more efficient.

I also support the amendments to the wording of Bill 202 which allow for expert judgment and opinion on whether or not official involvement and directors’ instructions are necessary. I feel that this bill is important for Alberta and will truly help our environment as we continue to grow. I encourage all of my colleagues to acknowledge its importance as well and join me in supporting Bill 202. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. MR. LUKASZUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to begin today by commending the hon.

Member for Red Deer-North for bringing this legislation forward. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that it takes to bring a piece of legislation like this before this House. Having listened to the comments made by hon. members during the second reading as well as in Committee of the Whole, I believe that this legislation which is now before us today has much im- proved since it has exited the Committee of the Whole.

As legisla- tors with good intentions it is sometimes easy to overlook the importance of small words such as, for instance, “must” and/or “shall,” but the impact of those words can be rather substantial in the implementation of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, the distinction between

an act stating “must” rather than “may” entails the differ- ence between an environmental official having to initiate a lengthy and time-consuming environmental investigation and an environ- mental official using common sense and/or his own discretion and good judgment to deal with situations at the local level. That only makes sense. The amendments made to Bill 202 during Committee of the Whole recognize this distinction without compromising the spirit and the intent of this particular legislation and the sponsor’s intent. That intent, Mr.

Speaker, seeks to empower the Department of Environment to address local spills and less serious threats in both a timely and efficient manner. It allows the official on the scene, who is in the best position to judge the potential impact of any spill, the opportunity to determine whether or not he should issue instructions to clean up. If the situation has been adequately looked after, then the Environment official need not do anything further. However, if instructions need to be issued and are not followed, then the environmental protection order needs to be issued and the situation is dealt with accordingly.

As legislators we need to develop environmental laws that respect the varying nature of environmental hazards and the unique circumstances that individuals and groups may find themselves in, but we also must be firm in our demands that once instructions from the officials in charge have been issued for the cleanup of a site, those instructions must be followed and carried out. 3:20 Mr. Speaker, this province can afford to be accommodating in looking for workable solutions for all parties involved in this sort of matter.

Indeed, the records show that when spills do occur, most offenders act in a reasonable and responsible manner to ensure that the mess is indeed cleaned up, but this province must also be vigilant in ensuring that time and co-operative nature are not left open to abuse. Bill 202 with its amendments reinforces the principles. It empowers local officials to do their job and use their own good judgment.

It does not overly hinder officials with unnecessary bureaucracy every time a spill happens, yet it also enforces the idea of environmental protection by clearly requiring the issuing of protection orders when cleanup instructions are not followed. As I said earlier, that simply makes sense. As the hon. Member for Red Deer-North has indicated, “if Bill 202 is passed, Alberta once again will be seen as a national leader in balancing the needs of the environment with the needs of Albertans, property owners, and businesses.” I believe that this is legislation that all hon. members can in good faith support.

It reaffirms the environmental legacy of our forefathers by protecting the land for future prosperity. I would encourage all hon. members to support this particular bill and make the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Clean-up Instructions) Amendment Act a reality. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vermilion-Lloydminster. MR. SNELGROVE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak in third reading regarding Bill 202, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Amendment Act.

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 529 We have heard the many different arguments covering the many different aspects of this bill over second reading, the Committee of the Whole, and now in third reading, and I feel that this bill is appropriate in that it will address most of the concerns that Albertans have on both sides of the issue. Bill 202 puts the onus on the polluters, Mr. Speaker. If someone makes a mess, they’ll have to clean it up. Simply put, the depart- ment has the power to make contaminators responsible for their actions, and that seems to me how it should be.

Through Bill 202 and its amendments contamination will be dealt with through the proper channels and will be dealt with quickly and without excessive red tape. So this bill is actually environmentally friendly in two ways: it deals with contamination issues quickly, and it’ll save trees. Under Bill 202 an Environment official must issue an environmental protection order if his written instructions to a polluter have been ignored. The bill allows for the use of a protection order but also allows for common sense and the discretion of the director to prevail. Mr. Speaker, Bill 202 is about accountability.

It is about holding those who have disregard for the laws of this province responsible for their actions. Bill 202 is a small, progressive step forward for the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. I would also like to point out another very important part of this bill. This bill requires the Environmental Protection and Enhance- ment Act to be reviewed every 10 years. I think that all new legislation should have a clause stating that it will be reviewed within a certain time frame. This way we can show Albertans that we will keep our legislation current and relevant. Mr.

Speaker, Alberta is growing at a fantastic rate. We must ensure that this growth is done in such a way that it is environmen- tally sustainable and done in an environmentally friendly way. Bill 202 ensures that the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act will continue to protect human health and the environment for generations to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North to conclude the debate. MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to first of all thank everyone who has supported Bill 202. By amending

section 112, Bill 202 severely limits the ability of polluters to delay cleanup action. It forces them to follow the directions of the Department of Environment. This is a great first step in protecting our environmen t. Bill 202 would help Environ- ment officials to convince polluters to remediate sites quickly and prevent polluters from delaying cleanup efforts. This increases the likelihood that releases will be contained and unable to cause further damage. Mr.

Speaker, I ask that everyone vote in favour of Bill 202. [Motion carried; Bill 202 read a third time] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading THE SPEAKER: Before calling on the hon. Member for St. Albert to continue the debate on Bill 204, this is private members’ after- noon, so there’s a bit of private members’ advice that I’m seeking from the Assembly at this point in time. Now, hon. members, there has been a long-term tradition with respect to the decorum in this Assembly.

As time has come and there have been ebbs and flows, certain things have been allowed to be happening in this Assembly and certain things have not. As an example, at one time, the time when I certainly sat in this Assembly, it was okay to have a cup of coffee at certain times of the day in the Assembly. You could do other things too. In fact, you could even smoke cigarettes in this Assembly at one time. Then the pendulum swung all the way, so now what we have in the Assembly, of course, is water. That’s what hon. members can have in the Assembly: water.

Now, in the last couple of weeks we spent a little time trying to find you an alternative form to the terrible kind of coffee you used to drink in here, so you may notice that out there there are some new coffee machines. There is nothing that could preclude the having of a cup of coffee in the Assembly if the members wanted to have that, but I wouldn’t want to say that we would change the decorum without seeking input from the members. After Orders of the Day were called, would any member object to seeing another member have an alternative to water in front of them? AN HON. MEMBER: What’s the alternative?

THE SPEAKER: Well, the alternative would be what is available: the coffee and the tea and the cocoa and the hot chocolate and soda water. One has to remember here about decorum. So it would have to be a common vessel that people would put the liquid in so that you wouldn’t get, you know, that this has become the Coca- Cola/Pepsi kind of conflict. [interjections] Please work with me on this slippery slope. Would any hon. member have any difficulty with another hon. member having a cup of coffee in the Assembly after the point in time we call Orders of the Day? HON. MEMBERS: No.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone who would object? Okay. Let’s proceed, then, and after Orders of the Day members can have such a thing in here. It may take a day or two for us to work out the common vessel that everybody would put the liquid in. In the meantime, you know, I don’t want to say that we’ve got the different kinds of debate going on with different kinds of vessels. Okay. That’s understood then? Sergeant-at-Arms, you under- stand that? You will not evict a member. Pages, you’ll now have to acclimatize your fingers for carrying something warm from time to time.

Should there be a spill, please look to the nearest hon. member to assist you with the cleaning up of such things. 3:30 Bill 204 Traffic Safety (Cellular Phone) Amendment Act, 2002 [Adjourned debate March 18: Mrs. O’Neill] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the few remaining comments that I would like to make about Bill 204, I would like to remind all members that we’re not speaking about drinking coffee while driving, but instead we’re talking about handheld cell phones.

With that in mind, I’d like to urge everybody in this Assembly to consider the fact that it’s the handheld telephone that the Member for Lacombe-Stettler is proposing in her bill be disallowed while driving the car. [Mr. Shariff in the chair]

530 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 I would note that in the news most recently, one of the councillors from the city of Edmonton, Dave Thiele, has indicated that while he is in favour of the provincial initiative as proposed in Bill 204, should it not pro ceed, he would be looking into pr oposing such a bylaw before Edmonton city council. My point in noting this is the fact that I think it would be a lot easier to administer and it would be a lot safer if we blanketed the province in support of this bill against handheld cell phones while driving.

I would point out again that this is not limiting someone’s ability to communicate via the telephone in the car should it be a hands-free one. With that, I would urge everybody to apply some reason to their vote in favour of this bill and to say: let’s avoid the hazard that is presented to us when you try to dial numbers and to respond to voice mail by using the handheld telephone while driving. So I’d urge everybody here in this Assembly to vote in favour of Bill 204. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportu- nity to speak in favour of Bill 204, the Traffic Safety (Cellular Phone) Amendment Act, 2002. I do so with some apologies, because I suspect that like many members of the Assembly, I too have used the cell phone on occasion in my car. I think I’m getting better now and ask people to give me time to pull over when I receive calls, but I recognize how dangerous it is. If you look at the appalling loss of life that we suffer in Alberta on our highways, if there is anything that we can do to make driving safer, I think it’s incumbent upon us to do so.

In looking at the research behind the use of cell phones, I was drawn to the backgrounder put out by the Canadian Automobile Association in November of 2000. One of the pleas that they made in that backgrounder was that any legislation should be evidence based. That is, they would like the legislation based on sound research, and I think that that’s a reasonable request. They also went along to provide an interesting set of statistics from the provinces and nationally on cell phones.

In response, for instance, to the question, “Do you have a cellular phone?” 59 percent of Albertans that were polled responded that, yes, they did have a cell phone. That’s compared to only 47 percent nationally. So Albertans, if you can believe this survey, are high owners of cell phones. When they were asked the question, “How often do you use your cellular phone while driving?” the responses were that 52 percent said they rarely used their cell phones while driving, 20 percent said some of the time, 2 percent said most of the time, and 1 percent said all of the time.

So it’s somewhat encouraging that over half of the drivers don’t actually use cell phones while they are driving. When asked their opinion on whether or not talking on the phone distracted from careful driving, 89 percent of Albertans who were surveyed indicated that, yes, it did detract from driving. I think that that’s something we all know and have worried about, those of us that have used cell phones, and it’s good that that recognition is there.

They further asked about the idea of pulling over and stopping when you need to use a cellular phone, and again the vast majority of Albertans said that that was a good idea; 88 percent of them agreed that that’s what should happen. If you’re going to use a cellular phone, then you should pull over and use it while you’re parked. The other idea that’s mixed in with the bill is the distinction that’s being made between cell phones, handheld cellular phones and hands-free cellular phones. You get quite a discrepancy between the two in terms of what people believe.

There seems to be much more support for hands-free cell phones and their use. For instance, when they were asked, “Should only hands-free cellular phones be authorized for use while driving?” 54 percent agreed with that, and only 32 percent disagreed. So when it comes to hands-free cellular phones, there seems to be a great difference of opinion. As to whether there is more distraction with a hands-free phone, again there seems to be agreement by 70 percent of Albertans who were surveyed that a handheld cell phone is much more distracting than is a hands-free cell phone.

I think that whether we like it or not, phone communications from automobiles are going to be here to stay, and I say that having looked at some information from the States, where the Ford Motor Company I think have already announced that they are going to be putting universal cell phone capabilities in their automobiles, that they’re going to be putting connectivity hardware into their cars that would allow owners to buy an aftermarket device or to use a factory- installed telephone as a hands-free option.

So it looks like the automakers, who I’m sure have their pulse on public opinion, are going to take some actions that will certainly encourage the use of hands-free telephoning. I think, going back to the plea of the Canadian Automobile Association, that it would be useful to have evidence on the use of hands-free telephones and the kinds of accident statistics on the use of those devices before either legisla- tion is undertaken or indeed before the automakers on their own decide that they’re going to proceed. I mentioned the Canadian Automobile Association statistics.

There are other statistics around, a couple of more informal surveys that were taken in the States, and some big differences in whether or not handheld cell phones should be made illegal in terms of the age of the participants and in terms of their income. If your income is more than $50,000 a year, according to an ABC news poll, then you’re much more likely to favour the use of handheld cellular phones, as are younger people, people ages 18 to 34; 42 percent of them in the ABC poll supported the legal use of cell phones. So a difference in terms of income and a difference in terms of age.

It’s interesting that 18 to 34 year olds are the group that have a high accident rate, and they are s upportive of something that could be even more distracting to their driving. So I think that with those comments, Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot to be said. There are differing opinions. A number of states have already moved to pass similar legislation, and I’m pleased to support Bill 204 and the cell phone legislation for Alberta. Thank you. 3:40 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View. MS HALEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to rise today and address private member’s Bill 204, the Traffic Safety (Cellular Phone) Amendment Act, 2002. I promise not to take very long because I know that many people want to speak on this issue in the time remaining. It won’t be a huge surprise to many of my colleagues to know that I’m opposed to this bill. I lean just a little bit more to less laws as opposed to more laws because no matter what you do or how you do it, at the end of the day you cannot legislate common sense.

Passing a law that duplicates another law that is already on our books is not logical. The law that I’m referring to is driving with undue care and attention. This law encompasses many of the dumb things that we tend to do as drivers, that we do from time to time on the roads. It gives the RCMP and the city police many opportunities to remind us of our responsibilities and obligations when we’re out on the highways driving. The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

April 8, 2002 Alberta Hansard 531 indicated that education is the single most important aspect of dealing with concerns such as using handheld phones, and I agree with them. However, they also indicated that a recent report prepared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission on Driver Distractions and Traffic Safety, that was published just last December, f ound that of all of the distractions identified as primary causes or contributory causes of crashes in Pennsylvania during 1999 and 2000, cell phones repre- sented 5.2 percent of those distractions over that two-year period.

Outside objects, persons, or events by far were the bigger problem, and I think that that was also conf irmed at the University of North Carolina in a study commissioned by the American Automobile Association. To go back just a little bit, I have raised two children complete with all of their antics in the back of my car when I was driving. I’ve driven their basketball teams, their volleyball teams, and their football teams. I’m one of those incredible sinners that has actually eaten in my car while driving. I’ve listened to my radio. I even rolled up my windows and sang with my CDs, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I’ve even answered the telephone. But I’ll tell you, compared to snow, ice, blowing snow, dust storms, and other bad drivers who were not necessarily on a phone but were just acting like idiots, they got my attention an awful lot more than the person that I saw using a handheld cell phone. My cell phone is installed. It has always been installed right from the very first day I got it, and I think that people logically and intelligently and rationally should be looking at ways of doing that. I don’t believe that we need to pass a law to force them to do it.

It was always against the law in Alberta to drink and drive, but nothing impacted alcohol consumption and driving the way the commercials that AADAC and Mothers Against Drinking Drivers did when they did their advertising work in the province of Alberta. That had a much bigger impact on people in helping to bring home the seriousness of issues like that, and I believe that education is the answer here. I also want to point out just a couple of statistics. You know, we talk about how terrible everything is and how dangerous it is to be a driver in the province of Alberta, but let’s just get a little bit real.

Passenger and motor vehicle registrations increased every calendar year from a total of over 889,000 vehicles in 1977 to just under 1.3 million vehicles in 1983. As of March 31, 2001, there were over 2.2 million motorized vehicles registered in the province of Alberta. I think you have to appreciate the magnitude of that. It has tripled in that period of time. I’m not advocating collisions and death here, Mr. Speaker. I’m just merely pointing out that in 1977, when we had 889,000 vehicles, 576 people were killed on the highways in Alberta, which is a horrendous tragedy.

In 1974 my father was one of those statistics, so I do know the impact of road problems. In the year 2000, Mr. Speaker, with 2.2 million vehicles registered on Alberta highways, there were 364 fatalities, and I think that’s pretty phenomenal, showing that traffic safety is a big concern of Albertans and the Alberta government on the way the highways are built. A lot of things have improved, but so have drivers.

You know, I guess sometimes when you have 2.2 million people driving those 2.2 million vehicles, from time to time things will get in your way, whether or not it’s a cell phone or an elk or a moose coming out on the highway up at Lesser Slave Lake, which has happened to many people, or whether it’s driving in that Ponoka/Innisfail block, where, for whatever reason, if the weather is going to be bad anywhere, it’s going to be bad there and it’s going to be on the highway, where you can’t see where you’re going or what you’re doing. My cell phone is the least of my concerns on those days.

I’d really be grateful if this Assembly decided to opt . . . MR. STEVENS: Because no one wants to talk to you on those days. MS HALEY: Nobody wants to talk to me. This is true, Ron. It’s because of my charming personality. The truth is that we don’t need another law. We have a law – it’s called driving with undue care and attention – that the RCMP can enforce now if people are not driving properly on the highway. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to make a few comments in regards to Bill 204, the Traffic Safety (Cellular Phone) Amendment Act, 2002. I would like to compliment the Member for Lacombe-Stettler for bringing forward this piece of legislation. It certainly is a reasonable piece of legislation and one that I will speak in favour of and support. Now, then, what we’re talking about in this bill is the distraction factor. It is the distraction factor of using a handheld cell phone. Common sense suggests, Mr. Speaker, that talking on the phone can distract a driver from the all-important task of driving safely.

Research seems to indicate this, and there is a growing number of studies at universities, government labs, and corpor ations in the U.S., Canada, and around the world that show that drivers’ reaction times do in fact slow down and that their judgment is impaired when they are using a cell phone while driving. As well, Mr. Speaker, I have a press release dated June 28, 2001, indicating that New York state became the first state in the nation to ban handheld cell phones while driving.

Now, I’m sure that if we looked at the population of New York state, we’d find that they have a greater population in New York state than we do in all of Canada. It’s quite interesting to see the parallels in their legislation with ours that’s being proposed in Bill 204.

The highlight, of course, in their legislation is that it requires drivers to put down their cell phones and pay attention to the road. “This new law will help make our roads safer and save lives,” Governor Pataki said. “Too many families have suffered the tragedy of seeing a loved one injured – sometimes fatally – in an accident caused by someone who was driving while using a cell phone. This law will help to decrease confusion and increase safety for all who travel on New York’s roads.” Mr. Speaker, an

article in the Globe and Mail on February 5, 2002, indicated that five were dead after an SUV driver on a cell phone lurched over a median and landed on a minivan driven by some Quebeckers. In that particular case five people died, and I think, as well, that it forced everyone to take another look at this whole issue of driving and talking on the cell phone. 3:50 I see that in the New York legislation they also had some public awareness associated with their bill. The law included a warning period and a waiver provision as follows.

The first provision was: Between November 1 and November 30, law enforcement personnel may stop motor vehicles and issue verbal warnings to motorists driving while using a hand-held cell phone. A second provision here was: Between December 1 and March 1, 2002, the courts may waive fines if the motorist is able to supply the court with proof that he or she has purchased a hands free tele phone or device that enables a hand held telephone to be operated hands free. This waiver provision only applies to a first offence.

So, again, certainly New York has taken a great leadership role in the whole idea of not using handheld cell phones. The whole idea and suspicion about cell phones in cars were first studied five years ago, and the results of those findings were published in the February 1997 New England Journal of Medicine.

532 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2002 That study was conducted, Mr. Speaker, in Toronto, and they looked at 699 drivers who owned cell phones and had been in collisions. This particular study, the first one, concluded that when a phone was used while driving, the risk of a collision was between 3 and 6.5 times higher than when a phone was not used. It also concluded that the relative risk was similar to that of driving with a blood-alcohol level at the legal limit and that cell phones that allowed hands-free operation offered no safety advantage.

Now, then, certainly there have been a number of other studies that have looked at this whole idea of the distraction factor, and some of those have come up with very interesting findings as well. Last year a Cambridge Basic Research study found degraded steering performance among subjects dialing a phone manually but no such effect when the subject used voice dialing. So, again, evidence that would support this bill.

About the same time, researchers at Miami University in Ohio concluded that the intensity of a conversation wasn’t a special issue, although merely using a phone created longer braking reaction times. Other studies, Mr. Speaker, have outlined the characteristics of the phone-and-drive population. These studies have found that some individuals are clearly better at multitasking than others. As well, these studies found that some get better with practice, though signs of impairment may only diminish rather than disappear.

Finally, some of these studies have indicated that on the whole drivers under the age of 50 are less impaired by multitasking challenges than are drivers aged 50 or over. Now, then, Consumer Reports also did some tests on the use of cell phones when people were driving, and their conclusion was: “Our evaluations demonstrate that talking or dialing the cell phone does affect driving behaviour to varying degrees.” So certainly, Mr. Speaker, if our goal here is to pass legislation in this Assembly that will make our highways safer, then I think that this piece of legislation here is a very, very good first step.

I think that we can also strengthen this legislation as we move along, and I would urge all members of the Assembly to support this legislation, which will continue to allow persons to fully operate a cellular phone, car phone, portable computer, or fax machine that has a voice-activated or speaker system. So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I’ll cede the floor and listen to other members who wish to join the debate. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. CENAIKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill 204.

I believe that it is time we had a law like Bill 204 in Alberta, and I commend the Member for Lacombe-Stettler for introducing it into the Assembly. I can tell you as a former police officer that there’s nothing worse than seeing a horrific collision scene whatever the cause. If the drivers and passengers aren’t dead, they’re usually beaten and quite bloody by the impact of two v