April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 855 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 04/04/19 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Welcome back. At the conclusion of the prayer, hon. members, would you please remain standing for the singing of our national anthem. Let us pray. As we begin our deliberations in this sitting of the Legislature, we ask for the insight w e need to do our work to the benefit of our prov ince and its people and to t he benefi t of our country. Amen.

Now would you please join in the singing of our national anthem in the langua ge of y our choice. We’ll be led today by M r. Paul Lorieau. Hon. Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. The Speaker: Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr.

Speak er. It is my pleasure to introduce to you and t hrough you to members of the Assembly 68 wonderful young s tudents fr om St. T eresa C atholic elementary school in the c onstituency of Edmonton-Ruthe rford. T hey ar e accompanied by teachers Mrs. Camille Kauhaahaa-Hamel and Mr. Charlie Stuart. T heir p arent h elpers are Mrs. Julie Thulin, Mrs. Cindy Shearer, Mrs. Trish McGuinness, and Mr s. Marie R eitzel. We’d ask our guests to rise and r eceive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a very special guest. This guest was seated in your gallery on March 30, and that was to proudly witness her daughter deliver a member’s statement in recognition of Tartan Day. I would ask that Mrs. Colleen Graham, who is the mother of my friend and colleague for Calgary-Lougheed, rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Redwater. Mr. Broda: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to introduce to you and through you 23 very bright grade 10 students from the Sturgeon composite high school. Accompanying them is Mr. Norman Zweifel, their teacher, an d I’d ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Mr. Hutton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indee d a pleasure for me to rise and introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly a g reat gr oup of individua ls from the Horizon Village in Glenwood.

Twe nty-three of th e memb ers are touring thi s afternoon, an d I h ad a l ovely visit with them be fore entering the Assembly today. I would ask them to pl ease rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Seniors. Mr. Woloshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and thr ough you to t he people in the Assembly Mr. Albert Wagner, a grain and cattle farmer who resides in the constituency. Mr. Wa gner, the p ast pr esident o f the Wes tern Barle y Growe rs Association, joins us along with some of his colleagues.

Obviously, their interest is Bill 206. I’d ask Mr. Wagner to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. I t’s a plea sure for me to introduce to you and through you today five very distinguished guests from my constituency. I would ask them to stand – they’re in both galleries – as I call their names: the president of the Western Barley Growers Association, Mr.

Doug McBain; the Alberta vice- president of the Western Bar ley G rowers Association, Doug Robertson; a past president of the Western Barley Growers Associa- tion, Gor don Reid, and his wife, Peggy Reid, fr om the Cr emona area; and Jeff Nielsen, vice-president of the Western Barley Growers Association, from the Olds area. Would you please give them the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. It’s a pleasure to introduce to you and t hrough you to a ll hon.

Mem bers of t his Legislative Assembly a visiting group from Terrace Heights school this afternoon. The group is made up of 34 visitors, 31 students, and the group is led by teachers Frances Stead, Jennifer Bagshaw, and program aide Marilyn Sloan. They’re in the public gal lery, and I would now ask them to rise and receive the warm and traditional and gracious welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf I’d like to introduce Mr.

Ed Armstrong from Dapp, Alberta, which is located in the Barrhead-Westlock constituency. Mr. Armstrong is with the Western Barley Growers Association and is seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon. I’d ask him to stand and re ceive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. I rise t o introduce to you and through you to this Assembly two ladies who will become constituents of Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview when the new electoral boundaries come into effect at the next election.

They are here to observe the pro ceedings of t his Ass embly and are s eated in the public gallery. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly as I call out t heir nam es: Mrs. Z oria Grieve and Ms Belinda Pylypa.

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004856 Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and int roduce to yo u and through y ou to all m embers of this Assembly a very hard-working couple f rom my constituency, Mr. Roy Sparks and Mrs. Janette Sparks. Ro y and Janette run a grain and hay farm east of Innisfail, and Roy is a lso a director of the Western Barley Growers Association. They came to the Legislature today to support Bill 206, the Alberta Wheat and Barley Test Market Amendment Act, 2004, brought forward by the Member for Calgary- Mountain View.

I would like Roy and Janette to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International and Intergovern- mental Relations. Mr. Jonson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce to you and thr ough you to members of the A ssembly seve ral constituents that have travelled to Edm onton to mee t with m e to discuss education in Alberta. T hey ar e seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask that they please stand as I call their names: Ron Labrie, B ryan Martin, Bra dy Teeling, Pauline Mercer, Lori-Ann Hudacak, Rob Haggarty, and Darren Josephison.

I’d ask members to give them the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The h on. Leader of the Official Opposition. Learning Commission Recommendations Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. As the Alberta Liberals said when the budget w as introduce d, this gove rnment’s educatio n budget falls far short of expectations. Instea d of allow ing school boards to implement the recommendations of the Learning Commis- sion, cla ssroom sizes will remain far below standards.

Eve n the Learning Commission’s chair said about the Learning budget, quote, I’m not sure this is transparent, open, and it’s certainly not under- standable, end quote. My questions are to the Premier. Why is this government letting dow n the childre n and parents of Albe rta b y failing to meet the benchmarks of the Learning Commission? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we are not by any stretch of the imagina- tion letting down the children of this province. The hon. Minister of Learning is working thr ough th e recommendatio ns. Some have already been accepted. Some, of co urse, have been rejected.

We will work through the recommendations keeping in mind t hat we have identified learning in our 20-year strategy program as one of the key pillars and a commitment to learning. [interjection] Well, they can laugh like Santa Claus, but basically we have decided as a caucus that learning and education will be t op pr iorities of this government, and we will commit ourselves over the next, well, few years anyway but certainly in th e 20-year strategy to address t he needs of those not only in K to 12 but in postsecondary institutions and those seeking to embark on a program of lifelong learning.

The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank yo u, Mr. Speak er. The Premier talks a bout accepting and rejecting recommendations of the Learning Commis- sion. Is it the case – because it ap pears to b e – that th ey have rejected the Learning Commission’s recommendation on classroom sizes? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s time this hon. leader started telling the truth. The truth is this. Now, listen. T he truth is tha t the Le arning Co mmission reco m- mended that its class size guidelines be phased in over five years at an estimated cost of $138 million.

We can’t do it all in one budget. We never said th at we would do it all in o ne budget, but w e do expect boards to begin reducing class sizes this year with the $250 million budget incr ease and to continue to r educe class sizes with funding increases of nearly $400 million in the next two years. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it the Premier’s understanding that $250 million is actually going into the school system? Is that his understanding? Mr. Klein: Of course it is. Mr. Speaker, it is going to Learning. It is going to the benefit of children in the school system.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Health Care Reform Dr. Taft: Thank you. As the Alberta Liberals have long been saying, the evidence continues to roll in that a strong public health care system is the best possible w ay to del iver h ealth services. Recent information from the OECD, t he federal government, and from Britain’s National Health Service all show that private health care is more expensive and harder to control than public health care.

To the Premier: how can Albertans be confiden t tha t the Calg ary health region is providing value for money when a c onsortium in which they are a key player was disqualified from contracting with the British government because it could not offer value for money? Mr. Klein: I have no idea relative to the situation as it relates to the Calgary health region and any contractual arrangements they might or might not have had with anyone, for that matter. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, relative to a part of the

preamble that relates to health care reform, that Alberta is not alone in talking about the urgent need for reform. In Februar y all Pre miers wrote to the Prime Minister saying: “It is imperative that [you] understand that without real reform and renewal and an affordable foundation, health care as we know it will not survive the decade.” The Prime Minis ter wrote a lette r on A pril 13 – I’ll be g lad to table copies of this l etter – to Pre mier Binns, who is chair of the Council of the Federation.

In that he says, and I quote in part: with regard to health funding the additional $2 billion to which you refer is over and a bove the commitment under the 2003 first ministers’ accord on health care renewal for an additional $34.8 billion federal investment over five years. That’s good news depending on how it is to be distributed. But the important part of this letter is that we are in agreement that the health care system requires not only funding but also structural reform and renewal. So, Mr. Speaker, certainly the Calgary health region may have had a contract.

I can only commend them for trying something new, trying something that possibly could have created revenue, but if it didn’t work out, so be it. At least they tried. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you. Will the Premier admit that his government’s health care privatization plans are out of sync with a rec ent OECD

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 857 study which fo und th at mix ed public/priv ate sy stems could not control costs as well as single-payer public systems? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader conveniently alludes to those thin gs that create headlines and make for a g ood 15-second sound bite, and tha t’s all the Liberals are good for, by the way. I don’t know if they’re good for 15 seconds, but sound bites they’re good for. Mr. Speaker, relative to health care reform and the whole issue of privatization, this idea or forms of this idea are only one small part of the puzzle.

The true health care reform that we contemplate – and the package will be coming to caucus in the very near future – will be a broad process that might take years and must factor in the many complex challenges facing the sy stem. These c hallenges include how we pay for new technologies, drugs, and infrastructure; how we recruit, train, and deploy health professionals; how we manage and administer the system. 1:50 Mr. Speaker , I believ e th at Albert ans and m ost Canadia ns are ready for a change to the system.

Notwithstanding what the Liberals say, they know that the system as we know it today is not sustain- able. They know in their hearts that a sy stem that requ ires annual budget increases of 7 to 10 per cent just to maintain the status quo is simply not aff ordable. T he people of t his province know; the Liberals don’t. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you.

The Pre mier talks a lot about he alth care reform, but how can Albertans trust this government to reform their health care system when it tried and apparently failed through budget cuts in 1994, with the action on health plan in 1998, with the health summit in 1999, and with the Mazankowski report in 2002? What’s next? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, all of these things will feed into the health reform. Relative to what took place in 1994, that was the first very significant step under t he then heal th minist er, who is now the Deputy Premier.

It was a very significant step to take I forget how many health boards – I think there were something like 200 various health authorities – and bo il those down into 18 and th us achieve administrative efficiencies. That was a very significant reform in itself. Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous reforms since then. It’s a work in progress, and we will have to continue to keep meeting the challenges of health care sustainability. But I don’t apologize at all for what took place in 1994. I think it was very brave.

It was a very bold and courageous step, and it achieved very significant adminis- trative efficiencies. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Electricity Exports Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou. I wish this gove rnment w ould apologize for electricity deregulation. This government has created behind closed doors an electricity transmission policy that benefits power producers at the expense of Al berta electricity consumers.

Last week the Premier overjoyed power producers by signing an agreement that could significantly boost Alberta’s electricity exports to the United States. While the Premier’s decision guarantees power producers even big ger profits, the Ma rthas and the Henrys in this province are still struggling with sky-high electricity bills. My first question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier. Why did the Premier not consult with Albertans before he went ahead and threw the switch opening this province to further electricity exports to America? Mr. Klein: You know, I talked earlier and alluded to the 15-second sound bite.

Throw ing “the switch”: you know, all of the se things lend themselves to good headlines but have nothing to do with the truth. The truth is sim ply a m atter of co-operati on with t he United States. The h on. member should read the mem orandum that was signed by Governor Richardson of New Mexico and myself, and he will find that t here is absolutely nothing sinister in that memoran- dum, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that Alberta’s rules ensure that provincial consumers pay for transmission lines only to the extent that they use them. That policy has not changed.

Exporters pay for the lines to the extent that they use them, and they also pay for any lines that are dedicated for ex port. That is the truth. Now, if this ma n, this person, had any sense of honour, he would stand up and tell the truth for a change. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the truth is in the Prem ier’s own commission, the Bolger commission, which reports that increased exports will make electricity prices in Alberta higher at times. Why did the Premier sign an agreement that will increase the power bills of Alberta consumers? Mr. Klein: The ag reement, as I’v e said, w as a ve ry innoce nt memorandum.

Well, Mr. Speaker, si nce he w on’t listen to me, perhaps he’ll listen to the Minister of Energy. Mr. Smith: Ah, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been speaking to this member for many years now, and let’s continue to try because we’ll never give up hope for the hopeless. Mr. Speaker, when he refers to the Bolger commission, it’s very clear that it says, “New supply was added by private sector compa- nies rather than by government.” That means no debt applied to the backs of taxpayers, unlike the hundred billion dollars worth of debt that stretches across the nation.

Ou r “new electricity capacity is more environmentally friendly.” You are in a province that has the largest amount of wind power energy in the Dominion of Canada. In fact, this government has signed the largest green power contract in North America. “The wholesale power market is working well.” That’s what the Bolger commission says. Don’t revise it here in this room. Be honest. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: given that both Manitoba and British Columbia use the revenue from electricity exports to drive down the price of domestic electricity, will this government step up and do the s ame to protect Alberta consumers and pass those savings on to the consumers? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, in one breath he’s complaining about the whole notion of even considering the export of electricity, and now he’s talking about sharing the benef its of ex port with Al berta consumers. Of course, we would love to do that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speak er. Las t week the

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004858 Premier signed a deal pavi ng the w ay f or increas ed electr icity exports to the United States, as we now know. While the Premier’s buddies in the boardroom s of the e nergy industry are no doubt looking forward to fattening their bottom lines, this deal will mean even higher pow er bills f or Albert a consum ers. Inte rtwining ourselves with t he U.S. market will o nly put upward pressure on prices here in Alberta. My question is to the Premier.

Given the fact that power in California retails at considerably higher prices than it does here in Alberta, how can the gover nment prevent the further spiralling of costs in Alberta’s electricity prices? Mr. Kle in: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I stated quit e clearly that an export market will only be developed if there is, first of all, a demand and if we can fill that demand. Mr. Speaker , this ener gy conference t hat the ho n.

Minister of Energy and I attended in Albuquerque, New Mexico, dealt with all matters of energ y: electricity, natural g as, oil, sol ar energy, wind- powered energy, hydro-powered energy. It talked about how we create a No rth Am erican a s opposed to a Canadian a lone or a Mexican alone or a United States alone environment relative to the sharing of these resources. Basically, that’s all the agreement that I signed alludes to. An Hon. Member: Table it. Mr. Klein: I’d be glad to table it. It’s a public document. You can get it on th e Internet. You do n’t have to go to www.lib.com or whatever it is.

It’s on the Internet. It’s a public document. I’d be glad to table it if he doesn’t know how to use computers. I’d be glad to. The whole thing is about shar ing and developing – sha ring and caring and developing – a continental energy policy as it relates to all forms of energy, Mr. Speaker. There can be absolutely nothing wrong with that because like the cattle industry, as I say, we’re all in this, and it is an integrated system. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. M ason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker .

Give n the experience we’ve had with the natural gas industry and the Chicago prices we now pay, how c an the Premier assure Albertans that we won’t be paying even higher electricity prices when power compa- nies can receive higher prices if they export to the United States? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how one conceivably relates to the other. First of all, the policy of this province is that we won’t export any power that we need and that will be used in the province of Alberta. Any export of power would have to be on transmission lines paid for by the power companies.

Any power would have to be absolutely surplus to our needs. So I don’t see how by any stretch of the im agination this rela tes to the pr ice consum ers pay for electricity or n atural gas o r an y oth er en ergy commodity in thi s province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let m e put it simply. If a power producer can get a higher price for their electric- ity in the United States than they can in Alberta, why would they sell it here? Mr.

Klein: They would have to sell it here because the policy states that they must meet the requirements of Alberta before any power is exported. So export power would only be power that is surplus to the needs of Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Beef Exports Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. T he United States Department of Agriculture has announced that all remaining conditions on the import of beef from animals less than 30 months of age h ave b een remo ved.

My question is to the Mini ster of Agriculture, Food and Rural D evelopment. What does this a n- nouncement mean for Alberta’s cattle industry? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, certainly, the USDA announcement is a signif icant ste p in mov ing the age nda forw ard on the f ull integration of tr ade between the U.S. and Canada in both beef products and live cattle. What this means is that bone-in meat can now be shipped, tha t ground m eat can now be ship ped, that pro- cessed meat from animals that are less than 30 months of age can now be shipped. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is only about animals and product from animals under 30 months, but it’s I think a very clear signal that the USDA is comm itted to m oving this process f orward in a very orderly, scientific, rational manner to the end that we want, which is the complete resumption of trade in live cattle and beef products. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker. To the same minister. You mentioned that this announcement from the U.S. is a signal on fully reope ning the border to cattle and beef trade. Can you tell us how soon you expect the borders to open to all live cattle?

Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish I could. However, we understand that the United States h as a proce ss that the y have to follow, and of course part of the process concluded on April 7, when the comment period ended. In the discussions that the Premier and I had with Mr. J.B.

Penn, who is the undersecretary of agriculture in the U.S., whe n we were in W ashington some three or four weeks ago, it was very clear to us that they have a strong desire to review those comments that were received in this comment period and the one prior to Christmas expeditiously, that their desire is to move this process forward, and that their desire is to resume normal trade with this industry. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that in the beef part of this industry this takes us to about 90 per cent of normal trade. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon.

Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Government Expense Claims Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers are angry about the lack of transparency on government travel and hosting expenses. While the federal government moves toward greater accountability, the Alberta government is anything but accountable. My questions are to the Premier. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. member does have the floor. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. When will this government require that

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 859 all cabinet ministers and staff report every detail of their expenses on their web sites, just as the federal government now requires? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. S peaker, I do n’t know if that’s the way we will go, but I would suggest that the federal government post those small, million-dollar-plus contributions to ad companies in Quebec. Maybe they aren’t personal expenses, but certainly they come out of the taxpay ers’ dollars. I certainly hope these Liberals are not suggesting t hat w e adopt the financial practices of their federal cousins. Mr.

Speaker, we are now evaluating whether we need to change the way that expenses are reported and how we need to do a better job or perhaps don’t need to, but m aybe we do need to do a better job in the futu re. Government exp enses right n ow are reviewed annually by the Au ditor General. He is i nvolved in t his, as is the Ethics Commissioner, and we will act on any recommendations of the Auditor General and/or the Ethics Commissioner. As well, the government’s Agenda and Priorities Committee will examine all options related to f urther report ing on interna tional trav el by government members.

So it’s a work in progress, but to say that we’re going to adopt the federal model, no. We’re not going to do it just because the Liberals across the way, these Liberals, say that that’s the way we should do it. We’ll come up with a plan that is open and transparent and . . . Mr. Bonner: West Edmonton Mall. Mr. Klein: West Edmonton Mall has nothing to do with per son- al . . . The Speaker: Please, please. Ms Blakem an: Thank y ou, Mr. S peaker.

W ell, giv en that the Premier’s Conservative cousins in Ontario brought in strict rules on expenses while they were still in government, what’s stopping this government from following that set of rules? There’s another choice for you. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, as I sa id, we’re evalua ting this whole business of exp enses as we speak, and we want to have the best system. Now, I don’t know much about the Ontario system, and I don’t know much about the federal government sy stem other than that we know there’s a lot of coverage in the news media lately about the misappropriation of money.

We want to have a system that is open, that is transparent, and that basically will hold all members of government, whether they’re in cabinet or not, accountable for the expenditures they make. [interjection] And the opposition mem- bers, who also have expense accounts. You know, this whole thing, this holier-than-thou attitude, is a bit frustrating because they do run expenses. That reminds me of the story one time w hen the NDs were in opposition.

One of the hon. member s criticized me for using a government plane from Calgary to go to Cold Lake when he drove up there and tried to let on that he wasn’t benefiting when in fact he was getting 27 cents a kilometre to go up there and back. So he was making a lot more money than I ever made off that trip, I’ll tell you that for sure, and these guys do as well. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Well, M r. Premier, for a government that wants Alberta to win the competition with other provinces, why is this government allowing Alberta t o lose the c ompetition on accountability?

You don’t want to do the federal system; you don’t want to do the others. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we’re going through this. This is a work in progress. We hav e absolutel y nothing to hide. The payments made to MLAs are published in public accounts, including all MLAs. For instance, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar received reimbursement for travel expenses, $10,075. I don’t know where he travelled to or what business he was on.

If they want that kind of a breakdown, then we’re going to demand that he account for every single kilometre that he travelled and what he saw along the way, where he was going, who he spoke to. [interjection] Well, do it. Do it. If you want to, stand up and report right now. The S peaker: The h on. Memb er fo r Gra nde Pra irie-Smoky, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A tough act to follow. Electricity Exports (continued) Mr.

Knight: Last week, as we have been informed, the Premier travelled to Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the western governors’ North American Energy Summit. That’s what the meeting was. On Thursday he signed an addendum to the 2002 trans mission siting protocol. That’s what he signed. My questions are to the Energy minister. What is the implica tion to the provinc e of A lberta of signing the addendum? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the question becomes so much more clear when the actual facts are stated as opposed to going to www.adlib.com. The addendum is to a 2002 original document.

The export policy principles as established by this government are of May 29, 2002. So we do know that the Liberals are at least one if not two years behind. I can say to the mem ber th at, as the Premier has stated and as we’re more than pleased to table this protocol, this public document, it’s a protocol amongst the West ern Governors’ Association, t he U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Council on Environmental Quality governing the siting and permitting of interstate electrical transmission in the western United States.

It goes on to say that it does help to facilitate the protocol of being able to establi sh transmission links and that the Premier hereby agrees to undertake best efforts to cooperate with the Original Signatories in meeting the objectives listed in the Protocol recognizing, without altering, diminishing, or expand ing the exis ting jur isdiction, statutory and regulatory responsibilities and authorities or budget processes of the Province of Alberta. Hardly a secret, profit-based document. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker.

A gain to the Minister of Energy: can the m inister assure residential and s mall and medium industrial and commercial consumers that they will not pay for future export transmission capacity? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, if only the Liberals could take a page out of what I think is good question crafting and good fact basing. Mr. Speaker, we can assure small business, we can assure every

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004860 consumer in this province that they will be se rved first, t hat this addendum only serves to help lower their prices. It’s very, very easy to see where the benefits can accrue to these individuals, businesses, and private persons w ith the am ount of gene ration that t his ca n attract and create. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last question, again to the Minister of Energy: given the importance of th is commodity, could you tell the Assembly why we would export electricity in any case? Mr.

Smith: Well, I think that’s actually the question that those folks have been trying to put together all afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House, and do that by tabling at the appropriate period, of the electricity export principles as crafted on May 29 of 2002. Number one of the five g uiding principles: “Alberta’s electricity need s will be met w hile also s erving export markets.” Now, if you have, Mr. Speaker, new generation – and the 3,000 megawatts of new generation have given us an average wholesale power price this quarter of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour. An Hon. Member: How much was that? Mr.

Smith: Four point three cents per kilowatt hour, Mr. Speaker. This new generation, if it is used completely in Alberta, can then move forward into other marketplaces. As long as people can know that they have a place to sell all their electricity, as Alberta grows, as other jurisdictions grow, we will have new generation, and the new generation is the f undamental underpinning t o a g ood, positive, nonblackout, reliable supply of electricity at affordable prices. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Low-income Support Programs Mr.

MacDon ald: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. T he gover nment’s decision to give Provincial Court judges a lower pay raise than they wanted was blamed on a commitment to other priorities. A cabinet document states: “Many priorities would come before increases to judge’s salarie s – seniors benefits, supplem ents to suppo rts fo r independence and AISH issues, and other resources required in the justice system.” My first questi on is to t he Minis ter of H uman Resources and Employment. Where are the increased AISH and SFI benefits that this order in council alludes to? Mr. Dunford: Mr.

Speaker, the business plans have been released with the budget. I’ll be up for es timates I believ e next w eek or maybe the week after. In any case, in terms of AISH we increased the budget line item that we had for AISH. We’re going to go into a formal review of AISH this fall. As far as what we’ve done on the SFI side, we’ve gone to a more individually based, need-assessed system. Mr. Hancock: Mr.

Speake r, the hon . mem ber is m isreading the reasons that were given and attached to the order in council, and I might just expand for the benefit of the House what he’s referring to and why what he’s put before the House is a misread of w hat was said. Judicial compensation commissions are set up every three years to establish salarie s for judg es. As a result of a dec ision by t he Supreme Court of Ca nada relative to how we dete rmine judicial compensation under the Constitution of the country and the need for judicial independence, we are obliged to follow that format.

Once a Judicial Compensation Commission reports, Lieutenant Governor in Council then ha s to deal w ith the report of the c ompensation commission and if it varies from the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission, must provide reasons. In those reasons that were provid ed and that t he hon. member has taken one small piece out of and tried to misrepresent, essentially what we’ve said is that the Judicial Compensation Commission has said that the raises that they proposed were affordable because the government has an excess of revenue over expenditures.

What we’ve said in the reasons is that that in itself does not mean that a raise of a particular magnitude is affordable, because you have to look at al l the prioriti es of g overnment and all the t hings that government has to tak e into account in determ ining how to spend and how to be accountable for the public’s money. Among all those other things could be included things like raises to SFI or Alberta Works, raises to AISH, raises to seniors.

We could have put in the reasons funding for public schools, funding for health care, all sorts of other priorities of government and the peopl e which need to be taken into account. Therefore, a Judicial Compensation Commission has a ve ry difficult job when it tries to s ay: there’s a surplus; there fore, it’s affordable. That’s what the reasons said. That’s what the reasons mean. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. To the Minister of Seniors: where is the increase to seniors’ benefits that this document claims to be such a high priority? Mr. Wolos hyn: Mr.

Speake r, I don’t know in the doc ument specifically where it would refer, but I’ll make a couple of statements here. In the last four years the increase to the se niors’ benefits program has gone f rom some $128 mill ion to $199 mill ion. The number of seniors has not increased significantly. In the past three years I believe the payouts to individual seniors on ASB is about a 15 per cent i ncrease. The num ber of folks helped on the spec ial- needs program went from 7,500 to some 15,000. I could go on and on and state where the programs to seniors in need in this provi nce have impr oved, Mr. Speak er.

When the estimates come up in May, they’ll also see that there have been increases for the seniors’ benefits program, for speci al need s this coming budget year. In addition, Mr. Speaker, they forget to mention that Alberta is the leader – and I underli ne “the le ader” – of all the prov inces in implementing and match ing fede ral funding in an area that’s of national concern, one called affordable housing. So when they want to reference where the money is going within this department, I’d be more than pleased to answer. [Mr. Hancock rose] The Speaker: We’ve already spent five minutes on this. Please.

The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. To th e Premier this time: now that we have seen these massive increases in the travel and communications budgets of this government, when will the seniors, the disabled, and those on SFI benefits get a much-needed increase in their benefits from this government?

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 861 The Speaker: Whoa. I fail to see the relationship between that third question and the first question. We’ve spent five and half minutes, and I’ve got a long list. The hon. Membe r for Ca lgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Telework Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Teleworking represents one of the most important new employment and societal directions in our world today.

Teleworking employment could revitalize struggling rural areas, reduce inf rastructure dema nd and downtow n traff ic congestion, create employ ment f or the disabl ed, improv e the environment, but it could also steal our brainpower away if we don’t provide compe titive opportunities for employees here. My first question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Given that productivity gains of 20 per cent average and as high as 50 per cent have been reported amongst large organizations that have introduced major teleworking opportunities, what sort of initiatives is your department involved in that will promote teleworking within Alberta and specifically within the government workforce? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Dunford: Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. As far as the initiatives go, this is the kind of thing that we would look to for leadership from the private se ctor.

As a government we a re aware of the concept and, of course, always want to look at it and stay abreast of current thinking. I agree with the pr eamble of the qu estion in the sens e of infr a- structure, what it can do, and a gain for qualit y of l ife. W hat I haven’t seen addressed in any of the research that I’ve been able to read to this point is: what is the impact or the downward pressure on wages by allowing people to stay at home? We haven’t really had much discussion around those issues to this poin t but clearly less transportation expense required to get to work, perhaps w ardrobe situations.

Also, how is the issue of governance handled? So there are many issues to this, and what looks on the surface of it always as a nice opportunity to provide another means of working – and I do recognize the member’s concern about the disabled working at home. This is clearly important. But it’s more complex than just a couple of articles out of a paper. Mr.

Lord: My second question for the same minister: given that an EKOS Research survey indicated that 55 per cent of 3,500 Canadian respondents wanted telework options, 43 per cent would switch employers to get telewor k options, and 33 per cent would choose telework opportunities over even a 10 per cent raise in pay, are there teleworking opportunities on t he table in our labour neg otiations with our provincial employees now? Mr. Dunford: Again, as specific as the member would like me to be on this particular issue, the negotiations are going to be coming up later this fall.

The demands that the employer will want at the next set of negotiations have not been established as yet, and of course we have no way of k nowing at this particular point in time what th e demands from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees will be. Mr. Lord: My third question is for the Minister of Innovation and Science. Given that the rollout of the SuperNet infrastructure could enable Alberta to become a world leader in teleworking opportuni- ties, what init iatives is your department involve d in to promote telework technology and telework opportunities to Alberta employ- ers? Mr. Doerksen: Mr.

Speaker, the Alberta government is committed to a competitive global mark etplace. Knowledg e, skills , and innovation are important elements in a knowledge economy. What the Alberta SuperNet provides i s t he infrastructure to e nable the opportunity for all Albertans to acquire the knowledge and skills to compete in the know ledge eco nomy, and more important ly this infrastructure provides the opportunity for innovation tha t talks about the kind of initiative the hon. member is raising with respect to how we do work, from where it’s delivered, because connected communities are all the same size.

Anthony Henday Ring Road Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, in its Ma rch 2004 invent ory of major Alberta projects this go vernment lists the southeast l eg of the Anthony Hen day ri ng road as costing A lberta ta xpayers $270 million. To the Minister of Transportation: does this amount include the $75 million that the federal government will be contributing to the project? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I di dn’t hear if he said southwest or southeast, but the federal government has made kind of a commit- ment to the southwest leg.

They’ve said that they will give us $150 million: $75 million for Calgary and $75 million for Edmonton. But we haven’t seen that money as yet because we’re still negotiating on certain parameters of the agreement, and until those negotiations are done, I can’t honestly say that that money is coming, although we are accounting for it in the total project cost. Mr. Bonner: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: does the amount of $270 million include the annual lease payments and the principal and interest costs for the project? Mr.

Stelmach: Sometime ago when we made the announcement on the southeast leg of the Anthony Henday, we were asked: what do you think the cost would be? At that time we sa id about $300 million, but since t hen we ha ve seen some pr essures, mostly on bridge structures, and that’s related to just a f ast rising increase in the cost of steel. I believe it’s gone up anywhere from 15 to 30 per cent, and in fa ct there a re some that are only getting a seven-day commitment on the price of steel today. Mr. Bonner: To the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: if Albertans have to wait until a contract is signed before finding out the cost of the project, then how do taxpayers ensure that they are getting value for their money? Mr. Stelmach: A number of points. One, Mr. Speaker, we’ve said in this House and continue to say that the request for proposal coming back from one of the three proponents has to make economic sense. We have to see value for the taxpayer dollar invested. Secondly, I cannot say today on behalf of this governm ent what innovation these companies will bring to their request for proposals.

They may want to do t hat particular stretch of road because of the immense amount of traffic – concrete may be the way to go given the number of car and truck travel. They may have other solutions in terms of mitigating the cost of steel and maybe use more concrete on the interchanges. But I would think that at the end of the day every company will seek innovation and also look at huge amounts of cost savings by not allowing for the mobilization and demobilization of

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004862 the equipment. Once they’re on site, Mr. Speaker, they’ll stay there till it’s completed. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Health Care Reform (continued) Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two months ago today exactly I first demanded that the Premier make public the Graydon report, the government’s blueprint for a two-tiered health care system in this province.

For months the gove rnment ha s been w orking on a strategy to implement the Graydon report and its recommendations for user-pay health care, yet this strategy is being developed in secret behind the close d doors o f the caucus and the cabinet room. My questions are to the Premier . Why has the Prem ier repea tedly promised to make the Graydon report public but consistently failed to actually deliver on this promise made to this House? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, again, there are some things in the Graydon report that undoubtedly will make fo r, as I sa id before, good 15- second sound bites.

The problem is that when you feed this kind of material in isolation t o the opposition, t hey sa y that t hat then becomes government policy. You know, it’s that old saying that yes means yes, maybe mea ns yes, and n o means maybe. To them, anything that is m entioned, any thing that is o n paper becomes government policy.

Now, the Graydon report in conjunction with the Mazankowski report in conjuncti on wi th the survey of best practices in other jurisdictions, the national associa tion of m inisters of health, the annual Premiers’ conference with the Council of the Federation: all of this information will be brought together, and we will consider it as a package. It won’t be considered in isolation. That is one of the dangers.

Now, if the hon. l eader of the third par ty w ill stand up a nd promise not to highlight and take out of context the Graydon report, then perhaps we’ll give it to them, but they won’t do that because they will use this for purely political reasons. They will take out the most dramatic and the most sensitive of all issues and they will say: folks, that’s what the government is going to do. They will not use it to tell the truth. That is the problem. Dr. Pannu: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has my promise. Will he table this report here tomorrow?

Given that the government has been planning radical changes to the health care system based on the G raydon report, how ca n the Premier justify keeping Albert ans in the dark about that re port? Albertans demand that it be released now. Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, notwiths tanding his y elling, he did promise. Well, I have no probl ems, you know , releas ing the Graydon report, but I appeal to anyone, including the media, not to say that that report is the end-all and the be-all. That is like funding. That is like any other issue: one small piece of the puzzle.

There are some good things in the Graydon report, so me of which might be accepted, some of which might be rejected. But, for G od’s sake, don’t imply or indicate that it’s going to become or it is government policy, because it is not. Now, the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti did a commend- able job, spent a tremendous amount of time working on that report, and that report will be given the utmost consideration along with a multitude of other information related to health care reform.

So if the hon. leader of the third party gives an absolute undertaking that he will not politicize this and he will not use it for political purposes and he will not stand up and say that this is where the government is heading, if he w ill stand up a nd make that com mitment, then h e might – might – get the report. Dr. Pannu : Mr. Speake r, once ag ain I giv e this prom ise to the House and to the Premier that I’ll focus on the contents of the report. Now I ask him: on exactly what date will he release this report to this House and to the people of Alberta? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speake r, I only hav e a prom ise rela tive to the contents of the repo rt; I don ’t have a pro mise relative to how he intends to use it. I mean, notwithstanding the fact that there are only two of them, they are still politicians. Mr. Speaker, it will be tabled, as they say, in the fullness of time, and it will be tabled in an appropriate manner so as not to be taken out of context. head : Recognit ions The Speaker: Hon. members, in 30 seconds from now I’ll call upon the first of seven to participate. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Holocaust Memorial Day Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I was pleased to join you, our Minister of Community Development, the leaders of both opposition parti es, and num erous coll eagues to ma rk the anniversary of Yom ha-Shoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. In 2000 the Alberta Legislature unanimously passed the Holocaust Memorial Day and Genocide Remembrance Act. Through this act we remember the senseless and systematic annihilation of 6 million European Jewish people as well as other victims of genocide. Today I enco urage Albert ans to do mor e than remember.

As global citizens we must be diligent in pursuing our responsibility to maintain a vigil , to stand on g uard, and to de fend others and ourselves against discriminatory behaviour and attitudes. We must listen to the voic es of his tory and e ducate our c hildren about the horrors of the Holocau st. We m ust honour those w ho fought and played an important role in defeating the evil of tyranny. Let’s use this time to teach one another that those who live with us are our brothers and our sisters and that together we share the s ame short moment of life. Mr.

Speaker, as Albertans we will remember, for we must never forget. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Juno Week Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure today to rise to congratulate all the o rganizers and volunteers who helped make Juno Week in Edmonton, t he first week of April, t he most successful celebration of Canadian music this country has ever seen.

Congratulations to all our nominees: Sandro Dominelli, Aaron Lines, Terri Clark, John Stetch, Amanda Forsyth, Jessica Linnebach, and in particular the Alberta-born rockers Nickelback, who took home two Junos for group of the year and fan choice award. Alberta’s music and recording industry is a vital part of what makes our province such an ex citing and v ibrant place to live. Thankfully, our Alberta Foundation for the Arts, which receives its funding from the Albe rta lotter y fund, actively supports our arts community.

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 863 I also ext end a spec ial thanks to our Ministe r of Com munity Development, who alo ng wit h Mayor B ill Smith and Senator Tommy Banks worked so hard to bring the Junos to Edmonton and to showcase our city and our province to the rest of Canada. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Alberta Volunteers Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize some extremely important Albertans, our volunteers, and I would especially like to acknowledge the great work of the Wild Rose Foundation and all participants in Alberta’s voluntary sector.

I know tha t throughout this week there ar e special recognition ceremonies taking place in almost all of the communities across this province. However, as the representative for the community of St. Albert I would like to recognize those five finalists in the volunteer citizen of the year f or 2003. They are Lawrence a nd Doris Burt, Ferne Carignan, Michael Clulow, Gary Jurke, and Doris Lunn. We also recognize at this time the leaders of tomorrow, who are the young members of our community who give so selflessly to other members within the community and beyond.

They are Sara Hickerty from Bertha Kennedy elementary school, Briana Foster from Richard S. Fowler j unior high, Ja son LaChapelle from Paul Kan e high school, Holli Lizée from the University of Alberta, and the y outh group the Columbian Squires of the Brother Anthony Kowalczyk Circle 4759. I’d like to recognize them and ask all members of this Assembly to recognize the wonderful volunteers. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. 2:40 National Volunteer Week Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to recognize April 18 to 24 as Na tional Volunteer Week.

I hope the hon . members know – and I’m sure they do – how lucky we are here in Alberta. We have a very high level of volunteerism: hours and hours worked with dedication, experience, and, may I say, professionalism. Coming from the arts, I know that our arts and cultural sector is deeply indebted to volunteers. They work as ushers, build sets and paint them, sell tickets, help with fundraising, transport things. You name it; volun teers do it. Just think of where Alberta’s summ er festivals would be without volunteers.

I want to honour and thank v olunteers that work in some of the other areas l ike police victim services, literacy, youth sports and recreation, the food banks, blood services, emergency and disaster services, Catholic charities, United Way, the Edmonton Federation of Community Le agues, the SPCA and humane societie s, child protection and assistance, the YWCA and the YMCA. The list goes on; I’ve only touched the surface. To finish, I want to recognize the people who volunteer on various county, m unicipal, and g overnment comm ittees bri nging the citizen’s voice to the issues. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Redwater. Smoky Lake Firefighters’ Curling Team Mr. Broda: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to rise tod ay and recognize four ind ividuals: Ken Osepch uk, Bill Smi th, Larry LaFleur, and Jim Henderson. They represent the Smoky Lake fire department curling team. After winning the provincial firefighters’ curling championship, they went on to compete at the 45th annual firefighters’ Brier curling championship held in Valleyfield, Quebec, from April 1 to 11.

This lo cal team not on ly represented Smoky Lake but Alberta an d com peted against teams representing each province, one team from the Northwest Territories, two teams from Ontario. I would like t o thank th e community of Smoky Lake for thei r support and congratulate our local team on winning the Canadian firefighters’ championship curling bons piel. Let’s all give them a hearty congratulations. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Grande Prairie Storm Hockey Team Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise today to recognize and congratulate the Grande P rairie Storm junior A hockey team. The Storm captured the ir first ever A lberta J unior Hockey League title last Thursday by defeating the Fort McMurray Oil Barons – I see the member has vacated the Chamber; he couldn’t stand it – in a dramatic 4 to 2 victory. For the players, coaches, and training staff this accomplishment represents a moment that will be forever written in the team’s proud hockey history. This par ticular team have only be en in exis tence nine years.

The jour ney continues as the team now moves on to compete at the Doyle Cup in Nanaimo and after that the Royal Bank Cup, which will be held in the city of Grande Prairie May 8 to 16. On behalf of the members of this Assembly I extend congratula- tions to general manager and head coach Fran Gow, President Bruce Little, and all members of the Grande Prairie Storm hockey team on this accomplishment. Best wishes for continued success in the year ahead. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Millwoods Welcome Centre for Immigrants Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s with pleasure that I rise toda y to rec ognize the Millwoods We lcome Centre for Immigrants. This centre is a joint venture of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Associ ation, Mennonite Ce ntre for N ewcomers, and Catholic Social Services and was established in 1997 after a study conducted by Dr. Laura Ho which demonstrated the need for such a centre. The centre now assists approximately one thousand new comers every year to overcome the c hallenges of becoming Canadian.

In addition to offering classes to improve language and computer skills, the centre arranges for work placements for internationally educated professionals. This se rvice is particula rly im portant giv en t he unacceptably high number of qualified professionals who continue to be underemployed and unable to meet their full potential in their adopted country, Canada. In Alberta w e are in des perate ne ed of im proved m easures to integrate internationa l profess ionals into our i nstitutions and our economy.

Albertans are truly privileged to live in a multicultural society that is enhanced by the contributions of diverse groups and individuals. I am truly proud of the work performed by the staff and volunteers of the Millwoods Welcome Centre a nd thank them for the valued services that they provide to new Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004864 head : Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Luk aszuk: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I’d lik e to present a petition from Edmonton Police Service signed by 151 people petitioning the Legislative Assembly to “support Bill 204, the Blood Samples Act, which will provide more security and peace of mind for peop le wo rking in occupa tions who ha ve a hig her risk of exchanging bodily fluids with a potential carrier of a blood borne disease.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise to table copies of the House leaders’ agreement that was signed today by the Govern- ment House Leader as well as by the House leader of the Official Opposition and by the House lea der of the third party. It ’s my understanding that it has to be photocopied and ci rculated to al l members of this Assembly as soon as possible, so I will provide a copy now to the page for that purpose. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table five copies of the documents I referred to during my question today, and that is the fede ral gove rnment’s new gui delines f or ministers’ offices on disclosure and accountability around personal travel and hosting expenses. It includes some sample pages from the web sites in which they go into la yers of detail right dow n to the purpose of the meeting, how many people were at it, what the cost was, that level of detail. Most infor mative. I do rec ommend it to everyone in the Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have one tabling this afternoon, and that’s a letter that I had written on March 31, 2004, to the hon. Minister of Finance, and this is in regard to credit scoring as an underwriting tool for the insurance industry in Alberta. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table two documents today. The first is a letter from Elisabeth Ballermann, the president of the Health Sciences Ass ociation of Alberta. The second doc u- ment is a news release from HIV Edmonton dated March 22 of 2004.

Each of t hese docum ents expr esses s erious conce rns that m any Albertans have about Bill 204, the Blood Samples Act. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank y ou. Mr. S peaker, I have two quick tablings this aft ernoon as w ell. One is the Clearw ater/Christina rivers management plan, and I would like to just have it noted that this is Alberta’s first provincial/Canadian heritage rivers designation.

It’s intended to recognize the interests of everyone who lives along that river and uses it for recreation purposes, and it demonstrates the importance and the val ue of these par tnerships in preserving and enhancing Alberta’s wetlands and aquatic ecosystems. My second tabling is on behalf of our Deputy Premier, who is also the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, and it is responses to questions t hat wer e rais ed during inter im supply estimates on March 17, 2004, in this House. Thank you. head : Orders of t he Day The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr.

Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with the House leaders’ agreement, which I just tabled and which was signed earlier today by the three House lea ders and ac knowledged by yourself I believe, I would move that the Assembly provide unani- mous conse nt to give effe ct to this H ouse leade rs’ agreement, specifically consent under point 5 o f tha t agreement to waive Standing Order 34(2.1)(

a) regarding an amendment in that agree- ment and to allow the removal of the motions for returns identified at 4(b)(iii) and 5(

b) of that agreement and to waive Standing Order 34(2) to allow the Assembly to move on to public bills and orders following the Assembly having dealt with Motion for a Return 23 as outlined in that agreement. 2:50 The Speaker: The procedure today is very, very unusual, but I do want to compliment those who’ve wo rked together over the last several weeks in attempting to build a consensus with respect to this matter. It was not always easy on previous Mondays in terms of this. The request is being made here today on the basis of a motion of the hon.

Deputy Government House Leader calling for three items which are located on page 3 of 3. This is not all being read into the Hansard because we’ll have it published anyway in the Journals of the House.

The request is for unanimous consent to see three things moved, and all hon. members now have a copy of this document in front of them. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: Unanimous consent having been given, as we move through the afternoon, additional comment will be made with respect to this, but again congratulations for attempting to unravel a l ittle roadblock. head : Written Ques tions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and may I just say thank you to all m embers of the Hous e for al lowing tha t unanimous consent, which will allow us to speed along and provide as much information as possible and get on with other business thereafter. Mr. Speaker, proper notice having been given on Thursday, April 1, it’s my pleasure to m ove t hat w ritten quest ions appeari ng on today’s Order Paper do stand and re tain their pl aces w ith the exception of written questions 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59. [Motion carried] Children’s Services Contracts Q47. Ms Blake man m oved on behal f of Dr .

Massey that the following question be accepted.

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 865 What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual report to strengthen the processes used by the Ministry of Children’s Services for awarding and managing contracts in order to save taxpayers’ dollars? Ms Blakeman: We have asked for this quest ion in this f ormat as we’re not always able to examine every ministry before the Public Accounts Committee.

We have put a number of written questions on the Order Paper in order to ensure that we’re able to make public the questions and hopefully the responses from the government. This is a fairly straightforward question. I’m expecting a positive response from the government and provision of the information that has been requested. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased i ndeed to res pond on behalf of the government and accept Written Question 47. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. [Written Question 47 carried] Lottery Fund Q49.

Ms Blakeman move d that the following question be ac- cepted. Which reports, consultation groups, and stakeholder reviews have indicated to the government that money allocated to the lottery fund is best spent by the government rather than being returned to the local communities where the gambling revenues came from? Ms Blakeman: This is an attempt on my part to ascertain the logic behind the dismantling of the community lottery boards. Now, that in fact happened some two years ago now.

It came into effect at the beginning of last year I think, and t here was a fair to-do when the community lottery boards were dismantled. In resp onse t o the concerns raised by the o pposition an d by th e commu nity, th e government responded w ith a diff erent progr am w ith diff erent processes, limits, and requirements.

I have been unable to get a clear answer from the government as to why they decided to dismantle the community lottery boards of the time, in which money was allocated on a per capita basis and the decision-making process ha ppened in the c ommunities or o n a regional basis very close to the communities. The process that’s in place now is a centra lized decision-making process, very close to government, does not have that same community outreach. Mem- bers of the c ommunity continue to make clear to me that they far prefer the other method.

I’m interested in receivin g the basis o n which th e government made its decision. So I am looking for documentation. I’m looking for reports or consultation groups or the stakeholder reviews that did indicate to the government that people prefer red to h ave those decisions made by government rather than in the local community. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming. Mr. Stevens: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. There are two general areas that I’d like to c over by way of response.

The first is that the Alberta lottery fund and the progr ams, generally speaki ng, that we ha ve under that are as a resu lt of listening t o Alberta ns. There are specifically three reports – the Gordon report in 1995 , called New Directions for Lotteries and Gaming; the gaming summit report in 1998; and the licensing policy review in 2001 – all of which ar e public and can be found on the ministry web site.

Additionally, I can advise that on an annual basis we in Alberta Gaming do poll Albe rtans to det ermine what le vel of sati sfaction they have with respect to how the lottery fund revenue is used, and the most re cent infor mation is that 70 per cent or in deed a high percentage of Albertans are satisfied. That is reported in our annual report, and the annual report is also a public document that can be found on the ministry’s web site. The second general point that I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that lottery dollars are directly returned to Alberta communities through the fund.

The hon. member refers to the com munity initiatives program, that was established in 2002. There were questions at that time as to wh y the pr edecessor was dis mantled, and they were answered at that time. The answer with respect to the dismantling is that the previous program was eliminated because of lack of funds in the bud get. Th at was th e answer at tha t time, and i t remains correct today. The program that too k its p lace was the co mmunity initiatives program, which over the past two years has had some $60 million allocated to the communities and the charities in those communities.

In excess of 2,500 grants have been granted. The program is again in place for this year and likely will continue into the future. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that from my point of view the evidence is very clear with respect to this program. There has been no to-do. I do not receive letters from people saying that this program is not successful. Indeed , it seems that on a da ily basis I rece ive letters from all areas of the province which, in fact, say that this program is overwhelmingly successful, that it is incredible.

In that regard, I do w ish to file 16 le tters directly related to the hon. member who has asked the question, letters of support that she had signed, thr ee in num ber, and 1 3 letters from charities in her community which say that this particular program is outstanding. I don’t have any letters from this hon. member’s community that I’m aware of saying anything other than that. So I don’t know who she’s talking to, but I know that those people are not talking to me. Perhaps she can make that connection so that I do have some point of view other than one which is that this p rogram is working very well indeed.

So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I have referred to various public documents. I will be filing with the Legislature the requisite number of letters that I’ve referred to, whic h are ref lective of the dozens and dozens and perhaps even hundreds of letters that we have received over the past two years that simply speak to the incredible success of this program. I therefore urge the Legislature to reject this question. 3:00 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker .

Well, I ’m disappointed to hear tha t the mi nister is refusing to provid e th e information and, further, is making an end run around the accuracy of some of the reports that he quoted. In fact, if we’re going to look at what came out of the gambling summit and if we’re going to look at what came out of the Gordon report, they were very specifically recommending and, in fact, from those two flowed the creation of the community lottery boards, not the community initiatives program.

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004866 So to somehow refer back to them and say, “Well, no, that was the impetus on which the government decided to dismantle the commu- nity lottery board and institute a lesser program,” it’s hard to forgive that kind of use of the truth, frankly. I’m wondering if he’s referring to the recent use of proceeds and licensing around the casino and bingo reports as his third reference there, as a reasoning. Well, there’s no connection at all to that report, to the infor mation that I was seeking here, so I wouldn’t accept that referral as any kind of information around this.

I’m curious as to why the minister does not receive copies of the tablings. Certainly , at the tim e the com munity lottery board was dismantled, I tabled dozens and dozens of letters from organizations. There were media conferences. There were long lists of people that signed letters of concern and petitions. So I’m concerned with the process that exists in the Conservative caucus if information like that is not shared with the minister that needs to be seeing it.

Frankly, to pretend that a letter that I would write in support of an organization in my community applying for funds is s ome kind of example of my approval of a given program is simply not accurate.

To organizations in my constituency that come to me for a reference or a letter of support in order to be applying for community facility enhancement money or any of the other lottery grant, lottery-funded programs th at are out there – W ild Rose Founda tion, Alber ta Foundation for the Arts – I’m not going to say: no, I’m not going to write you a letter of support because the Minister of Gaming might get up at som e point in the future and use that letter of support to somehow say that I do or do not support the given program. That’s ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Of course I’m going to as sist those organizations.

That’s who I’m here to represent and support. But signing a letter that says that this organization, you know, is a well-known organization, has a good volunteer base, manages its money well, has a good project that is worthy of support does n ot, then, in turn say that I think the com munity facility enhancement program or the CIP program is a good or bad program. I’m there to support t he organiz ations that are asking for s upport, and lett ers supporting them are not – you cannot extrapolate that to a specific support or nonsupport of a government program.

Finally, the minister makes reference to polls that he’s conducted, but the polls themselves are n ot released. What w e get is a little tidbit of information here, reference in a performance measurement there that says that there is a 70 per cent satisfaction, but we don’t get to see what the polls are. We don’t get to see who they went out to, what the polling number was particularly. So t hat’s not useful information either. I think that at best the minister has ducked around what’s being requested here. He’s flat out ref used to provide the inform ation that’s be en requested.

Reme mbering well the controversy at the time, it just leaves me saying: what’s the government hiding if they refuse to provide the information? So a most unfortunate turn of events in having the minister decide not to give us the information. From this we’re only left to decide that they really didn’t have any information. I’m disappointed in the decision of the minister. Thank you. [Written Question 49 lost] Seniors’ Housing Q50. Ms Blakeman move d that the following question be ac- cepted.

What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual report that the Department of Seniors improve its system for monitoring the performance of management operations that deliv er social housing progr ams f or the ministry? Ms Blakeman: Now, this is one of the questions that I was specifi- cally referring to with my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, in that we don’t get to see a full rota of the ministries during any given year of Public Accounts Committee m eetings.

We only meet while t he Legislature is in sessi on, wh ich seve rely r estricts the numbe r of departments that we’re able to scrutinize. In trying to make sure that we got some things on the record, I did put these questions through as writte n questions. Pub lic A ccounts has in fact met w ith the minister, but I look forward to his response to this specific question and his provision of the information that has been requested. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Seniors. Mr. Woloshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the govern- ment I’m prepared to accept Written Question 50.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: My thanks to the minister. [Written Question 50 carried] Business Resumption Planning Q51. Ms Blakeman moved on behalf of Mr. MacDonald that the following question be accepted. What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual repor t that the D epartment of Go vernment Services make provision for appropriate recovery facilities and equipment to resume business operations if a service disruption occurs?

Ms Blakeman: We had discovered, in examining public accounts previously, that there was some disarray around business resumption after a disaster. The Minist er of Municipal Affairs has answ ered some of those questions when appearing before Public Accounts, but in this case we’re specifically interested in what the Department of Government Services has done and what plans are in place because this is the gov ernment departm ent that handl es so m any of our legalities and technicalities, if I may, things like the motor vehicle registration, the registries, which have now been privatized .

Nonetheless, they’re still ulti mately responsible for them . W hat plans are in place for resumption of business should a disaster strike? So I’m interested in hearing from the minister whether he’s willing to provide us with his response. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Mr. Speaker, thank you. We will respond and indicate that the gove rnment is pleased a nd prepared t o accept Written Question 51. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: My thanks to the minister. [Written Question 51 carried]

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 867 Licence Plates Q52. Mr. Bonner mov ed on behalf of Mr. Mac Donald that the following question be accepted. What did it cost t he government to recall all licence plates issued with the letters BSE and issue new ones? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. We’re prepared to accept Written Question 52 and also just add into the record, so that folks know, that the total cost of recalling the licence plates that had the prefix BSE on them comes to $715.10.

To re call and a ctually replace those plates was $439, and the shipping charges around the province were $51, and replacing 31 plates that were returned by the public – we g ave the public the opportuni ty, if they ha d already bought and secured a plate t hat had BSE a s a prefix, to return it – cost $225, for a total of $715. We accept that we will send that information back to the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar in writing. 3:10 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to just make a few comments in connection to this.

I appreciate that the Government Services minister has given us the amount of money that’s involved here, and I also a ppreciate that the amo unt of m oney is relatively small, but this parti cular question raises eyebrows, I t hink, wh en people hear that the government actua lly took the step of recalling licence plates issued with the letters BSE.

It is one of the, I guess, sillier actions of government, and I would really like to understand why the government felt it was necessary to withdraw these licence plates simply becau se they had the let ters BSE on them and whether or not there’s a policy around this if the three letters in a licence plate happen to coincide with some other unfortunate abbreviation. None of them actually spring to mind, but I’m sure there probably are a number that have been proscribed because of any unfortunate connotation. What’s the policy with respect to this? When did the government make the decisi on and why?

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry to close the debate. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the minister for the breakdown in costs associated with licence plates that were issued with the letters BSE. [Written Question 52 carried] The Speak er: Now, jus t a second. There’ s a ver y inter esting consequence of wha t happens her e. Rem ember that it is th e Assembly that has to give acceptance to the question. What would have happened if the hon. minister, as he did, gave the answer but then the Assembly turned down the motion?

Would there then have been a point of privilege against the hon. Minister of Government Services for having believed that he was above the Assembly? This is one of those interesting little procedural questions that today was rather innocent but on another day could have been something else. Construction Grants Q53. Mr. Bonner moved that the following question be accepted.

What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual repor t th at th e Department of Inf rastructure require grant re cipients to formally accept the terms and conditions of constr uction grant s including r oles and responsibilities, consequences for f ailing to a dhere to the terms and conditions, reporting require ments, and the ministry’s right to audit the grant recipient’s use of taxpay- ers’ money? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure we’re prepared to respond and indicate that the government is prepared to accept Written Question 53. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry to close the debate. Mr. Bonner: I’d like to thank the minister. [Written Question 53 carried] Regional Police Forces Q54. Ms Blakeman moved t hat t he fol lowing que stion be ac- cepted. Which communities is the Solicitor General working with to establish regional police forces? Ms Blakeman: Mr. Speaker, this is flowing from the original draft report of the M LA committee that reviewed the Police Act.

They came out with some initial conce pts which the Solicitor General examined over the summer and fall, came back with some responses, and then we didn’t hear anything more from them for two years until just recently when we had the government’s acceptance and rejection in final form. This f lowed out of that be cause I was interested in what work was actual ly bei ng done and w hich communities were being actively worked with to achieve this.

I think there’s still a debate around whether regional policing is the most effective, but I’m at this point very interested in it because I think that’s a wa y for costs to be contained a nd services to be shared without getting into the more formal structure of a provincial police force, which I am not in favour of. I think this is an interest- ing proposal, and I’d like to see where it’s being considered. So the question is on the Order Paper for the Solicitor General at this point, and I’m hoping that she w ill suppo rt my re quest and gr ant the information. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Solicitor General. Mrs. Forsyth : Thanks, Mr. Sp eaker. I’d like to propose an amendment to Written Question 54 if I may. I m ove that Written Question 54 be amended by striking out “regional police forces” and substituting “regional police services.” So the ques tion will read, “Which comm unities is the Solic itor Gene ral work ing with to establish regional police services?” The amendment, Mr. Speaker, uses the term “police services” instead of “po lice for ces” bec ause that is in kee ping with the legislation as well as the philosophy and role of policing in Alberta.

This amendment has been approved by Parliamentary Counsel, and I believe it’s been passed around. I know I have a copy. At this time I move that Written Question 54 be accepted with the amendment. [Motion on amendment carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004868 Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to this. I appreciate the m inister’s comments, and I appreciate as well the minister’s amendment, which I supported. You know, it’s an interesting question, Mr. Speaker, the question of regionalizing municipal services and particularly police. I happen to think that regionalization of services is a good step to take and one that we ought to support, and I’m pleased that the minister is going in this direction. It doesn’t make sense to me, taking for example the Edmonton regional area, to have a number of police forces.

In fact, what actually occurs is that we have RCMP operating in di fferent communities and you have the city police. When I was involved in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and, as well, at Urban Municipalities Association meetings, I often heard the concerns by municipalities who had RCM Police about the lack of respons iveness to their loc al needs. It was very difficult, indeed, sometimes to have responsive polic ing. Parti cularly, the RCMP had lagg ed considerably behind. I don ’t know if they’ve made up lost ground since that time , Mr.

Speaker, but they had lagged considerably behind the municipal police forces of Edmonton and Calgary in implementing co mmunity policing. This was very difficult in such a centralized body as the RCMP is. You can’t have community policing if it’s directed from Ottawa, and that presented a real difficulty. 3:20 I think there are ve ry subst antial cost sav ings that c ould be realized as a result of this regionalization, but the problem comes, Mr. Speaker, in that smaller communities are very concerned about any attempts to enfor ce a lar ger municipality’s control ove r their services.

They like to keep control of their local services. So that’s a challenge, I think, for the minister. She ne eds to find ways in which local com munities c an actually increase a degree of local control in a regionalized police service, and I think there is lots of potential to do that w ith respect to regionalization if it’s done in a sensitive manner. Mr. Speaker, I guess in conclusion I would like to commend the minister for m oving in this d irection.

I would sug gest that there needs to be strong leadership if we’re going to overcome some of the parochialism that does exist with respect to different municipalities jealously guarding their powers and authority. I think there is a tr emendous opportunity to imp rove policing, make it more sensiti ve, i mplement comm unity polic ing more thoroughly, and indeed to save a considerable amount of money, and I would think that one of the first things the government should do is try and come up w ith some f inancial inf ormation t hat would indicate what savings ought to be realized.

It’s been said that there are too many municipal politi cians, all of whom are able to, you know, draw a salary, require administrative support, and so on. How many police chie fs do y ou need? How many fir e chiefs do you need? How m any heads of sew er departments and so on do you actually need in order to deliver those municipal services? I think the provincial government does have a leadership role here, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s clear that if they do provide strong and firm leadership, they can save municipal taxpayers a great deal of money and at the same time can improve the service, as the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ce ntre has s uggested, correct ly in m y vie w, in avoiding going to a provincial police service, which I think would not be the best solution at all. Ther e are lots of ga ins tha t can be made by co-operation between municipalities and by regionalization, and I’m sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would also agree with that type of statement. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would again just want to indicate my apprecia- tion to the minister for accepting the question, to the hon. member for raising the question, and hope that this will in fact see the light of day and the citizens of Alberta will be the beneficiaries. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. I look forward to receiving the information. It should be very informative. Thank you. [Written Question 54 as amended carried] Construction Grants Q55. Mr. Bonner moved that the following question be accepted.

What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual repor t that the D epartment of In frastructure protect the spending of taxpayers’ dollars by strengthening its monitoring process for construction grants? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure I accept Written Question 55. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I’m pleased to rise to speak to this wr itten question, and I appre ciate that the minister has agreed to answer it. One of the things that I think is very important is th at we do have a clear understanding of exactly how one might want to ensu re that construction grants a re wel l spent.

The Auditor General did say in his recommendations in the 2002-03 annual report that the Department of Infrastructure should protect the spending of taxpa yers’ dol lars b y stre ngthening “ its monitoring processes for construction grants.” So I think it’s a very pertinent question, and indeed I would urge all members to support the motion. You know, the provincial government spends a great de al of money on this type of grant. The Auditor General makes recommen- dations, and usually these recommendations are well thought out, so it’s important that we get an answer to the question.

I do believe that the government should be taking strong action. I know that in my experience, again in m unicipal politi cs, there were oftentimes construction projects which were approved that were not the most effective use of ta xpayers’ money, and a good strong oversight I think is absolutely essential if we’re going to continue to do that. I remember one instance, Mr. Speaker, where a project to build a sewer was a pproved in the city of Edmonton. It was c alled the Highlands sewer, and since I come f rom Edmonton-Highlands I know a little bit about that particular project. It was an interesting project.

There was an existing sewer that flowed from . . . [interjec- tion] Absolutely. I’m using this as an ex ample of what can go wrong, hon. minister. I’m not saying that it was your project at all, but you see that in the a bsence of really strong mea sures to make sure that these projects are well managed and cost-effective, this kind of thing could even happen in this minister’s department, believe it or not. In this particular case an outside company was brought in which looked at the existing sewer and said: “Well, you know, it’s 30, 40 years old. We don’ t even k now if i t’s a valid project. It might collapse.

We ca n’t test it. We ca n’t examine it. So w hat we’re going to do is we’re going to build a brand new parallel Highlands

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 869 sewer, the new Highlands sewer, because we don’t know if the old one is in good enough shape.” What happened is that they went along and t hey started to build this sewer. They got most of the way through it, and they spent close to $50 million, Mr. Speaker. That’s a lot of money. Then a problem occurred in Gold Bar park, and there was an eruption of sewage from this partially completed line because there had been a rainstorm and all of the water got into the sewer and it surcharged and it erupted. It wasn’t quite finished.

It hadn’t quite got all the way to the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant. So we got the city auditor general involved, Mr. Speaker, and he began to examine this project and interestingly enough came to the conclusion that there was a big problem with the design of the new sewer but, furthermore, raised questions about the old sewer.

Then the department claimed at that point that two sewers were needed to handle expansion, but t he auditor g eneral pointed out that e ven if they were both completed, the waste-water treatment plant only had enough capacity for one sewer. 3:30 So they built a second line to double the capacity of the w aste- water treatment plant. They would need m illions and m illions of dollars to expand the waste-water treatment plant, and that wasn’t even in the plan.

S o the la ck of ov ersight in this ca se ended up costing the taxpayers $40 million or $50 million, yet the administra- tion and the construction and engineering firms w anted to forge ahead and finish the line for an additional $17 million. Then it was discovered, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the old line could be inspected, and an engineer was put in ch arge of inspecting that line. Sure enough, the inspection showed that the old line was not in danger of collapse – in fact , it was in very good shape – and further found that the line could not only be inspected; it was designed to be inspected.

If the outside firms had taken the time to actually look at t he original plans for this sew er, they probably would’ve been able to determine that and save the taxpayers a lot of money. So here’s an enormous waste of tax payers’ money on an abso - lutely unrequired line when the first line could’ve been inspected all along. Had proper safeguards as proposed by our Auditor General been in place a t that time, the taxpayers would have been saved a great deal of money. Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that it is very important. This question is very , very relevant, and I think the hon.

Minister of Transportation is quite right in acce pting this motion because without these ki nds of saf eguards a great de al of m oney ca n be wasted. I know that all hon. members want to ensure that that does not in fact happen. So I a m pleased to support the motion an d commend the minister and the hon. member for asking and agreeing to answer the question. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry to close the debate. Mr. Bonner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like through the Minister of Transportation to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for accept- ing Written Question 55. [Written Question 55 carried] Natural Gas Rebate Program Q56. Mr. Bonner moved on behal f of M r. Ma cDonald that the following question be accepted. How much money in total was distributed to utility custom- ers in January 2004 through the g overnment’s natural gas rebate program? Mr. Bonner: Now, once again this is one of these essential ques- tions wh ereby the opposition w ould like to c ertainly hold the government accountable in that we know where taxpayer dollars are going.

So I look forward to the reply from the minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Energy and on behalf of the government I wish to indicate that we are prepared to accept Written Question 56. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I again am quite pleased that the government has agreed to this question because I think this is one of the most relevant questions that has actually been put in this session.

You know, we have seen government numbers with respect to this, Mr. Speaker. There were a variety of programs just before the last election. We do have a global figure for this, and it is $4.2 billion, but that includes a multitude of programs including the electricity rebate program, including the $ 150 dow n and $150 aft er the government is re-elected. All of those programs, I think, deserve a great deal of scrutiny from the people of Alberta. So I thin k the question is quite relevant.

The charge has b een ma de that the provincial government essentially bought its way out of a very difficult position with respect to utility costs before the last election. As we know, just before this election there was a trem endous spike in elec tricity prices caused precisely by deregulation, and there were a lot of unanswered questions about that around the time. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For example, there was participation in the energy market at that time by the American energy company Enron, and, Mr.

Speaker, as we well know, there were a series of charges brought against Enron in the United States for manipulating electricity prices among other sins. Enron has been subject in the United States to prosecution and heavy penalties for their manipulation, but their role in Alberta has never been clarified. Certainly, with the high prices in electricity at that time the bottom line of Enron and other energy companies did not suffer. The ques tion is: did that kind of manipulation of electricity prices take place in Alberta?

This is a quest ion the government, unfortunately, has been unwilling to ask or even to look into. We’ve raised this issue before. The Minister of Energy has declined to order an investigation into that period of time. So then the government response was not to get to the bottom of the price spike and the high prices that people were paying both in g as and electricity but to order rebate programs. I just want to indicate that I think that the $4.2 billion was an outrageous amount of money. It’s i nteresting, Mr.

Speak er, as w ell, that s ince that t ime the government has not spent anywhere near as much money on rebate programs. In fact, before this winter we were able to say that they had not spent a nickel on rebate programs since the election. They spent $4.2 billion – that’s billion with a “b” – before the election, but after the election nada, not a penny, until, of course, finally, finally

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004870 gas prices got so high and stayed so high for a sustained period of time that t hey ac tually r eached the trigge r that the g overnment thought it had set outside the reach of the actual prices, and w e actually did get some reb ates in terms of n atural gas over the past winter months.

That was the first time that Albertans had seen any kind of energy rebate since the last election. [The Speaker in the chair] So the question really is: why would the government spend $4.2 billion on rebates just before the election and then cut them off, just cut them off, once the election was out of the way? What a re the possible election – sorry; that was a bi t of a Freudian slip. What were the possible reasons f or that? Coul d it have be en that they weren’t needed? N o. We f ound that price s for el ectricity an d natural ga s sta yed high.

The y didn’t quit e spike a s high in the electricity sector a s they did just bef ore the ele ction, but t hey remained very high, and we saw continued increases in natural gas prices as well. 3:40 Certainly, in the area of elect ricity the re was a consider able sustained increase. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Alberta now has the highest electricity prices in the country. That wasn’t the case – that wasn’t the case – be fore der egulation. We now have pric es that a re anywhere between 60 to 80 per cent higher than before deregulation.

The governm ent has not co me up w ith rebate program s to help Albertans handle that nor have they been willing to change their mind on deregulation, which is really the source of it. But, you know, there’s still hope, Mr. Speaker, because we know that Bill 1, not the last Bill 1 bu t the first Bill 1 after the election, was a bill sponsored by the Premier. I can’t quite recall the title of that bill, but it basically allowed the government to implement any energy rebate program for any amount, for any reason, for any period of time.

It gave the government, in fact, complete freedom in order to create a rebate program for energy purposes. So as we approach the next election, Mr. Speaker, I have s ome confidence that t hey may wish to revisit th is decisio n to cut o ff energy rebates after the last el ection, and we may in fact see new energy rebates. I suspect, though, that that will have more to do with government polling, public opinion polling on their popularity, than it actually has anything to do with the price of electricity or natural gas. Certainly, we’ve seen high and sustained prices for natural gas.

They’re continuing to rise as we run out of natural gas in Nor th America and we continue to pump that natural gas across the border without taking any of the volatiles out of i t thereby depleting our reserves to dramatic le vels, exp orting jobs, a ll as a r esult of t he government’s negligence w ith r espect to this important resource.

They would pref er to get as m uch money as possible for their unanticipated, in quotations, surpluses by selling as much natural gas at as high a price as they possibly can without regard to the future requirements of the Alberta economy or, indeed, the future require- ments of people who depend on na tural gas to heat the ir home or their business or their farm. So, once again, Mr.

Speaker , to conc lude, I t hink t hat this particular motion is indeed relevant, and I think that the people of Alberta will be interested to know just how much money was spent by the gove rnment in order t o pay the January 2004 natural gas rebate program. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry to close the debate. Mr. Bonner: Thank you. [Written Question 56 carried] Construction Contracts Q57. Mr. Bonner moved that the following question be accepted.

What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual report that the Department of Infras tructure protect the spending of taxpayers’ dollars by implementing a process to ensure that contracts with construction manag- ers protect the ministry’s interests as the fund provider and are cost-effective? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure we accept Written Question 57. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to indicate to the Assembly that I appreciate the government’s response to this written question.

The written question specifies what measures the government has taken to implement the Auditor General’s recom- mendation contained in his 2002-03 annual report that the Depart- ment of Infrastructure protect the spending of taxpayers’ dollars by implementing “a process to ensure that contracts with construction managers protect the Ministry’s interests as a funder and are cost- effective.” Once again, this is an important recommendation, and I think that it’s a relevant question to be asking the government, so I’m pleased that they’re going to provide an answer to it.

Certainly, contracts with construction managers nee d to protect the ministry’s interests, and the ministry needs to make sure as the fund provider that these contracts are in fact cost-effective.

I know that there ar e lots of members opposite that believe that providing contracts, or contr acting o ut or outsourcing, i s the m ost cost- effective way to deal with it, but certainly unless appropriat e steps are taken and a process is established that would make sure that the ministry’s and the tax payers’ interests are prot ected, t his is not necessarily the case, and there are many examples of shortcuts that have been taken that have failed to really protect the interests of the government who has let the contract. I remember there was a book that I read a few years ago called Reinventing Governme nt.

Reinventing Gover nment strongly suggested that the best way to do it was to outsource contracts, but it also required that you use modern te chniques to m onitor the contract, monitor the efficiency of the contract, the cos t-effective- ness, and make sure that shortcuts weren’t taken that would under- mine those things. I think the principle that they used in Reinventing Government – and this was a text that I think the government used in their so-called revolution of the m id-90s – is tha t the gove rnment oug ht to be steering and not rowing. But, in my experience, Mr.

Speaker, quite often when the government contracts out, it’s actually quite rudder- less and steps are not in place to ensure that these contracts actually do what the government department wants done and do so in a way that protects the interests financially and otherwise of the taxpayer.

So I’ve never really bought into some of the notions contained in Reinventing Government in the same way that this government has, but I would draw attention to the authors’ contention th at unless there are appropriate s afeguards in place, y ou will not be able to ensure that contracts actually provide a more cost-effective means of accomplishing something than government doing it itself.

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 871 In fact, we’ve all heard the famous quotation about the consultant who borrows your watch to tell you the time, and I think we’ve all had experiences with that kind of consultant. The same thing applies in a general sense to contracts, whether they be directly for construc- tion services or for construction managers to look after the projects, and so on. Their interests aren’t necessarily the same interests as the government’s. They have their own personal interest s, their own businesses to run, and so on, and they need to make a profit on that as well.

S o the y a lways have a n interest, I think, in m inimizing costs. That can be a good thing if we can benefit by it, but if we end up paying later for their omissions, it can in fact be a very negative thing indeed, and the result is, I think, that we need to make sure that these processes are in place, as the Auditor General has indicated. 3:50 I would urge members to support the motion. I know that given the minister’s comments with respect to this, most members will no doubt look very favourably on this motion for this written question. I hope that it will in fact pass the Assembly. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for bringing the question and the minister for agreeing to answer it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Bonner: I thank the minister for accepting this question, Mr. Speaker. [Written Question 57 carried] Construction Grant Payments Q58. Mr. Bonner moved that the following question be accepted. What measures has the government taken to implement the Auditor General’s recommendation contained in his 2002- 2003 annual repor t that the D epartment of Inf rastructure make all construction grant payments through the consoli- dated cash investment trust fund bank account? Mr.

Bonner : Mr. Speake r, again, I think this is an ex cellent suggestion by the Auditor General, and it certainly will enhance the process of openness and transparency that taxpayers do require and request with their taxpayer dollars. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to indicate on beha lf of the hon. Minister of Infra structure that he and t he government are prepared to accept Written Question 58. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to indicate that I always . . . Mr.

Dunford: Filibuster. He’s opposed to private members’ bills. Mr. Mason: Well, the hon. minister is saying that I’m opposed to private members’ bills. Not in the least, Mr. Speaker. But I do think that we need to examine these w ritten questions very ca refully because I think they’re very valid. I’m pleased that the government has indicated t hat it’s g oing to s upport this

part icular A uditor General’s recommendation. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I certainly find it an immensely valuable experience for me as a Member of this Legislative Assembly. The opportunity to ask ministers questions in a less fo rmal setting and in a less adversarial sett ing is ex tremely valuable. T he Auditor G eneral is always present a t those m eetings, and I think he , in fac t, is a tremendous asset to our work on that committee. His recommenda- tions, I think, are generally taken quite seriously by ministers.

But we don’t always get enough of an opportuni ty to ask questions in that committee. There’s a significant number of members, and they are all active participants, so we often don’t get as many questions as we would like, I guess. So these written questions, I think, have an important function, and they are indeed relevant. Now, the suggestion of the Auditor General that the Department of Infrastructure make all construction grant payments through the consolidation cash investment fund bank account I think is an interesting one, and I for certain look forward to the answer of the government.

The gov ernment often does respond ve ry promptly, Mr. Speaker, to the Auditor General’s recommendations. Most of them, in fact, are accepted by the department and are implemented within a year or sometimes two, but there are some that drag on year after year , and we often w onder why the gove rnment doesn’t implement them, because they do seem to be very, very relevant. Sometimes we’re hard-pressed to know why the government is dragging its fee t. Quite of ten in these cases, Mr. Speak er, the government is dragging its feet because of some centralized policy.

The departments get individu ally blamed or named, at least, in the Auditor General’s report for not implementing the recommendation, but it often c omes back to a poli cy of the Treasury Board or the Finance department. I don’t know if that’s the case in this particular instance, but it may well be, and if so, I think the government ought to reconsider that polic y. I t hink one of the big is sues is to make sure that all transactions of the government are transparent and paid from the appropriate accounts. So in this cas e, Mr.

Spea ker, once again I would urge all hon. members to support this motion and again give my congratulations to the hon. member who asked the question and to the government for agreei ng to answ er it. I w ill look f orward to receiving the response to this written question in due course. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry to close the debate. Mr. Bonner: Yes. I’d like to thank the minister once ag ain for accepting Written Question 58. [Written Question 58 carried] Jubilee Lodge Nursing Home Q59. Ms Blakema n move d that the following question be ac- cepted.

How many times has Alberta Health and Wellness exercised its right under

section 12(1) of the N ursing Homes Act to inspect Alberta nursing hom es in the la st five years, how many inspections of Jubilee Lodge nursing home in Edmon- ton occurred a s a resul t of thi s le gislation, and when a nd why did inspections of Jubilee Lodge nursing home occur and what were the results? Ms Blakeman: Given the number of concerns that have been raised particularly around two incidents at Jubilee Lodge, I’m hoping that the minister can see his way to providing this information. I hope he does. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard April 19, 2004872 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Dunford: Yes. In the interest of openness, transparency, and accountability the government accepts. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now, I’m pleased to speak to this moti on, and I’ m pleased that the minister has indicated that they will in fact respond. You know, we . . . Mr. Dunford: We didn’t say we’d respond; we said we’d accept. Mr. Mason: Well, t he min ister is making a distinction between accepting the question and responding to it.

I guess I’d have to ask why he would accept the question if he has no intention of respond- ing to it. I thought that we were going to get a response, but perhaps not. You know, Mr. Speaker, there h ave been s ome ve ry se rious concerns with respect to the Jubilee Lodge nursing home, and when we’ve asked questions about this in question period to the Minister of Health and Wellness, we have been assured that the government regularly inspects nursing homes and so on. But what we don’t quite know is how often and when this has occurred. In fact, you know, there’s a real concern underlying it, Mr.

Speaker, and that is that we know that the government has cut back on inspectors. It’s cut back on these kinds of front-line staff in lots of areas. 4:00 One of them where it’s most concerning is in another department altogether. That is the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment, where the number of inspectors has been cut back so far and the budgets hav e been cut back so f ar that the y’ve act ually com- plained that their budget s are so tight, they have to buy their own gas.

So the real question is not that these places are inspected in theory – because in theory they are; the legislation requires that – but whether or not the gov ernment puts the resou rces behind their official legal requirements is a very valid ques tion and one that I think we need a real answer to. So it would be very useful indeed, from our point of view, if in fact the Minister of Alberta Health and Wellness would respond and tell us exactly when this particular nursing home was inspected. I’d like to g o further. I’d like to know w hat’s entailed by t he inspection.

I mean, how many people participate in the inspecting? What is inspected? What happened with the inspection reports? I think something that could be really valuable a s well that is not included in this question is: what happened to the inspection report? Who dealt with it? What decisions were made on the basis of those reports? If, in fact, they showed that there were serious problems at this particula r nursing hom e, then did ev eryone take tha t into account and act appropriately, right up to the minister? I’m not sure that this question actually gets at that, Mr.

Speaker, so I would hope that the minister would go the extra mile and provide those kinds of details. You know, Mr. Speaker, we need to protect our seniors. Seniors, especially those in the f inal years of t heir life in these hom es, are extraordinarily vulnerable people.

A s we’ve seen, s ometimes the neglect that can occur can have very, very tragic consequences, and it’s important that the government take its responsibilities seriously to inspect these homes and make sure that our seniors are well cared for by trained professional people, that there are sufficient staff on duty at all tim es to make sure that people are not neglected when they need help or care. So I would hope that this motion is in fact passed.

I think people throughout the province have taken an interest in the tragedies that have taken place here, and they want to be assured that the govern- ment is taking its responsibilities seriously. If the government takes its responsibilities seriously, then we can be assured that the nursing home itself will be taking its responsibilities seriously, because the government will be making sure that they do. That’s what we expect of our government, and that’s what we expect from Alberta Health and Wellness, and we can accept nothing less, Mr. Speaker.

So again I would urge all hon. m embers to vote in f avour of accepting this question. Hopefully the government will then respond to it in an appropriate and informative manner. I commend the hon. member for asking this question, and I also commend the minister for indicating that he’s prepared to accept the question. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. [Written Question 59 carried] head : Motions for Retur ns The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Proper notice having been served on Thursday, April 1, i t’s my pleasure to move t hat motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 18, 19, and 23 as modi fied by the House leaders’ agreement, which w as signed and which I tabled earlier today. [Motion carried] Office of the Premier IT Contracts M18.

Ms Blakeman moved on behalf of Ms Carlson that an order of the Assembly do iss ue for a return showing the total dollar amount spent by the office of the Premier on contracts for inform ation techn ology servic es broken down by company and total dollar amount for each for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Ms B lakeman: Now, we have had some other ones for other departments on the same subject turned down by the government. I’m hoping that for this one we will get some information and that we will get it without amendments to it, which render the informa- tion more vague and less useful to us.

I’m looking for exactly the request that’s submitted here. So I’m hoping that the government will comply. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. Well, I think the hon. member is cor rect i n stating that similar motions were giv en considerable debate. A s I recall, it w as back on March 22 or thereabouts. So in actual fact this particular motion for a return at this point is redundant and unnecessary.

Motion for a Return 10, which was dealt with back on page 610 of Hansard on March 22, certainly referred to the same information being requested of the Health and Wellness ministry for contracts

April 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 873 pertaining to information technolog y ser vices, br oken down by company and dollar amount and so on. Then the amendment, which was presented shortly t hereafter, in f act rem oved the spe cific reference to one government department and/or ministry and made it clear that we were prepared to provide information showing the total dollar amount spent by the government of Alberta on contracts for information technology services, including a listing of vendors who were providing those services for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

So I think that adequately covers it, and as such we d o not need this particular motion that is before us at the moment. That having be en said, w e would be rejecting it becaus e th e amendment I referred to earlier accom modates this particular information that is being sought and is to be provided for the entire government of Alberta, and it will be broken down by company and by dollar am ount. Aga in, I t hink it’s therefore redundant, so on behalf of the Premier’s office I’m recommending that we reject this motion for the reasons stated. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate.

Ms Blakeman: Yes. I ’m sorry; I was momentarily distracted and missed a few words of what the minister was saying. My concern here with the amended version that was discussed a few weeks ago, mentioned in the minister’s response the re, is tha t once ag ain the government has changed the information that was being requested and made i t less det ailed, in othe r words more vague, and unat- tached.

The suggestion that they had to provide an aggre gate amount, a total amount spent on all information technology contracts for all of the government and then a list of vendors that are uncon- nected is the kind of unhelpful information that leads to misunder- standings, because from that you re ally can’t tell if there was one vendor who was getting a disproportionate amount. Perhaps they need to be looked at to make sure that all t he tendering processes are as they should be. Perhaps a very reputable company is getting hardly any contracts at all.

You can’t tell when you get two separate lists where the information has been deliber- ately disconnected, has been torn apart, unlinked by the government. I don’t understand why the government is so reluctant to provide information like this. It’s pretty innocuous information, and it does raise the hackles of people looking at government transparency and accountability. It certainly raises questions in their minds. What are they hiding? This is a very simple, innocuous question. Why can’t they just deliver the information?

Why this great need to disattach everything so that no clear understanding can be gained from it? As a result of that, you do end up with misunderstandings. You do end up with people making leaps of logic that are perhaps inappropriate, but how do you tell that when you can’t find a clear trail of informa- tion? So I’m dis appointed to hea r that the i nformation will not be provided as requested. Thank you. [Motion for a Return 18 lost] 4:10 Government Out-of-province Travel Expenses M19. Ms Blakeman moved on behalf of Dr.

Massey that an order of the Ass embly do is sue f or a return showing the total number and costs