November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1849 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/11/07 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. We give thanks for our abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. We ask for guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly Mr.

Tong-Mo Suh, the consul general of the Republic of Korea. I also welcome Mr. Jeong-Sik Kang, the consul of the Republic of Korea. They are in your gallery today, Mr. Speaker. I might add that Alberta’s relationship with Korea is rich and multifaceted. We have 8, 000 Albertans of Korean descent. We have two-way trade of over a billion dollars, making Korea Alberta’s fifth-largest trading partner, and certainly a long-standing twinning. I would like to just finally add, Mr. Speaker, that with Remem- brance Day only four days away it is an appropriate time to reflect on another bond between Alberta and Korea.

It was during the dark hours of the Korean War that the members of Alberta’s Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry came to the assistance of Korea. What a proud moment for our nation in helping an important partner. I’d ask all members of the Assemb ly to join me in asking the visitors to stand and be recognized as a welcome to the province of Alberta. The Speaker: Hon. members, I might just add as a supplement to the hon. minister that two former members of this Assembly served in the Korean conflict, Mr. John Gogo and Mr. Doug Cherry. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr.

Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly Mrs. Janice Sarich. Janice is the nominated candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party in the constitu ency of Edmonton-Decore. She has extensive experience in both the private and public sectors, having served as a Catholic school trustee and also as the owner of her own business. Janice is a mother of two who has very strong ties to her community, obviously her city, and her province. I’m proud to have Janice as a member of my team as we move towards a better future for all Albertans.

I would now ask her to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry. Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two groups to introduce today. In the first group, a very special group, I’d like to introduce and present Raffaele and Rosetta Talarico along with their daughter Sandra Talarico and another daughter, Chiarina Rosin, who works in my office. May I just say that Raffaele emigrated to Canada from Italy in 1952 at the age of 25.

He travelled by boat from southern Italy to Halifax, then by train from Halifax to Wainwright, where he worked on the railway for four years and earned 90 cents an hour. Rosetta emigrated to Canada in 1957 at the age of 20 and joined Raffaele in Edmonton. She raised her family, working for GWG, the Hotel Macdonald, and finally for the University of Alberta hospital. They have been married 50 years and will celebrate that anniversary November 9, and Raffaele will also be celebrating his 80th birthday on November 17. Please join me in welcoming Sandra, Chiarina, Rosetta, and Raffaele. Would they please rise.

I have another introduction, Mr. Speaker. They are the dream team, some of Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry’s finest, and they are Veronika Woek, Theresa Wilson, Terri Mason, Angela Woo, Joyce Ford, and Jan Bystrom. They’re here today to have a look at the Legislature and be able to expand on our activities in their workplace. May they please rise, and please acknowledge them. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s an honour and a privilege for me today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a number of people who were involved in a very special announcement at the Stollery children’s hospital this morning. Thanks to a $500,000 donation from Bell an echocardiog- raphy telehealth outreach program will be established at the Stollery using the most advanced technology from Bell Canada. The program will provide patients and health care professionals from communities throughout central and northern Alberta with access to Stollery’s advanced diagnostic tools and medical expertise in cardiology.

The solution will be delivered using the Alberta SuperNet, a partnership between the Alberta government and Bell Canada, which members know is a high-speed network made possible through that partnership. With us today are Dallas Smith, chair of the Stollery Children’s Hospital Foundation board of directors; Dr.

Terry Klassen, chair of the department of pediatrics at the Stollery children’s hospital; Jean Trines, a senior echocardiography technician at the Stollery chil- dren’s hospital and a recent new Albertan; Jack Janssen, associate director of government relations with Bell; Jeff Meerman, associate director of media relations with Bell; Judy Mahaffy, associate director of community investment with Bell; and Kelly Frank, the director of business development with Bell. I’d ask our guests to rise and be recognized for the contribution that Bell has made and the good work that Stollery does. The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Service Alberta and President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed my privilege to introduce to you and through you today a very bright young man who’s here on a work shadow with his father. Levi Dibben is a grade 9 student out in Lakeland Ridge in Sherwood Park. He’s here today job shadowing his dad, my executive assistant, Dwight Dibben; however, he has promised not to share everything with his mom when he gets home. I would ask Levi to rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Dr.

Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly honoured to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly a group of young people who are taking part

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071850 in the national Take Our Kids to Work day today. We have Meaghan Mackenzie, Rachel Finnessy, Julianne Belzile, Lindsay Kitson, James Contos, Myles Grun ling, Alicia Powers, Jacquelyn Harrison, Kiera Forrest, Jocelyn McDonald. They are accompanied today by Manfred Grunling, who works as a technical training manager in our division of tax and revenue administration within the Ministry of Finance.

All of these grade 9 students are going to be working in the Ministry of Finance this afternoon, and I understand they’re going to be doing such in teresting things as consolidated financial statements and all of those. I would ask all the students to rise and receive the very warm welcome of the Legislative Assem- bly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a very dedicated, knowledgeable, and charismatic lady who hails from my constituency of Lac La Biche-St. Paul. She now resides in the constituency of Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville, in the constituency of the Premier, and she also happens to be one of my assistants in my office. Ladies and gentlemen of this Assembly, if I could ask you to give a warm welcome for Candice O’Neill. 1:10 Mr.

Zwozdesky: M. le Président, il me fait beaucoup de plaisir de vous présenter quelques élèves, des parents et enseignants de l’école Ste-Jeanne-d’Arc. C’est une école très magnifique dans ma circonscription d’Edmonton-Mill Creek. The students are all in grade 6. They’re incredibly well behaved, and they speak impecca- ble French. Today they are accompanied by teachers, subteachers, and parents: Mylène Deschênes, Rachel Jean, Ron Liboiron, Amanda Chernyk, Michael Chernyk, Diane Noël, Fanta Camara, France Goudreau, la soeur de mon collègue l’hon. M. Goudreau.

Also, Annie Renaud, Stephane Harvey, Nadia Chehayeb, Michelle DeAbreu, Mary-Lou Beaubien, and Murray Sinal. I would ask them to all please rise and receive the tremendously warm welcome of all members of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Athabasca-Redwater. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to intro duce to this Hous e a constituent of mine seated in the members’ gallery. Her name is Kerstie Schreyer, and she is visiting today from Abee in my constituency.

Kerstie is a grade 9 student at the Thorhild central school and in her free time volunteers with the Abee Community Association and the Newbrook Recreational and Ag Society. She’s also a violin player and a recipient of numerous Ukrainian dancing awards. I would ask her to rise now and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a constituent of Edmonton-Centre, Roy Skoreyko.

Roy is a dedicated community volunteer and is very interested in the proceedings of the Assembly today and particularly wanted to see his own MLA at work. So I would ask you to please join me in welcoming to the Assembly Roy Skoreyko. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce to you and Members of the Legislative Assembly some 51 energetic and keen students from Overlanders elementary school. They are accompanied today by their teachers, Ms Laura Wenger, Ms Christine Novesel, and Ms Cindy Chisholm.

Also along are parents Mrs. Karen Timmann, Mrs. Kim Militsala, Mrs. Skye Griffiths, and Mr. Marcus Frey. They’re in the public gallery. I would ask that they stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure and privilege to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly three constituents of Edmonton-Mill Woods: Rajiv, Sonia, and Nikhil Sinha. Rajiv is the vice-president of the Woodvale Community League, and he is a member of the Mill Woods Presi- dent’s Council.

Their son, Nikhil, is 14 years of age, and Rajiv and his wife want him to have the experience of question period today. I’ll ask them to rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Alberta Utilities Commission Act Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. Bill 46 was quietly introduced on the last day of the spring sitting of the Legislature. At the same time in Rimbey undercover spies hired by the EUB were eavesdropping on unsuspecting innocent Albertans.

This bill appears to be written by an autocratic government determined to ignore both consumers and landowners in order to speed up the energy regulatory process. This bill will give the Alberta utilities commission the power to make orders and issue decisions without giving public notice or holding public hearings. It will give the Alberta utilities commission the power to prevent landowners and consumers from making verbal representations to the commission. It will limit the time period in which Albertans can appeal a decision or order made by the Alberta utilities commission to 30 days.

Finally, it will restrict the ability of landowners to hire outside legal counsel when intervening in regulatory hearings. This government does not want anyone to question their actions, and Bill 46 is a blatant attempt to silence Alberta consumers and landowners. Bill 46 illustrates yet another flawed decision by a floundering government. Bill 46 will allow regulations introduced behind closed doors by cabinet to quietly override legislation discussed and debated by all members of the Assembly. Albertans should be very concerned about the direction of this Progressive Conservative government.

They want even more power to override legislation without any public debate or knowledge. This government has spied on citizens, hidden royalty information from the public, and failed to collect billions of dollars in royalties. Now this tired government wants the power to override the Legislative Assembly. Enough is enough. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Torrington Community Wellness Centre Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising today to acknowl- edge the opening of the recently constructed community wellness centre in Torrington, Alberta.

There are often challenges for rural

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1851 Albertans who live in remote locations to access a wide variety of health and educational services. Therefore, I’m pleased to acknowl- edge that our government is encouraging partnerships that will improve the availability of health and educational services in rural communities. This innovative wellness centre will enable the residents of Torrington and surrounding area to meet their less critical but important health needs. The wellness centre will allow health professionals to provide their specialized services, which include reflexology, foot care, and massages.

The centre will also provide educational opportunities by offering unique learning programs for children through its library and Internet services. I’d like to commend the diligent work of all the volunteers, local businesspeople, representatives from the area’s municipal govern- ments, and the David Thompson health region. Together their collaborative efforts ensured that this health facility had the support it needed to become fully functional.

I believe this is a great example of enhancing rural development within this province, and our government should continue to support community partnerships that will create opportunities for rural Albertans to improve their health and well-being. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Flu Immunization Ms Calahasen: Mr. Speaker, flu season is upon us, and many people have and will experience its effects. As an example, last year in our province more than 30,000 individuals were diagnosed with influenza. Many people at high risk were hospitalized, and many others developed serious complications. This is, of course, a concern.

Obviously, influenza has a major impact on Albertans and on Alberta’s health care system. This year we urge Albertans to get a flu shot so we can reduce the number of infections and associated complications such as pneumonia. It is critical that Albertans protect themselves and others by becoming immunized. We need to remember the importance of this simple precautionary measure and the positive impact it will have by reducing visits to hospitals and medicentres and lost time at work.

Albertans at high risk for influenza such as seniors, persons with chronic conditions, children under two years, and pregnant and lactating women can get a free flu shot at their local public health clinic. Others can obtain the shot from their family physician. I encourage all Albertans, like myself, to become immunized so that we can fight the flu. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Fetal and Pediatric Echocardiography Telehealth Outreach Program Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To all of us the Stollery children’s hospital is a place where we receive hope.

When our children are sick, when parents are suffering, that’s where we go and receive hope. Well, today for a moment the tables were turned around, and the Stollery hospital was in the position of r eceiving hope from yet another corporate entity who has shown what epitomizes exemplary corporate citizenship, and that is Bell Canada. Bell Canada today has donated $500,000, which actually today is $550,000 U.S., to the Stollery children’s hospital for them to implement the echocardiography telehealth outreach program. It’s almost as hard to say as Lukaszuk; I appreciate that.

What it really means in real terms is that a child in remote Alberta will not have to come to Edmonton to have their heart scanned and to be diagnosed and monitored postsurgery but that that scanning can happen in remote Alberta, and images could be analyzed via the SuperNet at the Stollery children’s hospital by our experts. Now, that is quality provision of health in co-operation with the private sector and our ministry of health. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Bell Canada for their generos- ity.

I would like to thank the Sto llery children’s hospital and the foundation for putting this program together and for providing our families and our children with hope. Thank you. 1:20 West Lethbridge Centre Mr. Dunford: Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say before that this has been a very good year for Lethbridge, and I’d like to reiterate that today. About two weeks ago the Minister of Education and myself were part of an announcement of funding for what is called the west side high school.

There were, of course, other officials there as well as elementary students who hopefully will be finishing their high school in this facility. They took us out onto a windswept, barren field west of Lethbridge. I don’t know if the wind that day was a hundred kilometres or not but just about. We’re still bearing the scars of the grit that we were faced with – pun intended – during that particular event. The significance, Mr. Speaker, I think is important for every member here in the House. What we have are two high schools going together.

We have the Holy Spirit school division, and we have the Lethbridge public No. 51 school division, so we have in the same complex two school divisions putting their high schools together. In between – and this is the magic and the innovation of this project – we have a Lethbridge city public library. The contribution by the provincial government: something to the tune of $40 million, $45 million. The whole project, $100 m illion, is in what will be known as the West Lethbridge Centre. Just a great project for our city and for this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View.

Conflict in Darfur, Sudan Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canada must lead in Darfur, Sudan. In July ’07 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1769, calling for 26,000 troops on the ground in Darfur by December 31, ’07, to stop the genocide. The appeal then went out to all member countries, and based on the response so far, according to Senator Roméo Dallaire we still will be arguing logistics next year at this time. The Sudanese government and Darfur rebel groups remain in conflict.

Women, men, and children continue to be starved, violated, and killed, as have a number of the pitifully funded African Union troops. Humanitarian groups have left due to insecurity. Two and a half million displaced people e ndure a miserable existence. Darfur burns as member countries dither. One year ago UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said that if the camps explode in violence, as they’re poised to do, hundreds of thousands of civilians, largely women and children, will die. The Sudanese government, supplied by China and Russia, continues to violate the fragile environmental and human rights in Darfur.

Canada has given roughly $400 mi llion over four years, mostly humanitarian aid and some military equipment. According to Roméo Dallaire it will cost about $600 million to deploy the troops and equipment, 5 per cent of the current Canadian surplus. Today I’m calling on all citizens and representatives of conscience to add their voices to over 10,000 Sudanese in Alberta to ensure a Christ-

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071852 mas gift to Darfur: troops on the ground by D ecember 31, 2 007. Two years ago opposition leader Stephen Harper called on Prime Minister Martin to, quote, leave th e bleachers and lead in Darfur. End quote. It’s now time for the Harper government to honour its word to leave the bleachers and lead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed with 25 names provided to my office by the Campaign for a Smoke- Free Alberta supporting the minister of health’s introduction of Bill 45 and hoping that all members of this Assembly will vote in favour of this particular bill. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to present a petition signed by 280 individuals who are urging the government to ensure that remuneration paid to employees working with people with disabilities is standardized, that they’re fairly compensated and that wages are competitive, that employees have access to professional development opportunities, and for the government to introduce province-wide service and outcomes- focused level of care standards. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. Mr. Dunford: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 53 residents of Lethbridge and area, and it is of course petitioning this Legislature to pass B ill 45 and to “not dilute its contents so as to compromise the version approved at second reading.” I’d like to submit these. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition signed by Albertans from Rimbey, from Bluffton, from Ponoka, and from St. Albert.

This petition reads: We the undersigned residents of Alberta, pe tition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to launch a full public inquiry under the authority of the Public I nquiries Act into spying practices by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) and the Minister of Energy’s oversight role of the AEUB. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon. Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of residents of my constituency that urges the government to pass Bill 45, the Smoke-free Places (Tobacco Reduction) Amendment Act, 2007, in its current form. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a couple of petitions that deal with similar issues, and they have been signed by over 500 of Alberta’s oil and gas workers. The petition calls on the Legislative Assembly to “discard the Royalty Review Report.” head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise in this Legislature today to make two tablings. One is part of the program for a fundraiser for the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters. That was an inspirational evening with General Roméo Dallaire, and it was titled Sheltering the Innocent: Children, Violence and What We All Can Do to Help. That had hundreds of people there. The second is another fundraiser for the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters. It was Breakfast with the Guys. That was this morning in hall D of the Shaw Conference Centre, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the leader of the third party, the Employment, Health, Municipal Affairs, and Children’s Services ministers were all there as well as MLAs from Calgary-Shaw, Edmonton-Castle Downs, Edmonton-Calder, Edmonton-Glenora, and Edmonton-Whitemud. The Premier gave a very moving address with the mayor, and all of the men there rose and said: I pledge never to commit, condone, or remain silent about men’s violence against women. It was very moving, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table a letter from a constituent, Kathleen Lowrey, who is another victim of this government’s decisions about refusing to bring in a temporary rent cap. She notes that she was given an increase in April with notification for August of a $50 increase, and the landlord later rescinded that and, because they could only do it once a year, made it into a $200 rent increase. She is not very appreciative of that. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon.

The first one is a letter that I received on July 26, 2007, from the Minister of Energy regarding CO2 projects and the royalty credit program. The second is a letter that I received from the hon. Premier of our province dated October 31, 2007, and this is regarding the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and the conduct of the board over the last little while. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to table the appropriate number of copies of a chart from the Alberta Royalty Review Panel report, which I referred to yesterday in the House. The chart is entitled O il Sands and Offshore/Heavy Oil Projects: Combined Ownership & Government Share. It compares Alberta’s oil royalty shares to that of other countries and finds that even under the new regime proposed by the government, the only country which will charge lower royalties is Ireland. The Speaker: We’ll return to this pa rt of the Routine at the conclusion of question period.

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1853 1:30 head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. head: Royalty Revenues Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General, the Department of Energy, and the Royalty Review Panel all confirm that this government has not collected a fair share of royalties, but the Premier repeatedly denies this fact while refusing to share his proof with Albertans.

Today the Premier is quoted in the media as saying that in his many years as a cabinet minister he was never told that Albertans were not receiving a fair share of royalties. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Since 2000 were any of the internal royalty review reports or presentations that are referenced by the Auditor General discussed with cabinet? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well that I have not been a member of the cabinet since 2000. Just to touch a bit, if I might, Mr.

Speaker, on the situation with respect to the accumulation of benefits to the province of Alberta and to Albertans. The member opposite indicated that something may or may not have happened in the year 2000. What I can tell you is that we had approximately $15.5 billion worth of investment in the province in the year 2000. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today the Premier told the world in a media interview, and I quote: the previous royalty framework had no way of capturing higher prices. End quote. My question is to the Premier.

Will the Premier just now admit the obvious fact that Albertans were not receiving a fair share and that his government failed to act? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure if I shared the information with the whole world. I did do two CBC interviews early this morning, so I don’t know if it is with the whole world but at least with the province of Alberta. You know, it’s a funny thing.

When you look at all of the economic indicators in this province, the GDP growth, which has really doubled in this province, from well over a hundred billion to over $200 billion . . . [interjections] See, again being rude; still hasn’t learned in all the months that he’s spent in the Assembly. Then you look at the per capita spending of Albertans: much higher than anybody in Canada. You know why? Because all of that money ended up in the pockets of Albertans, who reinvested it back into the economy of the province of Alberta. Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to deny that Albertans have lost billions.

He calls them phantom dollars. Well, to ordinary Albertans they’re real dollars. What we have from this government is phantom accountability. To the Premier: will he end the secrecy and immediately release all the internal documents referred to by the Auditor General in his report uncensored? Just trust Albertans. Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this question came up the other day. The opposition was asking for information with respect to royalty reviews, et cetera, done by the Ministry of Energy. In April the minister tabled at least 500 pages.

My information is that there are at least a thousand pages that have been released by the Department of Energy to the opposition. Nine studies are available in Energy’s library. I don’t know exactly what pages he’s referring to. There may be a specific page with information that is production informa- tion from a company. That cannot be released; that can only be shared with the Department of Energy. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you.

It seems that this Premier believes in transparency right up to the point of accountability, and then he changes his mind. This is a matter of trust, and right now no one trusts this government when it c ontinues to deny the evidence of both the Royalty Review Panel and the Auditor General, that Albertans have been shortchanged billions of dollars. To the Premier: is it the Premier’s position that the Auditor General was wrong when he stated that this government could have been collecting at a minimum an additional $1 billion to $2 billion annually in royalties without hurting industries?

Was the Auditor General wrong, Mr. Premier? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked by the media a number of weeks ago. My response to that was that the dollars that were referred to in terms of what could have been collected in royalties and what actually went to the economy in terms of increased Crown lease sales, personal income tax increases, corporate tax increases, and also the amount of money that was invested by the province, given the huge economic growth, into highways: I believe something like $55 billion si nce 2000. The billions are there.

It’s invested everywhere, from corner to corner, in this province: good health facilities, new schools, and the best programs in the country of Canada right here in the province of Alberta. Dr. Taft: It’s just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It’s total nonsense. Again I ask the Premier: is it the Premier’s position that the Royalty Review Panel, which his own government appointed, was wrong when it indicated that his government was failing to collect a fair share of royalties on behalf of Albertans? Were they wrong too? Mr. Stelmach: Now, finally, he gets to the Royalty Review Panel.

Well, February 17, Edmonton Journal, the leader: “This royalty review process is tarnished from day one.” Public statement, CHED radio, after the panel: oh, a very valuable report, and our position is based on the bottom line that the Ro yalty Review Panel set. You can’t accuse the panel of doing something wrong as s oon as it’s appointed, and then all of a sudden ride this high horse: we’re going to follow every recommendation. Besides, Mr. Speaker, as soon as I received that report, we made it public.

Again, we made it public immediately, and every Albertan had an opportunity to review it. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the minions have finally woken up. Is it the Premier’s position that his own Department of Energy was wrong when it indicated that this government was failing to collect a fair share of royalties? I don’t understand how everybody can be wrong but the Premier. Mr. Stelmach: Maybe the hon. leader can help me understand because on February 17 in the Calgary Herald the hon.

Leader of the Opposition said: the appetite for royalty change is not significant.

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071854 Then, of course, on CHED radio again on October 26: royalties must rise by 20 per cent; this is nonnegotiable. Where are you on this thing? Tell us. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you. I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will table those documents he’s quoting. Thank you.

The Premier indicated in this Assembly on Monday that he “can’t see where this province . . . was shortchanged” on royalties, yet on a local radio station this morning he indicated that the previous royalty framework had no way of capturing higher prices. To the Premier: since this government refuses to release the uncensored documents itemized by the Auditor General, can the Premier explain to Albertans why? Why the secrecy? What is he afraid of? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, my reference this morning was – let’s just take natural gas. There was a cap on the price of natural gas, I believe, at around $3.50.

Gas was much higher than that, but we couldn’t really receive the optimum as much as now under a sliding scale, which puts gas at $16.65, I believe. Once again, as part of the Alberta entrepreneurial spirit let’s share in the reward as prices go up but also be realistic. If the prices do drop, we will see less revenue from the royalty framework. This royalty framework was put in place to provide certainty and predictability for the companies that are making investments of billions of dollars. 1:40 Dr. Taft: Well, again to the Premier. We all agree that the oil and gas belong to all the people of Alberta.

My question is to the Premier. Why doesn’t he trust the people of Alberta with the information he is concealing? Mr. Stelmach: You know, Mr. Speaker, in September the panel reported. We immediately made that report public. In September the Auditor General reported. He reported to the public. Everybody has all of the information.

If there’s something beyond the thousand pages and the nine studies that are in the library and have been in the library all this time, if you don’t have the time to go and research it in the library – certainly, the Liberals received extra money this year in the budget for extra help for research. You’ve got to find somebody to dig this up for you if you don’t have the time yourself. It’s there. All those studies and the thousand pages: it should be there. Dr. Taft: In the past few days, Mr.

Speaker, we’ve heard cabinet ministers refer to public servants with names such as minions and janitors and things like that. Th e Premier himself said he doesn’t listen to their advice. Can the Premier explain these comments to the public, and will he at least offer an apology to the hard-working public servants of Alberta? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this Premier does not have to apologize to the public servants of this province because I always acknowledge their tremendous contribution. [interjections] I would hope that they would listen because if they keep talking, they won’t get the answer.

What I said was, simply, that it is the elected people in this province that make the decisions. Certainly, we get advice from senior officials. We get advice from many other areas. At the end of the day the responsibility rests with this government, period. New Royalty Framework Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, the Premier sold out Albertans with his royalty plan, giving away billions of dollars to big oil that belongs in the public treasury. Oil prices hit $98 a barrel yesterday, and forecasts predict prices well above $100 a barrel.

Everyone sees this but the Premier, who has decided to continue the goofy pennies-on- the-dollar royalty holiday for new tar sands projects. He’s leaving billions of dollars in the pockets of big oil, billions that belong to Albertans. On existing tar sands projects alone the Premier’s new royalty holiday will give big oil a $1.8 billion subsidy next year. That’s $5 million a day given away to big oil. Why won’t the Premier for once act in the interests of ordinary Albertans instead of big oil and end this program? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the new royalty framework reflects higher prices.

As prices go up, our royalty take will be much higher. If those prices drop, of course, we’ll see a difference, a lowering of the royalty stream to the province. The leader of the third party says that oil is at $90, or it could even be $100 a barrel. Bitumen is not priced the same way as west Texas crude. There’s a substantial discount because bitumen comes out almost like grease. We have to add value to it, obviously. That’s part, again, of the overall royalty framework. It’s to see how much more value we can add to the bitumen before it leaves this province. Mr.

Mason: Oh, nice way to change the subject there, Mr. Speaker. You know what? Albertans know that the Premier is giving industry a bargain basement royalty program. He’s subsidizing some of the most profitable corporations in the world, and it’s ordinary Albertans that are paying for it. We’ve crunched the numbers, and I’m sure the Tories have, too. They know better than anyone else that we could end the royalty giveaway tomorrow, and the oil companies would still turn a healthy profit, but they won’t do it. Mr. Premier, you’re selling out Albertans with a $5 million-a-day giveaway to big oil.

How can you justify it? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the new royalty framework will set a much higher cap on oil, which will allow us to receive more. We did that, as well, with natural gas. We also did a fair amount of work on conventional oil by removing the three vintages, really dates when some of the wells were drilled. That makes for a much simpler way of dealing with the various vintages of oil, easier both for industry and for us. Most importantly, this provides a certainty and, of course, the predictability for business: new investment to come to this province.

There’s a considerable number of fields that can further be developed, and this will provide jobs well, well into the future. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, we’ve gone from a-penny-on-the-dollar royalties for new oil sands projects – you see, I said oil sands – and now the Premier is raising it to a nickel on the dollar. That’s not a fair share. That’s barely there. Alberta is on track to becoming one of the biggest oil producers in the world, but what good is that status if the proceeds go to subsidized multinational oil corporations?

We’ve got a Premier that’s bending over backwards to convince Albertans that black is white and that a $1.8 billion subsidy for big oil is a fair share for Albertans. To the Premier. The Auditor General says that your government gave away $1 billion to $2 billion a year over seven years. How many more billions will you flush down the toilet with this royalty holiday? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the dollars that have been collected in

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1855 royalties over the years have been invested very wisely in programs, in infrastructure in the province of Alberta. The hon. member refers to prepayout. The formula has been changed in a prepayout. It’s also been changed significantly in the postpayout. That is going to bring a considerable amount of new revenue to the province. Of course, yes, the framework takes effect January 1, 2009. I believe, just going by my memory, that one of the major companies last year paid $1.7 billion – just one company – in royalties to the province. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Safe communi- ties are a very important part of ensuring the quality of life we currently enjoy.

The Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force’s final report and the government’s response to the recommen- dations were released yesterday, November 6, providing one of the most comprehensive reports our Premier has requested through the task force, which included a number of government departments, including Justice, Sol Gen, Health, Education, and Children’s Services. My first question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Now that we have the final report and know that Albertans want action on crime and its causes, what are the next steps the government will be taking to address crime?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Stevens: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member indicated in his question, this particular initiative was the Premier’s priority. He asked that I co-ordinate the task force, and the MLA for Calgary-Fish Creek very ably chaired that committee and produced the report to government late in September. The report makes a number of recommendations, 31 in total. We have accepted those, with the exception of two that will be further studied.

They deal with recommendations regarding enforcement, treatment, and prevention, and we will be moving on those in the days ahead. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. We know crime prevention is an important component of any crime reduction strategy, and the treatment is a significant part of the recommendations in this report. Can the minister explain why these are critical areas surrounding treatment? Mr. Stevens: Well, Mr.

Speaker, what the report indicates very clearly is that in order to tackle the issue of crime and safe commu- nities, it’s necessary to have a ho listic approach. It’s necessary to have something more than enforcement. It’s necessary to deal with the issue of treatment. We practically have some examples of that in the system today. We have the domestic violence courts, which have reduced recidivism from the 30 per cent range down to 6 per cent. We have a drug court pilot here in Edmonton, which has done very good work with low-grade criminal addicts.

The fact is that this report has said that we need to do more of that, and we have committed to doing that. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. It’s clear that sustaining safe communities is best served by a collaborative approach to fighting crime. How will the Minister of Justice ensure that this gets done? 1:50 Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the number one recommendation in the report was that there needed to be oversight with respect to this initiative. Crime and reduction of crime is a complex matter.

It involves some 13 ministries in this government. There are five lead ministries – Health, Children’s Services, Justice, Education, and Solicitor General – and it’s necessary that there be leadership and co-ordination. Additionally, it is necessary that all aspects of society are involved: municipalities, the federal government, individuals, and communities. The recommendation was that there be this safe communities secretariat established. It will provide the leadership and co-ordination on a go-forward basis. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort.

Royalty Framework Advertising Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Please Don’t Call This a Compromise and his ministers have accused us of making up phantom billions of dollars. Well, I charge them with giving Albertans phantom accountability, as our leader said just a minute ago, and allowing their own political agendas to dictate the economics of this province, political agendas that used 350,000 real taxpayer dollars to fund the full-page partisan newspaper ads.

Can the President of the Treasury Board, the man who is in charge of how much and how money gets spent, show us real, not phantom, accountability and try to justify this illegitimate use of taxpayers’ dollars? Mr. Snelgrove: You know, wasted dollars, wasted time. It fits in. Mr. Speaker, what happens to these dollars? They were rein- vested in Alberta.

They were multiplied across Canada, and they’ve resulted in a Conservative federal government that’s allowed to give approximately $60 billion in tax cuts because they worked with the province responsibly managing their money, as opposed to how the last Liberal government from Ottawa looked at our energy sector and bled it dry and collapsed an entire country. That’s what you get. Mr. R. Miller: Well, I have to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that I’m going to read the question again, and I’m going to hope that perhaps – perhaps – the President of the Treasury Board might actually listen to the question and give me an answer that’s relevant to the question. I was asking whether or not he can justify 350,000 taxpayers’ dollars, real taxpayers’ dollars, being used to pay for an advertising campaign that is clearly partisan, uses party colours, and is totally offside. Can you justify that? I don’t know. You know, this is your last chance. I hope you can do it this time. Mr.

Snelgrove: There is a certain obligation in the House to try and tell the truth or ask reasonable questions, and I can appreciate that may be stretched. What our Premier did is make a commitment to show his plan to Albertans. This government has a plan. This party has a leader who is decisive. This Premier of our party, of this government, doesn’t have to go out and look at the weather vane to find out which way he’s going today. This Premier made a commitment to Albertans. He delivered on it, and he’s showing that in his plan.

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071856 Mr. R. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, speaking of making things up, the Premier’s desperation is clear when he distorts quotes by the Alberta Leader of the Official Opposition. The complete quote was this, and I wish he would have used the entire quote: we have a tone being set by the Premier – by the Premier – that suggests to me that the appetite for royalty change is not significant. In other words, it’s pretty clear that the suggestion was that the Premier’s appetite for royalty increases is not significant.

For the Premier to use only half of the quote is totally, once again, offside. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Is the government so worried about public reaction to the missing billions that they have to distort quotes from the Leader of the Official Opposition? Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, you know, most of the questions have been about the royalties: “The royalty structure didn’t work. The royalty structure was allowing dollars to escape.” This Premier in one of his first moves came in and said: “You were right. That royalty structure was then. It worked well.

Now we need a new royalty framework to address the opportunity to capture the billions of dollars involved in the future of Alberta.” That Premier identified a panel to give another independent look, used all of the input from Albertans, from the Department of Energy, and has put in an energy royalty framework that will last Albertans and serve them very well for decades to come. He’s so far ahead of these guys; they’re still biting their own tail. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Strength of Canadian Dollar Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning Canadians woke up to the news that the Canadian dollar had once again hit a record level. This time it’s over $1.10 U.S. My first question is to the Minister of Finance. With the dollar seeming to hit record levels quickly, can the minister tell the Assembly the reason for these jumps? The Speaker: Okay. Go ahead. Dr. Oberg: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, there have been a lot of strange things happen in the dollar market in the past six months. In the last couple of days, though, we’ve seen a tremendous increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar.

There probably are a lot of reasons for that, although emotion and the ability to sell and buy play a lot in it. What we saw yesterday was the Chinese economy threatening to take $1.4 trillion out of the U.S. economy by changing their purchasing powers from the U.S. dollar potentially to th e Euro. This is probably China flexing . . . The Speaker: Well, we’ll go on to the member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s primary market is the U.S. Much of the province’s revenue is based on the resources sold in U.S. dollars.

To the same minister: have you made any revision on the provincial budget to take into account the new strength of our Canadian dollar? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, for every one cent that the Canadian dollar goes up, we lose roughly $123 million in revenue from the province of Alberta. We’ve seen the Canadian dollar go from a high of 84 cents in February to $1.10 yesterday. We certainly are seeing the financial impact. Our Budget 2007 showed the U.S. dollar at 86 cents. We subsequently increased that to 93 cents in the first quarter.

The Canadian dollar has averaged 95 cents to this point, so I would fully anticipate that in the second quarter we will be making some revisions. There is a huge amount of implications to our economy, but there is a huge amount of implications to the Canadian economy in general, especially the manufacturing sector. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: are there any other economic indicators of this kind impacting on our budget? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, budgeting right now in the province of Alberta is a very difficult thing.

We see the price of oil going to unforeseen heights. It’s up at $98. No one – no one – would have anticipated $98 oil. Equally, no one would have anticipated a $1.10 Canadian versus the U.S. dollar. We are currently looking at all of these. We are balancing out, on one hand, that a 1 cent increase, as I mentioned, goes up to a $123 million loss, a dollar increase in the price of oil allows us to have $130 million more revenue into our coffers. Our second quarter w ill be a culmination of all of these events. It will be our best estimate as to what is going to happen in the next six months.

It is an extremely volatile market today. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Alberta Utilities Commission Act Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 46 will restrict Albertans’ democratic rights. Bill 46 is a blatant attempt by this Progressive Conservative government to silence Alberta consumers and landowners. My first question is to the Minister of Energy, who is also a rural landowner. Does Bill 46 adequately protect the property rights of farmers and other rural property owners? The Speaker: Well, legal

interpretation is one thing. This bill will come up for debate. That’s clearly a question of opinion, but if the minister wants to pursue. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we put to this Legislature and what we will put to the people of the province of Alberta, particularly landowners who are affected by any develop- ments on their land or even in certain circumstances adjacent to their land, in this case is an opportunity to have a very much strengthened protection of their rights as landowners. What we’re talking about in Bill 46, of course, is a utilities commission.

It has nothing to do with many of the other issues that seem to be dragged into the thing with respect to energy . . . 2:00 The Speaker: We’ll get to the hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: given what happened with the spying scandal in Rimbey in June, why is this Progressive Conservative government planning even more restrictions on Albertans who want to participate in future energy regulatory hearings? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, there’s nothing further from what is correct with respect to Bill 46.

It actually, in fact, expands the opportunities of Albertans to be represented in any intervention in

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1857 the utilities. With the addition of an Alberta consumers’ advocate in Bill 46 and their mandate to represent Alberta consumers, this strengthens the opportunities for Albertans to be represented. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. The fact is that rural Albertans disagree with this Minister of Energy, and they disagree with this government on this bill. My third question is to the same minister again. If he listens carefully, hopefully he will understand.

Part 10 of Bill 46 and on in here is a provision that will allow this government through cabinet to override this bill through regulation. Why are you allowing that to happen? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you and all Albertans that Bill 46, in fact, much strengthens their opportunity to be heard with respect to any issues around utility development in the province of Alberta. Perhaps the Liberals don’t like that. I can’t account for that.

Nevertheless, the Utilities Consumer Advocate in this bill, the Market Surveillance Administrator, and other portions of this particular bill much strengthen Albertans’ opportunities to be protected with respect to their use and the installation of utilities infrastructure. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. School Construction and Renovation Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last June I was among many who witnessed the Minister of Education as he announced, and I quote, an innovative approach to building schools in the neighbour- hoods where students live and learn. I go on to quote: the P3 delivery method is to provide Calgary and Edmonton area schools with 18 new schools by the fall of 2010. Obviously, parents want these schools as soon as possible. So my question to the Minister of Education is simply this: what progress has been made about getting these schools actually built since this announcement five months ago? Mr. Liepert: Actually, Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to say that there has been a great deal of progress made since June. One of the ingredients of the announcement was that the schools, when completed, would be owned by the school boards in Calgary and Edmonton. What we’ve done over the summer is ensure, working with the school boards, that we have all of the agreements in place. I’m pleased to say that another milestone was reached this week when the project team issued its request for qualifications.

That’ll take place during the month of November, and during that time we will have an indication of which companies have the qualifications to meet the construction requirements. Mr. Rodney: My first supplemental is to the same minister. This P3 approach, this pilot project to new school construction, has had its share of critics, sometimes more heated than others. What my constituents want to know is: what has the government done to ensure that this method of delivery is indeed in the very best interest of Albertans? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr.

Speaker, one of the other tasks that was undertaken this summer was to do an external review of the traditional model of building schools versus the design, build, finance, and maintain model. That independent audit has deter- mined that not only will this model be more cost efficient, but frankly it’ll get schools delivered to students where students live and learn much faster than they would be under the traditional model. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Education.

While this may be well and good for areas where new schools are to be built, there are many school jurisdictions through- out Alberta with school infrastructure needs not only in the area of new school construction but also major repairs. How does the Minister of Education plan to address those needs? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the P3 model doesn’t work everywhere, so we are taking the more traditional approach to capital needs through our capital planning process. The Premier has made it clear that we’ll be introducing a capital plan in the near future.

However, I think it’s important to note that in this current fiscal year we have some $600 million in projects that are under way both in new schools and modernization. In addition to that, from the fourth quarter budget surplus we announced a couple of months ago that we would be investing almost $200 million into modernization, including Western Canada high in Calgary and Archbishop MacDonald high school here in Edmonton and some 17 projects throughout the province. So the total infrastructure dollars in education this year is some $800 million. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Water Management Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans have let it be known very clearly that the management of Alberta’s water resources is the highest priority. We are facing decreasing supply and increasing demands, especially in southern Alberta, on rivers now closed to new licences. The government’s handling of the Balzac situation in the past year shows wit hout a doubt that our water allocation system is not working. It raises a question: should water be sold to the highest bidder?

The Eastern irrigation district has applied to Alberta Environment to give them the right to sell water to other users. Conflicts over water are staring us in the face, Mr. Minister. To the minister: does the minister support allowing irrigation districts to sell water on existing . . . The Speaker: I think we have to move on. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the member has not been watching the news of late because the specific instance that he references the department dealt with last week, when we announced that we were going to defer any further consideration on that particular proposal.

I’ll be happy to enunciate the details in subsequent questions. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta Environment has not yet decided on the Eastern irrigation district licence change, as the minister has just said. That’s good news. Albertans have said that they want to be actively involved in how the most valuable resource is managed. Will you, Mr. Minister, be making the decision behind closed doors, or will you ensure that the public is involved in this important decision?

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071858 Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the reality that we face in the South Saskatchewan River basin and, frankly, throughout the province of Alberta is that we have a finite resource in water. That reality means that we are going to as a society have to have a better understanding about what our ongoing policy for water management is going to be.

Specifically to answer the member’s question, there will be a broad base of discussion in the development of policy, but at the end of the day, like most decisions, there will have to be decisions made, and the government will make those decisions. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With 70 per cent of southern rivers allocated to the irrigation districts under the first in time, first in right principle, it’s clear that the Water Act is not able to deal with the many new demands. Mr.

Minister, will you show the leadership needed and open the Water Act to ensure that environ- mental and human priorities are secure in southern Alberta? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member needs to again check the reality book b ecause irrigation districts have been doing phenomenal work in becoming more efficient with the water that they use, much more efficient in ensuring that the value-added for that water serves not only the needs of the agricultural commu- nity but those of the surrounding communities.

A very good example of that is the modernization that Western irrigation district is taking that frees up water. It’s a win-win situation, creates additional opportunity for irrigation as well as supplying water for other uses. That was facilitated through the transfer of a water licence. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. 2:10 Police Officer Supply Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we had another announcement about something that’s going to be happening in the future, and I’m talking specifically about the crime strategy.

With the overheated economy and more and more people rolling into the province, we have a desperate need for more police officers. Alberta ranks eighth in the country in police officers per capita, well below the national average. To get to the national average, we’d need 800 new police officers, with an estimated cost of $80 million a year. With a growing population that’s probably an underestimation. My question is to the Deputy Premier, and the question is simply this: why didn’t the government announce separately a specific item dealing with hiring much-needed new police officers in the prov- ince? Mr.

Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the report had some 31 recommenda- tions. One of them dealt with, specifically, the issue of additional police officers. I can tell you that over the last three years the Solicitor General with the support of this government has put some 300 additional police officers into the streets together with additional sheriffs’ personnel. This particular report calls for more police officers. It also calls for more strategic use of police officers so that they will be using the resources they have more effectively.

Specifically, it calls for the targeted use of police officers in areas where they can weed and seed. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, that’s all well and dandy, and there are some good aspects to the report, but the thing is that we have this problem right now. The police are overworked. Everybody knows that. In the city of Calgary the police chief says he needs a hundred new policemen right now. This is stuff that’s needed right now. There’s no announcement in here, at least that I’m aware of, about how many police are going to be hired as a result of this.

My question to the minister is simply this: can the minister tell us here in the Assembly how many new police will be hired in the coming year? Mr. Stevens: The chief of police of Calgary was at the table, Mr. Speaker, when this announcement was made. What he said was: this is awesome; I welcome this report; I welcome this government’s support of this report; I welcome the additional resources that we will be getting on the line in Calgary as a result of this report. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, frankly, it’s all talk at this point, just like a lot of the other announcements we’ve had from this government.

There’s always something coming down the way. Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the minister. Tell us again how many new police officers will be hired in the next year? We have a right to know that. Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier was asked what the level of the commitment of this government was with respect to this initiative. We obviously have this as one of the principal initiatives of this government because our Premier said that it would be and because it should be, because the people of Alberta consider safe communities a priority.

What he said is that this government is committed, and we are committed in terms of some $470 million over the next three years. That’s $470 million over the next three years, and much of that will be going to enforcement. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Climate change continues to dominate as the top environmental concern for Albertans. A recent federal report on greenhouse gas emissions places Alberta as the number one provincial emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. What action is this government taking to reduce the province’s emissions? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the hon. member is absolutely correct that Alberta does lead the nation in greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta also leads the nation in the supply of energy not only for Alberta but for much of North America. This govern- ment takes its responsibility to deal with those CO2 emissions very seriously. That’s why we are the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce legislation to deal with CO 2 emissions.

We are committed to continue to lead by example by establishing and committing to very real and achievable reductions in CO 2 over a realistic time frame. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. With industrial development expected to stay strong well into the future, what plans does Alberta have to place a limit on increasing emissions?

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1859 Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, we’ve been in a process over the past number of months of consulting with Albertans on an updated version of our existing climate change strategy. What we heard from Albertans is very clear, that there is a will that this government continue to lead by example, continue to bring forward the necessary means to have reductions in CO2.

That means that we need to concentrate on the technology that will allow us to begin that process in earnest, and we plan to announce the next, updated version of our climate change strategy before the end of 2007. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Johnson: Thank you. To the same minister: if Alberta is, as the minister claims, a global leader in taking action on climate change, why is Alberta keeping its carbon credit trading system exclusive to the province? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I was asked that exact same question at an event I was at this morning at breakfast, talking to an international group who are in Edmonton this week, leading experts on carbon capture and management, and the answer I gave to them was very simple: there is a need for us to invest in technology so that we can implement that technology in Alberta. It does us absolutely no good for funds to flow out of Alberta and allow our industry here to continue to do what they’re doing and let others benefit from it. Our commitment is to find within Alberta real reductions, verifiable reductions in CO2.

We’ll recognize those as offsets, but we want the reductions in Alberta. We want the investment in Alberta. We want those dollars to stay in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Deferred Infrastructure Maintenance Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General added up the provincial deferred maintenance deficit because, as he put it on page 52 of his report, “government information on deferred maintenance is incomplete.” The amount he calculated was $6.1 billion, but yesterday in this House the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation claimed that the total amount was “close to that $4 billion to $5 billion range.” Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board can clear up this murky picture. To the president: was the minister (

a) saying that the Auditor General is wrong or (

b) painting a rosier picture than actually exists? Mr. Snelgrove: Or (

c) none of the above. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in our several meetings with him has identified, as we have as a government, that there needs to be a way to identify ongoing maintenance to ensure that you don’t get behind, to understand that when you build facilities now, you are going to incur maintenance down the road.

When you’re getting into a system like that in the middle of the hundreds of m illions, if not billi ons, of dollars of investment that we have in infrastructure around Alberta, it becomes very problematic to pick a number on a snapshot in time as to what level of maintenance you’re going to require to keep to that level. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you. It makes you wonder who’s minding the store.

Responding to a different question I asked yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation stated that the government funds school boards for maintenance, “and there are times when they don’t always put the dollars where they’re supposed to.” To the Minister of Education: is it also this mi nister’s position that the deferred maintenance backlog for this province’s schools is a result of school boards not spending their money correctly, or does he accept that his colleague was wrong and that the budgets for school boards have not contained even remotely enough money to allow adequate mainte- nance spending?

Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that school boards have to deal with is the fact that some 25, 30 years ago we as a govern- ment put a lot of money into infrastructure, and like one’s own home, it is now coming back that it needs repairs. We recognize that there are significant challenges relative to infrastructure and maintenance and modernization, and it was one of the factors behind us committing a good chunk of our fourth-quarter surplus towards the $197 million modernization announcement we made a couple of months ago.

As I said earlier in question period, that’s going to allow projects like Western Canada high and Archbishop MacDon- ald and some 17 other projects around the province to get modern- ized and repaired, and I think that’s the route we have to take. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier likes to bask in the credit for all the economic successes in this province; however, when it comes to the huge deferred maintenance backlog, his ministers trot out a string of excuses, blaming school boards, blaming an overheated economy.

This is yet another example of a government that promises accountability but fails to deliver. To the President of the Treasury Board: why is this government avoiding its responsibility for the $6 billion deferred maintenance fiasco? Mr. Snelgrove: Thank goodness for the end of the nonsensical approach to questions we’ve seen. Mr. Speaker, our Premier early in his mandate said that we need to work hard to address all of the liabilities we have around mainte- nance. He said that of unallocat ed surpluses one-third will go to savings; two-thirds will go to maintenance and replacement capital.

That’s a very responsible approach to it, to supplement the hundreds of millions of dollars we currently spend on maintenance on our government facilities, roads, and infrastructure and to supplement that with two-thirds of all unallocated surplus, a very responsible use of taxpayers’ money. It’s a plan that works. The Speaker: Hon. members, that was 78 questions and responses today.

Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Cited Documents The Speaker: During question period, Leader of the Official Opposition, when there was an exchange between yourself and the Premier, I seemed to have heard a request from you to have something tabled. Was that a serious request or not? Dr. Taft: Yes, it was a serious request. Thank you. The Speaker: Okay. Hon. Government House Leader, is there such a document to table? Mr. Hancock: The Premier was just alluding to newspaper quotes and media, all of which is in the public domain. It’s been your ruling in the past that newspapers shouldn’t be tabled.

The Speaker: No, there was no such rulin g in the past. What the Speaker said is that it’s most inconvenient to quote from a newspa-

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071860 per as an authoritative source. Quite a difference. So if there is a document, if it’s a newspaper article, it’s from the public domain anyway, a public document, table it. If we can move on with this. But if you don’t have it today, I’m sure by tomorrow this could be arrived at. On the Routine we left off today with tablings, and I was going to recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods for tablings. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings today.

The first is from the Canadian Federation of University Women, Alberta Council, and this is in regard to the draft guidelines for nutrition of children and youth in child care, schools, and recreation facilities.

They’re expressing a major concern regarding the “relegation of the well-developed recommendations in this report to the category of ‘guidelines.’” I have a letter that I’m tabling that went to the Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry and myself from a constitu- ent stating that now is the time that the oil companies and this government wake up to the understanding that the oil and gas in the ground under our feet do not belong to them . . . they belong to the people of this province. Now is the time that the government needs to do what is in the best interest of the citizens who elected them.

Another tabling from a constituent in Edmonton-Mill Woods. I am writing concerning the problem of homelessness in our city and Province . . . I have heard of the One Per cent Solution and ask the government to call for federal and provincial governments to commit one percent more of their budgets to housing programs. That’s from Tracy Dunham. Finally, I have a letter from Terri Calder in Calgary expressing concerns about the proposed child care licensing regulations that are scheduled to be implemented in the spring of 2008.

The Speaker: Before we move on, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (continued) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to be able to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a group of people who have joined us in the public gallery today, who are here for Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 45. This is a special group.

Principal Gail Brierley and librarian Linda Krauss are joined by seven students, I think it is, from the Nellie McClung school for girls, which is located in Oliver school in my constituency. These young women are members of the BLAST team, which is building leadership for action in schools today. They have waged a very successful campaign to advocate for the banning of power walls, so they have a vested interest in the outcome and passage of Bill 45. I’m just delighted they were able to join us today.

I would ask the principal and librarian Krauss and the students to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assem- bly. Privilege Misleading the House The Speaker: Hon. members, earlier this week there was an exchange in the House with two hon. members with respect to a purported question of privilege, and I’m prepared to deal with that now.

The chair and the table officers have considered the arguments advanced by the Official Opposition House leader on Monday and Tuesday afternoon in support of her purported question of privilege alleging that the Minister of Energy deliberately misled the Assem- bly in statements he made to the Assembly on April 30, 2007, concerning royalties. We’ve also considered the arguments made by the Minister of Energy in response to the purported question of privilege. With respect to the preliminaries, there was proper notice given by the Official Opposition House Leader under Standing Order 15(2).

The Speaker’s office received a notice on Friday, November 2, 2007, at 10:40 a.m., so the two-hour requirement has been met. Another important component in the question of privilege is whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity.

When she was arguing this point on Monday, November 5, found on page 1791 of Alberta Hansard for that day, the hon. member provided refer- ences supporting her view that the question had been raised at the earliest opportunity and that while the Official Opposition believed the minister’s statements to be misleading at the time, they required the alleged confirmation found in the Auditor General’s annual report released Tuesday, October 2. The member referred to numerous purported questions of privilege from Manitoba concern- ing the issue of earliest possible opportunity.

The chair researched this point and discovered that all the purported questions of privilege from Manitoba shared one other thing in common: they were all found not to be prima facie questions of privilege. To continue the substance of the issue, the chair finds that the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity.

From the member’s statements the essence of the purported question of privilege is what the minister said in this Assembly on April 30, 2007; namely, that “there is nothing in any of those documents that would indicate to anybody that we have not collected a fair share of royalties for Albertans.” According to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre the issue is whether this statement was deliberately misleading so as to constitute a contempt of the Assembly. As the chair has indicated when allegations of deliber- ately misleading the Assembly have arisen before, these are very serious allegations.

The chair commented extensively on the origins and backgrounds of such charges in rulings found in Alberta Hansard for November 24, 2003, at pages 1803, 1804, and February 19, 2003, at pages 18 to 19, to mention only the most recent cases. These purported questions of privilege allow members to allege that someone is deliberately misleading the Assembly, which is something they could not say in the ordinary course of debate under our rules of debate. The nature of this offence in the Parliament of the United Kingdom is set out in Erskine May, 23rd edition, at page 132.

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave con- tempt. The reference is to the notorious Profumo affair, which members of a certain age will recall. As the chair has noted before, there is really a two-part test to be met in these types of contempt applications.

The Canadian House of Commons committee studying the allegation that a former Minister of National Defence had deliberately misled the House with respect to troops in Afghanistan in 2002 used the same test. The chair should note that in that case, the Eggleton affair, even though the Speaker of the House of Commons found there to be a prima facie question of privilege, the committee found that the minister had not deliberately misled the House.

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1861 The test adopted by the House committee and in previous rulings by this chair is articulated by David McGee in his book Parliamen- tary Practice in New Zealand, second edition, where the Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives states at page 491: There are two ingredients to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt on this ground: the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; and it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect and that, in making it, the member intended to mislead the House. 2:30 In this case the Opposition House Leader alleges that the state- ment by the Minister of Energy that “there is nothing in any of those documents that would indicate to anybody that we have not collected a fair share of royalties for Albertans” is misleading and that the minister intended to mislead the House.

The chair cannot agree with either point. The minister was referring to documents that he tabled in the Assembly on April 16, 2007, Sessional Paper 250/2007. The minister indicated yesterday in the Assembly that some of the missing pages from the reports tabled can be found in his depart- ment’s library. Accordingly, they can be reviewed and evaluated.

The minister’s statement was clearly subjective when he referred to “a fair share of royalties.” The Assembly held a special debate on this issue of royalties on Monday, and the chair thinks that any fair observer would be hard-pressed to say there was any agreement on what constitutes “a fair share” of royalties. Accordingly, if the chair does not objectively view the minister’s statement as necessarily misleading, there is no reason to examine whether it was deliberately misleading.

It was interesting to the chai r that the member raising this purported question of privilege referred to the Auditor General’s report as the basis for the allegation that the minister deliberately misled the Assembly. While the Auditor General as an officer of the Legislature performs important work for members, his views on policy do not supplant the views of those who have been chosen by the people of Alberta to represent them.

Accordingly, the chair does not find there to be a prima facie case of a question of privilege, and that concludes the matter. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Marz in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the committee to order. Bill 45 Smoke-free Places (Tobacco Reduction) Amendment Act, 2007 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m absolutely delighted to rise this afternoon to speak in Committee of the Whole to B ill 45. First, I would like to welcome, as the Member for Edmonton-Centre did, the students, part of the BLAST team from Nellie McClung and say thank you for the student advocacy you’ve put in. I think that’s a tremendous effort, and it does make a difference. Thank you for joining us today. Bill 45 I think is a major step forward in terms of health for Albertans, so I hope that the Assembly will consider it very favour- ably this afternoon.

I’d like to thank members in the Assembly for the support that they gave to this bill at second reading. There were a few issues raised at second reading which I do want to quickly address, but I do want to also sa y that since the bill has had the opportunity to sit over the summer and I’ve had the opportunity to consult with Albertans and hear from Albertans on it, I have to report to the House that the response has been overwhelmingly positive from all parts of the province and from all sectors.

There have been concerns raised, and I did engage in consultation with people who will be directly affected – retailers, for example – and have had a good opportunity to discuss the impact on the retail sector, but the enthusiasm that Albertans have for what we’re doing I think is very, very clear. In dealing specifically with questions that were raised, the Member for Edmonton-Centre asked that places from which tobacco products may not be sold be extended to include child care centres and schools as well as amusement and recreation facilities.

I certainly am in sympathy with those views, but while developing the legislation, I can say that we took a strong look at what was already in place. The federal government has a number of restrictions relating to the sale of tobacco, one of which is a prohibition on selling tobacco products to young persons in a public place or a place to which the public reasonably has access. Additionally, the Prevention of Youth Tobacco Use Act prohibits youth under the age of 18 from possess- ing or smoking tobacco in a public place.

When we crafted the bill, we looked at the number of things that we could include in it and made a conscious decision to go this far. There are lots of different things that could be added, and I hope, actually, over the years that this act will continue to be the leading act in the country with respect to the promotion of health through the cessation of tobacco use. The other question that was raised was a question about vending machines. It should be clear to members of the House that the federal government has placed restrictions on vending machine locations.

Vending machines are only allowed in bars, taverns, and beverage rooms or places to which the public does not reasonably have access, so it’s not necessary to include that again in this legislation. The Member for Lethbridge-East commented on the investment in the tobacco i ndustry by the government of Alberta. The only response I would have in this discussion, of course, is that that’s beyond the scope of this bill. That’s the subject for a different discussion. The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner asked for additional prohibitions for smoking around children.

Again, I’m quite in agreement with the sentiments expressed. In my personal world it would be against the law to smoke in a vehicle which has children present. I think there are a number of other circumstances, but this bill doesn’t go so far as to speci fically delineate individual family situations. Again, there may be a time when we can actually do that, when we’ve moved the public to the point where that’s an acceptable thing to do, but I think the legislative process is an iterative process. It’s one where we shouldn’t be commanding all the time. It’s something where you actually have to move people to it.

So while I personally would favour that as part of the law – that people not smoke in a car, in a closed space where children are present, even, for that matter, in their own home where people are present – I can’t say that we would be agreeable to an amendment to do that in this act at this time. But it is the type of thing which I would ask the hon. member who raised the question and other hon. members to discuss in public, to talk about, to raise the public consciousness about the health effects on children, and particularly

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071862 in smoking in enclosed spaces, in cars. The evidence is coming out to confirm what we intuitively know: that that is bad for children’s health. Legislation is only one tool that’s available to us. While it’s an important tool, I think the educational tool and the public discussion tool are equally important, and I think that’s where we should go next with the issues that have been raised, until we’re ready to actually make them part of legislation.

Leadership, prevention, education initiatives, and tools included in the Alberta tobacco reduction strategy are very important ways to carry these messages forward. The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View commented on looking at more sponsorship restrictions and enhanced education programs. As I noted a moment ago, provincial legislation is just one tool.

The federal government also plays a role in regulating tobacco in Canada and currently restricts tobacco s ponsorships for events or facilities. 2:40 I just want to indicate how much we believe that education is a crucial component in reducing tob acco use, and I want to again comment on the work of BLAST, building leadership for action in schools today, and the BLAST team at Nellie McClung. As I indicated and thanked them, and as the Member for Edmonton- Centre thanked them earlier, it is extremely important that we mobilize and activate the student citizenship in the discussion.

That’s where we can have a very effective impact, and I think the comments of the Member for Edmonton-Centre with respect to the BLAST team clearly indicate as well that this is a testament to the power of motivated students. Clearly, these students get it. These students are ambassadors to others, and I’ve found over my years in politics that students talking to their parents can often be the most powerful instrument of change.

Again, I want to thank the BLAST team that’s here and the other students who’ve written to me talking about how they advocate in their own schools and their own communities and their own families because that is a very powerful message.

In addition to the BLAST program, other programs that we have include the young adult tob acco reduction strategy, which f unds initiatives at colleges and universities; teaming up for tobacco-free kids, a tobacco prevention/reduction initiative; sport for life; kick the nic youth tobacco cessation program; the Alberta spit tob acco education program, or ASTEP; as well as an aboriginal tobacco-use strategy funding, which helps off-reserve aboriginal communities develop educational programs with an emphasis on the difference between sacred and recreational tobacco use. Finally, Mr.

Chairman, there were questions raised about the proclamation date for this bill in the event that the Legislature passes it. We have posted proposed implementation time frames for discussion on the Health and Wellness website since June. The time frames suggest a staged approach, with the enhanced smoking ban that’s proposed in this bill to be in place by January 1, 2008; the restrictions relating to display and advertising, the so-called power walls, by July 1, 2008; and sales restrictions in pl ace by January 1, 2009. Those were posted, Mr.

Chairman, in answer to a commitment I made that we would consult about how these restrictions could be effectively implemented and take into account the concerns of retailers with respect to their ability to actually implement them, given, perhaps, the shortage of people available to actually do the revamps that are necessary. However, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t think it’s too difficult for people to comply. They don’t have to do the fancy work right away.

Renovations can take time, but moving quickly, and with six months’ anticipation, I think that by July 1 all retailers should be able to comply with this. I think that’s not an unrealistic time frame to ask them to comply. Mr. Chairman, those would be my comments in response to the questions or concerns that were raised at second reading. I believe the bill provides a comprehensive move forward. I believe that we can implement it on a timely basis.

Yes, there are other things we could do, but I would urge the Assembly to pass this bill as it is now, and let’s work through the education process, through the public discussion process, and through the continued legislative process to make it even better. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am just delighted to be continuing on with the debate of this bill.

I’m just going to do a quick refresher because it has been many months since we last spoke about this, and I do have two amendments that I had actually prepared last spring that I am going to be bringing forward at this time although, in fact, the minister has addressed both of them. The concept of creating public nonsmoking sp aces and also banning point-of-sale power walls and prohibiting sales of tobacco products in pharmacies and in educational institutions has met a number of barriers and hurdles over the years.

In fact, the first couple of tries didn’t su cceed at all, even t hough in 2002 the Mazankowski report, which was the Premier’s Advisory Council on Health, did include recommendations to reduce tobacco use through reducing advertising and promotion. It was specifically targeted at youth. In 2005 we did have one of the government backbenchers introduce legislation to ban smoking.

That bill was supported by my colleagues in the Official Opposition, but the bill was amended to allow for smoking to continue in certain places, which I really objected to because part of the impetus behind that 2005 bill was to protect workers. We created a situation where we protected some workers depending on the location of their workplace. I felt that it was most unfortunate that we would protect some people and not protect others because of where they worked. That, in fact, was the situation until the current Minister of Health and Wellness intro- duced Bill 45 in the spring of 2007.

As I mentioned, that bill did include three things: the province-wide smoking ban in all work- places, including the bars, the casinos, and the bingo halls, which were excluded specifically the previous time; the ban on the power wall advertising; and prohibiting the sales in pharmacies and educational institutions. Because I have the BLAST students here, I want to talk specifi- cally about why banning power walls was so important. The most fertile recruiting ground for new smokers is youth, and particularly pretty young people.

I first became a smoker when I was 12, and I was a really good example of what happens when you hook a young person on smoking at that age. I smoked with great dedication for 32 years. The tobacco industry made an awful lot of money out of me. And it did really impair my health. But you’re addicted to that, and nicotine is a stronger addiction than heroin. It’s very, very difficult to unhook yourself from that. My entire body had grown up with nicotine and tobacco in it.

Everything about my body changing as I grew older was hooked into the drugs and the additives that are in tobacco, so it was a huge change for me when I quit smoking. The ability to be able to make it less attractive to young people to smoke and to make it harder for them to do it and to empower them with the tools to protect themselves is really important. It’s why the work of the Nellie McClung BLAST team was so important. It

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1863 indicated the willingness of young people to recognize that and to work toward changing public policy, and they have been very successful at doing that. Power walls are meant to be successful, and I’m sure they tested them until they got something that was very successful. Once again, what we had was power walls, or that sort of bank of advertising of the tobacco packages that appear at eye level behind the clerk at the point of sale. When you go to the cash register at a small conve- nience store or gas station, usually they have the gum and the candy down below the counter.

On the counter are the lottery tickets. Then at eye level behind the clerk is the power wall with all the packs of cigarettes. What they found was that young people who had never smoked – never smoked – could tell you the logo, the colour, the design: everything about various names of cigarette brands. Obviously, that was imbuing itself, and the advertising was really working and sinking into everybody’s psyche. It was meant to stimulate impulse buying. You’re standing there.

You’ll pick up a Mars bar and, “Oh, I’ll have a couple of packs of cigarettes while I’m here.” That’s exactly what it was meant to do, and it was very successful. I was very pleased to see the leadership from this particular minister of health. It did take us, I think it was, three ministers of health and two Premiers to get this far, so I was pleased to see the leadership that was brought forward by this minister of health in taking the extra steps in adding in the banning of power walls to this legislation. He didn’t have to do it. We’re not the first by any means.

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I., and Nunavut have all preceded us in this, but I’m glad that Alberta wasn’t dead last. I’m pleased to see that. A couple of other things I want to say about those power walls. Teen smoking is rising in Alberta. We did have a drop in it for a while, and it has been rising recently.

This is an area that we need to target aggressively, and I look to the leadership of groups like this BLAST team and others across Alberta to provide the leadership to their peers in not starting smoking, especially at a young age. 2:50 Now, I know that there was a hue and cry from retailers that they were going to really suffer as a result of the loss of advertising revenue if they had to dismantle the power walls. I’ve done a little bit of research, and I’m appreciative of the Action on Smoking and Health, who also provided me with some information.

In fact, small-business people in Alberta can really work very close to the line sometimes to be making a profit for themselves. It often involves a lot of family members pitching in to make the family business a success. Still, when you look at it, what ’s been shown in other provinces where the power walls have been banned is that at the most retailers suffered a 5 per cent reduction in their advertising revenue coming from the tobacco companies.

If, for example, you had a corner store retailer or convenience store retailer who was making, let’s say, $3,000 from their tobacco product advertising revenue, this would mean a difference of $150. You know what, Mr. Chairman? I think that 150 bucks is worth it.

I understand the challenge that it can be for small-business people in this day and age, but I’m also confident that the retailers that I know and, I’m sure, the rest of the retailers in Alberta will recognize that that $150 or that small amount is well worth it in order to protect the next generation and hopefully convince some of the existing generation of smokers to quit.

One other issue that I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention is that as far as I can discover, a regular Blue Cross drug plan does not cover the smoking cessation drugs and patches and gum and things, so unless you’re on a specialized or an enhanced plan through your workplace – and some people are, but a lot of people aren’t – you are paying full freight on the cost of smoking cessation.

I would think, given the cost to our health care of people that are coming in with COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for example, and other effects of long-time smoking, that it would be in our best interest to try and assist people to quit smoking. Maybe I could ask the minister to have a discussion with Blue Cross the next time he’s out there about whether they couldn’t be covering smoking cessation products like – I can’t remember the brand name now. Dr. Swann: Nicorette? Ms Blakeman: No. Goodness knows, I was on that drug for long enough.

The gums and the pharmaceuticals and the patches: as far as I could tell, unless you’re on an enhanced program that specifically covered it, the regular Blue Cross coverage of drugs does not cover it, and frankly a lot of people – I think it’s about half the people in Alberta – don’t have Blue Cross coverage at all, so then they don’t have access to that at all. That’s something that we could look to, and I think it would be a good investment from the government. Now, I do have a couple of amendments I’d like to bring forward, Mr. Chairman, and they have in fact been referenced already by the minister.

The first one that I would like to bring for people is an amendment to

section 9, striking out “on Proclamation,” and substituting “on January 1, 2008.” I have already supplied the table with the amendments. The Chair: Could you just give us a moment for the pages to distribute them. We’ll refer to this as amendment A1. Ms Blakeman: Yes. Thank you. The Chair: We’re ready to go. You may proceed. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The amend- ment that is now before us, amendment A1 – in fact, the date on the bottom is June 13, 2007, so I was anticipating this some time ago.

I really felt that we didn’t need to be giving such a long lead time to the retailers to be taking down those power walls. I think you would really have had to not be exposed to any media in Alberta not to be aware that this bill was first introduced last spring, had quite a bit of debate at that time, then was on the website, and an additional consultation was solicited throughout the summer on this. I felt that people had really had this top of mind since last summer, and waiting for another full year for them to be able to take down a display is really not necessary.

To my mind I thought: why are we allowing something to stay in place that could entice how many more young people to smoke in that intervening period of time? I have a lot of small-business people in downtown Edmonton, Mr. Chairman, and I have consulted with a number of them on an informal and formal basis around this. They didn’t seem to feel that there would need to be a huge amount of time involved in doing this, certainly not a year, which is what we were talking about, from summer of ’07 to summer of ’08, which is what the government was contemplating.

So I really felt that all things could be done together with a January 1, 2008, proclamation date; that is, to ban smoking in public places and all workpl aces as of January 1, 2008, to remove the power walls from the retail businesses, and to remove the sales of tobacco products in the pharmacies and in educational institutions. We’re seven weeks out from that date at this point. I still think that’s a possible achievement, and I would really like to see us do it.

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071864 I don’t see the point of waiting the extra six months. I don’t see what we gain from that, and I can see what we can lose from it. I ask the members to support me in this amendment to have the proclamation date set for all parts of this bill for January 1, 2008. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with virtually everything the hon. member said except for the part where she said: could we please support the amendment? I’ll explain why.

In my opening remarks I addressed comments that were made in discussion of this bill in second reading back in June and indicated that timing for implementation, in our view, ought to be staged. Now, I would be delighted, actually, to have it all implemented on January 1, 2008. I think it’s important that the ban in public places piece be imple- mented at that time frame, and I’m going to be working hard to achieve that on a proclamation. But I also undertook to consult and to talk to retailers and others and heard them, heard what they had to say about the changes they need to make.

Now, I will tell you that I’m not personally convinced that it’s going to be a real difficulty or a hardship to comply with this bill. In fact, I don’t think it’s going to be a hardship to comply with this bill.

However, there were some comments, some things brought to my attention by some of the people that I consulted with with respect to concerns about the safety of people in their workpl ace, for example convenience stores: if they had to put cigarettes under the counter, whether their safety provisions would be in pl ace if they had to turn their back on customers, and those sorts of things. 3:00 Now, I’ll tell you this.

I didn’t go into a lot of detail about whether there was any merit to th eir position with respect to that, and quite frankly I think the accommodations can be made very, very easily, at least on a temporary basis. It may take longer for convenience stores to make changes. But the bottom line, the commitment that I made in the discussion, was that we would have a reasonable time for implementation if at all possible. I think that giving them to July 1 to make those adaptations is reasonable. The larger question with respect to sales in pharmacies is a little bit more difficult for some people who have stores.

I have a letter from a retailer in northern Alberta who is an independent pharmacy who leases space inside another store and is going to have to actually change his whole operation unless the store that he leases from agrees to get out of the sale of cigarettes. Now, those are things they can do, but I think it’s fair to give them time to do it, so I would ask that we not adopt this amendment, that we do allow the bill to come into effect on proclamation so that we can indeed proceed with the proclamation, hopefully, on January 1 for the nonsmoking piece of it.

The proposal I’m taking forward is July 1 with respect to the power wall ban and January 1, 2009, with respect to sale in pharma- cies. The Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just will be very brief because I would support this amendment. After all of the number of months and years that we’ve been talking about this bill, I think that the people who are selling smoking products are more than aware that it’s coming.

I think they’re more than prepared for this to pass, and I think that it would take them a very, very short time to actually comply with this, which is why I am supporting this. I think they’re ready, and to put it off for another six months really – who knows? It may be just one kid less that isn’t going to start smoking, and that would be worth it. The Chair: Are there others on the amendment? Are you ready for the question on the amendment? Hon. Members: Question. [Motion on amendment A1 lost] The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a second amendment, that I’d like to put forward at this time, also at the table, which I suppose we would now call amendment A2, around locations where smoking products could not be sold. Could I get those distributed? The Chair: Yes. We’ll distribute them now, and we’ll just give the pages a moment to do that. Okay. You may proceed, hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is amending

section 6, the proposed

section 7.3, which is the section: “Sale of tobacco in certain places prohibited.” Specifically, the way the legislation reads now is that “no person shall sell tobacco products or offer tobacco products for sale in any of the following places.” What we already have is: (

a) a health facility in which one or more health professionals regulated under the Health Professions Act or another enact- ment provide services; (

b) the campus of a public post-secondary institution under the Post-secondary Learning Act; (

c) a pharmacy; (

d) a retail store if (

i) a pharmacy is located in the retail store, or (ii) customers of the pharmacy can enter the . . . store directly or by use of a corridor. So, in other words, a pharmacy that’s attached to another retail space. My concern about this was that there are still places where you end up with a lot of younger people congregating – frankly, we want them to congregate there – where we still see tobacco products sold, and I would like to address that. What is being anticipated here – and I’ll skip the first one and come back to it – is a school or a school building.

One of the things we’re contemplating or that my caucus would like to see us move towards is more community schools. We could see a situation in the future, for example, where you have a tuck shop or a small shop in a community sc hool in which things are being sold. We actually have those kinds of venues in some of our schools now where, you know, candy and pop and things like that are sold. I wanted to make sure that we wouldn’t be allowing or that it couldn’t be anticipated in the future that tobacco products would be sold anywhere in a school or a school building.

I also wanted to make sure that we were including facilities that are used for sports, recreation, arts, and culture; in other words, arenas, theatre spaces, other places where we really want everybody to be and to feel comfortable. They also often have vendors who are selling a variety of confectionery, chocolate bars and things like that, but also often tobacco products. I wanted to be very clear that they would not be allowed to sell tobacco products.

The third one is pretty obvious, but I just wanted to make darn sure it wasn’t going to happen, and that was to say: in any daycare facility under the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act. That one sounds like something that’s pretty obvious. You wouldn’t sell

November 7, 2007 Alberta Hansard 1865 tobacco in a daycare space, but we’re looking at daycare spaces being in all kinds of buildings and associated with all kinds of other enterprises at this point, and I thought: better safe than sorry. Really, I was trying to cover any additional space where we might have younger people congregating or where we’d like younger people to be congregating. That was the intent behind this amend- ment. I know that I have spoken either on or off the record to the minister of health, and there was a feeling that this could be dealt with under regulations, but as always, Mr.

Chairman, I really don’t like things being added under regulation. Because it is done behind closed doors, it can be both given and taken away by members of cabinet without consultation with the public. It’s harder for the public and even members of the opposition to get access to those regulations and to find them easily online or through the Queen’s Printer. I really prefer that it’s in the legislation, which is the other reason why I did the amendment and didn’t just leave it to the good intentions of the minister. Those are my reasonings behind bringing forward this amend- ment.

I think it’s worthwhile to be absolutely clear about what we anticipate here and that we really don’t want those tobacco products sold widely at all. I can envision a point in time where – it’s still a legal substance to consume, and adults are welcome to do that – they’d have to be going to very particular places to purchase those products and that it wouldn’t just be easily accessible. You wouldn’t be able to just run in anywhere and pick up tobacco products. The harder it is to get those products, the more likely it is that people will either stop smoking or never start.

Again, I’m speaking from personal experience on this. The major reason why I quit smoking was that it got so inconvenient, it drove me crazy. I’d been elected for a number of years at that point. You know, we were in this thing where the smoking rules that were coming in really made it inconvenient to smoke, and that turned out to be a very good thing. I was spending way too much time thinking about where I would be able to go to smoke and how long it would take me to get there and how long it would take me to get back and did I need to have a coat and was I going outside.

I thought: “Why am I spending so much of my life thinking about having a cigarette? My whole life is being consumed by this. It’s a colossal waste of time and energy.” That was a real impetus in getting me to stop smoking. 3:10 When I look at how easy it is – you know, I can remember a story of a friend who went in to see her doctor. She’d gained a couple of pounds, and she just marched right out. There was a convenience store across the street, and over she marched and bought another pack of cigarettes and started smoking again. I thought: if only that convenience store hadn’t been across the street.

If it had been a little bit harder for her to find that pack of cigarettes, the likelihood that she would have started again I think would have been severely diminished. That’s what I was shooting for here. I ask for my colleagues’ support in the Assembly for amendment A2. Thank you very much. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I don’t disagree with the sentiment that the hon. member has expressed in bringing forward the amendment. I’m not aware of any daycare facilities where they actually sell tobacco products, but I suppose it could be possible.

Schools and school buildings across the province. School boards have routinely banned the use of tobacco products on their premises, and that would include selling. Although laudatory, that’s probably redundant. The facilities used for sports and recreation, cultural, or artistic activities is something that I had actually contemplated bringing forward in the bill, but it begged a lot of questions and raised a lot of issues that I just decided were not worth dealing with at this point in time. The sentiments, again, are very laudable, obviously.

I want to tell you that in the discussions I’ve had with Albertans over the course of the summer, the number of times that I’ve heard from Albertans that what made it possible for them to stop was the inconvenience was quite heartening, actually. But having said that, I can’t encourage members to support this amendment. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 45, Smoke-free Places (Tobacco Reduction) Amendment Act, 2007.

I also want to acknowledge the presence of young leaders, the group known as BLAST, building leadership for action in schools today. How refreshing to see young people pushing for the kind of action that this bill is about and the debate that we are having on it. I want to thank them for their interest and for the leadership that they are providing to their own age mates, their peers, and in fact for providing some pressure and encourage- ment to us to enact the kind of legislation that’s before us. Mr. Chairman, let me say that in general the bill is good, but it can be improved. It can be made better.

This particular amendment, amendment A2, moved by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, I think will make it better, improve it even if there is some risk of redundancy, as the Minister of Health and Wellness has indicated while expressing his tacit approval for what’s being proposed in this amendment but suggesting that he would not support the amendment because of the risk of redundancy. I think that minor risk is worth taking so long as the amendment makes clear and clarifies the language and that particular

section which does list public places where tobacco can’t be sold. I think we should extend that list as per this amendment, particu- larly to schools and school buildings. Schools and school buildings routinely prohibit the sale, but they’re not required by law, I think, to do so. Sports facilities, recreational facilities, cultural and artistic activities are other places which are public places and are not covered in this list. So I thin k it would be a useful and helpful improvement to the proposed bill to have these pl aces that are proposed in the amendment included in that list.

So I’m happy to support amendment A2, Mr. Chairman. One last point I want to make. “A day care facility under the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act.” It may be true, Mr. Chairman, that the daycare facilities that ex ist in the province at the moment may be highly unlikely places we would find tobacco products being sold, but who knows? The scene might change. As we hear through the media, there are very, very large and wealthy foreign multina- tionals that have indicated interest in moving into the daycare facilities field.

They are private businesses, and they certainly are interested in this arena of activity because they want to of course enhance the returns on their investment, and selling tobacco would not be seen as something that would be considered by them as an illegitimate activity unless it is specifically outlined so in a piece of legislation such as the one that’s before us or some other action is taken. So as a precaution I think that subsection (

e) in the amend- ment that will be added to the existing list of 7.3(a), (b), (c), (

d) is a good addition to that list. I think all of these three additions as proposed in amendment A2

Alberta Hansard November 7, 20071866 certainly merit our support, and I’m happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would like to support amendment A2 to this bill as well, particularly the one where it says about facilities used for sport, recreation, culture, or artistic activities and particularly the one for sport. I know that I’ve been in numerous sport venues that aren’t necessarily public buildings, and they have sort of a bar attached.

I really don’t think that having everyone sitting in a room where the air is blue is a good example for kids that are coming off a hockey rink or off the soccer pitch or, in fact, any of the i ndoor tennis and those sorts of things. I really would support it because I think these have to be labelled. I’d like to just augment, I guess, what the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona had said about the daycares.

When we look and see what’s going on in this province where smaller daycares are closing for various reasons – some of which may be questionable, but that’s my opinion – and we do see a large daycare come in that is private and wouldn’t be under the same microscope in terms of their behaviour, I think it’s very important that we do have these children protected. Even if it was the building and it forced people to go outside of the building, it increases the cessation of people quitting smoking.

I think that if these things are clearly labelled, it just strengthens what is probably already a good bill that has been many, many years in the coming. I would like to support that and hope that it would be supported. The Chair: Are there others? Are you ready for the question on amendment A2? Hon. Members: Question. [Motion on amendment A2 lost] The Chair: Back on the bill as it is. The next person I have on the list is the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. 3:20 Mr. Hinman: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a privilege to rise in the House and to debate Bill 45 again.

I appreciate the minister saying that he was looking at addressing the questions that I brought up this spring. I guess I just want to re-emphasize those again. We live in a free and democratic society, and with that we say that we respect the rule of law. I personally feel that the most important duty of government is to protect its citizens, and that entails their life, being first and foremost, their liberty, and their property.

What I want to go over again is the fact that the minister said that we perhaps need more evidence on the harm or the danger that is caused to infants or young children in a home or in a vehicle. I would have to say that we’ve got more than enough evidence. If we’re banning it in the workplace because it’s known to kill adults, we certainly know that it would be more harmful for young children and infants. So I’m disappointed that the government didn’t take the initiative to bring forth an amendment. I thought that it was a good enough one that they’d do that.

I guess next time I need to do my due diligence and bring in an amendment myself. I just want to talk about the importance. When he talks about the law and not wanting to be intrusive on some of the areas where we’ve already stepped in, perhaps, then, what he’s saying is that he’s going to repeal those laws. We are not allowed to jump in our vehicle and drive our children to a soccer function or anywhere else without having them securely strapped in with seat belts.

The risk involved in a car accident versus a young child who’s being exposed to smoke is certainly, I would say, in the same neighbourhood as the long-term detrimental effects on that child with the number of allergies and asthma and other problems that we know affect our young children today. Even probably the most important reason why we need to amend this and we need to put in regulations that prohibit smoking around young children is the fact that those adults that have chosen that themselves and are smoking automatically expose their children to that. We have many laws. We have the children’s helpline.

If they want to be parents of ill repute, the children can call if there are other problems going on. We cannot jump on our bicycles and go for a bicycle ride without putting helmets on our children. All of those things are there to protect children who can’t protect them- selves. I still want to continue to push this government to realize the importance of protecting young children in the presence of adults and the fact that they can and w