April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 633 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/04/18 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. We confidently ask for strength and encouragement in our service to others. We ask for wisdom to guide us in making good laws and good decisions for the present and future of Alberta. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed my pleasure to introduce two guests who are seated in your gallery this afternoon. The first is someone that many members in this House know quite well, Mr. Stan Woloshyn, who represented the fine constituency of Stony Plain in this Legislature from 1989 to 2004, and I for one am glad that he retired when he did. During that time he also served as government caucus whip, minister of public works, minister of community development, and minister of seniors. I also have very fond memories of sitting across the table from Mr.

Woloshyn when he was president of local 10 of the ATA when I was a negotiator for the Parkland school board. Accompanying Stan today is his grandson Tyler Hrynyk. Tyler is a very impressive young man whom I had lunch with today. He is a very skilled hockey player and springboard diver, a bright student at Lymburn school, and a future PhD in mechanical engineering. I’d ask that all memb ers join me in giving the tradi- tional warm welcome to our guests. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Tougas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly two visiting students from Yokohama, Japan. They are visiting our province for two weeks on an exchange program. They’re here to see how western democracy works, so let’s be on our best behaviour. They are staying at the home of Jean Easton, mother of one of our pages, and Mrs. Easton is accompanying them today. They are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. The students are Takeshi Kuwahara and Makoto Otake. I ask them to please rise and accept the trad itional warm greeting of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf I’d like to introduce to you and through you 12 grades 5/6 students from the Meadowview school, which is currently located in the Barrhead- Morinville-Westlock constituency, right adjacent to the Whitecourt- Ste. Anne constituency. They are accompanied this after noon by teacher Rod Manson and two parent helpers, Aaron Wesenberg and Bernice Harrison. They are seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon. I’d ask them to please rise and r eceive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Deputy Speaker. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to introduce to you and through you today to all members of the Assembly 19 very bright students from the Clear Water Academy, which is situated in the Calgary-Elbow riding. I understand that they’re all very enthusiastic Calgary Flames fans as well. They’re here today to learn about how the Legislature functions. They’re accompanied by teachers Miss Janley Grant, Mr. Matt Sartorelli, and parent Mrs. Sharon Van Der Sloot. I would ask them to rise in the members’ gallery and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does give me great pleasure as well to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 12 students and two staff from the Ehpewapahk community alternate school, also known as the Erminskine Cree nation. We have 14 visitors today, including Paul Jespersen, the teacher, and Charlene Wolfe, the teacher’s assistant. I think they had a tour a little bit earlier, and we got a photo. They’re sitting up in the public gallery, and I’d ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a great pleasure for me to rise today to introduce to you and through you to all members of this Assembly 50 visitors from Callingwood elementary school in my constituency of Edmonton-McClung. Those guests are visiting us here today to see us in action and to observe what goes on in this very esteemed Assembly. They’re joined by their teachers and group leaders, Mr. Close, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Wilcox, and Ms Cassidy, and by parent helper Mr. Owre.

This is an extremely active school in the constituency, and it’s always referred to as the heart of the community. Wonderful students and wonderful staff. I even attended their concert three or four weeks ago, and I was really impressed by their creativity and energy. I encourage them all to rise, please, and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly two individuals seated in the public gallery.

They are Roseline Richardson and Cathy Hilderman. Roseline and Cathy are workers at the Palace Casino and are currently on strike. They’ve been on the picket line for 222 days now, due in part to this government’s failure to protect workers from employers who engage in unfair labour practices. Cathy has worked at the Palace Casino for the past eight years and works as a dealer and pit boss at the casino. Roseline has worked at the Palace Casino since 1991 and is also a dealer and pit boss.

She has an extensive background in the arts and brings a tremendous amount of passion to the cause that she and her co-workers have taken on. They are joined today by UFCW local 401 representative Don Crisall. I would now ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services.

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007634 Ms Tarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if my guests are here yet, but I will go ahead and introduce to you and through you to the members for the record four guests that I have up from Banff-Cochrane today. First is Ron Casey, mayor of Canmore; Mike Western, councillor for Canmore; Don Kochan, acting chief administrative officer of the town of Canmore; and Eric McAvity, who is with the Lamphouse Centre for the Arts Society. If they are in the House, I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of our members. Mr. McFarland: Mr.

Speaker, it’s a pleasure today to recognize a number of people up in the members’ gallery. I would like this Assembly to recognize the volunteer board members from the Science Alberta Foundation. They are meeting with the board today. I’m sorry. I think I just stepped on somebody’s toes here. Sorry, President of the Treasury Board. I met with one of the members early this morning. Maybe I will cede to the President of the Treasury Board to finish the introduction. Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, it just shows how important to this province the Science Alberta Foundation really is.

They’re recog- nized from north to south, east to west. We’re just one big, happy, recognizable family here. I, too, had a very enjoyable breakfast with their chairman and vice-chairman. If the board is as talented and as engaging as these two, they must have a wonderful discussion. I would like to introduce them to th e Assembly, starting with their chairman, Mr. Ron Kuchinka; the vice-chair, Chuck Shultz; the secretary-treasurer, Barry Travers; and their directors Paul Clark, Art Froehlich, Brad Klak, Gordon Olsen, Linda Palladino, and Sid Shugarman.

Also with them is their CEO, Arlene Ponting, and their office manager, Regula Lewis. I would ask them to please rise and accept the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements The Speaker: Hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, did you give notice for a ministerial statement? Appointment of Alberta Senator Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some very, very good news for this Assembly and for the people of Alberta and perhaps especially for Mr. Bert Brown of Kathyrn, Alberta. As of 10 minutes ago Mr.

Bert Brown became the second-ever elected member of the Senate of Canada. Bert Brown has worked for Senate reform for over 20 years. He was a candidate in both of Alberta’s Senate elections. Nobody is more deserving of this honour than Mr. Bert Brown. Senate reform is a much-needed and long overdue reform of our national institutions , and I congratulate Bert Brown and his wife, Alice, on their commitment to the good of the province of Alberta and the good of our nation. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. 1:10 Ms Blakeman: Well, we weren’t given any notice on this ministe- rial statement from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment, but I’ll join in the congratulations that were offered, and I hope that along with this comes substantial reform to the Senate. Aside from election, I think we have long been looking for a better balance of the number of seats that are available across the country plus a number of other issues that need to be changed constitution- ally before we achieve true Senate reform. I’m interested to hear of Mr. Brown’s appointment. Thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. leader of the third party, in order to participate, we need unanimous consent. [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: Proceed. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, like the hon. Official Opposition House Leader, we did not receive notifica- tion that this would be a ministerial statement. I also note that this is not a ministerial statement within the purview of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I would congratulate Mr. Brown. However, contrary to what the minister has said, he was not elected.

He received an unofficial mandate through an extra-legal procedure in the province of Alberta, and he was appointed – he was appointed – by the Prime Minister of Canada. So he has not been elected. Mr. Speaker, we continue to maintain our position that the Senate of Canada is superfluous, a centre of patronage on the part of both the Conservative and Liberal governments that have inhabited the government in Ottawa, and it should be abolished. [some applause] I thank the hon. members for their applause on that point. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Henry Bergen Mr.

McFarland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a Little Bow constituent. Mr. Henry Bergen of Coaldale embodies some of the finest qualities Albertans are known for. Henry is hard working, innovative, and has an entrepre- neurial spirit and a deep respect for the land. Over the years Henry has taken these qualities and not only created a successful business; he has made significant contributions to our agricultural industry. Born in the Ukraine, Henry’s family moved to Germany after his father was killed in the Stalin era. In 1948 his family emigrated to Canada.

With his roots in Alberta and experience working in horticulture at the Lethbridge Research Centre, Henry went on to study mechanical engineering at SAIT in the 1960s. Henry com- bined these two disciplines and began to design and manufacture seeders that are used in zero tillage farming today. For those of us with a farming background, we know that zero till helps prevent soil erosion and conserves moisture. To this day Henry Bergen’s company, GEN Manufacturing, continues to provide farmers with innovative tools that promote soil conservation.

GEN Manufacturing received the industry achieve- ment award from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers in 2001. In 1999 Henry received the technical excellence award from the Alberta Society of Engineering Technologists. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to share with you that Mr. Bergen is being recognized not only for his work in Alberta but also for having positively influenced agricultural practices across Canada. In May Henry will be one of three Albertans receiving the Order of Canada for these contributions, and I ask the members of this House and all Albertans to join me in offering Mr.

Bergen sincere congratulations. I think it’s especially fitting that we acknowledge his upcoming honour this particular week since this is Soil Conservation Week. Henry’s achievements remind us that we’re all true Albertans. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright.

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 635 Physician Supply Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s red-hot economy has created shortages in many fields, including the medical profes- sion. While these challenges are daunting, this province has taken many steps to attract and retain doctors to serve the health care needs of Albertans. Alberta leads the country in increasing the number of physicians. Between 2001 and 2005 Alberta increased its supply of physicians by 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker, second only to Prince Edward Island, at 25 per cent.

The province has also developed strategies to recruit and keep doctors in rural commun ities. Statistics show that the Alberta rural physician action plan has helped maintain the ratio of doctors to patients in rural Alberta over the past five years. The Alberta rural family medicine network provides rural family medicine training opportunities to encourage graduates to choose rural practice once their training is complete.

Earlier this year the government provided additional support to the Northern Lights health region to address the critical issues of maintaining adequate medical services to residents of Fort McMurray and other communities in the region. Alberta has also expanded education spaces for medical students and residency spaces for international medical graduates. In September 2006 Alberta created 30 new first-year medical school spaces, bringing the total to 255 at Alberta’s two medical schools. This year international medical graduates represented almost 20 per cent of all medical graduates entering residency.

Yesterday the Alberta Medical Association ratified an amending agreement with the Alberta government and the regional health authorities. Beyond fee increases the agreement addressed physician recruitment and retention issues with innovative new programs that include a benefit that will recognize physicians for the number of years that they have practised in Alberta and special funding to address extraordinary increases in practice costs. Despite enormous pressures Alberta has found su ccessful solutions to make this province an attractive place to live and work for physicians. Volunteerism Mr. Webber: Mr.

Speaker, the nonprofit voluntary sector is one of the most vital components of our society. Those who donate their time and energy without any expectations of rewards or recognition for themselves are true heroes. It is these individuals who help play a key role in enhancing our quality of life, which, as we know, is one of this government’s top prioritie s. This week we pay tribute to these often unsung heroes by celebrating Volunteer Week. I would like to ask this Assembly for its unanimous support in recognizing April 15 to April 21 as Volunteer Week in Alberta.

Through a unique partnership between the Wild Rose Foundation and Volunteer Alberta our province has become a leader in honour- ing its volunteers. All across this great province events and activities are taking place to acknowledge and thank the many volunteers who play such essential roles in our communities. This year 142 Alberta communities representing more than 1.2 million Albertans are participating in this week-long series of events. According to the 2004 national survey of nonprofit and voluntary organizations there are approximately 19,000 nonprofit and volun- tary organizations in Alberta.

It is estimated that the voluntary sector in our province collectively contributes approximately 214 million hours of volunteer time. This is equivalent to approximately 111,000 full-time jobs. The annual economic impact of Alberta’s nonprofit voluntary sector is estimated at $9.6 billion. Alberta leads the way in the voluntary sector, and we can all take pride in this great accomplishment. Through the Wild Rose Foundation this government supports Alberta’s voluntary sector in many important ways. I encourage this Assembly to continue its support and dedication to volunteerism in the province.

Throughout Alberta our volunteer spirit is contributing directly to the health and well-being of our citizens and communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. McClung Goes Green Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to talk about an initiative that my team and I in the constituency of Edmonton- McClung have undertaken as of one month ago. We call it McClung Goes Green. In essence, we’re encouraging individuals, families, groups, and businesses to think about ways to cut down on energy waste and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As far as we know, Mr.

Speaker, we are the first and only constituency in the province of Alberta to make the decision to go green. We’re hoping to reduce our constituency’s environmental footprint. In so doing, people not only help reduce damage to the environment and to the planet; they can also realize some financial savings. This stems from the realization that we can all help, and we should all get involved. It’s not only industry that is to be blamed, and it’s not only industry that has to come up with the solutions.

We’re all in this together. 1:20 The way we designed this was to have three challenge levels: poplar, shamrock, and jade. We have suggestions for what steps people can take to achieve each level, but we also allow them to come up with their own ideas and changes. A participant would start at poplar and move on to shamrock and ultimately reach jade. Poplar, or entry level, involves simple attitude and behaviour changes.

Shamrock, or the intermediate level, is for people who are motivated beyond poplar and are on their way to jade, on their way to implementing physical or structural changes to their residence and/or workplace. All participants are winners and will be recog- nized. Once a year, however, the constituency office will be hosting an official green challenge celebration for people or groups who stand out. Their stories will be told and their achievements high- lighted.

In terms of the ideas we’re presenting, we group them under five general headings: natural gas, water, electricity, waste and recycling, and automobiles, all things we can control or make decisions about. I encourage members of this Assembly who may be interested in this experiment to approach me for details. Maybe we can spread this energy around and get more Albertans motivated. Sunday, April 22, Mr. Speaker, is Earth Day. Perhaps all hon. members can start by evaluating what each of them can do individu- ally. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Climate Change Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Earth Day 2007: the science- based warnings about the fate of the earth can no longer be ignored. Alberta must take action now, yet our Conservative government, despite its claim to now believe the science, encourages uncontrolled growth and worsening carbon emissions in the coming decade. This is part of a consistent and willful ignoring of inconvenient science at least since the government of Canada report in 1991 on the risks

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007636 of irreversible climate change. We are at a tipping point on the planet if we are to avoid hundreds of millions of lives lost and uprooted from their homes, food and water shortages, and new infectious diseases. Albertans have always been prepared to make short-term sacrifice for the future. According to the renowned Stern report, if we fail to invest 1 per cent of our GDP now, our children will inherit a failing planet. One per cent of GDP would be approximately $2 billion annually in Alberta. The Alberta government investment so far is pitiful in comparison.

How would a Liberal government in Alberta manage this grave challenge? We would cap carbon emissions by 2012 and, with the federal government, move toward a 30 per cent real reduction by 2020. We would eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel development and give greater financial incentives to energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy – wind, solar, geothermal – while enabling carbon capture and storage technology to assist in the transition to a new, sustainable economy.

An Alberta Liberal government would establish, one, an all-party council on carbon emissions and climate change; two, strong public education programs; three, convert the natural gas rebate program to a green fund to reduce everyone’s energy use; four, a province-wide composting and recycling program in every community; five, a minimum 15 per cent renewable energy for all new energy produc- ers; six, rebates on energy efficient appliances and energy retrofits for homes, businesses, and institutions.

Alberta’s opportunity as we celebrate Earth Day this weekend is for a bold new course grounded in a commitment to confront climate change, protect people’s health, and create a new economy or be left behind by the world. Dr. Bruce Naylor Mr. Dunford: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret to inform the House that our friend and colleague Dr. Bruce Naylor, director of the Royal Tyrrell Museum, passed away peacefully on Friday, April 6, 2007. Bruce leaves behind his wife, Judy, and two children, John and Connor. Dr. Naylor was the driving force behind so many of the successes and accomplishments of the Royal Tyrrell Museum.

We have been very fortunate to benefit from his knowledge and passion for the museum for the past 25 years. Dr. Naylor received his PhD from the University of Alberta. A vertebrate paleontologist specializing in fossil amphibians and mammals, his accomplishments include naming a new genus and five new species of fossil salamanders. While a student at the University of Alberta he collected the jaw of a new species of primitive primate from the Paleocene of Alberta, subsequently named Saxonella naylori .

Bruce was not only well liked and respected by staff; he was also recognized nationally and internation- ally for his knowledge and scholarship in paleontology. Bruce joined the Royal Tyrrell Museum in 1982. Over the years Bruce and his team won many accolades, including recognition for their work with a gold Premier’s award of excellence in 2004 for the ATCO Tyrrell Learning Centre project and two bronze awards, in 2003 for an advanced ticket management system and in 2000 for the redevelopment of the Pleistocene Gallery. We extend our deepest sympathy to Bruce’s family, friends, and co-workers.

While we mourn his passing, we can celebrate his life and his accomplishments. He will live on through our memories. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table two petitions. The first one is signed by 221 Albertans mainly from the constituency of Edmonton-Castle Downs, petitioning the Assembly to urge the government to “reconsider the location of the new Edmonton Remand Centre and to work with the federal government to relocate [it] closer to the Edmonton maximum security prison.” The second petition, Mr.

Speaker, is signed by 89 Albertans from throughout the province but predominantly Edmonton and surround- ing areas urging the government to “take immediate, meaningful measures to help low-income and fixed-income Albertans, Albertans with disabilities and those who are hard-to-house maintain their places of residence and cope with the escalating and frequent increases in their monthly rental costs.” Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have approximately 100 signatures from a petition that reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to take immediate, meaningful measures to help low-income and fixed- income Albertans, Albertans with disabilities and those who are hard-to-house maintain their places of residence and cope with the escalating and frequent increases in their monthly rental costs. head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to give oral notice of a motion to establish the standing policy field committees that we approved yesterday. I would move that

be it resolved that the following members be appointed to the Assembly’s four new standing committees.

(1) Community Services: Cindy Ady, chair; Weslyn Mather, vice- chair; Dr. Raj Pannu; Jack Flaherty; Tony Abbott, Art Johnston; Thomas Lukaszuk; LeRoy Johnson; Rob Lougheed; Shiraz Shariff; and Dan Backs.

(2) Managing Growth Pressures: Clint Dunford, chair; David Taylor, vice-chair; Ray Martin; Bruce Miller; Denis Herard; Victor Doerksen; Ray Prins; Len Webber; Gene Zwozdesky; George Rogers; and Dave Rodney.

(3) Resources and Environment: Denis Ducharme, chair; David Swann, vice-chair; David Eggen; Rick Miller; Ty Lund; Len Mitzel; Doug Griffiths; Frank Oberle; Gord Graydon; Pearl Calahasen; and Paul Hinman.

(4) Government Services: Harvey Cenaiko, chair; Mo Elsalhy, vice-chair; Brian Mason; Bridget Pastoor; Richard Marz; Neil Brown; David Coutts; Heather Forsyth; Alana DeLong; George VanderBurg; and Moe Amery. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(3) I wish to give notice that on Monday, April 30, 2007, written questions and motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with Standing Order 30 I wish to give notice that at the appropriate time I intend to move that

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 637 the ordinary business of this Assembly be adjourned in order that we may hold an emergency debate on a matter of urgent public importance; namely, the immediate and pressing risk to the health and well-being of the residents of Fort McMurray caused by the recent fire and resulting inability of the community’s social, housing, and health systems to cope with the impacts of this crisis without immediate provincial support. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Impacts of Apartment Fire in Fort McMurray Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A fire yesterday left 300 people in an affordable housing complex in Fort McMurray homeless. We can all be thankful that there are no reports of serious injuries. But Fort McMurray is one of the most expensive places to live in Canada, and the vacancy rate is virtually zero. This is going to have a serious impact on those 300 people and on many others. My first question is to the Premier. How many of the 300 people made homeless by the fire yesterday in Fort McMurray are children? 1:30 Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, the minister of municipal affairs responsible for housing has been working very closely with the municipality, and he may answer all of the administrative questions with respect to this unbelievable fire. But thank the good Lord that everybody was safe. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do want to say that there were no major casualties or injuries, and we are very happy for that. There were 94 units that were involved with approximately 300 individuals, some of which included families.

I can’t give you an exact breakdown of the number of children because I don’t know that according to age. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s well known that the Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo region is very short of doctors. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. How many doctors were on duty at the hospital at the time of the fire? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, how could he possibly expect me to know that? The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The availability of medical services in a major emergency is straightforward.

There were already 400 people on the waiting list for affordable housing in Fort McMurray. Overnight there are now hundreds more in need of affordable housing. I guess to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: will the impact of this situation be that those 400 people who are already on the waiting list for affordable housing are now 300 spaces further down the list, or is there another option? Mr. Danyluk: Mr.

Speaker, just to address the needs of the individuals that were part of the fire, the Wood Buffalo housing authority has placed or has found temporary and permanent housing for all of those individuals, and part of it is because they have 55 units that are coming on board at the Millennium centre, that is near completion. We also have the Parsons Creek Village, that has some units that are just about at completion, as well as the good, kind hearts of Fort McMurrians. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In Fort McMurray the fire at Edgewater Court has left over 300 people wondering where they’re going to live now even if there are new units coming on stream soon. They’re not on stream quite yet. Of course, the people of Fort McMurray are pulling together and coming together to provide every bit of help they can, but still these da ys housing in Fort Mac is in critically short supply at the best of times, and for the residents of Edgewater Court these are the worst of times. This is very real, very focused, and it tests this government’s ability to deal with a crisis. To the Premier.

Church basements aren’t adequate. Families need their own cooking facilities, their own bathrooms, some privacy. What is the Premier doing, what has he done, and what will he do right away to find suitable interim housing for these folks? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member is in response to, of course, the preparedness of the government in terms of disaster services. Again, I said that the minister of munici- pal affairs, who’s also responsible for that area of responsibility, may want to answer all these administrative questions. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Part of our preparedness in the Emergency Management Alberta agency is to prepare for disasters, and the government has done that in conjunc- tion with the municipal districts and municipalities. We need to prepare for crises or emergencies or disasters of such magnitude, and we have. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the government needs to prepare. My questions have been more along the lines of whether the government was prepared and what they’ve done in this regard.

Is the government prepared to provide emergency financial assistance for displaced people who have had to be put in hotels? I know that there are some who had no other options. And can the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicate to this House whether he has an estimate of how much that will cost? Mr. Danyluk: Mr.

Speaker, right now I don’t have an exact number of the amount of money that it’ll cost, but what has happened is that the Wood Buffalo housing authority has not only moved the individuals to different housing authorities but is also supporting them in the same way that they were supporting them in the Edgewater apartment buildings. Mr. Taylor: But, Mr. Speaker, some of them are in hotels. They’re not all relocated in new housing units.

The residents of Fort McMurray have rallied around to help the people of Edgewater Court, but this event is going to put a strain on other residents of Fort McMurray, on churches, on quite possibly the food bank, on other social agencies, on the Wood Buffalo housing

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007638 agency. Will this government be providing any emergency funding for social agencies to help them deal with this crisis? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, we need to understand that this is a disaster and that this is a situation where the community comes to help. Are we there to support? Yes, we are. Will they have a place to stay? Yes, they will. And we will support them the best way that we can. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Affordable Housing Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A recent rent increase in a Calgary-Varsity apartment complex has created great desperation. This is not a time for accusations; it’s a time for answers, for action. I’m appealing to the Premier for dramatic, immediate intervention. To the Premier: do you still believe that it is unnecessary to tap the brakes of Alberta’s economy? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where he’s going with that question, but, you know, the last time a government in this country tapped the brakes on the economy, all of us in this Assembly paid 22 per cent interest rates. Let’s not forget that. Mr.

Chase: In this 297-suite apartment building many of the residents are seniors and disabled people who are on fixed incomes, including AISH. Many have lived in their homes for several years. This apartment building was sold, and there are no new rental units coming onto the market. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: what advice do you have for these individuals who are about to lose their homes? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, as we know, the growth pressures that have taken place on housing have been extensive at this time, and it is, I may say, a factor of growth.

We are trying to deal with those issues and challenges, and the housing task force has brought forward recommendations. We are looking at those recommenda- tions, and we’re hoping to deal with some of those challenges. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two other buildings on the same city block that used to be apartments but are now converted to condominiums. My final question is to the Premier, who should feel free to call upon any of his ministers. What immediate solutions does your government have for Albertans who are suffering as a result of this runaway economy?

Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, may I try and supplement some of the answers we’re providing? First of all, there is certainly great concern among the ministers that share the views of many of the colleagues on the opposition side that we should be doing some- thing, and indeed this ministry does do something. We provide income supports for low- and moderate-income people if they’re evicted, if there’s a natural disaster. In the months from September ’06 until today we’ve put some 9 million dollars into supports for people who have suffered just exactly what the hon. member is referencing.

We spend about a hundred million dollars supporting these folks all of the time, but for those who suffer immediate disaster, we can get involved. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Disclosure of Leadership Campaign Contributions Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. A cloud now hangs over tomorrow’s budget because of this Premier’s failure to ensure open and transparent government. The Finance minister has failed to disclose his campaign donations for his PC leadership bid and has broken his own deadlines for doing so. Dr. Oberg: A question of privilege.

The Speaker: A question of privilege. 1:40 Mr. Mason: Bring it on, Mr. Speaker. Bring it on. Worse, the minister has continued to fund raise even while preparing tomorrow’s provincial budget. My question is to the Premier. Why does the Premier think it is acceptable for a Finance minister to be seeking financial donations from the very same corporations and individuals who may benefit from his budget? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, raising funds before, during, or after a campaign is part of the political process, and, you know, the two opposition parties are in the red, in more than one place, but they’re also in debt. I’m sure that they’re raising dollars every day trying to catch up with their deficits. Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, why doesn’t the Premier see that with respect to a Provincial Treasurer preparing a provincial budget, which the opposition does not do, this at least creates the perception of a potential conflict of interest? Mr.

Stelmach: That’s one of the reasons this government moves very quickly in so many different areas. One, of course, is with respect to the Lobbyists Act, the first kind of legislation in this particular House, followed by the fact that on a quarterly basis – a quarterly basis – all Albertans will know what transactions are made on behalf of them, including how much the opposition leader gets paid by the month because I’m sure that people are interested in hearing what he gets paid, but all those transactions will be crossed.

That’s one opportunity to see who is lobbying the government and then on a quarterly basis who gets paid by government. That’s, I think, the best test that you can have right here in the province of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, we want some action, not distraction.

The Premier is very able to try and get the focus on something else other than the fact that his Finance minister has not disclosed his campaign contributions, is continuing to fund raise at the very same time that he’s writing tomorrow’s provincial budget, and this creates an enormous cloud over the budget. Why won’t the Premier get serious for a minute and address the question that’s put to him? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow there will be significant announcements in the budget.

I want that member to get up in the House and to any capital announcement that’s made say that there’s a cloud over that announcement, whether it’s a new hospital for a community that’s badly needing it or going to seniors that require more help or to schools or to universities, to hospitals, to any of those. I want him to get up in the House next week and tell me where the cloud is.

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 639 The Speaker: At the conclusion of the Routine we will deal with a question of privilege with respect to this, and the hon. Minister of Finance will be given ample opportunity to present his case. The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Affordable Housing (continued) Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we all know that it is a proven fact that the development of new apartment units seriously declines when a government imposes rent controls. We are, however, living in extraordinary tim es that call for extraordinary measures.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Will the government consider reviewing the possibility of regulating rent increases for a temporary period of two years to allow one increase in rent a year of no greater than 10 per cent of the existing rent? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that as the Alberta government we are supporting housing and we are support- ing rent supplements. We are providing over $19 million to subsidize rents for more than 4,600 households. We are supporting with $100 million a commitment to affordable housing, 3,700 units.

We are supporting homeless shelters to the tune of $23 million. We also have committed $16 million for a new pilot project for an outreach program. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. To the same minister: in these extraordinary times that call for extraordinary action, is that enough? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that we are examining those exact issues in regard to the task force report.

The government annually reviews the programs and the funding allocations that we have presently in making sure that we address the needs and the challenges that are involved in housing and the homeless. The Speaker: The hon. member? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Timberland Investment Loss Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday’s revelation that a mistake in the Ministry of Finance cost Alberta taxpayers $11 million has left Albertans with a lot of questions. How long before this was discovered? Who discovered it?

Who informed the minister’s office, and when did the minister’s office know? Yet the best that the minister could do yesterday was to hang out one of his employees as being personally responsible. Shame on you, Mr. Minister. This was clearly a breakdown in management and accounting systems. The buck has to stop at your desk, not at the desk of a civil servant. My question is for the minister. Why is this minister making a scapegoat out of one single employee when his department should have had the processes in place to make sure that this type of mistake never happened in the first place?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, a mistake was made. The timberland asset was purchased on May 30, 2005. Typically, what occurs when we have an investment such as that: the American currency is hedged to ensure that if the currency goes down, our money is safe. Unfortunately, the hedge was not made until September 22. During that time frame the American dollar changed significantly and caused the loss. I will say, though – and I think this is very important – on the timberland investment that since that time the rate of return has been 36 per cent, $61 million. Mr.

R. Miller: Well, then, why did we have to put $7 million into it last month in supplementary supply? Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that there’s been a huge amount of discussion on this issue, but I haven’t been aware of it. I’m the one asking questions. We’re not getting answers. It’s like trying to pull hens’ teeth. Why was this $11 million mistake not brought up in the Department of Finance annual report, in the Auditor General’s annual report? It wasn’t discussed in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund Committee when timberland was discussed. Why was it buried? Where is the openness and transparency? Dr.

Oberg: I do believe that there were supplementary estimates that were brought forward about a month ago in which this was part of it. Mr. R. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I learned this morning that the Auditor General’s office had a series of meetings with department officials on this issue. There were apparently several reports made, yet none was ever made available to the public. Alberta taxpayers have been kept in the dark. My question again is for the Minister of Finance.

Can the minister assure this House and all Albertans that there was not in any way, shape, or form any influence from department officials to the Auditor General’s office to keep this file quiet? Dr. Oberg: Yes. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Bullying Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know from speaking with parents and children from my constituency that bullying and harassment leave scars that last a lifetime. Bullying poisons the school environment for everyone.

Increasingly we have been hearing about serious incidents of bullying in our schools. Some cases get so bad for a victim that they turn to suicide as seen when a 14-year-old girl in B.C. hanged herself. Her suicide note read: if I try to get help, it will get worse; they are always looking for a new person to beat up, and they are the toughest girls. My questions are all to the Minister of Education. Would the minister consider a provincial antibullying/harassment policy with zero tolerance? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of our schools in the province have a zero tolerance antibullying policy.

The issue of bullying is not just one for schools; it’s one for society. Students don’t just learn from other students. They learn from all of us. If they see us doing things that are inappropriate, I’m afraid they’re going to be doing some things that are inappropriate. So we all have a role to play. Mrs. Forsyth: Would the minister consider a reporting mechanism so students can report bullying and harassment and ensure that it remains confidential?

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007640 Mr. Liepert: In May of 2006 we launched a toll-free, 24-hour helpline for students who were st ruggling with bullying to get advice, information, and support. There are crisis centre counsellors who answer this helpline. They’re trained, and they provide information to any student who is suffering from the inappropriate behaviour of others. It is policy, as far as I know, that this would remain anonymous, and any student should feel comfortable contacting that line. 1:50 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister enact a provincial law that prohibits bullying and harassment on school property, at school-sponsored programs or activities, on a school bus, or through the use of a computer in the school system? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess I’ve always believed that you can’t legislate against stupidity, and to me bullying is stupid. I go back to what I referred to in my first answer. This is a greater issue than just in schools. As a society, whether it’s on the streets, whether it’s in hockey rinks, we should make sure that we don’t tolerate any kind of behaviour such as bullying.

However, if the hon. member has suggestions relative to legislation that in fact could work, I’d certainly be open to that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Royalty Revenues Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On August 17, 2005, Greg Stringham from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers e-mailed the Minister of Energy of that day asking him to provide comments, corrections, or changes to a document that CAPP was creating to convince Albertans that the royalty system worked great. My first question is to the Premier.

Whose interest is this government standing up for? Is it CAPP, or is it the owners of the natural resources of this province, the people of the province? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of this government of course is to represent all Albertans, and that’s what we’re doing. Mr. MacDonald: The government’s own documents show that from 1995 through to 2003 the effective royalty rate for oil averaged 16.42 per cent and for natural gas 17.2 per cent.

Now, my question again is to the Premier: given that your government has failed so badly in meeting its own goals of 20 to 25 per cent of royalties, how much money have Albertans lost due to your government’s failure to collect a fair and balanced amount under the royalty program? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, my government is conducting a very independent royalty review not only of oil sands but conventional oil and gas and coal-bed methane.

That information will be very public, and it’ll be transparent, again trying to find the balance between Albertans that are owners of the resource and, of course, those individuals and companies that make multibillion dollar investments in this province in a very volatile marketplace. Mr. MacDonald: Again, this hon. member was part of the last government as well. Things are bigger in Texas, including the amount collected on oil and natural gas royalties. Yesterday the Minister of Energy indicated that Texas was the best jurisdiction for Alberta to be compared to in terms of oil- and gas-producing states.

In a report prepared for Alberta Energy by Wood Mackenzie, it is suggested that Texans receive 25 per cent in royalties. My question to the Premier: why are Albertans getting so little when Texans get so much in royalties? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, that hon. member was a member of the opposition at that time. So what’s he saying? He didn’t follow up on his duty, I suspect. [interjections] In light, of course, of not upsetting him a bit and creating more disturbance in the House, that’s the purpose of the royalty review.

It will be completed by August, and all Albertans will have that information in a very transparent manner. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Health Care Funding Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A two-year agreement has been reached between the Alberta government, the Alberta Medical Association, and the regional health authorities. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Coming from a region that has faced and continues to face a chronic shortage of physicians, I’m wondering if this deal will help cure the shortage of physicians in the province. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very hopeful that this agreement will help us with the issue of physician shortage. First of all, hopefully, members of the House will know that members of the AMA voted 91 per cent in favour of the agreement over the last two weeks.

So the agreement that will now be ratified and in place signals overwhelming support by physicians to work enthusiastically with government, health regions, and all stakeholders to advance primary care reform, improve productivity and sustainability of the system. Every province is facing a shortage of physicians, so this agreement will help to build on our past success. We’ve attracted 250 new physicians in the past year. The retention bonuses that are available to physicians will assist us in retaining . . . Mr.

Graydon: To the same minister: how will the new clinical stabilization initiative, which is part of the agreement, help address the extraordinary expenses and increases in physician practice costs across the province? How will it help communities that have these very serious health system issues? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, a very important part of this new agreem ent is the clinical stabilization initiative, and that will help in two ways.

First of all, it will help us to deal with specific costs in regions where higher costs have occurred such as in Grande Prairie or Fort McMurray or those areas to target resources to those specific areas. It will help with clinical practice. So those doctors who are practising in the community and have costs rising but who, because we have a single-payer system, don’t have the ability to raise their fees to cover those rising costs, we can assist them in this way.

It should not detract, however, from the responsibility of the AMA to rebalance their fees as well so that internal to the agreement on their side of the agenda they can make sure that those doctors facing higher costs and higher pressures get the higher increases.

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 641 Mr. Graydon: To the same minister. A goal of every member of this Assembly is to advance primary care in our province. I would ask the minister if this new agreement will help in the advancement of that primary care. Mr. Hancock: One of the most important initiatives that’s been undertaken in this province is the primary care networks.

There are in excess of 19 primary care networks now serving over a million Albertans and involving 900 physicians but, most importantly, involving those 900 physicians in teams with other health care professionals to lever the full value of our health care professionals in our communities and to broaden the access and the service that’s being shared. Under this new agreement there will be $175 million set aside to assist in the establishment of more primary care networks and to expand those networks so that they involve more health care professionals acting to the full extent of their capability and expertise.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Police Funding Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday at an AUMA session, which I attended along with four other members of the Alberta Liberal caucus, the main concern discussed was crime. The mayor of St. Paul was especially concerned that in his community the crime rate was going up, yet because St. Paul’s population was sitting at 5,061, his town was forced under the Police Act to bear the full policing costs. At $900,000 per year for a town with a small budget this is a major burden.

To the Solicitor General: given that St. Paul is experiencing a rapid escalation in crime, especially with crystal meth, what is the minister going to do to help St. Paul deal with this very serious problem? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Security and Solicitor General. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, revenues to police agencies have gone up over 20 per cent in the last two years.

We’ve put more than 280 new officers on the street and also introduced a number of programs because it’s not only just a matter of more police officers; it’s a matter of those police agencies working together. I would ask the hon. member to stay tuned to the budget, and we’ll see what’s in store for next year. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The 280 new officers were the first increase since the early ’90s. Crime concerns in St. Paul are shared by other rural communities such as Westlock, Redcliff, and Morinville.

They all have popula- tions exceeding 5,000 but just barely, and they now have to pay full policing costs. Their small rise in population does not translate into any significant growth in their tax base. The mayor of St. Paul joked that he would put 61 people on a bus to another community so that he can get his police budget. Police funding should be more equitable. It doesn’t make sense that a town with 5,001 has to pay; a town with 4,999 does not. What does the minister have in mind to address this funding flaw? Where does he stand on this issue? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Police funding for commu- nities over 5,000: when they r each that number, they’re at a point where we believe that they can sustain their own police force. They have an option to conduct their own policing through an agency of their own, or they also have an opportunity to get a contract with the RCMP. When they reach 5,000, we give them the opportunity over two years to put a policy in place.

I would also mention that the police funding formula works very well in the province of Alberta, but at the same time we also do review it, and we will continue to review it, to make sure it works well for all Albertans. 2:00 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the government was providing enough policing, why would every mayor, reeve, and organization like the AUMA say that addressing police funding inadequacies is one of their top priorities?

The AUMA would like to see the province pay the full policing costs for the first 5,000 residents in every municipality and $35 per capita for those exceed- ing 5,000 in population. How can the minister say that his govern- ment takes crime seriously when every year, despite the pleas of municipal government leaders, this government fails to increase the police funding formula to address the rapid rise in criminal activity both in frequency and severity? Three years in a row they’re asking for the same thing. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say again: I already addressed the issue on police funding in regard to the AUMA and their request. We’re quite familiar with that request; I have met with them. But keep in mind that there isn’t only one taxpayer in the province, and the majority of work that’s done in these municipalities is done for the citizens of those municipalities and should be paid for by the municipal taxpayer. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Affordable Housing (continued) Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The members here were asked to participate in the housing task force, and we did and were glad to do it because it would be g ood for all Albertans. It was extremely disappointing, though, yesterday to see the Premier, in being scrummed, say that he is outright going to reject one of the recommendations, mainly dealing with rent guidelines. We haven’t even had the report made public yet. We’ve mentioned this: thousands of people are suffering and hurting b ecause of gouging and rapid rent increases.

My question to the Premier is simply this: will the Premier take off his ideological glasses and bring in temporary – and I stress temporary – rent guidelines so that we can get through this crisis? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there’s no doubt that housing is an issue in the province of Alberta. We recognized that very early, and that’s why we moved very quickly with the report. I do thank both parties for contributing to the re port, for being members of the committee. The report is almost complete in terms of the govern- ment responses to all of the recommendations that have come forward.

It will be tied, of course, to the budget. Yesterday in the

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007642 scrum I said to the media that we are going to of course release that report with all its recommendations on or around the budget delivery. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are a lot of other things in the report. I was ther e. But the point that we’ve been trying to make is that there are thousands of people here – and some of the MLAs, I know, from Calgary are getting these same calls. We’re saying: in the short run what’s going to happen to these people?

If you reject immediately because of an ideology something that’s so important in the short run, what can we say to these people that are facing evictions, who are one day away from being home- less? Is the answer as the Premier said yesterday: go to the govern- ment, and we’ll put you up at the Super 8, the Super 8 suggestion? Is that the answer to this? Mr. Stelmach: That’s a very good question. Here’s a government that’s compassionate. As a government on behalf of Alberta taxpayers we actually put people that have no place to live in a hotel.

Where else are you going to find the space on a very quick, ready basis? The taxpayer covers those costs. I heard across the way some of the opposition members say: well, that’s too expensive. Well, it’s a lot less expensive, Mr. Speaker, to pay $100 or $120 a day to keep a family intact in some proper living accommodations than putting them – where? In a tent? Mr. Martin: Mr.

Speaker, what I’m trying to get to is this: as compassionate as the Premier is, if he wants to even be more compassionate to more people, to thousands of Albertans, he will recognize, you know, and allow the triumph of ideology over common sense not to prevail and say in the short run: we need rent guidelines. I come back to the minister. Let’s talk about rent guidelines, not the other things that are in the report. Why is the Premier outright rejecting this publicly before the report has even come forward? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, while the report was being reviewed there were discussions with respect to rent controls. They’re twisting words and saying guidelines. What are guidelines? They’re rent controls. All the evidence that has come forward doesn’t matter. Even from the Liberal province of Ontario there has been a monumental change in policy because they found out that with rent controls, controlling to that limit that they wanted, there was no response in terms of building additional low-income rental units in that province. We want to learn from their experience, not fall into the same trap. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Mr. Cao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An issue has been presented to me by my vulnerable constituent who used to be employed but can no longer work due to severe disability. As far as I’ve been told, the AISH program allows for a monthly earned income of up to $400 without any clawback, but income from other sources is deducted from the basic AISH cash benefit. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Seniors and Community Supports.

Will you consider a change in policy to make it fairer by allowing vulnerable AISH recipients to keep the first $400 of their total income regardless of the sources? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This program, AISH, was developed to target and ensure that the needs and the resources were put to those in greatest need. When that program was developed, it was looked upon that the federal and provincial governments would work together.

So it wasn’t a ma tter of eliminating or replacing a federal government program; it was to supplement to ensure that all AISH recipients would receive a level am ount of income. That’s exactly what this does accomplish. So whether there are other federal programs, be it CPP or Workers’ Compensation Board on the provincial side, they were meant to work together to ensure that all AISH recipients would receive . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As far as I’ve been told, the Alberta AISH policy states that CPP income is considered at the gross level because income tax deductions are not mandatory, and the CPP guide states that the Canada pension plan disability pension is considered taxable income. So my question is to the same minister. Given that a few dollars make a difference for our vulnerable Albertans, will you consider changing the way that we calculate incomes of the AISH recipients with CPP income at its net level? Mr. Melchin: Mr.

Speaker, once again, the design – and I would say still the best design – is to ensu re that our federal and provincial programs do work together, that we will act as a supplement to the federal program, not to replace one or the other. That said, two years ago we did increase the level of income that an AISH recipient could receive, up to $400 as a single and up to $975 for couples or single parents. That was all to acknowledge: how do we get rid of some of the barriers so that those that can work can start earning some additional funds?

We will continue to work with every person – they are individuals – to help them find employment, find the opportunities that they can if they’re able. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the same minister. Given that our vulnerable AISH recipients are faced with costs rising, are you considering to increase the income threshold before clawback and the basic AISH payment? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot of work done on this question.

Previous reviews looked at those recipients of AISH, their monthly payments. Some of these are budget questions, so we’ll have to stay tuned to talk about those in the budget. I’d be happy to deal with that when this department’s estimates come up before the House. I’d be happy to answer those questions at that time. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. 2:10 Toxin Screening Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is essential for govern- ments to understand the impact of decisions on health and well- being of the population; however, it makes more sense to require all

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 643 major government, policy, and funding decisions to undergo an assessment to determine the impacts on health and environment before the decisions are made. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Given that there is no commitment to modify industrial development or government policies based on the results of the toxin screening of 30,000 people, why is this screening being done? Mr. Hancock: Mr.

Speaker, the screening program that’s happening is actually a research program that’s being done to understand the baseline in terms of the effect of environmental impact on toxicity levels, and it’s being done on the 30,000 blood samples that have already been collected. So it’s basically a background review, a research process that’s undertaken to provide an understanding of where we are with respect to the impact of toxicity on individuals. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

To the same minister: will the minister assure Albertans that environmental pollutants from coal-powered plants and oil sands upgraders will be included in the list of toxins for which tests are being done? Let’s make it relevant to Alberta. Mr. Hancock: I would hope that everything we do in our depart- ment, Mr. Speaker, is relevant to Alberta. This process that’s being undertaken here is clearly a pilot study, a research study that’s being undertaken to see if there’s been an impact on toxicity levels.

Obviously, in the approval processes that go on with respect to new industrial approval and new industrial developments, Health and Wellness will be working with other departments of government and particularly with Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to ensure that the health and wellness aspects of any future development are part of the consider- ations. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Well, thank you. Again to the same minister.

We still haven’t seen a study protocol that would explain the design and objectives and answer many of the concerns that Albertans have like why was the decision made to analyze the results by region rather than by proximity to major industrial developments, or why are only pregnant women and children being screened rather than seniors or adults? So my question to the minister is: will the minister make the study protocol public immediately? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to look at the protocol behind the study. Obviously, this is a study that was embarked upon before I became minister.

I will look at the protocol behind it, determine what the nature of that protocol is and, if appropriate, make it public. But I should respond to the issues that are being raised. This is a research program that was being done to take a look at toxicity levels in Albertans. It’s important for us to know and understand what’s happening as a result of changes to the environment from whatever cause, not just industrial causes but whatever cause.

The purpose, as I’ve said over and over again since this came up, of using the samples of pregnant women is because for pregnant women the blood samples in prenatal care go to the provincial lab on an ordinary basis. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Municipal Taxation Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Recently our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been presented by a submission report negotiated by the Minister’s Council on Municipal Sustainability, which consisted of Mayor Bronconnier, Mayor Mandel, and the presidents of AAMD and C and AUMA. As a result of this report there are concerns in the community now that the minister may be considering some new taxation powers, particularly property transfer tax. My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: have you decided to allow municipalities new taxation authority relative to transfers of property? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr.

Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to say that the minister’s council’s report on sustainability was exactly that: it was a report by that council to my ministry. At that time there were 12 recommendations that were brought forward from the $1.4 billion replacement of the education tax to the energy revenue, or resource taxation. But, in all, it is now before this government to look at, and there’s no decision on that direction. I have to reiterate that the report asked for the government to allow municipalities to tax. Mr. Lukaszuk: In response to that, to the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: since there are many good recommendations in this report, can the minister tell us what process will take place prior to deci- sions being made on each individual recommendation of the report? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are good recommendations in that report, and as it goes through the process, the ones that are able to be acted on and that this government feels are important to be acted on will be acted on. For those that need to be consulted on, we are looking at consulting with the municipalities from after the budget through the summer and into fall.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Consequently, to the same minister: as a result of this process and as a result of these recommendations, can our municipalities and particularly the capital region count on better planning processes and more stable funding for such municipalities? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, one of the major recommendations in that report was the issue of planning.

I as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing feel that planning is critical for municipalities to be able to look in a positive, unified direction, to maintain sustainability, to have predictability. When we talk about regional planning, I think it is very important, but at the same time we have not made recommendations and responses to that report as of yet. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-East. School Transportation in Calgary Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Within the past few weeks the school bus shortage in Calgary has gone from bad to worse.

The work-to-rule campaign by the city transit workers has further diminished the number of available buses, leaving parents and administrators scrambling to get kids to school on time. To the Minister of Education: what has the minister done to assist Calgary school boards to address these increased shortages?

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007644 Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the question around school bus driver shortages several weeks ago. I’d like to report that, actually, the situation has improved significantly, where the school bus companies in Calgary have actually filled a number of the vacancies, and the issue is not nearly as serious as it was several weeks ago. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s failure to build schools in new and growing communities has put tremen- dous strain on school boards’ transportation budgets.

The r ecent shortage of buses proves that the current situation is unsustainable. To the Minister of Education: will the minister admit that the failure to build schools in Calgary has put unsustainable pressures on the school transportation system in Calgary? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, this governme nt this year will launch several initiatives to get schools built where kids live, and we’ll be looking at all kinds of arrangements to get those schools built. I agree with the hon. member.

It makes no sense to be paying twice, when, first of all, students are inconvenienced because they can’t go to school in their own neighbourhoods, and secondly, we’re paying transportation costs. So we’re going to be looking at some creative, alternative ways of getting schools built where kids live. Mr. Flaherty: Well, Mr. Minister, would you answer this question honestly? It’s from my daughter. School boards have suggested that without more government funding for transportation, higher school fees to cover the cost will be the only way to make ends meet.

To the Minister of Education: is it the minister’s position that parents should be made to pay for the failure of this government to plan for growth in Calgary? Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that every answer I give is honest. There is nothing dis honest about anything that I say. I would assume that every question he asks is also honest. The hon. member has a bill before this Legislature, Bill 208, which is up for debate in about, I think, two or three weeks.

I look forward to debating the issue around school fees and fundraising, and I’ll answer the question in all kinds of detail in about 10 or 15 minutes, whatever I’m allowed at that time. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. Secondary Suites Mr. Amery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Affordable housing is an issue of huge interest and concern across the province. I know that the minister is working so tirelessl y and diligently to deal with the problem and find a solution. In some municipalities the solution includes secondary suites, also known as basement suites or granny suites.

My first question is to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Now that the government has introduced building and maintenance standards for secondary suites, when will these begin to be utilized as a viable housing option? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to say that secondary suites can and should be a viable option for affordable housing. The standards that took effect on December 31, that are in place right now, are standards that meet the fire codes and the construction codes for those secondary suites. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Amery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: what are the minister and his department doing to expedite the implementation of these suites, which would at least temporarily ease some of the pressures facing this province? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had consultation with the public. We have had consultation with municipalities. We have also supported municipalities in regard to funding for secondary suites. I think it’s very important to say that secondary suites can be implemented, but it has to be done with a bylaw by those municipali- ties. Mr. Amery: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: as a result of your contacts with the municipalities can you inform the House and Albertans as to the status of these standards and when they will be implemented? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, those standards are in place right now. I do want to say that we have been having discussions with munici- palities. The municipalities need to make the choice. We have provided them with a template for those bylaws if they so desire to have secondary suites in their municipalities.

If I can say, I would encourage municipalities to get involved because affordable housing is an issue and a concern in this province, and that is one direction that we can co-operate together with municipalities and with industry and with household owners to alleviate some of those affordable housing problems. The Speaker: Hon. members, that was 94 questions and answers today. Before we go to the next

section of the Routine, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services. Ms Tarchuk: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My guests have now arrived, and I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the House three very special constituents from Banff- Cochrane. They are sitting in the members’ gallery, and we have Ron Casey, mayor of Canmore; Mike Western, councillor for Canmore; and Don Kochan, acting chief administrative officer for the town of Canmore.

I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to introduce to you and members of the Assembly 13 seniors from the Sears Plus Club, and they’re here to join us. The group leader is Mr. Frank McCloy, and along with him are – I hope I don’t kill too many names here – Doris Hirsekorn, Mrs. Anne Kawchuk, Mrs. Ann McCloy, Mrs. Anne Kostiuk, Mrs. Emily and Mr. Walter Andruchow, Mrs. Jean Miskew, Mrs. Betty Carnegie, Mr. Frank and Mrs. Gertrude Schoblocher, Mr.

Ken Bell, and Mrs. Betty Weyts. They’re in the public gallery. I’d ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 645 head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Nose Hill. Bill 2 Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 2007 Dr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 2, the Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act, 2007. This bill aims to update the rules governing elected members of this Legislature. First and foremost, the bill lengthens the time former ministers are limited in their ability to influence government decisions or to accept certain kinds of employment. Instead of lasting for six months, the cooling-off period would apply for a year.

The bill also sets out stricter guidelines around the activities former ministers can participate in during the cooling-off period. As well, it increases the fine for breaching the act during that period. Mr. Speaker, the Conflicts of Interest Amendment Act also sets the framework to establish cooling-off periods for nonelected political staff and deputy ministers. There are a number of other provisions in the Conflicts of Interest Act that have been revised in this bill. These amendments we re recommended by an all-party committee that reviewed the act last year.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues who assisted in the work of that all-party committee: the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, who served as vice-chair, and the hon. members for Calgary-Bow, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, Edmonton-Castle Downs, Edmonton-Glenora, Edmonton-McClung, Foothills-Rocky View, Highw ood, Leduc-Beaumont-Devon, Lethbridge-East, and Peace River. In addition, the Ethics Commis- sioner and his office were most helpful in assisting the work of the committee. Mr.

Speaker, I urge all members to accept Bill 2 on first reading. [Motion carried; Bill 2 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that Bill 2 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: Tabling Returns and Reports Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question raised a few weeks ago by the Member for Calgary-Varsity, I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter sent by the general manager of Access Roads Edmonton, the P3 contractor for the Anthony Henday Drive southeast.

The company gave me the courtesy of copying me on the letter. The letter dated April 4 is addressed to the Member for Calgary-Varsity and explains that the P3 contract has a fixed price for Anthony Henday Drive southeast. The letter clarifies that there have not been any overruns on the project, and the letter goes on to say that as a P3 project, if there were any cost . . . The Speaker: I think this is tabling time. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Eggen: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have two sets of documents to table today.

I’m tabling an appropriate amount of copies of two letters and an attachment from April 12 from Chris Goss. Mr. Goss is very concerned about the possible seismic testing at Marie Lake. He’s been expressing these concerns to the ministers of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. He has also attached a draft letter . . . The Speaker: The hon. member also heard my advice to the hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation: tablings. Mr. Eggen: Yes. Okay, thank you.

I also have a letter sent to the Premier on April 3 from Dwight and Shelley Homister, who are writing, again, about their concerns in regard to seismic testing at Marie Lake. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising today to table a letter with the appropriate number of copies from family members of Bill Mowbray, a 30-year police veteran in our province. His family is very concerned about how his health care was dealt with by our health care system and how the dignity of patients should be respected everywhere. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My tabling today has to do with my private member’s statement earlier today, titled the McClung Goes Green campaign. I have the requisite number of copies of my newsletter, the McClung Quarterly, which explains the green campaign and tells people how to reduce their environmental footprint. Also, incidentally, it’s available online at mcclung.ca. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today with appropriate copies.

One is from Kim Troy in Edmonton, a child care provider running a day home through Southgate Medal- lion day home agency, expressing frustration about the state of the child care system, especially in not meeting the demands for children under two years.

The other is from Karen Burns in Grande Prairie, asking for provincial support for all children zero to 12 years, including before- and after-school care, wage enhancement, and PD funds for all workers for school-aged children too. head: Tablings to the Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following documents were deposited with the office of the Clerk. On behalf of the hon. Mr. Danyluk, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a letter dated April 11, 2007, from the hon. Mr. Danyluk, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to Mr. Taylor, hon.

Member for Calgary-Currie, responding to questions raised during Oral Question Period on March 21 and 22, 2007. 2:30 The Speaker: Hon. members, we’ll now deal with a point of privilege as raised by the hon. Minister of Finance. Privilege Reflections on a Member Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I initially rose under

section 15(5) of our Standing Orders, which states: A Member may always raise a question of privilege in the Assembly immediately after the words are uttered or the events occur that give rise to the question, in which case the written notice required under suborder (2) is not required.

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007646 Mr. Speaker, I’m also rising under page 81 of Erskine May, which states, “On the one hand, the privileges of Parliament are rights ‘absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers’.” I would also bring forward Beauchesne 24, which states very similar to what was just stated in Erskine May. It states, “The privileges of Parlia- ment are rights which are ‘absolutely necessary for the due execu- tion of its powers’.” I would also draw attention to

section 69 of Beauchesne, which states: The Speaker has reminded the House, “It is very important . . . to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless that comment actually impinges upon the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job properly.” I would also suggest that

section 64 applies, which states, “The House has occasionally taken notice of attacks on individual Members.” Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that on page 52 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice it states that “any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House.” I will follow that up with my last citation, which is the misuse of freedom of speech, page 76 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The privilege of freedom of sp eech is an extremely powerful immunity and Speakers have on occasion had to caution Members about its misuse. In a ruling following a question of privilege, Speaker Fraser urged Members to take the greatest care in framing questions concerning conflict of interest guidelines. Since the question raised affected the very nature of Members’ rights and immunities. I quote again. There are only two kinds of institutions in this land which this awesome and far-reaching privilege [of freedom of speech] extends – Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other.

These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited. Absolute privilege ensures that those performing their legitimate functions in these vital institutions of Government shall not be exposed to the possibility of legal action. This is necessary in the democratic process, in the national interest. Mr. Speaker, there were allegations made against me personally that affect my right to do my job. As Minister of Finance I will be bringing in a budget tomorrow.

The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Norwood impugned my reputation and impugned my motives for bringing down a budget by stating – and unfortunately I do not have the Blues in front of me as they have not been delivered to me yet, so I am going a little bit by memory – that because there are still leadership f unds to be raised, it somehow implicated the bringing down of the budget tomorrow. I think that in conjunction with all the applications that I have talked about, this does indeed constitute a question of privilege. I have been in this House 14 years.

This is the first time that I’ve ever raised a question of privilege because it is the first time that I feel that my rights have actually been impugned. Mr. Speaker, you yourself have ruled on numerous occasions in the last month in this House that the questions must be questions about government policy. They must not have to do with the politics of the leadership, which occurred six to eight to nine months ago. This was a definite decision by the hon. member to bring this forward today. I was asked coming into this session the exact question that the hon. member just posed to me.

My stated answer to the media at that point in time was: the gentleman is a very nice man, kind of funny; I’ll let it go. Mr. Speaker, when he brought it into this House, I truly strongly felt that he impugned my ability to bring down a budget tomorrow by impugning my credentials, by impugning my motives and stating that I potentially could be corrupted. It’s a very serious charge, and I fully understand the consequences of this charge. Mr. Speaker, we tolerate a lot in this House.

We tolerate a lot of personal attacks, but I will not have the hon. member impugn my personality and call me corrupt, although not using that exact language, in this House regardless of the rights of this House. The Speaker: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood, are you going to participate in this point of order? Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, the adage that a lawyer who has himself for a client is a fool – something like that. I’m going to let the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview deal with it. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview as the third-party House leader. Mr.

Martin: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m quite amazed that one sentence has created this much controversy. The hon. Treasurer said – this is when he stood up. [interjections] Would you listen, please? This is what happened. This is the question. It says, “The Finance minister has failed to disclose his campaign donations for his PC leadership bid and has broken his own deadlines for doing so.” That’s in fact the case, and it’s well documented. That’s when he stood up. Now, at the very minimum he may have a point of order. He certainly doesn’t have a point of privilege from that.

He’s quoted a lot of different areas, but if he wants to go by the facts on that, it’s well documented, and the minister even admitted himself outside that he’s still fundraising. We’re saying that it’s not about the character, that we’re asking to the Premier. It’s asking if this is good public policy. Most other places in Canada have leadership funds, and they control this sort of thing so that a person doesn’t inadvertently have this happen. Nobody was accusing the minister of anything wrong. We’re saying that as a government policy, this is wrong.

Surely, the perception must be evident to even members of this government. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about government policy here. That was the only sentence that was uttered when the member stood up and called for his point of privilege. I would just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that if we’re going to look at categories, I’d say that we look at

section 75. This should be the most important thing in Beauchesne.

Section 75 states clearly, “The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.” So, Mr. Speaker, I just can’t see how that one sentence that I read could create all this worry for the Treasurer, that he somehow can’t do his job. Well, maybe he should have released the people that were donating to his campaign earlier on, and he would not be facing this problem. So if anybody has put himself in this bind, it is the hon. Treasurer. Thank you. The Speaker: Others to participate? The hon.

Member for Peace River. 2:40 Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member quotes briefly and incompletely from the record. I’m sure that you have the Blues before you and that you’ll correct that. In my mind, the hon.

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 647 Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood drew a clear line between corporations that would be donating to the hon. member’s campaign and those same corporations that might be receiving favourable treatment in the budget. In so doing, I believe, first of all, he brought into question the member’s ability to act impartially, and I will refer you to Beauchesne 66. Also, isn’t that the very definition of a bribe? In making that suggestion, I would refer you to Beauchesne 65. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very serious matter, and I beg your ruling. Thank you. Mr.

Snelgrove: I think it’s simple timing. In this House we all know that there’s a budget coming down tomorrow. For the hon. member to at this time raise the question of the Finance minister’s involvement with these corporations or individuals and impugn the total budget as it’s coming down is simply wrong. I don’t know all the numbers that you want to quote in papers, but I know what I hear and I know what’s wrong, and that was wrong. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Minister of Finance did quote Erskine May at page 69 talking about freedom of speech, which certainly is our privilege here in the House, but I’ll also go on to page 70. It says: Freedom of speech was important and the Crown ought not to act against a Member directly for something said in the House; but it seems to have been common ground that decorum and obedience to the Sovereign’s wishes ought to be respected.

Just as the House increased its ability to protect its Members from arrest and molesta- tion, so it was frequently ready to take punitive action, without waiting for the Crown or Council, against those who overstepped the mark in debate. And I think this member has overstepped the mark in debate. The Speaker: This is always a very serious, serious matter, and anything that impugns the integrity of one member, when that member rises to make an argument with respect to it, should be treated with dignity and concern. I am going to review everything, and I’ll report back to the House tomorrow.

In the interim should the leader of the third party or the Minister of Finance want to convey further thoughts to me on this matter, I would be pleased to receive them prior to 11 o’clock tomorrow morning. head: Request for Emergency Debate The Speaker: Hon. Official Opposition House Leader, you’re going to be making an argument on a Standing Order 30 on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition? Impacts of Apartment Fire in Fort McMurray Ms Blakeman: Yes, I am, and thank you very much for the opportunity to do that.

Oral notice was given at the appropriate time for this Standing Order 30 during the Routine, and I believe that the Speaker is in receipt of the letter and the written notice as of 10:55 this morning.

The notice has now been distributed to everyone, but essentially we are asking for an adjournment of the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss the urgent matter of the immediate and pressing risk to the health and well-being of the residents of Fort McMurray caused by the recent fire and resulting inability of the community’s social, housing, and health systems to cope with the impacts of this crisis without immediate provincial support. As always, Mr. Speaker, I am mindful that the arguments are on the urgency and other opportunities to discuss this particular issue.

The urgency is the compromised capacity of Fort McMurray to react to this disaster and the emergency created by the fire. This is stringing from unmanaged growth for the most part, so we have several components of that urgency. One is the housing now of 300 people. There was already a homeless list that they were trying to address of 400 people. We’ve now added 300 people to that. We’ve heard that housing is coming at some point. I can’t remember the exact words that were used by the minister, but it’s obviously not available today as housing is being built, but it’s not open today.

Coming on board and almost completed: those were the words that the minister used, so that housing is clearly not complete to have somebody move into. We have an urgency on housing 300 now homeless people. This is not a one-day problem. This community of Fort McMurray has pulled together and has addressed things over the last 24-hour period, but they don’t have the capacity to sustain this, and being homeless is not a one-night deal. The immediacy of the problem and the likelihood that they could find other accommodation is slim to none. We’re dealing with a place that has a vacancy rate of zero.

As I said, there are units coming but not available now. So there’s a housing issue. There’s a health resources issue. It’s well known that this community is at capacity. It’s actually short-staffed as far as nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals. They are lacking in some of the other equipment that they would like to have up there. They’ve been asking for additional infrastructure, et cetera. Part of your ability to deal with emergency is excess capacity to be able to absorb this, and this community does not have excess capacity.

So we’ve got housing, and we’ve got health care, and also on the health care issue are the stress and the risks on health as we look at the ability of the community to come forward with things like medication replacement for people that have been removed from their homes and weren’t able to take medication with them: aids to daily living – sleep apnea machines, crutches, wheelchairs – anything else that they were not able to take with them as they vacated the premises. In addition, we’re now looking at increased risks around infection control.

If we are housing groups of people together in common areas for any extended period of time, you are running a greater risk there of spreading things like colds and flu and outbreaks of other disease and possible infections. The voluntary sector, which is the sector that we most look to for assistance in crises like this, is well beyond maximum capacity. Included in things like that, Mr.

Speaker, would be mental health services, emergency accommodation, transition housing for those who are moving from addictions treatment, for example, or battered domestic disputes into transition housing – that’s also been affected by this fire – donations of clothing and toiletries and furniture and bedding, animal shelters. All of those not-for-profit, volunteer-based organizations are already operating at maximum capacity. Their ability to absorb this add ition is not there that I can determine. I think that is very much a part of the urgency. It does compromise safety. There are a number of citations, Mr.

Speaker. The first I go to, of course, is M and M 584 and 585, both talking about urgency and importance and requiring urgent consideration, 585 talking about the relevancy and attention and concern throughout the nation. I think we’ve dealt with that. This is coming out of a disaster. It’s not something that is chronic. It’s something that was unanticipated and could not have been anticipated or prepared for. I mean, fires happen, unfortunately. You try and prevent them, but they still happen.

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007648 We have parameters set out in Beauchesne 387 to 398 on emergency debates: specifically, whether there’s an opportunity for debate under the rules and provisions of the House. This issue is not currently before the courts. There was a mention of new units of housing in the throne sp eech, but as I’ve said, those housing units are not immediately available in this case. There is a government bill on the Order Paper around disaster services, but it is a house- keeping act to change the statute name and set up a new delegation of power section.

It’s not dealing with the emergency services themselves. There is no bill that is yet to be tabled that was outlined in a presession media release by the government that we could be expecting might address this. As far as I can see, there is no private member’s bill or public or private bill. Mr. Speaker, the budget is tomorrow, but there’s no prebudget indication that there be any new initiatives for Fort McMurray that could have been anticipated that would affect their capacity immediately.

There are no government motions on the Order Paper, and there are no motions other than government motions that would be coming in the near future which would assist us in an emergency debate on this issue. I argue that the opportunity for debate on this issue is nonexistent. After the budget is brought forward, we have a calendar that sets out the remaining days of this session that are allocated strictly to budget debate on the estimates. 2:50 In Oral Question Period today we did raise a number of questions, but we’re also admonished under 408(1)(

e) that questions should “not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer,” and (f) “not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question.” Of course, with the changes in Standing Orders we’re now dealing with a 45-second answer rule. So getting a level of debate and comprehensiveness is not possible with our current situation in question period.

I also note in 410(7) that “brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance.” So under Beauchesne 389 we do have an issue that is “so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention,” and I think that’s partic ularly true for the public in Fort McMurray, Mr. Speaker. Those residents are tremendously resilient. They are creative, and they are tough, but they are already at maximum capacity. This situation is very urgent for them.

They have all pulled together and come through in the business sector and volunteers and individuals, but that has an effect of one day, and we are dealing with a situation that goes beyond one day. Emergency preparedness does require some reserve capacity in staff and infrastructure, and as I’ve laid out, that capacity is not there. I argue that this is an urgent situation, and we should adjourn the order of business today to provide the debate on that. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m prepared to argue that this matter does not constitute a matter of urgent public importance as is defined under our Standing Orders. I’d like to point out to you that Standing Order 30(2) states that the Speaker shall entertain debate as he considers appropriate to determine whether the matter is “relevant to the question of urgency of debate and shall then rule on whether or not the request for leave is in order.” I’m prepared to argue that this, indeed, does not meet the test of 30(2). Mr. Speaker, the issue was raised in question period earlier today.

I think the responsible minister made a very adequate response to the question that was raised in debate. I would further point out that with respect to future opportunities to discuss the matters at hand, we’ll indeed have ample opportunity in days to come as we begin a great deal of discussion and debate on various ministries’ business plans and during the budget submissions. I’d also point out, Mr.

Speaker, 30(6) of our Standing Orders: “An emergency debate does not entail any decision of the Assembly.” So whether or not the discussion takes place this afternoon, the status as it pertains to the issue resulting from this fire will not be affected by any decision of this Assembly. Finally, Standing Order 30(7)(

a) talks about the fact that “the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.” Well, Mr. Speaker, while any kind of a fire and this one in particular is a tragic loss of property, there was no loss of life in this case. I would suggest to you that the emergency plan that the municipality has in place thus far has done a very good job of dealing with the situation. The emergent needs of putting out the fire have obviously been met, and the municipality activated its emergency management plan, as does any municipality in this province.

It’s the responsibility of the minister of municipal affairs to ensure that each municipality has an adequate emergency plan to deal with incidents just like this one. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was in Fort McMurray myself on Monday, and I was participating with the municipality in the development of their emergency management plan around the potential for flooding.

It’s a little bit easier to predict floods than it is fires, but at the same time I can assure you that the municipality is doing a magnificent job in their preparedness surrounding possible flooding, and I can assure you also that I am just as sure that the same degree of thought and preparedness that they’ve put into their flooding plan is also in place when they exercised and activated their emergency plan with respect to a fire of the magnitude such as we’re dealing with here. The people are being temporarily housed, and work is under way to find permanent housing for them.

I would suggest that for all of these reasons this motion does not meet the test for a matter of urgent public debate and that we not proceed, that you rule accordingly. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to speak against this motion of urgency. I have spoken in this House very clearly in the past in favour of improving the situation in Fort McMurray, and I have some experience with Fort McMurray.

I do know that the emergency preparedness forces in place in Fort McMurray are highly professional, some of the best in the province, and certainly should not be questioned in any way in how they may have dealt with this fire. There was no loss of life. There was no loss to any of the families in terms of injury. They dealt very professionally. I know these agencies, and I know that they are very good.

I would like to add to the Deputy Government House Leader’s citations in saying that in 30(7)(c) “not more than one matter may be discussed on the same motion.” I believe that many matters in this application under Standing Order 30 have been raised, ranging from all sorts of things: health, mental health, addictions treatment, animal shelters. I think that this is far, far too wide-ranging of a Standing Order 30 motion to be dealt with by this House at this time. That’s all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. members, as I did have notice of this earlier today, I am prepared to deal with this matter under this request under Standing Order 30(2). Just a quick reminder that the request here is that an application under the Standing Order 30 is to “adjourn the

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 649 ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.” I repeat: I did receive notice from the Leader of the Official Opposition’s office at 10:55 a.m., so the requirement under Standing Order 30(1) has been met with respect to that.

Before the question as to whether this motion should proceed, the chair must determine whether or not the motion meets the require- ments of Standing Order 30(7), which requires that “the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.” The Leader of the Official Opposition’s proposed motion is to hold an emergency debate on risks to residents of Fort McMurray “caused by the recent fire.” Both the Official Opposition House Leader and the Deputy Govern- ment House Leader quoted from Beauchesne, paragraphs 387 and 398, and the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 587 to 589.

The chair has listened very attentively to all of the argu- ments of the members participating in the debate and appreciates the members who did provide quotations from the various standing authorities that we have. However, when I look on page 587 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, there is one key consideration.

Although the Speaker is not required to give reasons for his decision, there is one key requirement in this that I think is important. “The Speaker determines whether a matter is related to a genuine emergency which could not be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means, such as during a Supply day.” Tomorrow the budget will come down. Very, very quickly we will be in supply and will be in supply probably for four to five to six weeks. As a result, the chair does not believe that this request meets the require- ments under the standing order for an emergency debate to proceed today.

The matter is a serious one – no doubt at all about that – but that is not the rationale behind the decision with respect to Standing Order 30. So the request for leave is not in order. head: 3:00 Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Marz in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the committee to order. Bill 22 Alberta Investment Management Corporation Act The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments in respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It’s my pleasure to rise this afternoon during committee debate on Bill 22, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation Act. The first order of business for myself this afternoon is to advise the Assembly of an amendment that I would like to bring forward on this act. I’ve provided the table with the original copy of the amendment, and I believe the pages are in the process of distributing it. The Chair: We’ll just have a moment before we proceed so that the pages can distribute it to the members. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you. The Chair: Okay. Hon. member, would you wish to proceed? Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. The amendment that I would like to move this afternoon to Bill 22 – and I believe we’ll refer to it as amendment A2. Is that correct? The Chair: We’ll refer to this as A2, yes. Mr. R. Miller: The amendment would amend

section 17 of Bill 22 by adding the words “but the Corporation shall not make any direct investment of any funds or any portion of a fund in securities of corporations in the tobacco i ndustry” after the words “with the regulations.” Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of this is quite clear. Last year in this Assembly, through a tremendous effort of co-operation and collaboration and last-minute manoeuvrings between the hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere and the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, we were able to convince all members of this House to support an amendment to the Cancer Prevention Legacy Act, which as much as possible this amendment mirrors. I’m hoping that the goodwill of this Assembly will also extend to broadening that amendment which was put into the cancer legacy act and thereby instruct at the will of the government and this Assembly the AIM corporation not to invest knowingly in any funds anywhere that hold tobacco companies in their portfolios. I’m not sure that I have to spend an awful lot of time on this.

I did have a conversation with the Finance minister yesterday afternoon wherein he expressed some concern, Mr. Chairman, that he didn’t think that it was the role of AIMCO to tell the various fund holders where they should be investing. Yet my response to the Finance minister – and I hope that upon 24 hours of reflection he will have shared this with his caucus – was simply that these various funds and endowments are putting an awful lot of faith and trust in AIMCO. Should Bill 22 pass, they’re putting an awful lot of faith and trust in AIMCO to manage their assets.

Given that for the most part these are taxpayers’ dollars that we’re talking about, what’s really required here and what we’re asking for today is the political will of this Assembly to instruct a Crown corporation not to invest in tobacco companies whenever knowingly possible. I think it’s well within the purview of AIMCO that should they be instructed by this Assembly not to invest in tobacco companies, we can do that. It would be written in legislation, and it would be very clear for the board and directors of AIMCO what the policy and legislation states, and they would be mandated to follow that.

So I think it’s very much within our purview. I would just like to point out that I mentioned in debate not that long ago that any number of funds around the world have ethical investing policies, including a ban on investing in tobacco compa- nies, where I can show that those funds regularly outperform the heritage savings trust fund, for example. One example of that that I’m well familiar with is the endowment fund at Harvard, which has an ethical investment policy, including an exclusion on tobacco companies, and that fund regularly outperforms our funds here in Alberta.

Since the minister himself has indicated that the whole intent of establishing AIMCO as a Crown corporation is to improve by anywhere from 25 to 100 points the performance of the various funds in Alberta, and since it can be shown that making a move such as excluding tobacco investments from those funds doesn’t hurt but can actually be proven to help the performance of funds, I think this meshes well with the intent of the legislation as it’s proposed. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I won’t elaborate any further. I think the amendment is pretty much self-explanatory.

As I indicated, it is based as much as was possible on the wording that this House supported last year when we passed the cancer legacy act, so I’m hoping that this amendment will find the same favour of the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Alberta Hansard April 18, 2007650 The Chair: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader on amendment A2. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to address the issue of this amendment and urge members not to support this amendment but not because I don’t appreciate the intent of this amendment.

Just as the member indicated, this House on a previous occasion, in dealing with another piece of legislation, did pass a very similar amendment, but I don’t think that the comparisons made between this bill and the bill that was dealing with the establishment of the legacy fund for cancer are nearly close enough that we should be considering using that as a precedent. When you establish a fund exclusively to be used for cancer research, I think it’s reasonable to argue that you should do your very best to exclude from that fund issues or investments that specifically support the tobacco industry.

In this case, though, we aren’t dealing with investment strategies that are exclusive to one fund, but in fact we’re dealing with investment strategies that go across all of government and will deal with significantly more than that one fund. 3:10 I would suggest that if the memb ers of this Assembly feel that there should be some kind of an investment philosophy or an investment policy that is overlaid on the directions that are given to this organization, this is a rather piecemeal way of doing it. I think that the kind of direction that the member is referring to is talking today about tobacco.

There are other members in the room that might suggest: well, we also should consider whether or not these funds are environmentally damaging in someone’s opinion. Others might have other suggestions. I would suggest that we get into a very ad hoc basis of passing amendments like this. For that reason alone, I can’t support dealing with this amend- ment.

I might be convinced at some point in time down the road to deal with legislation, not in the form of an amendment but legisla- tion that deals with the issue of whether or not public funds that are invested in the marketplace should have some kind of policy associated with them, an overarching, broad policy. That’s not what’s before us. That’s not possible at this committee stage of this bill. For that reason, I urge all members not to support this amendment. The Chair: Are there others on the amendment? The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary- Varsity. Mr.

Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to rise and speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford and to address some of the comments made just moments ago by the hon. Minister of Environ- ment. I understand what he’s saying, that in the perfect world you would take a very, very holistic approach to this whole process and consider the universe of possible investments that might not be advisable to pursue in a fund like this.

Part of me can understand his argument in terms of this being an ad hoc approach; however, this particular ad hoc approach is backed by over 40 years of research and experience that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that tobacco was a harmful substance. It may be a legal substance, but it’s a harmful substance.

The intent of this amendment, I think, is at least in part to make sure that as the government of Alberta, as representatives of the people of Alberta, we take steps to not endorse bad behaviour, to not endorse substances which are dangerous to public health, to take steps to endorse initiatives that are good for public health. We have had issues before in regard to government investments in tobacco f unds, in securities of corporations in the tobacco industry, and it doesn’t set a very good example for 3.3 million Albertans, Mr. Chair. This amendment seeks to set a good example.

This amendment seeks to set some boundaries around what it is that the corporations do with the people’s money, because it is the people’s money. I think it is a very reasonable and rational restric- tion on how AIMCO can invest funds. I think it’s in the public interest to keep those funds out of securities of cor porations in the tobacco industry. Not only do I fully support this amendment, but given the body of scientific evidence and knowledge about the harmful effects of tobacco use in all its forms, I can’t imagine why any body in this House would vote against this amendment. Thank you. The Chair: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Varsity on the amend- ment. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much. On amendment A2 it’s with great pride that I recognize that the city of Calgary is one of the first cities in Alberta – in fact, it may be the only city at this point – that has an ethical investment plan, that looks at investments that basically do no harm or are not at the expense of anyone else’s well- being. There’s no doubt about the fact that not only first-hand smoking but second-hand smoking kills people.

The idea that we would benefit from the profits of a s ubstance which is killing individuals and continues to kill individuals in a province with very lax regulations, in a province where the government refuses to come up with rules for a province-wide ban, citing individual rights as an argument, and recognizes the rights of a small minority over the health concerns of the vast majority – the minister suggested that this wasn’t the way to deal with ethical investments.

I would suggest that today we could make a major decision in cleaning up our investment policies, which is what Bill 22 is all about: improving our investment strategies. We could point out not only to the rest of Canada but to the world that Alberta believes not only in transparency and accountability, but it believes in integrity and ethics. This simple amendment accomplishes this end in a very compact, efficient manner. Canada has indicated, for example, that it will not support mines. It will not manufacture mines. It recognizes that mines destroy and kill people and maim people.

In a similar manner tobacco has no positive benefits other than the hist orical symbol that was used in trade. I don’t want to put down the First Nation exchange. Tobacco was considered a special herb that was exchanged. But in that comparison of historical recognition we can burn sweetgrass at a number of ceremonies. We do not need to invest in tobacco companies. To me – this may seem like stretching the point – it’s the equiva- lent of investing in prostitution. Is the Alberta government serving as an unethical pimp for tobacco companies?

By profiting from the revenue of tobacco, we are in fact acknowledging that any type of investment that brings money into the province is acceptable. I take issue with the idea that a drug, an addictive substance which is responsible for a tremendous number of deaths, would be sanctioned and held up as an acceptable investment in this province. We have an opportunity to do the right thing. There are many ways of diversifying our economy. There are a number of wonderful opportunities to invest, particularly in green energy production. There are opportunities to invest in environmental reclamation.

The list of investment possibilities is practically endless. So I would urge as a very first step that members of this Legisla- ture recognize that there is no good side to tobacco as an investment

April 18, 2007 Alberta Hansard 651 or as a killing substance, and I would urge members opposite to join us in condemning investment in tobacco and support the amendment A2 to Bill 22. Thank you. 3:20 The Chair: Are there others? The hon. Member for Calgary- Montrose. Mr. Pham: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to rise and speak against this amendment for some very simple reasons. The amend- ment simply asks us not to “make any direct investment of any funds or any portion of a fund in securities of corporations in the tobacco industry.” Speaker after speaker from the other side has